D&D 4E Holy Water in 4e?

[Oldtimer]

This is a really minor nitpick, but technically vulnerability doesn't kick in unless the target actually takes damage. Dealing 0 radiant damage does not actually result in the target taking damage, so the target's vulnerability to radiant damage would not be applied (the same goes for the ongoing effect).

Vulnerable: When an attack deals damage of the specified type, this monster takes the indicated amount of extra damage of the same type.

Technically, it doesn't say that the monster needs to take any damage for the vulnerability to kick in, just that the attack deals damage of the specified type. I can see that an argument can be made that doing 0 damage is not dealing damage, but in a strict mathematical way it is. So I think that wording should work.
Then again, I'm not writing rule books. Just running a campaign.

 

[Mengu]

Because it's a ranged attack with a thrown weapon. I don't see why Paladins and Clerics (who will likely have their own, much more powerful Radiant powers) would even use Holy Water.

Yeah, but their attacks are probably not minor actions. A laser cleric who has a spare minor action could easily use the holy water to do a bit of extra damage. Not every character needs to have good dex to chuck a vial at something. I like the static attack bonuses on such items. There is a weapon using class for every stat, why is it hard to imagine you don't really need good dex to throw a vial? You can throw it with your intelligent precission or handsome looks. It really shouldn't matter.

It's fun as a great weapon fighter if I can chuck a vial of holy water at one zombie, charge the one next to it, and have both of them marked. Or if I'm a shaman who just hit a wraith with Twin Panthers, I like the option of chucking a vial of holy water at the target while I still have combat advantage. Forcing the use of dex removes a horde of possibilities.

I know that, but this minor action holy weapon just rubs me the wrong way. So throwing an axe is a standard action, but hurling a vial is a minor action? Why? Call me old-school, but throwing something - vial, axe, mug of ale, whatever - should be the same action.

Throwing a weapon is normally a standard action, but sometimes it's a minor action, sometimes it's an interrupt, and sometimes it's a free action. Type of action is just a balance factor for combat resolution.

Also, I don't see why higher level vials are easier to hit with.

Because they are more potent, and can get through tough skin/hide/armor, etc and works its magic into the forces holding the undead together.

Standard action. No level at all. Can't remember the cost (and to lazy to go look it up right now), but something like 25 gp maybe.

This approach means a level 30 character can have bushels of them. It's part of the reason why the whole level/cost/attack bonus balancing system is used. Of course in your case with the attack being standard action based on dexterity with no bonuses, it's highly unlikely anyone above heroic level would bother.

Suffer? Throwing things in an accurate way sounds like Dex to me. If your paladin or cleric has low Dex, let the rouge throw the Holy Water and do something better yourself.

If it's a standard action, yeah, everybody is going to do something better, so I guess it's a moot point what stat it's based off, but see my argument to UltimaGabe for why I think it should be more flexible.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Yeah, but their attacks are probably not minor actions. A laser cleric who has a spare minor action could easily use the holy water to do a bit of extra damage. Not every character needs to have good dex to chuck a vial at something. I like the static attack bonuses on such items. There is a weapon using class for every stat, why is it hard to imagine you don't really need good dex to throw a vial? You can throw it with your intelligent precission or handsome looks. It really shouldn't matter.

While I agree with you, and you make a great argument, that view is unfortunately not supported by the rules. If you have weapon-based powers from your class, sure, you can use whatever ability score your class uses, but making a basic attack with a ranged weapon uses your dexterity modifier, just like making a basic attack with a melee weapon uses your strength modifier. (Unless you've taken feats that say otherwise, of course.)

Like I said, it's a stupid rule, but it's a rule nonetheless. Do you allow players in your campaign to make melee basic attacks with a different stat without having to take a feat for it? If so, that's perfectly fine, but you can't really make an argument against someone who doesn't.

 

[Dannager]

Technically, it doesn't say that the monster needs to take any damage for the vulnerability to kick in, just that the attack deals damage of the specified type. I can see that an argument can be made that doing 0 damage is not dealing damage, but in a strict mathematical way it is. So I think that wording should work.
Then again, I'm not writing rule books. Just running a campaign.

I absolutely understand that it's not really important to right airtight rules text when you're the only one using it and you know how it's intended to work. But the distinction I'm making is one that exists in the rules, and for good reason. A shielding swordmage, for instance, can reduce the damage an ally takes from an attack to 0 with his aegis, and if he reduces that damage to 0, the target does not suffer from any vulnerabilities to that damage type it might possess. The game does make a distinction between taking some damage and taking no (0) damage.

 

[Mengu]

Like I said, it's a stupid rule, but it's a rule nonetheless. Do you allow players in your campaign to make melee basic attacks with a different stat without having to take a feat for it? If so, that's perfectly fine, but you can't really make an argument against someone who doesn't.

Actually I do allow all sorts of weird stuff on the fly. The sorcerer says I'm gonna pick this chair up and toss it at that guy blocking the doorway then try to run by him if there is enough room. I say, okay make an attack, use your Dragonfrost power over there. 25 vs Fort 18 damage? Nice, you hit the bouncer with the chair as he staggers back, and you are able to run by him, he tries to trip you as you run by (make basic sword attack against sorcerer behind screen), you stumble and brace yourself against the wall so as not to fall, but you hurt your wrist, take 8 points of damage, however this doesn't slow you down, you are able to get to the end of the hallway and start down the stairs.

So, vials of acid or holy water having static attack bonuses doesn't bother me in the least (and by RAW, that is what they do, using Dex is not RAW). Rules are just a conflict resolution system. How you skin it is completely up to you. The agile rogue might target the chink in the armor with that vial, the strong warrior throws it so fast there is no where to dodge, the wise cleric waits for the opportune moment when the zombie's rears back for its attack, and the lucky paladin trips and the vial gets tossed right in the zombie's face.

 

[Oldtimer]

This approach means a level 30 character can have bushels of them. ... Of course in your case with the attack being standard action based on dexterity with no bonuses, it's highly unlikely anyone above heroic level would bother.

Exactly. And that was precisely what I was aiming for.

 

[Oldtimer]

But the distinction I'm making is one that exists in the rules, and for good reason. A shielding swordmage, for instance, can reduce the damage an ally takes from an attack to 0 with his aegis, and if he reduces that damage to 0, the target does not suffer from any vulnerabilities to that damage type it might possess. The game does make a distinction between taking some damage and taking no (0) damage.

Are you sure about that? It doesn't say so on the Aegis of Shielding feature. Personally, I would add the vulnerability first and subtract the shielding after.

I can't find anything in the FAQ about it. The closest statement is this:

If a creature has both resistance and vulnerability to a single type of damage, like cold, which one do you apply first?

Both the resistance and the vulnerability are applied and one can not negate the other.

So, in that case the resistance would not go first and potentially negate the vulnerability. Can you point me to where this is made explicit for other stuff than resistances?

 

[Oldtimer]

Can you point me to where this is made explicit for other stuff than resistances?

It would seem not, then. Anyone else who know where the rule Dannager was referring to can be found?

 

[Herobizkit]

One thing I haven't been able to find is HOW LONG does it take to create a vial of holy water once the ritual is complete?

 

[mellack]

Once the ritual is complete, you have your holy water. The time is all included in the ritual itself, which takes one hour.