Search results

Eladrin Fey Step. It is, as written, -far- too useful at solving out of combat challenges. It's fine in-combat...and I was wondering what house rules people have come up with to limit its utility against...oh...every sort of trap, climbing challenges, jails, etc. -Cross

1.) You can make that check. You're invisible until somebody either beats your stealth check, -or- you lose concealment. 2.) Yes. You're just immobilized - you can still attack perfectly fine. 3.) Sorry, don't know. =) -Cross

Cap the number of attacks at 5. That is what I'd suggest doing. Or wait for WotC to errata it, which hopefully they'll be doing soon. -Cross

Yeah. Blade Cascade is the first truly busted ability that I think people have found in the PHB. It would have been nice if there were no imbalanced feats, but tough to do. Blade Cascade is going to feature in a lot of "I win!" combos. -Cross

I return, against my better judgment. =( This is listing the effects that grant total concealment. Logically: IF target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square not adjacent to you THEN it has total concealment. This is very different than: IF it has total...

Bad logic. Just because you can't be seen, does not mean you have the "invisible" state, as defined by the PHB. -Cross (And that's the last I say. Like I said, 4E seemed to have decided to do away with overspecifying every silly case. In doing so, it left itself open to tons and tons of...

Look, of course you're all welcome to interpret the rules however you like. There's a whole Character Optimization board for people who want to fiddle with wording to make the rules do what they want. However, the designer's intent seems pretty clear to me. The cure-all for this "I HIDE WHERE...

Unclear why people are discussing this. The rule is obvious: The target only has cover for the purposes of making the ranged attack. It does not have cover for any other purpose. Therefore, you do not have cover from the target. Therefore, you cannot sneak attack. -Cross

Bah, Plane Sailing, bah. I meant: "It would be strange if something like this were overlooked", implying that it probably wasn't, and I was just unaware! -Cross

Ok! Well, "This never happens!" is certainly a fair way to address my concern! =) -Cross

On Intimidate vs. Monsters: You don't think this is excellent? You can make it versus a huge group. Even if you give the opposition +10 for being hostile, just over 2 monsters in 5 will run away, if you're good at intimidating. Ridding the map of 43% of bloodied monsters, every combat, is...

If the claim is: "80% success rate with a skill check is slightly worse than a 55-60% success rate with an at-will power", then OK. However, I'm not confident that this will be true, given the wide variety of ways people can use skills. -Cross

Rafe - Wasn't "Hugely effective at low levels, ok at medium, not effective at high levels" something that the game was trying to get away from? Checks should be balanced at all levels. That was the glory of 4E math. -Cross

Hong - I don't necessarily think it was overlooked. I haven't said that, anywhere. You'll notice that even my posting title has a question mark in it. However, we know a -lot- about the system from blurbs, etc. Almost everything. This is a really fundamental part, and it seems strange to me...

Obryn - Yeah. Honestly, this was one of the things I thought it was important for 4E to correct. Hong - Obviously. I am not claiming that it is, necessarily broken. However, 4E claims to fix the math. 4E makes it gloriously simple to make rules for opposed checks. It seems strange that...

PirateCat - interesting thought, but one of the hallmarks of this edition is that things are balanced throughout the game. I can have a +8 bonus (before stats and half level) immediately from two feats. It seems unlikely that you could get a +8 bonus to any defense from as much. Mustrum -...

So, about 3 months ago, I put forth the following argument: Defenses and Attacks are balanced, scale with level, work pretty gorgeously. This math works. People can defend against wizard spells, sword swings, and nobody ever gets an unsurmountable advantage. Skill numbers are not balanced...

Your argument sort of catastrophically falls apart when you realize that that barbarian would have bought the axe from a merchant for full price. Though I suspect you knew that, and just wanted to give an example of how a DM can cheerily come up with excuses to rationalize just about any...

Really? So it's out of line to play a character with the slightest bit of common sense? Player: "...I can sell this item for 4000 gold, or do a little leg work and sell it for 20,000. Good god, is it worth my time to hang onto this until I find somebody to pay a better price!" DM: "You're...

Sleep doesn't do psychic damage - it was sort of the reason I thought of this rule. Wormwood's works too. I just see it as - "If you wanted to, you could have hit all these guys with an AoE and done damage and killed them all. So it doesn't seem as if I should penalize you for putting them...