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.
On a hit, 2[W] and the target is slowed and grants combat advantage to you (save ends both).
On a miss, half damage that target grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn.
Should the "hit" entry be changed to say "is slowed and grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn; thereafter, save ends both" or perhaps each should be saved against individually?
Because as written, it can be better to miss, as it guarantees that you have combat advantage until the end of your next turn; whereas on a hit, the target can make a save at the end of its turn, and might never actually grant combat advantage to you.
I think it's good as written, no need for errata. Even if the miss result may, on occasion, turn out to be more advantageous to you, I think overall it's still better to hit.
On a hit, 2[W] and the target is slowed and grants combat advantage to you (save ends both).
On a miss, half damage that target grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn.
Should the "hit" entry be changed to say "is slowed and grants combat advantage to you until the end of your turn; thereafter, save ends both" or perhaps each should be saved against individually?
Because as written, it can be better to miss, as it guarantees that you have combat advantage until the end of your next turn; whereas on a hit, the target can make a save at the end of its turn, and might never actually grant combat advantage to you.
On a miss, you're guaranteed to have combat advantage until your next turn, which improves your chances for hitting them with a power. On a hit, you get better than combat advantage - you hit them. Plus you may also get combat advantage for a follow-up attack. Sounds like the hit is better than the miss to me.
Why do you require "two melee weapons" to hit only "one creature"?
And if "two melee weapons" are required, which weapon is used to calculate damage.
IMO I think the Requirement line can be deleted.
This would bring the power's description in line with other Ranger powers (ie,: Evasive Strike, Hawk's Talon, etc.)
I think the errata for the death giant and hill giant has created the need for additional errata.
Death giant errata has increased basic attack damage to 4d6 + 9 so I would assume that changes the crit damage to 12d6 + 33 (from 6d6 + 21). Also, with the revision to the death giant's basic attack, it now does better damage than the death titan (4d6 + 9 vs. 2d8 + 10). Don't know if this is intentional or not.
Hill giant revised damage of 2d10 + 7 is now more than the earth titan of 2d10 + 6. Once again, don't know if this is intentional or not.
In the Implements section of the Wizard entry, it says one implement affects spells that take effect until the end of your turn, or something like that, and then gives examples of such spells in parenthesis. The errata is that these examples don't correspond to that type of duration.
In the Implements section of the Wizard entry, it says one implement affects spells that take effect until the end of your turn, or something like that, and then gives examples of such spells in parenthesis. The errata is that these examples don't correspond to that type of duration.
The examples given (cloud of daggers and ray of frost) normally last until the end of your next turn, true. However, during your next turn, these effects now only last until the end of your current turn. You can now use the Orb of Imposition to extend the duration of an effect that would otherwise end at the end of your current turn. The effect instead ends at the end of your next turn, which is now two turns after you cast it.
Looks fine as written to me.
Last edited by Khime; 29th July 2008 at 10:16 PM..
To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHB, page 280
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.)
Unless someone can explain how the imaginary line can run along the edge of the obstacle and still not touch it, these two paragraphs contradict each other.
__________________ Mikael Borjesson, Sweden
The Titan of Titan Games
Keeper of the swedish D&D translations
They don't contradict each other, becuase they are for different things.
The first is for whether you can see someone - and so use powers which require line of sight.
The second is for whether the target has cover when you attack them.
A target can have cover, and still be seen - so no contradiction.
They don't contradict each other, becuase they are for different things.
The first is for whether you can see someone - and so use powers which require line of sight.
The second is for whether the target has cover when you attack them.
A target can have cover, and still be seen - so no contradiction.
Yes, I do understand the difference in what they describe. However, they both describe how you trace an imaginary Line of Sight from one of your corners to a corner of the target. One rule says that a line of sight is blocked of it touches an obstacle, the other says it's not. Isn't it strange if Line of Sight rules are different for seeing (page 273) and not seeing (ie cover, page 280)? For me it's extremely odd.
__________________ Mikael Borjesson, Sweden
The Titan of Titan Games
Keeper of the swedish D&D translations
Yes, I do understand the difference in what they describe. However, they both describe how you trace an imaginary Line of Sight from one of your corners to a corner of the target. One rule says that a line of sight is blocked of it touches an obstacle, the other says it's not. Isn't it strange if Line of Sight rules are different for seeing (page 273) and not seeing (ie cover, page 280)? For me it's extremely odd.
The difference, I think, is between seeing at all (Line of Sight) and seeing clearly and completely (cover or the lack thereof).
Yes, I do understand the difference in what they describe. However, they both describe how you trace an imaginary Line of Sight from one of your corners to a corner of the target. One rule says that a line of sight is blocked of it touches an obstacle, the other says it's not. Isn't it strange if Line of Sight rules are different for seeing (page 273) and not seeing (ie cover, page 280)? For me it's extremely odd.
"Not seeing" is concealment, not cover. Someone standing behind a solid glass door would have total cover, but no concealment. So, really, there are not different rules for "seeing" and "not seeing" as you put it. Nothing in the rules says that cover has anything to do with sight. Blind opponents don't grant cover, neither does darkness.
From page 280, which you referenced:
"Solid obstructions that can physically deflect or stop objects are considered cover. Objects or effects that don’t physically impede an attack but instead hide you from an enemy’s view are considered concealment."
__________________ "Haven't you caught onto how EN World works by now?
Praising 4e = you're right.
Finding anything wrong with it - ANYTHING AT ALL! - even if you overall support it = you're wrong. And closeminded. And dumb. And a bad DM." -ProfessorCirno
I had to scale it down for three players and there was no TPK. I might have scaled away too much.
-OchreJelly on Irontooth
✦ 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]
D&Di now has this fixed and it is indeed times and not plus.
Yes, I do understand the difference in what they describe. However, they both describe how you trace an imaginary Line of Sight from one of your corners to a corner of the target. One rule says that a line of sight is blocked of it touches an obstacle, the other says it's not. Isn't it strange if Line of Sight rules are different for seeing (page 273) and not seeing (ie cover, page 280)? For me it's extremely odd.
No no.
Only the "cover imaginary line" requires to start in a corner of your square and end in a corner of the enemy square. The "line-of-sight imaginary line" must start in a corner of your square and end ANYWHERE in the enemy square.
Do you think the rules for forced movement require revision?
Currently, sliding does not provoke AoOs, and it apparently disregards terrain. So in theory, a PC could use a power like command to order another PC to slide a certain distance, which among other things, could allow him to escape immobilizing effects such as being grabbed, and he can still move away to safety (since being slided does not provoke AoOs).
Those limitations were clearly instituted to prevent monsters from being at the mercy of players (such as pushing an enemy past multiple PCs having it provoke AoOs from all of them), but the flip side is that it then becomes some sort of "get out of jail free" card because it allows you to bypass just about every sort of restriction on movement.
Do you think the rules for forced movement require revision?
Currently, sliding does not provoke AoOs, and it apparently disregards terrain. So in theory, a PC could use a power like command to order another PC to slide a certain distance, which among other things, could allow him to escape immobilizing effects such as being grabbed, and he can still move away to safety (since being slided does not provoke AoOs).
Those limitations were clearly instituted to prevent monsters from being at the mercy of players (such as pushing an enemy past multiple PCs having it provoke AoOs from all of them), but the flip side is that it then becomes some sort of "get out of jail free" card because it allows you to bypass just about every sort of restriction on movement.
Thoughts?
If people want to use a level 3 encounter power to restrict their friends to one action while also granting combat advantage for an entire round in exchange for a half dozen squares of free movement I have no problem with letting them do so.
__________________ "Haven't you caught onto how EN World works by now?
Praising 4e = you're right.
Finding anything wrong with it - ANYTHING AT ALL! - even if you overall support it = you're wrong. And closeminded. And dumb. And a bad DM." -ProfessorCirno
I had to scale it down for three players and there was no TPK. I might have scaled away too much.
-OchreJelly on Irontooth
This was partially mentioned already, but for completeness:
In the Heroic Tier Feats summary on p. 196 - 197, we have:
Quote:
Distracting Shield - Target hit by opportunity attack takes -2 to attack rolls.
Potent Challenge - Add Con modifier damage to target hit with opportunity attack
Shield Push - Push 1 square to target hit by Combat Challenge attack
All three feats begin the full description with, "If you hit a foe with an attack granted by your Combat Challenge class feature . . . " This attack is not an opportunity attack (though there is widespread confusion on this point).
The language of the Distracting Shield and Potent Challenge short descriptions should be changed to match Shield Push.
Do you think the rules for forced movement require revision?
Currently, sliding does not provoke AoOs,
Correct
Quote:
and it apparently disregards terrain.
Incorrect. It disregards difficult terrain. Other terrain such as challenging, blocking or hindering terrain have different effects on forced movement. Cover terrain may block line of effect.
Challenging terrain may or may not hinder forced movement, depending on its nature. Blocking terrain cannot be circumvented by forced movement in any way. Hindering terrain permits a save to allow the victim to fall prone and end the forced movement rather than enter it.
Quote:
So in theory, a PC could use a power like command to order another PC to slide a certain distance, which among other things, could allow him to escape immobilizing effects
Unless the effect says otherwise, yes.
Quote:
such as being grabbed,
Which is correct. Restrained, however, prevents it.
Quote:
and he can still move away to safety (since being slided does not provoke AoOs).
Correct.
Quote:
Those limitations were clearly instituted to prevent monsters from being at the mercy of players (such as pushing an enemy past multiple PCs having it provoke AoOs from all of them), but the flip side is that it then becomes some sort of "get out of jail free" card because it allows you to bypass just about every sort of restriction on movement.
Thoughts?
Command not only slides them 3+your Cha Mod, it also dazes them, which is almost as bad as where he was before, except -now- he's granting combat advantage and can't struggle to get free.
But hey, if that's what you wanna do to get out, be my guest.
The 'get out of jail free' card aspect of the different movement types and forced movement is a part of combat in 4e. Movement is not as simple as it was in 3e, and it has multiple possibilities for PCs and NPCs.
Last edited by DracoSuave; 7th August 2008 at 11:58 AM..
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
