Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 4078269" data-attributes="member: 18">Why the attitude? Is that your opinion or a fact? Because in previous editions of D&D there have been plenty of ways to take offensive action without rolling attacks. I assume with 4E's changing of saves to defenses and so on, there will be less, but I'll be very surprised if there's absolute no way to obviously attack without rolling a die to hit a defense.Because it doesn't make any sense. The holy fire makes sense, because the god is warranting that the enemy must take an action. The shield doesn't make any sense ONLY BECAUSE it's reliant on an attack. It's an entirely bizarrre and metagame thing. It doesn't make any sense from the character's perspective. He just makes an attack and Jesus decides to shield his friend? I mean what? Why couldn't he just get Jesus to shield his friend?It's clearly an entirely arbitary decision by a game designer to tie these things together. A lot of spells are pretty arbitary, but this one doesn't make intuitive sense, because there's no intuitive link between the actions, which is a huge difference.If you're incapable of getting that, well, that's fine, it just means you'll never understand and you shouldn't try to argue with people about it.</blockquote>