L4W Discussion Thread V

[dimsdale]

Thanks everyone for the info.

Damn you Rocco!

 

[H.M.Gimlord]

Man. Sorry to rain on your parade dimsdale, but (to add insult to injury), Max is now unconscious (again ).

 

[Neurotic]

In my defense, I think Golem can attack Rocco because to provoke he has to move next to Rocco and he already has. Even if he moved only 1 before being stopped, he can attack.

And Halleck and Xwhatever and Skaliss are all adjacent...unless he HAS to move before the attack And if you decide to attack them Rocco'll smack the golem again

On the bright side, you can rampage with BG2. Tell me when Vlastoes is up to some hurt and Rocco will leave your golems in peace (pieces?)

 

[Son of Meepo]

In my defense, I think Golem can attack Rocco because to provoke he has to move next to Rocco and he already has. Even if he moved only 1 before being stopped, he can attack.

That's the thing. The OA that the golem provokes before moving interrupts the movement. If the golem started this action adjacent to Rocco, then Rocco's attack happens before the golem moves even one square, so if Rocco hits, no movement happens at all, the golem never enters an enemy's space and thus never gets to make an attack.

The tricky bit comes when a golem moves into an enemy space during a rampage and that space is next to a fighter. The fighter stops the golem's movement with an OA while the golem is in an occupied space but rampage states that the golem must end its move in an unoccupied space.

 

[H.M.Gimlord]

I think at that point it's like forced movement. You get to chose an unoccupied, adjacent location in which to place the creature. This possibility occured to me when Rhagast was Trampling in Land Ho, but the PCs were so spread out, that it never happened.

 

[Someone]

Another rules question. Suppose a monster with two modes of attack, for example these two ones I'm making up on the fly:

(melee basic attack) Longsword +10 VS AC, 1d8+6 damage
(melee) Flury of slashes: The monster makes two longsword attacks against the same or different opponents.

The question is if those two longsword attacks the monster mkaes with his Flurry melee attack count as a single attack (since they are part of the Flurry ability) or not (since they seem to be two discrete longsword attacks). If the monster attacks a defender with one longsword slash and another party member with the second, would it trigger mark punishment, for example?

 

[Son of Meepo]

Another rules question. Suppose a monster with two modes of attack, for example these two ones I'm making up on the fly:

(melee basic attack) Longsword +10 VS AC, 1d8+6 damage
(melee) Flury of slashes: The monster makes two longsword attacks against the same or different opponents.

The question is if those two longsword attacks the monster mkaes with his Flurry melee attack count as a single attack (since they are part of the Flurry ability) or not (since they seem to be two discrete longsword attacks). If the monster attacks a defender with one longsword slash and another party member with the second, would it trigger mark punishment, for example?

As far as I can tell, the rules are unclear. In this case I would rule that Flurry of Slashes lets the monster use the longsword attack power twice with the same Standard Action, but each of those uses is resolved separately, so he would trigger mark punishment on any single longsword attack that did not target the defender.

But if it were...

Flurry of Slashes: +10 AC (two attacks); 1d8+6 damage per attack.

In that case I would rule that mark punishment would not be triggered as long as one attack went against the defender.

 

[Someone]

Thanks, SoM. That's how I've ruled it in the past.

 

[dimsdale]

[MENTION=78756]Son of Meepo[/MENTION] [MENTION=5656]Someone[/MENTION]

DM is still unclear. Here is the attack that Someone is referring to...

OOC: Golem power M Double Attack (standard; at-will) The bone golem makes two Slam attacks. Slam (standard; at-will) Reach 2; +16 vs. AC (+18 while bloodied); 2d8 + 5 damage, and the target is dazed (save ends).

One of these attacks hit against the monk and the other attack missed against the fighter. The attack included the fighter. Does the fighter get CS?

I'm not clear from your description (Son of Meepo) in your post that was the reply to Someone's rule question when the fighter can use CS or when the fighter can't given an attack that includes the fighter in the attack.

 

[Son of Meepo]

1. Golem uses Double Attack. Double attack lets the golem use slam twice.
2. Golem uses slam against the fighter. Since the fighter was attacked, no CS, no penalty.
3. Golem uses slam against the monk. Since the fighter was not attack, -2 to hit and CS from the fighter.

If the power said instead

Double Attack
Reach 2; +16 vs. AC (+18 while bloodied) two attacks; 2d8 + 5 damage per attack, and the target is dazed (save ends).

Then
1. Golem uses double attack against the fighter and the monk. Since the fighter was attacked, no CS, no penalty.

It's a subtle difference, but an important one.



But if you want to play optimally, have the golem attack the fighter first, if the fighter is dazed, then he can't take the CS attack because it requires an Immediate action.