Street Magic: Quake Spirit Power, Have they lost their minds?! Options

[LilithTaveril]

[Slithery D]

I'm really looking forward to a lot more indepth discussion of this vitally important topic. I can only hope it will be as enlightening as the brief treatment it has received thus far.

[James McMurray]

What's wrong with killing a rat and cleaving an enemy? It's the way the feat is designed to work. It doesn't prevent you having to roll to hit the guy you're cleaving, and it doesn't grant you any extra attacks against your enemy.

Perhaps you're thinking of the people that talked about whirlwind attacking a sack of rats to attack their enemy 50 times? Even then I saw a lot of talk but no actual action. Nobody I game with, either in person or online, ever thought it was a viable tactic, and I've gamed with some munchkinny idiots in my times running and playing in online arenas. The most serious request I ever got was along the lines of "I'm guessing I can't whirlwind a sack of slugs, can I?" He knew the answer was no before he even asked.

Amusing loophole? Sure. Actual way to win combat? Never.

[LilithTaveril]

What's wrong is the designers never actually intended it to work that way. They meant it to work that you kill an enemy and cleave another. And, no, not whirlwind attack. Besides, keep in mind people argued about it for two whole years before WOTC decided to do something about it. That would be like us having this argument for two years.

Now, whether or not it was actually used in a game is a moot point. There were those who thought it was viable, those who didn't, and they spent years arguing about it.

[James McMurray]

Well, obvisouly it got discussed to death, but I fail to see any problems with cleaving a rat you brought with you. It gives you absolutely no game benefits, and costs you whatever the GM decides a rat's upkeep is.

That's the nature of RPGers, especially on forums, and especially on WotC's boards. Had that discussion died down another would have immediately flared up. It's unavoidable. Had the word magnitude not been used in SM, another random rule would have spawned 8 pages of debate instead. Like I said earlier, unless you devolve the rules to the point where they look like a tactical board game you will not be able to avoid stupid people being stupid.

edit: removed something I edited in :)

[LilithTaveril]

Actually, had the word been "power," we'd have gotten three criticisms about wording that don't amount to much and eight pages of people discussing the length of the spell, why minutes are a bad thing, how much destruction is being done, etc. And I'd be mostly sitting back and reading, you'd be busy posting these replies to someone else in another way, and everything would be normal. Only, in this case, the discussion would be over existing rules and how they affect the game, not over interpretations of a word and how they affect the game. And we'd probably be a whole lot closer to errata right now.

Now, as for the game: Actually, looking back, it proved to be useful in ways. Each cleave attempt gave an extra attack at the same bonus as the attack that felled a creature. Often, a poor (but lethal) attack to a rat was the precursor to slaughtering entire groups of enemies before your second normal attack is even necessary.

[RunnerPaul]

[James McMurray]

[James McMurray]

[LilithTaveril]

Why, no, I haven't been at DS long.

Since you had mentioned it being discussed, I figured you either knew the entirety of it, or that you didn't. Not my responsibility to clarify a lack of knowing.

[James McMurray]

So it isn't your responsibility to clarify something easily misconstrued that has no references given, but it is FanPro's responsibility to clarify something that is plainly referenced?

You see, what happened between us is that you mentioned a huge debate about great cleave and my mind leapt to whirlwind attack. Because there was no reference your statement was confusing. However, had your statement been along the lines of "cleave problems (regarding attacks of opportunies)" the reference would have been sufficient.

Interesting little parallel there, and I like how you feel that others must be held accountable for failing to do the things you refuse to do.

[James McMurray]

[LilithTaveril]

[James McMurray]

As I said, I agree completely. Had you clarified your statement with a simple "(regarding attacks of opportunity)" there would have been no problems. Not unlike the book in question, where a simple parenthetical reference clears up any ambiguities except for those people who are "too ignorant and egotistical."

[James McMurray]

[LilithTaveril]

Yes. I'm saying people here won't argue longer than anyone else. That belongs to the WOTC forums (where some people are still arguing about 3.0 greatcleave).

[James McMurray]

Ah. I never said they'd argue longer than anyone else. I'm sure there are tons of people on the planet that would argue longer.

[LilithTaveril]

Sorry, reflexive habit to include people in the "anything" definition...

[James McMurray]

No prob. :)

[Moon-Hawk]

What's the thing with the orange ioun stone?

[James McMurray]

Maybe people arguing about whether they stack or not?

[LilithTaveril]

Sadly, that's exactly it...

[NeoJudas]

[Moon-Hawk]

That's the one that boosts caster level, right? Let me guess, they neglected to name the bonus, so people are arguing that it's an "unnamed" bonus and thus stacks with itself. Ugh.

[James McMurray]