The Human Target
Adventurer
Yeah for sure I guess some engineering checks would fall under Dungeoneering.
D&D 4E messy's 4e newbie questions thread
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Why IS it? or why isn't it? Its just movement, the whole point of the 4e rules is to avoid endless restating of things that are already defined. Its movement, and not shifting, so it just always follows all the normal movement rules, no statement is required.
No, conjurations aren't creatures, and most of them have no OA, nor any other form of action economy. In order for this to work the conjuration would have to specifically state that it allows flanking with it and/or it can itself benefit from flanking (IE the caster can, a Flaming Sphere could in theory be written this way).
It is best to think of 4e skills as focused areas of interest rather than little individual specific niche areas of expertise. The guy with Athletics likes to use physical strength to deal with problems. He may or may not be strong in an absolute sense, but he's got a knack for doing 'Athletic' types of things. Note that pure feats of muscle power such as lifting heavy objects uses Strength, not Athletics, and things like your carrying capacity are determined by raw Strength. Likewise Arcana is a general area of knowledge and practice which includes, potentially, some familiarity with the more odd sorts of otherworldly beasties.
Its worth noting that nothing implies characters can't have other very specific things they know about. For instance it would be typical for a DM to give a +2 background bonus to say a character with the Farmer background when dealing with things related to farming. This could apply to nearly any skill or ability check in that context. Each character is allowed to have a background for each of up to five elements, so there is a lot of potential there for a PC to have some advantage in any particular story. There are also things like Martial Practices which can grant characters the ability to do certain specific things very well. Some powers can factor in as well.
The other part of this is that the 4e skill system isn't intended to exist in a vacuum of nothing but individual skill/ability checks. Anything significant to the plot is an encounter and thus a skill challenge if it isn't an actual combat. In this way a variety of factors can come into play, a strong but clumsy character might not fare as well as a guy that is modestly strong and also dexterous, especially if that character has a relevant skill. When you put the 4e skill system in its context it provides a lot of utility in a package that also delivers relevance and delivers a feeling of expertise, the wizard knows his stuff, he can use Arcana to deal with most magic-related stuff competently. If a given character concept should have some need to be an expert in an area not related to his main class, its easy enough for a fighter to have Religion or Arcana say without it being a big ongoing drain in skill points as it would be in 3.x for instance.
Adventurer's Vault has most of this sort of stuff, you might also find some in Mordenkainen's Magical Emporium, which re-presents a lot of AV stuff. MME is probably the better book overall, though AV1 does have some stuff in it that isn't in any other book (maybe things WotC thought weren't great ideas after the fact like double weapons).
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, underground you can make an argument for that, though some people see Dungeoneering as "underground Nature". Its a bit of a grey area. Personally I like to think of this sort of stuff as more background related. You have a background as a mason, carpenter, engineer, etc then you probably have some good story reasons to maybe just know certain things outright, or get a +2 on certain checks. Its a good motivation to pick a full suit of background elements! In general backgrounds are also ripe for home brewing, a player can easily make one up, DMs should be pleased to have players doing that.
sabrinathecat
Explorer
Because it is part of the power. Just because a power provokes doesn't mean the monster will take the oppie. If it is dazed, stunned, or dominated, it won't. If it is under a condition that specifically says it cannot make attacks, it won't. If it is marked by a fighter, and knows it will take punishment for even attempting to take the oppie, it may not.
little phantasmal things, no. summoned allies usually can, however. Look at the power. Look at the creature.
As has been mentioned, Dungeoneering will cover most likely possibilities. Some situations might allow for arcana, thievery, or nature rolls.
I wouldn't worry too much about that. Mounted combat in 4E is seriously nerfed. I consider it one of the biggest failings, outside of adding essentials and hybrids to the system. By now, someone has probably said where to find the prices, if they were ever made.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
For knowledge-type of checks I don't find the perfect match, I would probably think about it similar as about a skill challenge - which skills might help - and ask the player for an idea what might do so.
I would even be willing to make a point and say Arcana, Dungeoneering, History and Nature can all work for Engineering.
I would even be willing to make a point and say Arcana, Dungeoneering, History and Nature can all work for Engineering.
Neonchameleon
Legend
A reminder. They wouldn't have bothered in later books.
Not unless they say otherwise. A flaming sphere can't flank any more than a bonfire can, for example. Summons on the other hand can.
The big gap - there are half a dozen skills you can use for it, but I normally default to dungeoneering.
4e doesn't do much mounted combat.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
While it is true that 4e doesn't provide elaborate rules for mounted combat, it does cover the subject adequately for the vast majority of cases. You can ride a mount and the rules clearly provide for it. You can even ride things like flying mounts and the rules will handle the interaction with ground-based action adequately. There aren't really good rules for things like aerial dog fights, but no previous edition has had elaborate core rules for that sort of thing either. In most cases the existing rules will work well enough and the DM is encouraged to elaborate where needed.
If you want to run a campaign that focuses heavily on mounted combat, then 4e might not be the most suitable system. OTOH I think you could pull it off. It would be helpful to have a few added feats, maybe a theme or two, and perhaps some more involved rules for mount abilities and training. It would have been nice if WotC had gotten around to at least writing up an article on this subject and a supplement or something would have been super nice its still easily in reach of a lot of DMs. If 4e is otherwise the system you'd want to use then it certainly makes sense to home brew a thing or two. I'm sure there are some systems out there with really elaborate mounted combat rules, but 4e is pretty solid all around.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
IME, mounted combat works pretty well if you treat the mount as a companion of the PC's level (healing surges, and so forth) and (for non-combative mounts such as horses) gave them a "shared actions" trait. I am very opposed to the horses doing any independent fighting. Note that 1/encounter a mounted PC could make the horse trample, so it's a bit like having an extra encounter power, plus their speed goes up and their charge attacks do extra damage. It's a really good deal for 1 feat.
For NPCs, I do something similar. Horses are only worth half XP due to the shared actions (the speed and charge damage boosts mean they're still contributing somewhat), but if the bad guys were goblins riding worgs, the worgs are worth full XP because they're aggressive and do not have the shared actions trait.
For NPCs, I do something similar. Horses are only worth half XP due to the shared actions (the speed and charge damage boosts mean they're still contributing somewhat), but if the bad guys were goblins riding worgs, the worgs are worth full XP because they're aggressive and do not have the shared actions trait.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, the 4e rules are a bit unclear about the best way to handle NPC mounts. The DMG basically said "if the mount is trivial like a horse just make it nothing but a mount, but if its a monster in its own right, then charge XP for it." So that follows with your 'goblins and worgs' comment (and is how I've handled that exact scenario myself too).
When it comes to PC mounts there isn't a hard and fast rule either. ALL mounts share actions with their riders, but obviously a companion which is also a mount is a bit different from a riding horse. One way to handle it is simply to give such companion mounts some good solid MOUNT properties that synergize well with their riders. Between that and the basic benefits of mounted fighting it should justify the added XP value of the party. I think basic animal mounts OTOH provide fairly minimal benefits overall. They CAN be pretty handy in some situations, but not usually enough to unbalance things a lot, and there are times when you will find being mounted is useless or your mount is an actual burden, so its not a critical issue.
Its safe to say that 4e wasn't built with the idea in mind that PCs would be extensively mounted, but I think its rules are solid enough to handle that case with a bit of DM attention.
