Search results

Huh. Good points, all. Food for thought. Viper's Strike says: ..so in essense the Warlord is granting "an OA against a shift" to an ally, not an immediate action. So no worries about immediate action limitations. After the fighter takes the warlord-granted OA against the enemy, the enemy...

<chuckle>

Not that what I'm about to say will end this thread or anything, but as the OP here: Our DM has decided to ban Expertise "for now". <sigh> I don't agree with his decision...but I like playing in his game, so..... :D

Dn't get too jaded, PC! :D I - for one - might be changing my P.O.V. due to the discussion in this thread.

He did "kinda" answer the question. His answer is: "We've not actually done it yet, this is all hypothetical." :D ;) The point: How do you justify one player getting access to a feat, but not another player? Even among long-time close friends, this is a serious question.

That's excellent. Thanks!

<chuckle> Excellent. Quotable, even!

Ah! Thanks! I agree: including Good monsters in the MM makes the game better.

That's my interpretation too, especially the part about "not alerting allies". ....Although at low heroic levels, minions just die, rather than go running off.

The warlord's at-will "Viper's Strike" has an effect that is an immediate interrupt, so it happens before the enemy shifts. If the warlord gives the granted attack to an adjacent fighter, then as soon as the fighter attacks the opponent, it is automatically marked (Combat Challenge). Now...

Has anyone argued that there shouldn't be? I must have missed that. I think some have argued here that the flavor text is all you need - the alignment adds nothing. I disagree with that, within the generic setting, at any rate.

I think you're confounding your distaste for the alignment system (a personal perspective) with the fact that Gold Dragons in D&D have been (up until a few days ago) Lawful Good. It's all cool and everything to not like alignments. ....But that has nothing to do with how altering fundamanetal...

So long as the giant minions are forced to move (or tricked in some way) through areas of campfires or caltrops. BTW, have caltrops been stated out for 4e? And campfires?

But here's the problem: As a player in Obryn's game, you can't know which "Obryn Alignment" a creature falls into until you encounter it. That's not very cool (IMO), as it takes away the player's ability to predict and plan and interact. .... I'll bet - a beverage of your choice - that Obryn...

Yep. Note: this is NOT "an attack that normally deals damage on a miss". So the minions take damage...and they die, since they have only 1 hp.:]

Wow. I had to pick up my jaw off the floor after I read this. Uhmm....how do you (the DM) select the PCs that are "sub-optimal", and how do the other players react to this selection? (I know how I'd react.....)

Agreed. Taking my daughter's 3rd grade class as an example, "most people" ;) think all dragons are good...even those that eat people. ...especially those that eat people! :devil:

I've had PCs (in 3.5e) with that kind of spread. It's not unheard of. Dealing with it requires a bit more that just adjusting Atk, AC, and Dam of the monsters. :angel:

Excellent. Thanks for the heads-up.

For plot reasons, the DM can make the DRAGON any alignment she wishes. So claiming that leaving metallic dragons unaligned makes them "more useful" doesn't wash with me. As a game designer, you'd like to make your product both accessible and acceptable to the most people possible. It seems...