|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 1:56AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I submitted a new question on this. I quoted both of the questions and answers in this thread in their entirity. I mentioned the Dragon Article as the relevant example. I pointer out the potential difference on how resistance and vulnerability work on page 55 and page 278 ... I tried to be very complete. There's no need to flood custserv with the same question ... I'll post as soon as I get the response.
EDIT: Personally the thing that really bugs me about squirrelloid's question is that in quoting acid arrow in the answer it call into doubt whether paul understood what he was asking.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:02PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Well I got a very unsatisfying answer, but hopefully it means an errata soon. I asked Spoiler:
Show
The new Dragon_364 class acts article on illusions has several examples of spells that do psychic damage, but do not have the psychic keyword.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080616
The players handbook has no examples of of powers that deal damage of a type that is not also a keyword for that power, and reading page 55 could suggest that a power that deal a particular type of damage must have that keyword.
To further complicate things apparently different custserv reps have given different answers on this subject that have been posted on the boards (copied below).
Does "Illusory Ambush" from the dragon article have the psychic keyword even though it isn't listed?
Does the "Psychic Lock" (PHB pg 205) work with "Illusory Ambush" to provide a -4 penalty to the targets attack on it's next turn.
Are dragon magazine articles going to receive the kind of support that other published material will receive (errata, FAQs etc)?
If damage type is not strictly tied to the power's keywords how does this affect resistances and vulnerabilities? Page 55 seems to indicate it's tied to the keyword, while page 276 mentions only damage type.
Thank You,
James
_______________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by squirloid
This is a two-part question, with the second question dependent on the answer to the first.
(A) Page 55 of the PHB strongly suggests that a spell which does damage of a given type also gains the keyword of that type. To whit: "For instance, a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword." Literally, if it deals acid damage then it gains the acid keyword. Is this a correct reading of this passage, and is the implication general (if a power deals x damage type, it gains the x keyword)?
(B) If A is not true, does that mean that a power which doesn't have the x keyword but deals x type damage isn't subject to vulnerability or immunity, as per the next paragraph: "Keywords help to determine how, or if, a power works when the target has resistance, vulnerability, or immunity to a damage type or an effect..."? This line of thought is continued in the subsequent paragraph, and strongly implies that resistance/immunity/et al. only look at the keywords to determine their effectiveness. So, hypothetically, if a power deals acid damage but does not have the Acid keyword, a creature who is immune to Acid still takes full damage from the power?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul@CustServe
Thank you for writing. That is true. If you look at the first level daily power of acid arrow, Acid is a keyword listed in the text.
___________________________
By Stardock
Question
if a power deals a certain type of damage does it have that keyword? For instance if a power deals fire damage does it have the fire keyword?
I'm trying to understand how keywords work in relation to damage types.
Answer
Greetings,
Even though powers that deal a particular type of damage will often have the appropriate keyword to that damage, it doesn't necessarily have to have that keyword. Thanks for contacting us.
Tony
Customer Service Representative
********************
Page Number: 55
Book Name: PHB 4E & Dragon 364 Class Acts
they answered Spoiler:
Show
James,
Thanks for the great feedback! We’ve passed this along to the good folks that make the games and hopefully we’ll see some errata covering this situation soon. Until then, it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants to handle this particular situation in their campaign.
I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused.
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.
Joe
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
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:58PM
#43
|
|
|
I submitted a new question on this. I quoted both of the questions and answers in this thread in their entirity. I mentioned the Dragon Article as the relevant example. I pointer out the potential difference on how resistance and vulnerability work on page 55 and page 278 ... I tried to be very complete. There's no need to flood custserv with the same question ... I'll post as soon as I get the response.
EDIT: Personally the thing that really bugs me about squirrelloid's question is that in quoting acid arrow in the answer it call into doubt whether paul understood what he was asking.
I agree, that bugged me as well. But my question seems to be perfectly clear on what it was asking, and he basically told me that I was entirely correct.
I honestly hate asking questions specifically related to the items i'm directly interested in (in this case, the illusion powers), because I fear CustServe will give me a 'this is how those powers are intended to work' answer rather than a 'this is how the rules actually work', so I tend to ask more general questions in the hopes of getting clarification of the general mechanics which make the specific obvious, and keep the answering representatives biases out of it. I think a lot of the contrarian answers we get from CustServe are due to them deciding that something shouldn't work as per the general mechanic despite any rules to provide for an exception.
You'll notice my bolstering blood question meticulously avoided the subject of blood pulse, because I was afraid of the CustServe representative recoiling in horror and just saying "no, it doesn't work" without explanation. That the answer I received implies it shouldn't work as written (and there will be errata to fix it) was far less biased and still came to the same conclusion on intent, which honestly made me feel more comfortable with the answer.
As to the disconnect on resistance/immunity/etc... if keyword <==> damage type, then there is no conflict. Its only if damage type is independent of keyword that there's actually a conflict.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 1:27PM
#44
|
|
|
Evan T. (Wizard CSR) 19/06/2008
Can ranged attackers, eg. rogues and rangers, use cover (eg, walls, pillars) or concealment (eg. bushes, darkness) to make stealth attacks during combat?
You can make a stealth attempt with any action that you do. So, if you have cover or concealment, you can attempt to hide yourself as part of your attack. If you are successful, then you are given combat advantage against your opponents who can not see you.
Is it part of the design intention of 4E that players are encouraged to make use of tactics that can grant Combat Advantage, and using terrain to make stealth attacks is intended and encouraged by the rules?
This stealth system was implemented to make cover and concealment useful to players, and make the environment more interactive.
Edit: Further answer from Joe 19/06/2008
So the core question here that I would like to confirm is: each time a player attempts a stealth attack during combat (which could be each round for each stealther), the player's stealth check DC is:
a) the passive perception of their target (since this is the only monster they need to be hidden against)
b) an active perception roll for the target (requiring a roll from both player and DM, each turn)
c) the passive perception of all monsters in range, whether they're involved in this attack or not
d) the active perception checks of all monsters in range (requiring multiple rolls from the DM each turn)
The Stealth check is opposed by a Perception check from each observer. To gain combat advantage on the attack, the attacker only needs to succeed vs the target, though the DM can of course play around with this. Unless characters are actively being perceptive, use the passive value.
The DM will always make the final ruling on any issue that arises.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 1:57PM
#45
|
|
|
Seal of Binding doesn't prohibit ongoing damage or 'non-attack' damage attack is apparently defined as 'anything involving a to-hit roll'Spoiler:
Show
When a power references the term "attack" (as a noun), what precisely is it referring to? Any function of a non-utility power? Anything requiring an attack roll? Any "Hit" text? Is damage from Wall of Ice an attack - even if it's incurred by the creature attacking the wall? (Ok, that last one seems kind of silly, doesn't it?)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 2:28PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Ive got a serious problem with the rules concerning psychic damage and powers that affect the mind. The target line of the powers should say: One living creature. It doesn't make sense to use certain Wizard and Warlock powers on construct and Undead (see confusion, Sleep, delusions of loyalty, whispers of the fey. Anyone else have a problem with this?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 4:05PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2003
|
No I don't.
Though I recall that in the DMG items are assumed to be immune to poison, necrotic, and psychic damage. So maybe you could expand on that if you like.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 4:28PM
#48
|
|
|
Ive got a serious problem with the rules concerning psychic damage and powers that affect the mind. The target line of the powers should say: One living creature. It doesn't make sense to use certain Wizard and Warlock powers on construct and Undead (see confusion, Sleep, delusions of loyalty, whispers of the fey. Anyone else have a problem with this?
It could be argued that psychic powers and effects are more than simply messing with a living person's mind and more like magic insofar that they mess with the fabric of reality. So putting a skeleton to sleep is the psychic power interfering with necrotic energies binding the skeleton together. Thus it goes inanimate for a short time. Same could be said for constructs but it is messing with the magic that animates it, etc. It's not too far of a stretch considering we're dealing powers that warp reality and defy the norms of physics anyway!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 8:32PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
What stops people from making this stuff up all by themselves? How do we know these are at all legit?
Simple, you can ask customer service yourself if you don't think the answer posted here is legit. WotC customer service has been great about getting back within 24 hours or less. So it's very easy to double check an answer you don't trust.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 8:36PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
Kobold dragonshields can evade a charge attack by shifting away, but they can't fully evade someone who does a move action followed by a standard actionSpoiler:
Show
Question:
Kobold Dragonshields have an immediate reaction ability that triggers when an enemy moves adjacent to them that lets the kobold shift 1 square.
The question that came up was this: if you charge a kobold dragonshield, and he shifts 1 square away from you when you move next to him, if you moved less than your speed can you move 1 more square to end your charge next to the kobold? Or does his shift end the charge because you had to declare your starting and ending point for your movement?
Similarly, if you use a move action to walk next to a kobold, and he shifts 1 square away, if you walked less than your speed can you walk one more square to end your move action next to him? Or would you have to declare your starting and ending points for your walk action beforehand?
Answer:
Thank you for contacting us. The answers to you questions are below.
1.) If you charge a kobold dragonshield, and he shifts 1 square away from you when you move next to him, if you moved less than your speed can you move 1 more square to end your charge next to the kobold? Or does his shift end the charge because you had to declare your starting and ending point for your movement?
-As per the rules of charge on page 287 and 288 in the Players Handbook, once you have charged you can take no other actions unless you spend an action point to take another action. In this situation when the Kobold Dragonshield Shifts away after you charged you would not be able to move again, even if you moved less than your speed. You could spend an action point to take a move action next to the Koblod after he has shifted away, but you would not be able to attack as well.
2.) Similarly, if you use a move action to walk next to a kobold, and he shifts 1 square away, if you walked less than your speed can you walk one more square to end your move action next to him? Or would you have to declare your starting and ending points for your walk action beforehand?
- Yes, If you use a move action to walk next to a Kobold Dragonshield and walked less than you speed, after he shifts away you can walk one more square to end your move action next to him.
I hope this information is useful.
Marc
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
|
|
|
