|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 2:01PM
#41
|
|
|
i guess i still have a hard time gettin out of the DnD rule system. it always feels like im using 1/2 the rules and it feel akward at times.
To be fair, the same thing is true if these traits were in D&D. The power name has no bearing on its mechanical effects. Any long-time denizen of 4e Rules Q&A would deliver the same ruling on those traits.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 4:19PM
#42
|
|
|
so they wouldn't classify it under the Aura rule even though the in-game effect is the exact same?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 5:46PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
The effect isn't the same, though. It's not written up as an aura, therefore it's not an aura.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 20, 2011 - 7:49PM
#44
|
|
|
it functions exactly like an aura, and is worded exactly as if it were. The only difference is that it doesn't say "aura 1" out next to it, and while i know Wotc is infallible, i could see them assuming we would be able to put 2 and 2 together. RAW yall are right but honestly i think they, as usual, worded it poorly which causes people to miss interpret things, myself included, due to overanalysis (like not classifying vulnerability as a vunerabilty) which only adds to the convoluted rules which slow play and hamper fun. thats all IMO. the fun thing about DnD is that everyone can interpret things there own way, no matter how wrong or right they are.
EDIT: upon further inspection of the rules, and reflecting i feel like your probably right. ill be busy removing my foot from my mouth.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2011 - 12:40AM
#45
|
|
|
Don't worry, it's an easy mistake to make.
#1 Rule of Rules Interpretation: ignore titles and fluff text.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2011 - 12:28PM
#46
|
|
|
yeah, my confusing mainly stemmed from lack of Monster knowledge, it seemed like they were shortcuting GW, til i had time to look at the monster entries and compare. it just seemes unusual for it to act like that, but like i said it would only really come up in combat, alot like stink gland really.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2011 - 8:32PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2009
|
My basic rule of thumb has always been this: If something is going to take away from having fun then just work around the problem with the quickest/easiest solution to keep the game moving. For the pyrokinetic in the game I was running, I simply said, "if you don't want it to affect something, you don't". Now, this was just a one time game and was my way of not over-thinking things as not to slow down the game. I just didn't want any complications that might halt the adventure from being fun. Alternatively other people seem to like the fact that you might ignite something on accident. Maybe you could house rule a d6 roll and say that, "in the event that there is a chance something might go awry because of your firey nature, roll a d6, if you roll a 1 KABOOM? and what not" 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 28, 2011 - 7:44AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Dec 23, 2010
|
From the rules Q&A forum FAQ (if desired):
"Is a mount considered an ally? Yes."
Essentially, the writer's have stated that mounts are allies (they have also said that your aura, good or bad, affects your mount). fwiw: those that don't want to use D&D clarifications probably won't be using mounts to begin with (as that's where we're getting the mounted combat rules).
Also, I have just now added the following to the Gamma World forum FAQ:
"Can a pyrokinetic turn off his fiery aura? Yes. Auras can be turned off (GW p.105), and a pyrokinetic would have a rough time say, eating if he could not."
Maybe with an asbestos saddle...
Why did the hoop cross the road?
|
|
|
