Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5549221" data-attributes="member: 78116">I actually really hate that as well mneme, believe me when I first saw a bloodmage run, drop prone and use a +1 implement to attack with destructive salutation I was confused at first. Then it dawned on me the goal was to get the stun UEoNT effect and not the save ends (which a solo could deal with more easily). This is of course why miss effects should not be better than hit effects (arguably). There is a similar problem with some martial powers and something that grants them the reliable keyword (IIRC). This issue is entirely separate though and really deserves its own discussion.Thunderwave targets creatures but generally speaking I've not seen it used without hitting enemies at the same time. If this is actually required or even useful is minimal to my thinking (that is, without enemies being affected). Actually I can't say I've ever seen anyone try to "thunderboost" (?) their allies while not attacking enemies. At the same time in this case, I'm not so worried about it because usually it's effects I want to avoiding exploiting. Not a push effect that triggers off the actual hit line. Mostly I think towards the sorts of things that daily powers do.Dragonbreath definitely not, because I'm well aware of how easily you can abuse that (oh can it be abused). So that is one example where the way I rule things specifically gets rid of a major exploitable loophole. Dragonbreath is one of the easiest powers to get back in 4E. So much so there are entire builds dedicated to it by itself, so having a go to close blast 3 (or area burst, it's a damn malleable power) temp HP factory is not my idea of the intent of the feat. This is an example of what I want to stop: exploiting the effect line (albeit, an added one) of an attack power.I also really disagree with case by case ruling making anything better. In my experience, it was precisely the opposite and the resulting argument (where one player felt MOST aggrieved about the inconsistency in ruling between two powers) ended a 5 hours session 30 minutes into the game (with 1:30 hours of arguing after that). I mean normally that stuff never happens, but he was really upset about the fact I let one power work that way and not something he tried to do (it's so far back, I literally cannot remember what it was). So next session, I told them I would use this consistent ruling (that I have presented in the thread) and told them it was their final chance for any commentary on the rules, after-wards once we had a group consensus to take a hike if they didn't like it. I was having no further nonsense like the incident that occurred the previous week and I got my way immediately with the consistent ruling. We went back to playing DnD.Used it ever since without a single problem.</blockquote>

Verification