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: 4330556" data-attributes="member: 6533">How does it take away the flavor of ranged weapons?  Also, you should take a look at the definition of area attacks in the combat section of the PHB, I think it's page 170?, it explicitly includes rules for use of ammunition when a ranged weapon is a necessary part of the power.What we have here is a failure to communicate about a basic principle of good writing.  On a basic level it does have a major 4E reference problem because you just introduced a term to an area that had previously been limited.  For me there simply can't be a comparison.  Introducing a new term at a point in the syntax that is clearly limited as opposed to expansive is a bad move writing-wise.  There can be good reasons to make such a move, but I'm going to be inclined to resist it until all other options are exhausted.  I mean, it's clearly your choice, but I'm really unlikely to be persuaded that there's an inherent advantage to this tactic.  It might be a necessity, but it's not a necessity I'm seeing.  I'd sooner loose flavor than complicate the basic structure of the rules unnecessarily.On a different note, technically the requirement line would be cut out by the Weapon keyword, but I think in terms of readability you would include the requirement line regardless.  If there's any required limitation to the power that isn't strictly delineated by the weapon or implement keywords you probably want it in the power write up rather than implied.I'll have to look at where in the SRD it occurs, but given the write up of areas in the combat section I have my doubts that introducing a term rather than a number into the variable section of the formula represents a violation of the definition.What power are you considering that needs friend/foe recognition and is not an attack power?The term shows up in cleric burst powers a lot earlier than 29th level.  I picked that one cause it's impressive, it gives the argument weight that it's not unbalancing at that level of power.Hmm.  I'm going to make the call that sense doesn't enter it.  At the point where you have an individual crossbowmen mimicking a firing formation by laying down effective arcing fire you're way beyond the boundaries of sense.  I'm certainly comfortable with this level of fantasy, but I'm not going to ascribe greater realism to one method over the other.It seems a bit inelegant.  At the point where you want to differentiate the effects for range and long range it just seems like you'd be better off using the normal area attack formula since you've gone from not wanting to favor thrown or mechanical to penalizing them at different ranges.It also really hurts the thrown specialist since her long range is likely to include allies where the mechanical specialist is unlikely to have any allies in her long range for at least the first couple of rounds of combat.</blockquote>

Verification