Proposal: Arcane Power

[elecgraystone]

I'm also fine with just omitting elements 2-4 until their issues have been addressed in an update.

This assumes that they aren't going to hide the fixes in DDI like they did for Planar Gateway.

I, too, think we'll be just fine if DMs exercise some common sense. I don't feel the need to rule on an official interpretation.

There are 2 issues with this covaithe.

#1 Common sense isn't a universal. What makes sense for you, isn't the same for me or anyone else. There needs to be a meeting of the minds, and the easiest way to do that is have it in print.

#2 Even if all the judges are of like mind, the players still have to know beforehand how their abilities work before they pick them. You could easily upset someone if they build a character around something only to find out your common sense doesn't match theirs and what they wanted to do doesn't work.

As Illusory Wall and Planar Gateway are higher level [10 and 11] than we are now, I think they'd be fine to put on hold. No one could use them right away anyway. Grease though is 1st. I rather like the spell and it'd be a shame to have it permanently shelved if WOTC never puts out an errata on it OR it have it take as long as Rain of Blows to get errata.

 

[covaithe]

If someone built their character around Grease, then came into a game I was DMing and tried to claim that it was an auto-hit because, on a miss, they could infinite-loop with sliding and re-attacking... Yeah, that wouldn't happen. "Nice try, who's up next?"

If the player was so crushed by such a ruling that they couldn't wait until they leveled up to retrain away to a non-exploit-based power, couldn't be bothered to use their overhaul, and got upset about it... Well, again, I find myself pretty unsympathetic. Too bad.

I can't really seriously imagine any DM doing otherwise. But suppose an inexperienced or overworked DM did let themselves get fooled into allowing it. A judge could alert them to it, or an interested onlooker by PM (this has happened to me more than once -- I make my share of mistakes, and then some) or, worst case, it could just go uncorrected. The next time, it might be a different DM, or the DM might be paying more attention, and make a different ruling. If the player tried to claim that it had been allowed before and therefore must always be that way... Again, I am still without sympathy. If they cry nerf: yep, still no love.

What I'm saying is, in order for this -- Grease -- to be a problem, you have to have a) a player who's actively trying to exploit, and b) a DM who doesn't want to stand up to them, and c) a judge who's not willing to back the DM. I don't feel particularly compelled to write proposals into the charter to handle such a situation.

 

[elecgraystone]

If someone built their character around Grease, then came into a game I was DMing and tried to claim that it was an auto-hit because, on a miss, they could infinite-loop with sliding and re-attacking... Yeah, that wouldn't happen. "Nice try, who's up next?"

By the charter, you'd be in the wrong. As written, it IS an infinite-loop and there isn't a ruling that says otherwise.

If the player was so crushed by such a ruling that they couldn't wait until they leveled up to retrain away to a non-exploit-based power, couldn't be bothered to use their overhaul, and got upset about it... Well, again, I find myself pretty unsympathetic. Too bad.

However, the player was in the right, not you. If they had known ahead of time, they could have picked another power. You are suggestion that a 'bait and switch' is fine and the person tricked shouldn't complain.

I can't really seriously imagine any DM doing otherwise.

I can. I could expect that a DM would follow the rules of the board we are in. I'd expect a DM that wanted to change a power as written would put it up for open debate and change the rule so everyone knew it. I don't excpect DM's to spring changes after the fact.

What I'm saying is, in order for this -- Grease -- to be a problem, you have to have a) a player who's actively trying to exploit, and b) a DM who doesn't want to stand up to them, and c) a judge who's not willing to back the DM. I don't feel particularly compelled to write proposals into the charter to handle such a situation.

And what I'm saying is that for B and C to happen, there would have to be a ruling or an exception made on the boards changing the writing of the power because as is it's an infinite-loop. If B and C happen, then the rules we have set up aren't being followed.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

4. For Planar Gateway I prefer this:

However, while I appreciate the attempts to "fix" some of these elements, this also feels very similar to our attempts to fix Battlerager Vigor with Martial Power. Like we did in that case, I'm also fine with just omitting elements 2-4 until their issues have been adressed in an update.

I want to stress that, unlike the other fixes you quoted, the Planar Gateway fix is direct from the Compendium. They just didn't put it in an errata for some reason. (Maybe they're saving it until they've got a bunch to put out at once.)

If someone built their character around Grease, then came into a game I was DMing and tried to claim that it was an auto-hit because, on a miss, they could infinite-loop with sliding and re-attacking... Yeah, that wouldn't happen. "Nice try, who's up next?"

The issue for me isn't whether it should be allowed - clearly it shouldn't. The question is, do you disallow it by saying, "No, you can't slide somebody out and then immediately back in - a slide can't double back on itself like that?" Or by saying, "Ok, you can move him that way, but you don't get a second attack roll?" Or something else? Since we've noticed the issue, we should decide on an official fix.

By the charter, you'd be in the wrong. As written, it IS an infinite-loop and there isn't a ruling that says otherwise.

Nope. PHB p267, under the heading Free Action: "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn."

 

[elecgraystone]

Nope. PHB p267, under the heading Free Action: "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn."

While that is true, it's a cheesy workaround that leads to the power working differently depending on the judge/DM. It's avoiding the issues already brought up and letting everyone 'houserule' a fix if they think it's needed. Honestly, it's just BEGGING for for arguments and misunderstandings doing it that way.

And honestly, are you going to say that you can only use 1 free action in a round to stop people from attacking with grease again? So an elf wizard can't use his racial ability on the attack? It doesn't say you can restrict types of free actions, just free actions as a whole. Or are you going to have different kinds of free actions? Sounds WAY more complicated that actually ruling on the power.

 

[covaithe]

By the charter, you'd be in the wrong. As written, it IS an infinite-loop and there isn't a ruling that says otherwise.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the charter about infinite loops. I'm also pretty sure there's nothing in the charter restricting a DM's ability to make interpretations of ambiguous rule situations. The closest it comes is to say that, in cases of a dispute, the adventure's judge has the final word. And I'm sorry, I don't care how clearly written the power seems to be; if it creates an infinite loop, that's at the very least an ambiguous situation, if not outright wrong.

The issue for me isn't whether it should be allowed - clearly it shouldn't. The question is, do you disallow it by saying, "No, you can't slide somebody out and then immediately back in - a slide can't double back on itself like that?" Or by saying, "Ok, you can move him that way, but you don't get a second attack roll?"

The last, IMO.

Nope. PHB p267, under the heading Free Action: "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn."

See also: Rule 0. Rule 0 is still in effect here, IMO, with the tiny exception that a judge can, if he or she chooses, overrule the DM when there is a dispute.

 

[elecgraystone]

if it creates an infinite loop, that's at the very least an ambiguous situation, if not outright wrong.

So you have a rule you think may be 'outright wrong', but instead of ruling on it beforehand you'd rather 'houserule' it during game play? I can't say that makes the least bit of sense to me.

The issue for me isn't whether it should be allowed - clearly it shouldn't. The question is, do you disallow it by saying, "No, you can't slide somebody out and then immediately back in - a slide can't double back on itself like that?" Or by saying, "Ok, you can move him that way, but you don't get a second attack roll?".

As you can see, there is more than one way to 'houserule' it, so the 'common sense' approach didn't work did it? If you don't work it out ahead of time, you end up with two different rulings that 'make sense'. That's why there is a procedure for rule amendments in the charter.

See also: Rule 0. Rule 0 is still in effect here, IMO, with the tiny exception that a judge can, if he or she chooses, overrule the DM when there is a dispute.

Rule 0 if fine for unexpected situations. It's a cop out when you know there is a problem going in AND it's a big issue when when you have people moving from one game to the next. Is you Rule 0 the same as the next GM's rule 0?

 

[renau1g]

DM's will have some variation in how they interpret certain rules/powers. That's the nature of the game. The point is to have fun. If a player is intentionally building a super-abusive twinked out cheesy PC the DM has every right to run the game how he/she feels the rules are to be interpreted (after all they are the ones running the game). The judge aspect is in place to add another opinion to the DM's if there is a discrepency. If a player really disagrees with the DM's ruling they can always leave the game, if its that much of a problem. Personally, I think the tone is very aggressive and should be more open elecgraystone. I know its easy to get irritated (cov & I had a pretty heated discussion earlier this year as well), but we really gotta all be cool. After all this is our fun time, if it ain't fun, we should go back to work

 

[elecgraystone]

Personally, I think the tone is very aggressive and should be more open elecgraystone. I know its easy to get irritated (cov & I had a pretty heated discussion earlier this year as well), but we really gotta all be cool. After all this is our fun time, if it ain't fun, we should go back to work

It wasn't my intent to be aggressive. I'll admit I'm opinionated and not afraid to voice my opinions.

If a player is intentionally building a super-abusive twinked out cheesy PC the DM has every right to run the game how he/she feels the rules are to be interpreted (after all they are the ones running the game).

True, but when the DM knows there is a 'build for a super-abusive twinked out cheesy PC', he should say up front that he doesn't like it and will not allow it. I'm not against saying no to the PC, I'm against waiting until the PC uses his combo then saying no when you knew he had it. I'm just saying, it's better to be up from with things instead of ignoring a problem and letting everyone house rule it differently.

I'm not a big fan of after the fact house rules is all. Just let me know up front, and I'm all happy.

 

[Kalidrev]

I have to say that I agree with elecgraystone. I would much prefer to have a concrete rule that everyone knows about, written in stone (i.e. the charter) than to have somehing written in mud. Sure, it may only be a puddle to be avoided, but eventually...someone's going to get messy!