|
5 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2008 - 2:06PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
I see the Thunder type including all forms of sonic energy, including shockwaves, as well as silence. Ultimately, manipulating sonic vibrations is a specialized form of telekinesis.
Yeah while I'm on the topic of damage types. Sonic has always bothered me too.
I mean how do you actually die of a sonic attack? Loud noise can stun you, make you deaf or give you a headache. If you're a bat it'll totally screw up your echolocation. But it can't kill you, at least not unless it's some weird effect that tears your body apart via resonance or something. But a sudden sound burst isn't really going to kill you.
While there are scientific ideas for sonic weaponry, it really fits a sci-fi game much more so than a fantasy game. And sonic attacks don't really cause damage, they'd be more like a save-or-die, since they disrupt brainwaves or heartbeats and such.
I never really thought sonic should have been a damage type.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2008 - 2:43PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2007
|
[INDENT]Flanking: "... When Flanking, both the attacker and the ally must spend an Immediate Action to coordinate eachothers attacks against their common enemy. ..."
Opportunity Attack: "An opportunity attack is an Immediate Action that grants a Basic Attack against an enemy in an adjacent square. ..." (A Basic Attack is a characters primary attack, such as the weapon in hand, or presumably a favorite at-will spell.)[/INDENT]
Once these other categories are clearly identified as Immediate Actions, the definition of Dazed can become simple.
[INDENT]Dazed: A Dazed creature cant do any Immediate Action (such as communicating, Flanking, Opportunity Attack, etc.) and grants enemies a +2 combat advantage on Attack.[/INDENT]
Would you be willing to say, without immediate qualification, that a character can do at least X but no more than X immediate actions per round?
That may be possible, but it sure is a complicated thing to contemplate. If a person is flanking an enemy, it seems they should be able to get an opportunity attack against that enemy if the opportunity arises. So that puts us up to 2 immediate actions per round. But should a person be able to perform any 2 immediate actions per round?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2008 - 4:52PM
#43
|
|
|
About 200 dB can possibly rupture your lungs and internal tissues. Like the pressure blast from an explosion.
But also, as hp isn't purely flesh and blood, even non-fatal decibels can disorient, daze, and discombobulate someone.
Thunder as a damage type (magical, deadly sound) in fantasy works fine for me. And if you want a real-life explanation, sound can definitely hurt more than your eardrums.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2008 - 10:06PM
#44
|
|
|
Terevoth and Stogoe, Im still thinking about how sonic relates to force, how force relates to ethereal plane (now Shadowfell), how force-objects relate to force-acceleration, and a few more complications. Burrytar: Would you be willing to say, without immediate qualification, that a character can do at least X but no more than X immediate actions per round?
Miniatures specifically says, "There is no limit to the number of Opportunity Attacks a creature can make in a round" (but they must be provoked). This means, there is no limit to the number of Immediate Actions a character can make. Id rather try make this limitlessness work, and just be careful when defining something as an 'immediate action'.
Something like, an 'immediate action' means additional concentration is necessary on some other action. For example, an Opp Attack concentrates on the enemys action. Flanking concentrates on the allys actions to ensure being on the exact opposite side of the enemy. Even talking requires concentration in addition to other actions.
The biggest distinction between immediate actions and other actions is, the other ones can only be done on ones turn, but immediate actions can be done on other creatures turns.
battlemap
Re the battlemap: Im not so happy with how the 'cone' works on the square grid with full diagonal movement. It seems better to get rid of the concept of a 'cone'. Maybe convert every 'cone' explosion, whether 3-square or 6-square radius, into a 3x3x3-square 'cube' explosion, anywhere adjacent to the attacker. Its much simpler, and convenient, and fits exactly in the 'close area attack'.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2008 - 10:41PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
Re the battlemap: Im not so happy with how the 'cone' works on the square grid with full diagonal movement. It seems better to get rid of the concept of a 'cone'.
Yeah I agree with you there. Cones are just plain hard on a square grid and don't work very well. I'm not sure if we shouldn't just scrap them altogether like you said.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 23, 2008 - 9:33AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2006
|
Yeah I agree with you there. Cones are just plain hard on a square grid and don't work very well. I'm not sure if we shouldn't just scrap them altogether like you said.
Maybe change all of the "cones" to a 3 square (or 4 square) wide line originating from the caster?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 17, 2008 - 9:54PM
#47
|
|
|
Rumor has it, the cone is no more. Instead, it may be that an adjacent 3x3x3-square cube will replace the cone area-of-effect. This is exactly what I requested earlier.  Haldrik: Re the battlemap: Im not so happy with how the 'cone' works on the square grid with full diagonal movement. It seems better to get rid of the concept of a 'cone'.
Maybe convert every 'cone' explosion, whether 3-square or 6-square radius, into a 3x3x3-square 'cube' explosion, anywhere adjacent to the attacker. Its much simpler, and convenient, and fits exactly in the 'close area attack'.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2008 - 10:30AM
#48
|
|
|
Rumor confirmed in the podcast, where Noonan interviews D&D 4e Miniatures designer Schubert. At 32:38 minutes into the podcast, Schubert says: 'There arent cones in the Players Handbook powers'. Excellent. No more cones.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2008 - 10:40AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Excellent. No more cones.
...Cube of cold?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2008 - 10:46AM
#50
|
|
|
Cube of Cold
:D No, silly. Ice cube.
I can live with that.
|
|
|
