Reparation Apparatus doesn't work with Battlerager Vigor temporary hit points. You only add the 2d6 if you use a power that grants temporary hit points. Temporary hit points gained by the Battlerager Vigor class feature are gained via a feature, not the use of a power.
However, the item does work nicely with various utility and encounter powers out there, as well as Invigorating powers. Although, it's benefits will trail off over time, as the 2d6 doesn't scale while your HP and damage taken do.
So the reparation apparatus does not work with the at-will attack Crushing Surge? Warforged Resolve gains +2d6 real healing and +2d6 temp hp.
Every item becomes obsolete over time. So not scaling is something that would not bother me. Broken at 6th level and not broken at 22nd level does not mean an item is not broken.
So the reparation apparatus does not work with the at-will attack Crushing Surge? Warforged Resolve gains +2d6 real healing and +2d6 temp hp.
D&DI Compendium]Crushing Surge Fighter Attack 1
The feel of your weapon crunching against the enemy puts your heart back in the fight. At-Will Invigorating, Martial, Weapon Standard Action Melee Weapon Target: One creature Attack: Strength vs. AC Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level.[/quote wrote:
Crushing Surge Fighter Attack 1
The feel of your weapon crunching against the enemy puts your heart back in the fight. At-Will Invigorating, Martial, Weapon Standard Action Melee Weapon Target: One creature Attack: Strength vs. AC Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level.
D&DI Compendium]Reparation Apparatus
This gauntlet-like contraption enhances your ability repair constructs.
Level: 6 Price: 1800 gp Item Slot: Hands
Property: When you use a healing power on a construct, that creature regains an additional 2d6 hit points. When you use a power to grant temporary hit points to a construct, that creature gains an additional 2d6 temporary hit points.
First published in Dragon Magazine 365.
From the quoted text, it won't work with Crushing Surge, since the temporary hit points do NOT come from the power itself.
As to it working with Warforged Resolve, I think that is open to discussion, but that is purely my personal interpretation of "use a healing power on a construct" as compared to an internal healing power. But also remember that the resolve power only adds real hit points when the warforged is already bloodied, so that extra healing is not going to be that significant, IMO.
After all it is 4 hit points + 2d6, so probably smaller than a normal Second Wind, much less a Cleric's Healing Word wrote:
Reparation Apparatus
This gauntlet-like contraption enhances your ability repair constructs.
Level: 6 Price: 1800 gp Item Slot: Hands
Property: When you use a healing power on a construct, that creature regains an additional 2d6 hit points. When you use a power to grant temporary hit points to a construct, that creature gains an additional 2d6 temporary hit points.
First published in Dragon Magazine 365.[/quote] From the quoted text, it won't work with Crushing Surge, since the temporary hit points do NOT come from the power itself.
As to it working with Warforged Resolve, I think that is open to discussion, but that is purely my personal interpretation of "use a healing power on a construct" as compared to an internal healing power. But also remember that the resolve power only adds real hit points when the warforged is already bloodied, so that extra healing is not going to be that significant, IMO.
After all it is 4 hit points + 2d6, so probably smaller than a normal Second Wind, much less a Cleric's Healing Word; the Healing Word could also get the benefit of the Reparation Apparatus, although it looks like the healer rather than the healed needs to be wearing the item at the time of using the power with healing on a construct.
On second thought, since that is likely to be the only benefit to the Warforged wearing the apparatus, I would allow it.
Of course, the other implication of the newRPGA philosophy is that the DM at the table is actually a DM--as far as I can tell, if you as a DM decide that some combination of powers works better together than intended, you're free to declare by DM fiat that it just doesn't work that way at your table. For that matter, in discussions about Blade Cascade before errata came out, some campaign staff were implying that a DM could just house rule away the plain meaning of a single power if they thought the plain meaning was against the Rules as the DM thought were Intended.
So, the answer is: No, campaign staff are barred from ever implying that something that WOTC puts out is not suitable for use in the campaign. However, if you as DM personally and strongly don't like something, you can probably (either through inherent DM powers or DME) declare it anathema at your table.
-- Brian Gibbons.
Yeah, from talking to guys like Tulach at all those personal appearances he made to tout LFR, it definitely seemed this was the way the staff and WotC were leaning. The almighty sacred cow of table experiences being nearly equal because the base rules were the same was most definitely slaughtered to make hamburger. In light of the staff not getting to ban things, DM empowerment definitely should take up the slack. I figure if a DM "house rules" things too far, you can complain, but a broken combo that WotC feels "no sane DM will allow" is open game for DME to keep out of an LFR game.
Yeah, from talking to guys like Tulach at all those personal appearances he made to tout LFR, it definitely seemed this was the way the staff and WotC were leaning. The almighty sacred cow of table experiences being nearly equal because the base rules were the same was most definitely slaughtered to make hamburger. In light of the staff not getting to ban things, DM empowerment definitely should take up the slack. I figure if a DM "house rules" things too far, you can complain, but a broken combo that WotC feels "no sane DM will allow" is open game for DME to keep out of an LFR game.
Does this mean that it is fair DM Empowerment game to say, "no, you can't play a warforged dhampyr at my table"?
If I were DMing a home game, I would hit all of Dragon magazine with a blanket banhammer--check with me for a short list of things I would allow. (Given the choice, even the PHB and Adventurer's Vault would not be safe--I would also disallow warlocks, dragonborn, tieflings, Bloodclaw weapons, ritualists rings, Righteous Wrath of Tempus, Battle Awareness, Battlerager and Tempest fighters, all double weapons except the Urgrosh, and a host of other items).
My Living Greyhawk-derived-shared-table-experience sacred cow has thus far kept me from using DM Empowerment to any significant extent (beyond rewriting the execrable plot hook/Intro to Radiant Vessel of Thesk), but expecting DMs to fix problems with on the fly houserules opens the question of where DM Empowerment stops. No switching veteran's armors in between combats. Rain of blows only gives 1/2/3 attacks. Leave your furries (minotaurs, gnolls, etc), gothbait (tieflings and dhampyrs), and dragonmen at home if you want to play. There is obviously a dramatic continuum of DM empowerment, house rules, and similar table experience expressed in those statements, but I don't see a bright line that would clearly differentiate one kind of "DM empowerment to ban" from another kind as described above. One man's "no sane DM would allow it" is another man's standard operating proceedure. The goal of a shared table experience and rules used to (and to some extent still do, if only by force of habit) provide some basis for stopping well short of disallowing otherwise legal characters. But the more people push the DMEmpowerment envelope, the more reasonable it would seem to go to that seemingly hyperbolic end. I at least don't see a really big difference between a DM adopting the kind of "balance" centric house rules that, for instance, Titanium Dragon used in his evaluations of epic level play and asking players to "fix" otherwise legal characters. At the moment, I wouldn't do either, but if the campaign rules derived norm disappears, who knows what could happen?
Does this mean that it is fair DM Empowerment game to say, "no, you can't play a warforged dhampyr at my table"?
If I were DMing a home game, I would hit all of Dragon magazine with a blanket banhammer--check with me for a short list of things I would allow. (Given the choice, even the PHB and Adventurer's Vault would not be safe--I would also disallow warlocks, dragonborn, tieflings, Bloodclaw weapons, ritualists rings, Righteous Wrath of Tempus, Battle Awareness, Battlerager and Tempest fighters, all double weapons except the Urgrosh, and a host of other items).
My Living Greyhawk-derived-shared-table-experience sacred cow has thus far kept me from using DM Empowerment to any significant extent (beyond rewriting the execrable plot hook/Intro to Radiant Vessel of Thesk), but expecting DMs to fix problems with on the fly houserules opens the question of where DM Empowerment stops. No switching veteran's armors in between combats. Rain of blows only gives 1/2/3 attacks. Leave your furries (minotaurs, gnolls, etc), gothbait (tieflings and dhampyrs), and dragonmen at home if you want to play. There is obviously a dramatic continuum of DM empowerment, house rules, and similar table experience expressed in those statements, but I don't see a bright line that would clearly differentiate one kind of "DM empowerment to ban" from another kind as described above. One man's "no sane DM would allow it" is another man's standard operating proceedure. The goal of a shared table experience and rules used to (and to some extent still do, if only by force of habit) provide some basis for stopping well short of disallowing otherwise legal characters. But the more people push the DMEmpowerment envelope, the more reasonable it would seem to go to that seemingly hyperbolic end. I at least don't see a really big difference between a DM adopting the kind of "balance" centric house rules that, for instance, Titanium Dragon used in his evaluations of epic level play and asking players to "fix" otherwise legal characters. At the moment, I wouldn't do either, but if the campaign rules derived norm disappears, who knows what could happen?
I'd say yes to some extent. If the bottom line is the most people at the table having fun, with the strong desire that all people at the table have fun, then the DM having the banhammer in his bag of tricks is allowable. The old LG phrase of "Expect Table Variation" should apply to some of the RAW-but-barely things out there. The guy who has that "unbeatable, I win all combats and everyone else just sits around watching me be cool" combo should expect folks to say "No" if it really sucks the fun out of the table. But DME doesn't mean "here is my 147 pages of house rules" being stuffed down the throats of the players by the DM.
I would really like this not to get too silly. LFR needs to let this problem fix itself, and it will. If there is some ridiculous class/race/power/item combo the so be it. With the speed that you can gain levels do you really think that these players will want to play the came character with the same equipment over and over. If you want to be like someone else then that is your sad problem, "don't complain when it gets stale" is a really good response to players who want to clone each other. Big deal, let some one have their 15 minutes of hard hittiness and they will be bored then move on. LC sucked towards the end because you had to buy a players handbook then practically download another one and constantly cross reference or ask permission for some ability or item. Then came Greyhawk, which I played beginning to end. Change the rules every year and cherry picking stuff from each and every book was the order of the day. that got old having to lose a feat you used for a year and a half because it was "overpowered". Of course PCs make it easy. Play testers probably didn't have player reward cards while working out the kinks in 4e land. Now you not only get one use out of them but two with the re-roll. Why does no one complain about that "benefit"? Contrary to that little rant's venom I would like to say that I just got home from a 6hr drive to play FLR all weekend and i did this because it is fun. That is just my perspective...............
Once again... the misunderstanding of DME rears its ugly head...
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e?
1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
I had my personal worst weekend of LFR yesterday (I did have a little fun, but I was less than enamored of the experience). I identified three major contributors to my dissatisfaction: poor party composition (1st table: 2 defenders, controller, striker - 2nd table: 4 defenders, striker), poor editing/execution of the LFR materials (plot holes, lazy mod writing), and most pertinent to this thread, a negative DM.
Saying "no" is always worse than saying "yes". DME should be used to increase the difficulty of the mod if the players are sailing through it. It should not be used to limit teamwork or nerf items/powers. IMO, a good DM allows most player requests and even stretches a bit to make allowances that the rules might not for a particularly fun or daring idea. That is what makes a good experience: even if the mod sucks, the DM can fix stuff on the fly, adjusting challenges up or down to accommodate the players at his/her table.
The DM mentality I ran up against yesterday was discouraging, and I guess I just don't understand the whole concept of DM vs PCs. D&D is not about winning and losing; go play WoW if you want a definite victor. I play this game to have fun, either as a DM or player, and in either capacity, I usually play to the cinematic moments where players shine or villains momentarily triumph. The collaboration in making memorable stories is what I treasure most in D&D; when I see an inflexible DM cling to an blown aspect of story because the mod tells him to, I get turned off.
Moral of the story: DMs need to say "yes" more. Don't worry; allowing PCs to do crazy things only means that you get to ramp up the enemies to match.
From the quoted text, it won't work with Crushing Surge, since the temporary hit points do NOT come from the power itself.
As to it working with Warforged Resolve, I think that is open to discussion, but that is purely my personal interpretation of "use a healing power on a construct" as compared to an internal healing power. But also remember that the resolve power only adds real hit points when the warforged is already bloodied, so that extra healing is not going to be that significant, IMO.
After all it is 4 hit points + 2d6, so probably smaller than a normal Second Wind, much less a Cleric's Healing Word; the Healing Word could also get the benefit of the Reparation Apparatus, although it looks like the healer rather than the healed needs to be wearing the item at the time of using the power with healing on a construct.
On second thought, since that is likely to be the only benefit to the Warforged wearing the apparatus, I would allow it.
Well the invigorating powers are a gray area, The temp HP are granted through the use of a power so they meet that requirement, there is nothing that says the power has to have any odd keywords or anything. But the benefit of the gloves extends to Warforged resolve, any attack that has a healing keyword that grants you a surge back and several utilities etc. Also I plan with my warforged battlerager, named Broken Rulez who was created in like 5 minutes one day when I realized the mod we were about to play was one I had already played on all my characters of that level range, and who turned out to actually be a fun defender to play, to buy two pairs of the gloves, one for myself to wear and one to hand to any leader in the group who doesn't have a glove slot item already to borrow. I am quite content in games if a DM says "nope, those won't work on invigorating powers" to just use them on my powers that are very cut and dry yes it works type powers and the loaner pair to the cleric/warlord etc. And if the DM agrees it's silly but should work I'll play by the rules as written until someone higher up says that it doesn't work that way because of such and such a reason.
Of course they could just errata the warforged race to be "Living Constructs" keyword and not just "Construct" keyword, thus invalidating the item for them entirely.
From the quoted text, it won't work with Crushing Surge, since the temporary hit points do NOT come from the power itself.
As to it working with Warforged Resolve, I think that is open to discussion, but that is purely my personal interpretation of "use a healing power on a construct" as compared to an internal healing power. But also remember that the resolve power only adds real hit points when the warforged is already bloodied, so that extra healing is not going to be that significant, IMO.
After all it is 4 hit points + 2d6, so probably smaller than a normal Second Wind, much less a Cleric's Healing Word; the Healing Word could also get the benefit of the Reparation Apparatus, although it looks like the healer rather than the healed needs to be wearing the item at the time of using the power with healing on a construct.
On second thought, since that is likely to be the only benefit to the Warforged wearing the apparatus, I would allow it.
Actually, it DOES work with Crushing Surge. Invigorating powers grant temporary HP. What I said was that the temporary HP does not work with the temporary HP granted by the Battlerager Vigor class feature (you know, the one where you get temps when you take damage from a melee or close attack).
Dave Kay LFR Writing Director Retiree dkay807 [at] yahoo [dot] com
