Nobody said you can't explain or disagree. I was simply reminding everyone present (Chris and myself included) of mindset so that arguing WON'T happen. Argument prevention does not = Stopping an argument that's in progress. When Chris and I began arguing about it, I could feel my annoyance and his annoyance both rising. So I wrote what I wrote for everyone's benefit.

So I guess in response: Right, forgot that I'm not allowed to remind people to calm down lest it automatically be "Joe's fault. Chris is a saint". :p

But yeah. I proposed finding the question on the forums to see what the official people say. After all, I'm sure there were a lot of people who thought "Hey, I'm invisible, so I don't have to roll stealth, right?" wrong. >.> Which, by the way, the guy went on to answer why stealth rules are SO restricted. It's basically possible to be completely un-targetable the entire encounter, every encounter, thus becoming invincible.

But on that topic (Actually, slight change of topic), I say it HAS to be a GM's call. Just like I'm expecting Maverick to fail at spying when the GM doesn't want him to in Star Wars. "Oh... he's trying to find out when Nella gets off work... hmmm... well she notices you. Doesn't matter you're a god of spying." Next attempt: Leave a recorder. "She notices the recorder." Next attempt: bluntly follow her. "Ummm.. uh... OK fine. You find out." XD All the while, I'm like "why do I have stealth?"

Not that that WILL happen, just expecting it to. If not with something like Nella, expect something else.

Fair point <.<

Stealth... Rules... Will to live... crumbling... blargdfhsg.

Still better results than the last time I asked about rules on an official forum though, No answer ("uh... do whatever your GM says."  I guess the rule isn't a rule?) it apparently became a bannable offense or something to do so once more people started asking it or variants on it.

Though, GM calls are one thing, and can indeed be needed.  But it's different when a one time GM call can become considered "Oh, that's how things work by default right?" that is mostly what I'm trying to bypass.

As for invisible, you still cause a huge to-hit penalty for being invisible anyways ;D  My own mindset mix of rules and results for Invisible is Stealth is needed purely so they don't hear your obvious invisible man footsteps and such, so they do not know an invisible person is around.  Alsox2, Compendium entry for Hidden ends with "See Also Invisible".  My guess is the nitpicks there is "Hidden clearly listed to = Invisible.  But no clear listing of the other way around occurring, despite invisible being an END RESULT of hidden"

Warforged Paladin: They don't know I'm here, I'm INVISIBLE! *clank clank CLANK clank*.  Still MECHANICALLY Hidden, but not SNEAKY 100% hidden.

I do approve of you're OBVIOUS FOR SPITE! success with Maverick.  As we both know, Stealth "Rules" only seem to get firmly applied to the players, while NPCs and plot get to only use whatever parts benefit themselves most of the time.

  That's a poor example of GM call being needed for success anyways, when it's clearly GM call (unless they got some REALLY good rolls) for all your failures in the first place.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:55, Fri 04 May 2012.

lol!  XD

I know, right? ;.;



Even if the example I gave hasn't happened yet, heh. But yes... you and I have said before what a wonderful thing spite can be. Thanks for the approval rating. ;)

So all these rules lookups brought up an interesting "you're doing it wrong" rules tidbit.  I wanted to skim through the errata before mentioning it, but apparently rules as written and as intended do not grant fighters a wis bonus to an immediate attack vs marked enemy who shifts, and fighter immediate interrupt attacks do not stop shift movement.



The immediate interrupt granted by Combat Challenge is not an attack of opportunity.  Important distinction.  Because if it were an AoO, it would allow fighters to attack marked enemies and prevent them from shifting.  Shooting while adjacent to the fighter and moving more than 2 squares provoke AoO and get the wis bonus and "stop movement" goodies from Combat Superiority, but shifting does not because shifting does not provoke AoO.

So maybe errata came to save the day?  Nope.  This is all they changed in all this time:

Combat Challenge
Page 76: In the second paragraph, replace “a marked
enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an
attack” with “an enemy marked by you is adjacent to
you and shifts or makes an attack.”

...huh?  I don't see how that changes anything at all.  Well they don't give a reason for the change.  But it doesn't change the "shifting or attacking someone other than you doesn't provoke an AoO, it's an immediate interrupt" issue.  To further drive home the point, the errata fixed a broken monster that had Combat Superiority:





Note that this monster does not have Combat Challenge.  It cannot attack enemies who do not attack it as an immediate interrupt, nor can it attack adjacent enemies who shift.

So yeah.  Been playing fighter wrong all these years.  x.x  At least now that bit in Weapon Master's Strike for polearms makes sense and isn't redundant after all:

Spear or Polearm: Until the end of your next turn, the target provokes opportunity attacks from you when it shifts

Discussed with Joe earlier. And yeah... a detail. Easily skipped since you CAN still attack a shifting enemy. Just can't stop them from shifting is all.

But what sane enemy is going to give you a free attack?

Even without the ability to stop their shift, a fighter is the most pin-tastic class in D&D. :)

Warning, incoming annual "oh goddamnit mangled mess of Combat Challenge's relation to AoO (none at all)" confused rambling.

Uuuuh?  Oh right, the Compendium STILL does not freaking list the Combat Challenge (same name as the class feature) POWER... Which is Immediate according to the powers inside builder only visible on character sheet end... Bleh.  once more effing compendium STILL lacking details for super basic things (which share names) throws me off.  They of course, still list Combat Agility just fine in compendium.  So I was again hopefully thrown off by reading "Oh hey, Combat Challenge is listed as X... Oh right there are TWO combat Challenges, and the monkey wrench wording one is unlisted in compendium"

It then gets even MORE confusing because there are so many Feats that are either "triggers from combat challenge" (A marked target is naughty and shifts or attacks someone else causing melee basic), Or your fighter superiority AoO buffage for AoO (basically, ONLY if they move away regardless of marks).

Plus, stopping movement part of your Combat Superiority passive for AoO. Not Combat challenge... So, if someone triggered Combat challenge(Marked target shifts/attacks someone), which may or may not be AoO despite being intricately linked with AoO abilities and feats, then it may or may not stop a normal move because BLAH.

It's just such a goddamned mess.  I've heard somewhere that's why they still have never put the Combat Challenge power back into the compendium class listing after they pulled it out.

I've been treating Combat Challenge triggers as AoO attack for sake of my sanity for the most part.  Because otherwise, HALF YOUR CLASS FEATURES DO NOT TRIGGER when you use a Combat Challenge attack.

Oh hey, the marked enemy shifted/attacked someone not me!... Oh wait, that's a melee basic with no mention of AoO, so... No Combat Superiority Hit Bonus, no combat superiority movement stopping (where that would apply), no AoO feats apply like "Focused superiority" or "make enemy grant combat advantage when you hit with AoO", etc.  You just get a sad little generic Melee Basic with no extras, unless you have a Combat Challenge specific feat (which in turn, will not apply to Enemy Moved/Made Ranged attack point blank AoO)

That's not even touching the "you only have one immediate action" situation.
Think about this, when is the last time any of your fighters, or mine, have had a NORMAL AoO trigger.
Vs combat Challenge "enemy shifted/Chris forced an enemy to take a shot at passing Mittens for Free Combat Challenge by fighters".

The answers is most likely "next to never" for enemies triggering normal AoO against our fighters.

I'll probably strip focused superiority out of Matt later and have to rethink my entire build planning because of this.  Cause, you know, "Attack Of Opportunity" never triggers.  Plus "Even if you do get Combat Challenge specific abilities, then THOSE don't apply to AoO and Combat superiority wisdom bonus does nothing for them! haha!"

EDIT: in a reasonable world I wouldn't need the disclaimer, but I'm only annoyed with The Rules, not at Chris for reminding me of the crushing reality of them. (Combo'd with the reminder "You Are Not Allowed To Commit To Anything".  I'm lucky you don't get banned for leaving in Super Monday Night Combat like you are in Dota or LoL).  I'm paranoid my frustrations are leaking through too much.
This message was last edited by the GM at 01:34, Sun 06 May 2012.

AoO still triggers if someone moves away from you because that triggers for *every* class. Moving from an adjacent enemy provokes AoO unless you shift. :)

BUT!!! I say it isn't broken to play it the way we've been playing. And Matt's build is a different and neat one. So shall we just house-rule it to be how we've played it?

Insert "and this is why Tim and I are bothering making a whole new system" mini-rant here.

Personally, I'm with Tim on the house-rule suggestion.  I'd rather that tiny bit of Weapon Master's Strike be redundant than to have to deal with the headache of "so was that an AoO or not?" hair-ripping argen.

So shall we simply replace "as an immediate interrupt" wording with, "as an attack of opportunity" bit?

It's not even the fact "Combat Challenge" takes an immediate action that has been my problem.  I'd have little issue with EXTRA attack openings to smack someone for shifting or attacking someone else eating an immediate.

My personal problem has always been the fact that Combat Challenge Melee Basic (Marked Target Shifts/Attacks not you), and Stock AoO (Melee basic vs Move, Point blank ranged.  Combat superiority applies and such).  Are mutually exclusive in their modifiers.

70% was in my own interests.  30% was to avoid Chris GM having to juggle TWO different sets of numbers when Matt does "something like an AoO".  Having to remember two diffrent To-Hit and +DMG numbers depending on if the fighter is using "Combat Challenge" Melee Basic, or "Attack Of Opportunity" Melee basic which, really really blur together.

And then same deal for Adam or Kita... Oh dear I think my brain started leaking out of my ear at the prospect of calculating separate AoO/CC numbers for all of Kitau's stuff.

  CC not even being an Immediate action would be pushing it into "totally sweet" land of though, not like I'd say no.

I am not without my biases <.<
This message was last edited by the GM at 01:45, Sun 06 May 2012.

Edited this into the house rules:



Now we can discuss what to replace redundant feats/powers with concerning the shift. I would say something like "you can shift them to another square adjacent to you" would be fair.

I'd be fine with Shift still working out, it's only a single tile of movement and CC (as well as weapon master) is already punishing what is already a "safe" move.  Easy "fix" there.

Plus, it makes paragon feats that let you prone a dude if you hit them with AoO (Or, AoO OR CC with a tiefling one) more valid cause oh hey, you cant shift if you are PRONE sucker.
This message was last edited by the GM at 01:57, Sun 06 May 2012.

I'll opt out of the "figure out how to fix the rest of the game now" part in favor of focusing on getting 6 knuckle off the ground.  If you guys want to tweak Weapon Master's Strike, and whatever else is changed by the house rule, go right ahead.

Don't worry about listing anything for Kitau, I plan to create my own charsheets from now on now that I know I can just post up power cards and such... even if the cards suck and are incomplete, I'd still rather do that.



There ya go.  No immediate interrupt argen for fighters.

Kitau specifically is... a problem because copying the images of the power cards will not always give proper results.  Due to her Tempest fighter nature.  Dual wielding AND offhand properties to consider, etc.

They have been getting much BETTER about such things though, but it's always best to double check (case in point, I lucked out with them fixing webtools to properly apply Magic Weapon's self to-hit bonus a week after I started playing kyle).

Bare Hands style monks meanwhile are still a pile of nightmare. "Okay, you are a Bare hands style monk who took the Bare Hands Damage Bonuses Paragon path... No, we will not apply this damage, nor list in your flurry power card your several extra damage bonuses to flurry.  builer will also commit suicide trying to distinguish bare hands and Ki focus bare hands".
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:23, Sun 06 May 2012.

Huh?  Not sure what you mean by this.

---

Also...


This message was last edited by the GM at 20:23, Wed 30 May 2012.

Attacking from one "corner" of a completely blocking chunk of terrain to where the target was with Matt.  The Determining Cover For Melee Attacks compendium entry.  It has nothing to do with the maps more detailed features, just the whole "Oh look its solid terrain you can't single tile diagonally pass around." deal.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:00, Thu 31 May 2012.

Huh.  Either new-ish rule / errata there, or something I missed entirely since forever.  Any chance you could copy-paste it?  'Cause I thought only way to get melee type penalties from scenery was if you were attacking someone through a window or some such, but not around a sharp corner.

It's just the old "check if all 4 corners of your character tile can reach the target in a straight line' deal that has been there since forever (just look at the ascension map). It's the same deal as Ranged attacks, its just that there seems to be a melee specific compendium entry as well.

Unrelated, and don't wanna call attention to it on that baord itself...  You have actually PLAYED the Sword's edge system right?  Beyond just you and Tim alone? I'm just a bit paranoid over "Oh, this rules light system looks great!" end results after what Metro City's system looked like at first glance.

I'll work out some stuff (after I remind myself how the system even works) for Metron and Junker later tonight still though.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:39, Thu 31 May 2012.

Yeah I've played it.  It's got it's downsides.  Sword's Edge, like real freeform, requires the players to be willing to accept the GM being the final say on what does and doesn't "make sense" for the PC to be able to get away with.

The reason we went with Swords Edge is to reign in certain (not Joe) players acting like their characters are invincible.  No matter how well you min/max the system, the maximum possible bonus to any player player roll in Sword's Edge is +10.

Player: "Barrelroll then beheads Prime!"
GM: "tries to.  Roll it.  DC 29"
Player: "Woot!  Crit!  And with my omg rofl bonuses totalling plus tenzillion..."
GM: "Max bonus is +10.  Prime's defense is 29.  With a crit, you score a hit, scratching his paint."

Player: "Railspike punts Mt Rushmore into orbit!"
GM: "tries to.  DC 31.  Million."

So forth.

---

On targeting, original PHB says:
Determining Cover: To determine if a target has
cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or
a corner of your attack’s origin square) and trace
imaginary lines from that corner to every corner
of any one square the target occupies. If one or
two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an
enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn’t blocked if it
runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s
square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but
you have line of effect, the target has superior cover.

Looking at the example on pg 280, that means that the bugbear no am haz cover.  If there were a wall to his north, no cover.  Wall to his south, no cover.  Even if said wall extended all the way to the attacker.  So why should melee guys get a penalty attacking around a corner, where ranged guys wouldn't?

Has the wording changed?  If it's all 4 corners must be able to have an uninterrupted line to all of the enemy's 4 corners, I've been playing wrong since they changed it.

Oh!  Speaking of which!

I'm thinking of possibly doing away with using maps in our 4e games so Tim can continue to play.  I can roll dice for him if he needs me to while he's at work, but maps are the big road block for both of us when it comes to RPOL D&D.  If necessary, I'm fine with the PCs being given a blank check to always be able to target Monsters, but not the other way around (PC will always be assumed to have cover from enemy attacks. except maybe melee?)  Especially if it means we play the system without maps so Tim can still enjoy playing D&D.

From you just now. "and trace
imaginary lines from that corner to every corner
of any one square the target occupies. If one or
two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an
enemy, the target has cover."

Yeah, your one corner has to reach all four enemy corners.  Trace a line to every corner of the target. That's four corners.

Can see your intentions for Sword's edge, but that will only make the PC/NPC gap even larger/player invincibility even more mechanically justifiable.

"Well, we all have vague durability, strength, and firepower now along a similar scale with eachother.  Therefore, STRONG AS MEGATRON who is in turn shackled to this system".

I trust the current players anyways.  Railspike seems content to just be a crazy Kool-Aid man with references to his past insane exploits firing guns wildly.  Compared to your referenced "Must be indestructible killing machine, and ACTUALLY KILL" player.

I'll work out something, hopefully I can make something my brain accepts for Metron and Junker.  As for maps, eh. if its the only way Tim can actually play ever.  The most "problems" I could see from this are area attacks suddenly getting... a lot more coverage, or a lot less.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:05, Thu 31 May 2012.

/confused.  Are you saying 4 corners of character?  4 corners of enemy?  Both?  And what's the wording of the melee specific entry in the compendium?

Barrelroll beheading Prime was admittedly far more facepalm.  My issue with Railspike (and Tim agrees) isn't the "must kill powerful enemy!" so much as the magnitude of everything else.  Firing guns wildly is one thing, but wiping out an army of minions completely unscathed is another.  Mentioning he at least got his paint scratched might have added the tinyest bit of excitement to the scene.  Instead it's just, "Yawn.  These guys again.  Well my guy's a magnifying glass, and they're ants.  Booooriiing!  Send me something that I might have to lift a finger for, GM.  Like an army of zombie Unicrons."

Cool-Aid Man through some boulders would be one thing, but tunneling through a mountain is superpowered Megatron Fusion Cannon^TM level firepower.  "A mountain?  Pff.  Such squishy things.  They won't even slow my guy down."

Random rant: Dragonball series.  Not even Z series.  Roshi blows up the moon.  Even Cool-Aid Man would have problems trying to bust through The Wall of China.  Much less Mt Rushmore.  Much less the Moon.  And to think of Roshi curb stomping Megatron is kinda facepalm.

I said...  Duuurp, Well don't I feel silly.

As for the limitations of the Kool-Aid man, it all depends on how thirsty someone is.

EDIT: Nitpick Number One about Swords Edge:  Qualities are pointless usage of points.

Six free points for chargen.

Option A) Spend one point to Create a specific "Quality" or item hooked into a trait.  A freshly created Quality defaults to +2 (good) on creation.
Option B) Spend one point to instead, boost a trait from +0 (Average), to Good +2.  Congratulations.  For the same single point, you can do everything a Quality can do (Qualities must be linked to a trait), and more.  Qualities are an entirely optional purchase as well.
Option C) Aspects can be increased for a single point per, your aspects default to Good +2.  For a large Non-Combat boost (as Backgrounds do not effect combat rolls), amp up your Background if you're BG is "Forensic Scientist" or, say, "Deception Medic (who needs hand coordination and knowledge for brain surgery? BACKGROUND BABY!)".  It does not outright say Faculty can not be combat based, but none of the few examples are combat based either.  (Railspikes Demolitions is technically noncombat, so whoo)

For styles sake.  I'll be giving Metron and Junker a single default Quality like the examples on TF board have.  But I'll be leaving my aspects at defaults to nudge my Traits a bit better on my two soldiers.

I can always edit things to your example's standards though if you like that better.
This message was last edited by the player at 06:26, Thu 31 May 2012.

I'm working on getting a character or two made up. Looking at doing a magic user of some sort and a melee guy, most likely a tank rather than a striker. Any opening I could get into?

Most likely wont have them ready til after the weekend, just an fyi.

Only places still active here are the ones that don't include dice ever since Timothius got a job.  So uh...  Wrath of the Feywild?  If he doesn't mind having another player joining.

Wrath works.