Search results

Isn't it a little odd to be claiming to have divined the system behind 4e weapons while simultaneously admitting that a lot of the weapons in 4e don't fit the system you have reverse engineered? Surely an alternate conclusion is that either 4e doesn't have a system for weapon values or that you...

Lord help us if Jack Chick ever sees your friend play D&D.

Which is fine in theory, but somewhat hard to take full advantage of when the DM is sitting across the table from you and knows exactly what the "trap" abilities do. ;)

But it is a perfect example of when the rules should be ignored. Catch 5 targets in the rapid shot and move 10 squares? I think not.

I still can't quite get my head around the new monster damage numbers. The boggle's basic attack does 2d6+4 (avg 11). Against 3rd level PCs, with perhaps 40 hp, that seems like it would make combats very swingy. As a separate issue, am I right in assuming that the DM's decision when running...

Interesting. Thanks for the exposition. I can see how this is a different design philosophy than the mad wraith aura. I'm not sure I agree with you the the wraith was terrible, but I know why this bit of design is exciting. Ah, your reputation's safe again :) I was hoping for more...

I suppose this is what I'm most interested in. How many minor actions? Is it still the clunky (and action-intensive) 4 successes, or is it 1 success?

I gave D&D away in 2005 when I moved from Sydney to Coffs Harbour, leaving my gaming group behind. If it weren't for 4e, I probably never would have come back. Enjoy the break. D&D loves you, so it will set you free, but if you don't come back...

You better be careful with all this praise, or your reputation will suffer ;) Ooh! I assume you mean Betrayal at House on the Hill, but still - Ooh! I'm not sure I follow. Isn't this worse than the Mad wraith's dazing aura? What is it that is so amazing (or am I incorrect in thinking that...

Nevermind

Unless the OP imports the MM3 math (he says he will), in which case - believe me - it's not. My group isn't even halfway through and we've had two near-deaths (the Roc encounter), 1 near-TPK (the behir), and have been forced to abandon the quest to kill the army commander because we've run out...

Ordinarily I would have the bear maul Tom, but every situation can be different even with the same combatants. For example, if the bear decides to turn and flee but then finds itself trapped by Bob's combat superiority feature, it'll probably turn its attention back to Bob. At that point, his...

First we had hirelings and henchmen statted as minions, effectingly making them fodder for the DM to chew through. Now we have an animal companion minion. I had a problem with the hirelings/henchmen article because taking helpers into a dungeon knowing they would almost certainly die didn't...

Aulirophile was referring to the Rules Compendium, not PHB1. I'm not sure I agree. There's certainly no definition of what 'specific' means and we're each arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand that happen to be in different places. I do concede, though, that my line seems to cause more...

To be honest, I don't see anything inherently more absurd in that outcome (granted MBAs having unlimited range) than the outcome you suggest (a feat being unable to achieve the outcome it is clearly stated to achieve). I'm curious: exactly how many powers or features are there that grant MBAs...

I disagree. The text of both feats is that the OA can be made against an enemy entering an adjacent square. That is a clear and obvious exception to rules that apply to OAs. Your position is that the exception applies only to the trigger and not to the range of the OA. My position is that the...

The text says you can make an OA when an opponent enters an adjacent square. How is that not explication? Your explication threshold is much higher than mine. As for specific vs general not being in the RC, I'm sure I recall mention of it towards the front of the book. I'm AFB though, so let's...

I think you missed the part of my post where I said that Polearm Gamble and Halo of Warding are exceptions to the normal OA rules. Since specific beats general, I think that's ultimately the end of the discussion.

And you don't think that it being named, say, POLEARM gamble, contributed to that instant understanding? That aside, I'm not entirely convinced that the feat should be read as you suggest. Even if the avenger is wielding a reach weapon, by RAW an opportunity attack is still melee 1. Wielding a...

Just to officially record the answer to my own question, I just stumbled across this in the comments to the Skyseer preview article: