Search results

Where is this mention of $20 for the red box you speak of?

It certainly checks out rules wise, but the weird issues with getting superior cover really hinder it for me. It seems clear to me that just being a certain angle shouldn't give you superior cover. That may take a good bit of house ruling, but I'm thinking based on the examples for superior...

"When a racial trait grants you an at-will attack power of your choice and you choose an augmentable at-will attack power, the power loses both the augmentable keyword and its augmentations." Did we already know that? That seemed up for discussion recently.

There's no difference between "psionics" and "psionic magic" unless you think "psionics" exist in real life. Then I can see some ranting, like 'hey, my mind reading has nothing to do with magic, it's completely real', or whatever. That said, would I prefer different terminology? Yes, only...

Haha, yeah, I remember when I didn't post at all and now look at how far I've fallen, I'm some kind of long-winded fuzzle-stormer. EDIT: And... there I go again. The oddest thing about cover, to me, is the angles. If you are in a straight horizontal or vertical line set up like YOU ALLY ENEMY...

Good point, but I think reading it literally could have two different conclusions. "Cover," in this instance, could refer to -2 to attacks or it could refer to the general rule. But, I think you are correct. This would have been easier with different terminology, like, the rule being "Cover" and...

As a side note, do guns exist in Eberron? Or canons, or anything of the sort? Seems like it would fit. But I dunno. I'm curious because I'm just recently getting into running it.

Could someone briefly describe "ticks" and what a "tick system" is to those of us outside of the know, namely me. :)

(Darn, lost my post. Here's a brief version.) EDIT: That ended up less brief than intended. Man, this must be what Celebrim feels like most of the time. Rules as written, you have a case for your compromise, based on the "Determining Cover" section on page 280. Nothing explicitly says that...

Uh, no. Maybe that one part of my post can be spun to say that. I'm saying I think it's illegal, but the next guy will think it's legal. Because there really is an inconsistency in the rules. It's simultaneously legal and illegal because... well, please read my previous post. A ranged attack can...

I sure can. I'm not claiming to be following the letter of the law, I'm saying that's my personal ruling. I don't care if it's in the rulebooks or if its a house rule. The real reason is because on this issue there is an actual inconsistency, not just something you find that doesn't make sense...

If it's a free comedy club, maybe one should just walk out and go to the thousands more on the street, rather than booing and heckling? But, hey, if it's not against the rules who am I to judge?

Well, there pretty much is. It's the quote this whole thread has been talking about. It may be disagreeable to you, but it certainly is specific. My apologies. The compromise brings up the, more important in my eyes and glossed over in this topic, whether allies can count as superior cover. If...

No, I specifically showed you how the Before, During, and After interpretation is wrong. Not that I see how it would matter if it was meant to read that way anyway. Feel free to try and refute that, but it's not a difference of opinion. The first thing presented is make a check, and the second...

Man, you just made that up. You're not quoting anything. That might be how it should be, in your eyes, but that's just not how it is. Check out how it says "Opposed Roll" before "Becoming Hidden." Read both sections. If taken chronologically, a player will make the roll, and then read on, then...

Because allies weren't meant to provide superior cover. Refer to the picture and "creatures and cover" on page 280. If think that that's only meant to apply to attacks, don't you think that attack-only interpretation is an inconsistency? Why would just looking at the enemy give them superior...

So, dumping or putting a 16-18 in a stat is arbitrary? And, it's not in previous editions? Or is this condemning all of D&D? I agree, why have a trait that doesn't come into play. I can't remember a non-sorceror type caster that I played that had above a 10 in charisma in 3.x. Both games have...

As they exit the tavern, "The Legion," a figure follows behind, trying to be covert. He is Kaxyl "Sharp-eye," a bounty hunter of sorts. He will follow until noticed, trying to eavesdrop, then will approach to speak. Heavily cloaked, with a deep scar that slices through his eye, underneath a...

It's not a house-rule I would use given the complexity; the party would spend way too much time trying to set up stealth instead of just going around for the flank. A dynamic waste of time, in most cases I imagine. By the way, unless you intend to prove on how this increases anyone's fun, or at...

Necrotic damage is far more common than thunder or poison damage, especially among undead. If you can make sure that each damage type receives equal screen time, I say why not. But, for running undead straight from the book it will make elves an incredibly unattractive option. Would I do this...