D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
"11. Which dice do I maximize when scoring a critical hit?
"Only the dice you would normally roll to calculate damage are maximized. If another bonus (like from a weapon or feat) causes you to roll extra damage dice when scoring a critical hit, those dice are rolled as normal. "
On a normal hit, i.e. not a critical hit, the dice for sneak attack or hunter's quarry would be rolled, they are not extra damage due to it being a critical hit. Thus sneak attack and hunter's quarry are maximised on a critical.
The extra dice a magical weapon gives when scoring a critical hit are not maximised.
But, please argue about this in another thread - there have been and will probably be others specifically about this. Keep this thread for errata.
On page 197, in the table of Feats, for Potent Challenge, "Add Con modifier damage to target hit with opportunity attack" should read "Add Con modifier damage to target hit with attack from Combat Challenge class feature" to match actual feat.
There are a few separate issues involving the Wizard of the Spiral Tower, all revolving around Corellon's Implement.
Quote:
Corellon's Implement: Choose an arcane implement that you specialize in, whether the wand, staff, or orb.
This means that anyone who multiclasses into wizard cannot utilize this class feature. While this may not be an error, if this is by design then the Paragon Path should have the prerequisite "specialized in an arcane implement".
Quote:
You can use a longsword as if it were that type of arcane implement
Per the rules for Reading a Magic Item, specifically the Power section (page 226), the keywords of the longsword's power can be attached to any spell cast that uses the longsword as an implement. For example, a frost longsword can be used to make any spell cast have the cold keyword, and thus activate feats like Wintertouched and Lasting Frost. Is this intentional?
Quote:
when casting your spells.
Last issue - in addition to not working for multiclassers, this class feature doesn't even work with specialized implements as written. None of the Staff of Defense features can be used with the longsword, effectively negating the specialization that is required to use this class feature. Furthermore, the ability of the Orb of Imposition to extend an at-will spell effect is done separate from the casting of the spell, and thus would not work. That's one implement that is completely useless, and a second which is limited. Only the Wand of Accuracy works at full effect with this feature.
I would highly recommend that the wording be changed to allow full use of Corellon's Implement with a single specialized implement, or perhaps even allowing multiclass wizards to benefit (as not allowing them to do so limits options for the classic 'gish').
Both Stinking Cloud (161) and Cloudkill (166) are described as thick clouds in their descriptive text, but only Stinking Cloud (the lower level of the two) blocks line of sight.
The text on pg. 261 of the PHB refers to a "Base Exploration Speed table" at least 4 times. I think this should actually read "Base Overland Speed table".
✦ p.102: under Healing Font, on the Effect line, replace “points equal to 1d6 [ts] your Wisdom modifier” with “points equal to 1d6 x your Wisdom modifier” [bobthehappyzombie]
I don't believe this correction is right. I think it's meant to be 1d6 PLUS Wisdom modifier, not TIMES. Given the relative power of other abilities around that level, the fact that it lasts for the whole encounter, and the fact that it is bonus "free" healing that doesn't use any healing surges, it would be too overpowered if it was multiplication rather than addition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underage AOLer
✦ p.102: under Healing Font, on the Effect line, replace “points equal to 1d6 [ts] your Wisdom modifier” with “points equal to 1d6 x your Wisdom modifier” [bobthehappyzombie]
I don't believe this correction is right. I think it's meant to be 1d6 PLUS Wisdom modifier, not TIMES. Given the relative power of other abilities around that level, the fact that it lasts for the whole encounter, and the fact that it is bonus "free" healing that doesn't use any healing surges, it would be too overpowered if it was multiplication rather than addition.
I DO believe that its is 1d6 x your Wis. Modifer. As at that level healing surges can be do a lot of healing. Lets say you have a Wisdom modifer of +7 and you roll a 6 that is 42 which is comparable to a healing surge of that level.
__________________ Dungeons & Dragons is not just a game it is a way of life and the ultimate need for fantasy.
"p.77: under the Melee Weapon Groups and Associated Statistics table it says, "Polearm: Wisdom [and rarely Dexterity]", there are no polearm exploits that take advantage of Wisdom, and only one that uses Dexterity [Diirk]"
While this is true as far as powers go, there are feats (such as polearm gamble) that rely on high wisdom and spear mastery that rely on high dex. I don't believe this needs errata.
Must a push be in a straight line, or am I allowed to zig-zag the foe in and out of a wall of fire, so long as each square he moves brings him further away from me?
"p.77: under the Melee Weapon Groups and Associated Statistics table it says, "Polearm: Wisdom [and rarely Dexterity]", there are no polearm exploits that take advantage of Wisdom, and only one that uses Dexterity [Diirk]"
While this is true as far as powers go, there are feats (such as polearm gamble) that rely on high wisdom and spear mastery that rely on high dex. I don't believe this needs errata.
Me neither. I'm guessing we'll see more powers that use wisdom and dexterity in the Martial Power book. What people have to keep in mind is that the PHB is just laying down the ground rules. They couldn't possibly have fit absolutely everything into that book. It would have ended up looking like a dictionary if they'd tried. And it would have cost as much too.
Must a push be in a straight line, or am I allowed to zig-zag the foe in and out of a wall of fire, so long as each square he moves brings him further away from me?
I don't know how this is Errata... the rules in no way imply the requirement of a straight line that I can see.
The only restrictions in the rules are the need to move further away (and only movement along the longer axis matters due to the diagonal counting rule) and maintain LoE to the destination square. Wall of Fire doesn't block LoE (just LoS), so the idea of pushing someone thru a WoF several times with one push is possible.
The DMG expansion on the "Catching Yourself" rule to reflect Hazardous Terrain, however, strongly implies a save each square of the push which would result in damage, limiting this strategy somewhat.
I don't know how this is Errata... the rules in no way imply the requirement of a straight line that I can see.
The only restrictions in the rules are the need to move further away (and only movement along the longer axis matters due to the diagonal counting rule) and maintain LoE to the destination square. Wall of Fire doesn't block LoE (just LoS), so the idea of pushing someone thru a WoF several times with one push is possible.
The DMG expansion on the "Catching Yourself" rule to reflect Hazardous Terrain, however, strongly implies a save each square of the push which would result in damage, limiting this strategy somewhat.
As a DM I would certainly rule that your push must go in a path that does not reverse direction... that is, if you move "East" with the first move, you can then move "North", "South", "Northeast", "Southeast" or continue "East" (which doesn't change anything, just brings you back here). After selecting North(east) or South(east) you are locked into those two directions and their diagonal. You can't push someone East, Northeast, Southeast (unless the effect is one by which you can follow them in which case I would rule that you are pushing them one square at a time and shifting to follow, and each square is indepenent). Likewise pulls follow the same rules. Slides are immune to restrictions.
As a DM I would certainly rule that your push must go in a path that does not reverse direction... that is, if you move "East" with the first move, you can then move "North", "South", "Northeast", "Southeast" or continue "East" (which doesn't change anything, just brings you back here).
Pushes have a rule: each square must be further away from you. That stops any doubling back.
Pushes have a rule: each square must be further away from you. That stops any doubling back.
Code:
P-
E-
-1
2-
-3
P=Player, E=Enemy, # = square pushed into. Each square moves the enemy further away while still zigzagging, which seems to me against the spirit of "push". RAW I see no problem with this, RAI... well... who knows?
That's pretty funny, but now that I see it, I agree its silly.
Personally, I'd rule you only get the damage for entering a damaging zone once per full action of movement (where a push, pull, or personal move action, whatever).
Scenari 1: I push someone 6 squares. Like that picture, I zigzag him in and out of the fire, so he entes it three times.
Scenario 2: I push someone 6 squares. The first square pushes him into the wall of fire; the remaining five push him 5 squares along the wall, never leaving it, so he's entirely within the fire for the full mvement.
In the first scenario, the victim spends about half the time in the fire but takes three times as much damage. That's silly.
So I'd rule as above: in both scenarios, the guy takes damage just once. If someone else then moved him out of the fire and back in, I'd be happy to let him take the damage again.
I would rather use the existing rules where possible. I count 4 steps along this push where the subject is pushed into a space more dangerous/damaging than the prior one (the first step, from not adjacent to the WoF to adjacent where damage is immanent if not immediate, then each of the steps that enter the Wall itself except the last one, which is from in wall to in wall). That would, to me, allow 4 Saves to avoid the push, which means completing the whole pattern shown is quite unlikely (~4.1%, less if the pushed opponent has any Save bonuses).
Meanwhile, replace the WoF with a crowded battlefield of allies and enemies, tight spots, etc. (some of which you can push thru and some of which you can't) and you'll see why allowing a zig-zagging Push is sometimes necessary for the Push to have any possibility of being used at all.
But, either way, this is not a discussion of Errata in any meaningful way.
Blade Cascade is now reasonable while still being very good. I am happy Wizards quickly curtailed the abuse of this ability as it was way too good. The fact of this was actually being argued by some players, when they knew it was way too good.
Blade Cascade [Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 109
On the Attack line, replace the second sentence with “Alternate main and offhand
weapon attacks until you miss or until you make five attacks.”
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
