Community

 
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 4 of 17  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next
Switch to Forum Live View ok now im a little ticked off
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 4:28AM #31
Lucas_Blackstone
Date Joined: Sep 13, 2005
Posts: 2,101
I don't see how it isn't an instant kill on both targets. All they need for an errata is " This effect can only occur once per turn. "

I think the DM made the right call regardless of it being legal or not by RPGA rules.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 4:49AM #32
Pluisjen
Date Joined: May 13, 2009
Posts: 14,168
I would've banned from all my games for all eternity for even thinking that you'd be able to get away with this crap.
Epic Dungeon Master



Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!


Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 5:19AM #33
Rian_king
Date Joined: Sep 3, 2008
Posts: 4,164
I see no reason to jump on this guy.  In a rpga game it looks like the DM has to follow what rules are given.

Looking at this purely logical, the DM should have let the power go.  According to the rules he can put houserules in.

If one DM can put a houserule even though it's obviously was not the intent of the power to instantly kill a creature, then other DMs who run RPGA can start running there own houserules.  Then whole system could start breaking down.  It would be like have a judge at a magic tournament saying a card does something because he thinks the card is to powerful

"Black lotus is to powerful, so it cost one to activate now" 

We all agree that the power was not intended to kill something in one shot.  I haven't seen a DM running a game at home has allowed the power to work RAW.

I am on the side in a RPGA event that clearly has a rule a DM can't make houserules, the DM shouldn't have.  Even in a power that was clearly not tested, read, or edited.

The power will be updated in the next batch of FAQ
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 8:20AM #34
Reyemile
Date Joined: Feb 12, 2007
Posts: 1,397

Apr 15, 2010 -- 4:32PM, FitzNighteyes wrote:

Apr 15, 2010 -- 2:47PM, bgibbons wrote:

he "cannot make up new D&D rules wherein an existing rule will suffice."  It's the DM's job to adjudicate things "when the rules are unclear or to keep play moving."


These two rules right here are enough to explain why the OP is upset.  There is an existing rule, and the rule is clear, and if he hadn't changed the rule play would have moved along just fine.  It's just a broken power. Until RPGA adds a rule that says "the DM is free to make up new D&D rules when the power is broken", the DM broke the rules that the players come to the table expecting to see in play.

That said ... more power to him.  CharOpd characters that use rules loopholes to become godly are the bane of RPGA play IMO, and I love it when DMs bust the RPGA rules to stymie them.



I disagree that he broke the rules.  RPGA rule clearly give the DM an out here--the insta-gibbing of a solo clearly wouldn't "suffice" (as I added emphasis above) to play DnD.  There isn't a single person EVER who thinks that the power is working intended, and the player was obviously abusing this typo in a malicious attempt to sabotage the campaign. Since the rules did't "suffice" to control this blatant abuse, the DM had to wing it.

Yes, this interpretation potentially sets up a slippery slope of DMs declaring that existing rules 'don't suffice' to rein in, say, Ranger/Pit-Fighters or Gnome Illusionists.  The rule should be used sparingly.  But in this particular case, from the wording of the RPGA rules as well as from the OP's obviously juvenile and antisocial behavior, I'm with the DM 100%. 

Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 8:40AM #35
Dane_McArdy
Date Joined: Nov 6, 2008
Posts: 4,756

Apr 16, 2010 -- 8:20AM, Reyemile wrote:

Apr 15, 2010 -- 4:32PM, FitzNighteyes wrote:

Apr 15, 2010 -- 2:47PM, bgibbons wrote:

he "cannot make up new D&D rules wherein an existing rule will suffice."  It's the DM's job to adjudicate things "when the rules are unclear or to keep play moving."


These two rules right here are enough to explain why the OP is upset.  There is an existing rule, and the rule is clear, and if he hadn't changed the rule play would have moved along just fine.  It's just a broken power. Until RPGA adds a rule that says "the DM is free to make up new D&D rules when the power is broken", the DM broke the rules that the players come to the table expecting to see in play.

That said ... more power to him.  CharOpd characters that use rules loopholes to become godly are the bane of RPGA play IMO, and I love it when DMs bust the RPGA rules to stymie them.



I disagree that he broke the rules.  RPGA rule clearly give the DM an out here--the insta-gibbing of a solo clearly wouldn't "suffice" (as I added emphasis above) to play DnD.  There isn't a single person EVER who thinks that the power is working intended, and the player was obviously abusing this typo in a malicious attempt to sabotage the campaign. Since the rules did't "suffice" to control this blatant abuse, the DM had to wing it.

Yes, this interpretation potentially sets up a slippery slope of DMs declaring that existing rules 'don't suffice' to rein in, say, Ranger/Pit-Fighters or Gnome Illusionists.  The rule should be used sparingly.  But in this particular case, from the wording of the RPGA rules as well as from the OP's obviously juvenile and antisocial behavior, I'm with the DM 100%. 




I wouldn't say the guy was trying to sabotage the campaign. He certainly went into it knowing that the power would most likley get fixed soon.

Basically he thought he had a way to ease through the end encounter with a power he knew he wasn't going to stand. At best, he's just cheating. Now he's unhappy the DM didn't let him cheat.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 8:56AM #36
dslatimore
Date Joined: Nov 11, 2009
Posts: 1,412

Apr 16, 2010 -- 8:40AM, Dane_McArdy wrote:

Apr 16, 2010 -- 8:20AM, Reyemile wrote:

Apr 15, 2010 -- 4:32PM, FitzNighteyes wrote:

Apr 15, 2010 -- 2:47PM, bgibbons wrote:

he "cannot make up new D&D rules wherein an existing rule will suffice."  It's the DM's job to adjudicate things "when the rules are unclear or to keep play moving."


These two rules right here are enough to explain why the OP is upset.  There is an existing rule, and the rule is clear, and if he hadn't changed the rule play would have moved along just fine.  It's just a broken power. Until RPGA adds a rule that says "the DM is free to make up new D&D rules when the power is broken", the DM broke the rules that the players come to the table expecting to see in play.

That said ... more power to him.  CharOpd characters that use rules loopholes to become godly are the bane of RPGA play IMO, and I love it when DMs bust the RPGA rules to stymie them.



I disagree that he broke the rules.  RPGA rule clearly give the DM an out here--the insta-gibbing of a solo clearly wouldn't "suffice" (as I added emphasis above) to play DnD.  There isn't a single person EVER who thinks that the power is working intended, and the player was obviously abusing this typo in a malicious attempt to sabotage the campaign. Since the rules did't "suffice" to control this blatant abuse, the DM had to wing it.

Yes, this interpretation potentially sets up a slippery slope of DMs declaring that existing rules 'don't suffice' to rein in, say, Ranger/Pit-Fighters or Gnome Illusionists.  The rule should be used sparingly.  But in this particular case, from the wording of the RPGA rules as well as from the OP's obviously juvenile and antisocial behavior, I'm with the DM 100%. 




I wouldn't say the guy was trying to sabotage the campaign. He certainly went into it knowing that the power would most likley get fixed soon.

Basically he thought he had a way to ease through the end encounter with a power he knew he wasn't going to stand. At best, he's just cheating. Now he's unhappy the DM didn't let him cheat.




Indeed, he thought it would be fun/funny to one-shot the BBEG in an RPGA game.  The DM did what he should have in ruling that automatic damage didn't trigger the power's effect to preserve the fun and balance at the table.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 8:59AM #37
RSouthard
Date Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: 393
This is another one of those examples where I just have to ask two questions.

1. How did the designers miss that? Do they read what they write?

2. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Infinite Orgeano maybe?

www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commenta...
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 9:23AM #38
Ryuu-Kage
Date Joined: Mar 27, 2009
Posts: 34
i wasnt saying if it was broken or not cuz it is. its very poorly written and should be erratad soon but as it stands

Harmonious Thunder


You  punch one foe, then spin and deliver a kick to another. Thunder rumbles  in the distance, rolls closer, and explodes between your two foes.


Daily   bullet.gif     Implement, Psionic, Thunder
Standard  Action      Melee touch


Target:  One or two creatures


Attack: Dexterity  vs. Fortitude


Hit: 3d6 + Dexterity modifier  thunder damage.


Miss: Half damage.



Effect: When one of the targets takes damage, the other target  takes thunder damage equal to your Strength modifier. This effect lasts  until the end of the encounter or until one of the targets drops to 0  hit points.

thats the powers effect and it is a loop. its quite clear.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 9:31AM #39
Dane_McArdy
Date Joined: Nov 6, 2008
Posts: 4,756

Apr 16, 2010 -- 9:23AM, Ryuu-Kage wrote:

i wasnt saying if it was broken or not cuz it is. its very poorly written and should be erratad soon but as it stands

Harmonious Thunder


You  punch one foe, then spin and deliver a kick to another. Thunder rumbles  in the distance, rolls closer, and explodes between your two foes.


Daily        Implement, Psionic, Thunder
Standard  Action      Melee touch


Target:  One or two creatures


Attack: Dexterity  vs. Fortitude


Hit: 3d6 + Dexterity modifier  thunder damage.


Miss: Half damage.



Effect: When one of the targets takes damage, the other target  takes thunder damage equal to your Strength modifier. This effect lasts  until the end of the encounter or until one of the targets drops to 0  hit points.

thats the powers effect and it is a loop. its quite clear.




By your own words, it's quite clear you know the damage loop is wrong.

What are you expecting people to say? You made a character so you could take advantage of something you clearly know isn't what it should be.

Hurray, you found a way to cheat in the RPGA events? Hurray for trying to ruin the fun for everyone playing? If you know that it's not whats intended, and you know it needs to be fixed, where is your responsibility to not try and use the power this way?

The DM's call was him being responsible towards the integrity of the session and encounter and everyone else playing, and you're upset not enough people are agreeing with you?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2010 - 9:33AM #40
Dane_McArdy
Date Joined: Nov 6, 2008
Posts: 4,756

Apr 16, 2010 -- 8:59AM, RSouthard wrote:

This is another one of those examples where I just have to ask two questions.

1. How did the designers miss that? Do they read what they write?

2. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Infinite Orgeano maybe?

www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commenta...




Having worked in publishing, missing something like that is actually very easy. There is always so much going on.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 17  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing