Search results

I'm not sure when you use the stance b/c you know that you hit the moment you resolve the attack roll but is the clause "...whenever you hit..." fullfilled right there or only after completing the hit entry?

Thanks for the info. I read the power. I read the sneak attack entry in the latest update, here is the relevant part: So having CA before the attack roll is made is required to gain the damage bonus of sneak attack on the damage roll. If a power/feat/etc. has the wording "when you damage a...

Let's take a look at the +21 to hit: 1/2 lvl: +6 STR (starting 18 +2 racial + 3 for levels = 23): +6 Weapon Prof: +3 Weapon Enchantment: +3 Expertise: +1 Fighter Weapon Talent: +1 attack bonus = 20 So I'm still missing a +1 but it shows that this guy worked hard to gain a really high attack...

Generally you don't provoke OAs while standing up. If for any reasons he does provoke an OA I guess you would have CA b/c OAs are immediate interrupts so they happen before the triggering action, in this case before standing up. You would have CA for the hit entry (the damage roll) b/c the...

And while we are talking about additional situations where you can get the 2 attack rolls /w the PP feature, we should not forget being swarmed by enemies.

If your slide distance is less or equal to 0 than it is the same as being exact 0 and the result is you do nothing. No slide happens. And reverse sliding makes no sense b/c sliding has no specific direction to begin with.

As it was said already, check the latest updates. Many formerly broken items/powers/feats/etc. were "fixed". There shouldn't be a way anymore to recharge a lvl15 daily except for some EDs. Veteran's Armor (AV) has lost that ability to point out one lost option.

The answer is still 2 attack rolls, they don't stack. Read the second paragraph of OoE.

You can get +5 AC vs OAs for the rest of the encounter if you use Battlefield Archer (PHB) and the L16 action point feature. Giving you +13AC on OAs provoked by your ranged attacks. To be honest +8/+9 should be enough sparing one feat slot in the process.

Regarding 3.X has far better rules for subduing: There is a feat that negates the penalty for causing non-leathal damage /w all (melee) weapon. Healing spells heal an equal amount of leathal and non-leathal damage. The result is if for any reason the target had both types of damage the heal...

I'm in the most beneficial order for the char camp. As long as the char suffering both effects has no resistance against the ongoing damage that should be fine but as soon as he has resistance against the ongoing damage that approach seems rather unfair.

Me too b/c there is no non-lethal damage in 4E. ;)

Nice numbers you've got there but I believe they're rather useless. There are several reasons for this. First, we have got no numbers to compare with them. Second, we don't know if the book being out of stock has anything to do with those numbers. Third, it it possible that every owner of the...

Crawl is your only movement option baring teleports and forced movement. So getting up is generally a good idea. [/LIST] The PHB text would have been easy to look up. You're quite a lazy one. ;)

Why don't you take a read at the WotC Boards. CharOp >> The Complete Collection of Character Build Links >> Scroll down to the strikers' post >> click the first one created by Lord Dusk Blade. He delivers - always! ATM epic destinies and gear sections are missing.

I chose striker because I like the big numbers. But somehow I often end up playing a defender with striker-light/-like damage.

The latest Update (May 2010) has no entry concerning this problem. But I think it is more reasonable that a lvl12 utility power heals 1d6 + WIS mod than 1d6 times WIS mod.

So there is still some room/ambiguousness left for debate. The only thing all of your statements have in common is: An attack needs an attack roll ==> e.g. Rain of Steel's effect is no attack. Or worded the other way round: there is an attack roll ==> it is an attack.

I know this question was the topic of some heated discussions, and maybe an official answer to this question exists but I couldn't find it (I browsed the first 5 pages but there are more than 100). Dear folks, would you please give me a link to a thread with an official answer or post the...

That is the interpretation that I decided upon so far, as well. And this is getting us nowhere. May I ask you to add something with meaning to the discussion? +++++EDIT+++++ And here is what CS answered regarding the question: At least no stupid ruling.