Community

If the front page of this epic long thread is still being updated;


#7 - (PHB 287-288) Charge is a standard action, so you can still  take a move action in the same round. However, using a charge ends your  turn, so you can only move before you charge.

Is no longer accurate, www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/gl...

Free actions can be taken after a charge, and an Action Point can extend your turn.

This sentence is still valid as per the new Charge Rules.

Quick question: so, citing rule #3, powers such as Prestidigitation, which have no attack roll listed, require no roll whatsoever?

(Also, what happened to #s 12-48??)

Feb 25, 2011 -- 6:56PM, canon_in_w wrote:

Quick question: so, citing rule #3, powers such as Prestidigitation, which have no attack roll listed, require no roll whatsoever?

That's correct.  You only roll things that specifically say they roll.

Feb 25, 2011 -- 6:56PM, canon_in_w wrote:

(Also, what happened to #s 12-48??)

No idea.  It's an old thread.

Noob question. What dice rolls go with what event? This always confused me when I use to play.

Mar 2, 2011 -- 4:56AM, Elliot.exe wrote:

Noob question. What dice rolls go with what event? This always confused me when I use to play.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

When the rules tell you to roll dice, they also tell you what dice to roll, and what modifiers to apply.  Can you be more specific about which cases you are confused about?

Note also that if you used to play, but haven't played 4e... it's a different game.  Some mechanics are similar to those from older editions, but it's a different game.  You roll different dice at different times than in 3.5, 3e, AD&D etc etc.

Mar 2, 2011 -- 5:14AM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

Mar 2, 2011 -- 4:56AM, Elliot.exe wrote:

Noob question. What dice rolls go with what event? This always confused me when I use to play.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

When the rules tell you to roll dice, they also tell you what dice to roll, and what modifiers to apply.  Can you be more specific about which cases you are confused about?

Sorry I phrased that in a weird way.

When something happens in the game like an attack or opening a door etc. I am not sure which dice to use for what things and what dice outcomes mean.

I always got confused in games by the dice rolls.

I hope that makes a bit more sense. 

Mar 2, 2011 -- 5:35AM, Elliot.exe wrote:

When something happens in the game like an attack or opening a door etc. I am not sure which dice to use for what things and what dice outcomes mean.

The section of rules in the Player's Handbook on how to make attacks will tell you how to read a power card and what dice to roll for an attack.

Normally there's no roll to open a door.  If a roll is required (you're trying to pick the lock, or break down the door, or whatever) the DM will tell you what to roll.

Note that in most cases apart from damage, you're rolling a d20.  All skill checks, attack rolls, saving throws, initiative and other ability checks, all use a d20.  You want to roll high.

Just noticed that COUP DE GRACE went from affecting enemies only to affecting targets, presumably any creature. This has now the potential of being used against yourself or your allies now if ever Dominated or subject to other Effect forcing attacks.

PHB 228 Helpless Target: You can deliver a coup de grace against a helpless enemy adjacent to you

RC 241 Attack Helpless Target: The creature use one of its attack powers against an adjacent target that is helpless.

I overlooked this one:

There are two types of triggered actions; immeadate actions and opportunity actions (PHB 268). All actions called "opportunity actions" can be made once per compatants turn, while immediate actions can only be made once per round.

This means that a fighter can take endless opportunity attacks per round, but can only make one COMBAT SUPERIORITY attack per round. This is a downside to the fighters auto-mark ability. 

Mar 25, 2011 -- 9:32PM, mhbjarkistef wrote:

This means that a fighter can take endless opportunity attacks per round, but can only make one COMBAT SUPERIORITY attack per round. This is a downside to the fighters auto-mark ability. 

Minor correction;

Combat Superiority - Opportunity Action (1/Turn)
Combat Challenge - Immediate Action  (1/Round)

reading Rules Compendium last night.

1. Noticed "moved" and "enter a square" both can be willing or unwilling. RC: 200 

I believe this is a change from prior when move had to be willingly done, but "enter square" effects would trigger off willing or forced movement.

2. A few weeks ago, I found out light, whether bright or dim stops at it's Radius. (RC. 167) You no longer get bright items that are bright to radius then dim. Goes straight from BRIGHT to darkness.

Mar 25, 2011 -- 9:32PM, mhbjarkistef wrote:

I overlooked this one:

There are two types of triggered actions; immeadate actions and opportunity actions (PHB 268). All actions called "opportunity actions" can be made once per compatants turn, while immediate actions can only be made once per round.

This means that a fighter can take endless opportunity attacks per round, but can only make one COMBAT SUPERIORITY attack per round. This is a downside to the fighters auto-mark ability. 

Isn't this exactly backwards?
You only get one combat CHALLENGE (immediate interrupt) per round. Combat superiority is your Opportunity Attack, meaning you get one per character turn. (other than your own, when you get none, obviously)

Apr 1, 2011 -- 11:47AM, JMCampbell wrote:

reading Rules Compendium last night.

1. Noticed "moved" and "enter a square" both can be willing or unwilling. RC: 200 

I believe this is a change from prior when move had to be willingly done, but "enter square" effects would trigger off willing or forced movement.

Previous to PHB3, it was unclear.  PHB3 defined "Move" as "Leave one square to enter another", regardless of means.

Apr 1, 2011 -- 11:47AM, JMCampbell wrote:

2. A few weeks ago, I found out light, whether bright or dim stops at it's Radius. (RC. 167) You no longer get bright items that are bright to radius then dim. Goes straight from BRIGHT to darkness.

Yup.  That's a D20 rule that got turfed for simplicity's sake in D&D.

The 'Dim Lighting" rule seems like extremely fertile ground for a Houserule to me!  Sorry, WotC, I just can't see characters plunging from bright light into total darkness by moving one square.  Anyway, whatever happened to Gygax's old rule that the DM was the final arbiter of everything that happened in his game?  Seems like now DMs have to refer questions up the chain of command, possibly all the way up to Mearls, for a definitive answer.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting something.  Or maybe I'm just a cranky old grognard.

Apr 5, 2011 -- 10:59AM, C-Leif wrote:

The 'Dim Lighting" rule seems like extremely fertile ground for a Houserule to me!  Sorry, WotC, I just can't see characters plunging from bright light into total darkness by moving one square. 

It's simpler and faster, which are generally plusses.

Apr 5, 2011 -- 10:59AM, C-Leif wrote:

Anyway, whatever happened to Gygax's old rule that the DM was the final arbiter of everything that happened in his game? 

First:  Uh, did you ever actually READ any of Gygax's articles, like, say, the ones for Dragon where he said over and over again that you HAD to do things his way?

Gary Gygax's rule was that *Gary Gygax* was the final arbiter of everything that happened in the game.

Second:  The GM can change whatever he wants, sure.  And it's even actually printed in the book now, unlike the old-school "you can't change this or you will RUIN IT" bits and the passive-aggressive D20 "You could change it but you would probably just screw it up so you shouldn't" sidebars.

But....

Apr 5, 2011 -- 10:59AM, C-Leif wrote:

Seems like now DMs have to refer questions up the chain of command, possibly all the way up to Mearls, for a definitive answer.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting something.  Or maybe I'm just a cranky old grognard.

.... knowing what the rules *are supposed to be* before changing them is valuable.  Illuminating, even, sometimes.  And being clear on what are the rules of the game and which are House Rules is handy when you swap GMs, or join a new group, or go play LFR or Encounters where house rules are actually banned.

Feel free to change any Rules you want. As a DM you can with your players discuss certain Rule elements and change them. Its YOUR game.

I have a houserule that for every 10 squares of Bright Light, 1 square of Dim Light extend from the light source exactly to avoid sudden drop of lighting and to create more Dim Light (and Concealment) It require minimal investment and trakcking and pleases my players....

Ex.   A Torch gives off light in 6 squares (5 Bright, 1 Dim)
And a Sunrod gives off light in 22 squares (20 Bright, 2 Dim)

Apr 5, 2011 -- 11:49AM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

It's simpler and faster, which are generally plusses.

First:  Uh, did you ever actually READ any of Gygax's articles, like, say, the ones for Dragon where he said over and over again that you HAD to do things his way?

I read as far as "The DM is the final arbiter in his games," and stopped! :-)  I figured everything after that was kinda irrelevant.

Apr 5, 2011 -- 11:49AM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

Gary Gygax's rule was that *Gary Gygax* was the final arbiter of everything that happened in the game.

True, true.

Apr 5, 2011 -- 11:49AM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

Second:  The GM can change whatever he wants, sure.  And it's even actually printed in the book now, unlike the old-school "you can't change this or you will RUIN IT" bits and the passive-aggressive D20 "You could change it but you would probably just screw it up so you shouldn't" sidebars.

But knowing what the rules *are supposed to be* before changing them is valuable.  Illuminating, even, sometimes.  And being clear on what are the rules of the game and which are House Rules is handy when you swap GMs, or join a new group, or go play LFR or Encounters where house rules are actually banned.

Irrefutably correct, sir! ;-)

Apr 5, 2011 -- 11:52AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

I have a houserule that for every 10 squares of Bright Light, 1 square of Dim Light extend from the light source exactly to avoid sudden drop of lighting and to create more Dim Light (and Concealment) It require minimal investment and trakcking and pleases my players....

Ex.   A Torch gives off light in 6 squares (5 Bright, 1 Dim)
And a Sunrod gives off light in 22 squares (20 Bright, 2 Dim)

Sounds like an excellent idea!  Mind if I steal it? :-)

Jeramie wrote:

KorgothThePrist wrote:

QUEST  XP : Give out to each player that amount of Divide it among the number  of players? I Beleve each player but one buddie thinks its Divided to  each person.

You're correct, quest xp is given to each PC not divided.

Oct 1, 2008 -- 5:02AM, TheBouncyPherret wrote:

OMFG!!!! You're right!!    I owe my players beaucoup XP! At first I thought you were wrong, and went to look it up. In so doing, I found you to be absolutely correct!!  Page 122 of the DMG says so: "When a group of characters completes a 10th-level major quest, each individual in the group gets 500 XP, regardless of how many characters are in the group."  Looks like we all have things that we can learn from each other!  TBP

Sorry if this was already clarified before but the past few pages of me reading this has bothered me.

Actually it is split, per page 122 DMG "When characters finish a major quest that they've been pursuing for several sessions, divide the XP reward among all the characters that participated."

You just increase the quest reward based on the number of characters because a major quest is equal to a full encounter. I know it's picking nits, but the point stands. Someone could read what you said and assume that 4 10th level characters get 2000XP each instead of 500 each.

Perhaps an easier way to think about it is a Major quest reward is a Minor quest reward for each player, and a minor quest reward is a minor quest reward split among the players.

Or as it states also on the same page, a Major quest is an entire encounter's worth of XP, a minor is a monster's worth of XP.

Heck even the chart has entries for 4,5, and 6 pc quest values.

Recently encountered someone who didn't know that you get an opportunity attack once per every creature's turn.

In a game now in which a player and the DM weren't sure if you could move a target less than the amount of forced movement given by a power. The DM ruled correctly, but wasn't sure if it was a houserule or not.

Apr 14, 2011 -- 10:53AM, Centauri wrote:

Recently encountered someone who didn't know that you get an opportunity attack once per every creature's turn.

Understandable if they have a 3.x background -- you used to have to feat for the ability to take multiple AoO's (as the lingo of the day went).

Apr 14, 2011 -- 3:52PM, Tichrimo wrote:

Apr 14, 2011 -- 10:53AM, Centauri wrote:

Recently encountered someone who didn't know that you get an opportunity attack once per every creature's turn.

Understandable if they have a 3.x background -- you used to have to feat for the ability to take multiple AoO's (as the lingo of the day went).

I'm not sure of his background, but the reason he didn't believe it worked that way is that it allows the Knight and the Cavalier to damage multiple creatures in a round. He thought this was excessive and that I was misinterpreting the rule.

Apr 14, 2011 -- 3:57PM, Centauri wrote:

Apr 14, 2011 -- 3:52PM, Tichrimo wrote:

Apr 14, 2011 -- 10:53AM, Centauri wrote:

Recently encountered someone who didn't know that you get an opportunity attack once per every creature's turn.

Understandable if they have a 3.x background -- you used to have to feat for the ability to take multiple AoO's (as the lingo of the day went).

I'm not sure of his background, but the reason he didn't believe it worked that way is that it allows the Knight and the Cavalier to damage multiple creatures in a round. He thought this was excessive and that I was misinterpreting the rule.

Being able to enforce their marks more than once a round does make them very good at their jobs...  Knights (and I guess cavaliers, though I've never seen one in action) can be sticky as hell.

A rule I have been playing wrongly since DAY ONE of Fourth Edition, which was only caught and corrected for me this past week:

Flanking grants combat advantage only to the attackers who are doing the flanking, not (as I thought) to anyone attacking the flanked individual with a melee attack. For example:

   A
D B C 


In the above situation, only D and C have combat advantage against B. Player A does not! 
(For reference, PHB Page 285)

/mind blown. Seriously. Was it this way in previous editions? I have no idea where I got the wrong idea!

Apr 30, 2011 -- 5:49PM, Baksi wrote:

A rule I have been playing wrongly since DAY ONE of Fourth Edition, which was only caught and corrected for me this past week:

Flanking grants combat advantage only to the attackers who are doing the flanking, not (as I thought) to anyone attacking the flanked individual with a melee attack. For example:

   A
D B C 


In the above situation, only D and C have combat advantage against B. Player A does not! 
(For reference, PHB Page 285)

/mind blown. Seriously. Was it this way in previous editions? I have no idea where I got the wrong idea!

Bonus:  There's a Feat to let your Flanking grant CA to everyone.  Vexing Flanker, and it's an AWESOME trick for a Melee Leader or Defender to pick up.

Apr 30, 2011 -- 5:49PM, Baksi wrote:

Was it this way in previous editions?

Yes.  Well, at least the one previous edition that had flanking instead of facing.

I've been getting frustrated with large monsters because they seem overly penalized by difficult terrain (to say nothing of just a crowded melee). The last time it came up, I went to the Rules Compendium to see if I was missing something. I learned that any squares of difficult terrain under the monster don't count.

This was a major find for me. Was it always this way, or new in the Rules Compendium?

May 3, 2011 -- 1:57PM, Centauri wrote:

I've been getting frustrated with large monsters because they seem overly penalized by difficult terrain (to say nothing of just a crowded melee). The last time it came up, I went to the Rules Compendium to see if I was missing something. I learned that any squares of difficult terrain under the monster don't count.

This was a major find for me. Was it always this way, or new in the Rules Compendium?

Always, you only need to pay the cost of entering a square of difficult terrain once till you fully leave it.

A rule that I just realized while reading through the Rules Compendium:

-----------
Weakened

* The creature's attacks deal half damage.  Two kinds of damage that it deals are not affected, however: ongoing damage and damage that isn't generated by an attack roll.
-----------
   
This means that Magic Missile (and the other Wizard auto-damage spells) are not affected by the Weakened condition.

May 11, 2011 -- 6:18PM, Undrhil wrote:

A rule that I just realized while reading through the Rules Compendium:

-----------
Weakened

* The creature's attacks deal half damage.  Two kinds of damage that it deals are not affected, however: ongoing damage and damage that isn't generated by an attack roll.
-----------
   
This means that Magic Missile (and the other Wizard auto-damage spells) are not affected by the Weakened condition.

Ooh.  And rain of steel...

Dread Smite

Divine Challenge/Sanction

If you choose to knock a minion unconcious instead of killing it, it becomes bloodied.

Useful for triggering certain things, I just noticed it.

Jul 26, 2011 -- 1:51PM, Alcestis wrote:

If you choose to knock a minion unconcious instead of killing it, it becomes bloodied.

Were did you read about this? 

Rules Compendium, p257!

Sep 28, 2008 -- 11:09PM, Orukal wrote:

#10 - There are no more Full Round Actions, get over it.

haven't gotten far enough to see if it is quoted  yet
i think it should be re-written as "characters have no full round actions, only specific situations warrant a full round action" 

quoting open Grave page 85: 

Crevice in the wall: A break in the wall provides the only easy means of entering the tower. Any medium or small creature that wants to get through the crevice must take a full round to enter the opening and pull itself through.

essentially: full round action--> Enter tower

Aug 4, 2011 -- 8:52PM, Emrakul1313 wrote:

Sep 28, 2008 -- 11:09PM, Orukal wrote:

#10 - There are no more Full Round Actions, get over it.

haven't gotten far enough to see if it is quoted  yet
i think it should be re-written as "characters have no full round actions, only specific situations warrant a full round action" 

quoting open Grave page 85: 

Crevice in the wall: A break in the wall provides the only easy means of entering the tower. Any medium or small creature that wants to get through the crevice must take a full round to enter the opening and pull itself through.

essentially: full round action--> Enter tower

A specific, unique thing that a specific terrain feature of a specific dungeon does does not a general rule make.  And even then, that's not a "full round action" with any associated rules regarding stuff that happens "until the end of the current action", etc.

That's a single, exceptional, weird situation

Aug 5, 2011 -- 4:55AM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

Aug 4, 2011 -- 8:52PM, Emrakul1313 wrote:

Sep 28, 2008 -- 11:09PM, Orukal wrote:

#10 - There are no more Full Round Actions, get over it.

haven't gotten far enough to see if it is quoted  yet
i think it should be re-written as "characters have no full round actions, only specific situations warrant a full round action" 

quoting open Grave page 85: 

Crevice in the wall: A break in the wall provides the only easy means of entering the tower. Any medium or small creature that wants to get through the crevice must take a full round to enter the opening and pull itself through.

essentially: full round action--> Enter tower

A specific, unique thing that a specific terrain feature of a specific dungeon does does not a general rule make.  And even then, that's not a "full round action" with any associated rules regarding stuff that happens "until the end of the current action", etc.

That's a single, exceptional, weird situation

which is why i'm saying that the rule should be reworded, one unique feature does not doesn't make a rule but it can break one

Aug 5, 2011 -- 7:59PM, Emrakul1313 wrote:

Aug 5, 2011 -- 4:55AM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

Aug 4, 2011 -- 8:52PM, Emrakul1313 wrote:

Sep 28, 2008 -- 11:09PM, Orukal wrote:

#10 - There are no more Full Round Actions, get over it.

haven't gotten far enough to see if it is quoted  yet
i think it should be re-written as "characters have no full round actions, only specific situations warrant a full round action" 

quoting open Grave page 85: 

Crevice in the wall: A break in the wall provides the only easy means of entering the tower. Any medium or small creature that wants to get through the crevice must take a full round to enter the opening and pull itself through.

essentially: full round action--> Enter tower

A specific, unique thing that a specific terrain feature of a specific dungeon does does not a general rule make.  And even then, that's not a "full round action" with any associated rules regarding stuff that happens "until the end of the current action", etc.

That's a single, exceptional, weird situation

which is why i'm saying that the rule should be reworded, one unique feature does not doesn't make a rule but it can break one

So, it takes a move action and two minor actions to enter the crevice.  QED.  A round is made of combatant turns based upon initiative.  Turns are a mechanic to organize what is essentially a simultaneous round of combat.  In effect, a combatant’s turn always takes a full round.

 

Sep 18, 2011 -- 9:08PM, Cromsriddle wrote:

So, it takes a move action and two minor actions to enter the crevice.  QED.  A round is made of combatant turns based upon initiative.  Turns are a mechanic to organize what is essentially a simultaneous round of combat.  In effect, a combatant’s turn always takes a full round.

the idea of a full round action to enter is you can do nothing else with your turn and you can't say "hey guys this monster looks hungry, better turn back," and it being one action it cant't be broken into:
i use a move action and a minor action to get mostly through but will wait until my next turn to use a minor action to get through and still be able to move and fight. QED.

edit: also the post of what is in open grave is as written, it says a full round to enter, not a move and two minors, just curious where did that come from?

Not sure if this has been address yet, as I haven't read more than the first and last pages of the thread, but...

"Didn't realize it rule" #1 -
The number of times that you can use a daily power granted by a magic item is limited by level.

I didn't realize this. On page 226 of the PHB it points out that from level 1-10 you can only use 1 magic item daily power pre day. Regardless of the item. If you are level 1-10 and use a daily power from a magic item, you cannot use any daily power from any other (Or the same) magic item until after an extended rest. From level 11-20 this increases to two such uses and from 21-30 this becomes 3 such uses. I guess you'd better really think about it when it comes to using a magic item's daily use.

Is now completely wrong...4.5 (I mean essentials) updated this.

Nov 2, 2011 -- 12:20PM, Hephalumph wrote:

Not sure if this has been address yet, as I haven't read more than the first and last pages of the thread, but...

"Didn't realize it rule" #1 -
The number of times that you can use a daily power granted by a magic item is limited by level.

I didn't realize this. On page 226 of the PHB it points out that from level 1-10 you can only use 1 magic item daily power pre day. Regardless of the item. If you are level 1-10 and use a daily power from a magic item, you cannot use any daily power from any other (Or the same) magic item until after an extended rest. From level 11-20 this increases to two such uses and from 21-30 this becomes 3 such uses. I guess you'd better really think about it when it comes to using a magic item's daily use.

Is now completely wrong...4.5 (I mean essentials) updated this.

#1:  We can't edit the OP.  The only guy who could is long gone.
#2:  The 2011 Heroes Of Whatever books are better termed "PHB1 Power" and "PHB2 Power" if you want to be snarky.  Calling them "4.5" is simply inaccurate, since they're both a) compatible and b) balanced with the rest of the D&D material.  There's no D20ish "toss your old books, they're crap" problem.

Nov 2, 2011 -- 12:23PM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

#1:  We can't edit the OP.  The only guy who could is long gone.
#2:  The 2011 Heroes Of Whatever books are better termed "PHB1 Power" and "PHB2 Power" if you want to be snarky.  Calling them "4.5" is simply inaccurate, since they're both a) compatible and b) balanced with the rest of the D&D material.  There's no D20ish "toss your old books, they're crap" problem.

Understandable about the OP being gone; but I would suggest perhaps someone take a bit of time and recreate this... someone who intends to be around a while.

As to my 4.5 comment, it was made in jest - but compatible or not, it IS a new edition. Being backwards compatible doesn't negate that fact. Being a new edition doesn't make it inherintly bad...I like it, as much as (possibly a tad more than) I liked 4e in the first place, I just find it ridiculous that WotC adamantly denies this obvious fact.

Nov 2, 2011 -- 12:41PM, Hephalumph wrote:

Nov 2, 2011 -- 12:23PM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

#1:  We can't edit the OP.  The only guy who could is long gone.
#2:  The 2011 Heroes Of Whatever books are better termed "PHB1 Power" and "PHB2 Power" if you want to be snarky.  Calling them "4.5" is simply inaccurate, since they're both a) compatible and b) balanced with the rest of the D&D material.  There's no D20ish "toss your old books, they're crap" problem.

Understandable about the OP being gone; but I would suggest perhaps someone take a bit of time and recreate this... someone who intends to be around a while.

Feel free.  If you build it, they will sticky.

(Or, make a Wiki page.  That way it's editable even if you leave.)

Nov 2, 2011 -- 12:41PM, Hephalumph wrote:

As to my 4.5 comment, it was made in jest - but compatible or not, it IS a new edition. Being backwards compatible doesn't negate that fact. Being a new edition doesn't make it inherintly bad...I like it, as much as (possibly a tad more than) I liked 4e in the first place, I just find it ridiculous that WotC adamantly denies this obvious fact.

You need to define "edition" carefully.  In publishing terms, yes.  In RPG design terms, no.  In some other terms?  Maybe, what other terms have you got?

In the sense of "AD&D" versus "D20" versus "D20.5" versus "D&D" being defined as editions?  Essentials D&D is not a new edition, it's a large series of option books.

In the sense of Magic The Gathering releases, heck yes it's an "edition", but using that term when discussing an RPG is misleading because "a new edition of Magic" versus "a new edition of GURPS" has *completely* different baggage.

Nov 2, 2011 -- 12:45PM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

You need to define "edition" carefully.  In publishing terms, yes.  In RPG design terms, no.  In some other terms?  Maybe, what other terms have you got?

In the sense of "AD&D" versus "D20" versus "D20.5" versus "D&D" being defined as editions?  Essentials D&D is not a new edition, it's a large series of option books.

In the sense of Magic The Gathering releases, heck yes it's an "edition", but using that term when discussing an RPG is misleading because "a new edition of Magic" versus "a new edition of GURPS" has *completely* different baggage.

To me, in the same way that 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder (also known as 3.75) are edition changes; 4e and 4Essentials are likewise separate editions.

3.5 was mostly backwards compatible with 3.0; what wasn't compatible was clearly defined, and how to adjust for it.

Same with Essentials; with the exception that if you try to play a pre-essentials 4.0 game, and use online tools, you are screwed - you can't opt to have the original version of the many updated powers...though many outdated feats are still available (and wouldn't be outdated without essentials material overriding/overpowering them)...

All in all, I am not trying to start a flame war, an edition war, or say I like either better than the other. I liked 4.0, and I like 4.5. I also like 3.0 and 3.5. I still remember D&D before it was renamed Basic D&D, and I liked it too. I am not one of those too narrow-minded to try a new version of a game, or to turn my nose up at an improvement simply because it isn't how things were done before.

I am more laughably annoyed at WotC (and Hasbro) for their stance that red is actually green here... a new edition is a new edition; they just remember all of those who jumped ship at 3.5/4.0 changeovers, and tried to avoid it by calling an apple an orange.

Nov 2, 2011 -- 2:51PM, Hephalumph wrote:

Same with Essentials; with the exception that if you try to play a pre-essentials 4.0 game, and use online tools, you are screwed - you can't opt to have the original version of the many updated powers...though many outdated feats are still available (and wouldn't be outdated without essentials material overriding/overpowering them)...

So, you're saying there's been a new edition every 2-3 months since 2008, since that's how often rules updates that have been integrated into the tools have come out and you've never been able to pull up a previous version?

(Most of the "more powerful" Feats and things exist because the earlier version were considered too weak or not interesting enough.  But the originals were left intact, for people who liked them, so that there would be *fewer* updates that changed things on existing character sheets.  You're damning in both directions, here:  It's a "new edition" because new things exist that are better than old things, and it's a "new edition" because old things have been updated to work the way they were always supposed to, but didn't in practice.  Pick one?)

No, I am saying Essentials as a whole has revised a huge number of the core rules and the functionality of the system, as well as the aim and direction of the system, and it itself is a new version. There are a number of books that have been released under this new system, and some 'stealth updates' which followed to fix the old edition to be more compatible.

new things existing doesn't make a new edition, nor does fixing old things. Changing the intent of the system itself, and adjusting old things to that intent, as well as introducing new things - THAT makes a new edition.

If you want to debate this in length, PM me and I will be happy to... but this is derailing this thread.

Nov 2, 2011 -- 3:23PM, Hephalumph wrote:

No, I am saying Essentials as a whole has revised a huge number of the core rules and the functionality of the system, as well as the aim and direction of the system, and it itself is a new version. There are a number of books that have been released under this new system, and some 'stealth updates' which followed to fix the old edition to be more compatible.

new things existing doesn't make a new edition, nor does fixing old things. Changing the intent of the system itself, and adjusting old things to that intent, as well as introducing new things - THAT makes a new edition.

If you want to debate this in length, PM me and I will be happy to... but this is derailing this thread.

The biggest problem with Essentials in the Rules Compendium is that any rules changes made in those books were not considered errata of the earlier rules, so they are not included in Errata documents for the original books.  If you don't have the newest books, you don't have the most up to date version of the rules and can't necessarily access them anywhere else even with DDI.
   For example, the online compendium has not been updated for Delay a Turn with the update that you can now delay while dazed.

Here's one I was shocked to discover.

Everything has at least 1 healing surge.  So monsters can take a second wind.

When GMing, I only use this when the PCs start to take down bigger enemies too fast.

Jan 13, 2012 -- 2:46AM, onegermanbeerglass wrote:

Here's one I was shocked to discover.

Everything has at least 1 healing surge.  So monsters can take a second wind.

When GMing, I only use this when the PCs start to take down bigger enemies too fast.

Actually, that's not 100% acurrate. Having a healing surge is not the same as being able to take a Second Wind. Monsters and NPCs can't use Second Wind unless they have an ability that explicitly allows them to do so.

oh yes, and if an Interrupt prevents an action from being completed (for example, knocking someone prone who is using a Move action, or removing the target of an attack from range of the attack), not only is the action prevented, but that action is also lost.

For example, if an melee attack is made and you interrupt teleport away, the attacker loses their standard action.

If an interrupt knocks a mover prone before they even get to move, they lose their move action.

Jan 13, 2012 -- 2:48AM, Novacat wrote:

Jan 13, 2012 -- 2:46AM, onegermanbeerglass wrote:

Here's one I was shocked to discover.

Everything has at least 1 healing surge.  So monsters can take a second wind.

When GMing, I only use this when the PCs start to take down bigger enemies too fast.

Actually, that's not 100% acurrate. Having a healing surge is not the same as being able to take a Second Wind. Monsters and NPCs can't use Second Wind unless they have an ability that explicitly allows them to do so.

I stand corrected.  Page 258 of the Rules Compendium for anyone who wants to read up.  1 Surge per Tier, but still needs to have a power that allows them to use it.

As a DM, you can always add a class template to a monster which gives them Second Wind.  They still only have one healing surge, though.

#10

There are still full round actions, of a sort. This however is exclusively to the monk class (Full dicipline), which chooses one power, and makes use of it both for movement and for standard actions. A monk can't choose to use the move aspect of one power, and use another power for attack 

#55

A fighters Combat Challenge CAN interrupt a shift from an enemy, if that fighter also has Combat Superiority.


Though, something I want to know...


You can't stand up if your prone and immobilized. (True/False)

Jan 13, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Rpetiger wrote:

#10

There are still full round actions, of a sort. This however is exclusively to the monk class (Full dicipline), which chooses one power, and makes use of it both for movement and for standard actions. A monk can't choose to use the move aspect of one power, and use another power for attack 

Not the same thing.  Close, but no cigar.  The Monk doesn't have to use the movement portion of the Full Discipline power if he chooses not to.  He can take a normal move action during a turn that he makes an attack with a Full Discipline power. 

#55

A fighters Combat Challenge CAN interrupt a shift from an enemy, if that fighter also has Combat Superiority.

It will interrupt the shift but will not stop the shift.  Combat Challenge does not stop movement.  And since Shifting doesn't normally provoke opportunity attacks, the Fighter is only able to damage the monster.  Now, if the fighter has a power which can prone the target and can use that power as a melee basic attack for immediate interrupts, *that* would cause the monster to stop if the Fighter hits the monster, since the monster would be knocked prone *before* it shifted out of its square. 

Though, something I want to know...


You can't stand up if your prone and immobilized. (True/False)

False.  Immobilize says that you cannot leave your square willingly.  Standing up is not leaving your square.

> A monk can't choose to use the move aspect of one power, and use another power
> for attack

  Actually, he can, as long as the other power isn't a full discipline power.

Jan 13, 2012 -- 7:07PM, Neutronium_Dragon wrote:

> A monk can't choose to use the move aspect of one power, and use another power
> for attack

Actually, he can, as long as the other power isn't a full discipline power.

Or if he spends an action point, he can use another Full Discipline power.

Jan 13, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Rpetiger wrote:

#10

There are still full round actions, of a sort. This however is exclusively to the monk class (Full dicipline), which chooses one power, and makes use of it both for movement and for standard actions. A monk can't choose to use the move aspect of one power, and use another power for attack

No, wrong.  A Monk can totally use any other non-Full Discipline power to attack (or move), and he acn switch Full Disciplines with an action point.  Regardless, this is NOTHING LIKE a "full-round action" in the D20 sense.

Jan 13, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Rpetiger wrote:

#55

A fighters Combat Challenge CAN interrupt a shift from an enemy, if that fighter also has Combat Superiority.

No, wrong.  Combat Challenge will interrupt a shift, true, but you're referring to Combat Superiority and the ability to *stop* a move - and Combat Superiority can never, ever, ever apply to a Combat Challenge attack. Combat Challenge provides IMMEDIATE attacks.  Combat Superiority only applies to OPPORTUNITY attacks.

If you somehow got an OA when the enemy shifted, you can stop his shift with Combat Superiority, but that's rare and hard to do.  Combat Challenge attacks are really easy to get when an enemy shifts, but they're IAs, not OAs, and Combat Superiority doesn't apply.

Jan 13, 2012 -- 6:33PM, Rpetiger wrote:

You can't stand up if your prone and immobilized. (True/False)

False.  Nothing about "Immobilised" says you can't stand up, so you can.

#3 - (PHB 59) Powers with a hit that also have an effect still get the benefit of their effect even if the power misses.

Q: What happens if you hit a natural 1? is natural 1 a regular miss? is it considered a "special (critical) miss"?
(if considered a critical miss, does it still trigger the effect)

We had a huge discussion about it the other day with my group.

A Nat 1 is a miss.  Unless your GM has houseruled something, there are no critical misses in 4e.

Jan 23, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Sr.Chimo wrote:

#3 - (PHB 59) Powers with a hit that also have an effect still get the benefit of their effect even if the power misses.

Q: What happens if you hit a natural 1? is natural 1 a regular miss? is it considered a "special (critical) miss"?
(if considered a critical miss, does it still trigger the effect)

We had a huge discussion about it the other day with my group.

If you hit a natural 1, it is up to the DM to decide if it means anything beyond a normal miss. But yeah, if a power has "Hit: Blah blah blah; Effect: Blah Blah" then it still has the effect even on a miss. 

Apr 10, 2012 -- 11:05AM, GormTintreach wrote:

Jan 23, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Sr.Chimo wrote:

#3 - (PHB 59) Powers with a hit that also have an effect still get the benefit of their effect even if the power misses.

Q: What happens if you hit a natural 1? is natural 1 a regular miss? is it considered a "special (critical) miss"?
(if considered a critical miss, does it still trigger the effect)

We had a huge discussion about it the other day with my group.

If you hit a natural 1, it is up to the DM to decide if it means anything beyond a normal miss. But yeah, if a power has "Hit: Blah blah blah; Effect: Blah Blah" then it still has the effect even on a miss. 

Actually, natural 1 is just "automatic miss", and it is NOT "up to the DM to decide" if it means anything more.

DMs can add house rules for natural 1s, but that's houseruling.  By the rules, natural 1 means nothing more or less than "miss automatically".  Saying "it's up to the DM" implies that there's a DM's option choice in the existing rules, and there isn't, any more than there's a "a natural 20 automatically kills a PC" DM option.

It used to be in the rules if you rolled a 1 'something bad happens up the DM to determine' but, obviously, because players kept whining about it a natural 1 is now only a miss.

If you're a good GM I'd recommend putting 'fumbles' back in the game. The GM usually decides the results of a fumble and Savage Worlds plays that mechanic how it was meant to be played. If you're looking for advice on how to 'house rule' a 1 fumble in 4e I'd check out that game system or an earlier edition.

I've found a trend where anything which is a 'disadvantage' to the player has been subtly worked out as the editions go by. It wouldn't suprise me very much if 1's were no longer misses in the future. In the original versions of the game player's had no access to the magic items in the DMG, fumbles were disastrous, you were lucky if your wizard had 3 hp and 1 good spell, and you couldn't pick your ability scores. Some of these changes I feel are improvements. It never hurts to pull out a copy of your old 1e books and play the game by the rules back then. It's like jumping into an icy lake. You lose so much power, and the DM gains so much control it's not even funny.

Don't get me wrong. I really like 4e, it's got some sweet stuff in it.

Hope that helps you guys out.

David L. Dostaler
Author, Challenger RPG a Free Roleplaying Game

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:10AM, Snotagnome2 wrote:

It used to be in the rules if you rolled a 1 'something bad happens up the DM to determine' but, obviously, because players kept whining about it a natural 1 is now only a miss.

Actually, they realised that it was a bad rule that wasn't interesting and mostly wasn't fun, so they took it out.

It's like how spellcasters don't automatically win any more, and how level drain doesn't exist any more, and why "save or die" doesn't exist any more:  They were bad rules, that weren't fun.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:10AM, Snotagnome2 wrote:

If you're a good GM I'd recommend putting 'fumbles' back in the game.

Whereas if you're good at math, you'll realise that they happen way too often and disproportionately to PCs to be a good idea.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:10AM, Snotagnome2 wrote:

Savage Worlds plays that mechanic how it was meant to be played.

Notably,
1)  a roll in Savage Worlds coming up snake eyes only happens *at most* one in 24 times, and that's for an incompetent character.  A competent character gets that result once in 48 times, an excellent character once in 72 - and every single Savage Worlds character has access to bennies to let them say "hmm, that sucks, it didn't happen" and roll again. 
As compared to, say, D&D, where a natural 1 happens 5% of the time and most characters can't avoid it.  Those who can are almost always spending a Daily resource to do it.
2)  the effects of a fumble in Savage Worlds are specifically small and deliberately nonserious.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:10AM, Snotagnome2 wrote:

I've found a trend where anything which is a 'disadvantage' to the player has been subtly worked out as the editions go by.

"It turns out life and death on every single flat non-rerollable die roll, not getting to play, needing to rewrite your character multiple times a session, and failing embarassingly a huge percentage of the time, are not fun.  So we don't do those any more."

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:10AM, Snotagnome2 wrote:

In the original versions of the game player's had no access to the magic items in the DMG, fumbles were disastrous, you were lucky if your wizard had 3 hp and 1 good spell, and you couldn't pick your ability scores.

Yes.  Shaving accidents often resulted in decapitation, the deadliest monster in the monster manual was a housecat, and Gary Gygax directly told people that they shouldn't bother naming their character until it was at least 9th level because there was no point in making that level of investment before then.  Oh, and getting to the "Gary thinks I should pick a name now" level required, according to him, a year of weekly play. 

These are, in fact, examples of why it was a bad system.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:10AM, Snotagnome2 wrote:

It never hurts to pull out a copy of your old 1e books and play the game by the rules back then. It's like jumping into an icy lake.

More like playing a slot machine:  no skill, no control, no strategy, no way to affect the odds.

"Yes.  Shaving accidents often resulted in decapitation, the deadliest monster in the monster manual was a housecat, and Gary Gygax directly told people that they shouldn't bother naming their character until it was at least 9th level because there was no point in making that level of investment before then.  Oh, and getting to the "Gary thinks I should pick a name now" level required, according to him, a year of weekly play."

That's actually pretty epic. I didn't know he said that. Thanks, Lord of Weasels, I'll have to remember that for my games.

Seriously though. If you're a GM you want the players on their toes. Making the game harder for them or 'more random' just forces them to be more creative (an aspect sadly lacking in most games nowadays).

I would actually say the opposite of what you're saying happens when you increase the difficulty. Everyone likes a challenge. Everyone likes an underdog. The tougher the game is, the more challenging, the more fun. Most games nowadays have no chance for character death, there is no challenge, and nothing bad can happen to the characters under any but the most contrived of circumstances.

Sure, the "oops, you're dead" system of the old game was bad, but it was definately challenging to work with. If you have 3 hp and see an orc you're ten times more likely to carefully evaluate your next move. If you're playing 4e and see an orc, you kill it. Can you honestly remember the last time any of your party has run away from an orc, a goblin, or something like that?

Maybe no-one has any creativity left, but when I take away the 'fancy stuff' from my players they make the best of it and you'd be amazed to see how much more role-playing and creativity results.

I've known one player to make elaborate walls, catapults, and exploding flask of oil traps just to fight regular monsters he'd normally just kill in a micro-second in 4e and think nothing of it.

I myself tended to push people off of high places with my 1 hp wizard with 1 useless spell. I took on a 30th level mage and won. Obviously, I didn't rely on my character 'stats' alone to do that. I had to use my brain, my creativity, and my skills as a player.

I'm not trying to say 1e was better than 4e. I personally don't mind ignoring most fumbles. But whenever you cause 'problems' for the players it always forces creativity. If you put fumbles in the game it lets them role-play creatively and make the best of bad situations (like dropping a sword or tripping) instead of just trading off hp damage blow by blow.

Really, I don't care what system you're using, or which rules you want to play with. Every decision is a fine choice depending on your players. A good GM and good players can make the best of any game system and all good players and GMs should always be looking for ways to pump more creativity and role-playing into their games.

I just see fumbles as an "occassional" opportunity for that creativity. I'd ignore it nine times out of ten. It's always the tenth time, however, that people will remember for the rest of their lives. The time they dropped their sword in front of the villain and took him out with a good punch with only 1 hp left. Now 'that's' roleplaying.

David L. Dostaler
Author, Challenger RPG

The only "challenge" adding a fumble rule creates is players trying to figure out why AoE and multiattack builds are suddenly more incompetent than single-target and single attack builds.  (More dice rolls per turn = more fumbles...  And thus, challenging!)

Another challenge in writing a fumble system is that unless you have special features or items all a crit dose is max damage. A 1D4 weapon dose max damage 25% of the time anyway. In order to be fair and balanced fumbles should be just as common as that on any miss.

Yes there are many ways for adventurers to gain extra benefit from crits ( like high crit, or magic weapons but  naked mechanics in a vacume max damage is all you get.

Fumbles then should only be a concern when there is an equivelent item or feature that provides extra penalty on a 1.

Examples would be the goblin fanatic from Warhammer Fantasy ( including Blood Bowl ) with the unweildy ball and chain that hits its self in the head, or a risky spell or weapon trick power that explodes in your face on a 1. ( wild sorcerers have such a class feature )

So, a couple pages back there was a short comment about item daily uses that fired off a storm of replies about the Rules Compendium and 4E Essentials where the limitation was allegedly removed?

1)  Is there a consolidated list of the rules changes?
2)  Are there still limits on item daily usage by tier?

Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:20PM, Llathos wrote:

So, a couple pages back there was a short comment about item daily uses that fired off a storm of replies about the Rules Compendium and 4E Essentials where the limitation was allegedly removed?

1)  Is there a consolidated list of the rules changes?

I certainly don't know of one.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:20PM, Llathos wrote:

2)  Are there still limits on item daily usage by tier?

The rule is in the Player's Handbook, but not  in any Essentials rule book.  Either way, you hardly notice it at low level as you're unlikely to have more than one item daily, anyway.

Omission doesn't seem like a good justification for throwing out a PHB core rule...

I'm surprised so many are stating it as fact around here.  Was there another CS response or anything else to back this up other than  "It seems like it should have been in that paragraph, so it has therefore been removed!" ? 

Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:45PM, Llathos wrote:

Omission doesn't seem like a good justification for throwing out a PHB core rule...

I'm surprised so many are stating it as fact around here.  Was there another CS response or anything else to back this up other than  "It seems like it should have been in that paragraph, so it has therefore been removed!" ? 

The designers said, outright, repeatedly, in Dragon magazine and in their official blogs and in their announcements, that that rule was removed from the Compendium because they wanted to remove it from the game.  The replacement is the item rarity rules, which prevent you from buying a ton of low-level highly-useful-Daily items by making it impossible to buy or make items that have useful Dailies.

So instead of a rule to prevent abuse (by limiting usage in a clearly understood way), we now have no rule aside from the DM saying "No" to prevent players from crafting 25 wondrous items that are 10+ levels below them with their disposable income?  Saying "you can't buy that" is irrelevant when anyone can be a Ritual Caster and get Enchant Magic Item.

This really doesn't seem well thought out...

Every player will be insane to not stock up on 5 pearls of power.  Carry 4-5 Flutes of the Dancing Satyr and enable free shifting for the whole party for whole encounters...

 

Jun 8, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Llathos wrote:

So instead of a rule to prevent abuse (by limiting usage in a clearly understood way), we now have no rule aside from the DM saying "No" to prevent players from crafting 25 wondrous items that are 10+ levels below them with their disposable income?   

No, we have the item rarity rules, which are clearly understood and which also prevent the abuse.  In a way that is easier to explain and easier to track than Daily Item Powers Per Day was.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Llathos wrote:

Saying "you can't buy that" is irrelevant when anyone can be a Ritual Caster and get Enchant Magic Item. 

Enchant Magic Item can only make Common items.  It cannot make Uncommon or Rare items.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Llathos wrote:

This really doesn't seem well thought out...

That's a different argument.  A side effect of the rarity rules is to heavily limit the variety available.  Worse, some of the most powerful (and least interesting) items are Common, which makes them even mroe ubiquitous - but there's less tracking.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Llathos wrote:

Every player will be insane to not stock up on 5 pearls of power.  Carry 4-5 Flutes of the Dancing Satyr and enable free shifting for the whole party for whole encounters...

Pearl of Power - Uncommon
Flute of the Dancing Satyr - Uncommon

Neither one can be made with Enchant Magic Item, or purchased.  So players will not be "insane to not stock up", they will be unable to stock up.

Enchant Magic Item can only make Common items.  It cannot make Uncommon or Rare items.

Where you get this from?  From the Compendium:

Enchant Magic Item:

You touch a normal item and turn it into a magic item of your level or lower. The ritual’s component cost is equal to the price of the magic item you create. Alternatively, you can use the ritual to upgrade a common, uncommon, or rare item to a more powerful version of the item that is 5 levels higher.

 

sadly, as good a job as it does, the Compendium does not provide the complete or most current rules.  

a good place to get the info you seek is in the Dragon 390 article explaining the new rarity rules, specifically "Like rare items, uncommon items must be found. They are seldomly up for sale and few people know how to craft them." (emphasis mine)

Jun 9, 2012 -- 12:06PM, Llathos wrote:

Enchant Magic Item can only make Common items.  It cannot make Uncommon or Rare items.

Where you get this from?  From the Compendium:

Enchant Magic Item:

You touch a normal item and turn it into a magic item of your level or lower. The ritual’s component cost is equal to the price of the magic item you create. Alternatively, you can use the ritual to upgrade a common, uncommon, or rare item to a more powerful version of the item that is 5 levels higher.

Either they've changed it *back* since I last looked, or the updates doc (and the Compendium) are out of date (which is super-common with post-Essentials rules changes), or the ritual really has never been changed.

It doesn't matter, though - Rules Compendium pg 277, explaining item rarity, says outright that Uncommon items cannot be purchased or crafted by PCs.  (And I can show you article after article from the writers of the game, in official rules documents, explaining how uncommon+ items can not be made or purchased by PCs.)

If Enchant Magic Item hasn't actually been updated to make it clear, that's funny, and that should be fixed because it's confusing - but the rules on creating magic items say uncommons can't be created, and Enchant Magic Item doesn't contain a specific exception to allow it to break that general rule.  It *does* have a specific exception to allow it to upgrade Uncommons and Rares.

In the mean time, you've seen exactly why "unlimited low-level items" cause a problem.  You described the problem yourself.  The old system (limiting daily item powers per day) solved the general case of "cheap dailies", while failing on per-Encounter powers and requiring more tracking.  The new system solves both, but at the cost of a greatly decreased variety of items the players can choose from.

It's also worth noting that LFR uses yet another third system:  A character can have no more than one magic item per level, no more than one Rare item, and no more than one of any enchantment.  But LFR is a heavily gameplay-centric environment - they don't particularly care if a rule makes sense inside the game world, they care that it is balanced and paperwork-easy for a pickup game with strangers.

Jun 9, 2012 -- 3:51PM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

It's also worth noting that LFR uses yet another third system:  A character can have no more than one magic item per level, no more than one Rare item, and no more than one of any enchantment.  But LFR is a heavily gameplay-centric environment - they don't particularly care if a rule makes sense inside the game world, they care that it is balanced and paperwork-easy for a pickup game with strangers.

Actually, LFR lets you have no more than one *uncommon* item per your level (without some story award saying otherwise) and only one rare per tier.  However, most of the rare items which have been released in LFR are self-levelling items, so if you get a rare weapon, you won't have to worry about upgrading it for each new plus (at level 16 or 21, for instance.) 

Jun 9, 2012 -- 7:14PM, Undrhil wrote:

Jun 9, 2012 -- 3:51PM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

It's also worth noting that LFR uses yet another third system:  A character can have no more than one magic item per level, no more than one Rare item, and no more than one of any enchantment.  But LFR is a heavily gameplay-centric environment - they don't particularly care if a rule makes sense inside the game world, they care that it is balanced and paperwork-easy for a pickup game with strangers.

Actually, LFR lets you have no more than one *uncommon* item per your level (without some story award saying otherwise) and only one rare per tier.  However, most of the rare items which have been released in LFR are self-levelling items, so if you get a rare weapon, you won't have to worry about upgrading it for each new plus (at level 16 or 21, for instance.) 

They must have changed the rules since I gave it a shot - used to be, you could only keep one item per level, no matter how many adventures you went on or what you used during play.  That was before rarity, though.

Jun 9, 2012 -- 7:32PM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

Jun 9, 2012 -- 7:14PM, Undrhil wrote:

Jun 9, 2012 -- 3:51PM, LordOfWeasels wrote:

It's also worth noting that LFR uses yet another third system:  A character can have no more than one magic item per level, no more than one Rare item, and no more than one of any enchantment.  But LFR is a heavily gameplay-centric environment - they don't particularly care if a rule makes sense inside the game world, they care that it is balanced and paperwork-easy for a pickup game with strangers.

Actually, LFR lets you have no more than one *uncommon* item per your level (without some story award saying otherwise) and only one rare per tier.  However, most of the rare items which have been released in LFR are self-levelling items, so if you get a rare weapon, you won't have to worry about upgrading it for each new plus (at level 16 or 21, for instance.) 

They must have changed the rules since I gave it a shot - used to be, you could only keep one item per level, no matter how many adventures you went on or what you used during play.  That was before rarity, though.

You can only pick one found item per level.  Yes.  But if you have the gold for it, you can buy as many common items as you can afford.  So, yes.  Only one found magic item per level. 

I have the sense the system is screwed up past the point of anything sensible...best course is to keep the old item daily restrictions.  It's far preferable in my opinion than an artifical "You discovered a glowing amulet in the dragon's horde!.  Oh...you already found an item this level?  That sucks...I guess you'll just have to give it away".

Ridiculous. 

Jun 10, 2012 -- 7:47AM, Llathos wrote:

I have the sense the system is screwed up past the point of anything sensible...best course is to keep the old item daily restrictions.  It's far preferable in my opinion than an artifical "You discovered a glowing amulet in the dragon's horde!.  Oh...you already found an item this level?  That sucks...I guess you'll just have to give it away".

Ridiculous. 

Well, the "one found magic item per level" has been in place since the beginning of LFR.  It's a way to keep PCs from getting lots of magic items and then selling off the extras for lots of gold.  One of the treasure bundles you can pick regardless of how many times you've taken it is "More gold" which is usually a generous portion size of gold for your level.  If you take that a few times, you have a lot of gold, which is useless unless you like common items or rituals (or alchemical items, which LFR has ruled those are all common except for a select few from MME, I believe.)

Sep 30, 2008 -- 5:11PM, MektonZero wrote:

enriquebertran wrote:

So me shifting Zero squares qualifies as the EFFECT happening...

You might have a bonus to shifting from a Feat, another Power or a Magic Item.

And there is feats and gears wich gives you an extra shift distance of 1 or more, so you could always shift a minimum of 1 even on a miss.

Jun 10, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Undrhil wrote:

Jun 10, 2012 -- 7:47AM, Llathos wrote:

I have the sense the system is screwed up past the point of anything sensible...best course is to keep the old item daily restrictions.  It's far preferable in my opinion than an artifical "You discovered a glowing amulet in the dragon's horde!.  Oh...you already found an item this level?  That sucks...I guess you'll just have to give it away".

Ridiculous. 

Well, the "one found magic item per level" has been in place since the beginning of LFR.  It's a way to keep PCs from getting lots of magic items and then selling off the extras for lots of gold.  One of the treasure bundles you can pick regardless of how many times you've taken it is "More gold" which is usually a generous portion size of gold for your level.  If you take that a few times, you have a lot of gold, which is useless unless you like common items or rituals (or alchemical items, which LFR has ruled those are all common except for a select few from MME, I believe.)

Common items are useful- sometimes very useful, if you know what I mean (and you should).

They just usually aren't as useful as the rarer items.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Llathos wrote:

So instead of a rule to prevent abuse (by limiting usage in a clearly understood way), we now have no rule aside from the DM saying "No" to prevent players from crafting 25 wondrous items that are 10+ levels below them with their disposable income?  Saying "you can't buy that" is irrelevant when anyone can be a Ritual Caster and get Enchant Magic Item.

This really doesn't seem well thought out...

Every player will be insane to not stock up on 5 pearls of power.  Carry 4-5 Flutes of the Dancing Satyr and enable free shifting for the whole party for whole encounters...

 

Rarity actually does prevent it. If you use rarity (which you shouldn't). Your assumptions are wrong. ^.^

Also many rules were changed by omission via the RC. Was completely intentional, do you have any idea how confusing it would be to add another 25 pages to the RC which basically consisted of "So this rule that you probably don't know about because you picked up the RC as the definitive rules source is no longer a rule. Have a nice day."

Jun 10, 2012 -- 7:47AM, Llathos wrote:

I have the sense the system is screwed up past the point of anything sensible...

No, it really isn't.  Item rarity works just fine, if you use it - at the cost of being more work to keep the flow of interesting stuff coming, because the things players can buy on their own is very limited.  So it's got a downside.

Jun 10, 2012 -- 7:47AM, Llathos wrote:

best course is to keep the old item daily restrictions. 

That's a perfectly fair option, which doesn't address the number of cheap ENCOUNTER powers available.  So you've still got the "buy 10 of this item!" problem, just with different items.

Jun 10, 2012 -- 7:47AM, Llathos wrote:

It's far preferable in my opinion than an artifical "You discovered a glowing amulet in the dragon's horde!.  Oh...you already found an item this level?  That sucks...I guess you'll just have to give it away".

Ridiculous. 

Yes, but that's the LIVING FORGOTTEN REALMS rule.  Pickup D&D, with strangers.  Which is why nobody in a real game actually uses it.

Using rarity means one problem (prevalence of overpowerful extremely-low-level items) disappears and another (boring choices for buy/make) appears.  Using Daily Item Powers fixes the Golf Bag Full Of Wands problem, but leaves you with the same problem with Encounter powers and a related problem of a huge SELECTION of powerful dailies even if you can't use them all.

Neither of these is "screwed up past the point of anything sensible."  LFR's solution is, but that's because it's LFR:  Pickup D&D with strangers will ALWAYS be "screwed up past the point of anything sensible" and this rule just exists to make sure it stays playable.

Thanks for the sensible and well-written reply LoW.  My summary of your post breaks it down to:  

"One rule exists for a set of circumstances (LFR) that probably don't apply to you.

One was the original RAW.  

Both rules suck because they leave significant issues in the balance between magic item power (based on number of items) and gameplay fun"


The other mechanism I'm seeing employed is to accept the removal of the daily item usage limit and ignore item rarity.  The result is that people CAN fill their bags of holding with cheap items that are 1/day each.  At the end of the day, they still need to take actions to draw them out to use them.  It consumes party resources to get these items made.  It hasn't broken the game yet and is pretty fun to play, so far. 

Jun 15, 2012 -- 3:11PM, Llathos wrote:

Thanks for the sensible and well-written reply LoW.  My summary of your post breaks it down to:  

"One rule exists for a set of circumstances (LFR) that probably don't apply to you.

One was the original RAW.  

Both rules suck because they leave significant issues in the balance between magic item power (based on number of items) and gameplay fun"

Not quite.  Both rules have a downside - neither one really "sucks".  The Dailies-items-per-day rule was arcane and required extra tracking in a way that wasn't really fun, and it severely limited the available design space for useful non-daily items.  The Rarity rules eliminate the tracking *and* open the available options for what an item can do immensely, as well as creating a space for items that are more powerful, or whose power is harder to quantify - at the cost of making the available pick-your-own items less interesting.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 3:11PM, Llathos wrote:

The other mechanism I'm seeing employed is to accept the removal of the daily item usage limit and ignore item rarity.  The result is that people CAN fill their bags of holding with cheap items that are 1/day each.  At the end of the day, they still need to take actions to draw them out to use them.  It consumes party resources to get these items made.  It hasn't broken the game yet and is pretty fun to play, so far. 

Except it doesn't "cost party resources" to make them.  Not significantly, not once you level up more.  For the cost of a single L20 item, you can buy *125* L5 items.  Buying a low-level item is a rounding error of cash for a party 15 levels up from it.  And it usually doesn't consume the actions of anyone who wants to abuse it - some of the nastiest items don't have to be wielded, and for others, the mechanisms to get rid of the action cost are either cheap or included in something else they wanted to do anyway.

The solution we've had that works is telling the players *not to load up on items for all occasions*.  "Don't abuse it" solves all problems, including the one you're likely to run into:  Since you've said it's totally legal and okay as long as you can pay for it, you've defined the behaviour as "not abuse"

Of course, the solution that works for my group isn't going to work as a general rule, because it assumes good-faith adult actors with a similar definition of "abuse".

hi im new to d & d if my 1[w] is 1d10+8 and the power add str mod +5 do i at it all up and that is my dmg

Jun 21, 2012 -- 7:31PM, dakota1127 wrote:

hi im new to d & d if my 1[w] is 1d10+8 and the power add str mod +5 do i at it all up and that is my dmg

There no such thing as "my 1W is 1d10+8".  1W is always a die roll, ranging from 1d4 to 2d8.  Yours is "1d10".  Whenever you roll weapon damage, you add some modifiers - Enhancement bonus from a magic weapon, Feat bonus from Weapon Focus, stat bonus if the power you're using adds a stat bonus, etc.

Most likely, your "1d10+8" already includes your Strength bonus, and is the result calculated for a specific power.

What's your class, level, and Feats?  From that, we can explain the calculations in more detail.

Hello all. I was making an archer ranger on the character builder and was buying magic items. I was wondering if you add the enhancement bonus from magic ammunition (for example, +5 quarrel of biting) and the enhancement bonus from whatever weapon you are firing out of (for example, +5 magic longbow) to attack rolls. I know that bonuses from the same source don't normally stack but it seems odd to me that WotC would give magic ammunition enhancement bonuses when you'll never find a level 25 archer ranger firing out of a mundane bow. They are more likely to be using a weapon with a plus six enhancement bonus, a bonus that would make the enhancement on magic ammunition null. Any response will help and thanks in advance.

Jul 1, 2012 -- 12:15PM, ArlimOfTheSpellguard wrote:

Hello all. I was making an archer ranger on the character builder and was buying magic items. I was wondering if you add the enhancement bonus from magic ammunition (for example, +5 quarrel of biting) and the enhancement bonus from whatever weapon you are firing out of (for example, +5 magic longbow) to attack rolls. I know that bonuses from the same source don't normally stack but it seems odd to me that WotC would give magic ammunition enhancement bonuses when you'll never find a level 25 archer ranger firing out of a mundane bow. They are more likely to be using a weapon with a plus six enhancement bonus, a bonus that would make the enhancement on magic ammunition null. Any response will help and thanks in advance.

You use the enhancement bonus of the magic ammunition, not the enhancement bonus of the weapon you are using the ammunition through.

So, if you have a +6 bow, and load it with +5 arrows, you are -1 to the attack roll shown in the CB.

Jul 1, 2012 -- 12:15PM, ArlimOfTheSpellguard wrote:

Hello all. I was making an archer ranger on the character builder and was buying magic items. I was wondering if you add the enhancement bonus from magic ammunition (for example, +5 quarrel of biting) and the enhancement bonus from whatever weapon you are firing out of (for example, +5 magic longbow) to attack rolls. I know that bonuses from the same source don't normally stack but it seems odd to me that WotC would give magic ammunition enhancement bonuses when you'll never find a level 25 archer ranger firing out of a mundane bow. They are more likely to be using a weapon with a plus six enhancement bonus, a bonus that would make the enhancement on magic ammunition null. Any response will help and thanks in advance.

Wrong thread, you should ask this in the ask a simpe question thread.

That said, both provide an Enhancement bonus. Bonuses of the type do not stack. As to why they did that, to prevent people from trivially buying low level versions of the ammunition to fire out of their +6 weapon with no downside.

Jul 1, 2012 -- 12:17PM, Alcestis wrote:

Jul 1, 2012 -- 12:15PM, ArlimOfTheSpellguard wrote:

Hello all. I was making an archer ranger on the character builder and was buying magic items. I was wondering if you add the enhancement bonus from magic ammunition (for example, +5 quarrel of biting) and the enhancement bonus from whatever weapon you are firing out of (for example, +5 magic longbow) to attack rolls. I know that bonuses from the same source don't normally stack but it seems odd to me that WotC would give magic ammunition enhancement bonuses when you'll never find a level 25 archer ranger firing out of a mundane bow. They are more likely to be using a weapon with a plus six enhancement bonus, a bonus that would make the enhancement on magic ammunition null. Any response will help and thanks in advance.

Wrong thread, you should ask this in the ask a simpe question thread.

That said, both provide an Enhancement bonus. Bonuses of the type do not stack. As to why they did that, to prevent people from trivially buying low level versions of the ammunition to fire out of their +6 weapon with no downside.

I don't know, Alcestis.   This seems like the perfect thread for a question about a rule that most people don't realize.  You'd be surprised how many people don't know this about magic ammunition.

Except the thread isn't for questions, it is for stating you found a rule you didn't realize existed. Not the same thing as asking a question, at all.

Also: No, I wouldn't be.

Hey guys. One of my players pointed out a very interesting combo to me.

First, you have the talent Tome Expertise, which states that "enemies adjacent to your conjurations or summoned creatures grant combat advantage. An enemy that is immune to fear is immune to this effect."

Ok, that's great and all, now let's take a look at some conjuration powers. Oh, what do we have here?

Mage Hand
You gesture toward an object nearby, and a spectral floating hand lifts the object into the air and moves it where you wish.
At-Will        Arcane, Conjuration
Minor Action      Ranged 5
Effect: You conjure a spectral, floating hand in an unoccupied square within range. The hand lasts until the end of your next turn or until you use this power again. If you are holding an object when you use this power, the hand can move the object into a pack, a pouch, a sheath, or a similar container and simultaneously move any one object carried or worn anywhere on your body into your hand. While the hand persists, you can take the following actions.
  Minor Action: The hand picks up or manipulates an object weighing 20 pounds or less. It can hold only one object at a time.
  Move Action: The hand moves up to 5 squares in any direction, carrying the object it holds.
  Free Action: The hand drops the object it is holding.
Sustain Minor: The hand persists until the end of your next turn.

So, what do you guys think? Is it just an oversight, is that working as intended, or is there any rule I might have overlooked that prevents that from working?

Works. Moveable Conjurations dissapear at end of turn if the caster is out of range (range is  5 in this case). Brings the Wizard more into melee.

I see, makes sense. Thank you for the help.

#61 If a single attack includes 2 or more separable types of damage, Resistance is applied separately to each.

I know this seems apalling to many of you but it is the stated meaning of the rules. 

Consider this example: you are hit by an attack that deals 5 fire and 2 lightning damage. You have 5 lightning resist and 5 fire resist,

Do you get to reduce the lightnoing damage?

PHB SAYS! Resistance means you take less damage from a specific damage type.

So yes, obviously. But can you reduce the fire damage too? 

PHB SAYS!.If you have resist 5 fire, then any time you take fire damage, you reduce that damage

ANY TIME, with no limit on how many separate resistances count towards one attack. Reduce THAT Damage. 
 as in the fire damage, NOT "reduce the overall damage of the attack by an  amount granted by the highest single resist, ignoring all others"

The rules limit resist against Combined Damage Types, but the case of a single attack with separate amounts of different damage is not further discussed because it follows the General Rule: Resist works vs Damage Type. Any time you take the damage reduce the damage.

This goes against assumptions many hold dear, but I have yet to see a direct quote from a rulebook contradicting this definition of resistance even after hours of searching. If you wish to rebuttal with less than such a quote, please link to a new thread because explaiining this in terms a resistant mind will accept will be a lengthy process.

May 19, 2013 -- 9:18AM, Sir_Chaz wrote:

#61 If a single attack includes 2 or more separable types of damage, Resistance is applied separately to each.

I know this seems apalling to many of you but it is the stated meaning of the rules. 

Consider this example: you are hit by an attack that deals 5 fire and 2 lightning damage. You have 5 lightning resist and 5 fire resist,

Do you get to reduce the lightnoing damage?

PHB SAYS! Resistance means you take less damage from a specific damage type.

So yes, obviously. But can you reduce the fire damage too? 

PHB SAYS!.If you have resist 5 fire, then any time you take fire damage, you reduce that damage

ANY TIME, with no limit on how many separate resistances count towards one attack. Reduce THAT Damage. 
 as in the fire damage, NOT "reduce the overall damage of the attack by an  amount granted by the highest single resist, ignoring all others"

The rules limit resist against Combined Damage Types, but the case of a single attack with separate amounts of different damage is not further discussed because it follows the General Rule: Resist works vs Damage Type. Any time you take the damage reduce the damage.

This goes against assumptions many hold dear, but I have yet to see a direct quote from a rulebook contradicting this definition of resistance even after hours of searching. If you wish to rebuttal with less than such a quote, please link to a new thread because explaiining this in terms a resistant mind will accept will be a lengthy process.

Short version:  The rules do not cover situations with damage of multiple types encountering resistances of multiple types.  Make up a rule, and stick to it.

Longer version:  No, really, this isn't covered.  Damage that contains multiple types, sure.  Multiple resistances to a single damage type (even a single multi-type damage), yes.  One damage souyrce doing damage of two types, with two resistances?  Not covered.