Herores of the Fallen Lands - Are Slayers underpowered?

[Prestidigitalis]

Huh? The movement portion of powers is optional (unless otherwise specified), and you only provoke an OA by leaving a square. By RAW* the DM has no room to disallow a trick because you didn't leave your starting square, or to cause the trick to provoke an OA (unless something in the specific rules for the trick says otherwise).

*Assuming I'm reading / remembering RAW correctly, but I think I am...

I guess you are right. But I could see some DMs disallowing it anyway.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

There's also Hop Up, but it's from Martial Power.

Sadly, it's an Encounter power too. The thing I dread most is being in a bind throughout an entire encounter, i.e. having the same condition applied over and over with no means of escape, so I don't want to be limited in my ability to apply the solution. At-wills rule.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Sadly, it's an Encounter power too. The thing I dread most is being in a bind throughout an entire encounter, i.e. having the same condition applied over and over with no means of escape, so I don't want to be limited in my ability to apply the solution. At-wills rule.

Yes the Thief in question did consider that power but instead opted for Sneak In The Attack to boost damage, but, alas, further to the point I was making before, never got a chance to use it

At-wills do, in fact, rule.

And as for the other party members being able to keep the heat off, this was a 3-person party with a Paladin and Pyro mage, and the Carrion Crawlers Scuttlers have an at-will Shift 8 and move through squares, causing an attack against Fort to knock the target(s) prone, so most of the group spent the combat on their backs. The CCs then used their attacks to grab and drag away the squishy Thief and Mage, far away from the Paladin, who was busy tangling with an Otyugh.

It was a pretty fun fight

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I was so happy when i catched my groups rogue in ankheg mandibles... before he used acrobatic strike and just escaped it...

 

[S'mon]

Players Handbook 3. It's a skill power.

Thanks; I doubt my DM will allow it, but I may try.

 

[S'mon]

There is one weak point for this set of options -- if you start your turn adjacent to a hard-hitting melee opponent against which you do not already have CA. Your choices are:

1) attack without CA, shifting either before or after
2) attack without CA, then move away, risking OA
3) move away using Ambush Trick, risking OA, and then attack with CA
4) shift and then move away, making no attack at all
5) double move to get far away

Some DMs will allow you to use the CA-granting tricks (Ambush and Tactical) without actually moving a square -- consider it to be bobbing and weaving without really moving much -- but it's hard to imagine a DM that would allow you to do it without provoking an OA.

For that reason I strongly suggest that even Thieves who use Ambush Trick consider taking the feat Cunning Stalker, which gives the benefit of Ambush Trick when adjacent, without needing to use a move action. (And if your DM allows Cunning Stalker to apply at range, you don't need Ambush Trick at all.)

Finally, I have to put in a good word again for Opportunistic Withdrawal at paragon tier. It is amazing when combined with almost constant CA -- far better than anything Artful Dodgers gets.

Per the rules, there's nothing about having to move 1+ squares as part of a move action; I certainly haven't been moving from my square most times I use a Trick*. I could just be duckin' and divin' in place.

Tactical Trick lets me move away from squares adjacent to allies without provoking attacks, then attack foes adjacent to allies with CA.

I envision a situation where I'm being attacked by enemies in melee, and I have no allies adjacent, as a big EMERGENCY! beacon - it means either my meat shields are on the floor, we're being ambushed, our positioning is hopeless, or I've screwed up badly. If I survive their initial attack I'll certainly retreat and not worry about CA for that round, I'd be more interested in staying alive. I'd probably then retreat a good distance & resort to using my shortbow, with its long range.

Being a Thief means never having to worry about being called cowardly.

Edit: *In fact, given how cramped the Sellswords of Punjar map is, there is often no square to move to and such a house rule would really cripple my Thief.

 

[S'mon]

Huh? The movement portion of powers is optional (unless otherwise specified), and you only provoke an OA by leaving a square. By RAW* the DM has no room to disallow a trick because you didn't leave your starting square, or to cause the trick to provoke an OA (unless something in the specific rules for the trick says otherwise).

*Assuming I'm reading / remembering RAW correctly, but I think I am...

You are correct.

 

[KarinsDad]

You are correct.

I disagree. RAW does not appear to support this based on two rules:

Effect: Whatever is described in an "Effect" entry simply happens, regardless of its position in the sequence of entries.

move: ... Whenever a creature, an object, or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it is moving.

Unless I am missing a rule somewhere (note: these are Essentials rules that I am quoting), there is no Essentials rule that says that a player gets to decide when using a power that says that he moves.

Most of the Thief tricks state something along the lines of:

"You move up to your Speed -2.".

not

"You can move up to your Speed -2.".

Moving zero squares might be less than Speed - 2, but it is not moving.


I think people are just so used to the Forced Movement rules where a move of zero squares is allowed, or powers that state that a PC "can shift".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

hmmh... the rogue in my group will be seriously affected if you really have to shift one square... both his powers list this as effect.

Usually there is no "you can" attached to the effect, although there are powers that read "you can shift".

So take it as you will... I have not made up my opinion on this issue yet.

 

[Obryn]

Personally, I think "move up to your speed" can and must include 0. I think it's an incredibly picky argument to say that a move must be a minimum of 1 square.

I think the problem is specifically with using the definition of "move" in this way. That's a definition intended to describe when effects that trigger on a move, trigger. It's not intended as a limiting factor, near as I can see.

-O