Search results

Multiple target damage resolution boils down to attack type (PHB 270-271). Melee - resolved with separate rolls Ranged - resolved with separate rolls Area - resolved with single roll Close - resolved with single roll While it may be easier to roll once for damage, there is nothing in the power...

Area damage is rolled once and applied based on the multiple attack rolls. Given that, I would have to say: 1) No. 2) Try harder with your trolling.

What I find this boils down to is a matter of definitions. Not so much the definition of "adjacent", but of "object", "square", and "unoccupied square" as they pertain to targeting. Much of this discussion revolves around using a target definition of "object" (as nobody has yet tried to use...

Pretty much what I expected from CS. As I have said before: Since the rules do not seem to lean towards either side of this, have fun however you want to.

It is just as reasonable as declaring the earth a medium-sized object so that you can shoehorn it into the rules of the spell. Declaring the ground an object, whether the square is occupied or not, is equivalent to changing the target description to "Enemy or Square".

So squares containing only "the ground" are not unoccupied? :confused: You can honestly make that argument with a straight face?

...and here, again, is the precipice of that slippery slope: -When you hit a large creature with Force Orb, all enemies adjacent to that creature are hit, not just adjacent to one of the squares occupied by the creature. -The ground is, at least outside, actually part of the planet. While it...

Actually, my issue stems from the fact that several powers list as viable targets "Object or Unoccupied Square". If there is a clear demarcation between "object" and "unoccupied square", why is it ok to use "object" to refer to an unoccupied square?

I have an issue with this reading. If the ground qualifies for the targeting definition of an object, why do some powers list "unoccupied square" as a target?

While I want to say "No" to targeting the pebble, I cannot find any rule that points one way or the other. As to your second part, think it through again. If they are adjacent, then blasting one with primary damage will hit the other with secondary damage. 2 x 1d10+Int is not more than 2d8+Int...

As intended as using Dex for the Rogue's melee attacks. Yes, you use Dex when throwing hammers/axes/goblins for any of the Ranger exploits.

1 or 2 - Depending on your style of gameplay. 3 - Only if you want to remove Passive Perception and Passive Insight out of the game. If you cannot use PP to notice traps and secret doors, exactly how useful is it?

My group enjoys rolling. To them, point buy just seems too sterile. Strange, though - nobody had any issues with using the static array for their RPGA characters. The group unanimously opted for it over point buy.

4d6 for the regular games, standard array for the RPGA. If we wanted point buy, our group would just play GURPS.

This whole "Economy of Actions" twaddle seems as if the recoil from the feared "3.5 Druid with a hojillion minions"/"Necromantic Army" cheese has launched us way too far in the other direction. Setting aside the joy of trading your own actions for a much less competent pet, how would this...

:erm: ...and for those of you looking behind the "4E RAW vs RAI" tour bus, you will now see the line. Some of these discussions have been intriguing, the myriad answers from CS have been eye-opening, but this is ridiculous. Were 4E a television show, I would be scanning the credits to see if...

Looking at Tiefling Infernal Warlock/Wizard/Blood Mage. Rather cliche, but nice overlap.

I've been enjoying a Dragonborn Rogue (Artful Dodger). Not only does the Cha bump help things, but the Blinding Barrage/Dragon Breath combo works well in the low levels.

Just... wow. You are actually pouting over the fact that you could not take advantage of someone breaking street date. The cherry perched atop this parfait of FAIL? You blame the people that were taken advantage of! I feel somewhat better now, knowing that you and I will not be playing the...

February 6th, 2006