Search results

started by the same person a day apart as well.

No, but it can negate a kill from the damage.

Pretty false. Heavy Armor Master Defy Death Iron Root Defense Three class based or feat based skill or efforts that allow you to reduce the damage that GWF can do. Can anyone reduce the damage? No. But training or effort does exist.

1 point of damage and the possibility of all sorts of riders on a successful hit.

I use roll20, I am looking forward to all the new changes in the rugged reroll.

I didn't vote because there is no option for evil options to be in a non PHB or DMG splatbook.

here is an existing 3rd party product that includes ship building rules. It treats starships as psudo-characters, a d4 hull is probably a fighter with a d12 hull being a capital ship. http://www.rpgnow.com/product/109425/High-Space-Core-Rules-(v10)

Hey your right! I guess that means that the whole hate it, love it parties are really only 3 people.

You are right, the game is not one thing to many people, it is in fact many things. 4e narratively freed up people IMO with fluff being mutable. But in this instance with how the universal system worked, adding the lines about being able to combust object in every single power with the fire...

Take a look around, it's literally 2 or three posters continually making these threads.

It's not an optional rule, it's a rule that was clarified in errata.

The thing is, 4e did it differently. It had a universal power block, and also had (after errata) a universal catch all for targeting objects. After that, it did not need to individually put in all the instances where something may need to target objects.

Not really. Most magic in previous editions are spelled to the letter what they can or cannot do.

I used 3e because it's arguably the largest. The idea still stands though. 4e with its standardized power block would have had been a lot more bloated with lines on what each and every power could or couldn't do. So they fixed it with the line about creature targets can also be objects.

I wonder if its such a big deal because 3e magic users are not used to having to ask a gm for things. So naturally they take it as proof that they cannot do things.

Or that it could be a very small vocal minority. I wonder which is more likely... large wide scale play testing surveys or the threadcrapping by the same 4 posters.

Because errata exists doesn't mean anything is fixed. Am I reading that argument right?

Ah, well it's an argument of your own designs and terms, I guess it's only right that you get to choose what counts and what doesn't. I guess all errata for any other game doesn't count as fixing any rules as well right? 3rd edition is one gigantic mess because 3.0's books were never recalled...

not very subtle on the edition warring eh?

hopefully that means just cleaning up the language of the game in general.