Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Opportunity Attacks - no limit ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5467990" data-attributes="member: 71571"><p>Counterargument.</p><p></p><p>There is a feat available to monks that allows them to use Flurry of Blows powers against a target two squares away from them so long as they have a spear. However, all Flurry of Blows powers have a range that does not allow that, so... the... feat... does... not... do... what... it... says?</p><p></p><p>It doesn't have to explicitly say 'The range is increased.' This can be implied in the 4e rulesset, and IS implied in Polearm Gamble, as it is impossble for Polearm Gamble to meaningfully work without the implied range change.</p><p></p><p>There are plenty of powers and feats that operate under the assumption of implied changes to the powers they have, even under the modern power and rules templating, as the monk's feat exemplifies.</p><p></p><p>The problem is you're requiring the ruleset to have a tightness of language comparable to Magic: The Gathering... it simply does not, <strong>and should not.</strong> In the case of Polearm Gamble, with the burden of rules tightness that Fourth Edition allows for, you can actually have the feat work as written, without any additional language mucking it up.</p><p></p><p>The burden of rules tightness is set to Fourth Edition standard, not some higher 'competitive game' standard that other games must have to resolve rules issues. That's why rules 1 and 2 exists. 1 says powers can break the rules, and 2 says 'Don't matter what the general says, the specific always wins.'</p><p></p><p>That's why Polearm Gamble wins and works as it should. Rule 2 sits you down and says to you 'Look pal, it doesn't matter if it technically can't work. The technicality is because of a general rule and not a specific situation. This is a specific situation. It wins, stop suggestng it can't.'</p><p></p><p>The idea that it cannot change the range of the power opportunity attack to make it work... or even that it HAS to, when other feats under the exact same rules templating as OA don't do so and yet work fine is rediculous. Polearm Gamble <strong>changes OA in any way it can to fit its needs so that it works as it should.</strong> It doesn't 'win in specific ways but still lose.' That's not what SvG says. It says Polearm Gamble wins. Period. The sentance ends there.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Moreover, the idea that Polearm Gamble 'uses the power' and thus all the parameters of the powers must remain intact is also rediculous. If that were the case, then PG would use the power... the power would see its trigger wasn't satisfied, and would refuse to work. But... obviously that's not the case, so PG must alter the power to suit its needs. At that point... PG forces OA to do its bidding. The trigger doesn't fit? Make it fit. The range doesn't fit? Make it fit.</p><p></p><p>That's all. Polearm Gamble now works. Happy day.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DracoSuave, post: 5467990, member: 71571"] Counterargument. There is a feat available to monks that allows them to use Flurry of Blows powers against a target two squares away from them so long as they have a spear. However, all Flurry of Blows powers have a range that does not allow that, so... the... feat... does... not... do... what... it... says? It doesn't have to explicitly say 'The range is increased.' This can be implied in the 4e rulesset, and IS implied in Polearm Gamble, as it is impossble for Polearm Gamble to meaningfully work without the implied range change. There are plenty of powers and feats that operate under the assumption of implied changes to the powers they have, even under the modern power and rules templating, as the monk's feat exemplifies. The problem is you're requiring the ruleset to have a tightness of language comparable to Magic: The Gathering... it simply does not, [b]and should not.[/b] In the case of Polearm Gamble, with the burden of rules tightness that Fourth Edition allows for, you can actually have the feat work as written, without any additional language mucking it up. The burden of rules tightness is set to Fourth Edition standard, not some higher 'competitive game' standard that other games must have to resolve rules issues. That's why rules 1 and 2 exists. 1 says powers can break the rules, and 2 says 'Don't matter what the general says, the specific always wins.' That's why Polearm Gamble wins and works as it should. Rule 2 sits you down and says to you 'Look pal, it doesn't matter if it technically can't work. The technicality is because of a general rule and not a specific situation. This is a specific situation. It wins, stop suggestng it can't.' The idea that it cannot change the range of the power opportunity attack to make it work... or even that it HAS to, when other feats under the exact same rules templating as OA don't do so and yet work fine is rediculous. Polearm Gamble [b]changes OA in any way it can to fit its needs so that it works as it should.[/b] It doesn't 'win in specific ways but still lose.' That's not what SvG says. It says Polearm Gamble wins. Period. The sentance ends there. Moreover, the idea that Polearm Gamble 'uses the power' and thus all the parameters of the powers must remain intact is also rediculous. If that were the case, then PG would use the power... the power would see its trigger wasn't satisfied, and would refuse to work. But... obviously that's not the case, so PG must alter the power to suit its needs. At that point... PG forces OA to do its bidding. The trigger doesn't fit? Make it fit. The range doesn't fit? Make it fit. That's all. Polearm Gamble now works. Happy day. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Opportunity Attacks - no limit ?
Top