Search results

It sounds pretty clear that it occurs after the encounter. And it also sounds like "save" means "endurance check."

I totally should start up some stat blocks. They'd obviously be evil Gnome Paladins.

That actually sounds like Chaotic Good to me. It doesn't sound like a plan given to thinking, but more of one of impulse. IE, I could see Barbarians demanding it.

The phrase is "save ends both." The word save is singular, thus only one save is needed. Save (singular) ends both (dual). One save ends two conditions.

You're making some very unncessary assumptions. Weapon does indeed include improvised weapons. If it's limited to a particular subset of weapons, it will say so. Such as Sneak Attack's limitation. How's that for an exception that proves the rule? Sneak Attack's explicit limitation to specific...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1058115

It's a good idea to write out the exception clearly. However, if something is impossible in all situations, then it is reasonable to assume the simplest possible exception that makes it possible in some situations.

Ahh, this thread makes me wish I were DM'ing a game. There's really two solutions. 1) Go by a complete RAW interpretation so that the player feels he's done something clever. 2) Recognize that it's not that clever after the first time it's used or heard of. It's, at best, unjustifiable for why...

Impaling Weapon and Mind-Rending Weapon should both be changed to Free Actions, yes.

You take 4 damage.

Implements are not required for powers with the implement keyword. No, he's not. There's a caveat that the item has to be used in the power, not simply held. IE, it has to have the weapon or implement keyword (as appropriate for whether wielding a weapon or implement).

The interpretation of the at-will that goes along with this is that it turns ALL damage to frost. As opposed to merely making part of it frost. Not that I support that. The entire thing is probably the result of a typo/missing word.

It seems reasonable to house-rule that Immediate Actions and Opportunity Attacks can occur on your turn if in response to readied actions. I can't see any reason for a DM not to agree with that. It seems like trying to get something by on a technicality that there's no reason to allow.

This would be up to DM decision, really. He could either give you both or give you a substitute. Personally, I don't think it makes too much sense why an Initiate (even if Paragon) should get to use a power more than a native to the class. So I'd argue for substitution.

I pondered this recently myself. It seems counterintuitive, but it also seems proper for game mechanics, and is reasonable. Higher level effects behave in more exotic ways that are less familiar.

Yes, but that's only a limited subset of the group and starts at level 10. It's not all of them as it would be with Warlocks starting at level 1.

The difference in language there only goes to show that you can have multiple enemies cursed at a time, primarily for the Pact Boon. The fact that the Ranger only gets a single Quarry at a time would be distinctly in-line with only being able to apply Curse damage once per round. There's no...

It's once per round. Not only is this exactly what it says, but this is in-line with the other Strikers. The Ranger, for example, is generally only allowed one Quarry at a time (with exception for Battlefield Archer), let alone applying it to multiple targets.

Warlock was my favorite of 3.5e. It seems to be repeating for 4e. My favorite of all time is 2e's Wild Mage. 3.5e Wild Mage just isn't the same.

I swear I've seen Cust Serv rule out Proficiency and Focus with regards to Pact Blades if the power didn't have the weapon keyword. I should think it's the same thing. Only the WoST actually has a couple of Weapon keyword powers.