Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mannix" data-source="post: 1099999" data-attributes="member: 13945">thanks d+1, your response largely reflected my intuitions.after rereading flaming sphere, it seems clearer.  i wish they would have just written something like, "any creature occupying a square with a flaming sphere takes 2d6 points of fire damage."  but then all i need to know is how often to check.  i guess it just deals damage on the caster's turn, unless someone moves through the square with the sphere, in which case it does damage on their turn?  and if they stop in the square with the flaming sphere... then it just deals damage on the casters turn, as normal perhaps?  but then, if someone moves into it's square and stops, can the sphere move, or does it just stay there, dealing damage to that creature?-----On Borders:two small words make all the difference, my apologies for the misquotation.------On Shadows:"It's bad phrasing/a missstatement/an obvious error. It's clearly not the intent because that would be clearly daft."Yeah, that's why I posted it here, in the errata thread.  --------On Everyone Getting Cover:"You're correct in that if you take it absolutely literally it's whacked, and for that reason it should probably be errata'd. However, that is so obviously not the intent if you're seriously trying to figure out what the way to handle it is you're either being obtuse or purely argumentative."Sorry, I wasn't clear.  I needed help with flaming sphere, but these later entries I was just pointing out so they could be considered as possible errata.  I was not intending to come off as argumentative; nobody should attempt to make these rule discussions heated; I mean, that'd be silly.  You probably get a lot of trolls, though, so I should have been more careful.  Anyway, I think we're in agreement on this issue, it just needs rewritten, not for clarity's sake, just because it's a simple error.-------On Being in a square with another occupant:You write "In your example you would BE in a safe, legal position because your dying companion is helpless and there's no need for you to find someplace else to be."Ok, so with my example of the dying friend, it's legal to move in and administer the potion.  Sounds good.  Next round, when we're attacked, do we suffer any penalties to our armor class?  When we attack, do we suffer any penalties to our attack bonuses?  Why is the legality of ending our turn in such a situation directly linked to whether or not we took a move action this round?When you talk about entaglment, squeezing, or pushing as possible solutions, I think you're right that we need something like this.  Pushing would be dangerous, it's essentially a free, automatically successful bull rush.  It might push someone into an open pit, or into a disadvantaged position after they carefully moved to exactly where they wanted to be.  In some situations, it might simply not be an available option.  But, yeah, basically we need something to parallel the squeezing rules for this situation, that's what I've been using in my campaigns.Why is it WotC's responsibility, when Dm's are there to adjudicate such things?1) Just because good DMs can figure out a solution to this problem doesn't excuse incompleteness.  There are bad Dm's out there, and they should get to have fun too.2) It comes up often enough to warrant consistent rulings, as can only be provided through official source material.  I mean, are the rules on creatures of varying size categories fighting from the same square so much more frequent that they are justified in their inclusion, but these are not?3) I don't think living campaign dm's can just make up rules like these on the fly, they don't have the luxury of house dm's like us.After all that though, I'm glad to see we're in agreement that such situations (two medium sized creatures occupying the same square) shouldn't necessarily be barred outright.  But once we detail rules for two people fighting from the same square, is there any justification for retaining the latter rule, which prohibits you from ending your movement in an occupied square?  Or isn't that rule only serving to prohibit such situations from arising?Thanks,Thomas</blockquote>

Verification