Search results

That's actually downright annoying.... "Artful Dodgers need not apply". Is there something about this that makes it that much better for Artful Dodgers that it couldn't be just a MBA?

Melee Training(DEX).

This proves that I make mistakes like anyone else. It's important if I think something to include it in my post. To repeat (in case someone missed it) I agree that RAI is as the rest of you are suggesting, but RAW is lacking. For lack of any other text regarding duration, you must read the...

I specifically chose a Mace to keep the +2/+3 part out of it so the only thing we were comparing was melee vs. ranged. And if we limit that power to those classes that have the Channel Divinity feature (ie Cleric and Paladin which are both leaders) then doesn't that sort of negate the fact...

How nice of you to leave part of my quote out so that you can misrepresent my position.... Emphasis mine. Post 42 for the unedited original.

To use an analogy...The only difference between between a Mace and a Short Bow is that one is melee and the other is ranged. I view that difference to be irrelevant/fluff. I feel this way because both are situationally useful and there are cases where I would want one and not the other. The...

The "In addition" part refers to no part of the previous sentence. It's a conjunction and it's only purpose is to say "as well as" or "on top of" or "also". The <some condition> is a modifier and puts some restriction onto the "you gain ...", but that is it. Is anyone trying to tell me that...

@Garris: I'm trying to stay strictly away from what I "think" it should be and stick to RAW. Having just looked at the other Shifter power I have to agree that RAI is as everyone in this thread is posting and I will probably start running it that way, but RAW is clearly not. Modified: They...

Ditto. Edit: Weird...where did the extra text come from?

It is a feat that grants an encounter power that can be used in the "Channel Divinity" slot. In other words I am comparing two encounter powers so no...absolutely no difference (other than as you say...it took a feat to have access to the one power and the other requires you to choose a certain...

I believe that the good people here have proven my case: Turns on and off until you end the stance. Stops when either condition is met (OR). Stops if the player is no longer bloodied OR if the encounter ends even if the player is still bloodied. According to most here....turns on and off...

My apologies for maybe leaving too much out. StartMyTurn() { if(bloodied) { Regenerate(x); } } vs. StartMyTurn() { if(activatingLongtoothShifting) { Create Thread ActivateLongtoothShifting(); } } ActivateLongtoothShifting(); { while(bloodied) { if(StartOfMyTurn)...

From a purely grammatical stand point this sentence is not correct. This tells you under what conditions you will stay inside. This allows it to start and stop raining many times and describes what you will do "when it's raining". This is talking about right now. It says that it is...

You are confusing the use of the word while with the use of the word when or if. Dictionary.com: conj. As long as; during the time that: "It was lovely while it lasted." Note that there is a definite ending implied to "while it lasted." It did not, however, start and stop repeatedly. To...

In order to activate Longtooth Shifting you must already be bloodied. The "while bloodied" tells you when your regeneration will end....when you are no longer bloodied (also note that ALL regeneration ends if you are reduced to 0 or fewer HPs). If you did not have the "while bloodied" clause...

I can see them limiting the shroud "stacks" to only 1 for a Hybrid for just that reason Jay.

This is what I mean. What I am saying is that you can't just use any n-4 or n+7 creature without carefully considering how it will play and your group. The system scaling just won't handle it (the example of soldiers at L-4 is a perfect example of what I mean noting that other creatures are...

I want to say it was Mearls who made the claim (in one of the podcasts?) that (paraphrasing here) "Monsters would be viable threats for more levels". I'll have to go back and re-listen to last years podcasts to see if I can find it and get the exact quote. My only real comment here is in...

@Abdul: I agree that no edition of D&D has done this well (or level based systems in general), but no edition prior to the current has claimed such. Based on the designers "claim" I then put forth that 4e does not do what they "claim" it does at all well. I also want to point out that it...

4e does not handle a wide range of character and monster levels. From the start I remember reading that the designers claimed that monsters "could be viable opponents for more levels" and according to DMG1 you can use creatures of PC level - 4 to PC level + 7 as viable encounters. While it is...