A number of (mostly unconnected) rules questions

[DM_Blake]

In any case, using an active perception check only has about a 50% chance of beating a passive check, so it's not necessarily any more advantageous.

Not entirely accurate.

Sure, you only have roughly a 50/50 chance of rolling higher than your passive perception.

But, for example, when a rogue with +9 Stealth tries to hide from a kobold with +1 Perception, that rogue only needs to roll a 3 to beat the kobold. Every time.

90% of the rogue's rolls will beat the kobold.

But, when the rogue rolls a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12, the kobold who relies on passive perception will never never never never see the rogue (with these rolls), but if the kobold makes an active Perception roll, there's at least the chance that he could roll high enough to see the rogue.

Sure, that doesn't address the RAW.

All I am pointing out is that your remark that "it's not necessarily any more advantageous" is not entirely accurate.

I would say that having a chance to spot the rogue is greatly advantageous over having no chance at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1 - Is this really how Rogues are intended to play - Sneak Attack almost every round?

Rogues are supposed to be strikers and strikers are supposed to do a lot of damage to single targets. Rangers hit twice per round with one-handed weapons, Warlocks toss around spells, and both add a little bonus damage once per round. SA adds more, but it's usually on top of a dagger or shuriken. Yeah, Rogues are supposed to SA most rounds (that they attack at all). I'm not convinced they're supposed to do it that particularly /way/, but they are probably supposed to do it, with some help from thier party (flanking, et al).

2 - Are we correct in thinking that if a Wizard centres a burst on an empty square with cover, that all of the attack rolls made on creatures in the burst are made with the cover modifier applicable to targeting the empty square, even if the creature themselves - if targeted by the wizard - would not be in cover?

I wouldn't think so. It'd be like a creature firing out of a square with cover, wouldin't it? Starting with a corner of the square.

We have found the Wizard in our party relatively weak because, since he can no longer use the trick of shooting behind an enemy to avoid backwash from an area effect.

Why can't he do that? It doesn't take an attack to target the origin square of an AE, and the AE doesn't take cover from creatures.

3 - Opening a door is a minor action, it seemed to us that this would mean that you cannot move 2 squares, open a door, then move the rest of your Speed - because when you opened the door, you started your Minor action, and so ended your Move action. Is this right?

Yep. It's no sillier than it was in 3e. Heck, if you spend your standard for a move, you can actually get through a door this ed.

4 - If a PC is directly North of a blocking obstacle and an enemy is directly West of the same blocking obstacle ... Can the PC hide or not?

I should hope you could hide around a corner from an enemy. The PC would presumably be pressing himself against the 'blocking obstcle.'

5 - Is a PC allowed to simply grab another PC and Pull or Push them? (Ie, can a PC push an immobilized ally out of danger?) Is it a Grab check and what's the modifier for the target being willing?

Grabbling a helpless creature is free, the same could be assumed for a willing one.

 

[Mort_Q]

The rule says nothing about needing to spend someone else's, and nowhere is the term "receiving healing" defined as "receive from an external source."

I merely meant that the person doing the heal check doesn't use/spend their second wind, which is a valuable resource. The way I read your post, to me, you had implied that they did.

On p. 293 it says "Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing."

That said, I don't know what your point was/is... I meant only to comment on the SW.

 

[Kordeth]

I merely meant that the person doing the heal check doesn't use/spend their second wind, which is a valuable resource. The way I read your post, to me, you had implied that they did.

On p. 293 it says "Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing."

That said, I don't know what your point was/is... I meant only to comment on the SW.

My point was that spending a healing surge thanks to a second wind is "receiving healing," and thus when a dying character is allowed to use his second wind but has no healing surges left, he is restored to 1 hp as per the rule on p. 295. I wasn't saying that the character making the Heal check spends his second wind.

 

[Mort_Q]

My point was that spending a healing surge thanks to a second wind is "receiving healing," and thus when a dying character is allowed to use his second wind but has no healing surges left, he is restored to 1 hp as per the rule on p. 295. I wasn't saying that the character making the Heal check spends his second wind.

Ah... yes... the Stabilize the Dying versus Use Second Wind with your Heal Check illogic...

Something needs to be fixed in the errata.

As it stands, I'll go with whatever benefits the PCs the most.

 

[Kordeth]

Ah... yes... the Stabilize the Dying versus Use Second Wind with your Heal Check illogic...

I don't see what's illogical about it--if the downed character hasn't used his second wind yet, you can revive him more easily than if he's already expended his second wind.

 

[Mort_Q]

Ah... yes... the Stabilize the Dying versus Use Second Wind with your Heal Check illogic...

I don't see what's illogical about it--if the downed character hasn't used his second wind yet, you can revive him more easily than if he's already expended his second wind.

The DC to stabilize is higher than the DC to grant a second wind.

Use Second Wind

For a successful DC 10 Heal Check, if the target has used their second wind, they go to one HP If the target hasn't used their second wind, they can so and get a full healing surge. No more death saves, and no longer unconscious.

Stabilize the Dying

For a successful DC 15 Heal Check, the target is stabilized, gains no HP, and is still unconscious. They gain only the benefit of not having to make death saves.

Unless, I'm missing something... which I assume I am, 'cause that's illogical to me.

 

[Kordeth]

The DC to stabilize is higher than the DC to grant a second wind.

Yeah, I know--makes perfect sense to me. If you haven't spent your second wind, all you need is a little bit of first aid before your natural reserve kicks in. If you don't have that personal reserve of endurance left to get you back on your feet, the best that can be done is to stabilize you and stop you from dying, and that's a lot harder than a quick triage and "on yer feet, soldier!"

EDIT: Reread your post more closely and yes, you are missing something here:

if the target has used their second wind, they go to one HP

If the target has already used their second wind, you can't use this function of Heal. You're getting confused with the rule that says "if you have no healing surges and an effect allows you to spend one, you go to 1 hp." That doesn't change the fact that Second Wind can only be used once per encounter.

 

[Mort_Q]

If the target has already used their second wind, you can't use this function of Heal.

Where does it say this?

You're getting confused with the rule that says "if you have no healing surges and an effect allows you to spend one, you go to 1 hp." That doesn't change the fact that Second Wind can only be used once per encounter.

Now you're confusing me... weren't you just arguing that a Heal Check is a healing effect?

 

[MarkB]

Where does it say this?

The check allows a character to use their Second Wind. If they don't have one, there's nothing there for them to use.

Basically, you seem to be taking the rules for characters who have no Healing Surges left, and applying them to characters who have no Second Wind available. The two states are not the same, and the rules don't apply to them equally.