Fire AND Cold

[Mesh Hong]

WotC seriously needs to look at the people they have writing the rules text because they could do 100x better.

Yeah it both amuses and infuriates me that it is probably true that every group with the same basic rules system (3 core books) will not be playing by the same rules. Due to poorly written, ambiguous, contradictory, errated or superceeded rules.

I always hesitate to get involved with rules discussions on these boards because 9 times out of 10 I am wrong. Then half of the time even when I am wrong I stick with my own interpretation anyway. What does that say about the quality of design and writting?

At least it gives us all something to discuss.

 

[Ryujin]

It seems that when in doubt, the ruling that works best for speed and playability applies. Got a power that has a keyword and an implement that adds a keyword? Just toss them all in. Add a keyword and unless you have resistance to them all, you take the full effect. No taking 2-3 minutes to work out what does and doesn't get reduced. No summing of multiple vulnerability related damage simply because you're attacked with two keywords and have two vulnerabilities. Just take the worst.

If it means that a round flows more quickly, then it's probably right.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah it both amuses and infuriates me that it is probably true that every group with the same basic rules system (3 core books) will not be playing by the same rules. Due to poorly written, ambiguous, contradictory, errated or superceeded rules.

I always hesitate to get involved with rules discussions on these boards because 9 times out of 10 I am wrong. Then half of the time even when I am wrong I stick with my own interpretation anyway. What does that say about the quality of design and writting?

At least it gives us all something to discuss.

Yeah, the shame of it is it really wasn't necessary. WotC has a pretty decent sized staff of 4e people. They certainly could have afforded to hire someone like one of the old SPI or AH developers or someone with that skill set. They were excellent at writing down a set of complex rules in unambiguous form and were experienced with the right and wrong ways to use the English language to say something precisely. Instead WotC left it to a bunch of english majors to write the books and they failed utterly in that respect. The conceptual design of the game is fine, the execution is just poor.

 

[DracoSuave]

Abdulalhazred I completely understand that, and whats more it seems logical (unlike the flaming longsword keyword situation).

the Damage is untyped, but the additional effect is a poison effect. So anything other than resistance still applies, which can be bonues or even immunity.

For example an undead creature hit by the attack would take the damage but not the secondary effects as it is immune to poison damage.

From the MM2:

'A creature that is immune to a damage type (such as fire or cold), a condition (such as dazed or petrified), or another specific effect (such as disease or forced movement) is not effected by it.'

So, immunity to poison means that the creature does not take poison damage. It's no longer based on keywords, like it once was. HOWEVER:

'A creature that is immune to charm, fear, illusion, poison, or sleep is not effected by the non-damaging effects of a power that has that keyword.'

So, a creature that is immune to poison is immune to poison damage, and explicitly, non-damaging effects of a poison power.

And immunity to gaze is the whole shebang as well.

 

[Pickles JG]

Yeah, the shame of it is it really wasn't necessary. WotC has a pretty decent sized staff of 4e people. They certainly could have afforded to hire someone like one of the old SPI or AH developers or someone with that skill set. They were excellent at writing down a set of complex rules in unambiguous form and were experienced with the right and wrong ways to use the English language to say something precisely. Instead WotC left it to a bunch of english majors to write the books and they failed utterly in that respect. The conceptual design of the game is fine, the execution is just poor.

Old SPI staff that's going back a bit...

But it's even worse really - they have Magic designer's that are really good at this keyword stuff.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Old SPI staff that's going back a bit...

But it's even worse really - they have Magic designer's that are really good at this keyword stuff.

Well, yes and no. I played MTG a good bit back in its early heyday and the rules were pretty rough. I guess when 4th edition (of MTG) came out they cleaned them up a good bit and I imagine they're a lot better now. 1-3rd editions of the rules were pretty ambiguous. Of course MTG is a LOT easier to fix than D&D 4e since you got a new rulebook in every deck and it was basically a no-cost item.

So yeah, maybe the current crop of MTG guys would have done better. They couldn't have easily done worse, that's for sure. Still, having someone like Jim Dunnigan on staff to go through all the rules text and make it clear would have done the trick. Even AH once in a while made a tiny slip up, but games like Third Reich are MUCH more complex than 4e and nobody has questions about how anything works in those games, its 100% clear.