Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6012990" data-attributes="member: 87792">It's an area affect.  Which in the case of just about every area affect in the game grants a reflex save.  The difference between a to hit roll and a reflex save is simply a matter of who rolls.  Or were your chandeliers autohit, no save allowed?False.  4e has the basic "roll once for damage" principle.False.  I don't give a damn what powers the PCs have.  It's up to them to remember it.The effects table tells you what damage dice to roll.  That is it.  So it is rule for rule.You have 2 rules in 3e that do next to nothing.  "Set on fire" and "put out fire" are only very rarely applicable - and 4e covers it easily without needing to put in a special rule.  So your total stunting rules in 3.X amount to an indication of how much damage to do.  Great stunting rules you have there.And that is why no one ever bull rushes in 3.X.  But you are missing the point.  (And missing it in a way that mis-represents 4e).What you should be doing if your enemy's back is to the bonfire is putting him in a lose/lose position.  You should be advancing on him, driving him with sword and shield - and using the bonfire to restrict his movement.  With the bonfire behind him he has nowhere to retreat to to get out of the way of your sword.  3e does diddly squat to represent this.  In 4e if you have an inherently aggressive and forceful combat style (i.e. you have pushes as part of your attacks) then you are driving them back against and into the fire.  You aren't pushing them into the fire instead of attacking them normally.  You are doing it as well as attacking them normally.  It's not sword or fire.  It's sword and fire.  Walking up and just full attacking rather than attacking and trying to exploit the terrain at the same time is stupid.  Because 3.X forces an either or choice you are right in terms of which should be chosen.  But it should not be an either-or choice.Which means that your entire objection might have merit in some circumstances but is completely irrelevant here.Know how many bookmarks I have in my 4e books?  None.  Unlike 3.X, 4e is simple enough once you understand it that you do not need to consult rulebooks in play.  Literally the only rulebooks I have consulted in the last year DMing 4e have been the back of my DM screen (very occasionally), the various monster manuals, and the random treasure generation table in the back of the Rules Compendium.  So tell me about bookmarks and about how your game is so much simpler.  I need no bookmarks as either player or DM.Indeed.  What rules set is precedents for such situations.  And the precedents in 3.X are mostly anti-stunting for reasons I have illustrated.  Whereas the precedents in 4e are pro-stunting.And I have never had a single problem DMing 4e in terms of remembering the rules mechanics.  Which isn't the case in 3e.  Off the top of your head can you tell me all the conditions that lead to an Attack of Opportunity?  I can't.  But I can tell you everything that leads to an Opportunity Attack in 4e.Sure.  If you want to restrict your stunts to flagrantly obvious things that the rules tell you you can do.  (Oh, and you forgot balance and climb there).  This does not in one single way mitigate the fact that 3.X encourages you not to stunt.  It encourages you to full attack (an action that 4e took out and shot with good reason).  It encourages you not to push people at all - 4e has attacks that push as a part of the attack. Go you!  I've never had any trouble in 4e.  I also have a system that isn't hostile to exotic stunts.  Last time I was a player my thief ran up the walls, across the ceiling, and performed a death from above, landing with blade outstretched.  This didn't even take DM resolution - the whole thing was RAW.Newsflash: the damage table we are referring to has options.  And is strictly a DM tool.Were you trying to memorise all the PC side information by any chance?  Big DMing mistake in 4e.</blockquote>

Verification