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

[theNater]

Whoa!! Could you rephrase that, please, I didn't quite get it.

EDIT: A numbered "step by step" description would be nice.

To create a multiclass character:

Step 1: Create a single-classed character as normal.

Step 2: Take a class-specific multiclass feat for a different class. In addition to gaining the listed benefits of the feat, your character is now multiclassed, and counts as a member of the new class (in addition to the old class) for the purposes of taking feats and paragon paths.

Step 3(optional): Take power-swap feats, when your character is high enough level. These feats allow you to replace one of your current powers with a power from the new class. There is a power-swap feat for each of the utility, daily, and encounter powers, and each has a different level requirement.

Step 4(optional): When you reach level 11, engage in paragon multiclassing instead of taking a paragon path. This allows you to replace one of your at-will powers with an at-will power from your second class, and allows you to take powers from your second class when you would normally get a paragon path power.

[TheBajaBojo]

Okay, so both sources were correct in a sense...
So you can multiclass slightly at first and then sacrifice your paragon path for a true 3rd-ed-style multiclass.
Thanks for clearing that up.

[NecroRebel]

Whoa!! Could you rephrase that, please, I didn't quite get it.

EDIT: A numbered "step by step" description would be nice.

theNater's description is correct, but what you quoted was just a reductio ad absurdum argument showing that it's possible to take more than one MC feat for the same class:

Spoiler

Show

1. There exists feats, such as Sorcerous Power from Arcane Power, that are multiclass feats for their class that require that you have another multiclass feat from the same class.
2. It is intended to be possible to take these feats (else why would they print them?).
3. (Argument to be disproven) You may take only one class-specific multiclass feat.
4. Prior to taking a basic multiclass feat, you cannot take the feats mentioned in 1, because they have those basic multiclass feats as prerequisites.
5. You take a basic multiclass feat.
6. If 3 is correct, you cannot now take any other class-specific multiclass feats.
7. If 3 is correct, you cannot now take any of the feats mentioned in 1.
8. If 3 is correct, by 4 and 7, you cannot take the feats from 1 before or after taking a basic multiclass feat.
9. All periods of a character's development are before or after taking a basic multiclass feat.
10. By 8 and 9, then, there is no period at which you can take the feats from 1.
11. If 3 is correct, it is not possible to take any of the feats mentioned in 1, ever.
12. By 2, we have that it is possible to take the feats mentioned in 1, and by 11 we have that it is not possible. If 3, then taking those feats is both possible and not possible, a contradiction. Therefore, it is not the case that 3 is correct.
13. Therefore, it is not the case that you may take only one multiclass feat.

[obryn]

So you can multiclass slightly at first and then sacrifice your paragon path for a true 3rd-ed-style multiclass.

It's still not a true 3e-style multiclass. 3e-style multiclassing is basically a point-buy system with class levels being bundles of bonuses & features. 4e hews closer to pre-3e D&D by strongly encouraging single-classed, somewhat archetypal characters.

Hybrid classes are the closest thing 4e offers, though it's closer to 1e/2e's demihuman multiclassing, and I strongly discourage them as a general rule unless you know exactly what you're doing.

Paragon Multiclassing in 4e is feat-expensive and of questionable value. Basically, you take powers from second class's list instead of the ones you'd normally gain from your paragon path. Notably, you miss out on the other perks a paragon path provides.

You still don't get the base features of the class you multiclassed into unless they are provided by one of your feats.

-O

[TheBajaBojo]

That much I'd gathered...
Thanks for confirming.

[rjthom5]

Q 437

Re: Warlock feature Shadow Walk

A: Does the concealment take place immediately upon moving 3 squares, at the end of the move action, or the end of the turn?

B: Having gained concealment, when would one make a stealth check to cause the enemies to lose sight (and thereby gain combat advantage against them), and what type of action would it be?

C: If an attack is made prior to the expiration of Shadow Walk, is the concealment lost?

[NecroRebel]

A 437

A. The instant you've moved at least 3 tiles away from where you started your turn. It doesn't say at the end of a move action or anything, so that's not important.

B. Concealment isn't sufficient to allow you to hide. You need superior cover or total concealment, which shadow walk doesn't provide. If you did have superior cover or total concealment from a different source, hiding can be done at the end of any and all actions that involve movement. You only need regular cover or concealment to remain hidden once you already are, so shadow walk helps with that, but it alone doesn't let you hide.

C. No, shadow walk has no clause that says that the concealment is lost due to anything, so aside from its duration expiring, it doesn't end.

[Tegu8788]

438

What kind of action is it to shift from a one-handed grip on a weapon to a two-handed weapon. Specifically, can it happen during a charge.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

438

What kind of action is it to shift from a one-handed grip on a weapon to a two-handed weapon. Specifically, can it happen during a charge.

A 438

Free action, and yes, it can happen in the middle of any action (assuming the other hand is free).

Grey Wolf

[Tegu8788]

A 439

The feat Cunning Stalker states

You gain combat advantage against enemies that have no creatures adjacent to them other than you.

If you are not adjacent, i.e., using a ranged attack, do you still get that benefit?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

AQ 439

The feat Cunning Stalker states If you are not adjacent, i.e., using a ranged attack, do you still get that benefit?

(FTFY)

A 439

No, that feat as written requires that you must be adjacent (and only you: not even another enemy can be adjacent to the one targeted). You could still use a ranged attack (granting an OA as normal) and get the CA, though.

Grey Wolf

[Surrealistik]

A 439

The feat Cunning Stalker states If you are not adjacent, i.e., using a ranged attack, do you still get that benefit?

http://community.wizards.com/go/thre...91903/?pg=last

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th...eat-hotfk.html

Cunning Stalker
Benefit: You gain combat advantage against enemies that have no creatures adjacent to them other than you.

Technically, you do not have to be adjacent to the target to gain CA against it.

[rjthom5]

A 437

B. Concealment isn't sufficient to allow you to hide. You need superior cover or total concealment, which shadow walk doesn't provide. If you did have superior cover or total concealment from a different source, hiding can be done at the end of any and all actions that involve movement. You only need regular cover or concealment to remain hidden once you already are, so shadow walk helps with that, but it alone doesn't let you hide.

Sorry to come back to this, but my reading of the Stealth skill indicates that only standard cover or concealment is needed:

"Unless a creature is distracted, you must have cover or concealment from the creature to make a Stealth check." (PHB p188)

I do have an old version of the book, so has it changed? Or am I reading this wrong?

[NecroRebel]

I do have an old version of the book, so has it changed? Or am I reading this wrong?

Stealth has had extensive errata. The most recent, and theoretically final, set of rules are in the Rule Compendium (page 152), where it states a requirement for superior cover or total concealment against a target that is paying attention.

As mentioned, ordinary cover and concealment are sufficient to maintain stealth, just not to begin it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Stealth has had extensive errata. The most recent, and theoretically final, set of rules are in the Rule Compendium (page 152), where it states a requirement for superior cover or total concealment against a target that is paying attention.

As mentioned, ordinary cover and concealment are sufficient to maintain stealth, just not to begin it.

C 437

Since partial concealment is necessary to maintain stealth, and the Shadow Walk doesn't kick in until you are 3 away from the start turn position, does it follow that those first three squares of movement also need to have at least partial cover to maintain stealth?

I.e. You are a Warlock stealthed behind a rock, and all other squares around you have no concealment. If you move, you loose stealth (since you have no concealment), and gaining partial concealment later doesn't undo this.

Thanks,

Grey Wolf

[Snowbody]

A 437

That's correct.

Another reason Shadow Walk is not ideal for retaining Hidden is that you have to move 3 squares, which requires another Stealth check at a -5 penalty.

The usual use of Shadow Walk is to use it every turn to stay concealed.

[Tegu8788]

Q 440

I can Throw and Stab (Ranger At-Will) with a Farbond Spellblade Glaive or Greatsword? The requirement is to wield both a thrown and a melee weapon. Does the enchantment qualify the weapon as both a thrown and melee weapon? Using "a" twice makes me wonder.

Alternatively, could one wield any thrown weapon in one hand and make both attacks with the Farbond weapon?

[Tegu8788]

Q 441

Are there any one-handed reach weapons?

[Badgerish]

A 441

Whip!

edit: Kusari-gama / Cahulaks / Spiked Chain (with multiclass feat) are all double-weapons with reach, which may be relevant

Gloom pact Hexblades summon the 'Scourge of Exquisite Agony' which is a one-handed weapon with reach, but exclusive to their class/pact.

[shamgar001]

Q 442

Can a Shaman's Spirit companion use companion slot items?

[tcrudisi]

Q 440

I can Throw and Stab (Ranger At-Will) with a Farbond Spellblade Glaive or Greatsword? The requirement is to wield both a thrown and a melee weapon. Does the enchantment qualify the weapon as both a thrown and melee weapon? Using "a" twice makes me wonder.

Alternatively, could one wield any thrown weapon in one hand and make both attacks with the Farbond weapon?

Yes, they can. "You must be wielding both a thrown weapon and a melee weapon." A Farbond spellblade is both a thrown weapon and a melee weapon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes, they can. "You must be wielding both a thrown weapon and a melee weapon." A Farbond spellblade is both a thrown weapon and a melee weapon.

C 440

In the above case (throw and stab), you first throw the thrown weapon, then you charge. When does a magical weapon return to your hand? As I understand it, it is at the end of the action, so wouldn't you be charging with no weapon at all?

Thanks,

Grey Wolf

[Kurald Galain]

Q 440

I can Throw and Stab (Ranger At-Will) with a Farbond Spellblade Glaive or Greatsword? The requirement is to wield both a thrown and a melee weapon. Does the enchantment qualify the weapon as both a thrown and melee weapon? Using "a" twice makes me wonder.

Arguably, the phrase "both a ... and a" means that you have to wield two weapons, not just one weapon that happens to fall into both categories.

I say "arguably" since this isn't specified in the rules anywhere, so it's ultimately the DM's call.

[tcrudisi]

C 440

In the above case (throw and stab), you first throw the thrown weapon, then you charge. When does a magical weapon return to your hand? As I understand it, it is at the end of the action, so wouldn't you be charging with no weapon at all?

Thanks,

Grey Wolf

Per Rules Compendium p.282:

"Any magic light thrown or heavy thrown weapon, from the lowly +1 dagger to a +6 dragonslayer javelin, automatically returns to its wielder's hand after a ranged attack with the weapon is resolved."

[tcrudisi]

Arguably, the phrase "both a ... and a" means that you have to wield two weapons, not just one weapon that happens to fall into both categories.

I say "arguably" since this isn't specified in the rules anywhere, so it's ultimately the DM's call.

While I do agree - I also think this is a difference between RAI and RAW.

Are you wielding a ranged weapon? Yes.
Are you wielding a melee weapon? Yes.

Therefore, you are wielding both a ranged weapon and a melee weapon.

[rjthom5]

Q 443

The entry in the PHB for purchasing a cart/wagon shows a cost of 20gp for 1 ton carrying capacity. Is this supposed to include something that will pull said cart, or are animals separate? In which case, which animals would be capable of pulling it?

[Badgerish]

A 443
That's just for the cart, draft animals sold separately.

As for what to pull it... this is ask your GM territory because A) it's pretty complex, and B) does it really matter?

Real world carts where pulled by all manner of things, from 1 horse/oxen (at walking speed) to 4 horses (at riding speed).

D&D has many fantastic options for pulling a cart, such as: Giant Ants (oddly expensive), Draft Giant Lizards, and dwarves (with their not slowed by heavy loads feature).


A444
Does a creature know if they have combat advantage for an attack or not?

e.g. a rogue moves behind a corner from an enemy, makes a high stealth check and is sure they are hidden. Then they Deft Strike out of hiding and attack... however they don't have CA because the enemy has tremor-sense and thus the rogue was still 'visible' to the enemy. Do they know before the attack or when it completes?

[Kurald Galain]

A444
Does a creature know if they have combat advantage for an attack or not?

The rules say that you should always know exactly what is affecting you and how, so yes.

[Snowbody]

A444

The point you find out is when you make the stealth check to become Hidden. You know right away, among the combatants you're aware of, who can sense you.

[Tegu8788]

Q 445

Is there a 4E equivalent for a Macuahuitl? Maybe be in a Dark Sun campaign soon, and curious if there is a good stat block for it.