Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Lizard]

It can kill them!

Depends on how much damage you do, their hit points, etc...

Seriously, the rules assume you are constantly looking for opportunities to attack (and defend from) your enemies but not your allies. Without that assumption the whole combat system breaks (in any edition) -one little power is the least of your worries.


glass.

Disagree. I've never seen a rule where AC, etc, changes because you say "I'm going to attack the fighter, not the orc." Maybe this is part of a complex plot. Maybe you're just pissed at the fighter. Maybe you're mind controlled. Maybe you need to burn the green slime off the fighter's arm with a torch, and he's fighting an orc, and the DM rules you need to make a 'to hit' roll in order to do so, since the fighter can't stop and just let you burn him in combat.

Having powers which magically do/do not affect certain targets based on whether, from round-to-round, they are 'allies' or 'enemies' is a serious immersion breaker, unless the powers have some sort of mystical 'intelligence' (which some might -- though I've always interpreted things like 'heals all allies inside a 30' burst' to be the result of the character consciously choosing whom to heal, and he could heal an 'enemy' if he wanted to...)

You can use 'beneficial' powers on foes. You can use harmful powers on allies. The scope of powers in 4e, and the new tactical depth to the game (this is a *good* *thing*, mind you!) means the opportunity to use a power in a "non standard" way will come up more often, and DMs, players, and game designers all need to be prepared for it.

I might well do freelancing for 4e someday -- so I need to start thinking, now, about "What happens if this cool power I though of is used by one ally on another? If this ability is triggered by X, can a PC cause it to trigger on another PC, and, if so, does that break or unbalance it?"

 

[heretic888]

Um, yes, yes I would. Why because the added arithmetic isn't challenging enough to slow my game down. So all I get out of the per encounter mechanic was a whole fist full of lose.

I was at first excited about the per encounter and per day mechanic. I envisioned cool powers that would almost self justify there being only used once per encounter or once per day. Instead I get twist a knife in the wound!!!! Um something that lame and easy to do should never be per encounter.

Being that there lame mundane maneuvers, yeah I'd rather have more "complicated".

Ease of use doesn't make lame any better than lame.

Hi Ahglock,

If you want, I'm sure someone here can rewrite the flavor text for Torturous Strike and Positioning Strike so they're more "cool" and "un-lame" for you. I already rewrote Torturous Strike as a dueling swiftblade technique called Penetrating Strike in an earlier post, but I'm not very good at that sort of stuff.

I mean, because its obvious you're just having issues with the fluff. Instantly dealing double damage with a single attack (plus an ability score bonus if you take the right "talent") or doing normal damage and slinging your target around (which can be up to 4 squares away if you take the right "talent") are both pretty impressive at 1st level. They're certainly the equal of most (if not all) 1st level encounter powers from, say, Tome of Battle.

And, you still never addressed my other query. What stops your players from using their "strongest" or "best" powers as often as they can every single fight?? They have no incentive not to, especially if they roleplay their best power as their "favorite" or "signature" attack. I mean, other than DM fiat, that is.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Then again, I prefer how maneuvers work in BOIM.

Hi Greg K,

I don't.

Not only are the maneuvers in Book of Iron Might spectacularly uninspiring, they:

• Are mostly ineffective against characters of equal or greater combat ability as your character, meaning they are typically unused (or, if used, ineffectual) against any BBEG with an attack bonus or AC even vaguely similar to your own. They are great for wiping up hopelessly outclassed mooks or completely unprepared arcane casters, though, I guess. *shrug*
  
• Encourage exactly the same kind of repetitive play and tactical monotony these powers were designed "fix". When a given maneuver actually does work, a melee character will simply use his "strongest" or "best" one over and over and over again. And, since there isn't any kind of limitation on how frequently the maneuver can be used as there is in Tome of Battle, what this practically means is they get used in *no* rounds against melee BBEGs and get used *every* round against martially underclassed mooks or casters.

and, unlike, per encounter, not once do I have the designers telling me that I can only use the maneuver once per encounter (or have to spend an action point for another use if this is what they are going to do). Instead, I have them telling me that I need to consider the consequences of using such actions and determine when it is most approriate to use them or create such situations when it is best to do so.

Correction:

Instead, you have a system that a) needlessly complicates the game by increasing the amount of arithmetic players are required to keep track of, and b) encourages the tactical monotony of 3E even more.

But, different strokes for different folks. I guess.

Laterz.

 

[philippe willaume]

What's the pun of Artful Dodger?

I had no clue so many people hated the word 'shuriken'.

I do not know if has been answered already
It is the cockney rhyming slang for todger (aka the male reproductive organ)

Usage
i should have gone near that jack (as in jack and Danny), me artful looks like a blind cobbler's thumb.

Basically you getting two words that rhyme with word you want to replace. Drop the rhyming and use the other word instead
Ie
dog and bone= telephone. So you say "I am on the dog"
butcher's hook= a look ; give that a buchter.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I do not know if has been answered already
It is the cockney rhyming slang for todger (aka the male reproductive organ)

Usage
i should have gone near that jack (as in jack and Danny), me artful looks like a blind cobbler's thumb.

Basically you getting two words that rhyme with word you want to replace. Drop the rhyming and use the other word instead
Ie
dog and bone= telephone. So you say "I am on the dog"
butcher's hook= a look ; give that a buchter.

Okay. I see as a non-native speaker I really have no chance of getting this. No surprise that Doctor Who proved very difficult to understand too me, despite years of experience with American TV-shows and movies!

 

[Lenaianel]

As you certainly know there are situations where being able to move an extra 4 squares (sigh) is worth a little damage.

But for those that have no problem groking the artful dodger variant of positioning strike, could someone being so kind to describe me how it works against:

a stone golem

a ozee

a 30 feet long snake

an incorporeal creature

a gelatinous cube

or a number of other creatures that I could imagine, specifically creatures mindless, which can't reasonably be taunted or even bluffed, or that don't technically feel pain, or creatures which can't be phisically "shoved" or that deal some kind of damage or negative effect on touch or, well, you get it (I hope.)
Halfling vs ogre, I can make it work, even if it hurts, the problem is that in D&D you fight weirdest things than ogres and using some of the powers against some of the mosnters (crimson edge against a mummy?) would be excedingly weird, and there are onyl three way I can see to making then works

a) surgically remove my SoD

b) something like nth pages of exceptions for every power/monster ("you can't use power X against monster A, B, C" or "monster A is immune to powers x, y, z"

c) empowerer the rule 0 to pre-3e levels, something that I could even like but I can't see the 4e designers do it.

What if those monters have better will def than average for monster of their level ?

 

[Imban]

What if those monters have better will def than average for monster of their level ?

Unless the difference is massive, uh... nothing? And even if it is, you still have the glaring possibility that it could happen, even if it doesn't see play because it's a poor tactical choice.

If the system doesn't provide for it out of the box, one of my first houserules is going to be going back in and rewriting things so that monsters are appropriately immune to powers that could never work on them.

 

[Spatula]

Leading mindless (or dim-witted) opponents into poor tactical positions by presenting yourself as a tasy target never happens in movies, books, or tv shows. No one could possibly imagine such a thing...

...right?

 

[Imban]

Leading mindless (or dim-witted) opponents into poor tactical positions by presenting yourself as a tasy target never happens in movies, books, or tv shows. No one could possibly imagine such a thing...

...right?

Honestly, I only have a problem with Positioning Strike if it's used to move monsters further than their own maximum movement would allow. You can bluff a Roper, but you can't bluff a Roper into moving 30'. My comment was more directed towards things like Crimson Edge - bleeding damage is bleeding damage, and I reserve the right to deny that against enemies which can't bleed. (The double damage/normal damage on a miss parts would stick, though.)

 

[Thyrwyn]

b) something like nth pages of exceptions for every power/monster ("you can't use power X against monster A, B, C" or "monster A is immune to powers x, y, z"

You don't need anything that cumbersome: since "Slide" is a defined term, all you need is "Gelatinous Cubes are immune to Slide effects" or "Gelatinous Cubes gain +10 to resist Slide effects" .