Search results

Charm keyword will be for negation/defense bonus purposes, not as a basic 'this does that'. (THis seems supported by other keyword usage. It simply indicative of a mind-altering effect. We have dominate, that renders people (Apparently) helpless, and then the charm, which enables the Succubus...

Oh, right. My brain equated 9th level with 900xp, for some reason.

I'm not sure why you think it is at odds with the rest of the system. Its mechanically similiar to combat, after all. It is functionally no different from the Narr tendancies enshrined in Encounter and Daily powers. *shrug* You're seeing problems I don't think actually exist. I think the...

Yes. It is. It was something missing within the 3e rules, something that lead to the vast majority of games I observed, as being combat driven, with ocassional dialogue, and the odd class, (Mostly the rogue/bard/trained person) overcoming a trap or some such. This is a codified mechanic...

The leader person is the combat person (And also a brat.. :|) This, even in a group of 20somethings, is a problem.

I'm not entirely sure how you equate that to easy. Its a whole 33% harder than what they would expect to be encountering. I would anticipate that played correctly, they would probably lose their cleric, to a creature of that power.

No.. it was confirmed elswhere that a charge doesn't have to be in a straight line, I believe. (I should use the search function I just purchased. But lazy.) I don't think there is any real reason it should, either.

I love that episode. Its sooo surreal. And yes.. its quite a good example.

Yes it can. That's what 'apparently' means. This is valid. And curious. I am thinking about it, but under your example, nobody has actually dealt with the device yet.. but I get where you are coming from. Under this set of circumstances, based on what we currently know, I'd be assigning 2...

Oh. NM that then :D I had it stuck in my head.

That doesn't mean you cannot, if you have the movement available, loop around. It would be against the spirit, true. To be honest, I don't have a lot of problems with this. They get to move their normal distance +2, with a basic attack only, and will provoke OA's on anybody they go near. I...

Um.. What? Seriously, much of your arguments, while well worded, concise, and apparently valid, seem to fall down, in that I fail to see how it is an argument against the rules, as opposed to an argument against a given DM's capability. It is a DM's choice to break causality in such a fashion...

The first and last are self-explanatory. The middle, well, the 'theoretical' length of an encounter is 5 mins. So, that's what I'm using.. to the point that if a particular encounter lasts the necessary 50 rounds, I may allow 2nd uses of certain abilities.

Yes he could. But the rest of the keep is going to hear that, hmm?

Actually, I quite like blood. But more in the Vampirella, I can use blood to fuel my magic kind of fashion. Voodoo-esque. But yeah.. no real fit.

With reference to the falling rules and HP/Level interactions; Which is why falling should be percentage HP based, capped at something like 75%, with an additional roll of height/10 vs fortitude, or be reduced to 1hp above your death level.

Heh. I want a gumby-based character. All said and done, it is the picador who has given me the most trouble, so far, and is that kind of design inconcistancy that has caused the giant rifts between differing ideas of what HP is supposed to represent, alongside things like 'Cure' spells, etc...

I can't agree more. A staggering amount of generally simulationist pedagogy seems to come from a variety of metagaming. As opposed to the general idea, where your character has access to information that he wouldn't, as it is based on your RL observations, not his.. we also have metagaming...

Because I'm lazy, and can't be bothered looking.. Are there any encounter powers that buff you, but don't rely on first doing something to an opponent? I have nothing against, and would allow in my games, buffing seconds before a known (or suspected) fight. However, my recollection is that...

Who says your character cannot? This is again, part of the problem I have with so many of the arguments on this board. DnD is a toolset. It is emphatically not a board game. That does not, in any way, appear to have changed between 3.x and 4e. As a toolset, its allows you, just like earlier...