Search results

Yup. The proper usage of the phrase is something like this: "Begging the question" : To commit the fallacy of 'circular reasoning'. e.g. If one said "It's wrong for you to steal because stealing is wrong!" then one would have 'begged the question' by arguing in a circular manner - assuming...

In 4th Edition the list of things that provoke opportunity attacks is extremely short. Here is the list in its entirity. You provoke an opportunity attack by doing (and only by doing) one of the following: 1. Performing a "Ranged" attack. 2. Performing an "Area" attack. 3. Leaving a space...

Yup. By the standard rules, only one holy symbol at a time. The DM should probably permit you carry another in your backpack or something; but only one can actually be used. Remember, also, that the standard rules also specifically forbid the use of a holy symbol not of your own deity (thus...

I agree that this idea is probably better. If you don't want an incompatible holy symbol to be completely useless to a cleric, then it's probably better to treat it as technically usable but effectively crappy (like a fighter with an inoptimal weapon), rather than simply letting him turn a holy...

Well you'll note that I already mentioned this point in my previous post. The issue is that I don't think it actually has much relevance. Being able to use a piece of equipment doesn't count for much if the character would never want to use it and would almost always be disadvantaged by doing...

Let me start by saying that I completely sympathise with the issue of a PC being unable to use the holy symbols he finds unless he's permitted to alter them somehow. I myself was thinking about this just the other day and was having the same debate - "Do I make sure that every piece of...

To Loki: I've repeated my views on this matter multiple times already, and by now you've heard everything I have to say on the subject. Keeping the discussion going now would be a waste of both our time. I could respond to each of your points as I did before; but it's obvious that we're...

Correct. But all he has fulfilled is the "challenge another" requirement for the FIRST use of the Divine Challenge power that was made against E1 in the first round and is still ongoing in the second round. However, when he fulfils that first requirement, he does so by USING the Divine...

This much is fine. The mistake is here. At the end of this round the Divine Challenge on E2 would end and the paladin would be prevented from using Divine Challenge in round 3. This is because the paladin used the Divine Challenge power during round 2. He must now either: (1) Challenge...

Well according to the letter of the rules I believe it is technically permissible to attack the target first, move away, and then challenge the same target you have attacked. As long as you attack it during the round in question, this seems to qualify as "engaging". But this has no relevance...

This had better not be aimed at me, because nothing I've argued has anything to do with preconceptions of the paladin. I'm simply arguing the rules as written. If the rules said differently, I would be arguing differently, regardless of what they said. If this was directed at me, I find the...

Although this is only one small piece of a longer post, I singled it out because it contradicts your own position so strongly. You just agreed perfectly with Hypersmurf. You just said yourself that the new target "is marked until I mark another target or fail to engage." Exactly. It's...

Only is a certain sense. You interpretation does prevent the paladin from challenging a single target and then spending the next few rounds running away from that same target. However, it doesn't prevent the nearly identical abuse of challenging a different target each round (or even just...

To kclark: You're making the exact same mistake I pointed out to Loki earlier. You're failing to realise that "challenging a different target" means USING the Divine Challenge ability once again. And using it again means that you need to fulfil the same requirements once again - challenge a...

I can understand your confusion, Loki. The description of the power is, indeed, worded in an complex way. But you are, nonetheless, mistaken in your interpretation. Bagpuss and Hypersmurf have both spelled out very clearly why you're mistaken. I do, however, think I know what the source of...

As to the new discussion of whether multiple marked targets will all be under Divine Challenge, the answer is no. Remember that Divine Challenge is a power in itself. It requires a minor action to use it, and it can only be used once per turn. One part of the a Divine Challenge is that the...

Yup, Bagpuss has it exactly right. Read the whole description of the power, consider how the different rules interact, and it becomes clear that a target must be engaged on the same turn it is challenged or else the challenge will end automatically.

I asked myself this same question the other day. If you carefully read the description of the feat, however, the meaning is clear. The feat states: "When you use your dragon breath power, you can choose to make it blast 5 instead of blast 3." So... Correct. On a case-by-case basis a...

Also, as to grabbing being ineffective, the thread that Hypersmurf linked to above discusses how to handle a single character being grabbed by multiple opponents. The rules don't say anything about this either way; but it seems safe to either require that the grabbed individual make a separate...

While maintaining his grab, the grabber cannot do anything that requires two hands, such as a wielding a two-handed weapon. The free hand used to start the grab remains occupied in maintaining the grab. The grabber only has one hand free while maintaining a grab (although his victim still has...