Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 278665" data-attributes="member: 1149">Ok, first off, a point that has to be made...Let me ask an example question, if a troll runs completely around your prepared fighrt will the fighter get a free swing (AoO) wih his longsword if he has not already done so this round?The answer is YES or NO. Its "yes" if playing DND 3e. its "no" if playing Fantasy HERO.Ok before you start throwing things, the point is there are people here holding a rules discussion who are playing under two seriously different rules sets.Group A is playing by the DND rules plus the FAQ. They consider the FAQ to be relevent to their game rules and discussions thereof. They have clear and in print direct answers to many vauge or ill defined or sometimes just plain absent areas of the game.Group B is playing by the DND rules without the FAQ. They consider the FAQ to be irrelevent and thus none of its information impacts their game.(In either group, there are likely a few ne'er-do-wells who even stoop so far as to actually make their own rules, called house rules.)group A KNOWS whether you can doubly empower or not. The FAQ is clear. Group B is probably divided with some reading multiple feats as a "only different" and others reading it as "doubling up is cool."Group A, if they see multi-empower as trumping enhance, probably will chalk it up to "yet another case where the new stuff guys did not pay attention to what can be done with feats" and figure that it will either fall to being the next "toughness" or will be erratted. (Anyone remember the MotW cold spells where they gain a dice per round and extend the lesser beats the larger one hands down... the new stuff guys surely forgot existing feats on that one!)Group B, in part, may see this as making perfect sense because you cannot put empower twice.IF someone were talking 'but in HERO" we could all say "OK, different game systems have different rules."Well for those who choose to NOT USE the FAQ, they are playing a different game system than those who do.There can be no consensus here.Anubis is NOT wrong. He is just deciding to play a different game system.let him. If he doesn't want the FAQ or the sage as a resource provided by wotc to be a factor in HIS play, thats his call.  its been helpful for me.He is being forthright enough to identify, often in CAPS for emphasis, that his ruling is indeed based on "FAQ denial" so hardly anyone will be confused between his rules and DND rules. So there is little danger from his posts.Thany you, Anubis, for posting so diligently the group B "faq denial" side of the argument. its always good when other game styles are heard from.Or it means simply that they made an error. It does happen. Even though you have your "FAQ does not exist for me" blinders on, even you admit there is erratta, right? in order for there to be erratta, there must have been errors.Do you have ANY reason to believe that the ELH, all new materials, will be different from all other products and thus be error free? i don'tIn MOTW we have a pair of spells.One provides a three round spell which hits you with 1d6 and states that the damage grows by 1d6 each round. Several levels higher we have the four round spell doing the same. But, if i know FEATS, i use extend on the lesser and now FOR A LEVEL LESS than the big one i get a six round spell doing twice the damage.  Now i saw those two and immediately knew there was an error. Sooner or later they would fix these two. i did not suddenly leap to the conclusion that "extend spell must be wrong and this "last published" thing proves it!" i did not suddenly conclude the designers did not know what they were doings in some grand way. i just reached the conclusion that MotW, like all their other products, had errors and this was one.However, that is explicative of how i reason things, and i have been known to be wrong at times. enjoy your games, under whatever game system you decide to play.</blockquote>

Verification