Consolidated Customer Service Answers

861 posts / 0 new
Last post
I was looking for this CSR response and was surprised to find it wasn't here.

from http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16087965&postcount=273

The Orb puts a penalty on a single effect; Sleep generates two separate effects to be saved against, so you have to decide which effect and which save to apply the Orb's effect to. I checked and double checked.

If you need anything else, please ask!


We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Cody
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

Question phrasing is unknown.
Attackers are -5 to hit you with melee and ranged attacks when you hide in combat, and must use the rules on p.281 for Targetting What You Can't See

This question and answer was a clarification on the new official FAQ entry for the Player's Handbook which reads:

16. What are the benefits of being hidden?

There are several benefits of being hidden from an enemy - you have combat advantage against them and they will have a more difficult time targeting you. Page 281 of the Player's Handbook explains the rules for targeting creatures you cannot see.

I asked customer service if this new FAQ entry meant that if you hide during combat attackers will have a -5 penalty to hit you and that attackers will need to use the p.281 rules to Target What They Can't See. The answer was "Yes", which means that if you hide in combat then it is effectively the same as being Invisible and unseen to the opponents whose Perception checks you beat with your Stealth check.

Show

Question:
The official Player's Handbook FAQ added a Q&A regarding the results of being hidden in which it says "There are several benefits of being hidden from an enemy - you have combat advantage against them and they will have a more difficult time targeting you. Page 281 of the Player's Handbook explains the rules for targeting creatures you cannot see."

Since this new FAQ entry refers to the rules on p.281 for targetting creatures you can't see, does that mean that if you succeed at a Stealth check during combat to hide while an enemy is watching you that the enemy now cannot see you, has to guess at the square you're in and suffers a -5 penalty to attack you?

Answer:
Yes, that is correct. You enemy will take a -5 to attack you if you make a successful stealth check. Please let me know if you need anymore help!

Tony
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
This may have been clear to most, but there was some question from our group.

Question:
If a target has both cover and concealment, do the penalties stack?

As an example, say my character is shooting at a hobgoblin. The hobgoblin is behind a wall that grants cover, and my attack passes through a fog that grants concealment. Is my attack made with a -2 modifier or a -4 modifier?

-Mark

Response:
Hi Mark,

Thank you for contacting us. Yes, as per the description of penalties on page 275, Penalties add together unless they are from the same power. Because of this if a target has both cover and concealment the penalties would stack. In your example, it would be a -4 Penalty. I hope this information is useful.

Good Gaming!


We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Marc

Wizards should know the damage that will done if they don't opt to use their Staff of Defense or Shield powers. It's up to the DM whether or not they know the opponent's attack roll.

This one ended up being a two-part Q&A because I think the CSR didn't quite understand my question at first. But to summarize, here's the result:

If you are a wizard and have either the Staff of Defense encounter ability or the Shield encounter power, then when an opponent hits you those powers can trigger and you can increase your defense. The DM should tell you how much damage the attack is going to do if it hits you, and after you find that out you may then decide if you're going to interrupt the attack using Shield or Staff of Defense.

It is up to the DM whether or not he wants to tell you the actual numerical attack roll, however. Some DMs like to keep their attack rolls secret, while other DMs like to roll their attacks openly. Obviously which way your DM rolls the attack dice makes a difference when using the Shield power, because if you know what the actual attack roll is then you know whether or not using your Shield will be useful. If you don't know what the DM rolled, though, then it's possible you'll use your Shield but the extra defense still won't be enough.

In my own campaign I like to roll my attack dice in the open for the players to see. So I'd end up telling the wizard the actual attack roll. But as the CSR said, that's up to DM discretion.

P.S. The same applies to any power that interrupts an opponent's attack on you. For instance, a halfling is entitled to know how much damage will be done to him by an attack before deciding whether or not to use his Second Chance halfling racial reroll power.

Show

Question 1:
Certain powers like Staff of Defense and Shield are immediate interrupts that trigger after an opponent has hit you. Those two powers in particular, when triggered, give you a bonus to your defense.

What I can't find, though, is whether or not players are supposed to know the actual attack roll their opponent made against them. For example, if I'm the DM and my monster hits a player's wizard for 5 damage, should I just tell the wizard "The monster hits you for 5 damage, but you can try and deflect the blow with your Shield spell if you want"? Or should I tell the wizard "The monster rolled an 18 and hit you for 5 damage. Since your AC is 16, though, you could use your Shield power if you like to become AC 20 and deflect the blow"?

Obviously whether or not I tell them the attack roll affects how useful the Shield spell and Staff of Defense are. If they don't know the roll then they might waste their encounter power trying to deflect something they can't. And if they do know the roll then they'll never waste the powers in vain.

So which way is it supposed to work? Or is it entirely up to DM discretion whether or not he tells the wizard what the attack roll was? Oh, and one more question: are you supposed to tell the wizard how much damage he would take on the hit before he decides whether or not to use his Shield? (If you tell him he's only going to be hit for 1 point of damage, he won't care, but he might care if you tell him he's going to be hit for 20 damage.)

Answer 1:
Thank you for writing. Technically a Wizard has the opporunity to use these abilities after you have told them the attack has hit, and even after you have determined the damage. It is up to you if you want to adjust these rules to fit your campaign, but the rules in the book allow you to use these interrupt actions after a hit has been scored and damage has been calculated.

Rob
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast


Question 2:
Thanks for the reply, but it didn't actually answer my question. Is the wizard entitled to know the actual numeric value of the attack roll (ie "The monster rolled a 16 to hit you and does 5 damage")? Or is the wizard only supposed to know that he got hit (ie "The monster hit you for 5 damage", but you don't say it rolled a 16)?

Answer 2:
Thank you for writing back. That is more of a DM style question. Some Dungeon Masters prefer to keep the exact result of the attack roll hidden from the players to increase tension when making these decisions. However you can also openly reveal the monsters' attack results so players can use their powers accordingly. The decision is yours to make.

Rob
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
Question:
Show

I some questions about the new FAQ posting on Stealth.

Assume that a creature has cover or concealment, but not Total Concealment or Superior Cover. Assume that another creature makes a minor perception check against the hidden creature.

People have taken two interpretations of applying the "targeting what you can't see" sidebar on page 281.

Some apply only what is written directly in that sidebar, meaning the creature must beat the Stealth score by ten points to pinpoint the hidden creature's location, and even then get a -5 penalty to attack.

Others believe that the requirement to beat the Stealth check by ten points and the -5 penalty to attack even after a successful Stealth check is only in situations where the creature is both hidden and Totally Concealed (since both of these rules would be inferred from the rules for Stealth and Total Concealment, and the sidebar seems to assume that the hidden creature has Total Concealment). In that case that the creature is not Totally Concealed, only the Stealth check itself must be beaten, and, if beaten, the hidden creature is revealed and there is no penalty to attack it beyond whatever cover or concealment it has.

Can you shed some light on this? Specifically, if the hidden creature doesn't have Total Concealment, does one's active perception check have to beat a hidden creature's Stealth check by 10 points to pinpoint its location? And, if the Stealth check is beaten, is the creature still hidden and does the -5 penalty still apply?

On a related note, does the -5 penalty stack with cover and concealment penalties the creature would have even if it were not hidden?


Answer:
Thank you for contacting us. The Targeting What you Can't See side bar on page 281 only applies to creatures you physically can't see, either because the creature is invisible, your blinded, or your fighting in darkness you can't see through. If the creature is not invisible, and your vision is not impeded by blindness or impenetrable darkness, and it just has normal cover or normal concealment. You only have to beat the creatures stealth check itself. You would not have to beat the stealth check by 10. If you beat the stealth check, then you can see the creature and attack it. You would just be subject to the normal penalties to attack vs. Cover (-2) or Concealment (-2).

As per the description of penalties on page 275, Penalties add together unless they are from the same power. So if a creature had Cover (-2) and Concealment (-2) the total penalty to attack would be (-4).

This question was asked and answered on 7/12/2008.
nimrand, doesn't that contradict the response in post #163?
nimrand, doesn't that contradict the response in post #163?

I don't think so. In the case discussed in post 163, the hidden creature was never spotted, so the -5 penalty would apply as described on page 281, even though the creature isn't Totally Concealed (it appears I was wrong on that point). The rest, I think, is pretty much how I thought it was, but its hard to say. Its possible that some staff aren't familiar with the new rulings on Stealth. If anyone gets a response that contradicts mine directly on point, please post.

I really wish they'd just post a clear and complete explanation on Stealth. Simply pointing people to a page in the PHB that is already one of the sources of confusion isn't very helpful.

Edit: I'm posting a follow-up question to confirm that the active perception check is a minor action.
I don't think so.

Cool. My confusion came from this part, "The Targeting What you Can't See side bar on page 281 only applies to creatures you physically can't see, either because the creature is invisible, your blinded, or your fighting in darkness you can't see through.
In #163, none of those conditions are existant. I think if the word "either" was replaced by "including" then that would have been clearer to me, as I think that is what they meant. They way it is written, to me, seemed to mean those specific conditions were exclusive of any others.
Couple of questions dealing with the staff and two weapon fighting feats.

It's been clarified that a staff as an implement can be used one handed.

Two Weapon Fighting feat states that you get a +1 if you are holding a melee weapon in each hand. It just says holding, it makes no mention of wielding, nor any requirements that the weapons are one handed, nor even that the second weapon has to have the off-hand keyword.

1) Since a wizard can hold a staff with one hand, if a wizard has the Two weapon fighting feat, the staff in his off hand, and is attacking with a dagger, will he get the benefit from the feat to the damage done by the dagger?

2) Does the weapon in the second hand need to be one with the off-hand keyword to be eligible when used with two weapon fighting?

3a) The definition for off-hand under the equipment chapter states that you can attack with the off-hand weapon when holding another weapon in your main hand. Is there anything stopping a person from holding two long swords(they don't have the off-hand keyword) and attacking with only the one in his main hand?

3b) Are there any penalties for attacking with the longsword in the main hand while holding the longsword in their off-hand?

Response (Support Agent) 07/12/2008 05:05 PM

I'll answer your questions in order:

1. You will not get the bonus from two weapon fighting while holding a staff in your off hand, as you cannot attack with it. You must be holding two weapons you could attack with to gain the two weapon fighting bonus, as well as the two weapon defense bonus.

2. It does, unless you are a ranger with the Two-Blade fighting style.

3. a. Nothing is stopping someone from doing that. They just won't get any bonuses from the two weapon feats (again, unless they are a two weapon ranger.)
b. No penalties at all, except that the off hand is taken up with the other sword.

For questions like these where the rules might seem too stringent, always remember that these are only the rules that WE have come up with, and if your DM wants things to work differently, we encourage them to change those rules to suit your game.

Good gaming!

Cody

Question:

How does Shield Push work when the enemy is in the process of shifting?

Here's an example scenario: An adjacent marked enemy tries to shift away from the fighter, granting a basic melee attack (thanks to Combat Challenge) as an immediate interrupt.

In the following diagram (F=fighter, E=enemy), the enemy is trying to shift to position 1. The fighter interrupts and pushes E to position 2.

.....
..2..
..E..
..F1.
.....


Where does the enemy end up? Are they able to choose a different destination for their shift action?

Answer:

If the enemy has been pushed to a space where he is unable to reach his original shift destination, he can choose to shift to a different location if there are other locations to shift to available. I hope this information is useful.

Good Gaming!

Marc

Question:

Let's say a fighter wields a longspear. During combat, he wants to throw a javelin. Though I see no specific rules about it in the PHB, it makes sense to me that he can temporarily hold the longspear in one hand, grab a javelin from his pack (as a minor action), and toss it (as a standard action).

My question is this: Is switching from wielding a two-handed weapon to just holding it (one-handed) a free action? Likewise for switching back from a hold to a wield.

Answer:

There are no rules that specifically cover this, so your DM will have to make the call.

Good Gaming!

Organized Play Support

You can use cover from allies to make a Stealth roll to hide against opponents at range (but not melee)

This question has been kind of an open one. According to Customer Service you can use your allies as cover to make a Stealth roll to hide against an opponent at range. In other words the cover allies give you against ranged enemies also works just like other types of cover for purposes of hiding from their view. If successful the ranged enemy will not be able to directly see you and will have to use the Targetting What You Can't See rule to guess what square you're in and would be -5 to attack you if he guesses correctly. Of course, this is only a temporary situation, since if either your ally or the ranged enemy moves there's a good chance you'll lose the cover your ally is providing and become unhidden. Similarly if you move you'll have to make a new stealth roll to remain hidden assuming you still have cover.

Also note that CSR confirms that allies do not provide cover against melee attacks, including reach attacks like polearms. Thus if there is an ally between you and an enemy with a polearm, for example, your ally is not giving you any cover from them. Which means you likewise can't try and hide behind an ally from an opponent with a reach attack.

(Note: While the ruling makes sense overall, it does produce one oddity. Namely that if there is an enemy two spaces away from you, with an ally directly between both of you, then you can try and use Stealth to hide from the enemy unless they have a reach attack, in which you can't. So you couldn't hide from an enemy with a polearm, but you could hide from an enemy with a longsword or bow. Not a huge loophole, but a DM who feels it's important enough could implement a house rule to close it.)

Show

Question:
1) Since your allies provide you cover against enemy ranged attacks, can you make a opposed Stealth Check versus the Perception of enemies at range to become hidden from their view? (Per the FAQ and your previous CSR reply you'd then have combat advantage against those ranged enemies and they'd be -5 to attack you until they can spot you with a perception check.)

2) On a related question, let's say you're fighting an enemy that has a reach weapon like a polearm. Per p.280 Cover under Reach it says that you still have cover against that enemy if the intervening square between you and them provides cover. But then under Creatures and Cover it says that allies don't provide cover against melee attacks. So my question is, if there is an ally between you and an enemy with a reach weapon, does your ally provide cover against that enemy? And if so, can you use that cover to make a Stealth check to become temporarilly hidden from view relative to that enemy as per question 1) above?

Answer:
Thank you for writing.

1. Yes you can.

2. No, your ally does not provide cover against a melee reach attack.

Paul
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
Q&A:

Dear CS,

Chameleon says "Make a Stealth check. Until the end of your next turn, you remain hidden if a creature that has a clear line of sight to you does not beat your check result with its Perception check. If at the end of your turn you do not have cover or concealment against a creature, that creature automatically notices you."

When using this power, can I make an attack and remain hidden? It seems to indicate that if I make a successful Stealth check and get to cover or concealment I remain hidden "no matter what." Is that the case?

Also, Shadow Stride says "You must be hiding to use this power. You can move your speed. At the end of that movement, if you have cover, you can make a Stealth check with no penalty for moving. If you make the Stealth check, you stay hidden during your movement."

Technically, if I roll my dice for the Stealth check, whether I pass or fail, then I've "made my Stealth check." Does that mean this power automatically allows me to remain hidden when moving from one source of cover or concealment to another? If not, then what does "making the Stealth check" mean?

Thank you for your time.

A big fan,
Juddson

Juddson,

Hello. For your first question, no, attacking always breaks you out of being hidden. This power is only for if a creature could normally see you in plain sight. There is no way to stay hidden when you make an attack.

When you ‘make a check’ in that kind of context, it means you actually successfully do the check. ‘Make the check’ can mean to actually do the roll, as in ‘you need to make a stealth check right now’, that means roll the dice and attempt to succeed the check. However, ‘making a check’ also means ‘succeeding in a check’.

Please write us back if you require any further assistance.


We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Evan T.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

Useful Star Wars Saga Links
Complete Saga Index
Expanded Saga Races PDF
NPC/Encounter Requests Thread
Official Errata Thread
Official FAQ Thread

Personal Contributions: 10,000+ posts and counting!
(The current forum count is a lie!)

Check out my DeviantArt Gallery!
Since you can't use an immediate action (chameleon) on your turn, the whole question doesn't even make any sense. You would think customer service would have mentioned that.
Since you can't use an immediate action (chameleon) on your turn, the whole question doesn't even make any sense. You would think customer service would have mentioned that.

Aargh! I hate blanket rules for just that reason! They are easy to forget!

Now I've gone and wasted everyone's time...
Useful Star Wars Saga Links
Complete Saga Index
Expanded Saga Races PDF
NPC/Encounter Requests Thread
Official Errata Thread
Official FAQ Thread

Personal Contributions: 10,000+ posts and counting!
(The current forum count is a lie!)

Check out my DeviantArt Gallery!
This is my followup question to the one I posted above.

Question:
I forgot to ask one thing in my last question. What kind of action is the active perception check vs. Stealth? Some believe its a standard action based on the perception description, but others believe its a minor action based on the example presented on page 281.

Answer:
If you read question 16 on our Player's Handbook FAQ at http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396 we get the first half of the question answered. Once you are hidden by stealth you use the rules on page 281 of the Player's Handbook to be spotted so it would be a minor action to look for you.

Anyone noticed that the very first question in the very first 4th Ed FAQ doesn't actually answer the question asked? From the PHB FAQ.

1. Can a Fighter with a 12 Constitution still use scale armor?

The Armor Proficiency (Scale) feat requires a 13 Constitution, but all fighters gain proficiency with scale armor for free (regardless of the prerequisites).

So yes or no?

Since the PHB says "If you ever lose a prerequisite for a feat, you can’t use that feat thereafter." does that mean while you have the scale armor proficiency you can't use it.

Or because you don't lose the prerequisite for the feat, since you never had it to lose in the first place, the second part of the sentence doesn't kick in?

I just found it funny, and a nice demonstration of how useful Customer Services are proving in a lot of cases.
Anyone noticed that the very first question in the very first 4th Ed FAQ doesn't actually answer the question asked? From the PHB FAQ.



So yes or no?

Since the PHB says "If you ever lose a prerequisite for a feat, you can’t use that feat thereafter." does that mean while you have the scale armor proficiency you can't use it.

Or because you don't lose the prerequisite for the feat, since you never had it to lose in the first place, the second part of the sentence doesn't kick in?

I just found it funny, and a nice demonstration of how useful Customer Services are proving in a lot of cases.

A fighter does not have the Scale Armor Proficiency feat, he just flat out has Scale Armor Proficiency. There is no feat to lose, no feat to meet the prereqs of.
Gelatinous Cube and Ending Daze:

Question:

When the Gelatinous cube uses it's "engulf" power:

MM pg. 202 "On a hit, the target is grabbed and pulled into the cube's space; the target is dazed and takes ongoing 10 acid damage until it escapes the grab."

The dazed condition reads (PHB pg. 277): "You can take either a standard action, a move action, or a minor action on your turn..."

Let's say a player is engulfed by the cube and when his turn comes up he uses a move action and successfully escapes. Is he allowed then to use his remaining standard action and minor action? Or, as the dazed condition existed at the start of his turn, even though the condition is ended those actions are lost?

Response:

You would not get your actions back if you escaped from the cube.

Please write us back if you require any further assistance.


We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Evan T

Pity no more details but this makes sense in terms of the spirit of play at any rate
At least as part of the escape action you get to shift one outside of the cube (if successful).

And I wouldn't think the dazed condition should end before the turn is over...why would it?
Bha, just attack the cube while you're being eaten by it. That's the only way my group managed to defeat the cube we faced.
Question:
Does Ongoing damage get modified by an implement enchancement bonus if the power that created that ongoing damage had the implement keyword.

For example a Cleric cast flame strike using a +2 Holy symbol, does the +2 apply only to the primary damage or does it also apply to the 5+wisdom damage.

There are also feats that do not specify with ongoing damage, Astral Fire for example adds +1 to fire and radiant damage, but does it add that +1 to ongoing fire damage ?

********************
Answer:
Hello. In these cases, it only applies to the primary damage, not the ongoing damage.

Please write us back if you require any further assistance.
You can't enter a Flaming Sphere's square, and it doesn't provide cover or concealment against attacks

This one ended up being a multi-part question and answer exchange with customer service. The actual conversation back and forth is in the spoiler block below, but to sum up I had asked a couple of questions about Flaming Sphere now that it officially occupies 1 square. The final answers are:

- Flaming Sphere blocks movement. Creatures can't move into or through the square the sphere occupies regardless of their fire resistance.

- Unlike most things that block movement, though, since it's a conjuration effect Flaming Sphere does not provide either cover or concealment versus attacks. So although a creature can't walk through the sphere, they can fire ranged attacks through it without penalty.

Anyway, the whole exchange took three back and forth steps and involved two different CSRs and an "escalation for further review" ("Hey boss, take a look at this!) Full details are in the spoiler block below.


Show

Based on the new July errata, the Flaming Sphere occupies 1 square. I do have a couple of questions, though:

- I know the sphere can't be attacked or physically altered. However, is it literally a solid object? Can a creature move through the sphere's square, or even end their movement in the sphere's square (assuming they have enough fire resistance to ignore the heat)? If creatures can move through the sphere, do they have to be allied to the caster, or is the sphere "neutral" in allowing anyone to move through it, friend or foe to the caster?

- Along the same lines, does the sphere provide cover? If so, is the cover like an obstacle in that it works against melee attacks, or is it like a creature in that it only works against ranged attacks?

- Similarly, if a creature can actually stand in the sphere's square without incinerating, do they receive concealment?


Thanks in advance for the answers to these "burning" questions. (Sorry, couldn't help it.)

********************
Page Number: p.160 Flaming Sphere
Book Name: Player's Handbook

Answer:
1) You would follow the rules for moving through occupied squares on page 283.

2) The Flaming Sphere will not provide cover.

3) The Flaming Sphere will not provide concealment.

Tony
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast


Question:
Thanks for the reply, but one follow-up question:

For purposes of p.283 "Moving Through Occupied Squares" do you consider the sphere an ally or an enemy? (It's controlled by an ally, but it harms any creature next to it so maybe it's an enemy...?)

Answer:
You will want to check out the latest updates at http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdatePH.pdf. There is an addition to Flaming Sphere. It now occupies 1 square, so you are not able to move though its square at all.

Paul
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast


Question:
Sorry to keep asking questions about flaming sphere, but I was thinking about the responses I got in this thread and I realized there seems to be a contradiction:

- Per CSR Tony "The Flaming Sphere will not provide cover."

- Per CSR Paul "you are not able to move though its square at all."

- However since you can't move through the sphere's square that means that it is considered either an enemy or it is an obstacle to movement (p.283 and 284 PHB)

- Either way, if you consider the sphere an enemy or you consider an obstacle to movement, per p.280 Cover the sphere will grant cover over lines drawn through its square. (If it's an obstacle, it grants cover against both melee and ranged attacks. If it's an enemy, it grants cover only against ranged attacks.)


So it looks like the CSR replies are contradictory. It seems like either the sphere blocks movement and hence provides cover, OR the sphere doesn't block movement and doesn't provide cover. Unless I'm misreading the rules on cover and obstacles it doesn't seem possible for the sphere to block movement and not provide cover.

Could one of you guys review my logic above and double-check on which way the sphere is supposed to work? Thanks.


(Intermission)
This email is to inform you that we have received your incident and have escalated it for further review. A representative should be contacting you concerning your incident in 24-48 hours or less. We apologize for this delay and appreciate your patience while we work to resolve this.

Tony
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

Final Answer:
The rules that to you seem to be a contradiction are in fact just special rules for conjuration. Specifically, Conjuration occupy a square therefore they block movement, however, unlike other things that block movement, conjurations do not provide cover or concealment. Please let me know if you need anymore help!

Tony
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

Question:
Does Ongoing damage get modified by an implement enchancement bonus if the power that created that ongoing damage had the implement keyword.

For example a Cleric cast flame strike using a +2 Holy symbol, does the +2 apply only to the primary damage or does it also apply to the 5+wisdom damage.

There are also feats that do not specify with ongoing damage, Astral Fire for example adds +1 to fire and radiant damage, but does it add that +1 to ongoing fire damage ?

********************
Answer:
Hello. In these cases, it only applies to the primary damage, not the ongoing damage.

Please write us back if you require any further assistance.

This is because the damage bonuses are added to damage rolls. Since ongoing damage is not rolled, there can be no bonuses added.

TBP
This is because the damage bonuses are added to damage rolls. Since ongoing damage is not rolled, there can be no bonuses added.

TBP

As a general rule yes, but note that exceptions exist. Channel Divinity: Divine Strength, for example, modifiers damage, not damage rolls. As such it would add to static damage such as Cleave or Reaping Strike.
More things concerning Stealth and being hidden:

Question:

Customer (Ad) 07/19/2008 07:44 AM

Thanks for your timely response, Tony.

Forgive me for not being the sharpest crayon in the box, but I just want to make sure that I understand your answers.

1. "Hidden" now means that you gaincombat advantage, enemies must use the rules for targeting what they cannot see, and enemies attack you at a -5 penalty. Correct?

2. The first time you attempt to use Stealth with Cover and Concealment it is just a straight opposed check, because you are not actually hidden yet. If you win the inital check, you are thereafter considered "hidden". Correct?

3. The first time you use Stealth with Superior Cover or Total Concealment, the combination of this skill and these battlegrid features automatically prevents you from being seen, so in effect, you are already "hidden". Correct?

So to paraphrase . . .

If you only have cover or concealment, you need to win the intial opposed check to become "hidden."

If you have total concealment or superior cover to work with when using Stealth, these features automatically make you "hidden" right of the bat.


Answer:


Response (Support Agent) 07/19/2008 11:14 AM
Ad,

Tony's off today, but please allow me to fill his shoes and hopefully clear up your stealth questions. I'll tackle them in order:

1. This is correct.
2. Correct.
3. Correct; the stealth check is just to see if they can tell where you might be, i.e. can they determine your direction or exact square, even though they can't see you. If you're in a totally dark room, but you can see and your opponent can't, you are hidden and gain all the advantages that entails, but they still might hear you so you still make a stealth check and they still make a perception check.

I hope this helps! Just reply to this email if you have further questions.

Cody
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
Original Question:

Shift states "If you shift out of a square adjacent to an enemy, you don't provoke an oppurtunity attack" pg. 292

What happens if an enemy shifts towards you while you have the Polearm Gamble feat and are wielding a Polearm. So he starts 2 squares away and shifts in towards you so he is adjacent.

Polearm Gamble

Paragon Tier
PreRequisite: Str 15, Wis 15
Benefit: When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn.
Special: Weapon feat

1.) Polearm Gamble only states that "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you" it doesn't say how he enters that square (ie the shift). So in this case will shifting not protect the enemy from the oppurtunity attack?

2.) What about Threatening Reach (MM pg. 283)? This is similar except the monster could make the attacks even if you didn't move closer to it?

3.) So in summary do shifts only protect against OAs from adjacent enemies (as worded)?

CS Answer:

Thank you for writing.

In this case, because of the feat, they would get the Opportunity Attack when someone enters an adjacent square. Whether it was from normal movement or a shift.

Good Gaming!


We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Paul
Customer Service Representative

I wonder how forced movement affects that. For example, a warlock ally pushes an enemy so he ends up adjacent to you. Could you then use polearm gamble to smack him? It only says "enters a square adjacent to you", and says nothing of it being the creature's move action.

Likewise, if an enemy teleports next to you.

That may be a good follow-up question to ask them.
When my computer inevitably explodes and kills me, my cat inherits everything I own. He may be the only one capable of continuing my work. And Stay Down: The Polearm Momentum Handbook
I wonder how forced movement affects that. For example, a warlock ally pushes an enemy so he ends up adjacent to you. Could you then use polearm gamble to smack him? It only says "enters a square adjacent to you", and says nothing of it being the creature's move action.

Likewise, if an enemy teleports next to you.

That may be a good follow-up question to ask them.

I was thinking the same thing. My guess is CS seems to be going with the RAW wherein Polearm Gamble is an exception so your allies could in fact pull push or slide enemies into your waiting blade. Makes warlord/fighter teams interesting.

Sadly I'm too lazy to ask CS right now, maybe later tonight :P
Raven Queen's Blessing does not trigger from damage due to conjurations

I was getting ready to play a cleric worshipping The Raven Queen and came across this slight ambiguity. Basically, per the CSR, it sounds like Raven Queen's Blessing will trigger for any damage you personally do, including ongoing damage and damage from zone effects like Consecrated Ground (ie powers with the Zone keyword). However it will not trigger based on damage done by conjurations such as Guardian of Faith or Spiritual Weapon (ie spells with the Conjuration keyword).

Show

Question -
The power Raven Queen's Blessing (RQB) triggers when "your attack" drops an enemy within range to 0 hit points. I have a few quick questions about what counts as "your attack":

- Does RQB trigger if your conjuration such as Guardian of Faith kills an enemy? (Guardian of Faith is a conjured 1 square guardian that automatically makes attack rolls against adjacent enemies.)

- Does RQB trigger if a zone such as Consecrated Ground kills an enemy? (Consecrated Ground does automatic damage with no attack roll to enemies that start their turn in the zone.)

- What about if ongoing damage kills an enemy, such as the ongoing 5 fire damage from Avenging Flame?

- Finally, what about if you use Cause Fear on an enemy, and the enemy fleeing provokes an opportunity attack that kills the enemy? Would that trigger RQB?


Thanks in advance for the help. You guys are great.

********************
Page Number: p.200 & p.63-64
Book Name: Players Handbook

Answer -
A summoned creature's attacks are not considered your own and it will not trigger Raven Queen's Blessing. Any other damage dealt directly by you will trigger the blessing.


Charles
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
No changes necessary to Keep on the Shadowfell based on the DMG skill errata

Here's some good news for KotS DMs like me. According to customer service we don't need to adjust any of the skill DCs or skill challenges in KotS based on the changes to the default skill DCs in the DMG errata this month (p.42 errata made default skill DCs much easier, and also changed the number of failures for skill challenges.)

Show

Question -
In the July 2008 DMG errata there were many changes to the easy, moderate and hard skill DCs on p.42 and elsewhere. There were also changes to how skill challenges are handled, such as making all skill challenges use exactly 3 failures.

Given the changes in the DMG errata, what changes do I need to make to the skill DCs and skill challenges in Keep on the Shadowfell? Some of the skill checks in KotS seem to be ok, since they're based on guidelines in the Player's Handbook for that skill (eg some of the Perception checks seem appropriate). Other checks, like the DCs when doing the skill challenge for Sir Keegan, seem high compared to the modified numbers in the DMG errata, and the number of failures for Sir Keegan likewise seems like it should be three instead of four.

If you have a list of changes you'd recommend making to the skill DCs and skill challenges in KotS, that would be super-awesome. If not, if you could give guidelines or even some specific things I definitely ought to change, that'd be helpful. I'd also seriously recommend putting out an official errata for KotS soon that incorporates the changes to the DMG, since I'm sure there are a lot of DMs like myself who are currently trying to run that module. (And I'd also add that an errata for H2 Thunderspire is probably needed as well, since it was printed and released prior to the DMG errata too.)

(Escalation of question)
This email is to inform you that we have received your incident and have escalated it for further review. A representative should be contacting you concerning your incident in 24-48 hours or less. We apologize for this delay and appreciate your patience while we work to resolve this.

Marc
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast


Answer -
There are no changes necessary to the skill challenges in Keep on the Shadowfell. Thanks for contacting us.

Tony
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
No changes necessary to Keep on the Shadowfell based on the DMG skill errata

Here's some good news for KotS DMs like me. According to customer service we don't need to adjust any of the skill DCs or skill challenges in KotS based on the changes to the default skill DCs in the DMG errata this month (p.42 errata made default skill DCs much easier, and also changed the number of failures for skill challenges.)

Wow Bodyknock. You got a better answer than I did.

My question:

Discussion Thread
07/20/2008 10:49 PM

Thanks for your time.

The revised DCs presented in the recent DMG errata are a BIG change with major implications. Will a developer address the nature of the change at some point, giving the whys and wherefores regarding it?

Also, this revision already impacts released material, ie the Skill DCs in Keep of the Shadowfell. Will errata for that adventure be given, or at least general advice on changing/not changing the adventure's DCs; and how soon will yet-to-be-released material reflect the revision, ie will Thunderspire Labyrinth have DCs that reflect the new DCs, or will DMs have to patch that adventure?

Their answer:


We can only help clarify existing rules, but unfortunately we cannot help you deconstruct the specific rules or entries as they are printed, nor can we offer explanations for why the rules were created in specific ways.

Thank you, Bodyknock, for answering half of my questions. I still wish Collins or Mearls or someone would comment/explain the reason behind revision though.
DarthKurse - I recognize that answer! It's the same one I got when I asked why the favored soul didn't have knowledge (religion) as a trained skill.

"Patience is the calm acceptance that things can happen in a different order than the one you have in mind."

~ David G. Allen

 

Would you like to help build the D&D 5e forum community?
You can start by introducing yourself here.
DarthKurse - I recognize that answer! It's the same one I got when I asked why the favored soul didn't have knowledge (religion) as a trained skill.

omg. You mean I was pre-answered? Ugh. Now I'm even more disillusioned.

DarthKurse -- struggling to maintain a love for 4e.
The July errata has altered the Endurance DCs for all the diseases in the DMG, including Mummy Rot. However, Mummy Rot also appears in the MM (where there are actually three different versions). I recently brought this up with Customer Service, explaining that there are now technically four official versions of Mummy Rot (the DMG version, the MM version that used to be the same as the DMG version, and "lesser" and "greater" versions of the MM version).

This was their response:
After researching the matter further, you will want to go with the new version of mummy rot. I will pass along the fact that the Monster Manual does not reflect the current change. Thank you for brining it to our attention.

So hopefully that means we'll be getting some more official errata soon -- namely, to bring the Endurance DCs for the Mummy Rot disease in the MM in line with the one in the DMG. I'm just wondering whether the MM's "lesser" and "greater" versions will also get errata'd (because I'm thinking that they probably should). I've brought this to Customer Service's attention as well.

EDIT: Here's Paul's response to my second question (about the "lesser" and "greater" versions of Mummy Rot):
For now the other two should remain unchanged. If the guys that work on the updates deem that it needs to be changed it to will get updated. Thanks again for pointing this out.

Does anyone know if there are any other diseases in the DMG that are also in the MM that need correcting? Actually, that makes me wonder whether the diseases that are in the MM but not in the DMG need errata as well!


Cheers,
Jonathan

"Patience is the calm acceptance that things can happen in a different order than the one you have in mind."

~ David G. Allen

 

Would you like to help build the D&D 5e forum community?
You can start by introducing yourself here.
I sent off to Customer Service concerning the issue. I made my question as thorough as possible.

Let me start by thanking you for your time.

I believe one rather creative player has found a flaw in the specific wording of the Paragon Multi-Class that may need Errata.

If I am wrong and the interpretation is correct please let me know.

The wording is such:

Paragon Multiclassing
At 11th level, you can choose to replace one of your
at-will powers with an at-will power from your second
class.

Now as this is written it does not specify that the at-will power has to be from your class. That's where Basic Attack comes in.

Basic Attack
A basic attack is an at-will attack power that everyone
possesses, regardless of class. The power comes in two
forms: melee and ranged.

By this definition a Basic Attack could be replaced using Paragon Multi-Classing.

I do not think this is the intent of the rule but with the present wording I can find no counter to it. Perhaps it should read retrain rather than replace? Or have the words "from your first class" inserted?

changing replace to retrain would solve the issue according to the retraining rules.


7. Powers
At most levels, you gain access to a new power. You can
take each power only once (you can’t choose the same
power multiple times). Refer to your class description
in Chapter 4 for a full listing of the powers available to
you.
At-Will Attack Powers: At 1st level, choose two
at-will attack powers from the list in your class description.
You don’t automatically learn new at-will powers
as you advance, but as you gain levels you can choose
to retrain (see “Retraining,” below) and replace an atwill
power you know with a new one.

Power: You can replace a power with another
power of the same type (at-will attack power, encounter
attack power, daily attack power, or utility power),
of the same level or lower, and from the same class—a
5th-level attack power for another 5th-level attack

********************
Page Number: 209, 287, and 27-28
Book Name: Player's Handbook 4E

I received the response I expected.

Michael,

Hello. You can not use a basic attack for this. It is meant to be interpreted as any at will power besides a basic attack.

Please write us back if you require any further assistance.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Cool, but there's still a pretty big exploit there. Try multiclassing as a Wizard into something like Warlock. Wizards have tons of "at-will powers" in the form of cantrips to trade out. Assuming cantrips are actually powers (they are listed in the powers section), and there's nothing special protecting them, then you could certainly trade one of your more useless cantrips for a powerful at-will attack power from your new class. Bwahahah. :D

Maybe do a follow-up question?
When my computer inevitably explodes and kills me, my cat inherits everything I own. He may be the only one capable of continuing my work. And Stay Down: The Polearm Momentum Handbook
Cool, but there's still a pretty big exploit there. Try multiclassing as a Wizard into something like Warlock. Wizards have tons of "at-will powers" in the form of cantrips to trade out. Assuming cantrips are actually powers (they are listed in the powers section), and there's nothing special protecting them, then you could certainly trade one of your more useless cantrips for a powerful at-will attack power from your new class. Bwahahah. :D

Maybe do a follow-up question?

If you look Cantrips are considered a class feature under the Retraining rules.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

dang
When my computer inevitably explodes and kills me, my cat inherits everything I own. He may be the only one capable of continuing my work. And Stay Down: The Polearm Momentum Handbook
Sadly, "It is meant to be interpreted as" is not the same thing as "it says". CS needs to be more vigilant about this distinction.

In fairness to them, probably less than 5% of the DM population would ever let at player do this anyways.