Search results

No not exactly what was said, but that the rules you said that did not exist, actially do exist. You started discussing the merits of the rules, not that the rules exist or not. You asked where people got the idea that it was in the rules in 4E, and I showed you where in the rules that tells DMs...

This is where there is a difference in 3E and 4E. 3E tried to codify the consistency by trying to define everything. 4E tells the DM to define everything and it is up to the DM wether he is consistent or not. 2 different ways of approaching things, but the outcome is the same if the DM cares...

I understand what you are saying, but I am not discussin wether you think the rule is good, bad or indifferent. Just that they exists. What I was responding to was that it was no where in the rules for 4E.

Are you saying that making a sword is not considered an action not covered by the rules? Or weaving a basket, or any thing else that you might need to know wether you have a success or not? It says, if there is no skill for it, use an ability check. It says it on page 42 of the DMG...

The point you made was that it wasn't part of 4E. It didn't say that in the books. Well, It does. Let's keep this part of the discussion about that. This was not what you think of the rule, this was proving that it exists. The whole page says, if the rules don't cover it, and you need to...

Page 42 of the DM's Guide: Under the section titled Actions the Rules Don't Cover. If the action is related to a skill....... use that check If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. The above pretty much states that. Just the title pretty much says...

There where no attacks or claim of consensus or making you look like a fool. Maybe you took it that way, but I don't know why you feel the need to respond as above. I guess that is what I get for being curious as to why you wouldn't play in a game when a DM has said something works different.

This is one area were the 4E FAQs have failed IMO. There are somethings that make sense, others that do not, and others that can be overlooked. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, holding a shield and an orb in the same hand does not make sense and cannot be overlooked. You do not seem to have...

That is interesting. Which part of the rule? That both implements don't work or that you can't wield an orb and a shield in the same arm/hand? I know there is not technically an orb slot, but if you look at the hand slot items, none of them would impede using a shield in the same hand such...

Actually, the example that is given on page 42 does exactly what he wants to do. There is a swing(an action), a push(an effect), and fire damage, and it is compared to an encounter power. He has done an action, an effect, and he could do some small amount of damage if he would like to. Looks...

I am not starting an edition war, just using Rule 0 as a referrence from 3.5. What you really have a problem with is the wording of the passage. I am not one of those literal people, that everything is black and white, and all that.

What I am saying is take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of the bits of a few sentences. Too often, in todays world, we don't take the time to take a step back and see what is going on. It does matter what context it is. Just in his posts, he is implying that by reading...

"No - that's not the core mechanic apparently. The core mechanic in the game is that stuff happens when it suits the DMs plot. You only roll dice when the outcome doesn't change this fundemental framework established by the DM." What does the above mean, if you do not have context to this...

The funny thing about this whole thing is that alot of the people agrueing against the "advice" (It is not really advice, the way I look at it, it is an example. A big difference.) is that if this were 3.5 and it the quote was replaced by something like: "It is the DMs right to rule 0 the...

But my question to this is, when has this notion began that the DM is not in control of the game? I understand this stuff for tournement, RPGA, Cons, etc. But at a table of people who know each other? It is not a question of Mother May I, it is a I am starting up this campaign. X does not...

I see 4E stepping back to the days of 1E when the DM was in control of the game. In 3E, as a DM, I felt less in control of the game from a there is a rule for everything syndrome. I feel like 4E encourages the DM to "take back the game". I felt 3E encouraged the players to game the system...

That is a terrible analogy for your arugument. Most states have a law that no one must sell gas at below a minumin price, based upon an average of what the stations pay in the state. It has been that way for years, fully regulated like you want, and it has not worked. And that has nothing...

Why is it not goot design to keep the fluff in the worlds books where it belongs? I am not talking about classes. There was going to be people upset about it, wether they kept all the classses or not. They start you off with minimal, easy fluff. Buy the world book for specific fluff that you...

Console Video Games DVDs Cars to a Car Dealer

Not the whole entry I think the things that is probably the case here is that these articles contain information from the books. It may (and reading it probably not?) be the entire section. Take the vampire for instance. it looks like it is the opening paragraph with it's stat block only...