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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 4318439" data-attributes="member: 6533">True, but within that definition you do not attack individual squares.  You make attacks against targets within those squares.  Volley enables you to refuse an attack.I don't think this is the best interpretation of the GSL, since a keyword adds to the applicability of a power which is explicitly allowed under the GSL.Also, this is a feature.  I think you want to use the attack schematics already used by every other power in the game.  It makes it easier to have these powers interact with standard adventure design.You're evaluating this in too linear a fashion.A.) Keywords are already a part of most powers so this doesn't represent an extra step in the sum total intepretation of a power.B.) Creating a new attack adds a whole new range of choices since attack modes seem to be one of the key 'limited' choice ranges in the grammar of powers.  Further, in terms of use of reference, attack modes are defined in the combat rules section, the begining of the character rules section, and at every point where the grammar of powers is described.Keywords, on the other hand, are described in each class section to which they are relevant.   Even where those keywords - such as implement - are repeated in multiple classes.Developing a new keyword for a class represnts much less of a challenge in terms of the overall information structure of the manuals than futzing around with the overall tight structure of the combat rules.  Someone wants to know what a keyword is that someone looks at the relevant class description.  They want to know what an attack mode is and they look at the combat section, which is something it's going to be a lot harder for us to rewrite.Even if, in terms of the straight application of the class, the keyword represents an extra step.  But you don't want to simplify a class by getting rid of established steps, that's like getting rid of a direct object in a sentence by making it a suffix to the verb.  It may simplify the structure of the sentence, but it actually complicates the grammar. The OA system keys off of attack modes.  It isn't ranged attacks and ranged area attacks provoke OA, it's OA's are provoked by the following kinds of attacks: Ranged attacks, area attacks.You make a new kind of attack and you have to define how it works in terms of that system and every other system that keys off of specific attack modes.   Which may be simple from the perspective of straight up writing, but is nasty in terms of document design.Well, but for me part of the feel of a ranged weapon is that you should have some choice in how you use it.  Making volley a keyword let's you choose between area burst or close burst in terms of writing your powers.Now you can make powers that still the ranged weapon but don't provoke OAs since they are Close Burst powers.I do think that keywords the modify the applicability of a prior term rather than the prior term itself are both allowable and sort of the point.  Making classes that couldn't modify the applicability of the attack modes would be largely impossible.  Making classes with their powers and the accompanying modifiying keywords is clearly something WotC wants you to be able to do.</blockquote>

Verification