Can we just throw this into our game?
I might allow Defiling in a standard game, with a few provisions. Since there wouldn't be the same social problems with playing an arcane character, I would need to determine some other penalty.
For example, any Primal character would know there is something "off" about the Defiler in question, and would begin the encounter as hostile. This would also apply to others who are deeply connected to nature and fertility (i.e.; Wilden, regardless of class; Clerics of Melora, Pelor and Corellan, etc.). Once the character displayed their Defiling in a place where the common people would notice (such as a farm), they can also expect to make enemies of the community.
I qould also rule that Defiling, once learned, cannot be unlearned. If you choose to go down the path once, even if you never go back, those same characters who would be sensitive to Defiling would be distrustful of the potential Defiler at first meeting for the rest of the Defiler's life.
So, yes, I have given the issue some thought. ;)
I can tolerate it in Dark Sun for flavour reasons. But I will never ever allow it in any non-Dark Sun game I DM, nor will I ever participate in a non-Dark Sun game where it's allowed.
("willing or unwilling", despite the fact that the word 'ally' "assumes a willing target" in the 4th edition rules!)
I know, how weird to make use of an exception in exception-based rules design.
I'd leave it in Athas where it belongs. In that setting, if your allies are cool with defiling in general, I assume they wouldn't be too grudging about using the power to reroll a miss on your daily. Cost-benefit analysis and all that.
Even outside of Athas it's hard for me to see too many groups getting worked up about doing what you can to land your daily. Hardly seems borderline-sociopathic.
I know, how weird to make use of an exception in exception-based rules design.
And if it was actually described as an exception to the normal rules, you'd have a point. The problem is that "ally" in 4th edition is defined solely as a creature that is a willing target. There's no in-game mechanical definition of "ally" aside from that. Which means that "allies, whether willing or unwilling" is technically meaningless. By a strict reading of the RAW, it is equivalent to "all creatures".
It's entirely obvious that that isn't the intended interpretation, of course. And, really, this isn't by itself a major problem. That's why I put it in parentheses - it's not my main criticism of the defiling mechanic, just an additional minor issue that causes my inner game designer to roll its eyes.
It's at-will but only for use with your arcane daily attack powers.
OK, I admit I missed the restriction to using it on daily powers only. I'd somehow read it as being ausable with any arcane power. That makes it slightly less worrying.
Even outside of Athas it's hard for me to see too many groups getting worked up about doing what you can to land your daily. Hardly seems borderline-sociopathic.
Established groups of (presumably) friends won't have much of a problem with it. But can you imagine it being used in an RPGA game, or in a new group where the players don't know each other too well yet?
If it was a choice you made at character creation (which had to be approved by the DM for that particular player/character) to be a defiler or not, I'd have no problem with it. As it is, though, every player with an arcane character is going to feel entitled to use it (at least in DS) unless the DM specifically houserules it out (and even that option won't be available in RPGA DS games). I don't think that's a good position to put DMs in.
Yes, you can take the defiling option and inject it into your homebrewed game or another setting, just like anything else in 4e. I'm also very happy about how it works. Not all parties have to be hand-holding best friends. Minor, internal conflict is a good thing. Best way to learn how to role play different experiences, is not by hiding from them.
Has someone a link to where defiling in 4e was revealed?
www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DNDXP_Characte...
see page 12
Has someone a link to where defiling in 4e was revealed?
www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DNDXP_Characte...
see page 12
Thx
If it was a choice you made at character creation (which had to be approved by the DM for that particular player/character) to be a defiler or not, I'd have no problem with it. As it is, though, every player with an arcane character is going to feel entitled to use it (at least in DS) unless the DM specifically houserules it out (and even that option won't be available in RPGA DS games). I don't think that's a good position to put DMs in.
Within the context of Dark Sun, the whole point is that all arcane characters SHOULD feel entitled to be able to use defiling. All Arcane character's can defile. In fact, from a fluff point of view, that is what all Arcane character's do by default. It takes specific effort not to defile. That is exactly the position DMs should be in. Arcane characters can defile in Dark Sun. End of story. That is the intent of the rules. That is the intent of the setting. On the other hand, character's caught defiling are likely to find themselves in a pot of hot water (or sand, as the case may be) very, very quickly. It is outlawed across the entire setting by a group of epic level magic users with an army of thousands at their beck and call. Getting caught defiling is a good way for a group to find itself fighting encounters well outside of their challenge rating. It mentions/implies all this in the recent defiling reveal. As a fan of Dark Sun, and someone who really enjoys being DM, I love the defiling mechanics.
As for using defiling in other settings, I would not use it in an established setting (such as Eberron or Forgotten Realms). But I see no reason why it could not be used for a homebrew world.
For instance, if I'm building a summoner wizard, how exactly do I defile? I don't need to reroll to hit or damage for calling up my demon.
So you're saying that the summoner wizards are preservers by default?
Eh...does not jive.
The defiling rules are weird to say the least.
For instance, if I'm building a summoner wizard, how exactly do I defile? I don't need to reroll to hit or damage for calling up my demon.
So you're saying that the summoner wizards are preservers by default?
Eh...does not jive.
You can Defile all you want, you simply won't receive any mechanical benefit for doing so.
If you use any arcane power, and specify that you are not Preserving, then you blight the flora in burst one around you, unless you do so with a Daily, in which case you blight in a burst around you equal to half the level of the Daily used.
When it comes to using the Arcane Defilement power, however, your allies will probably be just as happy that you are a Summoner Wizard, no matter how much of a sleazebag Defiler you are otherwise. ;)
Re: Placing defiling outside DS. I'm with Cyber-Dave here. In Athas, arcane defiling is an ever-constant presence. It tempts arcanists to tap into greater power, but doing so renders what little fertile soil there is around the character barren (and as far as 4E is concerned, hurts your allies too). It's tempting, but the repercussions of destroying the land, being hated by the populace, and being hunted by the sorcerer-kings if discovered makes characters think twice before using it. The mechanics are powerful, but the fluff keeps it at bay.
On the other hand, other such games would not have this restriction by default, so it might become a bit uncontrollable from the flavor perspective. As a DM, I would 1) make sure all my players agree to the defiling rules before implementing it and 2) not let it be available by default, instead allowing it through a feat. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Eberron can have it as a power specifically taught to the Blood of Vol. I'm sure other settings can find reasons to place it in as well, but outside the repercussions brought about by Athas, I really would require a feat for it (personally).
I was thinking about implementing the defiling rules with the next game I run. Though it will be a homebrew setting and I think I am going to limit it to NPCs.
Basically, the thought I have in mind is that defiling is a *new* magical technique. The Big Bad and his crew are the pioneers and plan on using their "enhanced" magic as a weapon.
The PCs get pulled in because some of the arcanists dislike the potentially disasterous reputations while some see it as a nice path to greater power. Primal characters want it stopped and are concerned about the draining of the life force. Divine and martial characters want to be able to eat, etc...
The plot potential is tasty.
Heh, in many ways, I could see this is the beginning of the fall that caused dark sun.
- Fluff cannot balance mechanics. I had thought WotC had grasped this by now, hence the lack of class alignment restrictions in 4th edition. Saying "NPCs will hate you if you do X" doesn't balance out the mechanical benefits of doing X.
- Those who think defiling is never going to cause problems in RPGA (and other games where players don't all know each other) are being incredibly naive, IMO.
- A mechanic that encourages screwing over your team-mates without their consent in a teamwork-based game system is just plain bad design. It's like giving a wizard a reward for dropping a fireball on his allies without asking them first.
A mechanic that encourages screwing over your team-mates without their consent in a teamwork-based game system is just plain bad design. It's like giving a wizard a reward for dropping a fireball on his allies without asking them first.
Darkpact Warlocks
A mechanic that encourages screwing over your team-mates without their consent in a teamwork-based game system is just plain bad design. It's like giving a wizard a reward for dropping a fireball on his allies without asking them first.
Darkpact Warlocks
Coordinated Explosion.
A mechanic that encourages screwing over your team-mates without their consent in a teamwork-based game system is just plain bad design. It's like giving a wizard a reward for dropping a fireball on his allies without asking them first.
Darkpact Warlocks
Coordinated Explosion.
Exactly.
I'll allow defiling in my games, and refluff it similar to an above post.
In faerun, defiling will get the attention of the nature gods who'll likely try to warn the character away from it as quickly as possible. IF the character continues to do so, they'll probably take more drastic measures, like tapping the harpers or using natural creatures (even good or unaligned) to "convince" the character that it wasn't a good idea to start defiling.
Since in my campaigns all worlds are interconnected, the gods will cite that they've seen what happens to worlds where defiling runs rampant (referring to athas).
For Eberron, totally blood of vol and kaiber; but a similar scenario where nature and even some of the houses step in to intervine on the character's continued use of defiling.
I'm comfortable with using this fluff, as I know my players well enough that they'd understand how dire it is to get a coatal knocking on the door asking you to stop defiling.
That said, unless your world is more devoid of plant life than Athas, I dont think many civilized peoples will like someone going around killing plants to make himself more powerful. I'd probably allow it in my games if someone really wanted to use it.
I have a feeling that defililing will not be allowed in a RPGA event and it maybe resticted to dark sun only.
Well, RPGA has a special rule that you can not damage any other PC without consent from it's players. The wording in the defiling power doesn't change it, since this is an OOC rule, not based ony any game mechanic (e.g. a fireball targeting all "creatures" also includes "unwilling allies", let the OOC rule overtrumps that)
However they really have to change the "each ally (willing or unwilling)" part, because (as has already been stated) there is no "unwilling ally", that's a designation which is impossible in 4e. That's also not a case of a new specific overwriting the general, unless they'll want the defiler to be able to damage his opponents (which would also be "unwilling allies") to power his defiling.
Their intend seems clear, but they need to find another wording for it.
Their intend seems clear, but they need to find another wording for it.
um, maybe I just don't get it, but if the intent is clear, why would they need to change it?
maybe add a side bar saying "Hey no cheesing out you damage allies"
um, maybe I just don't get it, but if the intent is clear, why would they need to change it?
Because if they started to design a game working based on designated rules terms, they need to keep using them. Ally/allies has only a single trait defining the term, which is the mutual willingness.
An "unwilling ally" is the very same as an enemy. With this terminology the defiler is allowed to damage his enemies to be able to better hit them.
It's like writing "when you hit an undead creature (whether this creature has the undead keyword or not) ..." which would mean that it works against every creature.
An "unwilling ally" is the very same as an enemy. With this terminology the defiler is allowed to damage his enemies to be able to better hit them.
Got an official source that defines "unwilling ally" or is that just what people claim it means?
Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include
you, and both terms assume willing targets.
Since when can't assumptions have exceptions, especially in an exception-based system?
For a historical perspective, Mirtek has an interpretation of the word ally that goes back to this 2008 post.
Got an official source that defines "unwilling ally" or is that just what people claim it means?
Well the problem is that there is not really any "official" definition of ally. The closest thing to a definition is the assumption that an ally is willing. Other than that there is nothing to define the term. So the closest thing to a defintion that can be constructed is that an ally is "a willing creature." That means that an unwilling ally is an "unwilling willing creature." There are three ways this can be resolved. 1) it is complete an utter nonsense since you can't be both willing and unwilling at the same time 2) willing trumps unwilling making unwilling ally a fancy, pointless and confusing way to say ally or 3) unwilling trumps willing making unwilling ally the same as an unwilling creature.
If it falls under three, which some people seem to believe it does, then unwilling ally does by extention mean enemy(which is a defined term). An enemy is defined as anything that is not an ally. An unwilling creature by defintion is not an ally, so therefore unwilling creatures are enemies.
Ok, so it's just people trying to make something simple, complex.
IMO, ally = party member. (player characters and npcs working with the pcs)
IMO, Unwilling ally = Party member in disagreement over a course of action. (pcs and npcs working with pcs)
IMO, Unwilling ally =/= enemy.
An enemy is not an ally. A dominated enemy is not an ally, A dominated ally is not an enemy.
At least, as a DM, that's how I judge it until Wotc steps up with a clarification on the subject. I also do not accept that anyone who is not an ally is an enemy. That removes the undecided/neutral factor. Neither friend nor foe. A merchant for example, is not an ally or an enemy.
If, by the rules, anyone who is not an ally is infact an enemy, then everyone and everything is an enemy until you change that. I don't believe that's true, and if that's RAW, then it's a bad design.
Ok, so it's just people trying to make something simple, complex.
I personally consider it more of an exercise of "designcraft". Looking at places where the rules are sloppy and figuring out how to tighten them up. Then again I am a lawyer in training, so my perspective may be slightly skewed. >.>
If, by the rules, anyone who is not an ally is infact an enemy, then everyone and everything is an enemy until you change that. I don't believe that's true, and if that's RAW, then it's a bad design.
I'm pretty sure it is RAW and RAI. PHB pg 57:
“Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not).
I'm pretty sure it is RAW and RAI. PHB pg 57:“Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not).
Furthermore, an ally is explained not to include "you" (because a power that affects "you and allies" is explicitly described as such) - in which case you are an enemy of yourself.
Or you can just play with a little sense. I have never met these mythical literalist players that insist on something because of petty semantics; they might insist on something that defies RAW but is in the spirit of the narrative, though, and I actually like that.
I understand that most people will "get" how the rules are supposed to work, but even so some have this expectation that they shouldn't need to utilize their own interpretive abilities.
Gives meaning to "you're your own worst enemy."
Also, I disagree with your sig, Ascott. You have silt pirates in darksun and the last sea had at least one pirate ship, crewed by... pirate-like individuals.
Also, I disagree with your sig, Ascott. You have silt pirates in darksun and the last sea had at least one pirate ship, crewed by... pirate-like individuals.
And how about that dark pact warlock who is a defiler and does some coordinated blasting?
Most likely that warlock will soon have no allies. One way or another.
IMO, ally = party member. (player characters and npcs working with the pcs)
IMO, Unwilling ally = Party member in disagreement over a course of action. (pcs and npcs working with pcs)
Pretty much this. As I see it the, "willing or not" clause on Arcane defiling is the equivalent to the bag of rats rule. You can't designate random vermin or objects as enemies just to gain the benefit of a power, and likewise a player shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily designating themselves as a non-ally just to avoid a power's detrimental side-effects.
You are either someones ally or not. There is no, or at least shouldn't be, any line item veto ability to choose such a status round by round. To do otherwise is to create an overly gamy and nonsensical environment. Rules must be tempered by common sense.
Id prefer Defiling drain life with the following mechanic:
Effect: ... but you take damage equal to your healing surge value and each creature within 20 squares of you takes damage equal to half your healing surge value.
That wording makes the mechanic straightforward and easy to understand.
Flavorwise, it makes more sense. How could a power drain life from all plants and *allies* but somehow distinguish your enemies, so as not to drain them? Just make it drain everybody and everything.
Finally, draining oneself helps keep gives the defiling somewhat of a disincentive. In fact, as the origin of the defiling burst - the life drain does more damage to oneself than to any other creature. That way, if a player decides to be a jerk by defiling, that player will probably die first before anybody else does.
By the way, I think, an 'enemy' is any 'creature' who you *choose* to 'attack'.
If a fellow partymember steals your magic item, and you decide to ice em with your Daily power, then that partymember is clearly your 'enemy' *because* you choose to attack em.
By contrast, an 'ally' is any creature who you choose *not* to attack. (More precisely, you choose to designate certain individual creatures as 'allies' in order that your attack powers can avoid targeting them.)
It has to be this way. It must rely on the attacker. Whether the target is 'willing' or 'unwilling' is completely irrelevant. Otherwise, if a power only targets 'enemies', then the enemies just have to say they are 'willing' to be attacked, in which case, theyr 'allies' not enemies, in which case they cant take damage!
An 'enemy' is anybody you choose to target whenever you inflict damage or harmful conditions, an 'ally' is anybody you choose not to target, and a 'creature' is anybody whether you like or not.
So, if your character uses the Defiling power, the damage you inflict on your teammates, makes them, by definition, your 'enemies'.
In the Defiling power, the use of the word 'ally' is highly problematic. It makes no sense to say it damages 'each ally', because if you damage them, theyr 'enemies'.
Just say, Defiling damages 'each creature' - especially the defiler emself! End of problematic.
I'm not saying this was meant to be implied by the design of defiling, but it's not necessarily "gamy nonsense" when magic is involved.
The intent of this is so clear. It damages your allies. Your allies cannot suddenly decide to be your enemy to aviod taking the damage.
Don't try to weasle your way out of it. I can understand if you're arguing from a purely academic, rules-lawyering perspective that the wording is contradictory in terms of internal game mechanics.
But if you're actually suggesting that all of your twisted, purposely obtuse and literal interpretations of the power are how it should be run at the table, you're just being trolls. You know perfectly well what the power means. It means your fellow players that are on your side and any NPCs that are on your side are the only ones to take damage.
This is plain as day, and anything you say doesn't change that.
Having it also lay down irreducable damage to every creature within burst 20 might be a bit overkill.
(* NB: You can use arcane defiling more than once with each daily power; it's triggerable at-will by the attack and damage rolls.)
The problem is, the mechanics of the Arcane Defiling power turns the important technical term 'ally' into self-contradicting meaninglessness.
This confused usage undermines all other cases where rules must clarify who is an 'ally' or not.
Avon: "It was stated, that's how it works. People with which you have an emotional or mental connection (servants, comrades, friends) suffer the most when you defile. The intent of this is so clear."
The intent is clear, but the terminology is wrong.
If it was true, the definition of 'each ally' means 'servants, comrades, friends', then partymembers are ALWAYS 'allies' thus can never attack eachother, even if one partymember commits hostile actions such as theft. Moreover, servants can never betray their masters, and masters can never punish their servants. It is so clear, these ramifications arent the intent of Defiling.
"Don't try to weasle your way out of it."
It isnt us who are weasling. I myself am neutral about this power and have no vested interest.
Its the wording of the Defiling power itself that turns the technical term 'ally' into a 'weasle word'.
But I think we can all agree that everyone who reads this power knows exactly how it works. Whether you know the nitty-gritty details of the mechanical keyword "ally" or not. Because we're not computers and we can use intuition and context to know exactly what is meant by the power's wording.
What we lack is a rules-effective definition of "ally" that defines when someone starts & stops being your ally.
Six PC's who've never met are suddenly in a bar fight against the Ogre who just crashed through the wall. Are they allies?
Several PC's independently sign-on to be caravan guards. Are they immediately allies just because they're being paid by the same person?
What about when the Ranger says "screw that" and starts attacking the Warlock who defiled him?
Does the Ranger just have to shout "You're not my friend!"? Or deal damage to the 'lock? How much?
Don't forget, that in the dominated condition it says that your allies remain your allies and your enemies remain your enemies. So, the term unwilling ally could be a reference to the dominated condition.
There's no need to overthink things- an ally is a person who is fighting with you, on your side, with no intent to kill you. An unwilling ally is an ally who isn't going along with your plan to hurt them for a re-roll. More often than not, this is going to be a purely roleplaying effect. If I played this ability I would never use it without discussing it with my party first. Maybe all the players will agree, but their characters might not be so cool with me sucking out their life to have a more effective Fireball.
Adding "unwilling" is, as has been said before, clearly to stop people from saying "I'm not a willing ally" and then getting out of the damage.
LOL! I already find the Dominated condition extremely confusing.
Heres what the rules say.
Compendium: "Dominated: In spite of this condition, the creature’s allies remain its allies, and its enemies remain its enemies. (Thus, if the dominator makes the creature attack one of its allies, it does not attack an ally of the dominator.)"
In other words, even if you are dominated, your allies remain your allies and your enemies remain your enemies. Therefore, if the dominator forces you attack your 'ally', you cant attack an ally of the dominator instead.
Why is this possible? Because you arent the one who is making the attack. So its irrelevant whether the target of the attack is your ally or not. Your not the attacker. It is the dominator who is making the attack, even tho the dominator is making the attack thru you. The attack doesnt even happen on your turn, but takes place on the dominators turn.
Compare an earlier sentence. It said:
"The dominator chooses a single action for you to take on the creature’s turn."
In this case, the 'creature' seems to refer to the dominating creature, since 'you' take the action on the 'creatures turn'. In other words, the dominator forces you take an action on the dominators turn. This makes common sense too. When a creature dominates you, you attack immediately on the dominating creatures turn, not on your own turn later.
So, your allies remain your allies when your dominated, and therefore you yourself dont attack them. Nevertheless, your allies are the 'enemies' of the dominator, and the dominator does attack them - even tho its thru you.
Anyway, this is probably a good time for the developers to hunker down and come up with clear definitions for these extremely important terms. As far as I see it, these are the different kinds of targets.
Enemy: the creature that you attack.
Ally: the creature that you intentionally avoid attacking (such as in a burst that only targets enemies).
Creature: anyone, whether you like it or not.
Willing creature: anyone, but em must like what you are doing.
Unwilling creature: anyone, even em hates what you are doing.
Now these five categories get slightly confusing when your power has an 'effect' rather than an 'attack'. So the actual definition would need to take into account any form of damage or condition that you inflict.
Finally, healing powers need to be checked to make sure they make sense.
...an ally is a person who is fighting with you, on your side, with no intent to kill you...
So as soon as I "intend to kill" the defiler, I'm no longer his ally?
How do we define "intent to kill" do I just have to shout "I'm gonna kick your sorry behind!"? Target him with an attack? (even if I miss?) Deal some amount of damage?
Even if someone is my ally at the start of the fight, as soon as he hits my PC with defiling damage he's an enemy. He's gonna take at least one hit for it. If he does it again, I'm gonna kill him or die trying. You saying he's still my ally just because he's a PC?
Do you think that just because PCs are PCs they're always allies?
Or can you use common friggin sense to understand that if you're trying to kill someone you are not their ally.
If the delifer is trying to kill you, imprison you, beat you unconcious, or "teach you a lesson", he cannot also damage you with defiling, not until he's powerful enough to do so (as hinted at in the preview article).
If you are trying to kill the defiler, imprison him, beat him into unconciousness, or "teach him a lesson", he cannot damage you with defiling.
Please do not take this list of intents as all-inclusive. You should be smart enough to understand actions and intentions that would disclude you from being someone's ally because you are a RATIONAL THINKING CREATURE and not a computer.
The instant you betray a fellow PC and set yourself opposed to them, you are no longer allies. Do we really need a game mechanic to define "betrayal"?
I also think you're missing the point of defiling. Defiling is vile. This type of reaction, where you punish the PC who damaged you with his Defiling magic, this is the type of thing they're going for.
This is perfect game design, because the mechanics are backing up the flavor. If someone in the party is a defiler in Athas, that's like playing a d20 Modern game where someone in the party is a child rapist. These people are universally reviled in the setting. If someone is tempted to become a defiler, the party is either complicit in his vile acts, or they stop him by any means necessary.
The Arcane Defiling power is there to be a dark temptation for arcane characters. They always have this option of turning into a sick, vile, twisted being, in order to gain power. When one does, it should not be a suprise that you would turn around and try to kill him. So don't talk about that scenario like it's the end result of a badly designed game mechanic. This is exactly what Arcane Defiling is about.
My issue is that this power is really badly designed because every time it's used the DM has to make a judgement call on who the caster's "allies" are.
Some posters above clearly believe that anyone playing a PC sitting at the table with you is your Ally, and any rationale to the contrary is just semantic cheese to protect your character from a negative effect.
And, to an extent, I agree. By default the other PC's are (or at least should be) your allies. It'd be really cheesy to declare yourself "not an ally" one round to avoid defiling damage, then heal/buff/flank with/support/etc the defiler the next.
I'd be much happier if Arcane Defiling said something more like:
"Before using this power, one ally within 20 squares must choose to sacrifice a healing surge."
Then we completely avoid the semantic discussion on what constitutes an "Ally" and the DM can get back to running the game while preserving (no pun intended) approximately the same resource cost.
The wizard has a chance to have a real effect on the outcome of the battle, but misses with his/her daily. You and everyone else take minor damage and the wizard gets a chance to hit with that missed daily, which contributes to the success and survival of the entire party.
(wizard meaning any arcane class)
The amount of hysteria over something so trivial is pretty sad. It's like a kid, throwing a fit because he had to give his little brother a sip of his drink, even though he gets free refills.
Personally, I'd have no problem if a defiler sucked life force out of my character to power his/her spells. If I'm traveling with a defiler to begin with, then I'v already accepted that fact and the methods with which the spell caster uses. This is assuming the party is even aware of the fact that it is a defiler, since defilers have a ton of ways to mask their casting, delay the visible effects of defiling and since stealing life force would be a semi-subtle thing. It's not like getting hit by a sword. You'd probably cramp up and feel sick or dizzy, but that could be from anything in the desert and no one would know what was happening until they were capable of identifying the cause.
Defilers are not stupid, and defilers don't usually disregard their allies. A defiler who gains acceptance in a party, knows the value of allies in a life filled with rejection. Not all defilers are evil, nor "stupid villain evil".
I'd suggest people read "preservers & defilers from 2e revised darksun. And for the record. ALL spellcasters are universally hated among the common folk, not just defilers. But defilers can find acceptance in many groups just like any spellcaster. Especially among ex-slave tribes/raiding tribes and even nomadic tribes. Not to forget merchant houses and city-state crime organizations.
The only people who actually, specifically hate defilers, are druids and many clerics. Not even all preservers hate defilers. But a good majority hate the defiling method, as it makes all spellcasters look even worse. But since average joe doesn't know the difference between preserving and defiling, it doesn't much matter. A crowd will kill a wizard, regardless of spell casting methods, simply because to aid or allow a wizard to escape, is a crime in many city-states and killing a spell caster is often a better alternative to answering to the templar for allowing a wizard to escape.
Point is, sometimes you must be willing to sacrifice for the good of the group. Sometimes allies will beg a wizard to throw a fireball into the middle of a battle, even though it will harm the allies as much as the enemies. A wizard (ally) probably won't do that unless it's needed/requested. A defiler won't harm allies needlessly. An evil character will, but simply being a defiler doesn't mean allies get abused.
That really epitomizes the difference between roll-players and role-players.
You are playing a roleplaying game. You are pretending to be an actual person. Unless your character is suffering from a nigh-debilitating mental disease, they are not going to switch back and forth who they think their friends and allies are. They are going to need a reason to betray trusts, and if it's even possible to earn it back again, it's going to take more than 6 seconds and a "declaration of intent".
Stop playing the system and play your character.
It really boggles my mind when people think they can switch between ally or enemy from turn to turn.
That really epitomizes the difference between roll-players and role-players.
You are playing a roleplaying game. You are pretending to be an actual person. Unless your character is suffering from a nigh-debilitating mental disease, they are not going to switch back and forth who they think their friends and allies are. They are going to need a reason to betray trusts, and if it's even possible to earn it back again, it's going to take more than 6 seconds and a "declaration of intent".
Stop playing the system and play your character.
This. A thousand times this.
Although, if a friend of mine pumped me full of death energy, I might reconsider our relationship.
But that is unlikely to be resolved in any way inside of 6 seconds.
It really boggles my mind when people think they can switch between ally or enemy from turn to turn.
That really epitomizes the difference between roll-players and role-players.
You are playing a roleplaying game. You are pretending to be an actual person. Unless your character is suffering from a nigh-debilitating mental disease, they are not going to switch back and forth who they think their friends and allies are. They are going to need a reason to betray trusts, and if it's even possible to earn it back again, it's going to take more than 6 seconds and a "declaration of intent".
Stop playing the system and play your character.
Well said.
... And the damage done by defiling is such a minor issue that I can't believe so many people are so angry about it...
I think you're missing just how much damage this can potentially do. It's an At-Will Free action. The only limitation is that you can only reroll each roll once.
There's nothing there to stop an arcanist from, say, rerolling three missed attack rolls, then rerolling the damage, and instantly making the entire party Bloodied.
Or even, in an extremely unlikely contrivance, rerolling *7* attack rolls, rerolling the damage and instantly knocking the entire party unconscious.
If it were an encounter power, or even a Minor action instead of a Free action, it wouldn't be nearly as bad.
... And the damage done by defiling is such a minor issue that I can't believe so many people are so angry about it...
I think you're missing just how much damage this can potentially do. It's an At-Will Free action. The only limitation is that you can only reroll each roll once.
There's nothing there to stop an arcanist from, say, rerolling three missed attack rolls, then rerolling the damage, and instantly making the entire party Bloodied.
Or even, in an extremely unlikely contrivance, rerolling *7* attack rolls, rerolling the damage and instantly knocking the entire party unconscious.
If it were an encounter power, or even a Minor action instead of a Free action, it wouldn't be nearly as bad.
From my understanding, it only works with daily powers. So you're looking at a maximum of 4 rerolls at the higher levels. Maybe 5 or 6 if you have special items that allow you to regain an expended daily.
The total damage output of defiling is laughable and not in anyway, worthy of worry, unless you're almost at zero hit points.
From my understanding, it only works with daily powers. So you're looking at a maximum of 4 rerolls at the higher levels. Maybe 5 or 6 if you have special items that allow you to regain an expended daily.
The total damage output of defiling is laughable and not in anyway, worthy of worry, unless you're almost at zero hit points.
He's talking about multi-hit dailies. You have to roll to see if you hit individually for each enemy so a single daily could have more than ten targets assuming there were enough enemies on the field.....which raises an interesting question, would intentionally using defiling to kill off a PC be enough to make them no longer your ally and thereby immune to the defiling?
:PFrom my understanding, it only works with daily powers. So you're looking at a maximum of 4 rerolls at the higher levels. Maybe 5 or 6 if you have special items that allow you to regain an expended daily.
The total damage output of defiling is laughable and not in anyway, worthy of worry, unless you're almost at zero hit points.
He's talking about multi-hit dailies. You have to roll to see if you hit individually for each enemy so a single daily could have more than ten targets assuming there were enough enemies on the field.....which raises an interesting question, would intentionally using defiling to kill off a PC be enough to make them no longer your ally and thereby immune to the defiling?
Oh! Wow, that would be messed up. That is certainly something that needs to be addressed. I never considered that. Now I can understand how that would be a problem, completely. They need to add a limit, like an ally can only take defiling damage once per round. Even then, I wonder what effect this would have on sustainable dailes, like flaming sphere.....
Sorry, Pyrex. I totally missed that. I blame the Soma I'm taking for my back.
Special: You can use this effect once for any arcane daily attack power you use, affecting any single attack roll or the damage roll for that power.
You only get to re-roll once per arcane daily attack power, so it doesn't matter how many attack or damage rolls the power grants or if you can sustain it.
I think you're misreading the power. Here's the part of the defiling at-will power in question:Special: You can use this effect once for any arcane daily attack power you use, affecting any single attack roll or the damage roll for that power.
You only get to re-roll once per arcane daily attack power, so it doesn't matter how many attack or damage rolls the power grants or if you can sustain it.
Hmm... Where are you getting this? The version which Pyrex and Ranadiel are using seems to be the one from the “Dark Sun: Death in the Arena” pregens.
Special: You can use this power to reroll each attack roll or damage roll only once.
Has there been a more recent release?
Special: You can use this effect once for any arcane daily attack power you use, affecting any single attack roll or the damage roll for that power.
From this month's Ampersand. Note the "any single roll" part.