Herores of the Fallen Lands - Are Slayers underpowered?

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, i have borrowed a PHB 2 and guess what i stumbled upon in the glossary...

A box that tells you that any move, forced or willingly is indeed optional. Page 219, bottom, left column:

"Movement effects:
[...] If a power notes a distance, that you or an ally moves (for example,"you shift 2 squares"), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance. [...]"

In KarinsDad´s defense, until yesterday I would have read RAW as he did... now I guess, some designer are more careful with their wording.

edit: on a sidenote: i found the solution to battle pyress too: since it is a burst, you just roll the hit effect once, which meand that the secondary power is also triggered only once, and not once per hit, as a burst only requires one attack roll for each target, but the effect on all targets is the same.
I guess, if we see the power in DDI, we will most surely get an updated version telling you: "if the power hits at least one target, make a secondary attack".

 

[KarinsDad]

A box that tells you that any move, forced or willingly is indeed optional. Page 219, bottom, left column:

"Movement effects:
[...] If a power notes a distance, that you or an ally moves (for example,"you shift 2 squares"), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance. [...]"

In KarinsDad´s defense, until yesterday I would have read RAW as he did... now I guess, some designer are more careful with their wording.

That's cool.

I'm totally ok with this being the rule as long as it is explicitly spelled out.

They had a similar rule in Essentials, but the "allowed" terminology was unclear without an example IIRC.

To me "you can move" is allowed terminology whereas "you move" is not.

Here, they have a specific example of the allowed terminology.

Many powers allow you and your allies to move or allow you to move your enemies forcibly. If a power notes a distance that you or an ally moves (for example, “you shift 2 squares”), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance. Similarly, if a power forcibly moves an enemy (for example, “you push the target 3 squares”), you can decide to move the enemy all, some, or none of that distance.
If a power notes the destination for your or an ally’s move (for example, “a space adjacent to the target”), the character allowed to move decides either to move to that destination or not. You can’t move partway. Similarly, if a power specifies where you force an enemy to move, you decide either to move the enemy there or not.

It's unfortunate that the rules have examples of "you move" or "you shift" (which imply that you do so) vs. "you can move" or "you can shift" (which imply that you are allowed to).

This also forces the designers to be explicit when the movement is forced and there is no option to move 0 squares. I wonder if all of the designers are aware of this because there are some Thieve's tricks powers (like the Stealth hide one) that read like the designer is assuming that movement is taking place.

 

[Aegeri]

You are misquoting.

I am not. You are mangling the wording of the FAQ to try to hold onto your point instead of conceding you are incorrect.

If a power says you move, you actually do not have to move unless it specifies you have to move a certain distance. For example, if a power says you must move at least X squares to get the effect (and these powers do exist) then you have to move - otherwise you choose.

The FAQ clearly answers the question. I also checked the PHB2 and it is in there as well under movement effects on page 219:

If a power notes a distance, that you or an ally moves (for example,"you shift 2 squares"), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance.

But of course, I felt the original FAQ was 100% clear.

Edit: Of course, I have been beaten to this already.

Edit: In addition to the above, the rules compendium also makes it clear under the forced movement description that if a power specifies 4 squares of forced movement in either "You slide the target 4 squares" or "Up to 4 squares" it makes zero difference in the rules. You can move it 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 squares. There is nothing to suggest the rules for regular movement powers are any different and the RC certainly doesn't contradict the FAQ, PHB2 or other rulings about how movement powers work in 4E.

 

[S'mon]

I wish you guys had been quicker digging up the PHB2 clarification, I spent the game tonight with a sick feeling like I'd be cheating whenever my Thief sneak attacked without moving first! Although as it happens I think I did move every turn.

Oops... looking back over the game now, I'm pretty sure there was one round where I sneak attacked *then* moved away (in case the big tentacle monster used its burst power on me), which was wrong, against the rules. *Sigh*, I do *try* to be good!

 

[boolean]

But my group includes a Fighter and a melee Ranger Minotaur to hide behind,

What book is that in? Only PHB 1+2 & HOTF/HOTK are legit for my campaign, but I can always beg.

The Skill Powers are in PHB 3, 154 pages after Minotaurs.

 

[S'mon]

The Skill Powers are in PHB 3, 154 pages after Minotaurs.

Minotaurs are noted as being allowed.

Actually on the way home last night, a fellow player told me that the pregen Fighter PC he'd been given by the DM included powers from Martial Power, so I guess the book limit is not a very hard one.

 

[KarinsDad]

Edit: In addition to the above, the rules compendium also makes it clear under the forced movement description that if a power specifies 4 squares of forced movement in either "You slide the target 4 squares" or "Up to 4 squares" it makes zero difference in the rules. You can move it 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 squares. There is nothing to suggest the rules for regular movement powers are any different and the RC certainly doesn't contradict the FAQ, PHB2 or other rulings about how movement powers work in 4E.

This is a common misconception.

That explicit rules in one area (like forced movement) imply that another similar area (normal movement) uses the same rule.

As it turns out, the rule was actually different (if read literally) in the PHB. In PHB 2, it was cleared up (the FAQ does not clear up the rule because it does not show an example of what "allowed" means whereas PHB2 does).

In Essentials, the rule is back to being different if read literally. It's even possible that the designers of Essentials didn't realize the rule when one reads powers like Sneak's Trick.

So, someone only using Essentials without knowing the FAQ or PHB2 information could easily rule it literally. They might reasonably interpret allowed movement to use phrases like "can move" and required movement uses phrases like "moves". That's how normal English works, even though RAI isn't that.


Btw, I mentioned to the person playing the Thief in my game that with the PHB2 clarification, how the Thief tricks didn't require actual movement in order to work. Even he thought that was ridiculous and overpowered (which is another reason that I think that the designers of some of those tricks might have thought that the phrase "you move" actually meant "you move", go figure ).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oops... looking back over the game now, I'm pretty sure there was one round where I sneak attacked *then* moved away (in case the big tentacle monster used its burst power on me), which was wrong, against the rules. *Sigh*, I do *try* to be good!

There's nothing wrong with getting sneak attack then moving - you just need to have combat advantage from something other than your trick. Prone and dazed are favourites

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is a common misconception.

That explicit rules in one area (like forced movement) imply that another similar area (normal movement) uses the same rule.

As it turns out, the rule was actually different (if read literally) in the PHB. In PHB 2, it was cleared up (the FAQ does not clear up the rule because it does not show an example of what "allowed" means whereas PHB2 does).

In Essentials, the rule is back to being different if read literally. It's even possible that the designers of Essentials didn't realize the rule when one reads powers like Sneak's Trick.

So, someone only using Essentials without knowing the FAQ or PHB2 information could easily rule it literally. They might reasonably interpret allowed movement to use phrases like "can move" and required movement uses phrases like "moves". That's how normal English works, even though RAI isn't that.


Btw, I mentioned to the person playing the Thief in my game that with the PHB2 clarification, how the Thief tricks didn't require actual movement in order to work. Even he thought that was ridiculous and overpowered (which is another reason that I think that the designers of some of those tricks might have thought that the phrase "you move" actually meant "you move", go figure ).

possible... maybe they get an expicite "MUST move at least 1 square" added anytimr soon.

 

[S'mon]

There's nothing wrong with getting sneak attack then moving - you just need to have combat advantage from something other than your trick. Prone and dazed are favourites

Maybe I did have CA anyway, but I didn't check!