L4W Discussion Thread IV
- Thread starter garyh
- Start date
renau1g
First Post
So far I believe only Dragonmarks and the backgrounds have been identified as not kosher. However if you have a desire to use an Eberron flavoured idea, make a proposal to use it in L4W. For those halflings perhaps the Valley of Bone would work: This way everyone gets what they want, the setting gets some more fluff/flavour injected into it and you get the feats/bg you want.
Savage tribes of halflings, humans and stranger creatures predominate, struggling against the dire animals and dinosaurs.
L4W:Far Lands - ENWiki
Velmont does have the right of it as well (linky in my sig)
Savage tribes of halflings, humans and stranger creatures predominate, struggling against the dire animals and dinosaurs.
L4W:Far Lands - ENWiki
Velmont does have the right of it as well (linky in my sig)
RedBeardJim
First Post
I saw the Valley of Bone material and thought it would be a good fit flavor-wise, and then I read about the Talenta stuff and saw that it would be a nice mechanical boost. 
I'm not as concerned about the background itself -- the Valley of Bone regional thing is fine -- except that by RAW it's a prerequisite for the Talenta Weapon Training feat for halflings.
I think I will make a proposal.
I'm not as concerned about the background itself -- the Valley of Bone regional thing is fine -- except that by RAW it's a prerequisite for the Talenta Weapon Training feat for halflings.I think I will make a proposal.
H.M.Gimlord
Explorer
Changing the subject: Ryryguy and I stumbled across this chestnut, and we thought we'd pose it to the greater community for an official opinion. I'll follow up with a proposal if one is needed. If so, I will abstain from the voting:
Question: Regarding the Druid at-will power Fire Hawk, from Primal Power. The follow-on "Fire Hawk Attack" is an opportunity action with the trigger, "The target takes any action that can provoke opportunity attacks." This is unclear in cases where the action would provoke an opportunity attack only if an enemy is adjacent, e.g., moving or making a ranged or area attack.
So, if the target moves or makes a ranged or area attack, and the druid is not adjacent to the target, and no ally of the druid is adjacent to the target, does it trigger the Fire Hawk Attack?
We asked WotC but got an answer that was more complex than the question.
Question: Regarding the Druid at-will power Fire Hawk, from Primal Power. The follow-on "Fire Hawk Attack" is an opportunity action with the trigger, "The target takes any action that can provoke opportunity attacks." This is unclear in cases where the action would provoke an opportunity attack only if an enemy is adjacent, e.g., moving or making a ranged or area attack.
So, if the target moves or makes a ranged or area attack, and the druid is not adjacent to the target, and no ally of the druid is adjacent to the target, does it trigger the Fire Hawk Attack?
We asked WotC but got an answer that was more complex than the question.
Ozymandias79
First Post
IMHO yes
I'm pretty sure that's the intent. It's meant to be a summon but not quite a summon becuase that would be over powered for an at will.
So basically you create a summon next to the enemy and the summon can take oppertuinity attacks if you provoke one next to it.
Seems clear to me. I've also been intrigued by the text, "Take any action that can provoke" not "provokes" I'm sure there something that is an "action that can provoke" that for some reason does not, havn't found it yet though.
So basically you create a summon next to the enemy and the summon can take oppertuinity attacks if you provoke one next to it.
Seems clear to me. I've also been intrigued by the text, "Take any action that can provoke" not "provokes" I'm sure there something that is an "action that can provoke" that for some reason does not, havn't found it yet though.
H.M.Gimlord
Explorer
Just for the record, Fire Hawk does not contain the "Summoning" keyword, though looking at it this way, Ozy and DOM have a point.
ryryguy
First Post
One semi-related question... is there ANY action that provokes an opportunity attack if there's no adjacent enemy? (Or, enemy with threatening reach close enough, I suppose.)
I mean, the enemy being adjacent is pretty much an implicit requirement for someone to actually MAKE the OA. But is it also listed as a requirement for PROVOKING the OA?
(I have been AFB, but will look at the relevant language in the PH later on tonight. This is what I'm really wondering what the books say specifically.)
I mean, the enemy being adjacent is pretty much an implicit requirement for someone to actually MAKE the OA. But is it also listed as a requirement for PROVOKING the OA?
(I have been AFB, but will look at the relevant language in the PH later on tonight. This is what I'm really wondering what the books say specifically.)
ryryguy
First Post
Having looked at the PH combat chapter, I don't feel like it really resolves anything. 
Basically, the provoking of opportunity attacks is pretty well conflated with the making of opportunity attacks.
All the blurbs under individual actions and attack types read more or less like this:
"* Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you."
or:
"* Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you use a ranged power while adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you."
(The opportunity attack section on pg 290 is mostly about making the attacks, with a couple of blurbs that are basically restatements of the above.)
You could concentrate on the bolded part and say, "Yep, that action provokes, period. Therefore it triggers the Fire Hawk Attack." Looking at the non-bolded part, you could say either "that only means you have to be adjacent to make the attack, it still provokes". But you could reasonably say "No, it means the enemy has to be adjacent to provoke the attack in the first place".
There's one thing it might clear up though. I was wondering if, you go with the "enemy has to be adjacent" interpretation, what if the enemy is dazed or otherwise unable to actually make the attack? No matter how you read these rules blurbs, they don't indicate anything about the condition or the ability of the adjacent enemy. Just that they are adjacent.
Analyzing the "adjacent enemy not needed" interpretation - I'm still thinking that the potential 2d8 + 2xWis damage is not wildly out of line, when you consider 1) the first attack must hit to unlock the second (unlike, e.g., Twin Strike); 2) the druid must remain in human form (and within 10 squares, but that should be easy); and 3) the enemy often has at least some ability to deny the second attack by choosing a non-provoking action.
But on the other hand, I'm starting to pity the poor kobold slinger. For an artillery monster, who is not within shifting distance of melee range, there's just not really that much he can do that won't provoke. Total defense is about it, and that's no way to win a battle! (A controller at least has a hope of some sort of close attack or utility power option.)
So... I don't know.
Basically, the provoking of opportunity attacks is pretty well conflated with the making of opportunity attacks.All the blurbs under individual actions and attack types read more or less like this:
"* Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you."
or:
"* Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you use a ranged power while adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you."
(The opportunity attack section on pg 290 is mostly about making the attacks, with a couple of blurbs that are basically restatements of the above.)
You could concentrate on the bolded part and say, "Yep, that action provokes, period. Therefore it triggers the Fire Hawk Attack." Looking at the non-bolded part, you could say either "that only means you have to be adjacent to make the attack, it still provokes". But you could reasonably say "No, it means the enemy has to be adjacent to provoke the attack in the first place".
There's one thing it might clear up though. I was wondering if, you go with the "enemy has to be adjacent" interpretation, what if the enemy is dazed or otherwise unable to actually make the attack? No matter how you read these rules blurbs, they don't indicate anything about the condition or the ability of the adjacent enemy. Just that they are adjacent.
Analyzing the "adjacent enemy not needed" interpretation - I'm still thinking that the potential 2d8 + 2xWis damage is not wildly out of line, when you consider 1) the first attack must hit to unlock the second (unlike, e.g., Twin Strike); 2) the druid must remain in human form (and within 10 squares, but that should be easy); and 3) the enemy often has at least some ability to deny the second attack by choosing a non-provoking action.
But on the other hand, I'm starting to pity the poor kobold slinger. For an artillery monster, who is not within shifting distance of melee range, there's just not really that much he can do that won't provoke. Total defense is about it, and that's no way to win a battle! (A controller at least has a hope of some sort of close attack or utility power option.)
So... I don't know.
Similar Threads
