As for what order things would go in, your background is always first because well...it's your origin. Then you learn your moves/feats/powers.
This I don't agree with. Backgrounds aren't that narrow. Occupations are a valid background. Now consider this. Did you join the Military because you could fight or did you learn to fight in the military?
Second point. The game only says that your first level character have 1 feat. It never says WHEN you got the feat. It could be BEFORE you got to first.
3rd point. If you the background first, you make some characters feat picks not make sense. Lets say i make up a character that in his youth was moved around a lot by his gypsy like parents. On his travels he finds a wizard, gets him to train him and he becomes one himself. Now he wants to take linguist since he traveled all over but he didn't get his feat until he finished his wizard training. So when he got his feat, he had no opportunity to learn more languages.
Sometimes the feat picks are as much about your characters background as the actual background itself. Born an eagle eye'd scout [skill focus or alertness], always scampering up trees [sure climber] or quickly picked up skills [jack of all trades]. Forcing the background before feats also forces the character to tell his story a certain way that isn't very good.
Well...fluff-wise sure, but in the CB (WOTC's official character builder) backgrounds are first, and as evidenced by the Akanul/familiar situation calculated first.
Well...fluff-wise sure, but in the CB (WOTC's official character builder) backgrounds are first, and as evidenced by the Akanul/familiar situation calculated first.
LOL Well I couldn't give a flying fudge about the CB.
I can't use it and there isn't any evidence that you HAVE to take background first just that that's the way the CB does it. It could be that it's just easier for it to always assume it's first [since it can add trained skills it makes sense they'd do this].
Unless you have an actual in print quote 'background effects come first then feats', I'm going to have to go with a fluid approach. If I want my father to teach my character how to use the longsword BEFORE I head off to be a wizards apprentice, I don't see the CB stopping that.
Any reason you can't use it? I know I had some issues as well at first. It's been an invaluable tool for me.
I'm unable to log in to WOTC sites as my password in invalid. After WOTC's wonderful staff fixed the problem, I was able to log in once before my password was invalid again. When WOTC send me an e-mail telling me they were going to shut down my account because of inactivity. I replied that that wasn't surprising because there site wouldn't let me in.
Their reply? Sorry, we sent you the e-mail by mistake and you're active! Go have fun on out site.
I wouldn't trust those guys to pick up my trash! I'll NEVER give them my credit card info!
Just clarifying because it was argued but I didn't see a mention of it in the official proposal, what are we doing with Storm Pillar? I think that should be clarified as well when voted on.
__________________
L4W:Shayla
Shayla Brightleaf Group Awareness: Non-elf allies within 5 squares gain a +1 racial bonus to perception checks
"Stacking order" in case of two sources that either give you value X resistance or value +Y if you already have it (ie. Akunal Background and Book Imp familiar).
Anything else under consideration? These are my thoughts on the listed points:
1. Storm Pillar looks ok to me.
2. For Grease I prefer this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elecgraystone
I'd keep the spell as written with the following line added to the miss line. "This movement does not trigger another attack form the Grease spell.
3. For Illusory Wall I prefer this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles
Illusory Wall: change "on its current turn, but it can try again on later turns" to "until it is attacked again and missed".
4. For Planar Gateway I prefer this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles
Planar Gateway: Add "Once per encounter" before "You may make the following attack..."
5. As seems to be the consensus, I favor that we let players decide the order in which such character options apply for now. Based on this, I'm thinking there'll soon be an Arcane Power update to clarify.
However, while I appreciate the attempts to "fix" some of these elements, this also feels very similar to our attempts to fix Battlerager Vigor with Martial Power. Like we did in that case, I'm also fine with just omitting elements 2-4 until their issues have been adressed in an update.
I'm also fine with just omitting elements 2-4 until their issues have been addressed in an update.
This assumes that they aren't going to hide the fixes in DDI like they did for Planar Gateway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by covaithe
I, too, think we'll be just fine if DMs exercise some common sense. I don't feel the need to rule on an official interpretation.
There are 2 issues with this covaithe.
#1 Common sense isn't a universal. What makes sense for you, isn't the same for me or anyone else. There needs to be a meeting of the minds, and the easiest way to do that is have it in print.
#2 Even if all the judges are of like mind, the players still have to know beforehand how their abilities work before they pick them. You could easily upset someone if they build a character around something only to find out your common sense doesn't match theirs and what they wanted to do doesn't work.
As Illusory Wall and Planar Gateway are higher level [10 and 11] than we are now, I think they'd be fine to put on hold. No one could use them right away anyway. Grease though is 1st. I rather like the spell and it'd be a shame to have it permanently shelved if WOTC never puts out an errata on it OR it have it take as long as Rain of Blows to get errata.
If someone built their character around Grease, then came into a game I was DMing and tried to claim that it was an auto-hit because, on a miss, they could infinite-loop with sliding and re-attacking... Yeah, that wouldn't happen. "Nice try, who's up next?"
If the player was so crushed by such a ruling that they couldn't wait until they leveled up to retrain away to a non-exploit-based power, couldn't be bothered to use their overhaul, and got upset about it... Well, again, I find myself pretty unsympathetic. Too bad.
I can't really seriously imagine any DM doing otherwise. But suppose an inexperienced or overworked DM did let themselves get fooled into allowing it. A judge could alert them to it, or an interested onlooker by PM (this has happened to me more than once -- I make my share of mistakes, and then some) or, worst case, it could just go uncorrected. The next time, it might be a different DM, or the DM might be paying more attention, and make a different ruling. If the player tried to claim that it had been allowed before and therefore must always be that way... Again, I am still without sympathy. If they cry nerf: yep, still no love.
What I'm saying is, in order for this -- Grease -- to be a problem, you have to have a) a player who's actively trying to exploit, and b) a DM who doesn't want to stand up to them, and c) a judge who's not willing to back the DM. I don't feel particularly compelled to write proposals into the charter to handle such a situation.
If someone built their character around Grease, then came into a game I was DMing and tried to claim that it was an auto-hit because, on a miss, they could infinite-loop with sliding and re-attacking... Yeah, that wouldn't happen. "Nice try, who's up next?"
By the charter, you'd be in the wrong. As written, it IS an infinite-loop and there isn't a ruling that says otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by covaithe
If the player was so crushed by such a ruling that they couldn't wait until they leveled up to retrain away to a non-exploit-based power, couldn't be bothered to use their overhaul, and got upset about it... Well, again, I find myself pretty unsympathetic. Too bad.
However, the player was in the right, not you. If they had known ahead of time, they could have picked another power. You are suggestion that a 'bait and switch' is fine and the person tricked shouldn't complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by covaithe
I can't really seriously imagine any DM doing otherwise.
I can. I could expect that a DM would follow the rules of the board we are in. I'd expect a DM that wanted to change a power as written would put it up for open debate and change the rule so everyone knew it. I don't excpect DM's to spring changes after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by covaithe
What I'm saying is, in order for this -- Grease -- to be a problem, you have to have a) a player who's actively trying to exploit, and b) a DM who doesn't want to stand up to them, and c) a judge who's not willing to back the DM. I don't feel particularly compelled to write proposals into the charter to handle such a situation.
And what I'm saying is that for B and C to happen, there would have to be a ruling or an exception made on the boards changing the writing of the power because as is it's an infinite-loop. If B and C happen, then the rules we have set up aren't being followed.
However, while I appreciate the attempts to "fix" some of these elements, this also feels very similar to our attempts to fix Battlerager Vigor with Martial Power. Like we did in that case, I'm also fine with just omitting elements 2-4 until their issues have been adressed in an update.
I want to stress that, unlike the other fixes you quoted, the Planar Gateway fix is direct from the Compendium. They just didn't put it in an errata for some reason. (Maybe they're saving it until they've got a bunch to put out at once.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by covaithe
If someone built their character around Grease, then came into a game I was DMing and tried to claim that it was an auto-hit because, on a miss, they could infinite-loop with sliding and re-attacking... Yeah, that wouldn't happen. "Nice try, who's up next?"
The issue for me isn't whether it should be allowed - clearly it shouldn't. The question is, do you disallow it by saying, "No, you can't slide somebody out and then immediately back in - a slide can't double back on itself like that?" Or by saying, "Ok, you can move him that way, but you don't get a second attack roll?" Or something else? Since we've noticed the issue, we should decide on an official fix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elecgraystone
By the charter, you'd be in the wrong. As written, it IS an infinite-loop and there isn't a ruling that says otherwise.
Nope. PHB p267, under the heading Free Action: "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn."
Nope. PHB p267, under the heading Free Action: "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn."
While that is true, it's a cheesy workaround that leads to the power working differently depending on the judge/DM. It's avoiding the issues already brought up and letting everyone 'houserule' a fix if they think it's needed. Honestly, it's just BEGGING for for arguments and misunderstandings doing it that way.
And honestly, are you going to say that you can only use 1 free action in a round to stop people from attacking with grease again? So an elf wizard can't use his racial ability on the attack? It doesn't say you can restrict types of free actions, just free actions as a whole. Or are you going to have different kinds of free actions? Sounds WAY more complicated that actually ruling on the power.
By the charter, you'd be in the wrong. As written, it IS an infinite-loop and there isn't a ruling that says otherwise.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the charter about infinite loops. I'm also pretty sure there's nothing in the charter restricting a DM's ability to make interpretations of ambiguous rule situations. The closest it comes is to say that, in cases of a dispute, the adventure's judge has the final word. And I'm sorry, I don't care how clearly written the power seems to be; if it creates an infinite loop, that's at the very least an ambiguous situation, if not outright wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles
The issue for me isn't whether it should be allowed - clearly it shouldn't. The question is, do you disallow it by saying, "No, you can't slide somebody out and then immediately back in - a slide can't double back on itself like that?" Or by saying, "Ok, you can move him that way, but you don't get a second attack roll?"
The last, IMO.
Quote:
Nope. PHB p267, under the heading Free Action: "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn."
See also: Rule 0. Rule 0 is still in effect here, IMO, with the tiny exception that a judge can, if he or she chooses, overrule the DM when there is a dispute.
if it creates an infinite loop, that's at the very least an ambiguous situation, if not outright wrong.
So you have a rule you think may be 'outright wrong', but instead of ruling on it beforehand you'd rather 'houserule' it during game play? I can't say that makes the least bit of sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles
The issue for me isn't whether it should be allowed - clearly it shouldn't. The question is, do you disallow it by saying, "No, you can't slide somebody out and then immediately back in - a slide can't double back on itself like that?" Or by saying, "Ok, you can move him that way, but you don't get a second attack roll?".
As you can see, there is more than one way to 'houserule' it, so the 'common sense' approach didn't work did it? If you don't work it out ahead of time, you end up with two different rulings that 'make sense'. That's why there is a procedure for rule amendments in the charter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by covaithe
See also: Rule 0. Rule 0 is still in effect here, IMO, with the tiny exception that a judge can, if he or she chooses, overrule the DM when there is a dispute.
Rule 0 if fine for unexpected situations. It's a cop out when you know there is a problem going in AND it's a big issue when when you have people moving from one game to the next. Is you Rule 0 the same as the next GM's rule 0?
DM's will have some variation in how they interpret certain rules/powers. That's the nature of the game. The point is to have fun. If a player is intentionally building a super-abusive twinked out cheesy PC the DM has every right to run the game how he/she feels the rules are to be interpreted (after all they are the ones running the game). The judge aspect is in place to add another opinion to the DM's if there is a discrepency. If a player really disagrees with the DM's ruling they can always leave the game, if its that much of a problem. Personally, I think the tone is very aggressive and should be more open elecgraystone. I know its easy to get irritated (cov & I had a pretty heated discussion earlier this year as well), but we really gotta all be cool. After all this is our fun time, if it ain't fun, we should go back to work
Personally, I think the tone is very aggressive and should be more open elecgraystone. I know its easy to get irritated (cov & I had a pretty heated discussion earlier this year as well), but we really gotta all be cool. After all this is our fun time, if it ain't fun, we should go back to work
It wasn't my intent to be aggressive. I'll admit I'm opinionated and not afraid to voice my opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renau1g
If a player is intentionally building a super-abusive twinked out cheesy PC the DM has every right to run the game how he/she feels the rules are to be interpreted (after all they are the ones running the game).
True, but when the DM knows there is a 'build for a super-abusive twinked out cheesy PC', he should say up front that he doesn't like it and will not allow it. I'm not against saying no to the PC, I'm against waiting until the PC uses his combo then saying no when you knew he had it. I'm just saying, it's better to be up from with things instead of ignoring a problem and letting everyone house rule it differently.
I'm not a big fan of after the fact house rules is all. Just let me know up front, and I'm all happy.
I have to say that I agree with elecgraystone. I would much prefer to have a concrete rule that everyone knows about, written in stone (i.e. the charter) than to have somehing written in mud. Sure, it may only be a puddle to be avoided, but eventually...someone's going to get messy!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
