Search results

I hope you didn't really mean what you just wrote, because you got that significantly backwards. The rules never say that a 20 IS a critical hit, they say it MIGHT be a critical hit (read page 276). You'll also find on that same page that a 20 IS a hit. Always. But you have hit on the crux of...

Really?

Ooooooh nice! This is even better than my idea for getting another At-will. It gives up something valuable in exchange for something else sweet. Incidentally, this would also solve the issue of Eldritch Strike being a "human only" At-will for Warlocks.

Genasi would win hands down for perfect stat bonuses alone, so it's pretty interesting to see how people vote on other races. With the choices given you really have to look at feats, PPS and choose between boosting your Str or Int. One PP that I've always liked (esp for dwarves or in a dwarf...

That's true, but from what I saw of the hybrid rules, they didn't seem that strong to begin with since they have fewer feature and more restrictions on them. Pure classes with a MC feat seemed stronger. Granted, I really don't visit the charop boards, so there could be some crazy good combos...

One thing that our DM allowed is an in-class respec at level 6 so that we could correct all the poor character decisions and inefficiencies we made along the way since we were all new to 4E at the time. We got 6 levels to learn, then get right with the game system and start kicking enemies...

One feat I've been hoping for since the game came out is one that would allow me to take another at-will from my class. It would have to be at least Paragon, otherwise it would minimize the human bonus too much. There's probably ways a MC character could abuse it too. For a single classed...

I see what you mean, but your comparison is not a perfect one. With certain things like movement and applying forced movement there is an understood (and explicit in the case of forced movement) option on the players part. There is a choice to be made depending on the preference of the player...

There's a fundamental problem with a general rule (like precision) putting restrictions on specific feats and features that are meant to break the general rules. Like Nifft said, Precision does not contradict the mastery feats. They all say you can score a critical hit, just like the rules for...

Excellent summary Stalker. I believe that the rules do support that a critical hit is a hit. My reasoning comes from the descriptions of "Critical hit" under attacks on page 277 and twice under the "Critical hit" section on page 278. under Attacks PHB 277: "If you roll a natural 20 your...

So you agree that the arrangement, "If you roll doubles, then X" means that X will apply regardless of that the normal rules for X are. The normal rules for hitting say that you need to roll a hitting number AND precision says that only a 20 is an automatic hit. So if "X" is "you hit"...

The disagreement boils down to this: Myself, Nifft and others think that the words "you score a critical hit" necessarilly means you hit. Draco and others think the words "you score a critical hit" means you still might have missed. Can we agree on that much? How would you read it if the...

I didn't think the rest of the PP powers and features were good enough to stand on their own in light of other good PP options. Ardent Action - for an AP feature, this is pretty good stuff. Holy Ardor (restrictive read) - nearly worthless at a 1 in 40 chance of being activated Ardent Fury -...

Well I can agree with that, but bobthenob makes a good point about the *really* low power level in that case. That is, it would only apply in about 9 out of 400 attacks, assuming normal hit chances. (and even less once you get mastery). Reading it that way also nerfs the 16th level feature as...

None of these things you mentioned say "you score a critical hit". They all say "you can score a critical hit" - meaning possibility not certainty. "you score a critical hit" reads with certainty and that's why precision doesn't apply in this case, because that specific rule disagrees with the...

True, but it's hardly as versatile as HBO. In all likelyhood you only have one of those at-wills available to use as a basic attack, so it's not like you can put together any of the super-glaive-push-pull-knockdown effects that are made available with HBO and corresponding feats.

What?!? Do you realize that the very section you reference has a TITLE which is the very term you claim is not defined? No, that's simply not true. The definition itself refutes your claims. As well as 2 examples in the feats.

I'm not objecting to the use of "your" in any place except the first sentence of the Divine Sanction description. In that case I just think the paragraph reads more clearly without it. However, I don't think "your" is part of the game term; "your" just happens to be the most appropriate...

The game term IS "Divine Sanction", that's why they have a section titled "Divine Sanction" (and not "Your Divine Sanction") As an example, since the Marked condition references the creature who applied the mark, it's appropriate to use the phrase, "your mark", so too does Divine Sanction...

Well, I did say it was like a condition, but your points about location are well taken. The description could have been more clear if it didn't say "subject a target to your divine sanction..." as though it was something we already had access to. (but we already agree that access was...