D&D 4E 4E PrRC ~v2.7~ FINAL UPDATE May 29.08

[MindWanderer]

While it seems odd, they may actually expect you to retrain your skills if you take Skill Training later than level 1. I don't really like that approach, but it's possible.

Alternatively, the wizard may get only two class skills, with Arcana as a bonus. Many other classes get one or two automatic skills and four selections from the class list.

 

[MindWanderer]

According to the Racial Benefits excerpt, Dwarven Weapon Training grants only +2 to damage, no bonus to hit. That breaks Kathra as designed by the PrRC--she has a +1 to hit somewhere that's unaccounted for. Or fighters get no class-based bonus to hit and Dwarven Weapon Training at that time granted +2 to both attack and damage. Or "+2 damage and proficiency with axes and hammers" actually means "+2 damage and +2 proficiency with axes and hammers," which seems unlikely at best, since a bonus to hit would be much more intuitive than a bonus to the proficiency rating of a weapon.

 

[Verys Arkon]

I was wondering if we have considered whether Careful Attack's Attack section should read:

range + Dexterity modifier vs. AC

It seems to fit the rules revealed so far just as much as (if not more than) the ranged +4 vs. AC does... perhaps it should be mentioned in the PrRC?

Just wondering...

Reading over the ranger's powers again, I think you are right - instead of 'ranged' it should say Dexterity (no other powers say 'ranged' or 'melee' in the attack line). So, it should be:

Dexterity +4 vs. AC

Note the +4 is specific to this power, not from the Dexterity modifier. I'll change all the ranger's ranged powers to read Dexterity vs __.

 

[Verys Arkon]

I'm curious...why does everyone assume that the Wizard only gets 3 trained skills? The D&D XP Wizard has four trained skills, and I've always assumed that "Skill Training: Stealth" just adds Stealth to the Wizard's list of class skills. Doesn't it seem likely that the Wizard gets the same number of skills as everyone else (except the ranger and rogue, which get more)?

I think Green Knight is right; Skill Training gives you +5 to a previously untrained skill, regardless if it was on your class skills list or not. Spending one feat to add it to your class list, then a second feat 2 levels later to add the +5 bonus seems overly expensive. As far as I can tell, the class skills list is only important when selecting your trained skills at first level, unlike in 3.5 where you had to take it into account every time you levelled and distributed your skill points. Only 30-odd days left now until we find out for sure

Skamos spent skill training in:
Arcana (Int 5, +5 ST)
History (Int 5, +5 ST)
Nature (Int 5, +5 ST)*
= 3 trained skills
Then convert 1 feat to skill training (stealth)

* while we are looking at Skamos, check out Nature; the PHB photo of the ranger indicates Nature is a Wisdom skill, but Skamos is adding Int. Does the ability used for skills change depending on class, or was it a mistake in the D&DXP character sheet?

 

[pallen]

Spending one feat to add it to your class list, then a second feat 2 levels later to add the +5 bonus seems overly expensive.

You may have a point. I hope you're wrong though. I'm not sure what rationale there could be for fighters having more skills than wizards.

 

[jaldaen]

Reading over the ranger's powers again, I think you are right - instead of 'ranged' it should say Dexterity (no other powers say 'ranged' or 'melee' in the attack line). So, it should be:

Dexterity +4 vs. AC

There are a few other powers with Melee or Ranged vs. AC in the attack lines:

Cleric: Priest's Shield

Fighter: Cleave, Tide of Iron, Passing Attack (and secondary attack), Brute Strike

Paladin: Bolstering Strike, Holy Strike, Shielding Smite

Ranger: Nimble Strike

Warlord: Distracting Attack, Inspiring Attack, Tactical Strike

Note the +4 is specific to this power, not from the Dexterity modifier. I'll change all the ranger's ranged powers to read Dexterity vs __.

I did not see it actually listed on the Riardon character sheet as "+4 to attack in return for no Dex to damage." Is this in another preview somewhere else? Or am I missing something.

In short couldn't it be either:
Dex +4 vs. AC = +10 (+4 Dex, +4 power bonus, +2 Longbow Prof.)
or
Dex + Dex modifier vs AC = +10 (+4 Dex, +4 Dex, +2 Longbow Prof.)

 

[jaldaen]

According to the Racial Benefits excerpt, Dwarven Weapon Training grants only +2 to damage, no bonus to hit. That breaks Kathra as designed by the PrRC--she has a +1 to hit somewhere that's unaccounted for. Or fighters get no class-based bonus to hit and Dwarven Weapon Training at that time granted +2 to both attack and damage. Or "+2 damage and proficiency with axes and hammers" actually means "+2 damage and +2 proficiency with axes and hammers," which seems unlikely at best, since a bonus to hit would be much more intuitive than a bonus to the proficiency rating of a weapon.

So our three options are:

Kathra's to hit is +6 (+3 Str, +1 Prof., + 1 Fighter bonus, +1 racial bonus)

Pro: Racial bonus to attack would fit with dwarves.
Con: No other evidence of racial bonuses to attack.

or

Kathra's to hit is +6 (+3 Str, +1 Prof., +2 Dwarven Weapon Training)

Pro: Could be infered from Dwarven Weapon Training.
Con: The wording of the feat's benefit is ambiguous at best.

or

Kathra's to hit is +6 (+3 Str, +1 Prof., + 2 Fighter bonus)

Pro: Fighter with a +2 bonus keeps with the theme of the class (always 10% ahead of everyone else in regards to attacks).
Con: Is +2 too much? Especially when none of the other classes seem to have a bonus?

 

[MindWanderer]

or

Kathra's to hit is +4 (+3 Str, +1 Prof.) and there's a +2 that was either a mistake or was changed after DDXP.

Pro: None of the Cons of any of the three other options.
Con: If we assume stuff on the character sheets is wrong, we lose all ability to infer anything from them accurately.

 

[jaldaen]

or

Kathra's to hit is +4 (+3 Str, +1 Prof.) and there's a +2 that was either a mistake or was changed after DDXP.

Pro: None of the Cons of any of the three other options.
Con: If we assume stuff on the character sheets is wrong, we lose all ability to infer anything from them accurately.

I was trying to avoid the nuclear option...

 

[Verys Arkon]

You may have a point. I hope you're wrong though. I'm not sure what rationale there could be for fighters having more skills than wizards.

I could very well be wrong indeed (about a great many things). One explanation might be that wizards rely on their magic instead of skills to solve problems, so they get cantrips - 3 at will powers - instead. Seems like a more than fair trade for a trained skill, perhaps?