I'm now confuzzled.

[The Little Raven]

Player starts out with 22 hp.

Step 1: 22 hp.

Warlock gains 5 temp hp from Power A.

Step 2: 27 hp (22 hp + 5 temp hp)

The following round he takes 3 hp of damage BUT also gains another 5 temp hp from Power A.

Step 3: 24 hp (22 hp + 2 temp hp; 3 damage removed from temp hp)
Step 4: 27 hp (22 hp + 5 temp hp; temp hp don't stack, highest always supercedes lower)

This could get wierder if the player recieved 7 temp hp round one, toook 3 points of damage, and then recieved 5 temp hp the following round. If the player started with 22hp, how many does he have now?

Round 1: 29 hp (22 hp + 7 temp)
Round 2: 26 hp (22 hp + 4 temp; 3 damage removed from temp hp)
Round 2: 27 hp (22 hp + 5 temp; temp hp don't stack, highest always supercedes lower)

 

[GnomeWorks]

I think Mourn's got it right, across the board.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Try to ignore all the hullabaloo on the internet and stick with your gut. If you felt like you understood something before, at least play your interpretation several times before you decide whether it's wrong or right.

The consensus demands official rulings for all kinds of things, but unless you're really gung ho about tourney play, this is probably unnecessary.

 

[Jack Colby]

Oh come on. Thats a very diliberate misreading of the word 'source' imo. Two independant uses of the same power are clearly intended to be two different sources with regardes to the line on pg 294. Temporary hit points even those granted from the same power used at two different times do not stack.

Says you. If others disagree, it's clearly not clear!

Try to ignore all the hullabaloo on the internet and stick with your gut. If you felt like you understood something before, at least play your interpretation several times before you decide whether it's wrong or right.

The consensus demands official rulings for all kinds of things, but unless you're really gung ho about tourney play, this is probably unnecessary.

And I agree strongly with the above. Don't let your game hinge on someone else's rulings. WotC has already given contradictory official rulings!

 

[Tony Vargas]

After reading the books I thought i had a reasnoble handle on stuff.

I know what you mean. As I was reading the PH, I was impressed with how clear and simple most of it was.

When I got on line, I was amazed at how adroitly people were able to find ambiguity where I could not.

 

[DreamChaser]

Says you. If others disagree, it's clearly not clear!

Uh...that doesn't follow: people don't need a reason to disagree. I've had people call my office and then argue with me about the phone number for my office because they dialed it wrong. That doesn't mean my phone number is unclear (it is quite straightforward and no one as ever pointed out a misprint); it simply means they were confused and unwilling to admit it.

And I agree strongly with the above. Don't let your game hinge on someone else's rulings. WotC has already given contradictory official rulings!

Though for the record, not on temporary HP. This is unequivocally stated as only the highest amount applies.

DC

 

[pogminky]

I'm almost glad that I won't get to play 4e until the next academic year - hopefully I'll get chance to really iron these things out (and mkae some neat adventures & props).

Thanks for the input...... I seem to be going round in circles over some things, but mostly it's getting clearer (slowly). I think one of the key issues is that 4e had 'DM judgement call' kinda written into it as a normal mode of play (more so than 3.5e IMHO).

Oh well, let's keep working on it....

 

[DClown]

Uh...that doesn't follow: people don't need a reason to disagree. I've had people call my office and then argue with me about the phone number for my office because they dialed it wrong. That doesn't mean my phone number is unclear (it is quite straightforward and no one as ever pointed out a misprint); it simply means they were confused and unwilling to admit it.

I agree with JC's implication that the word 'clear' is over used, especially on forum boards. What it is supposed to mean is that given a reasonable amount of ability and an unbiased starting point ( in most of the cases on this board that means reading comprehension and and an understanding of english words and phrases ) seperate individuals should arrive at the same conclusion. So when someone disagrees with me and I remark that the passage is 'clear' I'm essentially questioning their reading comprehension, their understanding of a words definition, or an existing bias. Its unfortunate that 'clear' or 'clearly' is becoming something of a standard snarky retort.

However, in response to JC, just because someone disagrees with something doesn't mean its validity is in question. There are many people who disagree with established facts; such as a heliocentric solar system. Just because they disagree with the fact that the earth isn't the center of the solar system/universe doesn't mean that it isn't clear. They either have a poor understanding of astronomy, or have some sort of bias ( a religious belief for example ) that led them to that conclusion.