Search results

Yes. And whoever actually lives at "a" will be getting a big sack of Christmas presents from Santa this year...

Can you elaborate on that? I will be playing my level 12 Shielding Swordmage on Sunday for the first time in a while, and I have no idea what you are talking about. Is it just that monster damage levels were increased? Destructive Wizardry helps, given how often you can hit two enemies. But...

I see what you are trying to say, but disagree. There is nothing about describing conditions that mandates the phrase "other than you" to mean "definitely you". Let's go back to the feat itself. Assume that you are the DM adjudicating use of the feat, where there is no creature adjacent to...

See Oldtimer's response. Your phrasing allows only ranged but NOT melee.

No one is questioning that IF a creature is adjacent to the target, it must be the attacker and only the attacker, or the condition is not met. The question is whether the attacker has to be adjacent to the target. If you go back to the analogy in my original post, you can see that "other than...

Hey U_K -- you posted a lot of stuff about Epic level play back in the old days of 3.x, didn't you? 2000-2001-ish? I'd love to hear more extensive comments from you in Epic support in 4e vs 3.x.

That's why Double Aegis is so important. Two creatures marked, and one (or the other) of them almost completely neutered in any given round, unless both attack the Swordmage.

I will admit it's a bit odd. But bear in mind, in some earlier versions, there was no combat grid at all. The encounter began when the DM said "You enter the chamber to find 5 pirates pawing through a mound of treasure, with the missing princess lying off to one side, bound and gagged" and...

When I peruse feats and powers for my Swordmage, I periodically have to remind myself that just because my Aegis includes a Mark does NOT mean that all marked creatures are subject to my Aegis. I suspect that there is a similar confusion at work here: Divine Sanction vs. Divine Challenge is...

For a fictional example of this, look at the Ta'veren in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, and the "ripples" of improbability that accompany Rand in his travels.

With regard to the issue of all Epic activity become extra-planar, I find myself thinking of Raymond Feist's numerous Midkemia novels. A number of them feature what could only be considered Epic-level characters (Pug, Macro, etc.), and they only rarely leave their native plane. But I'm not...

I think a lot of players have a problem with that. Any god that can be killed by players isn't much of a god. Maybe -- MAYBE -- at level 30, and with a couple of artifacts or relics in hand -- a weaker god could be killed. But I'd be more inclined to think the best case would be to lock the...

...and slowly, as the comments accumulate, the balance shifts. What was obviously so to some is now equally obviously not so to others. This is why I raised the question in the first place. Here's what I think: RAI, the feat is melee only, but the writer made the mistake of thinking that the...

The campaigns I play in (all the same group, but different DMs), there is no raising of the dead, period. Occasionally a PC who falls will rise again because of some special circumstances and without intervention from the PCs, e.g. the death occurs in a temple dedicated to a God of Life.

I guess I never did come out and say it, did I? The implied question is, does it seem reasonable to allow Gentle Repose to extend the shelf life of a corpse for the purpose of using the Resurrection power?

Gentle Repose quintuples the time a creature can be dead and still be affected by "Raise Dead or a similar ritual". By RAW, the Resurrection power (Warpriest Utility) would not count because it is not a ritual. But I think it only makes sense to allow it, as the power is clearly intended to be...

You know, I meant to include that point and got distracted midway through my post. Glad there is unanimity. It just struck me as the kind of thing that people might get hung up on.

Glad you agree. But you can see why some people might interpret it the other way, right?

The feat Cunning Stalker (HotFK) is ambiguously worded. "You gain combat advantage against enemies that have no creatures adjacent to them other than you." I believe it can be used at range, but suspect that many would interpret this as meaning that you must actually be adjacent to the enemy...

A lot of us do.