Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6070340" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Going to attempt to address this all at once.&nbsp; Much of this cuts to the questions that Obryn has been asking about &quot;how do we get the payload of large riders without augmented basic attacks (Encounter Powers)&quot;?&nbsp; Remathilis composed a brief augment system where Fighters start out with a resource pool and expend it for larger riders.&nbsp; Your first question of &quot;could this particular attack have been at-will&quot; is related to this issue;&nbsp; in order for the Rogue to pull this altogether, he needed a Slide 2 (medium control effect) and the result of knocking into the stewpot and getting the boiling liquid on him would e 5 ongoing Fire Damage (of-level for a 7th level encounter power).&nbsp; So, payload-wise we have:Weapon attack vs Reflex (effectively a + 3 to hit) + Single target slide 2 (medium control rider) + 5 ongoing Fire Damage (save ends) (medium control rider) + creating difficult terrain and putting the target there (the target now cannot shift so will either have to eat an OA or take fire damage each round at the beginning of his turn for standing in the firepit).&nbsp; That is beyond the payload of even the Low At-Will Damage expression.&nbsp; However, I definitely would have given him the opportunity to do it as an At-Will improvised attack and making it a non-weapon attack and removing the paltry Low Damage Expression.&nbsp; Hence, I would have said yes.&nbsp; However, he asked to use his 7th level Encounter Power as a Weapon Attack (so he could get his Sneak Attack).&nbsp; As a 7th level Encounter (that basically has a level 8 hazard that has a damage/control expression exactly as I outlined, because 4e math is very intuitive;&nbsp; Flame Jet Attack: +11 vs. Reflex.&nbsp; Hit: 3d8 + 4 fire damage and ongoing 5 fire damage [save ends].), its easy to adjudicate.That's not &quot;mother may I&quot;.&nbsp; If he says here is what I want to do, and the default answer is yes and there are clear guidelines on how to use this and a thousand and&nbsp; one At-Will and Encounter Powers for you to study so you have intimate&nbsp; knowledge of the payload of each tier of power...that works out as fiat at the table.&nbsp; If it is &quot;mother may I&quot;, then its the most user-friendly and hard-coded &quot;mother may I&quot; possible.&nbsp; Now, if someone asks &quot;Can I attack 4 guys, fly across the street and have a sandwich in the blink of an eye, teleport back and knock them prone with my BAMF?&quot;...well, I don't think saying no there says anything about whether or not level 42 is intrinsically &quot;fiat&quot; or &quot;mother may I&quot;.&nbsp; We're basically just talking about adjudicating payload.&nbsp; There is a point in any game with an action economy and a payload-by-level expectation where NO is going to override the default answer of yes, as it should.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6070340, member: 6696971"] Going to attempt to address this all at once. Much of this cuts to the questions that Obryn has been asking about "how do we get the payload of large riders without augmented basic attacks (Encounter Powers)"? Remathilis composed a brief augment system where Fighters start out with a resource pool and expend it for larger riders. Your first question of "could this particular attack have been at-will" is related to this issue; in order for the Rogue to pull this altogether, he needed a Slide 2 (medium control effect) and the result of knocking into the stewpot and getting the boiling liquid on him would e 5 ongoing Fire Damage (of-level for a 7th level encounter power). So, payload-wise we have: Weapon attack vs Reflex (effectively a + 3 to hit) + Single target slide 2 (medium control rider) + 5 ongoing Fire Damage (save ends) (medium control rider) + creating difficult terrain and putting the target there (the target now cannot shift so will either have to eat an OA or take fire damage each round at the beginning of his turn for standing in the firepit). That is beyond the payload of even the Low At-Will Damage expression. However, I definitely would have given him the opportunity to do it as an At-Will improvised attack and making it a non-weapon attack and removing the paltry Low Damage Expression. Hence, I would have said yes. However, he asked to use his 7th level Encounter Power as a Weapon Attack (so he could get his Sneak Attack). As a 7th level Encounter (that basically has a level 8 hazard that has a damage/control expression exactly as I outlined, because 4e math is very intuitive; Flame Jet [B]Attack: [/B]+11 vs. Reflex[B]. Hit: [/B]3d8 + 4 fire damage and ongoing 5 fire damage [save ends].), its easy to adjudicate. That's not "mother may I". If he says here is what I want to do, and the default answer is yes and there are clear guidelines on how to use this and a thousand and one At-Will and Encounter Powers for you to study so you have intimate knowledge of the payload of each tier of power...that works out as fiat at the table. If it is "mother may I", then its the most user-friendly and hard-coded "mother may I" possible. Now, if someone asks "Can I attack 4 guys, fly across the street and have a sandwich in the blink of an eye, teleport back and knock them prone with my BAMF?"...well, I don't think saying no there says anything about whether or not level 42 is intrinsically "fiat" or "mother may I". We're basically just talking about adjudicating payload. There is a point in any game with an action economy and a payload-by-level expectation where NO is going to override the default answer of yes, as it should. [/QUOTE]

Verification