The issue is if every possible misuse/abuse of a power/ability needs to be spelled out in the charter then it's going to be super cumbersome and will possibly turn new people off.
The issue is if every possible misuse/abuse of a power/ability needs to be spelled out in the charter then it's going to be super cumbersome and will possibly turn new people off.
+1
It can be hard to forget sometimes while in the thick of discussions such as these that this is a game we are working with, not a legal system. IMO, we shouldn't concern ourselves with problems that don't yet exist. From the high quality of much of what goes on here, I have a lot of faith in the community and don't feel that we need every last uber-munchkin-combo spelled out explicitly.
This is a game without a goal and without winners - unless certain players are making things un-fun for certain other players (or DMs), it's best to just stay out of the way.
The issue is if every possible misuse/abuse of a power/ability needs to be spelled out in the charter then it's going to be super cumbersome and will possibly turn new people off.
Well there is a big difference between 'possible misuse/abuse' and issues that we have identified and gm/judges have already said that they don't think that is should work the RAW way. We seem to be in general agreement that the movement from grease shouldn't trigger new attack. How is putting that in any different that telling dark warlocks that they need player consent to use powers that hurt other players? Both are changes to the character that the character should know before to makes his choices. How is it ok to inform new players in one case but leave them in the dark with the other?
My position is clear. I think it best to have everything in the open and NOT surprise people after they have made their character. I feel that doing otherwise will only lead to problems later when people find out during play that things don't work as the book reads.
That said, I'm finished arguing. This is just the kind of situation I was trying to avoid by asking for a ruling of grease. Do whatever you want. There isn't any reason to hold up things. Go and vote on what Stonegod wants.
So, to get this ball rolling (and so Dang't can be updated ), how but I propose the following (since I started this thread):
- Proposal: Accept all of Arcane Power except Grease, Illusory Wall, and Planar Gateway.
Folks can propose separate things for the other three, though only Grease is of a primary concern right now (as it is is the only power anyway can take at L4W levels).
__________________ stonegod -- LEB judge and spawn of Khyber since 2005 (Blog)
- Proposal: Accept all of Arcane Power except Grease, Illusory Wall, and Planar Gateway.
Folks can propose separate things for the other three, though only Grease is of a primary concern right now (as it is is the only power anyway can take at L4W levels).
I believe this will mean that there are two versions of the Illusion powers, and both are legal. So I also propose that if Stonegod's proposal passes, we ban the Dragon magazine Illusions article except for Illusory Wall.
I propose that we pass Grease with the amendment "the slide does not trigger an attack from the same Grease spell again". (Does this mean I can vote no to covaithe's proposal, but not yet to my own?)
I also propose that we pass the Compendium version of Planar Gateway.
So, to get this ball rolling (and so Dang't can be updated ), how but I propose the following (since I started this thread):
- Proposal: Accept all of Arcane Power except Grease, Illusory Wall, and Planar Gateway.
Folks can propose separate things for the other three, though only Grease is of a primary concern right now (as it is is the only power anyway can take at L4W levels).
Yes to this.
__________________ Gary Hoggatt - www.garyh.net "Such heroic nonsense..."
Ok, now that the board's settled down (sort of) I finally have time to go back through these.
Arcane Power (except for Grease, Illusory Wall, and Planar Gateway) has passed, and I'll update the charter.
That means there are two really weird things: there are a lot of Illusion powers with two versions that were approved separately, so now they're both legal. And the Bonded Summoner paragon path is legal, but one of its powers isn't.
At this time I'm also making another proposal: replace the Dragon version of Illusory Wall with the AP version with the amendment: change "on its current turn, but it can try again on later turns" to "until it is attacked again and missed"
So, outstanding proposals, all of which have 0 votes:
Approve Grease as-is
Approve amended Grease
Approve Compendium version of Planar Gateway
ban Dragon magazine Illusion article except Illusory Wall
replace Dragon version of Illusory Wall with amended AP version
YES. I would prefer that we use common sense rather than multiplying the rules, but I don't care enough to hold it up.
Quote:
Approve Compendium version of Planar Gateway
YES
Quote:
ban Dragon magazine Illusion article except Illusory Wall
YES
Quote:
replace Dragon version of Illusory Wall with amended AP version
NO. Reading through this, I think this makes it so that the caster can choose not to attack the enemy again, and the enemy can never get through the wall. I'd prefer something like, "Whenever an enemy attempts to move through the wall, make an Int vs. Will attack as a free action. If it hits, the enemy perceives the wall as solid and can't move through it. This condition lasts until the start of its next turn."
I would prefer that we use common sense rather than multiplying the rules, but I don't care enough to hold it up.
I'll return the favour by voting YES to "Approve Grease as-is" - wouldn't want people voting for mine even though they prefer yours just because it looks closer to passing.
NO. Reading through this, I think this makes it so that the caster can choose not to attack the enemy again, and the enemy can never get through the wall. I'd prefer something like, "Whenever an enemy attempts to move through the wall, make an Int vs. Will attack as a free action. If it hits, the enemy perceives the wall as solid and can't move through it. This condition lasts until the start of its next turn."[/quote]
So, basically the same as the text that's in AP, except change "moves adjacent to the wall" with "tries to cross the wall". Yes, I like that much better. I withdraw my proposal, and vote YES to this.
ban Dragon magazine Illusion article except Illusory Wall
YES
Also, YES to banning the entire article. If Illusory Wall and Planar Gateway haven't been updated by the time they become relevant, I'll probably cast my vote on one of the previously suggested versions. However, I think we're talking at least 8 levels, so simple omission works for me for now.
Does anyone else have any opinions on these? It's a shame to have Grease sitting there unapproved just because nobody can come to an agreement on something so trivial.
To recap, the votes are at:
Approve Grease as-is: 1 YES
Approve Grease with the amendment "sliding back into the zone does not trigger the attack again": 1 YES
Approve Compendium version of Planar Gateway: 1 YES
ban Dragon magazine Illusion article except Illusory Wall: 2 YES
replace Dragon version of Illusion Wall with amended AP version (attack happens when someone tries to cross the wall, not when they move adjacent to it): 1 YES
There's a list of differences between the Dragon article and the powers in AP here. Right now, both versions are allowed (so, for example, you could learn Phantasmal Terrain that hinders only enemies, from Dragon, or the version that hinders everyone, from AP). If the "ban the Dragon article" proposal passes you'll only be allowed to learn the AP version.
So the only thing that effects Veruzak is that he'll have to add a Zone keyword to Grasping Shadows.
Does anyone else have any opinions on these? It's a shame to have Grease sitting there unapproved just because nobody can come to an agreement on something so trivial.
To recap, the votes are at:
Approve Grease as-is: 1 YES
Approve Grease with the amendment "sliding back into the zone does not trigger the attack again": 1 YES
Approve Compendium version of Planar Gateway: 1 YES
ban Dragon magazine Illusion article except Illusory Wall: 2 YES
replace Dragon version of Illusion Wall with amended AP version (attack happens when someone tries to cross the wall, not when they move adjacent to it): 1 YES
Bump.
I really don't see why more people aren't voting for the Compendium version of Planar Gateway - what's the controversy with that?
You folks can argue about the rest. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
