PDA

View Full Version : 4th Ed. DnD spinning sweep attack.



sobebop
2010-05-02, 07:01 AM
is there a creature size limitation on this move? had an encounter last night and DM would not allow me to use this move on a giant spider... elephant size.

it caused the entire session to break down... i do not see a size specification anywhere... can anyone add some input here. tia.

Choco
2010-05-02, 07:04 AM
If it does not specify a size limit in the power text, there is no size limit. Your DM just house ruled on the spot it looks like.

sobebop
2010-05-02, 07:05 AM
cool, thank you very much for the input.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-02, 08:22 AM
Of course, if your DM thinks it doesn't make sense for your attack to be able to trip the Tarrasque (for example), I don't see any problem with him saying it ignores that effect. Additionally, spiders, regardless of size, are notoriously difficult to trip.

tcrudisi
2010-05-02, 10:10 AM
If it does not specify a size limit in the power text, there is no size limit. Your DM just house ruled on the spot it looks like.

+1.

I would talk to the DM as people don't like for house-rules to pop up spontaneously. If he's going to add in a size limitation, ask him if you can swap out the power. After all, an encounter power that targets 1 creature for at-will damage is just silly. Even with the "knock prone" attached, it's nothing really spectacular. Without it, Spinning Sweep is worthless.

Also, I would find out why he didn't want the power to work as intended. Is it because he had a hard time imagining a Fighter knocking an elephant-sized monster with 8 legs down? If so, what if the Wizard had used a power that knocked prone, what would he have ruled then? I would just want to know if he is limiting martial powers or all powers.

Of course, spontaneous house rules have a tendency to abruptly end the session. I would approach this with caution and make sure he realizes that you just want to discuss it, not impose your will.

In that situation, when I'm DM'ing or playing, I always wait until after the session to bring up my objections. If I'm DM'ing, after the session, I would tell the players, "Guys -- I didn't want to spring this on you in the middle of combat, but it just didn't seem realistic to me that an 8-legged spider the size of an elephant could be knocked prone easily. The next time there's a monster like that, I'm going to give him a saving throw to avoid falling prone. Okay?" That way the players know it's coming and can make adjustments, but it's not completely invalidating them mid-combat.

Then again, I wouldn't make such a house-rule. You can always describe the action somehow: "You swipe at the spiders legs, causing it to lift most of them up in pain. Seeing that it was rearing back, you kick out at it's legs, causing it to unbalance itself and topple over."


Of course, if your DM thinks it doesn't make sense for your attack to be able to trip the Tarrasque (for example), I don't see any problem with him saying it ignores that effect. Additionally, spiders, regardless of size, are notoriously difficult to trip.

Saying that it ignores that effect is making the monster tougher without any additional reward to the players. If you custom built it so that it was balanced, that's fine. If you raise up it's xp value so that it's more appropriate, that's fine if before the combat and dubious if done during the combat. Springing new abilities on a monster because you don't like the fact that it's being knocked prone? Not so fine. Players should be rewarded if they do good tactics, not punished. And I am speculating, but this would not have been much of an issue if there wasn't some inherent advantage to the players. If the spider went next and the Fighter didn't move far enough away, then it would just stand up and hit the fighter with very little penalty. If the Fighter did it to give combat advantage to the Rogue or to move away and cause the spider to lose it's turn, then the DM was just effectively cheating the players to avoid their tactics, which I do not approve of.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-02, 01:30 PM
Saying that it ignores that effect is making the monster tougher without any additional reward to the players. If you custom built it so that it was balanced, that's fine. If you raise up it's xp value so that it's more appropriate, that's fine if before the combat and dubious if done during the combat. Springing new abilities on a monster because you don't like the fact that it's being knocked prone? Not so fine. Players should be rewarded if they do good tactics, not punished. And I am speculating, but this would not have been much of an issue if there wasn't some inherent advantage to the players. If the spider went next and the Fighter didn't move far enough away, then it would just stand up and hit the fighter with very little penalty. If the Fighter did it to give combat advantage to the Rogue or to move away and cause the spider to lose it's turn, then the DM was just effectively cheating the players to avoid their tactics, which I do not approve of.

Just curious, but would you also allow this power to trip a Gelatinous Cube? I wouldn't.

Nightson
2010-05-02, 02:56 PM
Just curious, but would you also allow this power to trip a Gelatinous Cube? I wouldn't.

I would, because the attack is a narrative device that indicates some damage and a condition, exactly how that condition plays out depends on the creature. Oozes do not fall down to the ground and have to stand up, they are dealt a blow which requires a bit of time to pull themselves back into prime fighting shape. With a giant spider, you sweep out two legs, or maybe hack off one, the spider spends a move action to regain it's balance before it dives at you with poison dripping fangs.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-05-02, 04:59 PM
Just curious, but would you also allow this power to trip a Gelatinous Cube? I wouldn't.
Would you not allow a Rogue to Sneak Attack a Cube as well?

The reason 4e removed a bunch of the "realistic" restrictions on combat is that it could gimp certain classes or builds in an annoying fashion. If Rogues are supposed to be Strikers, and their mechanism is the Sneak Attack damage, it pisses off the Rogue when he finds out his main feature is neutralized by a series of constructs and undead.

* * *

An easy way to think about "knocking a Cube prone" is to look at the mechanical effect of the status (slows move, grants CA) and imagine what that might look like in this case.

Me, I'd say the attack smashed it with such force that the Cube was wracked with vibrations (imagine smacking a piece of jello). These internal waves made it difficult for the Cube to move or attack correctly until it took a moment (a Move action) to settle down.

tcrudisi
2010-05-02, 05:15 PM
Just curious, but would you also allow this power to trip a Gelatinous Cube? I wouldn't.

I would as well, for the exact reasons that Nightson and Oracle_Hunter outlined.

*edit* Don't get me wrong -- if you are running a game and I'm playing in it, I would be okay with this houserule if you let me know in advance of the game so that I could create a character that the houserule would not negatively impact. For instance, if I was playing a striker, I'd stay away from melee types (since prone gives them combat advantage) and instead go for a Sorcerer (whom prone ironically hurts). If I was already playing a Rogue (who this definitely hurts the most) and the DM told me about the rule when I thought I would get combat advantage, I would not be happy. Would I leave the game? No. Would I consider asking to create a new character? Yes. I don't need to play the most powerful character at the table, but I don't want to be the weak link, either. The Rogue is a mediocre striker as is; anything that hurts it will only push it farther down the list of capable strikers. I design characters around synergy with the rest of the party and imposing status effects such as prone on the monsters is one of those areas of synergy.

Asbestos
2010-05-02, 05:24 PM
The above are also why I allow a Rogue to 'throw sand in the eyes' of anything that can be blinded.

TheEmerged
2010-05-02, 07:15 PM
RE: making the monster tougher without making it worth more XP.

Thank you for yet another example of why I'm from the school of thought that says the party levels when the DM says they do. It helps mitigate arguments and behavior like this. :smallcool:

/humor on
I'm the DM. If I say it doesn't make sense, I don't give a hoot what some person I've never met has to say about it just because they can afford a publisher.
/humor off

Now if you want to tell me you didn't have fun, maybe we have something to talk about. Or if you want to tell me it's not fair that I send radiant-vulnerable mobs at the party but never arcane-vulnerable mobs, and who ever *heard* of a martial-vulnerable mobs? I'm open to suggestions.

The object of the game is for all the players to have fun; for some of us, that involves having to do something OTHER than coordinate your encounter & utility powers for maximum HP lose in monsters.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-02, 10:33 PM
Okay, guys, don't get me wrong. I was just trying to play devil's advocate. :smallwink:

Sinon
2010-05-02, 10:51 PM
The object of the game is for all the players to have fun; for some of us, that involves having to do something OTHER than coordinate your encounter & utility powers for maximum HP lose in monsters.Far be it from me to tell some one how to have fun, but if I made a character in-part based on certain expectations (e.g. that his powers would work as written) and then used that power based on a certain expectation (e.g. that the power would work as written) and was then told in the middle of combat that because you (the DM) had a problem with the fluff, those expectations were for naught? I would call that not fun. (But maybe that’s just me.)

/humor on
DMs who make changes to the way powers work in the middle of a game shouldn’t be annoyed if I ask to make changes to my character in the middle of the game.
/humor off

Reynard
2010-05-02, 10:55 PM
Now if you want to tell me you didn't have fun, maybe we have something to talk about. Or if you want to tell me it's not fair that I send radiant-vulnerable mobs at the party but never arcane-vulnerable mobs, and who ever *heard* of a martial-vulnerable mobs? I'm open to suggestions.

Since, apparently, you're being completely serious here:
Radiant-vulnerable monster exist, and make some sort of internal sense, with Radiant being the keyword for Holy. Arcane- and Martial-vulnerable ones, they don't, and never, ever, did. Element- ones do. So, what elements are your Arcane PCs using most/have in their spellbook? Send them against them. As for the Martial PCs, that's what Flaming/Frost/Thundering/Lightning weapons are for, to take advantage of the weaknesses of the enemy. Heck, there are even magic weapons that add the radiant keyword.


The object of the game is for all the players to have fun; for some of us, that involves having to do something OTHER than coordinate your encounter & utility powers for maximum HP lose in monsters.

That isn't what's being complained about here, what is is giving a monster an immunity to an effect on the spur of the moment for no actual reason beyond unwillingless to follow rules that are there to avoid this kind of stuff, making their choice of encounter power worthless, not just sub-optimal. And that is what isn't fun.

kieza
2010-05-03, 02:00 AM
The DM may have decided ahead of time that the monster would have "immune to prone." I know that a lot of the time when I make custom monsters, I toss in things like that. I give most constructs immunity to Psychic damage, Charm effects, and occasionally daze and stun. I give oozes and swarms and snakes immunity to being knocked prone. No, most of the official monsters don't have those advantages, but I add them in so that my players don't wind up going "wait, how is the ooze prone?" It works for our playstyle, and the DM in question might think the same (evidently, his player doesn't).

Now, should the DM have told the player ahead of time? It's debatable. If the group was used to most monsters not having immunities of that type, then yeah, the DM should have brought it up. But if the group was more used to having things occasionally ruled according to common sense, then the DM was within his rights to expect the players to think about it. From the sound of it, though, I'm leaning towards the former.

tcrudisi
2010-05-03, 02:17 AM
Thank you for yet another example of why I'm from the school of thought that says the party levels when the DM says they do. It helps mitigate arguments and behavior like this. :smallcool:

Ironically, I prefer the same thing when I'm not running LFR. I just forewarn the players before the game starts. Also, I can't see how it unbalances the game, so I'm not making one type of class more powerful than another (I do still give out the required loot per level).


Now if you want to tell me you didn't have fun, maybe we have something to talk about. Or if you want to tell me it's not fair that I send radiant-vulnerable mobs at the party but never arcane-vulnerable mobs, and who ever *heard* of a martial-vulnerable mobs? I'm open to suggestions.

I was actually about to tell you about what I strongly consider the worst combat I've ever participated in, but it was by a DM who likes to give the monsters extra abilities on the spot. Just to be sure, I opened up the module and flipped to that combat. How it went when I was in the combat: the final boss was immune to all arcane attacks and would drain (permanently) a magic item when he hits you. This always sounded fishy to me since it's never occurred anywhere else that I can find. As it turns out, both of those were elements that the DM added in himself.

Why was this not fun? Because we only had 4 people show up that day and two of us were arcane characters (Sorc and Swordmage). He's resistant/immune to fire? No biggy, the SM and Sorc could use a different power. He's immune to arcane? What the? Well, we'll let him hit us a few times since we are only walking bags of hit points in this fight.

As others have said, resistances and immunities are based on elements. Martial characters can do these attacks just like anyone else. Even radiant damage with a Radiant Weapon (just ask any Morninglord party :smalltongue:)


The object of the game is for all the players to have fun; for some of us, that involves having to do something OTHER than coordinate your encounter & utility powers for maximum HP lose in monsters.

See, that's the thing. With a power like "1W + Str and knock prone", you are being a team-player. It is certainly not maximizing HP damage. I just took a look at some other Fighter 1 powers and there are a couple of multi-attack powers and a whole slew of 2W + Str damage attacks. There's even a couple of 2W + Str + other mod. attacks as well.

There are at-wills that do more damage than 1W + Str + Prone + Ooops not prone: Brash Strike (+Con), Cleave (+Str to adjacent), Dual Strike (2 attacks), Weapon Master Strike (+Con), Wicked Strike (+Con). And really, a basic attack does 1W + Str damage.

I think that's what gets to me. When an encounter power is made equal in power to a basic attack, something is wrong. It only takes a few times of this happening and you will see all the players decide that "status effects are silly" and instead take all high-damaging powers. Can you imagine a combat where all anyone does is damage? I'm reminded of my 3rd edition days. :smalltongue: (No, that's not a dig at 3.x, but rather a dig at how bad at optimizing my gaming group and I were back then).

Kurald Galain
2010-05-03, 03:30 AM
A frequently discussed complaint about 3E is that certain monsters are categorically immune to broad classes of attacks: the most common example is that undead cannot be sneak attacked. While there are ways around this, some players feel that a rogue character is worthless and boring in a battle against undead.

Therefore, a design feature of 4E is that this is Not Fun and must never happen. This is why you can now sneak attack a skeleton, mind control an ooze, fire powers work underwater, and so forth. Note that elemental resistance is only a slight exception: resistance is rarely high enough to nullify an attack, and any class that relies on (e.g.) fire damage can easily find a way to bypass fire resistance.

What this means is that making a group of monsters immune to a class feature, like sneak attack, arcane powers, or swords, would plausibly make one or more of the characters mostly useless on the battlefield, and this should never happen. I'm sure most people would agree that "immune to arcane" is grossly unfair to any arcane characters on the battlefield.

"Immune to prone" is a corner case. No class relies solely on proning as a class feature, so it is highly unlikely that a character will be made useless because a monster cannot be proned. So this should be okay (assuming we're not talking about a persistent plethora of prone-proof pests). There is precedent for this in the monster manual, in that some monsters are immune to e.g. forced movement. Preferably, the DM should decide this in advance, not on the spot, and should allow the PCs a minor action knowledge check to figure this out.

In terms of power level, this is really not a big deal. Monsters aren't a significantly greater threat and aren't worth more XP just because they can't be proned. And yes, an encounter power sometimes does less than an at-will power; it shouldn't happen all the time but it can happen. It's not like it involves heavy tactics for the player to decide to use his proning power, and then to use something else when that doesn't work.

Yakk
2010-05-03, 10:29 AM
A good way to solve this problem is to ask the player to narrate how he's knocking the target down.

When the player comes up with a half-assed decent narration, the effect happens.

The DM should accept that the player is actually bad-ass enough to pull off what the player narrates. "My fighter stabs at one leg, causing the spider to rear up -- then dashes at the far legs and cuts at them". Or "I stab at its face, forcing it to rear up on two legs, then smash into the joint of one of the remaining legs".

The effect of the narration is what is described on the card. If the narration is insufficiently cool, the DM says "give me more" rather than "no, you cannot do that, you suck".

sobebop
2010-05-03, 11:54 AM
ty everyone for the debate and interesting discussion.

everyone at the table understood both sides of the argument. but facts are facts and we are talking about an encounter power here.

to each his own and again thank you all for the input.

IMO if the DM wants to house rule, so be it, but at least make it a saving throw of some sort against the spider... after all there were several PCs attacking and swarming the spider, it is very possible the fighter would have had an opening to knock the creature off balance. Considering the fighter PC actually has an ENCOUNTER power specifically for this... it is extremely possible IMO. I know alot goes into running the game, but sometimes we need to just let some stuff go. general rule, if the fighter is trying to go for something, throw that man a bone! no?

side note on that... this PC is a fighter that is currently playing in a very heavy dialog driven campaign and will go entire sessions with no combat what so ever (which is not a bad thing). When you have one moment to shine after weeks of really just watching a play and not playing and that moment is taken from you. GTFO!

i think you all know which side of the fence i am on! lol

thank you all, very good points on both sides here.

game on.

The New Bruceski
2010-05-03, 12:46 PM
How does a fighter trip an elephant-sized spider without using magic?

Judo. Very specialized Judo taught in some fighter schools, that goes into analyzing and disrupting the balance of large monstrous creatures like spiders and dragons as well as humanoids. With the right force in the right place at the right time one can move a behemoth. The hard part is recognizing when to act.

Hmm... I think I have my next character concept.

AtwasAwamps
2010-05-03, 12:57 PM
Well, here’s the way I look at it:

If a power says it does X and a player picks it because it does X and the player has made not mistake reading it and the DM, in the middle of combat, without warning the player, says that the power does not do X in this case…

The DM’s being a bit of a jerk.

While proning is special type of example, imagine shifting/pulling/pushing/etc. I have a DM who has declared that all shifting/pulling/pushing powers don’t work if the target is bigger than your character. I had built my character entirely around this archetype, but he didn’t declare this fact till we actually got into combat with a creature bigger than me. And he declared in the combat after I’d used my warlord powers, opening shove, and some action points to kill a target he told us we didn’t have a chance to kill. Fishy, no? When I pointed out my character was designed to try and control the battle-space, his response was to say “Suck to be you.”

Now that’s not cool.

I’ve always said that 4e is not the same game as DnD. Everything is crunch, and all fluff is 100% mutable. “Prone” doesn’t mean “Prone”, it means “disadvantaged in some way”…that’s why “Flanking” is now “Combat Advantage”. It’s a matter of terminology