Excerpt: Paragon paths (merged)

[GoodKingJayIII]

That's a straw man. How I would argue about an arbitrary alternate power in no way impacts on the proper interpretation of the power in question.

Having said that, and in answer to your question: no I wouldn't. I'm not sure why. I think largely it would be because turning a hit into a possible miss is too much trouble in terms of the maths and record keeping involved. Adding 5 damage to one character's hits (that happened in the last 2 minutes) is much easier than figuring out which OA hits become misses and which OA inflicted what damage.

I'm already satisfied that I will play this as a "prospective only" power and the damage will not apply retrospectively. However, I'm not satisified that that interpretation is the correct RAW one (and I'm generally a stickler for RAW). Nor am I satisfied that this rule is as clear as it should be.

As a lawyer in RL, I know that clarity is a big deal in law/rule making. Getting this power crystal-clear would have been as simple as inserting the words "until the end of your turn" or "until the start of your next turn" or even substituting the word "After" for the word "When" at the beginning of the power.

Of course the wording of rules is important. I agree that it is worded poorly, as presented in the preview.

But precedent and spirit of the law are important as well. There are very few precedents of retroactive damage in 3.x, and what we precedents we do have are for very specific situations (a prestige class ability, a specific spell, etc.). As of yet, we have know evidence that retroactive damage exists in 4e, and while I'll concede it's possible such a rule exists, the principles upon which 4e is built (fast ease of play) suggests to me that such a rule is not coming any time soon.

Once an action has been resolved, generally that action cannot be changed retroactively. If I attack a foe and deal 12 damage, I need to make another attack to deal more damage.

 

[NebtheNever]

Indeed it is.

I'd hope that the idea that other paragon paths still remain flexible in who can take them, and that the example paths are the only ones that are specific. I think a "Prerequisite: Divine or Martial Defender" line wouldn't be out of place, for example.

Confirmation from WotC (even if from several months ago) that there are at least 24 paragon paths does a lot to ease my concerns about the concept.

 

[Wormwood]

Let's go back to neutral pronouns, shall we?

Not me, bud. I *love* the second-person---especially in fluff text. Subtle little reminder that I'm playing an RPG.

 

[Xanaqui]

I recommend using the spoiler blocks. Avoids strangely empty looking posts.
See above for example and below for syntax.

[sbox]your spoiler here[/sbox]

Thanks for the attempt, but I failed my comprehension check.

Using [SBOX]sbox[/SBOX] alone seems to do nothing. Using

[SBOX]sbox inside code[/SBOX]

seems to give me a box, but doesn't hide the contents.

P.S. - I tried these both capitalized and non-capitalized. I get the same issue both ways.

 

[Lizard]

Not me, bud. I *love* the second-person---especially in fluff text. Subtle little reminder that I'm playing an RPG.

Have to agree with you here.

"The character is astoundingly skilled with his blade..." is much duller than "You are astoundingly skilled with your blade..."

 

[Mentat55]

I wonder if whatever form multiclassing takes (class training feats, actual "levels") will be sufficient to allow a character to take a paragon path. For example, I am playing a warlord with a bit of wizard mixed in. Can I take the battle mage paragon path?

 

[Andor]

Thanks for the attempt, but I failed my comprehension check.

Using [SBOX]sbox[/SBOX] alone seems to do nothing. Using

[SBOX]sbox inside code[/SBOX]

seems to give me a box, but doesn't hide the contents.

P.S. - I tried these both capitalized and non-capitalized. I get the same issue both ways.

That's becuase it's really
[s block] blah blah blah[/s block]

Only without the space between the s and block.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

What does "that oriental flavor hard-wired into the description" mean?

I'm not seeing how that doesn't fit with "you are privy to the secrets of an ancient technique of swordsmanship -- would make it fit in with oriental, European, Aztec, Sumerian, or none-of-the-above based campaign flavor."

The only "oriental" flavor is in the name, that I see. The only thing we've seen that the Kensei actually gives you is, in essence, weapon specialization. You could just call it the Fighter paragon path for what it's worth.

You could call it 'superfighter', you could call it 'increased badassery', or you could call it 'ultra scary drunken cow'. In and of itself, the means to change it does not refute the idea there is a problem.

If there was a throw away line like "... similar to a kensei", there wouldn't be much of an issue. I can't imagine the paragon path being called 'Bonaabakulu abasekhemu' would get a pass like this. Being familiar with the term does not invalidate the specificity, which is really the point of contention.

 

[Lacyon]

Thanks for the attempt, but I failed my comprehension check.

Using [SBOX]sbox[/SBOX] alone seems to do nothing. Using

[SBOX]sbox inside code[/SBOX]

seems to give me a box, but doesn't hide the contents.

P.S. - I tried these both capitalized and non-capitalized. I get the same issue both ways.

[SBLOCK]Try using sblock instead of sbox[/SBLOCK]

 

[Lacyon]

If there was a throw away line like "... similar to a kensei", there wouldn't be much of an issue. I can't imagine the paragon path being called 'Bonaabakulu abasekhemu' would get a pass like this.

Of course it would.