Search results

Let us not forget the (1e) ever popular weapon vs AC attack adjustment chart. Also that the chart didn't go below AC 2 so you had to "guess" what "armor type" a given opponent was wearing if their AC was below 2 (and sometimes you wanted to do that even if their AC was 2 or above).

One small note is that you'll need to check with your DM about what sources are being allowed. I mention this because CB is not updated yet with the most recent content (essentials and Dark Sun themes most notably).

Power Sources have always been "just fluff". The difference here is class features and role. [Martial] Ranger is a striker and [Primal] Druid is a leader.

Frankly I'd be happy to see the double weapons and superior weapons go and never come back.

I think this was aimed at feats such as Versatile Expertise that makes other versions of Expertise strictly inferior. If a new power or feat is going to be better than an existing power or feat the the "outdated" power/feat/whatever should be removed (chaff).

They took the 3e "sweet spot" of level 4-?? (12 maybe?) and expanded it to 1-30. Nobody dies in the first hit anymore and it's not a bad thing. I'm assuming that the 30HP 1st level PCs don't computer either.

I pretty much think it's expected for Rogues to have CA for every attack. They are after all strikers and sneak attack is how they get their bonus damage (usually with weapons with a much smaller [W]). @DS: I'm not going to convince you and my position isn't changing. Also no matter which of...

It's largely a moot point, but you're wrong about this reading. It does not require you to have combat advantage when you hit. The "and" clearly makes the requirements separate and individual. Neither requirement has anything to do with the other. Did you hit? Do you have CA? I'd almost...

Now I'm curious how you looked up the quote you have. I see the errata has the changed text, but the only place in the compendium I could find it was under the Rogue class description which reads as I quoted it. So basically Source? And your "old version" still doesn't match what I quoted.

@DS: I missed your copy/paste of the errata and when I quoted the compendium you didn't say anything about it being wrong/out of date. Blah. You've got the right RAW, but I'm still lead to believe that RAI was as I described, but for that they'd have to errata the power to take into account...

I'm going to hold off responding until I get home DS. I want to review the attack resolution order from p 269-276 and can't without my books. I know this weighed heavily in that huge debate about the double's rule for that Avenger's PP (critical) feature. Your basic assertion is that in order...

I don't think what you're implying is correct, but I can't find it in the compendium and I'm not at home to look at my books. I was pretty sure that "order" has to do with the entries of a power such as "Hit", "Miss", "Effect", and "Special", but within an entry the "order" didn't matter or was...

I believe this was the intent (or an ordering typo): 'No CA On Attack Roll But SA On Damage Roll'

This might be better, but since the "knock prone" and damage are both part of the "Hit" entry I'm not sure that you get to pick the order to apply those in and then take a benefit for the rest. Otherwise any power that says "...and knock the target prone" could be used in this way by just...

I'd write it this way. Effect: You knock the target prone. You cannot gain the +2 to hit normally granted by CA from this effect for this attack. If you already had CA some other way (flanking, target was prone before this effect, etc.) then you may take the +2. Attack: Dex vs. AC Hit: 2[w]+Dex.

Said by myself and several others. If we get more than a day or two (business days so weekends don't count) I'll be shocked. Complaining Whining has no purpose other than to serve as a malicious attempt to "get even". "That so-and-so evil company screwed me out of something and I'm gonna...

I know you're being cute and I chuckled, but this is the kind of nonsense where mechanics don't match up to the "imagined expected reality". You'd think that a Monk would be all Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan, but he's more like Gandolf due to being an implement user. This of course makes no sense...

Not so minor nitpick. This is not true. Walking across a room IS mechanically determined because the character has a speed value (you can only move so many squares / time period) and can be affected by things like difficult terrain. Now perhaps there is no difficult terrain and time is a...

Great....my Implement using Monk that's silenced would like a word with you.

The "previous poster" you are talking about is me. I have also stipulated that (for my players) I like hearing the name of the power they are using before they start rolling dice to prevent any shenanigans (Player - "Ok...I rolled a natural 20...I was using my daily power X" vs. "I Tide of Iron...