DDXP characters - unexpected tactics?

[Dormain1]

The rules say you can use a free action any time you can take another action normally

AoO are actions which normally occur for bull rush. You couldn't use a free action during an opponents go unless they provided the AoO

if this has been errated,

per RAW the ogre would be moved back, but logic tells that momentum goes forward

This is the whole reason they changed to 4E, 3.x was had too much maybe

again sorry to derail

 

[Hypersmurf]

AoO are actions which normally occur for bull rush.

An AoO in 3E/3.5 is not an action. You won't find it listed on the table of action types.

When an AoO is provoked, you can't drop your dagger, Quick Draw your greatsword, and take the AoO. You can't cast Quickened True Strike and make the AoO at +20. All the AoO permits is a single melee attack; not an action, not a turn, not anything else except the melee attack.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

For reference, getting a save against being pushed off a cliff is part of the standard rules for bull rush in 4e (as revealed by the document that showed how grab and bull rush work)

Where is this? I'm looking through the various docs that have been floating around since D&DXP, and I can't find anything that says you get a save against being pushed off a cliff.

(Although... Dausuul's head may still explode, since it transpires that 4E bull rush is Str vs Fort, with no mention of Ref as a defense. No easy escaping for puny, agile defenders!)

 

[KarinsDad]

My take on the Paladin issue:

I wonder if WotC is not being a bit disingenious on this issue. If they really knew about this and other rules changes pre-DDXP, doesn't it make sense for them to fess up, print out a single Errata sheet for DDXP, and hand it out with the packet? This takes virtually no effort.

Or, does it make more sense for them to not even know about the Paladin loophole and say "Yeah, yeah. We knew about that and it's fixed in the rules, but did not make it into the packet. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.".

I don't necessarily want to think that some employees of WotC would do this type of thing, but come on! That particular loophole was spotted by many people (even pre-Internet hype) real quick, even at the table.

I do think that many of the game designers are very creative, but living a bit in a glass ball and not necessarily seeing the impact of some of their creativity.

My prediction: 4E Errata will eventually exceed 3E Errata in volume.

 

[vagabundo]

nvm

 

[hong]

nvm

Yeah, I found that. No mention of an additional save, on top of the Str vs Fort, to avoid falling off a cliff, though.

DAMMIT NOW I'M BABBLING NONSENSE AGAIN

 

[Dragonblade]

Yeah, I found that. No mention of an additional save, on top of the Str vs Fort, to avoid falling off a cliff, though.

DAMMIT NOW I'M BABBLING NONSENSE AGAIN

The save to avoid falling came from an anecdote by a player regarding something that happened in an Escape from Sembia game at DDXP. I don't think that specific rule has been seen in any of the actual paper documents that came out of DDXP.

 

[Derren]

I wonder if WotC is not being a bit disingenious on this issue. If they really knew about this and other rules changes pre-DDXP, doesn't it make sense for them to fess up, print out a single Errata sheet for DDXP, and hand it out with the packet? This takes virtually no effort.

And what impression would it get when you are already handing out errata before the development is actually finished?

My prediction: 4E Errata will eventually exceed 3E Errata in volume.

When WotC not simply stops to print errata like in 3E this is quite likely. 4E will not be perfect and it will have problems.

 

[robertliguori]

And what impression would it get when you are already handing out errata before the development is actually finished?

When WotC not simply stops to print errata like in 3E this is quite likely. 4E will not be perfect and it will have problems.

"Our product has problems, we're aware of them, here's how to fix them." is, IMHO, a better message than "Either we are unaware of our product's problems, or we assume you won't notice them."

 

[KarinsDad]

And what impression would it get when you are already handing out errata before the development is actually finished?

A good one. In fact, a very good one. It shows everyone that WotC cares about the product as opposed to leaving a pretty serious design flaw in the DDXP.

Handing out a few sentence Errata makes it look like they are continuously improving and serious about the reactions of the people playing at DDXP.

Not telling anyone about a glaring design flaw makes them look stupid (either because they did not know about something so obvious, or because they did not let anyone at DDXP know about it).

It's always better to come clean than it is to explain after the fact.

Marketing 101.