Search results

There's a whole section called conditions in the PHB (which lists the things such as Marked, Restrained, Slowed etc). It stands to reason that those are what is meant whenever condition is referred to. Now I'll grant it could be sloppy rules if that isn't the case, but Wizards did try to steer...

Well it knows its marked (that is a condition it is under). No power that I used tells the creature I have the combat challenge class feature. It just knows its marked. Now once it sees me hit it after it shifts or attacks someone other than me it can infer this was due to it being marked and...

It is odd that this feat has this requirement, but then again its a pretty weak feat. Shield push is a lot better being that it can frequently negate attacks entirely (and with Gauntlets of the Ram essentially negate a shift too).

Cause designing an encounter to specifically exploit a weakness in the party is good play? If I know the party's composition beforehand I can put together a group/scenario that will likely ensure their death (yet still be within the DMG guidelines for encounters). That doesn't make me a good DM...

(Forked from Defenders aren't very good at defending?) Just a note, while a monster marked by a paladin knows he will take radiant damage if he attacks someone else (part of the divine challenge power), a monster marked by a fighter knows NOTHING except that he is marked (at least until the...

An OA upon entering a square doesn't even work unless you have reach. The OA is an immediate interrupt which occurs BEFORE the action complete. Therefore the person would be 2 squares away from whoever it provoked the attack from. This means it would by large not affect monsters at all but WOULD...

The implication of no invalidating it though is that the shift location is not declared until after the chance to interrupt passes. If the shift location IS declared then it is possible to invalidate it if the fighter pushes the creature so that he can no longer shift to the declared square.

I'm finding things much LESS swingy in 4th than in 3rd. In 3rd if you had a bad round and the enemies had a good one things got really bad due to the damage output. This is especially magnified if the foes got a good surprise round when you couldn't act. Due to combat length the swings in 4th...

The zone descriptor means the effect continues for the full duration of the spell? I don't recall reading that, but I might have missed it. In that case that explains it, though it does make the whole Sustain X: The Zone Persists line pretty unnecessary (though as stated above Sustain X: nothing...

See I saw that quote in the sustain section, but I question why, then, Stinking Cloud has the "The zone persists" in its sustain minor entry. I mean these warlock powers look pretty crappy if they cannot be sustained in this manner so I agree with the interpretations here. Is the entry for...

Neither of these powers state that if you sustain them the zone persists. Does this mean they simply stay around for one round, and the second round you get the secondary attack if you sustain it? We haven't been playing that way but now that I read it, it looks like that is the case. Thoughts?

I am aware of it not saying "straight line" but it does say directly. As I said this needs clarification since there is no rules definition for directly. Does it mean I have to always move closer to the opponent? Does it mean the shortest route? Does it meant a straight line route? Nowhere...

The only "problem" I see with this is movement. How/when is movement declared. Is it "I move one square to the north" or is it "I move from square x to square y". The latter means any forced movement interrupts negate the movement since you are no longer moving from x to y. The first forces...

The whole "directly to the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy" phrase needs to be clarified. There is no definition on directly (in a rules sense) and the part of the phrase "the enemy" makes it imply a fixed target without actually using the word target though, so it is still...

Besides the magic weapon restriction, I believe insubstantial is the same as in the previous edition, mathematically anyways. You had 50% miss chance in 3.5 whereas here you do half damage. Its a less streaky situation now but it also removes the "feeling useless cause my attacked got negated"...

Not precisely. The other part of immediate reactions on page 268 states you CAN interrupt movement with it, as long as the person has moved at least one square. So despite movement being "one action" it can be interrupted by a readied action.

Charge is a standard action that is composed of 2 acts (move and attack). Similarly twin strike is a single standard action composed of 2 acts (two attacks). The example of P.268 is almost exactly that of Twin strike (two attacks in a single action). I cannot see why you can't interrupt the move...

The creatures would know the effect of the power (the flavour usually says something about you swinging your weapons around you too) so yeah they'd try to get away I'd imagine if they were intelligent. Note also, opportunity attacks go per opponent's turn so there is no way you could have...

While interesting set of interpretations and logical reasoning the whole "moving simultaneously" thing does not work anywhere in the rules. Charge is poorly worded from a precision point of view. It requires an interpretive reading of the rules to determine how interrupts interact with it, which...

The argument I'm putting forth is that it does not easily and near-unavoidably shut down a PC. It takes a non-trivial set of circumstances before the PC can be shutdown entirely, similar to numerous other monsters and yes I would use these against my PCs if it fit the story/world or whatever.