Search results

I'm not sure I understand here. You're saying that the immediate interrupt (II) resolves before the OA, right? Then yes, of course, but considering that the OA wouldn't have occurred if the PC didn't try to land his II in the first place, it's pretty much an eye for an eye up to that point, no...

Thanks for the reply. What does it change that the weakened condition is applied to the target on the player's turn, as opposed to the target's tunr? Also, since the target is prone and dazed anyway per standard and action-point actions, why add the weakened condition to the target? On its...

Friend, you have a clear understanding of a part of the game that I don't. What I was asking for was 1 or 2 examplary power combos that you've seen abused (or believe can be abused if this is theory), I have not asked that you "list them all". My puprose was to avoid "sorting through" the 296...

Do you think it is so different to have the player use his immediate action during another creature's turn as opposed to during his own turn? Immediate actions are limited to once per round anyway. At the end of that round, it seems to me that the player will have used up as much time whether...

I am not an charop type myself, nor is my group. For the time being, I have trouble seeing how immediate interrupts used on your turn as opposed to being used on another creature's turn, are open to abuse. With your experience with the group you are playing with, this concept appears clear to...

I apologize if I'm thick, but I just don't get it. Perhaps if there are other examples than the Disruptive Strike example? Disruptive Strike appears much better used during another creature's turn than it would be in the ranger's turn. We agree that the ranger has an immediate action here, that...

Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is that a party does not exist in a vaccuum. Their power is relative to what they are facing. You can select what you wish the PCs to face, inside out. You can chose the Tarasque if you want, and then argue that they lacked 4 strikers, 3 leaders and 2...

I still fail to see where the problem lies in house-ruling acceptance of immediate actions on the player's turn on the basis of the Disruptive Strike example. Sure, a player might get an extra action on his turn, but at what price? The ranger provokes an OA and if the OA hits, it's likely to...

I'm DMing a game for 3 players and it's going quite well. Leader, striker, controller. It requires a bit of flexibility on my part on encounter design, but otherwise it's fine. I really think that 4E has (partly voluntarily, but partly inadvertantly also) set a strict and rigid rules structure...

Can you provide a specific example?

Can you refer to where the rules state that immediate actions cannot be used during a player's turn? I wasn't aware of that rule. Thanks, Sky

Allow me to play at your table that I may experience the one and only real thing ;) Honestly... Playstyle is just that: a playstyle. I hear what you're saying and my own games are run like you describe yours, but I don't see this as better or worse than any other playstyle, it's just my...

Questionable. I think there's an argument to be made about this also. I'm not sure how the RAW should be interpreted here. Is the corner of the rogue's square blocked by the wall located at that precise location? Even if yes, RAW aside, is it then something you would want to uphold? Haha...

Well, depends on how you see things. The rogue is firing from the corner that is in the doorframe, so he has unlimited fielf of fire into the room; but he's standing behind the wall so he has superior cover.

To be clear: someone standing in the middle of the doorframe would not benefit from superior cover, I completely agree with that. Assuming the doorway is one square wide, I'm talking about someone standing on the square on one side or the other of the doorway. Do you play videogames? One...

I'm glad someone brings this up, because there's an argument to be made about whether a doorframe is superior cover or not. This being said, I don't agree that a doorframe is like a corner. The doorframe allows you to be behind a wall; the corner, not. In 3E, an example of superior cover was...

Yeah, I had read that, thanks. Good stuff. This is actually where I got the move without moving move action to get a stealth check.

I agree that stealth rules are unclear and open to way to interpretation and discussion. They remind me of grapple rules in 3E.

Thanks for the replies. Isn't "the check is usually at the end of a move action" meant that hiding requires a move action? The rest says "BUT it can be ...." so to me the rule is: it's at the end of a move action, but may also be at the end of another action that involves moving. Contrary to...

Old stealth topic surfacing again... Sorry for the repetition but I want to obtain feedback on a game situation. I think everyone agrees on the following: a) if a rogue moves and ends his movement in superior cover, he can roll a stealth check opposed to an opponent's passive perception...