|
4 years ago ::
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:03AM
#81
|
|
|
We have very differently definitions of the word clearly.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Nov 23, 2009 - 1:29PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Nov 14, 2008
|
We have very differently definitions of the word clearly.
Really?
if you're holding up the whole game to bust out protractors and slide rules, ... you're playing the wrong game.
That isn't clear?
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Nov 23, 2009 - 2:52PM
#83
|
|
|
Obviously RAW is not completely 100% clear on the subject... My group and I have always played it as "generally straight". No big zig-zags and definitely no 90 degree turns around corners.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Nov 23, 2009 - 3:31PM
#84
|
|
|
No, not at all.
Why not just say directly means xxxxx? That would be a clear answer.
Use the pull/push mechanic does not involve any sort of slowing down or excessive measuring. Just counting squares. Like you do every time you move or make a an attack with range. Requiring a straight line would involve even less effort as you could instantly see if it was possible or not. They included one word to explain the path you must make while charging. THat word is directly. Would it have been that hard to define directly in the 18? months since release?
What does cause slowing down is when rules are unclear and nobody can figure out what they mean.
And of course the DM has final say, but often these things don't come up till its going to make a difference in the situation at hand and thus the ruling directly impacts how things are going to happen. (As opposed to making a clear house rule before-hand)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Nov 23, 2009 - 4:10PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I know the explanation of charge is ambiguous and there is room for enterpritation I started this conversation after one of my players tried a charge like this which i disallowed and he got upset.
pxx
1xx
x2x
xx3
xx4
xx5
xo6
xxe
p= player
o= pillar in the way
e= enemy
I disallowed it on the grounds that the piller was in the nearest square to his starting position.
But even by the interpretation you are offering, you are mistaken. The pillar is NOT the nearest square to his starting position that is adjacent to the enemy. The square just to the left of the pillar is.
The other reality is that - as distance is defined in 4E D&D, where the natural shape of an unimpeded, unshaped explosion is a cube - the pillar and the squares to either side of it are all the same distance from the player's starting point. So no one of them is nearer than the others. All three of them qualify as "nearest". Referring back to 3E for its rules seems even less appropriate in this scenario than in other cases.
I think that at least one use of it was appropriate: to point out how the terminology had been changed to NOT say "straight" in 4E, after consistently saying "straight" in prior editions. Pointing out that this certainly looks like a deliberate change, and thus weakening the argument for imposing a "straight" requirement.
Fey Charger is a really darned specialized build that requires a specific race, a specific class, an FR specific background, and MCing into two other specific classes to pull off.
The minimal definition of a Feycharger consists of being Eladrin and taking one fighter-only paragon-level feat. From there, further choices tend to work on the fact that a Feycharger really really really needs to hit on his characteristic attack. A Fighter MC Rogue - no specific background, no two-MC requirement - makes a decent Feycharger.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Nov 24, 2009 - 12:16PM
#86
|
|
|
No, not at all.
Why not just say directly means xxxxx? That would be a clear answer.
Use the pull/push mechanic does not involve any sort of slowing down or excessive measuring. Just counting squares. Like you do every time you move or make a an attack with range. Requiring a straight line would involve even less effort as you could instantly see if it was possible or not. They included one word to explain the path you must make while charging. THat word is directly. Would it have been that hard to define directly in the 18? months since release?
What does cause slowing down is when rules are unclear and nobody can figure out what they mean.
And of course the DM has final say, but often these things don't come up till its going to make a difference in the situation at hand and thus the ruling directly impacts how things are going to happen. (As opposed to making a clear house rule before-hand)
I think you really did miss the whole point of what the guy said. Directly is NOT defined down to a gnat's arse because THAT would be really restricting and the people writing the rules cannot possibly anticipate all the different situations where it will be applied. They WANT it to be a loose definition because its a game with a referee who knows the situation at the table where the rule is being used. No amount of preciseness in the rules themselves will ever allow them to be applied unambiguously to every possible one of the infinite number of situations they would need to cover.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
