Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011
Results 301 to 322 of 322
  1. - Top - End - #301
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Q88 Any reason why a Sentinel (or Hybrid Sentinel) that's a Small race couldn't ride their Living Zephyr around if they wanted?
    Last edited by masteraleph; 2019-02-14 at 03:46 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #302
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Dimers's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    A 88

    No mechanical reason I've ever seen, other than the possibility of an obstructive DM telling you "It's not willing to serve as a mount."

    Spoiler: non-answer zephyr stuff
    Show
    Since the zephyr makes an area of obscurement, I've used it as the basis for a Hidden Sniper (I think that's the feat name) rogue build to always get CA at range.

    Odd thing about the living zephyr: its cloud only obscures the vision of enemies, not allies! That must be hard to adjudicate at times.
    Avatar by Meltheim: Eveve, dwarven battlemind, 4e Dark Sun

  3. - Top - End - #303
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2017

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Q 89

    Pertaining to Marks. I have searched the forum and read much discourse. I understand the mechanic regarding how more intelligent creature might react differently to a Mark. That is not my question. And I understand that all creatures will know they are Marked.

    Furthermore, I have read RAW that a creature will know all effects of a "power" that is affecting him.

    SO, specifically, would the Marked creature know the possible immediate interrupts or immediate actions that could be consequences of a Mark?

    A Warden unleashes Nature's Fury to Mark a target. That "class feature" alone does nothing other than the Mark. It just enables the two possible immediate actions. Would every creature know the possible consquences of that Mark? Would NO creature know the possible consequences, because they are immediate actions...Or would you rule that only intelligent creatures COULD know the possible consequences, if they make a successful knowledge check on the character's powers?

    It is a hang up for my player to understand that I believe the creatures "know" of the possible consquences, even though they are immediate actions. I believe the Warden is taking a stance of sorts that shouts to the creature, "I may attack you!...or I may shift you against your will, if you do not confront me!"

  4. - Top - End - #304
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    A 89
    Short answer: An enemy marked by the ability granted by Nature's Wrath does not by default know about Warden's Fury and Warden's Grasp.

    The powers are only used in reaction to the marked target's actions and are in fact not even dependent on the mark being applied with Nature's Wrath. The same is true for a Fighter's Combat Challenge. The mark and the punishment are separate. Compare and contrast with Swordmages and Paladins.

  5. - Top - End - #305
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Q 90 & 91: Really, one RAW and one houserule:

    Q90: While Twin Strike stipulates two attacks, either STR via melee or DEX via ranged, can a Ranger use one attack of each type? Say, STR melee attack a kobold dragonshield, who then shifts away as an II, and then switch to a thrown weapon attack against the same kobold dragonshield (via DEX)? (I don't think this is possible RAW but ruled it okay at the time since it's such a corner case.)

    Q91: Definite houserule territory. Would it be generally unbalancing (in a home game where no one is looking to exploit crazy combos for unbalanced gain) to allow Immediate Actions to be used once/round without the stipulation "[you] can’t take another one until the start of [your] next turn"? How might allowing this usage be inadvertently disruptive?

    (Apologies as these aren't strictly speaking RAW questions.)
    Through a series of unfortunate events, my handle on the WotC boards was darkwarlock.

  6. - Top - End - #306
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2017

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddacku View Post
    A 89
    Short answer: An enemy marked by the ability granted by Nature's Wrath does not by default know about Warden's Fury and Warden's Grasp.

    The powers are only used in reaction to the marked target's actions and are in fact not even dependent on the mark being applied with Nature's Wrath. The same is true for a Fighter's Combat Challenge. The mark and the punishment are separate. Compare and contrast with Swordmages and Paladins.
    Can you site the source for this answer please? This is my question of course. The enemy knows he "is marked," so he must know something. What is the "fluff" that is represented? If you are saying that the creature doesn't know anything further BECAUSE they are immediate actions, and that is RAW, then I understand.

    The powers ARE definitely dependent on the mark of Nature's Wrath being applied, they can only be enacted as such. So I don't think your thinking is quite clear?
    If you could compare and contrast with Swordmages and Paladins for me, that helps! What are you saying there? That their marks do convey information about consequences? Thank you!

    I'm sure there is a definitive answer here, as 4e has been established for so long.
    Last edited by Kashyyyk; 2019-03-20 at 06:53 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #307
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Dimers's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Kashyyyk View Post
    Can you site the source for this answer please? This is my question of course. The enemy knows he "is marked," so he must know something. What is the "fluff" that is represented? If you are saying that the creature doesn't know anything further BECAUSE they are immediate actions, and that is RAW, then I understand.
    Essentially, yes. The marked creature knows it takes -2 to attacks that don't include the marker, that the mark will end if the marker dies/drops, and that another mark will 'overwrite' the earlier one. That's all the rules give as-is. Fluff-wise, the books only say that the marked creature finds the marker attention-grabbing and hard to ignore.

    Beyond that, I agree that some creatures should be able to guess more about potential consequences or reactions based on the marker's fighting style, equipment, stance, gait, aura of power, et cetera. I treat that as a perception or knowledge check, with a large bonus if the marking power or trait describes consequences for violation. But that's plainly a houserule.

    A 90: Correct, RAW doesn't allow it.

    A 91: An immediate action can't be used during your own turn. Unless you're talking about changing immediates to once per turn rather than once per round, then by definition it can't be used again til your own next turn.

    I suppose you could look at a round as the timespan from top-of-initiative to bottom-of-initiative, rather than Creature X's first turn to Creature X's second turn. That's against RAW but is a natural and viable use of the term. In that case, Creature X could take one immediate between her turn and bottom-of-init, then another one between top-of-init and her turn. If that's what you mean, then in the non-abusive game environment you describe, it wouldn't be problematic. It's a rather abusable opportunity, sure. But you know your group(s) better than we do.
    Last edited by Dimers; 2019-03-20 at 10:20 PM.
    Avatar by Meltheim: Eveve, dwarven battlemind, 4e Dark Sun

  8. - Top - End - #308
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Kashyyyk View Post
    Can you site the source for this answer please? This is my question of course. The enemy knows he "is marked," so he must know something. What is the "fluff" that is represented? If you are saying that the creature doesn't know anything further BECAUSE they are immediate actions, and that is RAW, then I understand.

    The powers ARE definitely dependent on the mark of Nature's Wrath being applied, they can only be enacted as such. So I don't think your thinking is quite clear?
    If you could compare and contrast with Swordmages and Paladins for me, that helps! What are you saying there? That their marks do convey information about consequences? Thank you!

    I'm sure there is a definitive answer here, as 4e has been established for so long.
    I don't recall where the line about creatures being aware of all effects applied to them by a power is, but I think we were all on board with that being a thing. The game does not say that creatures are aware of abilities other creatures have that can triggered by their actions, however. Now, Swordmage and Paladin punishment is dependent on the marks being applied with their relevant abilities. That is to say, the target of Divine Challenge doesn't know that it'll get zapped by god because it's marked, it knows it'll get zapped by god because that is an effect of Divine Challenge. In contrast, the Warden (and Fighter and Battlemind) simply applies the Marked condition and then has other abilities that trigger off of marked enemies doing things. This means that the act of marking doesn't convey any information about the punishment, and also that the Warden doesn't care about the source of the mark. They can punish any enemy they have marked, whether they did it by using Nature's Wrath, using that Fighter multiclass feat, got it from a theme or PP, an ally using Misdirected Mark, etc.

    I think if you want to discuss this more in depth, you should probably create a new thread for it. I've probably gone a bit overboard for this thread already.

  9. - Top - End - #309
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimers View Post
    A 91: An immediate action can't be used during your own turn. Unless you're talking about changing immediates to once per turn rather than once per round, then by definition it can't be used again til your own next turn.

    I suppose you could look at a round as the timespan from top-of-initiative to bottom-of-initiative, rather than Creature X's first turn to Creature X's second turn. That's against RAW but is a natural and viable use of the term. In that case, Creature X could take one immediate between her turn and bottom-of-init, then another one between top-of-init and her turn. If that's what you mean, then in the non-abusive game environment you describe, it wouldn't be problematic. It's a rather abusable opportunity, sure. But you know your group(s) better than we do.
    I understand about the requirement that one not take Immediate actions on one's own turn. I have bolded the part that I am questioning. Suppose there are 4 participants in a combat, in initiative order: A, B, C, D. I am C.

    In round one, I (C) use an Immediate action against B. In round 2, RAW, I (C) cannot use an Immediate action against A.

    My follow up question though is about the wording of the following:

    "Once per Round: A creature can take only one immediate action per round, either an immediate interrupt or an immediate reaction. Therefore, if a creature takes an immediate action, it can’t take another one until the start of its next turn" (Rules Compendium 195).

    I (C) took the Immediate action; the above states that I cannot make another Immediate action "until the start of its [a creature [who] takes an immediate action] next turn." Does that mean I cannot make another Immediate action in round 2 against B? RAW, I cannot, right, since I, as maker of the Immediate action, have not had my next turn yet?

    My solution to this could be one of two options: (1) what I propose above, the (potentially abusable) option of just stipulating that a creature may only make one Immediate action per round, with no consideration regarding initiative order within the round, or (2) think about the initiative order from round-to-round with regards to the creature that triggers the Immediate action, not the creature who makes the Immediate action.
    Last edited by darkbard; 2019-03-21 at 01:23 PM.
    Through a series of unfortunate events, my handle on the WotC boards was darkwarlock.

  10. - Top - End - #310
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbard View Post
    I understand about the requirement that one not take Immediate actions on one's own turn. I have bolded the part that I am questioning. Suppose there are 4 participants in a combat, in initiative order: A, B, C, D. I am C.

    In round one, I (C) use an Immediate action against B. In round 2, RAW, I (C) cannot use an Immediate action against A.

    My follow up question though is about the wording of the following:

    "Once per Round: A creature can take only one immediate action per round, either an immediate interrupt or an immediate reaction. Therefore, if a creature takes an immediate action, it can’t take another one until the start of its next turn" (Rules Compendium 195).

    I (C) took the Immediate action; the above states that I cannot make another Immediate action "until the start of its [a creature [who] takes an immediate action] next turn." Does that mean I cannot make another Immediate action in round 2 against B? RAW, I cannot, right, since I, as maker of the Immediate action, have not had my next turn yet?

    My solution to this could be one of two options: (1) what I propose above, the (potentially abusable) option of just stipulating that a creature may only make one Immediate action per round, with no consideration regarding initiative order within the round, or (2) think about the initiative order from round-to-round with regards to the creature that triggers the Immediate action, not the creature who makes the Immediate action.
    In the scenario you present, your conclusion is incorrect. You said that you are C, and that turn order was A - B - C - D. If you use an Immediate Action against B on B's turn, your ability to use another Immediate Action resets almost immediately because you start your turn right after B ends his turn. So on A's next turn, you can use an Immediate Action again.

    What you are doing is defining a round both from the perspective of the actor (C) AND from the "neutral" perspective of game terminology. What you should do is only consider the perspective of the actor (C). As soon as C starts their turn, a new round starts for C, even if we're still in "round 1" of the combat. Indeed, in your scenario if D triggered another Immediate Action from C, C is welcome to use it, even though that's two Immediate Actions during "round 1".

    With that in mind, I don't see any reason to implement either of your proposals. If you want to discuss this further, I recommend starting a new thread.
    Last edited by tiornys; 2019-03-21 at 01:53 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #311
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by tiornys View Post
    If you want to discuss this further, I recommend starting a new thread.
    Done. Starting a new thread.
    Through a series of unfortunate events, my handle on the WotC boards was darkwarlock.

  12. - Top - End - #312
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Q92Skald's Training: Benefit: You swap your majestic word for the skald’s aura power. You and your allies can use minor actions to benefit from the aura only as many times during an encounter as you would be able to use majestic word.

    If one were a Hybrid Bard with the Skald Training feat and thus had only one use of Skald's Aura per encounter, does this mean one need choose between the healing minor action of the Aura and any minor action AW power, like Song of Serendipity? Or does the restrictive text italicized above refer only the healing effect of the Aura?
    Through a series of unfortunate events, my handle on the WotC boards was darkwarlock.

  13. - Top - End - #313
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by darkbard View Post
    Q92Skald's Training: Benefit: You swap your majestic word for the skald’s aura power. You and your allies can use minor actions to benefit from the aura only as many times during an encounter as you would be able to use majestic word.

    If one were a Hybrid Bard with the Skald Training feat and thus had only one use of Skald's Aura per encounter, does this mean one need choose between the healing minor action of the Aura and any minor action AW power, like Song of Serendipity? Or does the restrictive text italicized above refer only the healing effect of the Aura?
    A92: While I agree it's a bit confusing, it should only be the healing. Song of Serendipity isn't using a minor action to benefit from the aura, it's using a minor action to alter the aura. The only minor action that you use to benefit from the aura is the healing.

  14. - Top - End - #314
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Q93 Is there any way on a non-Living Construct PC to change the action type for an alchemical item? (e.g. living constructs can use Alchemical Atomizer to use an alchemical item as a free action)

  15. - Top - End - #315
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Kashyyyk View Post
    Can you site the source for this answer please? This is my question of course. The enemy knows he "is marked," so he must know something. What is the "fluff" that is represented? If you are saying that the creature doesn't know anything further BECAUSE they are immediate actions, and that is RAW, then I understand.

    The powers ARE definitely dependent on the mark of Nature's Wrath being applied, they can only be enacted as such. So I don't think your thinking is quite clear?
    If you could compare and contrast with Swordmages and Paladins for me, that helps! What are you saying there? That their marks do convey information about consequences? Thank you!

    I'm sure there is a definitive answer here, as 4e has been established for so long.
    He is correct. The enemy knows what the "Marked" condition imposes on it. Warden's Grasp and Warden's Fury are separate powers that a Warden has. Contrast to the Swordmage's Aegis abilities, which mark the target and denote the consequences in the power that affects and marks the target. The subject of a paladin's mark likewise knows he will receive radiant damage from breaking the mark, as it is a consequence of the power used on it. But other defenders do not, because they use separate abilities to "punish" mark-breakers, instead of the punishment being folded into the power that marked the target. Fighters, for example, mark every target they "attack", which need not even be with a Fighter power. A Dragonborn Fighter with the Hurl Breath feat can use his breath in an Area Burst 2 Within 10, and mark every enemy in the area, hit or miss. Granted, he needs to be in melee to enforce his mark punishment, but all any of them know is that they have a -2 to hit other targets.

    You are incorrect in your assumption that Warden's Fury and Warden's Grasp are somehow "dependent" on the mark originating from Nature's Wrath. I point you to the Bard At-Will "Misdirected Mark" (or, as I like to call it, "He Did It"). The Bard makes a ranged attack, which does psychic damage, and the target is now marked by an ally of the Bard's choosing within 5 squares of the Bard. If a Bard uses this power on an enemy and chooses the Warden to be the one "marking" the target, then the Warden may use Fury and Grasp against it if it breaks the mark, because the trigger for those powers specifies "a creature marked by you" and not "a creature marked by your Nature's Wrath class feature".
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  16. - Top - End - #316
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by masteraleph View Post
    Q93 Is there any way on a non-Living Construct PC to change the action type for an alchemical item? (e.g. living constructs can use Alchemical Atomizer to use an alchemical item as a free action)
    A93 The E11 power for Alchemist Savant (prereq: ability to make alchemical items), Quick Admixture, allows you to use any alchemical item as a minor action. Also, the Alchemical Opportunist feat allows you to use alchemical items in place of the melee basic attack when an enemy provokes an opportunity attack. I don't see any other methods.

  17. - Top - End - #317
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2017

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by masteraleph View Post
    Q93 Is there any way on a non-Living Construct PC to change the action type for an alchemical item? (e.g. living constructs can use Alchemical Atomizer to use an alchemical item as a free action)
    A93 In addition to what is given above, the Artificer's Self-Forged path gives you the ability to attach and embed components outright at 16, but the path is mostly very underwhelming.
    Sadly, the Ring of the Warforged doesn't work as it says you still cannot embed components.

    However, there's also the option of forcing a square peg in a round hole by somehow counting as a Living Construct. I'd imagine it would require some DM courtesy since the item source is questionable, but a False Blood Amulet would work due to 'Living Construct' being a keyword (RC 313). Since this would just put you up to par with a regular Warforged, I'd suggest asking your DM about the item. And of course making it scale since it's only officially printed as a nonscaling level 7 amulet.
    Last edited by Highfeather; 2019-03-27 at 09:08 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #318
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Q94

    From the Seer's Cast Fortune Power:
    Roll a d20 three times when you use this power, and note the results, in order. These results replace, in order, the next three d20 rolls the target makes for any of the following types of rolls: attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks.
    From the Sorcerer's Chaos Wager power:
    Before the ally makes his or her first attack roll for the triggering attack, choose 1–10 or 11–20. If the result on the die for the attack roll of the triggering attack is within the range selected, you gain a power bonus to damage rolls against that target equal to 5 + your Charisma modifier until the end of your next turn.
    Question: Can a Sorcerer use Chaos Wager before an attack roll affected by Cast Fortune, knowing in advance what the result of the roll will be?

  19. - Top - End - #319
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ThePurple's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Shameland (4e Forums)

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by masteraleph View Post
    Question: Can a Sorcerer use Chaos Wager before an attack roll affected by Cast Fortune, knowing in advance what the result of the roll will be?
    Yes. There's no rule saying you can't do it and it's, honestly, kind of what you're supposed to be doing with them anyways.
    4e Homebrew: Shadow Knight, Scout
    roll20: Kitru

  20. - Top - End - #320
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePurple View Post
    Yes. There's no rule saying you can't do it and it's, honestly, kind of what you're supposed to be doing with them anyways.
    See, I'd disagree based on the fact that Chaos Wager needs to happen before the roll is made. The roll in this case has already been made, by Cast Fortune...

    I don't think the answer is clear, but I'd argue that it's not in the spirit of Chaos Wager to allow it.

  21. - Top - End - #321
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ThePurple's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Shameland (4e Forums)

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    Quote Originally Posted by ve4grm View Post
    See, I'd disagree based on the fact that Chaos Wager needs to happen before the roll is made. The roll in this case has already been made, by Cast Fortune...

    I don't think the answer is clear, but I'd argue that it's not in the spirit of Chaos Wager to allow it.
    The specific wording of Seer's Fortune is that it "replaces the results" of the next 3 rolls made. So you still "roll" a new die for Chaos Wager; the result of that roll is simply ignored and replaced by what you got with Cast Fortune.

    Cast Fortune isn't letting you roll the dice early and then save them; it's allowing you to see what the results will be beforehand, which is entirely in line with how a Wager would operate: if you're able to see what the results of a roulette wheel will be via your magic, there's nothing stopping you from placing a bet to guarantee that you will win.
    4e Homebrew: Shadow Knight, Scout
    roll20: Kitru

  22. - Top - End - #322
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

    If that's the actual wording then, though I'd still disagree about the intended use, it seems to be fair game. Ok then.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •