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: 5549260" data-attributes="member: 78116">Yes it does. Think about it: If the first part was intended by RAW to block effects on allies, why would it immediately talk about affecting allies with powers immediately after. So it's pretty clear the first part does not rule out allies being affected by powers.Dragonbreath above can be exploited to turn you into a pretty effective AoE temp healbot (bearing in mind, you can get back dragonbreath pretty trivially). Allowing effects clearly intended to be used to attack or maneuver to creatures better on attack powers certainly can. For example Inexorable Pursuit came up during an example where a character bypassed an entire encounter. Attacking the wall on the way through in fact as justification for using the power. Sometimes combat powers are balanced with assumptions around how they are used in combat - not by how they are used when we declare chairs and allies as targets for them.The attack power has a different role and place in the game - while Thwart the Walls is supposed to be a generalist power.I am also speaking from a balance perspective and allowing combat powers to have clearly unintended effects, makes numerous situational balance problems. Yes, because they are designed around giving a power some effect if the power hits, or aiding in the usage of the power. They are not intended to be used as psuedo-utility powers at whim and that usage I firmly disagree with. The RCs clear ruling shows what the developers intended here: Attack powers need a meaningful threat to function and are clearly balanced around that.</blockquote>

Verification