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: 4186851" data-attributes="member: 30001">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.</blockquote>

Verification