4E PrRC ~v2.7~ FINAL UPDATE May 29.08

[FitzTheRuke]

Originally Posted by RigaMortus2

So what happens then if a Paladin marks the opponent, and then before that opponent gets to go he is somehow immobilized (or stunned) or knocked unconcious? He wants to get to the Paladin and fight him, but he is prevented from doing so by no fault of his own? Does he take the damage?

If you're talking about the opponent not being able to get to the Paladin, the damage only occurs if the opponent ATTACKS a target other than the Paladin, not if he stands around (or slumps unconscious)

If you're asking if the Paladin can't move to fight the marked opponent, I think the gist of the reworking is that the Paladin has to do his best to fight the marked target. The main point is to stop the Paladin from marking and running like a weasel.

Fitz

[Bayonet_Chris]

I think we're probably making it more complicated than it has to be. I would also keep the onus of the power on the marked target instead of splitting responsibility - basically "If the marked target is able to attack the paladin and chooses not to, he takes damage".

This would include moving towards the paladin (so the target can't shrug its shoulders and not move, claiming it can't attack the paladin at all), although I wouldn't penalize the marked opponent for cutting through intervening targets on the way. It would give the paladin impetus to get up there and defend his buddies instead of hiding behind them.

I guess we won't know until the official wording is released.

[Verys Arkon]

I wonder if WotC Customer Service or Sage Advice is taking 4E questions yet?

"If the marked target is able to attack the paladin and chooses not to, he takes damage".

This doesn't fix the exploit that people were using, where the Paladin marked and then ran away. You'd have to say "If the marked target ATTACKS another target instead of the Paladin, he takes damage" (which is how the original is worded).

I don't think the problem was coming from the monster's/DMs side, it was the players that marked and then tried to keep out of reach with the idea that it would inflict damage that was causing the problems. I also think part of the problem is that people are misreading the power, so that no mater what the monster did, if it didn't hit the Paladin it would take damage automatically. As written though, the monster could do anything (except attacking someone else) and not take damage, including fleeing, chasing the paladin around, using defensive powers, etc. I actually don't see how the power needed to be 'fixed' in the first place, really. Okay, a paladin marking a monster then running away isn't exactly heroic behavior for a paladin, but picture a paladin luring the dragon away from his weaker allies, using himself as bait. He isn't causing the creature damage as he runs away, but the monster does have to pay attention to the paladin, or suffer his god's wrath for the impertinence.

[Sadrik]

What about the bonus Eladrin feat? Anybody figure that one out? The ranger has 2 feats and all other characters have 1 (except the human).

[Xanaqui]

I did some analysis a while ago on part of the topic you list here. The thread is here . Your Dwarven Weapons Training, for example, has the same defect that one of my earlier versions of my understanding of it does (it doesn't account for the fact that the relevant weapons are prof 1, thereby missing +1 to hit).

Simuarly, the +1 to AC you seem to be missing from the Warlock has a plausible description there (Leather is +3 to AC light Armor)

There's also a bit on ability score mods that may be of interest, along with other trivia.

[Cailte]

Don't know if this is reported but the Ranger Class is missing Nature from its Class skill list. I would also speculate that its an Automatic Skill for the Ranger.

[Verys Arkon]

Originally Posted by Xanaqui

I did some analysis a while ago on part of the topic you list here. The thread is here . Your Dwarven Weapons Training, for example, has the same defect that one of my earlier versions of my understanding of it does (it doesn't account for the fact that the relevant weapons are prof 1, thereby missing +1 to hit).

You may be right, Xanaqui. In the model used in the PrRC for now, however, all fighters have a +1 to attacks (mentioned in a D&D podcast). So Kathra's +6 attack comes from:
+3 STR +1 Fighter +1 Weapon Accuracy +1 Dwarven Weapon Training.

Simuarly, the +1 to AC you seem to be missing from the Warlock has a plausible description there (Leather is +3 to AC light Armor)

it is indeed a plausible explanation (I mention it in post 102) , but I'm just having problems with two armors with +3 AC, especially since they've really reduced the number of armors they've chosen to leave in the PHB. Even though mathematically it works, its the justification that makes me hesitate.

There's also a bit on ability score mods that may be of interest, along with other trivia.

Your thread was one of the inspirations that prompted me to compile everything I could find, many thanks for getting the ball rolling!

[Verys Arkon]

Originally Posted by Cailte

Don't know if this is reported but the Ranger Class is missing Nature from its Class skill list. I would also speculate that its an Automatic Skill for the Ranger.

Thanks for catching this Cailte, it will be in the next revision.

Also, while on the topic of Nature skill, do you think their is another +1 coming from some place, either class or race? Choose Wis or Int to modify it?

Nature 7 (5 training +1 Int +1?)

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

Splitting the tree: no effect on a miss, sorry

Burst description should be changend in my opinion

from

BURST (X) within (Y) Squares
This effect is an area including all squares (X) x (X) distance (Y) from a center square. Burst effects that are close attacks (such as “close burst 2”) always consider the caster to be the center of the effect. Bursts that are not close attacks (such as wizard’s “Scorching Burst” power) can be centered anywhere within the powers range, rather than centered on the caster.

to

BURST (X) within (Y) Squares
This effect is an area including all squares within (X) squares from a center square placed within an (Y) distance. Burst effects that are close attacks (such as “close burst 2”) always consider the caster to be the center of the effect. Bursts that are not close attacks (such as wizard’s “Scorching Burst” power) can be centered anywhere within the powers range, rather than centered on the caster.

these because a Burst*2 make a 5x5 square and not a 2x2 square

[Verys Arkon]

I've made a quick minor update to v1.3.1 to deal with these issues.

• Reworded “burst”
• Removed second “Hit” line to Rangers “Split the Tree Power”
• Removed house-rule to Paladin Divine Challenge (see text Update History under v1.3 if you wish to use this temporary fix).
• Added Nature to Ranger’s class list.

[RyukenAngel]

Firstly, I'd like to say that you did a great job on this!

But to insure further quality and usage of your compilation, I'd like to point out some errors that I found, and make some suggestions:
- According to my math (and 32 point buy), Erais only has one racial +2, and that is the one that would boost his 16 in wisdom to 18. I think it is safe to say that humans get a single +2 to any ability score
- Tira's Wizard Power Ray of Frost is still an at-will power for her. I don't think the multi-classed power changes usage category.
- I think it is a little redundant to have the racial powers for things in both the fluff and mechanics sections for classes
- I think there was a rule explained on the D&DEXP magic item sheets telling when players could pick up a magical peice of equipment. I was wondering if you might be able to find that and add it to the rules.
- I cannot find the rules for Concealment in the PDF. If you don't have it in there and the rules are available, please add it. If it is already in there, I think it would be best grouped in the conditions section.

[FreeXenon]

There is:

DISPEL MAGIC
Wizard Utility 6
You unleash a ray of crackling arcane energy that destroys a magical effect created by an opponent.
Daily * Arcane
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One conjuration or zone
Attack: Intelligence vs. the Will defense of the creator of the conjuration or the zone
Hit: The conjuration or the zone is

and the not entirely complete and iffy Dragonborn stats:

Here's what I can make out:

Str +2, Cha +2
Size Medium
Speed (some number less than 10) squares
Vision Normal

Languages Common, Draconic
Skill Bonuses +2 History (not 100% on this), +2 Intimidate

Dragonborn Fury When you're Bloodied you gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls.
Draconic Heritage (Something about using something else instead of your Constitution modifier, but I can't make out for what)
Dragon Breath (Blurry text)

Dragon Breath (Red-coloured Power) Dragonborn Racial Power
Encounter * Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning or Poison
Minor Action (I kid you not!) Area blast 3 (I think)
Target All creatures in blast (I think)
Attack Strength +2 vs. Reflex, Constitution +2 vs. Reflex, or (blurry) +2 vs. Reflex

I think it lists the damage as 1d8 + Constitution modifier, but it gets mighty blurry there, and the paragraph continues off the edge of the screen. Edit: it could even be "2d6 + Constitution modifier", this part of the picture is really hard to make out.

There's a neat picture of a female dragonborn with scale mail, a shield and what might be her sword to the left of the text.

[sunrisekid]

Originally Posted by Ian O'Rourke

Hah, I see. I wasn't so much pointing out a mistake more being confused. We might be playing 4E come June and I'm eyeing up the Ranger class. That power made him a bit of wuss put to the Rogue so I was a bit confused.Thanks for the info.

Two of my players are each trying the rogue and the ranger and so far the rogue seems to be a bit more powerful in terms of damage output. Personally I'm finding this a bit odd because I've always imagined rangers a better combatant than rogues.

In my 4E playtest game, I'm letting the ranger retain two-weapon fighting but I'm not really sure how to handle it other than to retain 3E rules (ie, no penalty to primary and -4 to secondary). This means that his secondary often misses, resulting in a damage output significantly lower than the rogue. Looking at the Everfrost Ranger I'm tempted to let my player use his secondary attack without penalty.

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

Originally Posted by sunrisekid

In my 4E playtest game, I'm letting the ranger retain two-weapon fighting but I'm not really sure how to handle it other than to retain 3E rules (ie, no penalty to primary and -4 to secondary). This means that his secondary often misses, resulting in a damage output significantly lower than the rogue. Looking at the Everfrost Ranger I'm tempted to let my player use his secondary attack without penalty.

I think it's a good idea, since the ranger loose the hunter's quarry why not

[sunrisekid]

Originally Posted by FabioMilitoPagliara

I think it's a good idea, since the ranger loose the hunter's quarry why not

I don't understand, do you mean to say that when using two-weapon fighting the ranger must cancel his hunter's quarry ability? Does this mean that two-weapon fighting is an at-will exploit?

Another, broader, question: are characters ever capable of performing more than one at-will power simultaneously, such that, for example, if two-weapon fighting is an at-will can the ranger use two-weapon fighting against their hunted quarry?

[bjorn2bwild]

Originally Posted by sunrisekid

I don't understand, do you mean to say that when using two-weapon fighting the ranger must cancel his hunter's quarry ability? Does this mean that two-weapon fighting is an at-will exploit?

Most likely there will be at-will powers covering the use of two weapons. Otherwise, if they are encounter only powers, there will be far less incentive to carry two weapons into combat.

The bit about not being able to use two weapons and hunter's quarry I believe to be speculation that if the ranger chooses to do the "melee" path rather than the "ranged" path, he will choose two weapon fighting instead of hunter's quarry. I don't particularly believe this to be a correct assumption, but it's possible.

Another, broader, question: are characters ever capable of performing more than one at-will power simultaneously, such that, for example, if two-weapon fighting is an at-will can the ranger use two-weapon fighting against their hunted quarry?

A few things:

1. I don't see anything in the rules about being restricted to only one power per round. As long as the powers take up different actions, and you have those actions to spend, there shouldn't be a reason why you couldn't do both. Hunter's Quarry takes a minor action to activate. Most attacks take a standard action to activate.

2. Hunter's Quarry (as of DnDXP) is not an "at-will power" but rather a class ability. So, in this case, it's not using two at-will powers, but rather using a class ability and an at-will power.

3. Hunter's Quarry doesn't go away. Once you designate a target as your quarry, it stays that way until the target is defeated, the encounter ends, or you designate a new quarry. So, even if, for some reason, you could not designate a quarry and attack with two weapons in the same round, you could designate in one round and then attack your quarry with two weapons in the next round.

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

Originally Posted by sunrisekid

I don't understand, do you mean to say that when using two-weapon fighting the ranger must cancel his hunter's quarry ability? Does this mean that two-weapon fighting is an at-will exploit?

it's an assumption on my part, I see the hunter's quarry as a "bow" thing so to keep being a striker with 2 weapon maybe the Ranger will get a bonus to damage for using 2 weapon but not the hunter's quarry (why he should keep it, if you go melee it's obvious that you are applying the bonus thing to you nearest target)

just guessing

yes I think 2-weapon fighting will be an at-will exploit (but then you should have more than 1 power, so you would have powerfull attack, double parry, parry and reposte) or even a ranger feature

[Verys Arkon]

Thanks for the feedback RyukenAngel. I'm always looking to improve the PrRC, and I'm glad for every eye that spots a problem. I've made some comments below:

Originally Posted by RyukenAngel

Firstly, I'd like to say that you did a great job on this!

But to insure further quality and usage of your compilation, I'd like to point out some errors that I found, and make some suggestions:
- According to my math (and 32 point buy), Erais only has one racial +2, and that is the one that would boost his 16 in wisdom to 18. I think it is safe to say that humans get a single +2 to any ability score

I think you are right on this point. PrRC v1.3 has changed the entry to +2 to any 1 ability score, with a footnote that it may be +2 to 2 abilities (though unlikely).

- Tira's Wizard Power Ray of Frost is still an at-will power for her. I don't think the multi-classed power changes usage category.

Jury is still out on this one, I think. Because the updated pregen version of Tira has had the Ray of Frost moved to the Encounter Powers section (I assume intentionally), then I think the most logical explanation at this point is that the half-elf's bonus cross-class power downgrades a step from At-Will to Per Encounter. I will admit it is speculative as evidenced by the [At-Will?] notation in the PrRC 1.3 description of the power, page 25, and suggest your DM house-rules as he/she feels appropriate for now. If you know of a thread that talks about this, let me know.

- I think it is a little redundant to have the racial powers for things in both the fluff and mechanics sections for classes

I looked through the PrRC's Class section and can't find any racial information that is being repeated. Could you point it out? If you meant repetition in the 'Races' section on the other hand, I can see your point. I kept the racial powers in the 'summary' section so players could see the powers for all the races in one place. It is repeated in the detailed write-ups for completeness. If we had detailed write-ups for all the races, I would be more inclinded to remove the racial power descriptions from the summary area. It is a matter of personal editorial bias, I think.

- I think there was a rule explained on the D&DEXP magic item sheets telling when players could pick up a magical peice of equipment. I was wondering if you might be able to find that and add it to the rules.

I'm not aware of these rules, but if anyone knows where to find them please post a link, and I'll include them.

- I cannot find the rules for Concealment in the PDF. If you don't have it in there and the rules are available, please add it. If it is already in there, I think it would be best grouped in the conditions section.

Concealment was added in v1.3, from this thread, and is found in the Combat Modifiers section along with cover, on page 36 (and in a table, same page). I chose to put it here instead of in the Conditions section because that is where it is located in the 3.5 PHB (page 152). Also, neither cover nor concealment are included in the 3.5 DMG Condition summary, page 300. I think this is because Conditions are something that effect creatures, while cover and concealment are tactical circumstances that can effect multiple creatures.

Thanks for the feedback. I can't wait to see the PHB in June to clear up these issues either.

[Verys Arkon]

Originally Posted by FreeXenon

There is:

and the not entirely complete and iffy Dragonborn stats:

Do people think there is enough solid information to put in the PrRC, or should we wait until more information is available? Same for the Warlord.

[FreeXenon]

It looks pretty good so far, albeit, it is not as validated as we would like.
You could definitely add it and perhaps a special border or background with a link to the thread, and a note about it being not so definite.

Or perhaps just a link to the thread with the potential stats and then people can make up their own minds until something more solid comes along.