Search results

Winkies aside, this doesn't really add anything to the discussion, does it? Back to the actual discussion: It seems to me that the INTENT of ALL of these powers with the 'Reliable' attribute is "This is one of your Coolest Powers, so we're putting in a rule that keeps you from using it up for...

That was why I could see a well-intentioned group reading the power as written - that any miss means the power isn't expended. The problem is that if we read it as people are SAYING it was intended - get even a single hit and it's used up, it feels like it's a bit weak as you will likely have...

But I do think this is yet another instance of sloppy work...and frankly, while I personally think that the intent should be for any single hit to count as a use of the power, the RAW ARE ambiguous, particularly for something that gives multiple strikes. It could be argued that the intent WAS...

Again, I'm naive and not a current owner of 4e...this applies to pick locks as well? Here's where I guess I'm getting confused. A fighter/mage/non-thief becomes better and better at Opening Locks...but others are saying that you've got this 'moving target' system where DC get progressively...

I guess it seems that THIS kind of interrupt sequence would be more common, but maybe I'm wrong. Also, I accept that your example is possible by the rules of 3.x, but we've honestly never had anyone try it, because we've understood that the spirit was 'taking a quick poke when they open...

Thanks for the actual answer, and the full text. If the chains don't exist that's actually awesome. I understand the part that was struck out about R'ing the F'ing M...my issue is that I have these questions and don't have the FM to R at this point. If it turns out that some of these things...

I don't agree with that statement. I don't recall a situation where taking your attack of opportunity caused an attack of opportunity...I can understand where you're coming from in terms of interrupted movement, but maybe I missed a 3.x rule somewhere. We never used immediate actions, but...

That's a fine example, thanks. Now to go back to what I believe should be the strong links between the two. Neither of your scenarios work with this 'deadly' poison. They don't die instantly, and it is very likely that they'll just be inconvenienced by the poison, unless (as I mentioned) they...

This makes absolute sense to me - the whole 'must have strength X or higher' part of it. It falls into the category of good things to do, it just seems like more complexity for a new DM/player, and relies on the DM knowing that they can do this (and that it's a good idea to do).

I liked this post - - if you're 30th level, and you need to make a STR check to get through a portcullis, something is horribly wrong. I think the argument is around those levels that come earlier, but you're definitely right about that. But I guess while it would be ridiculous for the wizard...

I am a bit concerned about some of the responses here. There are first off all, a HUGE number of valid, well-thought-out arguments in support of 4e's changes. But the rest seem to be: 1) Flippant responses - I think the first two responses to this post were 'Yes', with a third upset that he...

So explain it to them, I guess. Explain it to me as you're seeing it. Because while I think I do understand the difference, I also believe firmly that they are strongly linked. Or maybe the DMG makes it clear in 4E (I don't have it)...are there rules for 'Out of Combat Poisons'? When I look...

Absolutely some people have died from tiny doses, and others survived large doses...I guess my issue remains that in the RAW, it appears that there is no poison that is sufficiently deadly ON ITS OWN to generate dramatic moments. The poison described is scary, but like so much in 4E only in...

Which of course is my problem with the text as written for the ability. I realize you can't reproduce all rules for each power, but this is a case where I believe they should have been more clear - you disagree. It seems like it would not take a huge amount of ink to make this clear to someone...

I find myself wondering if, as a result of their obvious catering to the WOW/MMORPG crowd, if they are actually okay with not only having far fewer 3pps creating stuff, but also not producing as many adventures themselves. I think about the MMORPG 'grind', and how people play the same quests...

I guess, then, that I would see this as UNCLEAR...but we can agree to disagree...the point made by an earlier poster was that it would be unclear to new gamers...arguing that it's clear as day so long as you have a complete understanding of the rules for interrupts doesn't make it seem all that...

I don't think the original poster was arguing for instant kill poison, but for something worthy of the price tag...truly epic. I would agree that it's sad that the strongest poison could do 15 points of damage and then 'wear off', if that's what the save does. For me the point wouldn't be...

Yeah...it seems a bit out of whack to me as well...I'm envisioning scenarios where Magic Item #4 is the perfect 'tool for the task' against Encounter #2, but in Encounter #1 the player already 'tapped' his maximum magic item cards for the day... ...so in story terms, Grondar the Great has the...

Which is almost exactly like the True20 minions...they still get a Toughness save, but as soon as they fail a save they are gone. I like the idea of a rule for minions, but the fact that True20 did it fairly gracefully reinforces that this is yet another enhancement that could have been made to...

Maybe WOTC is hoping that fans will do all this work (as seen here)...because then you can upload it to their site for them, and they'll own your work 100%! Seriously, this is some awesome mapping you've done here, but I do wonder how much WOTC is relying upon their rather interesting 'you make...