Search results

The problem is that charge has a qualifier to its movement requirement that implies you need to pick the target (the "nearest square from which you can attack the enemy" clause). That clause makes it necessary to decide your charge target at a point BEFORE the attack. Now as pointed out above it...

As was mentioned there are numerous creatures with "off" buttons, so to speak. There are also protections in place so that it does NOT come down to a single roll like it did in 3.5. This is what they wanted to remove. A beholder's petrification I believe requires 3 failed saves. This is fairly...

Well assuming the DM chose randomly who it attacked you got unlucky. Most other characters probably have higher AC/Fort and a few more HP to make it harder to swallow. If the DM attacked you specifically that is pretty big metagaming since the purple worm is both blind and only has tremorsense...

The movement restriction says "move directly" to the square. I'd say if the readied charger puts himself between the guy charging and his charge target it would negate the movement since the character would likely need to move to a square that would not have been "directly" in his original path...

A readied action is an immediate reaction. However, it does specifically state it can interrupt movement (PHB P.268). Now it does not explicitly say this interrupting can negate the action, though in the section under immediate interrupts it does state "If an interrupt invalidates a triggering...

Lets see first you were in range to be grabbed by a purple worm as the wizard. This in and of itself is probably not a wise idea. Its a stupid monster. A defender should probably have had a decent time at holding it in place and wizard keeping range. Now, forgetting that first point, after it...

War priest results in an extremely sticky fighter. Keeping someone marked all fight (with War priest mark) while also continuing to be able to mark things with your regular CC mark is very good. AND you can take attacks against two foes that shift/attack others since the war priest one is an OA...

This would, like several other situations, be clarified if it clearly stated somewhere what an "attack" consisted of. Because THAT is the trigger for the CC attack (or shifting which doesn't occur in this example). I believe it is generally agreed upon that the simple use of an attack power...

Not being a designer I do not know if it is an unintentional slip up or whether they wanted there to be good synergy between war priest and fighters. Giving them the benefit of the doubt I would conclude the latter. There is another point that comes up though with this. Say Im a fighter and...

In general I agree here. A lot of the time people try using intuition or other reasoning to bend (whether intentionally or not) the rules as written. They did a fairly good job this time around with being precise in their wordings. That is not to say there arn't vague rules or things, we know...

There are only a couple of things that you cannot "fix" if you see them not working, which is definite plus. Stats, Race, Paragon Path and Epic Destiny are the only things that are "fixed" once you chose them. Only stats I'd say, can get you in REAL trouble if you mess them up. There is no...

Well I think they removed take 20 from the rules. But you can certainly take 10 once all the monsters are dead/gone which SHOULD allow you to get your buddy up. Anyone trained at healing without a wis penalty automatically succeeds at this point. Once you hit level 10 (and again no wis penalty)...

By the current wording (which is different than the horned helm) still does tend to imply its a single 1d6 you add to the attack (also implying it is a single d6 that gets added to a single target for fireball). That said, it definitely needs some clarification because that fireball point...

As I posted it says "add 1d6 to the damage dealt by the power" If I hit someone with flaming sphere for 10 damage and then he takes 5 damage on his turn from it, how much damage has the power flaming sphere dealt? Answer is obviously 15 damage. The gloves allow me to add 1d6 to the damage...

You're more than welcome to horde items for role-playing purposes or whatever. The solution I gave is actually perfect to continue role-playing and NOT disrupt the treasure balance of the game while getting some use from the items. And really selling anything, real world or otherwise, you're...

The exchange rate is the balanced market rate for used items. Allowing a higher value for trade in will result in more wealth than expected and balanced for. To keep it balanced you'd need to reduce a treasure parcel. Which is doable. Consider the PCs trying to find someone to sell their stuff...

"Add 1d6 to the damage dealt by that power (if any)." If you add it each time the power deals damage you would be adding more than 1d6 to the damage dealt by the power. You add 1d6 once and that is all. It would read "add 1d6 each time you deal damage with the power" if it was to work the other...

For flavor or RP purposes I'd have no problems letting a magic item be upgraded. However, you'd take 1/5 the value of the old item and subtract that from the cost of the new item, so that it is functionally equivalent to disenchanting it and making a new one (with the minor savings of not...

Uh while you are correct in that simple re-wording and rules change would be more elegant, it is NOT what is done and consequently NOT what the rules say. With the convoluted way its written it implies different things than the simplifications you mentioned. Perhaps the elegant manner in which...

However, the rules seem to be heading towards a MTG type feel where everything is well and completely specified. Ideally you'd WANT this to be the case so that the rules as written were the same as the rules as intended. It IS nitpicking but when you design a set of rules there should NOT need...