Infinite damage at level 1

[MadLordOfMilk]

*Looks at 4e forum and sees claim about infinite damage at lvl 1*
*clicks on it just to see what tortured reading of rules is required to pull off the exploit*

Good job OP not only does your "exploit" require you to stretch RAW thinner than carbon nanotubes but also to out right ignore parts of it, (the whole "DM limits number of available free actions") It also ignores the role of the DM, you know, the guy who is trying to host the game.

The DM is not a computer. It is impossible to exploit him via rules. In a video game if you discover that you can cancel out of a move half way to gain an unblockable hit, the game can't tell that you are cheating. other people will, and then you won't have anyone to play with, assuming this is a multi-player game, in single player have at it, the only one you're hurting is yourself. The game cant tell you no, the DM can though.

And no this is not arguing "Nothing is broken because the DM can houserule it" This is arguing "This loop will ever never see table play because either the DM will smack it down (and possiblely you) or if you keep at it you will not have a table to play at."And if it never sees table play it doesn't exist.

So I don't think WOTC should waste time errata this. I would rather have them be working on something productive.

Except it breaks the rules on page 267
Free action: free actions take almost no time or effort. you can take as many free actions as want durign your turn or another combatant's turn. The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn.

Except it doesn't.

While your point is valid that, yes, the DM can (and, IMO, should) reach across the table and slap anyone who honestly tries any sort of infinite damage combo, it absolutely works RAW. Yes, the DM can limit your number of free actions, but "can" is different from "will" and is incredibly different from "has to". Especially vulnerable are newbies who don't know any better, and who're much more likely to simply drop what they suddenly perceive as a broken game than a veteran.

Just because any infinite combo should be shot down by a GM (unless your group is into that sort of thing) doesn't mean it's not worth discussing and not worth fixing.

 

[Wormwood]

Ah, but does the target get cake?

 

[Nifelhein]

As I said, this combo is RAW only if you admit that raw accepts the following:

A creature that could never fail a save against being teleported would be able to stop time in the campaign world because the ardent would attempt to teleport it ad nauseum while it would never fail.

TIME WARP!

 

[WalterKovacs]

Except it doesn't.

While your point is valid that, yes, the DM can (and, IMO, should) reach across the table and slap anyone who honestly tries any sort of infinite damage combo, it absolutely works RAW. Yes, the DM can limit your number of free actions, but "can" is different from "will" and is incredibly different from "has to". Especially vulnerable are newbies who don't know any better, and who're much more likely to simply drop what they suddenly perceive as a broken game than a veteran.

However, in this case "can" isn't just acknowledging that WotC has no power to "enforce" how a group plays in their own homes, and that houseruling and dice roll fudging, etc, occur. It is saying that it's up to the DM to decide what is reasonable for free actions.

As for newbies ... how exactly are they running into this? Is this a newbie DM with more veteran players looking to get one over on him by finding an infinite combo and bullying the newbie DM into "sticking to RAW"?

Or is it a newbie who somehow is able to understand the rules on free actions, falling damage, the ability to teleport a target vertically to cause falling damage, and this particular power which hasn't been published in book form yet, and so brings it to a game (which is allowing classes from PH3 already) and either finds out it's broken and quits the game, or has the DM tell him he's not allowed to do that and throws a hissy fit?

I'm just wondering how this hypothetical scenario plays out. The rule about DM's limiting the number of free actions is a release valve for any free action that would become abusive if done infinitely many times. No free action is intended to be done an infinite number of times in a single turn.

Still, considering they errata'd the various "shift/slide adjacent" type powers to ensure that no one used them to take extremely circuitous routes, I guess they would also errata this one just in case as well. Unlike many broken powers of the past, the power, as it currently exists, will likely be used in a non broken fashion as is, and the errata'd version may not actually change the way most people use it (and those that try to abuse it will probably have their DM limiting it's use anyway). Thus leaving the errata mostly in order to deal with hypothetical players and hypothetical DMs that likely have bigger problems than the wording of a single power.

 

[jester_gl]

Here is the "official" custserve answer I received.

Unfortunately, there isn’t an official answer for the situation you describe. I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. Hopefully, we’ll see an update or FAQ entry covering it soon, but until then it’s up to the campaign’s Dungeon Master to decide. The DM is always the final arbiter on how they want their campaign to run. Have fun!

So the final answer is to have fun.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm just wondering how this hypothetical scenario plays out. The rule about DM's limiting the number of free actions is a release valve for any free action that would become abusive if done infinitely many times. No free action is intended to be done an infinite number of times in a single turn.

Imagine a party, on the verge of TPK, starting a filibuster in order to forestall their inevitable defeat.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Imagine a party, on the verge of TPK, starting a filibuster in order to forestall their inevitable defeat.

LOL ... I can just imagine some dude saying, "It's not an abuse since I only teleported him 1 square up. I'm not hurting him, lemme bamf him again!"

 

[unan oranis]

The OP is wrong - this is no infinite combo.

The only question raised here is if the note about dm's responsibility for capping the amount of free actions should be printed along side the term "free action" wherever it appears.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The OP is wrong - this is no infinite combo.

The only question raised here is if the note about dm's responsibility for capping the amount of free actions should be printed along side the term "free action" wherever it appears.

Sure, but by that kind of logic there are NEVER EVER any infinite damage combos. Nobody is suggesting its anything beyond amusing. Of course the DM is going to squash it in no time flat and that would be both true and allowable simply by rule 0. So yeah, its about the best 4e infinite damage combo I've ever seen.

Of course it still doesn't hold a candle to a Nilbog plus 1e Disintegrate...

 

[RigaMortus2]

Of course it still doesn't hold a candle to a Nilbog plus 1e Disintegrate...

My favorite would be teleporting brown mold to the Elemental Plane of Fire