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

[shamgar001]

No. Yes.

Rules Compendium, page 283:

Because an adventurer must have proficiency with an implement to use it, an adventurer cannot gain an implement's enhancement bonus or benefit from any of the implement's other characteristics (such as properties, powers, and critical hit effects) unless he or she has proficiency with the implement.

[Dimers]

Ehm, I think you mean YES, you have to be proficient to use the power.

[shamgar001]

Ehm, I think you mean YES, you have to be proficient to use the power.

Ha, you're right. Some time between reading the question and answering it, I guess I flipped it around to "can I use the power if I'm not proficient."

[Nightgaun7]

Q 439

Party warlord was hit by a green hag and knocked into negatives and teleported away.

Can he use Vengeance is Mine after the attack hits but before he is KO'd and moved out of reach?

I've come up with two different opinions on reading it and while I err in the player's favor I figure if someone else can resolve the ambiguity, that would be better.

Encounter Martial
Immediate Reaction Personal
Trigger: An enemy hits you
Effect: You make a basic attack against the triggering enemy, and one ally within 5 squares of you can move his or her speed and make a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy as a free action.

Reactions: An immediate reaction lets a creature act in response to a trigger. The triggering action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the reaction takes place.

An immediate reaction waits for its trigger to finish, not necessarily for the action that contains the trigger to finish.

Example: An elder dragon’s claw attack power is a standard action that allows two attack rolls against the same target. The dragon faces Fargrim the fighter, who has an immediate reaction (veteran gambit) that is triggered by being hit with a melee attack. If the dragon uses claw and hits Fargrim with the first attack roll, he can use veteran gambit in response to that hit. In that case, the immediate reaction waits for that hit to be resolved, but does not wait for the entire power to be resolved.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Q 439

Party warlord was hit by a green hag and knocked into negatives and teleported away.

Can he use Vengeance is Mine after the attack hits but before he is KO'd and moved out of reach?

As per the rules you quoted, no, he cannot: the hit must be resolved before the immediate reaction starts ("the immediate reaction waits for that hit to be resolved") - by that point, the warlord is not in a condition to take actions.

Had he not been knocked out, he probably could use it before the hag teleports, though.

Grey Wolf

[Nightgaun7]

As per the rules you quoted, no, he cannot: the hit must be resolved before the immediate reaction starts ("the immediate reaction waits for that hit to be resolved") - by that point, the warlord is not in a condition to take actions.

Had he not been knocked out, he probably could use it before the hag teleports, though.

Grey Wolf

Hag teleports him, actually, so he can't even do that

[Nightgaun7]

Q 440

If you have no shield proficiency, do your allies get the +1 AC from Devout Protector Expertise if you carry a shield around?

[Kurald Galain]

A 440 Yes. As stated in the PHB under armor, you can still use a shield if you're not proficient; the only drawback is that you don't get the shield bonus to your AC, but you could still use e.g. the shield's daily power if it has any.

[Inevitability]

So your allies gain more protection from your shield than you do yourself? That's hilarious.

[Dimers]

So your allies gain more protection from your shield than you do yourself? That's hilarious.

"I keep telling you, you have to keep that thing close to your body, not over here in front of my face!"

[Inevitability]

Q 441 The fighter power Steely Persuasion lets me add the proficiency + the enhancement bonus of my weapon to a single athletics or streetwise check.

If I'm using a ki focus, can I use the enhancement bonus of my ki focus instead of that of my nonmagical sword? Would I still get the sword's proficiency bonus?

Q 442

And could I wield the ki focus as an improvised weapon, gaining the enhancement bonus?
How about a holy symbol? Or a wand? Or a rod? Or some magical armor?

[Dimers]

A 441

The enhancement bonus of a ki focus only gets added to attack and damage. The only RAW exceptions would be those that say otherwise in their Properties.

Failure to completely answer 442

I've never seen RAW on using an enchanted nonweapon item as an improvised weapon. Almost any semi-rigid medium-to-large object could potentially be an improvised weapon, so that's not the problem. The two issues I can see are whether the DM agrees the enhancement bonus applies and whether the item can survive being used in that way.

Personally I'd rule that you can get some extra benefit from magical implements and bracers, maybe feet-slot items as well, but that even those items are likely to break when used to hit things for damage.

[Inevitability]

The thing is, I'm not using it to hit someone, I'm merely threatening someone with it.

Guard: 'I won't tell anything! You hear me?'
Me: 'I think you will... See this armor? Want to end up as the dragon whose hide this was?'
Guard: 'I'll tell you.'

[Kurald Galain]

The thing is, I'm not using it to hit someone, I'm merely threatening someone with it.

I'd rule that this doesn't work, because wielding a piece of armor doesn't give you an attack bonus. However, I agree with Dimers that there's no rule about this either way.

That said, the power does clearly specify wielding the weapon, so in the case of armor it doesn't work while you're wearing it; you'd have to actually hold it in your hand.

[Dimers]

Ahh, I see, I thought 441 and 442 were more separate from each other. Most implements and armor just don't look terribly threatening. I'd let it pass for a rod pulsing with terrible black energy, sure, maybe a wand, but not likely for a glowy orb. Tome? Depends on the audience, and unless you're doing your Streetwise check at an academy then it ain't the right audience. Ki focus? Almost certainly not. They look like practice objects. Armor nope, shields nope. You gotta get yourself a wrist razor, son.

[Inevitability]

Okay then, I'm pretty sure of the following question, but I'm asking it anyway:

Q 443 Still about Steely Persuasion, what if I'm using it with an unarmed strike, which is boosted by Brawler Style? It has an enhancement bonus on attack rolls, but not on damage rolls.

[Dimers]

A 443

RAW? No. The weapon doesn't have an enhancement bonus, you just gain an enhancement bonus when you use it. Sigh.

In actual play, I would find that combination perfectly reasonable, just like I think 3.X monks have proficiency with their unarmed attacks.

[Nightgaun7]

Q 444

This is more a question of interpretation.

One of my players succeeded in intimidating an enemy in combat. It is now said enemy's turn, and I have to decide how Intimidate influences it.

The creature in question is bloodied, and has one ally retreating, and is outnumbered. Countering this, the creature had a familial bond with another creature who is more bloodied and prone at the feat of the fighter, and the fact that the PCs are not in great shape either.

The rules for Intimidate say "Success: The adventurer forces a bloodied monster to surrender, gets a monster to reveal a secret, or cows a monster into taking some other action. This skill is not mind control, so a cowed monster is unlikely to take any action that would cause immediate harm to itself."

I'm trying to decide to what extent the creature should be able to do things to help its family member (charging the fighter, grabbing the family member and dragging it away, etc.) and to what extent it either flees. It's not going to surrender unless it's completely trapped and alone.

[NecroRebel]

A 444

This isn't really a RAW question, as you noted, so probably should've just gotten its own thread (and might still do so).

Anyway, the monster is unlikely to take any action that would cause immediate harm to itself. As such, it won't perform any action which will provoke OAs from any of its enemies. Nor should it attack any of the party; that just makes the Intimidate skill kind of useless. It probably can't get to its family, pick them up, and flee without opening itself to attack, so it likely shouldn't do that. That basically leaves attempting to heal itself or its allies if possible, fleeing outright, or just cowering for the round. Fleeing or cowering are probably the most likely.

[Inevitability]

If it can communicate, maybe it'll shout: 'You win! I'll retreat, just don't hurt him!'

[LtPowers]

It looks to me like the intent of the rule is for the player to specify what she's trying to do with Intimidate. "I intimidate the monster" should be answered with "into doing what?"

Of course, that does have to be adjudicated for special circumstances, like this one. So if the player said "I intimidate the monster into fleeing," you could say "The monster is scared and looks like it's ready to flee, but it hesitates, glancing down at its fallen comrade." If the player wants surrender, you might have to allow it, perhaps with some bargaining on the part of the monster.

In theory, a monster could even be intimidated into attacking, though that's a bit tricky.


Powers &8^]

[Dimers]

Q 445

Is there a limit to the number of tattoo "items" a character can have?

[Kurald Galain]

A 445 It's an item slot, so you can only have one. AV2, page 83.

[shamgar001]

Q446

Running Attack: If you use a standard action that lets you move (such as a charge or the skirmish shot power), and you end that movement at least 2 squares away from where you began that move, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls made as part of that standard action. - MPII

If I use the Fading Strike power, which allows me to shift 2 squares after the attack, do I still get the +1?

[georgie_leech]

A446

Tentative No, by virtue of you don't generally gain bonuses or penalties based on future events in the turn (in this case, Attack->Move). RAW is technically ambiguous though, and you could argue that you'd retroactively gain a bonus to the attack based on the wording and the lack of any rules to the contrary. In short, Ask Your DM, but don't be at all surprised if the answer is no.

[tcrudisi]

A446

Tentative No, by virtue of you don't generally gain bonuses or penalties based on future events in the turn (in this case, Attack->Move). RAW is technically ambiguous though, and you could argue that you'd retroactively gain a bonus to the attack based on the wording and the lack of any rules to the contrary. In short, Ask Your DM, but don't be at all surprised if the answer is no.

I'm going to disagree. I feel the RAW here is pretty solid. It would be retroactive, since that can happen in 4e. Example: Shield. You have to be hit to use it, but it turns a hit into a miss. Of course, that's the nature of immediate interrupts, sure, but the logic is already in play within the system.

[georgie_leech]

I'm going to disagree. I feel the RAW here is pretty solid. It would be retroactive, since that can happen in 4e. Example: Shield. You have to be hit to use it, but it turns a hit into a miss. Of course, that's the nature of immediate interrupts, sure, but the logic is already in play within the system.

To borrow a phrase from Yugioh, Immediate Interrupts act more like trap cards, a specific response to a stimulus that you choose to interrupt. In the game, you're not hit and then a spell cast afterwards negates that hit, you threw up a shield at the last possible instant in an attempt to deflect the blow. I don't think it's at all the same thing; that would be like a yugioh card that, rather than adding or subtracting life points, instead retroactively changed how much damage occurred.

[tcrudisi]

To borrow a phrase from Yugioh, Immediate Interrupts act more like trap cards, a specific response to a stimulus that you choose to interrupt. In the game, you're not hit and then a spell cast afterwards negates that hit, you threw up a shield at the last possible instant in an attempt to deflect the blow. I don't think it's at all the same thing; that would be like a yugioh card that, rather than adding or subtracting life points, instead retroactively changed how much damage occurred.

I get what you are saying, but here's the thing about feats in 4e: they can allow you to break the rules in some way.

That feat says, "Running Attack: If you use a standard action that lets you move (such as a charge or the skirmish shot power), and you end that movement at least 2 squares away from where you began that move, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls made as part of that standard action. - MPII"

The power lets you shift 2 squares after the attack, but its all included in 1 standard action.

Run through the list:

1. Are you using a standard action that lets you move? Yes.
2. Did you end that movement at least 2 squares away from where you began the move? Yes, we're assuming so, otherwise it's an obvious no.
3. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls made as part of that standard action. Note how it doesn't include timing in here or say that the move must occur first; so long as the player fits #1 and #2, he gains +1 on all attack rolls as a part of the standard action.

[Kurald Galain]

Q446

If I use the Fading Strike power, which allows me to shift 2 squares after the attack, do I still get the +1?

I'm going to go with "no", because this ability doesn't specify that it works retroactively (and abilities don't make retroactive changes unless they explicitly say so, e.g. by being an interrupt).

At the time you're making the attack, it's not the case that "you end that movement at least 2 squares away". You may be intending to do so, sure, but you haven't done it. More to the point, there are a number of reactive abilities that your enemy could have that would prevent you from moving. This could lead to an infinite loop if you only hit because of the +1 bonus, and then in reaction the enemy immobilizes or prones you, which negates the +1 bonus so you didn't hit, which negates his reaction so he doesn't immob or prone, so you did hit him, so...

[Epinephrine]

Q446
If I use the Fading Strike power, which allows me to shift 2 squares after the attack, do I still get the +1?

Also going to answer Yes; by RAW, the standard action includes a shift 2, so you would get the bonus provided you finish by moving the two (one might ask that the player specify that he is shifting two to ensure that it triggers). The fact that the movement could be prevented shouldn't retcon the hit, since as has been pointed out interrupts and OAs remove their triggers quite often. It also fits how I would interpret it; it's a standard action attack that moves you at least 2 squares, so it is in a sense a "running attack." Given that the feat isn't brokenly strong, I see no harm in allowing it.