Collected Core Handbook Errata

[Oldtimer]

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.

 

[JGulick]

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).

 

[silentounce]

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."

 

[Seeker_of_Truth]

✦ 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.

 

[volanin]

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.

 

[Runestar]

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?

 

[silentounce]

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.

 

[Drakona]

This was partially mentioned already, but for completeness:

In the Heroic Tier Feats summary on p. 196 - 197, we have:

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.

 

[DracoSuave]

Do you think the rules for forced movement require revision?

Currently, sliding does not provoke AoOs,

Correct

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.

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.

such as being grabbed,

Which is correct. Restrained, however, prevents it.

and he can still move away to safety (since being slided does not provoke AoOs).

Correct.

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.

 

[Henrix]

Do you think the rules for forced movement require revision?

Please excuse me if I keep nagging, but discussions regarding changes in the rules are not errata. Keep them out of this thread.