Search results

Wow. They really do have recursive subroutines in the rules. Thats pretty crazy. But I'm still confused, do the rules not make a distinction between occupying a square and passing through it? Because it seems to me that if you are moving, you aren't occupying a square to prevent yourself...

I'm proposing thats how the rules are written. How the game *should* be played is a bit too metaphysical for me. And actually, 3 isn't a problem, unless there is some sort of recursive functional call and a space is tagged 'friendly' or 'enemy' before a creature moves into it. If its an...

What? Goals? Morality? Technical simulation? Ah. I see, you're arguing something completely different and utterly irrelevant. To go back to the actual discussion, a character is capable of doing harm to himself, regardless of philosophical issues. He is quite capable of doing damage to...

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten ENworld's lovely community. Thanks for the reminder @Dracosuave- Really? We aren't talking about doctors making an incision to remove a tumor here. Just because someone wants to harm himself, it does not mean he is not a threat to himself. You are essentially...

What? Sharing a common goal doesn't mean someone isn't a threat! Watch any bad action film. Hero will work with villain from group A to stop group B, and the villain will be helpful for a while, then turn on the hero whenever its dramatically appropriate/most helpful to his/her own agenda...

In D&D land, people can't kill themselves? A creature is a level appropriate threat, it should be perfectly capable of killing itself (or a mirror-clone). I'd call that a meaningful threat. And actually, by the ally/enemy rules as written, we haven't established that you can curse other...

OK, so its been established that the healing doesn't work, but there is still the problem that the rules as written clearly define every creature as it own enemy. ally or allies does not include you (willing is referring to the terms ally and allies, btw, since by not including you, it...

Ah. The joys of exception based design. The pages and pages of errata and clarifications dealing with how individual abilities interact with other individual abilities.

You still have to figure out what happens to someone grabbing it though, divine DM fiat or not. Do they maintain the grab from 3+ squares away or are they also slid by the Command? There are absurdities built into either choice. The first is obvious, but the second allows the cleric to slide...

Someone trained in the skill isn't a 'dabbler'. Thats everyone, sadly, by default. You shouldn't need training, max dex and skill focus (ie, a master) to have a reasonable chance of success. The 4e system punishes anyone who isn't optimized for even trying.

No, you can't, actually. Everybody is supposed to have a +<X> weapon/implement appropriate to their level all the time. So if you fall behind with your stats, thats it- you're behind forever. There simply aren't many ways to compensate for the lost attack bonus, and almost all of them (beyond...

Ah, yes. A good example of how the alignment system is inherently self-contradictory and should have been dropped with extreme prejudice.

I do. These feats are total and utter garbage, even if you pick abilities that only use those damage types. And they'd be garbage even if they didn't require you to set stat points on fire to take them. Its fairly simple. That +1 isn't even 5% of a 1st level kobold's hit points, and the +3...

Personally, I'm tired of the current fad where elitism is somehow a bad thing.

The problem I see with future supplements is they pretty much have to adhere to the formula or the material in the first book gets entirely left behind. Anything that is significantly better is going to break the game and be a no-brainer choice. As it is, there is a clear distinction between...

This I agree with. The numbers are nicely consistent (except for damage vs. hit points, which falls off at higher levels), but there isn't any sense of verisimilitude, let alone anything fun or interesting. There are a couple good ideas buried in the dross that may be worth mining for another...

Except balancing two attack stats is as suboptimal as you can get in this system. You want one attack stat, forever. It wouldn't be so bad really. The star pact has the best boon (attack bonuses are rare and hard to find, and usually involve relying on the cleric giving you a bonus), and has...

Sorry, I wasn't clear. A 4e character needs 3 stats, period. His attack stat, a secondary stat (which may or may not be a class stat, depending on how screwy his class is. Clerics, for example, shouldn't take charisma, because it doesn't help them enough). and a tertiary stat. All of these...

Why? The system, as written, rewards you for maxing out your attack stat and either going 13/13 or 14/11 in your secondary and tertiary stats and ignoring everything else. Putting any points at all in the other three stats is a mathematically provable mistake, unless you really feel you have...

Honestly, except for the two handed sword, you've got a straight ranger, all the way. You could do it as a fighter, and then multiclass for ranger for movement abilities, but the kind of speed you had in 3rd edition isn't really salvageable in 4e. Neither is a 'hard-hitting' attack, since...