Illusion Power Inconsistencies

[FadedC]

Not really in this case, but as I pointed out, it implies a certain laziness, and could definitely cause issues if it were a different condition. (Prone, Dazed, Weakened, etc.)

This isn't game breaking stuff, this isn't going to make these powers useless or unworkable or overpowered, but it's definitely going to make me doubt their attention to detail.

Agreed, this type of thing has the potential to be bad, and should generally be avoided. As for doubting their attention to detail.....I doubt that about every RPG in existance. Perhaps there is a game that doesn't regularly screw up like this (or in far worse ways) but I've never played it. That doesn't necesarily make it right, but it does make me less inclined to complain about it.

 

[Tervin]

It does make a slight difference, at least if I have this straight, depending on your relative positions in the initiative order.

Once everybody has taken their initiative, there are no "relative positions in the initiative order" anymore. Everyone takes their turn according to a rolling schedule, until the encounter is over. If A does something to B during A's turn, B's next turn will always show up before A's next turn - unless B chooses to delay actions.

This was of course exactly the same in 3rd edition.

 

[Pickles JG]

I'm definitely willing to concede your point, but the internal consistency is the issue to me, as I can't locate any othe powers that do this.

There are some powers that have
Hit: penalty, save ends
Miss: penalty, untill the end of your next turn

Which potentially work like this one. I can't remember any names or check as I am at work.

 

[Bolongo]

Off topic, but I couldn't resist....

As for doubting their attention to detail.....I doubt that about every RPG in existance. Perhaps there is a game that doesn't regularly screw up like this (or in far worse ways) but I've never played it.

There is one: "HeroQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha" (Issaries 2003)
That book has as close to zero errors as you will ever get.
Why? Because I proofread it, and fixed quite a lot of small mistakes.

 

[Celebrim]

Part of this is because they're trying to step back from the rules-lawyerish minutia of 3e and re-emphasize Rule Zero.

I don't think so.

Remember when they had that question about 'Can you knock a Gelatinous Cube prone, and if so, what would it look like?'

Rule Zero would tend to leave the DM to say, "Since I can't imagine what a prone Gelatinous Cube would look like, and since it is illogical to imagine a creature with neither legs nor oreintation as 'prone' I rule that you can't knock the ooze prone."

But WotC's responce was more along the lines of, "Yes, you can knock it prone. It doesn't say you can't knock it prone, so you can, even if you can't imagine what this 'prone' state would be like."

 

[Shabe]

Can immobolized creatures actually pick themselves up from prone?

 

[Mort_Q]

Can immobolized creatures actually pick themselves up from prone?

Yes. Immobilized means they can't leave their square unless they teleport, or someone else push, pulls, or slides them.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I don't think so.

Remember when they had that question about 'Can you knock a Gelatinous Cube prone, and if so, what would it look like?'

Here's how I read Sage Advice and that kind of stuff.

"Here's an impartial interpretation of the rules. Feel free to use it if your group wasn't able to come to a consensus on how to interpret the rules."

I can see why some people might have a problem with that, and want the TRUE answer, but personally I'm fine with it. (And, heck, according to recent posts from someone who used to have that job at Wizards, that's factually true, anyway. The "official ruling" is still just some guy with a lot of game knowledge making the best judgement call he can. Not much different from the DM making a judgement call, all considered.)

If you want a game that has exact legalistic interpretations, go with Magic: the Gathering. Although, even there, you'll see people playing the game at official tournaments for money, and still have two different judges issue two different rulings.

 

[Celebrim]

Here's how I read Sage Advice and that kind of stuff.

"Here's an impartial interpretation of the rules. Feel free to use it if your group wasn't able to come to a consensus on how to interpret the rules."

I can see why some people might have a problem with that, and want the TRUE answer, but personally I'm fine with it. (And, heck, according to recent posts from someone who used to have that job at Wizards, that's factually true, anyway. The "official ruling" is still just some guy with a lot of game knowledge making the best judgement call he can. Not much different from the DM making a judgement call, all considered.)

All of which may be true, and yet still not provide any evidence that they are pushing Rule 0.

If they were in fact pushing rule zero, a sage advice answer to a question like that would give as its 'TRUE answer' "make something up which suits your group". But I see no evidence that they are pushing the sort of free form circumstantial adjudication that people are claiming that they are. Rather what I see is people uncomfortable with the move to a simplier rule set and then claiming that 4E is filling in the gaps with Rule 0.

You always can choose to exercise Rule 0, but that doesn't mean its an especially 4e way of handling things. My impression of 4E is that you are supposed to ignore the logical gaps in favor of 'fun' or 'balance'. I think that rule that gelatinous cubes can be knocked prone is particularly 4E-ish in its mindset because "Players may have abilities which knock targets prone and its not fun to take away abilities", and likewise the 4E mindset would view 'Rule 0' interpretations that an ooze can't be knocked prone (because it doesn't make sense based on the flavor) as being particularly wrong headed.

I think the comparison to MtG is apt, because I think the proper reading of the 4E rules is similar in many ways to the proper reading of a MtG card. I think the 4E rules have been heavily influenced by what WotC has learned writing WtG cards. From the 4E perspective, the claim that an ooze can't be knocked prone because it has neither legs or nor an upright orientation is akin to claiming in MtG that a monster can fly because it has wings. No, creature cards can fly because they have 'flying' written on them - wings are irrelevant. Oozes can be knocked prone because the rules don't explicitly say otherwise - flavor text is irrelevant.

 

[FadedC]

Off topic, but I couldn't resist....


There is one: "HeroQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha" (Issaries 2003)
That book has as close to zero errors as you will ever get.
Why? Because I proofread it, and fixed quite a lot of small mistakes.

I'll have to take your word for it that nobody has ever come up with errors or obvious balance problems in that book. That's quite impressive if true