Search results

They are hindering terrain. Your logic is like saying "power cannot deal damage because powers are not listed specifically in the ability to deal damage section of the rules". A better example would be the forced movement rules themselves. The forced movement rules are not in the power...

Once they see the power of ongoing effects, yes. The power of stinking cloud, firewall, et all is such that if you can push into them without issue, the ability of a group of wizards to produce these effects for every battle you can reasonably expect them to fight in simply makes them too...

Damaging spell effects are hindering terrain. The forced movement rules say you get a save for entering hindering terrain. You explicitly get a save for being pushed into fire[by RAI its one of the examples]. Wall of fire is a wall of fire. You get a save for being pushed into it. There is no...

The short answer is that CS is as wrong as wrong can be. They also have stated that you take damage for every square you move in a damaging effect that lists "damage on entering" The long and short of it is this. There are no restrictions that hindering terrain be there before the battle...

The blocking of line of sight, while listed, is immaterial. The wall of fire is simply a number of different effects. One of the effects is difficult terrain at 3 extra squares, one of the effects is damage and hindering terrain, one of the effects blocks line of sight and is obscuring terrain...

It does not. Combat Challenge is a separate power, an Immediate Interrupt that the fighter gets to use on marked targets. It is not an effect of the mark. Once they are attacked however, i would rule that they know exactly why they were attacked and whether or not he can keep doing it. No...

Actually they cannot. The servers are not powerful enough to cope with the strain that it would cause. They have problems enough coping with the current load, let alone increasing the complexity and number of calculations and client-server data transactions. Single player RPG's and sims can do...

You can bull rush an enemy through another enemies space, but since you can only bull rush 1 square and you cant end up occupying the same space, the push ends up not valid. Since they were giant and not dire rats, the push would have been legal since +/- 2 size categories can occupy the same...

Also, being prone doesn't stop you from attacking, you just take a -2 penalty and grant CA to all adjacent enemies.

I thought the X was something you couldn't move through. Also you cannot ready a move action[iirc]. re: Raven, guess not. I handle it as smaller oozes, guess not everyone made the call I did. A quote from my player(i am using maptools) "Oh cute the ooze got smaller when it was...

Acrobatic Stunt. Bull Rush won't work[no legal squares]. Kill one of the jellies then book they should not have had 1 round of HP left once they split. 30 some divided by two? For a brute? Yea, tiny. Also, pretty sure the jellies should have become medium size when they split rather than...

They probably thought: One enemy, its got to be a Solo. Solo's aren't much difficulty either without some sort of interaction mechanic either, but that is another story

The publication wasn't what was delayed. It was the rest of DnD insider. The rest of DnD Insider won't hold a candle to a free product already released (maptools) and so they might have a problem selling it.

So you set your players up against level 9 encounter that had only one enemy in it(which multiplies the power of action and movement reduction powers) and expected a different outcome? To top it off there is 2 dailies(Rune of peace, Reign of steel) used? Yea, i am not seeing how this was...

Either way you look at it, that they could have been receiving revenue, or that they could have been showing off their finished product for more time its going to cost them revenue. Note: the worse their product is, the less they want to show it off to the public before accepting subscriptions.

I am sorry, this is simply not true. I do not need to make a value judgment on the process in order to be right. All i need to do is show that you can make a value judgment in the manner prescribed. I do not need to make a claim of the value of the reasons. In order for your statements to be...

That is great, its still wrong. At the end of the day, you have expenditures and receipts. Profit is a factor of those receipts minus those expenditures. When investments go bad versus good. Expenditures increase[versus not spending that money] and receipts stay the same[versus not spending...

You have no argument for as to why an argument is not valid. You have only your opinion. Your objection cannot be valid.

No it doesn't, reasons for this and examples have been given on this very page. take your ad hominem elsewhere. Why is it invalid? Certainly not just because you say so? Yes its advantageous for a DM to have an adventure synopsis. Yes most DM's would like one. Yes, its very clear you want...

Sigh, i guess you still don't get it. I am not the one making the judgment. The choice is not mine. You, and others, have been saying that WotC is wrong to not release them, and this is false. Its objectively false because its a value judgment on their part based on the research they have done...