Search results

Ahh, ok, it does specify Cleric power then? Sorry, books not handy here at work (and Rules Compendium firewalled out). I always default to least restrictive possible rulings based on the abilities as I remember them (it's easiest in a discussion setting to then agree to more restrictive...

My major quibble with your ruling is that while it's a Feat-based power, it's thru a feat which is only accessible through the class feature Channel Divinity. For me, all that really matters is that it's 1) a power used by the cleric and 2) has the Healing keyword. Thus, in my games, for...

Woohoo! Of course, to be contrary (yet consistent), I think I'll keep the +5 to DCs for one-off skill checks.... ;)

My point is it's a +5 increase over the base values in the table and not needed when accounting for the inherent difficulty created by the challenge format. With all the discussions about how broken the system is, to me it seems that the simplest "fix" for the problem is to read the +5 DC...

Omission? Please. I was taught early on to avoid pointless repetition of words when they're not needed. I assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to skill challenges. Additionally, I stand by my reading of it. See my more recent post above. It's nonsensical to increase the...

Since the Pact Blade's description specifically states you don't add the weapon's proficiency bonus to attacks made with it when using it as an implement, I wouldn't apply the rogue's dagger bonus to it either. A Pact Blade is, depending on use, either a weapon only or an implement only...

Well, look at it this way. By requiring X successes before X/2 failures for an overall success, you're inherently increasing the difficulty of the situation by a large amount. Why, then, would you go in and add yet another layer of difficulty on top of it? Additionally, the example they use...

My reading of that footnote is that it applies only to standalone one-off skill uses and not the more complex challenges. The new Dungeon adventure Rescue at Rivenroar uses DCs that don't include the +5, so it seems to be the correct interpretation. Here's the thread and post I'm talking about.

I tossed in my first Skill Challenge (Complexity 3, I think: 6/3) this past weekend and it went pretty smoothly. I went with what seems to be the prevailing opinion (and which is reflected in the new Dungeon adventure) and ignored the +5 footnote. I did treat it like combat with initiative...

Thing is, the phrase "engage the enemy" isn't clearly defined and could very well include the act of issuing the challenge itself. For a corner case to consider, imagine a paladin that's, say, 3 squares farther away from an enemy than even a double move would allow him to reach. The enemy on...

On the main topic, I agree with allowing the end-of-round challenge. What seems to be in dispute here is what exactly constitutes "engaging" the target. To me, the initial issuance of the challenge is sufficient to count as engaging the target for that round.

The thing is, the fighter's cheapshots (for either moving away or for attacking someone not the fighter) depend on the target being marked by the fighter in exactly the same way as the DC damage depends on being marked by the paladin. The only difference is one requires an attack roll and the...

It's not that I treat it as a special case all it's own; it's just that the Challenge is the paladin's mark, with the effect -2 to hit and damage if the target attacks someone other than the paladin. This also evens things between paladin and fighter -- as the fighter cannot cheapshot a target...

Yes, see below. I think this is where our disagreement is. You see it as separate and exclusive conditions applied by a single action. I see Marking as a single condition with class-specific riders inextricably attached. I.E.: The fighter cannot cheapshot a moving/attacking target that...

Hmm, I'll have to look at it more closely, but the way I've read it is that the Challenge is a specific subset of Marking and subject to all mark rules. I also recall when the first info was coming out, there was a developer comment that the rule was changed for marks to not stack specifically...

Actually, a fighter's mark supercedes a paladin's mark/challenge and vice versa; one cannot be marked by two or more enemies at the same time. As a tangentially-related aside, note that mechanics like Hunter's Quarry and Warlock Curses aren't technically marks, so you can have a guy who's...

About the lay on hands bit at the very least: talk to the DM about having this guy get a "dream visitation" from the Raven Queen pointing out that she's the one who decides "whose time it is" and not him. Also suggest to the DM that maybe the party should start seeing quite a bit more in the...

Don't have my MM handy at the moment, but it depends on if the Berbalang has an odd number of hitpoints to start with. If it does, there's no problem. After he splits off two duplicates, he's still at 1 HP above bloodied (due to rounding). Then he splits off a 3rd which now MAKES him...

Ummm, excuse me, but residuum is --and this is obvious to anyone with any sort of reading comprehension-- only the finest Belgian Dark Chocolate. There's simply no other substance magical enough. Silver? Gold? What are people thinking these days?? :angel:

No, no, you did it right. Base weapon/power damage is what gets maxed, so it would indeed be 3x12 + bonus +1d12 (rolled) on a crit. Dailies are ugly when they crit, for sure.