Search results

If you insist that you need new wording at least just point to the existing rules like so: Even that is annoying as it shouldn't be needed. The lack of any overriding rule should make you use the general rules by default.

Ok N8Ball...I see what you mean. Let me revise my definition of critical hit. Within the context of the critical hit rules themselves the term refers to a hit that does max damage and whatever else is defined about the damage aspect of a crit. In this case the use of the word "can" does make...

I'm not clear how you can have your cake and eat it too. You disagree with my assertion that the word "can" has no change in meaning in regards to criticals, but turn around and agree it does not change the meaning with regards to another effect (shifting in this case). You'll need to pick one...

@N8Ball: I reference to my previous post I will have to admit one change. The definitive or permissive forms will count within the general rule itself. So within the rules on critical hits it DOES matter if you have the definitive or permissive clauses because that is the only way to be able...

You cannot quote the general rules and then claim that they prove that some feature can now ignore the general rules. That is a circular argument. If that is the basis of your logic then we will get nowhere. We have already been over the presence/absence of the word "can" and that has...

I am really starting to think that the basis of all our disagreements is a lack of understanding about how exception based design works or a least a disagreement about how it works. Example: Power X: Hit: You do d8 + Wisdom modifier fire damage. Resistance: You subtract your resistance value...

I will make a comparison that is the same. Is rolling identical numbers on two d20 (other than 20), using Holy Ardor, the same as rolling an 18-19, using the Daggermaster class feature? Frankly there is only one valid answer to this question. Just for the record I am in the camp that the INTENT...

The correct equation would look like this: A = Rolls a 20 B = Class feature that allows you to roll some other number than a 20 and get a crit C = A roll high enough to hit the target if (A or B) AND C Further modified to the following for Holy Ardor: D = If you roll doubles when using your...

Note my changes to your text. I think you got it wrong while nailing it right on Mirtek. General: Power X (e.g. the aforementioned overhelming strike) saying "Hit: whater and you shift X squares." Specific: You can not shift while prone The power in this case is the general rule allowing you...

The point that Rothe and I are trying to make is that at level 1-5 you will see very little impact from a disarm. By the time you hit level 30 you're talking about -9 to hit (assumed +6 enhancement and +3 proficiency bonus) from an at-will power. That is just ridiculous. If you then further...

What this comes down to for me is that any player asking for an at-will disarm is looking to recreate the cheese which is the 3e disarm, or the bag-o-rats, or pun-pun, or spiked chain trip attack fighters, or any of the 100's of other broken combos that you could build in 3e. If you try to...

I thought of a scenario where IMO the slide should just fail and I think your wording covers the situation. Tell me what you think. Imagine a fighter with a reach weapon attacking a Large monster between two trees like this: x = open squares F = Fighter T = Tree/blocking terrain M = Monster...

QFT. The problem here is in a system where all you have in a stat block is the final bonus to hit (and the damage of course) for a monster how exactly are you supposed to do a "Disarm" without just replacing it with a condition (such as weakened)? How much do you really gain by breaking down a...

There is one other possibility. You can pick all the feats and proficiencies you want, but if you don't go to the "Shop" portion of the character builder and either "Buy" or "Add" a weapon (and optionally equip it) you won't get any stats on your power cards in the character sheet even for...

I seem to remember reading that one of the design goals was to make sure you did not have to make adjustments to your character sheet at the table. For this reason they got rid of all magic that changed your stats during play and probably a few other things as well. The most realistic version...

On this I'm almost willing to rule that the DM controls the slide once the PC has determined the target square. I think you're right that it should be by the most direct/shortest route to the target square. You might also rule that the monster is allowed to move through the square of the PC...

I'm guessing that the Invoker doesn't have any weapon powers hence your frustration. Check the description of the powers you are selecting and see if they say "Implement" or "Weapon" in the keywords area. If I am right and they say "Implement" it won't matter what weapon you get the power will...

If they are playing it this way it is indeed house rules. Getting an extra attack just for knocking someone prone would just make it so that every melee type takes as many knock prone powers as they can find. I don't have the books handy, but standing up is a move action that does not provoke...

First of all it is likely that this player will never like 4e. He sounds like an even more hardcore simulationist that some of my players that don't like this edition. Of course the most vocal one did comment last week that "I could have made a better game than this in 2 months". I was forced...

I was left with the impression from the OP that his player basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "I'll play, but I want an at-will disarm type power that anyone can use without having to take a feat or get a power". As a DM I don't take kindly to players who demand they be given something...