Search results

While it's true that it isn't RAW in this case, nearly every power or ritual that requires spending a surge or losing the surge does specify that if you have no healing surges remaining, you take damage equal to your healing surge value.

If they added in such abilities, people would be able to create the updates themselves and spread them around for free. I imagine that this, combined with the effort of making a user-friendly tool, is the reason they haven't implemented such things.

This is even more true than it was before, though. The new version is decent damage at heroic but pretty terrible at anything above (and of course doesn't have any controller effects).

Yeah, I use it to disallow certain things, but any actual additions other than languages don't really work at all in the CB.

Based on the fact that Cure Light Wounds, etc., don't get the bonuses that apply to surged healing, probably not. (Normally in 4E the wording "as if" means that you treat it--logically--as if the first thing was actually the second thing, and thus it would gain the bonuses; but developer fiat...

Maybe he was fighting a disguised Mr. Fantastic. (More seriously, 3.5 doppelgangers could do that sort of thing. But in general, yes, it's obvious.)

Under these rules a large at-will melee slide, which is easy to achieve and common for Polearm Momentum builds, will result (via turning it into a pull) in a large at-will AC penalty. May not be a problem for your group, of course, but still noteworthy.

This whole thread has become ridiculous, but I must say that Oldtimer's last post is absolutely hilarious. "It says to treat yourself 'like' you're doing this. That doesn't mean you're doing it. Even if the rules say you are for the purposes of the rules. Your physical hands are still not...

Sorry I wasn't clear, I think the power level is just fine. I don't have compendium access right now but I believe 2d12 is pretty good damage for a level 1 striker encounter (especially warlocks, who aren't very good strikers in the firstplace). :) Ah, I'm beginning to understand better now...

These in general are all quite fine; much better than a lot of homebrew stuff that gets posted here. The at-will is confusing and perhaps needlessly complicated; I'd suggest just having it be a slide 1. Also, it should almost certainly have the Fear keyword (probably in place of Charm). For a...

It's not crazy; the major issue is that marking mechanisms usually require the defender to be quite close to the target, so that in most situations a marked melee creature can get to the defender without too much trouble if it wishes to do so. A ranged defender of course makes it much more...

I personally use Hebrew for Dwarven. *shrug* Old English would be pretty hilarious (though mostly because I know Beowulf nerds that speak it).

It's a house rule that the CB allows you to implement because it's in DMG2. Yes, it results in spellcasters falling behind in damage (barring another house rule), but blame WOTC for the fact that spellcasters need DIS to even approach weapon users in damage anyway, and that weapon users are...

If you're using intrinsic bonuses, DIS shouldn't be a legal feat, because it doesn't have any effect. That's what the campaign settings tab is for. CB has a lot more relevant bugs than this.

Err, fighters? (I think Psionic Warrior is a bad name, but not for your reason.)

No, Shield Push, a fighter feat that lets you push the target of your Combat Challenge (which is an interrupt, and thus means if you hit you invalidate the attack of a target without reach, or even a target with reach once you add on push enhancements).

PA DnD (PADnD) on Twitter :)

Eh. A 1st level fighter with Shield Push can invalidate a marked creature's attack against an ally entirely. They do have to hit first, though.

Even funnier is that he brings it up in this thread, wherein a dev explained the reasons behind its lack of fire resist/immunity. It's good to know people read threads before they post to them!

Just because they interact doesn't mean there's a conflict. Specific > general is for a rules element that specifically contradicts a more general rules element, e.g. you can't take a feat more than once but a specific feat says you can take this feat more than once. The power swap feats don't...