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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4186688" data-attributes="member: 30001">If one interpretation of a rule is as equally logical as another, then it's simply a matter of the DM establishing what he believes the correct interpretation is.  It's not up to the DM to have options about the players intelligence who suggested an alternative interpretation.  In the specifics you give, the problem I have is that feats *often* give the character an ability that exceeds the normal parameters - so your generalized advice doesn't really hold up at the boundaries.  However, I agree with your basic notion that says that more extreme the results are, the more likely that there is a problem with the rule interpretation.  I'd rather that the rules avoid making too many assumptions about what the word "enemy" means that aren't spelled out in the rules.  There is a mind-boggling myriad of possible circumstances that can occur in a fantasy game with magic, I don't want 4E assuming it knows something about my game like that, especially when it's not necessary.  There are plenty of game concepts, like CR, BAB, size, threatened square, etc. that the rules can use to define exactly who they mean by "enemy" in a way that excludes completely wacky results like rats.Yes, I believe the rules are actually the problem where and I ask you to consider the arbitrariness of your definitions here.  First of all, the word "enemy" is extremely vague - probably the reason why the wand of enemy detection didn't survive into 3E.  It greatly behooves the 4E designers to define "enemy" in the same rigorous way they define "fire subtype" if they're going to insist on using the concept in the rules.Secondly, you think it's obvious that a creature who is killed in one hit is not an enemy.  But how about 2 hits?  What if it takes you 10 hits, but your armor class is 20 points better than their best attack roll?  I can come up with bunches of ways that one character is not a threat to another, and then come up with gray areas along the entire spectrum of trivial to dangerous.  "Enemy", as nebulously defined as above then, is extremely unhelpful as a game concept, and IMO a game designer really doesn't know as much about his job as he needs to if he's going to use such a term with such a weak definition.</blockquote>

Verification