Search results

Presumably there are reasons for the AC formulas. The DMG gives us methods to reverse-engineer the formulas so that we can apply them ourselves for non-cookie-cutter creatures/NPCs. Unfortunately, they don't use their own rules. It's like making spaghetti. In general, you follow a recipe, at...

Can you please cite where that's stated in the rules? Everyone in this thread agrees that it's intended to work the way you describe, more or less. That's not the issue. The issue is that you keep claiming that there's rules for defining misses with relation to a power. There are none that I...

You seem to be operating under the principle that a power cannot both hit and miss at the same time - that "hit" and "miss" are two sides of a coin. That's quite correct when you're dealing with powers that only have a single attack roll. It's quite incorrect when you're dealing with powers that...

I am quite confused how you can obviously miss with a power (you use the Miss: line) and still not trigger effects that are triggered on missing with a power (the Reliable keyword).

:halo: I can't imagine what you mean! Seriously though, I do expect the game to be pretty rough. And if it turns out to be a walk in the park, I'll tighten the screws a little. An easy tactical game isn't much fun, IMO. The fun comes from fighting against long odds and pulling out a victory...

So then Fireball does full damage to all enemies in the burst if you hit even once? The Miss: line only occurs if you miss on every attack roll? Remember, Reliable doesn't say "if you hit". It says "if you miss".

"Drekhad can probably break the chain without much trouble. I've seen him punch a hole in a wall when a goblin escaped us..." Alexa smirks in the zealot's direction. "And I agree about the tunnels. I think we should stop up those wells, so they can't be used to get out and we can use this floor...

No. There is no distinction in the rules between missing with a power vs missing with an attack. Missing with an attack is defined. Missing with a power is not even mentioned. Thus, the only rule for missing you can refer to in order to define the Reliable keyword is missing with an attack.

Even if Twin Strike isn't allowed, you could still do (for example) Nimble Strike, which is probably even better in certain situations. Very nice find, RigaMortus.

It's certainly better but I wouldn't say it "makes everything OK". As mentioned by someone else earlier in the thread, 1 hit and 7 misses isn't much better than 8 misses. It is a better rule than what's written, though, and in lieu of errata that's how I rule it in my games.

Game rules should be applied consistently by the game, though. Otherwise they're useless.

By int-based, I meant the secondary effects. There are no Warlock attacks that use int for the attack roll. Still, it's only the encounter-level powers that have them and a +2 shouldn't break the game wide open. If you're happy with the Dex, that's good enough for me. We'll see if I can't make...

Easier is just a ritual to consecrate (/desecrate) a holy symbol of your faith using the energy from the holy symbol of another faith you just found. Basically, 10 minutes and some cheapo ritual components and you transfer the enchantment from the magical Vecnite unholy symbol to your plain...

Any spell with the Death descriptor will prevent raise dead or reincarnation, but not resurrection, true resurrection, or true reincarnation. Imprisonment will take a character out of the game without killing them, so they can't be rezzed.

Well... 2 extra temp hp from vamp embrace, and +2 to every other int-based warlock power, of which there are many. Whichever way you go is fine. I don't really care - we'll see whether your build holds up either way. Don't expect too many 'easy' level fights in this game. Most of the ones I've...

There's also the Battlefield Archer power that targets every Quarry, which could be up to 10 enemies (that's gonna be pretty much every enemy in line of sight). They also get a couple blast powers. That wasn't what I responded to, thank you. You said the archer ranger is the least 'controller'...

... doesn't exist in 4E.

You're more than welcome to never set foot in the topic again. No one's holding a gun to your head.

And the ranged ranger has effects where he targets every enemy in line of sight. What's your point? Both have an equal number of multi-target powers... namely almost every multi-attack power they have. The ranged ranger is actually more likely to be able to target more than one creature with his...

No, you've clearly not seen my point. My point is that everyone is sweeping a glaring issue under the rug and pretending everything is just jim-dandy-fine. The rules clearly don't do what they think they do. This issue also causes potential trickle-down problems. Also, it obviously is easier to...