can you link me to it please.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Armor of Repulsion - Useless?
- Thread starter Ninja-to
- Start date
can you link me to it please.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Prestidigitalis
First Post
There are a few other considerations:
You might be able to push the creature into a zone, a pit, etc., with the usual caveats about saving throws vs. forced movement.
The creature may be trying to get past you to escape, to reach a strategic square, or to attack another party member.
The creature might be slowed.
Question: What about charging?
You might be able to push the creature into a zone, a pit, etc., with the usual caveats about saving throws vs. forced movement.
The creature may be trying to get past you to escape, to reach a strategic square, or to attack another party member.
The creature might be slowed.
Question: What about charging?
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Official D&D Updates)
its on the front page one of the links on the right...
its on the front page one of the links on the right...
DarkLord Of DForce
First Post
I started a thread on this very subject quite some time ago.
The RAW crowd claimed that it does not work because the monsters movement into a square is the trigger, not stopping in the adjacent square. How you can stop in mid step is simply beyond me. So according to them, the monster then was able to complete whatever was left of its move. (and making the armor almost completely useless, IMHO).
The RAI crowd claimed that because an immediate reaction happens after the trigger completely resolves, that the monster does indeed wind up adjacent to you, then the armor triggers and pushes them 1 sq back, and they must spend another action or power to move back up to you.
It was quite a long message thread, so I finally just let Customer Service resolve it for our D&D group. CS says that it does trigger after they are adjacent to you, and pushe them back 1 square. Then to move back to you, they would have to spend another action/power. I contacted CS 3 or 4 different times over a couple of weeks, making sure I was talking to a different rep each time, and they consistently answered to this effect.
Its not OP - I mean, if you have this armor and are facing 3 monsters, 2 of them will get to you, because you can only use an Immediate Reaction once a round.
This was good enough for our group, so we ran with it.
HTHs.
The RAW crowd claimed that it does not work because the monsters movement into a square is the trigger, not stopping in the adjacent square. How you can stop in mid step is simply beyond me. So according to them, the monster then was able to complete whatever was left of its move. (and making the armor almost completely useless, IMHO).
The RAI crowd claimed that because an immediate reaction happens after the trigger completely resolves, that the monster does indeed wind up adjacent to you, then the armor triggers and pushes them 1 sq back, and they must spend another action or power to move back up to you.
It was quite a long message thread, so I finally just let Customer Service resolve it for our D&D group. CS says that it does trigger after they are adjacent to you, and pushe them back 1 square. Then to move back to you, they would have to spend another action/power. I contacted CS 3 or 4 different times over a couple of weeks, making sure I was talking to a different rep each time, and they consistently answered to this effect.
Its not OP - I mean, if you have this armor and are facing 3 monsters, 2 of them will get to you, because you can only use an Immediate Reaction once a round.
This was good enough for our group, so we ran with it.
HTHs.
keterys
First Post
Umm... just for clarity, as far as I know, this is the previous thread though it's more cluttered with discussion of Warding Blade (which was more interesting, and still could use errata).
And there was no "crowd". There was just Darklord's interpretation, and every other person disagreed.
That said (again), it's a daily magic item, feel free to decide as a group what you prefer. Just please don't try and muddy rules arguments further
And there was no "crowd". There was just Darklord's interpretation, and every other person disagreed.
That said (again), it's a daily magic item, feel free to decide as a group what you prefer. Just please don't try and muddy rules arguments further
DarkLord Of DForce
First Post
Umm... just for clarity, as far as I know, this is the previous thread though it's more cluttered with discussion of Warding Blade (which was more interesting, and still could use errata).
And there was no "crowd". There was just Darklord's interpretation, and every other person disagreed.
That said (again), it's a daily magic item, feel free to decide as a group what you prefer. Just please don't try and muddy rules arguments further
Please, did you read that entire thread? If you didn't go through it all, then you missed a lot. Including the CS replies I posted there.
(never mind - just realized you were involved in a lot of that msg thread)
Almost every single person disagreed, by RAW (the raw "crowd"). BUT - multiple people clearly stated in the thread that they felt by RAI (the rai "crowd") that the author of the power or item *meant* for it to work that way.
Hope this clears it up - if not then I highly suggest that everyone read the *entire* thread, and just make up their own minds.
Thanks.
(and since this thread is about RA alone, I'm not going to sidetrack it with any other replies here)
Last edited:
keterys
First Post
Yep. I'm actually the person who stated that I'd rule differently ("RAI") - for warding blades. I also put in a thread for errata for it on the wotc boards, since I thought your point on warding blades had merit, and it seemed likely to be a mistake.
No one actually stated that for repulsion armor, that I saw. There's no logical mistake to it, and it's not a bad power at all.
No one actually stated that for repulsion armor, that I saw. There's no logical mistake to it, and it's not a bad power at all.
