Question about Combat Challange

invokethehojo · May 21, 2008

I'm not sure what to do, I'm running my first 4e game in two days and I don't know how to interpret this, I mean Logan is a designer, but he just sounds wrong.

How could they have misphrased that so badly?

Looking at the fighter vs the paladin the fighter does feel a little weak if this power only applies to the marked target and not every target.

(insert expletive)

invokethehojo · May 21, 2008

Well, re-reading the fighters mark I see that it ends "at the end of your next turn", so that means a mark could be non-adjacent to you and still be marked.

So that, combined with a ruling from Logan, and also the paragraph but not header change, I guess I'll stick with it only applies to marks...

Silky Johnson had it right when he said "Trick ass marks"

hong · May 21, 2008

invokethehojo said:
Well, re-reading the fighters mark I see that it ends "at the end of your next turn", so that means a mark could be non-adjacent to you and still be marked.

So that, combined with a ruling from Logan, and also the paragraph but not header change, I guess I'll stick with it only applies to marks...

Silky Johnson had it right when he said "Trick ass marks"

FireLance · May 21, 2008

If nothing else, those worried that fighter-paladin synergy will be too effective can breathe slightly easier now.

TheSleepyKing · May 21, 2008

Mouseferatu said:
Which they've come out and said is a possibility in many cases. KotS is a preview of the rules. Things may have changed at the last minute. In addition, they've said that a few of the rules in KotS were deliberately simplified for "quick-play" use.

I very much doubt that happened here. WoTC could have changed the phrasing to "Whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you..." without adding any complexity to the game. It certainly would have been much clearer.

MindWanderer is right here, I think. WoTC screwed up. Let's hope the PHB doesn't replicate this error - not everybody reads D&D forums.

Mouseferatu · May 21, 2008

TheSleepyKing said:
Let's hope the PHB doesn't replicate this error - not everybody reads D&D forums.

Since Logan has already publicly confirmed the rule, I don't think I'm revealing anything I shouldn't when I say that no, the PHB does not replicate this error. It's very specifically a marked enemy.

fedelas · May 21, 2008

FireLance said:
If nothing else, those worried that fighter-paladin synergy will be too effective can breathe slightly easier now.

And I breathe... I'm concerned about the "defender sinergy" by the time i saw the kots pre-gen sheets, so i suggested in a thread(two fighters too powerful?) that it was too powerful and that IMO the free attack of the fighter comes only against marked target. About anybody on the forums tell me that i'm wrong and if a party of 5 with 2 defender against a right challenging group of monster, try the tactics of two defender locking an opponents, they were screwed by the swarm of monster attacking the other 3 party member.
What kind of opinion I have now, after two game session of playtesting?
The sinergy of two defender was great against a powerful monster (Elite, Solo, higher level) or when the great part of the enemy force was defeated; but against an equal or more numerous group of opponents the best thing to do is to split the defender and engage as much enemy as possible, as stated by many.
In the end i'm relieved that combat challenge works only against the marked but i agree that the phrasing we see is, at least, ambiguos.

invokethehojo · May 21, 2008

FireLance said:
If nothing else, those worried that fighter-paladin synergy will be too effective can breathe slightly easier now.

not to thread jack but every time I see you post, +5 Holy Flaming Lance, I'm curious (don't be offended), but you don't happen to be a gay clergymen named Lance do you? If so your handle is very clever (seriously).

Ingolf · May 21, 2008

Mouseferatu said:
Since Logan has already publicly confirmed the rule, I don't think I'm revealing anything I shouldn't when I say that no, the PHB does not replicate this error. It's very specifically a marked enemy.

Glad to hear that. I was not looking forward to another game full of poorly-worded and ambiguous rules and the attendant confusion and arguments about how to apply them. So far 4e looked like it had avoided that problem and I hated to see evidence (however slight) to the contrary.

Family · May 21, 2008

invokethehojo said:
not to thread jack but every time I see you post, +5 Holy Flaming Lance, I'm curious (don't be offended), but you don't happen to be a gay clergymen named Lance do you? If so your handle is very clever (seriously).

-Would like to have a word with you.

Question about Combat Challange

invokethehojo

First Post

invokethehojo

First Post

hong

WotC's bitch

FireLance

Legend

TheSleepyKing

First Post

Mouseferatu

Hero

fedelas

First Post

invokethehojo

First Post

Ingolf

First Post

Family

First Post

Similar Threads