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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dracorat" data-source="post: 4600216" data-attributes="member: 40170">It's a perfectly valid point, cats and in the real-time playing of the game, if I can't find the rule in a timely manner, I just make stuff up that seams reasonable. I do try to avoid the grind-to-halt.But you can't hand-wave a rules system either. If it goes so far as to spell out rules, it should account for how the rules interact. Yes, it's not the detail of 3E but in some areas, it seems to lack sufficient detail.Really, I got my answer a while ago, but the way the debate has progressed has been pleasing. Much thanks to all the contributors. (Even DracoSuave, who for a while probably thought I was attacking his answers, which was never my intent.)For the record, there will be no Immediate Interrupt allowed from henceforth against invisible characters unless a check can sufficiently identify the action as a shift versus any other possible action. As you cannot take an OA for a run action versus an invisible foe, I cannot in my own mind justify a perception check for the shift either, which is to me, a more deliberately measured action than a break-and-run, yet with no characteristic that could identify it as a shift specifically, absent seeing it happen.I won't modify the mark penalties (-2 to hit other characters), but if you're going to control the movement of a marked target, you need to know where it's at and what it's doing, within reason. Simply knowing it's moving isn't sufficient, IMO.If an errata comes out with this addressed, I'll revist it, of course.</blockquote>

Verification