January Rules updates 2010

[Nikosandros]

The dominate rule was a good clarification.

The teleport rules are going to be a problem I think. Allowing them to do vertical movement makes them some of the most damaging powers in the game.

If teleport was rare and high level it would be one thing, but its commonplace, and getting moreso with each new book.

Indeed. The errata is nice (and was needed), but allowing vertical movement is still too much. I'll probably keep my house rule: vertical movement only for willing targets.

 

[Nifft]

Indeed. The errata is nice (and was needed), but allowing vertical movement is still too much. I'll probably keep my house rule: vertical movement only for willing targets.

Yeah. The alternative is to not stage any encounters near giant lava pits, and that's clearly a bigger loss than merely nerfing hostile teleportation powers.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Camelot]

My players are practically all martial classes at this point, so I don't think it will be much of a problem. =)

But really, I thought all the rules updates (few as there were) were very good ones. Domination is clarified, teleportation is at least closer to being balanced, and the next layer of resist/vulnerable has been added.

I still have one question about the vulnerabilities. If a monster has vulnerable 5 X and vulnerable 5 Y, and it is hit by an attack that does X and Y damage, does it take 5 extra damage or 10?

 

[Nifft]

I still have one question about the vulnerabilities. If a monster has vulnerable 5 X and vulnerable 5 Y, and it is hit by an attack that does X and Y damage, does it take 5 extra damage or 10?

Looks to me like 10. They specify that vulnerabilities of the same type don't stack. They could have simply said "vulnerabilities don't stack -- just use the one that is most beneficial to the attacker", and it would simplify the rules, because it would exactly mirror how resistances work.

They didn't, so I assume they meant exactly what the more complicated version says: and it says nothing about overlapping vulnerabilities of different types.

Cheers, -- N

 

[yesnomu]

Yeah. The alternative is to not stage any encounters near giant lava pits, and that's clearly a bigger loss than merely nerfing hostile teleportation powers.

Cheers, -- N

Lava pits are treated the same with teleportation now as regular forced movement off the edge, though--a save cancels. And it's not like long forced movement distances to put them out of reach of the edge are rare (thunderwave, for one).

 

[Tale]

Lava pits are treated the same with teleportation now as regular forced movement off the edge, though--a save cancels. And it's not like long forced movement distances to put them out of reach of the edge are rare (thunderwave, for one).

Nifft: Thanks to this update, you can now have lava pits without people teleporting into it for instant death!
yesnomu: But now there's a save!

I'm not following your point.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Okay, I'm a bit confused by the normal forced movement comment.

In our current 4e campaign, we've been playing it that any forced movement (push, slide) over any kind of ledge or cliff that involves a drop, gives the target a save. If they fail the save, they go over. If they make the save, they stop on the last square before the drop, and are prone. This makes sense, because as they were going over the ledge, they grab on, hold, and pull themselves back up onto the last square and they are prone. You couldn't pull yourself up over a ledge, and straight into a standing position in one move.

Is this not right? Thanks.

 

[yesnomu]

Right. I'm saying, there's no reason to further nerf unsafe teleportation, unless you're concerned about the damage (which might be fair). Eliminating the possibility makes it worse than regular forced movement.

DarkLord, you're playing correctly. Didn't mean to confuse anyone!

 

[Nifft]

Lava pits are treated the same with teleportation now as regular forced movement off the edge, though--a save cancels. And it's not like long forced movement distances to put them out of reach of the edge are rare (thunderwave, for one).

Nifft: Thanks to this update, you can now have lava pits without people teleporting into it for instant death!

Previously, since there was no rule, I simply outlawed hostile teleportation that didn't put you on a nice, friendly surface. This applied to PCs and monsters alike. It meant teleportation could reposition, but couldn't itself result in harm -- push, pull, and slide were able to force you into unfriendly terrain (or into freefall), but there are plenty of ways to negate or reduce forced movement, and it's often possible to tactically position yourself to avoid being pushed or pulled somewhere.

This rule officially allows a save-or-die effect (albeit map dependent). I don't think 4e has room for instant save-or-die effects.

In our current 4e campaign, we've been playing it that any forced movement (push, slide) over any kind of ledge or cliff that involves a drop, gives the target a save. If they fail the save, they go over. If they make the save, they stop on the last square before the drop, and are prone.

Yep, that's the normal rules. In fact, any forced movement into any hazardous square -- a bonfire, a venomous puddle, a cloud of spores -- allows that same saving throw.

Cheers, -- N

 

[RangerWickett]

However also by the rules, if you're about to get shoved into a wall of fire you can make a save to fall to the ground and stop your movement. But you can't ever decide to make a save and fall to the ground to stop your movement unless you're about to end up in a location that itself harms you.

I would rather the rules let you fall prone to stop any forced movement.