Search results

Just watch out for attribute swaps that give unexpected synergies, like the aforementioned "Strength-based ranged attack" problem with a ranger. As long as you avoid collapsing separate multi-attribute dependencies, you should be okay. Conversely, try to avoid making changes that "double up"...

Something I just realized a moment ago--technically, fighters have a fair few close burst powers that could be used with a longbow (there's no "must be using a melee weapon" requirement), and in that case you'd actually use Strength. That's an edge case and a pretty clear violation of the intent...

The biggest imbalance I can see would be that the character would be extraordinarily versatile--just about every ranger power can be used as either a ranged attack or a two-melee-weapon attack; allowing this character to use Strength for both melee and ranged attack powers makes her equally...

Wrong. You cannot hit a creature that isn't there. You can target an empty (or seemingly empty) square, but unless there is a creature in that square, you do not hit. Cleave has a Target: One creature and a Hit: Damage + additional Str damage to an adjacent creature. Any attempt to use Cleave...

Unless the power specifically says otherwise, yes.

Cleave wouldn't work against empty air, the extra damage only triggers on a hit and you can't hit empty air. You can, however, target an empty square. Bag of rats is irrelevant in this example, because the bag of rats rule specifically refers to cheesing the system to get the beneficial effects...

Except that, by RAW, you can target an empty square with a melee or ranged attack (PHB p. 272). In fact, you have to be able to, or there's no way to try to hit invisible creatures. Would you deny the ranger the use of split the tree if there was an invisible enemy on the battlefield, and the...

So, what you're saying is that a single 2[W] attack with a reroll option is somehow more powerful than, say, a 2[W] attack that also inflicts slow and ongoing 5 damage, plus half damage and slow on a miss? Sorry, I don't buy it. Wasting half of the damage potential of the power is quite...

Correct. The feat is very clear: While wielding an axe, a hammer, or a pick with one hand. To make use of the versatile property, you must wield the weapon in two hands. Ergo you cannot benefit from this feat and the versatile property at the same time. One fewer die.

Yes, but most of the attack bonus feats are conditional (when you make OAs, when you have combat advantage, etc.), whereas most of the damage bonuses are universal. That's the key difference.

It's not supposed to appear on any at all, period. That's the whole point--so I don't get what you're asking here.

No, I didn't forget Twin Strike, I was thinking about something else entirely--powers that use, for example, Int to hit but Dex for damage. There's a difference between "no ability mod added to damage" and "different ability mod added to damage."

And there are powers that are a single attack with multiple targets, e.g. "up to three creatures in burst." Twin Strike is two separate attacks against two separate or one single attack. Given how notoriously unreliable CS answers are, I don't really consider them definitive. But then, this...

And assuming you're not using an explicit attack power with the longbow (e.g. you're a fighter and just pulled one out to start shooting), you default to a ranged basic attack, which adds Dex bonus both to attack and damage. I can't think of any powers that could be used with a longbow that use...

Saves in 4E are purely a means of measuring duration, and are no longer a universal (or near-universal) means of mitigating the effects of a power. Either a power explicitly requires a save to end its condition or it has some other effect that ends it, in which case you don't need to talk about...

I didn't say there are no powers whose duration isn't governed by a saving throw, I said there's no such thing as an explicit (no save) power. Not the same thing.

It's an error, there is no such thing as a "no save" power in 4E. They fixed it on the night hag, but looks like they missed it on the oni. It should read (save ends).

I disagree. That's the sequence for a single attack. Twin Strike says quite plainly in the power description that it's two attacks. You would follow that full sequence for the first attack, and after it's resolved start over from step 1 for the second attack.

Nope, it's an immediate interrupt. Probably just a case of the power being written before the formal callout of a trigger was added to the format for powers.

You don't have to convince me, I agree that it's pretty clearly up to 4 attacks. I'm just saying that if it was meant to be three attacks, there are ways you could write a similar power to be explicitly up to 4 attacks. Oh, and for the record, while there aren't many, there are a few powers...