Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread II: Electric Boogaloo

[NecroRebel]

Is this just your opinion, or is there text or FAQ to back this up?

He's correct; see Rules Compendium pages 120-121, specifically the paragraph labeled "Attacks and Checks" on 121:

If a summoning power allows the summoned creature to attack, the summoner makes an attack through the creature, as specified in the power description . . . The attack or check uses the summoner's game statistics, unless the descriptions of the power or creature specify otherwise. Attacks and checks made through the creature do not include any temporary bonuses or penalties to the summoner's statistics.

Conjurations have similar rules on page 117, but they do not have a clause that prevents temporary effects from affecting the conjurer's rolls.

[Urpriest]

He's correct; see Rules Compendium pages 120-121, specifically the paragraph labeled "Attacks and Checks" on 121:

You misunderstand. I mean the part I quoted. Which keywords apply: the keywords of the power that summoned the creature? The keywords of the creature's power? Both?

[NecroRebel]

You misunderstand. I mean the part I quoted. Which keywords apply: the keywords of the power that summoned the creature? The keywords of the creature's power? Both?

Ah, I see. I don't believe that that's covered in the rules - strictly speaking, the summoning power should have all the keywords of the summon's attacks and all of the summon's attacks should be in the summoning power's description. As such, the summon's attacks use the keywords of the summoning power, which would be the keywords of the attacks themselves if they were separate powers. Because the hexblade summons are arranged badly, with the actual summons themselves separate from the power that allows you to summon them, it's completely ambiguous.

The intent, most likely is for the attack to use the keywords of the summoned creature's 'power,' as otherwise that information is erroneous.

[2gig]

Q569

Does the Sudden Roots feat work with Fire Hawk?

[Badgerish]

A569

Unfortunately not.
The triggered attack in Fire Hawk is an 'Opportunity Action'.
Sudden Roots adds to "Opportunity Attacks".

So both Fire Hawk and a normal OA are Opportunity Actions, but are different from each other.

Opportunity Action Ranged 10
Trigger: The target takes any action that can provoke opportunity attacks

A568 cont
I support NecroRebel's answer above, but I'm not sure what Keywords are relevant from the actual summoning power, I just see "Arcane" and "Summoning", both of which should apply, but shouldn't interact much with other things. White Lotus feats?

[Urpriest]

A568 cont
I support NecroRebel's answer above, but I'm not sure what Keywords are relevant from the actual summoning power, I just see "Arcane" and "Summoning", both of which should apply, but shouldn't interact much with other things. White Lotus feats?

There are other ways to add damage bonuses to Arcane powers. That's mostly what I'm asking about: if I attack through the summon, does that attack count as an Arcane power? For example, for Dual Implement Spellcaster (which IIRC does not require the attack to have the implement keyword, though I may be misremembering).

[NecroRebel]

There are other ways to add damage bonuses to Arcane powers. That's mostly what I'm asking about: if I attack through the summon, does that attack count as an Arcane power? For example, for Dual Implement Spellcaster (which IIRC does not require the attack to have the implement keyword, though I may be misremembering).

I'd rule it as if the summon granted a couple of extra powers as long as it lasted, with those powers inheriting all of the keywords from the summoning power itself as well as the keywords on the summon's attacks. I don't know if there's RAW on that, however. If you have further questions, this issue should probably warrant its own thread.

Dual Implement Spellcaster specifies that "Both of your implements must be usable with [the power that is gaining the bonus damage], and you must be capable of wielding both implements, to gain [the feat's] benefit." As such, it can only be used with implement powers, which the hexblade summons are not.

[Yakk]

As for the question of whether the striker feature applies, it explicitly has an exception letting it apply, which probably means by default it wouldn't.

No, 100 times no. 4e doesn't work that way. There are systems that do, but 4e isn't one of them.

[Gavran]

Q570

Is there a mechanical reason why a party couldn't take two or more short rests in a row? I'm under the impression that there's an almost implied short rest after every combat* (since combat is an encounter, and short rests reset encounter powers.)

More specifically, I want to know if there's a reason the Leader shouldn't be able to use his Word power to heal up the party vs the party spending surges during the rest on their own. (Taking multiple short rests as needed so that his Words are ready for the next encounter.)


*Unless of course there's an ambush encounter immediately following it, or similar.

[Kurald Galain]

A570
No, there is no rule against that, and indeed it is a common tactic for parties to use healing powers to fully heal everybody between combats (which usually takes 1 to 3 short rests).

[Gavran]

Much obliged. Makes all of the buffs to surges spent during rests seem pretty poor, but I suppose they could still be the difference between max health and max health with one less surge sometimes.

[Musco]

Plus there's always those times where time is an issue. It might not seem much, but considering most characters don't use wristwatches, a short rest usually takes "about" 5 minutes, most likely, it'll take close to 6-7, specially factoring in the time for casting the healing spells (or using the healing powers) and discussing strategy, specially when someone is tied into something like identifying an item, which will leave them out of any discussion prior to the 5 minutes elapsing.

It might not seem much, but it adds up

Players usually lose track of time because an encounter that lasts an hour to play out will have, say, 5 turns, so it actually took about half a minute, so they'll fight 5 of these and say that only 5-10 minutes of in-game time have passed (or 30-35 minutes, factoring in the short rests after), but if you think about it, considering exploring speed and such, it should have taken AT LEAST close to an hour, and that is if they NEVER took more than a single short rest after each one.

[Arkhosia]

Q571
Can a 4e. cleric lose his/her powers due to loss of devotion, or is it the same case as paladins?

[Tegu8788]

A 571

No, once a character has a power it can not be lost without retraining, according to the rules. What a DM chooses to do...

The book does mention other followers of the deity having a problem with a fallen paladin, but there are no longer alignment restrictions in 4E.

[Kurald Galain]

A571

Furthermore, a warlock with the Infernal Pact can, at high level, actually end up figthing and defeating the entity he had a pact with, and does not lose any of his powers while or after doing so.

[Alejandro]

Q572

Can a character who is not proficient with light shields use one anyway? If so, what happens, stat wise? If the character has Devout Protector, the feat, does the +1 AC party buff still happen if said character isn't proficient with said shield?

[allonym]

A572
If you use a shield you are not proficient in, you don't gain the shield bonus to AC or Reflex for doing so.
I don't see anything specifically disallowing you from granting your allies the shield bonus for not having proficiency in the shield, though you might get a DMG to the face.

[Arkhosia]

A 571

No, once a character has a power it can not be lost without retraining, according to the rules. What a DM chooses to do...

The book does mention other followers of the deity having a problem with a fallen paladin, but there are no longer alignment restrictions in 4E.

Thanks.
My drow ex-cleric will have a hard time proving said status...

[neonchameleon]

Thanks.
My drow ex-cleric will have a hard time proving said status...

Yup! And it also means you no longer get the following scene.

"My lord, we think one of the Paladins in the order is ... a Traitor."
"Not this again. Assemble them all in the courtyard and we'll see who can no longer Lay On Hands."

[Arkhosia]

Yup! And it also means you no longer get the following scene.

"My lord, we think one of the Paladins in the order is ... a Traitor."
"Not this again. Assemble them all in the courtyard and we'll see who can no longer Lay On Hands."

Or, when the paladin of balamut is talking to a major annoyance:
"You A-hole. Next time, I'm going to run you through-*remembers balamut is lawful good*-life with a restraining order."

[Newoblivion]

Q572

The rules for charge state that if the closest square from you to your enemy is occupied you can't charge. I am not sure what it means.

Two monsters are charging the defender, one reaches him first and stands in the closest square possible, the rest of the squares around the defender are open. Does the second enemy looks for the second closest square? or does it means that the second enemy can't charge?

[Kurald Galain]

A572
Monsters charge one by one, not two at the same time. Frequently, there are two or three "closest" squares within equal distance of the monster, but depending on terrain and positioning, it is possible that the second monster will not be able to attack.

[obryn]

A572
Remember two things...

(1) "Charge" is a standard action. It's very possible an unrestricted enemy will still be able to charge by moving first to get a different angle before charging.
(2) Remember that diagonals are still "1 square." As such, there are usually 3 squares tied for charging distance.

[Newoblivion]

I had two soldiers with the same initiative. I figured that the second one will just chose the second closest square because it became the closest one after his friend charged, (edit) but one of my players told me that he can't because the closest square to him is accupied by his friend, so even though there's planty of space around the character only one enemy could've charged him.... kinda weird imo..

[Yakk]

Q572: the rules for charge are very much like the rules for pushing and pulling.

When you push, each and every square must be further away from the pusher than the previous one. No "sliding sideways" as part of the push.

When you pull, each and every square must be closer to the puller than the previous one. No "sliding sideways" as part of the pull.

Charging is like being pulled to the target. Each square you enter must be closer to the target -- not the same distance, closer -- than the previous one. You cannot "sidestep" during your charge, nor can you charge to the target's side and slash sideways.

You are, in effect, compressing two actions into one -- moving and attacking. This means that the movement has to be simple, and as helpful to the attack as possible (ie, every step makes your blade go closer, and you don't have to take your eyes off the target to see where you are going).

There are powers and creatures that give you "more advanced" techniques, like being able to move your speed and attack, and sometimes move afterwards. These powers let you attack the target's side.

At the same time, you have some flexibility. You can use your move action to change your angle on the target, so that (one of) the closest square(s) is unoccupied.

Note that it is relatively easy for there to be more than one closest square. This happens if you aren't "on the perfect diagonal" to the target -- the closest square isn't the one that looks closest, but it is the square that is the least number of squares away!

Unless you are directly diagonal away from a target, there are at least 2 closest squares. The closer you are to being horizontal from the target, the better your chances of being able to maneuver around obstacles along the way (and closing distance with each move).

[Newoblivion]

Q572: the rules for charge are very much like the rules for pushing and pulling.

When you push, each and every square must be further away from the pusher than the previous one. No "sliding sideways" as part of the push.

When you pull, each and every square must be closer to the puller than the previous one. No "sliding sideways" as part of the pull.

Charging is like being pulled to the target. Each square you enter must be closer to the target -- not the same distance, closer -- than the previous one. You cannot "sidestep" during your charge, nor can you charge to the target's side and slash sideways.

You are, in effect, compressing two actions into one -- moving and attacking. This means that the movement has to be simple, and as helpful to the attack as possible (ie, every step makes your blade go closer, and you don't have to take your eyes off the target to see where you are going).

There are powers and creatures that give you "more advanced" techniques, like being able to move your speed and attack, and sometimes move afterwards. These powers let you attack the target's side.

At the same time, you have some flexibility. You can use your move action to change your angle on the target, so that (one of) the closest square(s) is unoccupied.

Note that it is relatively easy for there to be more than one closest square. This happens if you aren't "on the perfect diagonal" to the target -- the closest square isn't the one that looks closest, but it is the square that is the least number of squares away!

Unless you are directly diagonal away from a target, there are at least 2 closest squares. The closer you are to being horizontal from the target, the better your chances of being able to maneuver around obstacles along the way (and closing distance with each move).

I am sorry if I am a bit slow. Can you please refer to my example it will really help me understand.

I have two enemies, the closest square to charge me is the same one for both of them though there're more squares around me which are open. Does it mean that the second one to charge can't charge because his friend is accuping the closest square or will he just move to the second closest square (because now it became the closest one after his friend's charge)?

EDIT: For the sake of argument both enemies have enough speed to reach all the squares adjacent to me.

(sorry for bad English)

[tcrudisi]

I am sorry if I am a bit slow. Can you please refer to my example it will really help me understand.

I have two enemies, the closest square to charge me is the same one for both of them though there're more squares around me which are open. Does it mean that the second one to charge can't charge because his friend is accuping the closest square or will he just move to the second closest square (because now it became the closest one after his friend's charge)?

EDIT: For the sake of argument both enemies have enough speed to reach all the squares adjacent to me.

(sorry for bad English)

You are Y. They are X. N is just some random obstruction.

n
X nY
X

Around you are the following squares
123
8Y4
765

Those n's are taking up 1 and 8. The closest squares that, normally, those X's could charge to are 1, 8, and 7. In this case, 1 and 8 are filled, so they can only charge to 7. The first X will charge to 7.

Does this stop the second X from charging? Maybe. If he has a move action, he can just reposition himself like so:

n23
nY4
X65

X

Now the second X has moved to where he can charge into 6 or 5. If he doesn't have a move action available, then he won't be able to charge as the n's and other X are taking up his spot.

[Yakk]

 ...........................
 ....543....................
 ....6T2..........C.........
 ....781....................
 ...........................
 ...........................
 ...........................
 ..........AB...............
 ...........................

T is the target

The closest square for A is 1. (4 away -- no other square adjacent to T is 4 away)
The closest squares for B are 1 and 2. (both are 5 away, count it!)
The closest squares for C are 1, 2 and 3. (obviously)

If A charges to 1, and 2 is occupied, B cannot charge the target without repositioning first.

Unless your two charging creatures are directly on the diagonal (like A is), they have at least 2 squares that are "closest", and usually they have 3. If all of the "closest" squares are blocked, you cannot charge the target.

You do have a move action before you charge, so you can reposition yourself -- moving 2 whole squares from any location gives you access to 3 "closest" squares on the target, assuming nothing is in the way.

If things are in the way, quite often charging is difficult. That makes lots of sense, because charging when things are in the way is supposed to be difficult.

You are not allowed to say "well, I will charge to a different square, then swing my sword on the side to hit the target". You are allowed to say "I will use a move action to get where I want to be, then use a standard action to attack the target". Charging is restricted, and is not "move where you want in a relatively strait line, then attack an adjacent target" -- the strait line has to move constantly towards the target, and if anything (an ally being where you have to go, a wall) gets in the way, you aren't allowed to charge.

[obryn]

I have two enemies, the closest square to charge me is the same one for both of them though there're more squares around me which are open. Does it mean that the second one to charge can't charge because his friend is accuping the closest square or will he just move to the second closest square (because now it became the closest one after his friend's charge)?

Enemies can never charge to a "second closest square." They must charge to the closest square.

However. Remember that diagonals count the same as sides. And that enemies can maneuver around before charging (if they have a Move action available) to make it so there's a new closest square.

[Newoblivion]

 ...........................
 ....543....................
 ....6T2..........C.........
 ....781....................
 ...........................
 ...........................
 ...........................
 ..........AB...............
 ...........................

T is the target

The closest square for A is 1. (4 away -- no other square adjacent to T is 4 away)
The closest squares for B are 1 and 2. (both are 5 away, count it!)
The closest squares for C are 1, 2 and 3. (obviously)

If A charges to 1, and 2 is occupied, B cannot charge the target without repositioning first.

Unless your two charging creatures are directly on the diagonal (like A is), they have at least 2 squares that are "closest", and usually they have 3. If all of the "closest" squares are blocked, you cannot charge the target.

You do have a move action before you charge, so you can reposition yourself -- moving 2 whole squares from any location gives you access to 3 "closest" squares on the target, assuming nothing is in the way.

If things are in the way, quite often charging is difficult. That makes lots of sense, because charging when things are in the way is supposed to be difficult.

You are not allowed to say "well, I will charge to a different square, then swing my sword on the side to hit the target". You are allowed to say "I will use a move action to get where I want to be, then use a standard action to attack the target". Charging is restricted, and is not "move where you want in a relatively strait line, then attack an adjacent target" -- the strait line has to move constantly towards the target, and if anything (an ally being where you have to go, a wall) gets in the way, you aren't allowed to charge.

Red are enemies
Blue is the hero
Green square is the closest for both enemies

According to your explanation the north enemy can't charge. Right? Even though both of them move directly to "the nearest square from which you can attack the enemy..." as the rules state.

Sorry for keeping dragging this on... I just want to make really really sure I understand..