Excerpt: powers (merged)

[Fifth Element]

Double post.

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually, bag o' rats is just about ridiculing a badly-designed rule. No sane player would ever consider using it in a game.

I find it funny that so many people don't understand that and really believes someone was seriously thinking about using a bag o' rats as a valid trick. Of course it's not a valid trick, but the fact that the rule allows something so ridiculous may indicate that the rule is badly-designed. At least, that's the point that the guy that calls the bag o' rats in a rules' discussion is trying to do.

Bag o' rats is not a minmaxing discussion. It's a game designing discussion.

Two points:

1. If no one would ever actually try it in-game, then it is not really relevant to the discussion. The point of designing game rules is not to have perfect game rules - it is to use the rules to play the game. If there is no problem in-game, there is no problem.

2. The claim that the rules "allow" something this ridiculous is the point of contention. Those who argue it does allow this typically use a tortured, absurd reading of the rules in order to achieve the result.

Besides, doesn't Whirlwind Attack specifically state that extra attacks from other feats (such as Cleave) are not allowed?

 

[Fifth Element]

Granted, you can always find extreme examples that make the process of defining what you're talking about seem ridiculous, but defining what it means to "threaten" or flank someone, as you did above, IMO is completely sensible.

Indeed, threatening and flanking are not the issues here. (For the record, the rats wouldn't provide flanking because they are not friendly to you - which is a requirement for flanking - and they couldn't anyway since creatures with reach 0 can't provide a flanking bonus.)

The issue is that to make the bag o' rats trick work (it doesn't, of course, but stay with me), is that each rat must be considered an "opponent" for the Whirlwind Attack. So you need to argue that these rats, which pose no threat to you and are not attacking you, are "opponents", because you need them to be in order for your trick to work (it doesn't).

Edit: I guess the point is, terms like flanking and threatening need to be defined, because they are specialized terms in the game that mean something very specific, in-game, that do not match the general definitions of the words. "Opponent" is not the same, and as such the typical sense of the word should be used be default.

Edit: Also, realize that I'm not talking about rules for which there exists more than one reasonable interpretation. I'm talking only about the absurd, bag o' rats type stuff.

 

[gizmo33]

Edit: I guess the point is, terms like flanking and threatening need to be defined, because they are specialized terms in the game that mean something very specific, in-game, that do not match the general definitions of the words. "Opponent" is not the same, and as such the typical sense of the word should be used be default.

As this concept has been alluded to several times, I would like to point out that to the degree that the rules already prohibit the hypothetical rule abuse, then there is no issue. To the degree that WotC has defined "flanking" or whatever sufficient to preclude the BoR then I have no issue - WotC has done it's job, the rule is well-written, end of story IMO. This makes the debate hypothetical, to some extent, but very relevant to the concept of how rigorous 4E should be in defining game terms. Lots of these mistakes have been made in previous editions of DnD, hopefully the new designers are familiar with those.

Typical sense of the word "opponent" on the otherhand, IMO is not helpful. Say, for example, that my character is invisible/undetected in a room with a bunch of people that I haven't made up my mind about whether I want to attack or not. Then it becomes my turn to attack for the round. All of the sudden, now, my whirlwind attack's capabilities depend on whether or not the people I'm targeting had some intention of attacking my character? If I can't really see a substantial difference between an orc warrior, a rat, and an inanimate statue in terms of how whirlwind attack operates, then I think the game designers would have to do some thinking about how the feat ought to function. Yea- sometimes it's not easy to take an abstract idea, like a whirlwind of attacks, and turn it into a solid concept that works well with an abstraction like DnD combat. But that's why being a game designer is probably hard.

In fact, ironically, when it comes to *whirlwind* attack, the image I have in my mind is of a sword weilder whose blade is whirling (hence the name) through empty space and only periodically connecting with an opponent. This means forget about rats, I would even consider *empty space* to be a "target" if it suited the flavor of the feat. Ultimately, while it is interesting to fantasize about a rule book saying "read the DM's mind for all relevant game term definitions", I think it's a (admittedly challenging) necessity for the DM to realize that you're sharing the gaming space with other thinking people that deserve some respect, and that some things that seem stupid at first glance (like taking a canary in a cage with you into a mine) might actually make sense if you expanded your perspective a little.

 

[Fifth Element]

Ultimately, while it is interesting to fantasize about a rule book saying "read the DM's mind for all relevant game term definitions",

Wow. How about "ask the DM for all relevant game term definitions?"

 

[Fifth Element]

In fact, ironically, when it comes to *whirlwind* attack, the image I have in my mind is of a sword weilder whose blade is whirling (hence the name) through empty space and only periodically connecting with an opponent. This means forget about rats, I would even consider *empty space* to be a "target" if it suited the flavor of the feat.

Do you think that inanimate objects and empty space both fall within the definition of "opponent"? Either in a general sense or a D&D specific sense?

 

[Andor]

I'm surprised no one picked up on this line. "Some powers, such as the racial powers in Chapter 3 and the feat powers in Chapter 6 of the Player’s Handbook, carry different information on the right side of this line."

So there are feat powers. Earlier we had heard that feats are all passive. I'm gald to see some of them do provide new options rather than +1 to hit with Nerf Bats or +1 to Damage with Sea Turtles.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

There was something that caught my eye, this may have been already discussed, but:

Prerequisite: You must meet this provision to select this power. If you ever lose a prerequisite for a power (for example, if you use the retraining system to replace training in a skill with training in a different skill), you can’t use that power thereafter

Does that mean you can use retraining to not only pick different feats but also what trained skills you have? Or that there are feats that gain more trained skills.

Also, the way it was worded, it sounds like there are powers that require certain trained skills.

 

[heretic888]

Also, the way it was worded, it sounds like there are powers that require certain trained skills.

Hi Fallen Seraph,

That's because there are.

The Rogue's tumble power (level 2 utility power) requires training in Acrobatics.

Laterz.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah forgot about that. Still though, makes me wonder if you can switch Skills around, how much will that affect Powers? How common will prerequisites for powers be, you could see characters becoming quite different thanks to switching skills.