December Rules Update Available

[keterys]

I'm not really sure about that, I'd consider Polearm Gamble a case of the specific (entering a square triggers an opportunity attack) overrides the general (shifting not provoking opportunity attacks for movement). Its open to interpretation, tho.

No, it isn't. Specific vs. General means that the specific thing needs to actually override the general rule. Nothing in Polearm Gamble actually does so. It would need to say, for example, 'when a creature shifts'. There's a huge thread about this from some months ago that can probably be conjured up, but their fix now makes it so shifting works to get around threatening reach and polearm gamble.

Unfortunately they put opportunity attacks instead of opportunity actions, so there are still some things that could be argued to work.

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, my tempest chain fighter has taken one on the chin after these updates

He'll still be a fun and interesting character to play, I'm sure!

-O

 

[Artoomis]

This may be just a nit, but there is very little, if any, "errata." There are "rules updates," thoiugh and they carry a very different philospohy behind them than errata.

A rules that is published exactly as intended is not a publishing error (errata) - if that rules gets updated later for balance (or other) resaons, that's a rules update.

It's a very important distinction as WotC has left themselves a philosophical wide-open door to change any rules as needed going forward, which an "errata" approach would not allow.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This may be just a nit, but there is very little, if any, "errata." There are "rules updates," thoiugh and they carry a very different philospohy behind them than errata.

A rules that is published exactly as intended is not a publishing error (errata) - if that rules gets updated later for balance (or other) resaons, that's a rules update.

It's a very important distinction as WotC has left themselves a philosophical wide-open door to change any rules as needed going forward, which an "errata" approach would not allow.

I think they even mention different type of rules "updates". Not everything is "merely" errata in the sense of "let's fix a calculation error here" or "oops, we missed the attack line for this power".

 

[Obryn]

I think they even mention different type of rules "updates". Not everything is "merely" errata in the sense of "let's fix a calculation error here" or "oops, we missed the attack line for this power".

Yep. They even explain the reasoning behind each change, and make it clear which ones are updates or revisions, versus actual errata.

-O

 

[Mort_Q]

 

[MarkB]

They fixed Grasp of the Grave. That power was absolutely nuts. Auto-dazing zone that only effects enemies that doesn't require a minor action to sustain. Yeah, that's way too good.

My LFR wizard took both Grasp of the Grave and Visions of Avarice (because he couldn't find a 9th-level Daily he liked). Laying down that combo in a single encounter was just ridiculous, especially against melee-specialists.

I doubt I'll re-spec - the spell still dazes on the first round and is a good, enemies-only minion-killer thereafter - but I'll miss that cheese, much as it definitely did have to go.

 

[keterys]

Someone was talking about an LFR game they ran in which they had two wizards with Grasp, and two multiclasses with Grasp (swordmage and something), plus salves of power so they could get it back, such that there were enlarged grasps of the grave in every single encounter of the module...

And yeah, good riddance It's still a solid choice.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Here's the full spreadsheet on Twin Strike vs. Basic Atk vs. Careful Atk. You can change around the numbers (in yellow) for whatever parameters you want, but this spreadsheet has been posted on this forum before and essentially vetted for correctness (i.e. it should account accurately for all little minor critical quirks, etc.). My base, low-level calculation (stored by default in the spreadsheet) assumes d10, +1 static, +4 ability, d6 quarry, and d6 crit bonus (magic). Using that, Careful Atk is better than Twin Strike on 18-20. But, not by a lot. Changing the numbers in a reasonable fashion from there doesn't change that a whole lot, either. I.e. you may get +2 static, but then the +5 on ability offsets that.

IMO, because the 4E general design goal is around an average chance to hit, then Careful Atk pretty much never plays a factor. It would only matter, as said above, if you had a one time only or very short duration massive bonus that wouldn't apply to Twin Strike for some reason.

Careful Atk is ALWAYS better than a basic attack, though, which is good. Of course, I don't have the math in there to account for basic atk-only improvements.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, careful attack is still worse than twin strike. Which frankly might be more of a problem with Twin Strike than Careful Attack... But it's no longer a vile trap where when someone uses it at a table cause a guy is hard to hit I'll look at two of the other people at the table, exchange the glance of 'WTF is he doing' and quietly sigh. I'll know he doesn't know better, but it won't be a _horrible_ trap, just a mild one.