Longtooth Shifter Regen

[DracoSuave]

And if we limit that power to those classes that have the Channel Divinity feature (ie Cleric and Paladin which are both leaders) then doesn't that sort of negate the fact that the ability is ranged and can be used on allies because that is what those classes are supposed to do? Heal at range?

Paladins, Invokers, and Avengers are leaders now and supposed to heal?

Huh.

So... what does an Invoker heal with, exactly?

How does an Avenger heal?

I'm curious as to how this 'Has Channel Divinity' means 'Is a leader.'

 

[mneme]

Paladins, Invokers, and Avengers are leaders now and supposed to heal?

Huh.

So... what does an Invoker heal with, exactly?

How does an Avenger heal?

I'm curious as to how this 'Has Channel Divinity' means 'Is a leader.'

There is, to be fair, a "leaderish" aspect to Divine classes (note that Invokers have a fair number of global bonuses, Avengers have leaderish debufs and the Unity path, and Paladins pre Divine Power all have Leader as a secondary path). But "Has Channel Divinity" is largely a feature of "Is a Divine Class".

[In the same way, all Arcane classes have a bit of Controller to them [at least as an option]. One might be able to say the same thing about Martial and Primal classes and the striker-nature.]

The error with "In Additon" is a correct one. while the intent is clear, "In Additon" after a full stop is an entirely new clause which requires its own duration. A conjunction (eg "..., and in addition, you gain Regen 2 while you are bloodied") would be much better.

 

[Infiniti2000]

How nice of you to leave part of my quote out so that you can misrepresent my position....


Emphasis mine. Post 42 for the unedited original.

Wrong. It was post #27 that I responded to. Post 42 I guess is the cleaned up version which I didn't bother reading beyond a point. There was no "effect" specified in your original comment which started this.

And yes please point out when I say things that render my posts meaningless. I admit to being human.

 

[DracoSuave]

The error with "In Additon" is a correct one. while the intent is clear, "In Additon" after a full stop is an entirely new clause which requires its own duration. A conjunction (eg "..., and in addition, you gain Regen 2 while you are bloodied") would be much better.

Except it's now a run-on sentance, and is not concise language.

'You get X until Y. In addition to this, you get Z while you are W.' It's simple, plain language, concise, and communicates it well.

It's pretty good language, and as you said, it's intent is clear.

This isn't Magic the Gathering, people. It doesn't -require- exact concise language, like you need for a competitive card game.

 

[Mistwell]

Irrelevant/fluff.

It's neither irrelevant nor fluff that one power can be used on your ally within 5 squares of you or on yourself, while the other power can only be used on yourself. That's a material difference. And you seemed to be implying the two powers were equally balanced with each other, and that relative power levels were important to your argument. In fact, you mentioned the +2 damage issue, making it seem like you were discussing more than just effect of that one regeneration element, but overall power as well.

 

[mneme]

Except it's now a run-on sentance, and is not concise language.

You're wrong.

1. It's not a run on sentence, and I'd bet that you don't know what a run on sentence is. A hint here: you can build arbitrary long sentences without making them run-ons. In this case, it's a construction that you were (I hope) TAUGHT IN SCHOOL.
2. Adding ", and" does not suddenly turn a concise sentence into a non-consice one. What it does (in this case) is make things correct, whereas what was printed is incorrect.

'You get X until Y. In addition to this, you get Z while you are W.' It's simple, plain language, concise, and communicates it well.

And is two unrelated sentences, and has departed to the point of no longer being related to the Longtooth Shifter.

This isn't Magic the Gathering, people. It doesn't -require- exact concise language, like you need for a competitive card game.

This is a matter of opinion; mine happens disagree with you and think that on a rules-level, D&D4 -should- be as rigourous as MtG is (and that, in fact, one of the good things 4e did was making D&D more like a CCG).

Lets go back to the original:

Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls. In addition, while you are bloodied, you gain regeneration 2.

This is pretty clearly not correct, because of what I've called out in the second phrase -- it lacks an endpoint, which is sloppy. It's not very important, since this is an encounter ability, and sanity argues for giving the second part an implied "until the end of the encounter". And even if one went for a RAW interpretation, this would mean that you'd get an extra Regen 2 in all encounters after your first one, and only need to spend a minor action if you wanted the +2 damage (which you always will). But it's very sloppy, and unnecessarily so.

Compare to:

Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls, and in addition, while you are bloodied, you gain regeneration 2.

That's the simplest surgery one could made to have this work correctly--the duration clause in this case clearly applies to both parts of the compound sentence. Of course, the "in additon" bit is completely redundant; a good way to word this would be:

Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls, and while you are bloodied, you gain regeneration 2.

But the "in additon" does add a certain artistic space, so I'm not that attached to this.

 

[KarinsDad]

I specifically chose a Mace to keep the +2/+3 part out of it so the only thing we were comparing was melee vs. ranged.

And you introduced the difference of a one handed weapon vs. a two handed weapon. How is that a balanced comparison?


Best two handed missile weapon (in PHB): Longbow +2, D10
Best two handed melee weapon (in PHB): Greatsword +3, D10

The two handed melee weapon is +1 to hit compared to the two handed missile weapon precisely because ranged attacks are better than melee attacks (i.e. they are at range which means limited counterattacks).


Comparing a mace to a shortbow and ignoring the fact that the former is one handed and the latter is two handed sort of defeats the purpose of doing a comparison.

And if we limit that power to those classes that have the Channel Divinity feature (ie Cleric and Paladin which are both leaders) then doesn't that sort of negate the fact that the ability is ranged and can be used on allies because that is what those classes are supposed to do? Heal at range?

Wow. I cannot even start on such unusual logic.

 

[CovertOps]

Wrong. It was post #27 that I responded to. Post 42 I guess is the cleaned up version which I didn't bother reading beyond a point. There was no "effect" specified in your original comment which started this.

And yes please point out when I say things that render my posts meaningless. I admit to being human.

This proves that I make mistakes like anyone else. It's important if I think something to include it in my post.


To repeat (in case someone missed it) I agree that RAI is as the rest of you are suggesting, but RAW is lacking. For lack of any other text regarding duration, you must read the "while bloodied" as the duration as currently written. If this was intended or not remains to be seen in (hopefully) forthcoming errata/FAQ.

 

[Umbran]

I'll keep this in mind for any future comments you have about anything...because now that you've shown that you can't understand just one of my comments...any of your future comments must therefore be meaningless.

CovertOps,

While you've had an account for a while, you haven't posted much, so perhaps you've missed a little bit about how we do things here.

Rule #1 of EN World is, "Keep it civil". We expect you to treat other posters with respect, no matter how much you might disagree with them. What you've said here lacks respect in spades, and I'm going to strongly suggest you not take such a dismissive approach to others on these forums in the future. Thank you.

 

[Jhaelen]

This is a matter of opinion; mine happens disagree with you and think that on a rules-level, D&D4 -should- be as rigourous as MtG is (and that, in fact, one of the good things 4e did was making D&D more like a CCG).

Having recently started playing a CCG I have to disagree but your opinion might showcase a problem I noticed on these boards.

The thing is, to be a successful player in a CCG you're pretty much required to figure out and exploit what I'd call 'loopholes' (or maybe 'non-obvious synergistic effects'). However, in a CCG these are usually intentional. They're meant to be discovered by savvy players.

This dawned on me when I noticed a card that had a text that looked almost identical to a couple of well-known cards but was lacking a templated word which allowed the card to be used in quite a few different ways.

This is the opposite of what you want in an RPG. If you find a 'loophole' it's usually not intended to be there. If a power that is similar to several others is different only in a single keyword, then it's likely to be an error, rather than intentional.

And most importantly, players shouldn't actively look for such 'loopholes'. Generally, it won't be of any use for you, since your DM will probably make sure you cannot abuse it anyway.

IOW, The DM is the reason why the rules don't need to be as rigorous as in a CCG.