Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6071020" data-attributes="member: 6696971">You'll revel in it? Ok.  I'm not really sure how you would like me to be as clear as possible and polite as possible and relay that I think that you're effort here is in good faith but that its misunderstood by way of not having considerable experience with the ruleset; I could put a smily afterward? (but that may seem condescending and intentionally provocative when juxtaposed with the antecedent commentary, rather than sincere...I have no idea...its impossible to discern how one person may interpret language when they can't see your face versus another...so I just try to be as clear as possible with my language and put the ball in their court).  People misunderstand things all the time.  I misunderstand things plenty.  Sort of like I did earlier and I owned it without hesitation or any loss of sense of self-worth.  Nor does it affect me toward the end of gaining any sense of self-worth when I'm right about something.  Its pretty trivial.  We're human.  It happens.  And the world doesn't blink (tragedy continues in every corner of the world while we mull over useless game theory and rules adjudication).  I wasn't being a jerk or slighting you or anything of the sort.  We happen to sit on different sides of the fence of an issue, but so be it.  I'm not sure what would be cause for revelling.  But on we go I suppose:I think the term fiat here might be constrained into borderline meaninglessness if this is the case.  Fiat is a decree made from authority.  The player made the decree with the authority vested in him (by the rules and by our creative agenda at the table); and it ocurred...and does consistently.  Does a mother/father not have the fiat to decide how to run their household because ultimately a government agency can potentially overturn it and/or incarcerate them or take their children away?  Did King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette not have fiat because the French proletariat can at any point ultimately rise up, remove them from power (remove their fiat/authority), try them for treason and execute them by guillotine?The player says I want to slide this guy into the boiling stewpot hanging on the spit over the firepit for ongoing fire damage...and knock the whole thing down and make a mess of it for permanent difficult terrain and a fire zone (well, in terms of the encounter...as soon as its cleaned up, its not there anymore);  this is why its "limited use damage expression" rather than "normal use".  While people can now get folks into the difficult terrain/fire square over and over as they wish (a normal damage expression - an at-will power), people can't upend the cauldron of boiling water and knock down the spit down by exerting force onto the apparatus over and over.  They can do it once.  That is a limited use effect; interchangeable jargon for encounter power.  He asks to spend his level 7 encounter power to do it.  He gets to do this by default.  He frames it as forced movement through weapon flurries and wrongfooting him - Dex vs Ref; Fire, Martial, Weapon keywords.  All of that is borderline impossible to adjudicate any differently.  All that is left is the limited use (1/encounter) damage expression for level 7 encounter powers based on p42.  That is the most meaningless portion of what he was wanting to do (and just as clear and intuitive as the rest of it).  His primary goals:1)  Slide 2 - Check.  2 squares of forced movement that is not a push is a slide; its just gamist jargon for ease-of-use.  *2)  Ongoing Fire Damage (save ends) - Check.  Defaults to 5 for this level.  *3)  Weapon Attack such that he gets Sneak Attack as he has CA - Check.  That is how he described it and what he outlined be done.  Perfectly legitimate.  Making it not be would be suspending action resolution rules...for what good end exactly?  *4)  Turn innocuous blocking terrain (I had envisioned it differently...but gladly deferred to him) into a difficult terrain/fire zone for the rest of the encounter where the enemy is standing (with the mess of the spit, the cauldron, the fire/stones.  Therefore the enemy has a catch-22; move action and risk a successful OA or endure 5 automatic fire damage each round.  Check.  If folks (enemies or allies) want to, they can now use this terrain feature At-Will. * * Automatic and impossible to "interpret" any differently such that the  word "interpretation" is a pretty liberal use of the word.  Resolve and  resolution would be more fitting.  You can't reconstruct a functional  shower drain-pan assembly from deconstructed parts any differently.  You  aren't "interpretting" the shower drain-pan from the deconstructed  parts.  You're resolving the reconstruction.He basically wanted to do this level 8 limited use hazard effect but sub melee range, single target, slide 2 for AoE effect:Standard Action      Close blast 3Targets All creatures in blastAttack: +11 vs. ReflexHit: 3d8 + 4 fire damage and ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).If the collection of that is not player fiat, then there can exist no such thing with improvised attacks (due to their very nature, they require some level of mechanical mapping) while a GM exists within the game construct; no matter how clear the apparatus/recipe is for resolution of the reconstruction from parts.</blockquote>

Verification