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

[Mechanize]

Originally Posted by tcrudisi

A478

Based on what you typed, yes. They both appear to be untyped bonuses. All bonuses stack unless they are of the same type or they are both untyped and from the same named game element. In this case, they are both untyped and from different named game elements (Scar's Gift and Spirit Boon), so they stack.

Those were taken from the book just with abbreviated terms.

Q 473b

I need to add to this... shamans are confusing lol. Again, with these 2 features listed previously...

lvl 1 protector spirit feature. Spirit boon: any ally adj. to your spirit companion regains additional hp equal to con mod when they use a second wind or when you use a healing power on him or her.

lvl 11 Scarred Healer path. Scar's gift. When you use a primal healing power on a target adj. to spirit comp the target regains add. hp equal to con mod.

How does this skill work?

Call forth the spirit world

healing, primal, zone / Close burst spirit 3

Burst becomes a zone until end of next turn or until SC is destroyed. Zone moves with spirit, remaining centered on it. Enemies take -2 to attack while in the zone. Any blooded Ally that starts it's turn in the zone regains 5 hp.

Question 1: With the 2 features listed above, does this skill help allies regain 5hp +conx2 as long as they are next to the SC? What confuses me is the target rules. Are allies in a zone considered targets? Also, when you target an enemy with a shaman, allies adj to SC get bonuses, are they considered targets? If not, then this level 11 Paragon feature pretty much applies to only skills that directly target the ally, and those are few.

Question 2: Untill SC is destroyed? Is dismissed different than destroyed? Some skills dismiss the SC... would this end the zone?

[Dimers]

Q 474

May I wield a rhythm blade in my off hand and a heavy shield in my main hand, for +3 shield bonus? If so, does the rhythm blade need to be a weapon with the off-hand quality for me to make attacks with it? (The rules I found say that you can't make attacks with non-offhand weapon while holding a weapon in the other hand, but they don't say anything about a shield.)



Q 475
Is it possible to use an immediate reaction in response to an effect that just dominated, dazed or stunned you?

[Badgerish]

Originally Posted by Dimers

Q 475
Is it possible to use an immediate reaction in response to an effect that just dominated, dazed or stunned you?

No, because you are now dominated, dazed or stunned. You can still take free actions, if applicable.

[obryn]

A 474
Why are you using the shield in your main hand and the rhythym blade in your off-hand? ...Why not just reverse it?

A 475
Reaction? No.
Interrupt? Yes.
Free Action? Yes if you're dazed, no if you're dominated/stunned.
"No Action"? Yes.

-O

[Dimers]

Originally Posted by obryn

Why are you using the shield in your main hand and the rhythym blade in your off-hand? ...Why not just reverse it?

The text for rhythm blade says it gives a benefit when you're using it in your off hand. Doesn't say anything at all about your main hand, nor from where your already-existing shield bonus has to come from. Weird, huh?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Originally Posted by Dimers

The text for rhythm blade says it gives a benefit when you're using it in your off hand. Doesn't say anything at all about your main hand, nor from where your already-existing shield bonus has to come from. Weird, huh?

That does sound weird. Can you quote us the relevant text, please? Or at least say in what book/magazine it can be found?

Thanks,

Grey Wolf

[obryn]

Originally Posted by Dimers

The text for rhythm blade says it gives a benefit when you're using it in your off hand. Doesn't say anything at all about your main hand, nor from where your already-existing shield bonus has to come from. Weird, huh?

Ah. Got it. I forgot the "off-hand" part. It's a contentious weapon. RAW, it certainly works if you're using Two-Weapon Defense or have any other way to get a shield bonus to AC. No arguments there, whatsoever.

Your use is more... arguable. Everyone on all sides of the Rhythym Blade debate is very certain they're right, so I'd go with whatever your DM's ruling is and wouldn't contest it.

Grey_Wolf_c - it says it improves your shield bonus to AC and Reflex by 1. It's been hotly debated whether this applies when you don't have a shield bonus to begin with. (Edit: It's part of a set, so I believe AV2)

[Dimers]

Originally Posted by obryn

Everyone on all sides of the Rhythym Blade debate is very certain they're right, so I'd go with whatever your DM's ruling is and wouldn't contest it.

*snerk*

[Badgerish]

Originally Posted by obryn

Grey_Wolf_c - it says it improves your shield bonus to AC and Reflex by 1. It's been hotly debated whether this applies when you don't have a shield bonus to begin with. (Edit: It's part of a set, so I believe AV2)

It doesn't give you a shield bonus if you don't have one. RAI is that this item is people with the Two-Weapon Defence feat or similar. (IMHO)

by RAW: yes. A heavy shield in the mainhand and a Rhythm Blade weapon (light blade only) in your off-hand means a +3 Shield bonus to AC/Reflex and you can attack normally... until you use two-weapon powers.

some/many GMs will consider this an exploit, so be wary. Tohit/defence is a balanced aspect of 4ed, so upsetting that balance may make GMs rule/house-rule against this. Personally, I would only allow this on a two-weapon fighter (via spiked shield or the Fighting Shield line of enchants)

[Sipex]

Q 476

I'm pretty sure I remember reading this somewhere but I can't find it now. Is there a hard limit on how many 'aid another' checks the party can pile onto a skill roll? IIRC it's set at 4 but I'm not entirely confident I'm right on this.

[tcrudisi]

Originally Posted by Sipex

Q 476

I'm pretty sure I remember reading this somewhere but I can't find it now. Is there a hard limit on how many 'aid another' checks the party can pile onto a skill roll? IIRC it's set at 4 but I'm not entirely confident I'm right on this.

DM Book p. 105, paraphrasing some and hard quoting others:

DC is equal to 10+ one-half the character's level. If the check succeeds, the ally gains +2 to the next check. If it fails, -1.

"A character can take the aid another action only once to affect a particular check. However, up to four characters can take the aid another action to affect the check."

I quoted the part you asked for. The beginning part was thrown in so that anyone reading it knows that the aid another was updated, both in terms of DC and to add in a penalty to the check in question should the attempt fail. So it's possible to aid another and get in their way, making it harder for them to succeed.

[tcrudisi]

Originally Posted by Mechanize

Q 473b

/snip

Mechanize, I'm quoting this so it isn't forgotten about. I wanted to look up the powers and features and give you a hard answer as it's easier for me to visualize it when I see it in front of me. I've just been lazy about that. And I'm finding myself woefully short on time tonight, so I'll try to get around to doing that tomorrow.

If someone else wants to jump in, feel free. I'm lazy.

[NecroRebel]

A 473b

1. That particular power creates a zone that heals. The healing doesn't happen when the power is targeted, nor is anything in the zone targeted when healing occurs, so neither of those features would trigger.

Generally, a thing is "targeted" only if there is a Target line in the effecting power's box and only if the thing fits into the category of said target line. Call Forth the Spirit World has no such line, so it targets nothing. Most powers actually do have a Target line, though, even those that affect allies.

2. I remember reading a fan-written article, perhaps a handbook, on the Shaman that attempted to address this particular point. Basically, "destroy" is a piece of terminology that is used in regards to spirit companions only for this one particular power. The thing that I remember reading suggested that this was a misprint or typo and that it should say "dismissed" instead of "destroyed," but it doesn't. Nothing can "destroy" a spirit companion (even massive damage just causes it to "disappear"), so unless your DM rules that destruction = dismissal or disappearance, nothing can end that zone except you failing to maintain it.

[Tegu8788]

Q 477

Can anyone point me towards a background that fits this fluff?

Paladin of Ioun sent undercover within a Cult of Vecna, becomes tainted, and is now fighting to redeem himself for the actions he had to take to maintain his cover.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Originally Posted by Tegu8788

Q 477

Can anyone point me towards a background that fits this fluff?

Per RAW? Any of them, I would imagine. The "good" ones because his actual background is of a good Paladin. The "bad" ones because of his time in Vecna. All the others, because of whatever the background is. This is more a question that should get its own thread - its subjective beginning to end.

GW

[rjthom5]

Q 478

Would swapping a pair of magic gloves require a long time similar to armor, or could it fit as a standard action during combat?

[Crasical]

Q 479

What can a Master Craftsman create? From the Martial Practice:
"You create a nonmagical item, such as a mundane weapon, a suit of mundane armor, or a piece of adventuring gear"

Can a character with this practice make Vehicles and Alchemy items from Adventurer's Vault 1?

[Ashdate]

Originally Posted by rjthom5

Q 478

Would swapping a pair of magic gloves require a long time similar to armor, or could it fit as a standard action during combat?

A478: As far as I can find/search, there are no firm rules about taking off or equipping items in combat outside of armour (which takes 5 minutes). I think common sense has to apply; I would say a standard action is appropriate for donning gloves (perhaps a bit short really), but keep in mind that you would likely need a minor action to retrieve a second set of gloves, and another minor to stow the first pair. In that sense, one might think of swapping any item as a "full round action".

Originally Posted by Crasical

Q 479

What can a Master Craftsman create? From the Martial Practice:
"You create a nonmagical item, such as a mundane weapon, a suit of mundane armor, or a piece of adventuring gear"

Can a character with this practice make Vehicles and Alchemy items from Adventurer's Vault 1?

A479: Do you mean "Master Artisan" from Martial Power 2?

The ritual doesn't set strict bounds, so you should ask your DM. I would answer "maybe to vehicles, no to alchemy"

The given list (mundane weapons, armour, and adventuring gear) would lead me to believe that nothing you can create should be exceptionally difficult to make. The Master Artisan "ritual" is meant to allow you to craft very mundane equipment, of which vehicles and alchemy are not. While alchemy items do not require magic to make, the materials themselves are often magical in nature. Additionally, there is a specific feat required for their creation; a 50g ritual should not replace it.

Vehicles meanwhile, are the "maybe". Some vehicles are pretty mundane (such as a wagon), so I would allow the creation of one with sufficient time and resources. An airship however, would take an entire crew of laborers to construct; while a player may feasibly create one entirely by himself, as per the Master Artisan description, I would rule that the time involved to create one would measure in months (with a whole team of laborers) to potentially a decade or more (if "made" by one's self). That just might cut into your adventuring time.

[Crasical]

Originally Posted by Ashdate

A479: Do you mean "Master Artisan" from Martial Power 2?

The ritual doesn't set strict bounds, so you should ask your DM. I would answer "maybe to vehicles, no to alchemy"

The given list (mundane weapons, armour, and adventuring gear) would lead me to believe that nothing you can create should be exceptionally difficult to make. The Master Artisan "ritual" is meant to allow you to craft very mundane equipment, of which vehicles and alchemy are not. While alchemy items do not require magic to make, the materials themselves are often magical in nature. Additionally, there is a specific feat required for their creation; a 50g ritual should not replace it.

Vehicles meanwhile, are the "maybe". Some vehicles are pretty mundane (such as a wagon), so I would allow the creation of one with sufficient time and resources. An airship however, would take an entire crew of laborers to construct; while a player may feasibly create one entirely by himself, as per the Master Artisan description, I would rule that the time involved to create one would measure in months (with a whole team of laborers) to potentially a decade or more (if "made" by one's self). That just might cut into your adventuring time.

Yes, that's the practice I meant. There's no hard RAW for this situation, then? I was kind of hoping for a little more than 'ask your DM'.

[Ashdate]

Originally Posted by Crasical

Yes, that's the practice I meant. There's no hard RAW for this situation, then? I was kind of hoping for a little more than 'ask your DM'.

I think the Martial Practices were a poorly conceived concept, so it shouldn't be surprising that they don't play with the game well, even in a RAW basis.

But as I said, the issue is that RAW or not, a 50g ritual shouldn't replace an entire feat (Alchemist) in my opinion, and I think the description of what they expect you to use the feat for (mundane equipment, of which alchemist items are not) backs that interpretation up. Your DM may disagree, but that's his/her choice, not mine.

When we're talking about the construction of vehicles, as per the Master Artisan description it's up to the DM to determine how long something takes to "create". Hence, the determination about whether your character can conceivable build say, a Chariot, rests largely on whether your DM believes you having the capacity and time to create one; it is not a RAW issue.

[Dimers]

Q 480

What source (or sources, if there are errata/updates) describe how to trade out class powers for theme powers?

I specifically want to know whether I can take the level 3, 13 and 23 versions of the same power as I level up, but I figured I should just go ahead and read the whole piece while I'm at it.

*crosses fingers, hopes it's not Dark Sun 'cuz DDI doesn't reproduce that*

[Yakk]

Request for Q 480: Please be more specific. A power that has "At level 13: deal an extra [W]" is different than a power that has a level 3 version and a level 13 version. (not certain if it is functionally different in this situation). Ie, list the specific theme and power(s) you are talking about?

[obryn]

A 480

Per the DSCS, you must "replace" the lower-level version of a theme's attack power with the higher-level version when you reach the appropriate level. That term would seem to preclude getting the same power at 3/13/23 at different magnitudes. It doesn't imply that they are three different powers, only that you need to pay for the upgrade rather than receive it for free.

-O

[Ashdate]

A480, continued: also, you cannot replace a class at-will/encounter/daily/utility power if it's your last one, so (barring something unusual) you cannot have three encounter/daily theme powers, let alone three of the same. Look up "Swapping Powers" on the Compendium for more info.

[Dimers]

Q 481

Blindsight, truesight and tremorsense all allow a critter to "see normally regardless of how obscured an area is and regardless of whether creatures or objects are invisible." There's no mention of concealment. I want to know whether total concealment (from some source other than obscurement or invisibility) is sufficient to allow a Stealth check to become hidden against a creature with one of those special senses, and whether partial concealment is sufficient to maintain hidden-ness against it.

EDIT: Thanks for the very useful responses on swapping powers! That does greatly clarify things for me.

[tcrudisi]

Originally Posted by Dimers

Q 481

Blindsight, truesight and tremorsense all allow a critter to "see normally regardless of how obscured an area is and regardless of whether creatures or objects are invisible." There's no mention of concealment. I want to know whether total concealment (from some source other than obscurement or invisibility) is sufficient to allow a Stealth check to become hidden against a creature with one of those special senses, and whether partial concealment is sufficient to maintain hidden-ness against it.

EDIT: Thanks for the very useful responses on swapping powers! That does greatly clarify things for me.

Concealment != invisible. Since blindsight, truesight, and tremorsense do not say that they bypass concealment from other sources, other sources would be sufficient to grant concealment even against those creatures. For example, if you have a power that says, "You have total concealment against the target" then blindsight is not enough to allow the creature to bypass your concealment.

[Rhaegar14]

Q 482

I'm working on a new character, as mine died last session, and I'm looking at the Warden. The Warden's Grasp power states that it's triggered by an enemy marked by you making an attack that does not include you as a target, and its effect is that you slide the target 1 square.

Does this mean that I can slide the target away from my ally before the attack resolves, thus negating it if the attacker does not have reach or somesuch?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Originally Posted by Rhaegar14

Q 482

I'm working on a new character, as mine died last session, and I'm looking at the Warden. The Warden's Grasp power states that it's triggered by an enemy marked by you making an attack that does not include you as a target, and its effect is that you slide the target 1 square.

Does this mean that I can slide the target away from my ally before the attack resolves, thus negating it if the attacker does not have reach or somesuch?

A 482

No, because it is an immediate reaction, i.e. it happens immediately after the action that triggers it (in this case, the marked enemy attacking someone(s) other than your character).

Compare it with the Warden's other mark punishment, Warden's Fury, that is an immediate interrupt. This one does happen before the attack and conceivably, if you kill the target, he would not get the chance to attack.

Grey Wolf

[Mandrake]

Q 483

What is the right table for difficulty classes to use (non-essentials, if that matters)? I see big differences between DMG1 and DMG2 and I don't know if there's anything "after DMG2", since I suppose that's the righter one, it was made later, after all.
Thanks.

[Ashdate]

Originally Posted by Mandrake

Q 483

What is the right table for difficulty classes to use (non-essentials, if that matters)? I see big differences between DMG1 and DMG2 and I don't know if there's anything "after DMG2", since I suppose that's the righter one, it was made later, after all.
Thanks.

A 483: I don't see any difference between the DMG pg 42 numbers and the DMG2 pg 80 ones. They did print different ones in the Rules Compendium; is there a different table that you're referencing? Regardless, I would try both and see how well you think they work. I prefer the DMG1 numbers.

The DMG1 pg 42 math works out that if you have training or a good relevant ability score, that your character will always succeed on an "easy" DC check. If you have training and a good relevant ability, you'll pretty much always succeed on a "moderate" DC check. That leaves a character with training and a good relevant ability about a ~25% chance that they succeed on a "hard" DC check. Skill boosts (from races and feats) can bring this up to near 100% success rate.

This feels about right to me, especially since I use quite a bit of skill checks in my game (I even have a table of player skill bonuses compared to the various DCs, so I can tell players they "auto-succeed" on some tasks).

If you use, say, the Rules Compendium's numbers, you'll find that DCs are about 2 to 4 points higher at early levels comparatively, and gradually increases. This gives a slight chance of failure all around, particularly making "hard" tasks more of a coin flip for someone with training and a good relevant score.