Community

May 9, 2013 -- 10:52AM, theprince wrote:

Wait so it does 1d6 damage to anything that hit you since the last turn?  Doesn't that kill all minions that hit a warlock?

Again, presuming that we're discussing Infernal Wrath (which is a Tiefling power, and has nothing to do with warlocks), it's an encounter power that targets one creature and works once.  So yes, you could pop a single minion.  And it's a free action, so you'd use it on their turn.

shifting OUT of difficult terrain only requires one square of movement...correct?

May 9, 2013 -- 2:57PM, Baeleck wrote:

shifting OUT of difficult terrain only requires one square of movement...correct?

Correct.  Additional movement cost is  based on the square you are entering, not the square you are exiting.
    The only exception would be if the terrain type itself specified that exiting the square costs additional movement, but that would be non-standard

I know that in a party with multiple warlocks they can each benefit from the other's curses.  I wonder about the extent of synergy from one warlock and one multiclassed Student of Malediction, though.

One character is a warlock, cursing lots of things.  The second character is a wizard who multiclasses into warlock via Student of Malediction.  The wizard chooses to curse an enemy in round 1 and deals damage to that target, picking up the extra damage and ending that particular curse.  Fine.

Question: can the wizard thereafter exploit the curses placed by the warlock, for purposes of extra damage, for the rest of the encounter?  The wizard won't be able to place any more curses, and the curse he placed in round 1 has dropped, but does he still do more damage on the warlock's cursed targets?  Nothing states that the "A cursed enemy is more vulnerable to your attacks... etc" clause of Warlock's Curse class feature is no longer in effect, even though the wizard may activate that class feature only once, but I'm not sure.

EDIT: And if the answer is "no, because the class feature must be activated in the same turn that the extra damage is taken", then does this mean that a warlock who does not curse an enemy in round 2 thereby cannot do extra damage in round 2 to the enemy he cursed in round 1?

Thanks.

Is a monk's unarmed strike, when using it and it alone, considered two weapons for the purposes of feats, features, etc. that require you to be wielding two weapons?

I haven't seen any reason it cannot (as it has the off-hand property and can qualify for both slots) and see no reason it should not, but I haven't found any kind of official response.

May 10, 2013 -- 12:50AM, NinjaKhan wrote:

Is a monk's unarmed strike, when using it and it alone, considered two weapons for the purposes of feats, features, etc. that require you to be wielding two weapons?

I haven't seen any reason it cannot (as it has the off-hand property and can qualify for both slots) and see no reason it should not, but I haven't found any kind of official response.

Debateable by RAW, actually, for a variety of reasons. All of which become instantly irrelevant when you equip two non-magical spiked gauntlets. They leave the hand free, will count for equipping two weapons, and you can still attack with MUS for both attacks.

So... basically even if it doesn't count by RAW, and it isn't clear either way, there is a simple loophole that'll make it work regardless. So you're fine.

May 10, 2013 -- 1:50AM, Alcestis wrote:

Debateable by RAW, actually, for a variety of reasons. All of which become instantly irrelevant when you equip two non-magical spiked gauntlets. They leave the hand free, will count for equipping two weapons, and you can still attack with MUS for both attacks.

So... basically even if it doesn't count by RAW, and it isn't clear either way, there is a simple loophole that'll make it work regardless. So you're fine.

I had gathered as much, and I find it very.. ironic?.. that the 'weapon' which bypasses the rules ambiguity is in the "unarmed" weapon group.

Generally speaking however, I suppose I should abandon all hope of ever getting/finding an offical WotC reply?

Not CustServ, I really could care less about their rulings.

P.S. I think the only RAW confusion comes from the versatility of the unarmed strike (headbutt, kick, etc.) versus any other weapon, however I can not see any scenario in which it is not considered a one-handed weapon.  Look at the description of unarmed strike in the PHB and compare with what's provided in PHB3.

If it's a one-handed weapon, in the unarmed weapon group, I don't see why it should functionally behave any differently from a Spiked Gauntlet, unless your DM hates monks.  I have never known anything else in 4e that states because something has additional versatility, it is less useful.  Why start at the least supported weapon in the game?

Figuring out the interaction of feats like TWF and MUS is a bit tricky because of the exact wording of the feats and MUS, and they should have just issued a clear ruling in PHB3 to make it clear.

   TWF and TWD both specify you must be "wielding a melee weapon in each hand"; MUS is considered a one-handed melee weapon, but it doesn't actually have to be your hand, and it can never actually be in your hand.

  I haven't had a monk in my group yet, but as a DM I'd probably rule that it can count as one of two weapons for TWF and TWD and other similar feats and powers and you still have to wield another weapon, with the reasoning being that then you have two distinctly independent weapons.   If you aren't holding another weapon, then you really only have 1 Monk Unarmed Strike that you're wielding, even if you can deliver it with any part of your body.

May 8, 2013 -- 12:27PM, peteincary wrote:

The table for long jumping shows that a check of 9 or less results in zero squares cleared for a total move of 0 squares.

"clearing" zero squares still moves you one 1 square (i.e. jumping moves you to the square on the other side of the distance you "clear"). PHB p.182: "The creature lands 1 square beyond the squares it clears." "If the creature ends the movement over a drop, it falls and can’t move any farther as part of the current action"

if I roll a really low number during my move, that I jump 0 squares, using 0 squares of movement from my move action, and then can just continue my move action from there, reroll my jump check as I continue my move?

No (as indicated above), but you technically can jump multiple times during your move (but I wouldn't begrudge a DM limiting it to one jump per movement).

May 10, 2013 -- 12:34PM, mvincent wrote:

May 8, 2013 -- 12:27PM, peteincary wrote:

The table for long jumping shows that a check of 9 or less results in zero squares cleared for a total move of 0 squares.

"clearing" zero squares still moves you one 1 square (i.e. jumping moves you to the square on the other side of the distance you "clear"). PHB p.182: "The creature lands 1 square beyond the squares it clears." "If the creature ends the movement over a drop, it falls and can’t move any farther as part of the current action" 

Don't have my books handy to check if the RC actually changed this on page 136 or the online compendium currently has an error, but the compendium currently states that a result of 0-9 on a long jump is also a Total move of 0 squares (although moving 1 square and clearing 0 makes more sense to me)

May 10, 2013 -- 1:15PM, RisingZan wrote:

the compendium currently states that a result of 0-9 on a long jump is also a Total move of 0 squares

Wierd. The RC p.40 chart does indeed conflict with it's associated text. I believe the text in this case takes precedence over the chart (since no exception was noted for the calculation).

May 10, 2013 -- 8:42AM, RisingZan wrote:

Figuring out the interaction of feats like TWF and MUS is a bit tricky because of the exact wording of the feats and MUS, and they should have just issued a clear ruling in PHB3 to make it clear.

   TWF and TWD both specify you must be "wielding a melee weapon in each hand"; MUS is considered a one-handed melee weapon, but it doesn't actually have to be your hand, and it can never actually be in your hand.

  I haven't had a monk in my group yet, but as a DM I'd probably rule that it can count as one of two weapons for TWF and TWD and other similar feats and powers and you still have to wield another weapon, with the reasoning being that then you have two distinctly independent weapons.   If you aren't holding another weapon, then you really only have 1 Monk Unarmed Strike that you're wielding, even if you can deliver it with any part of your body.

To be perfectly honest, I think most anti-twf sentiments about this discussion are formed around a rule that does not exist in 4e.

d20srd.org: There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

They specified it this way in 3e because it served a very specific purpose, and that had to do with the distinction between the two weapon fighting rules and the flurry of blows mechanic, which did not mix.  However, even then you were allowed full access to two weapon fighting as a monk fighting unarmed, you merely couldn't use those rules at the same time as flurry of blows.

Come 4e and that distinction is irrelevant because flurry behaves in a completely different fashion.  Between that and the whopping 2 feats they spent on the entire "unarmed" weapon group, it's obvious WotC spent very little attention to detail on the monk or monk unarmed strike in general.

However, it still baffles me that you think a 4e monk cannot make an off-hand attack with unarmed, when it both has the off-hand property, and precedent in 3e.  The only thing it doesn't have is a specific rule that allows it, which literally no other one handed weapon does.  You want specific wording from the least supported, least defined weapon in the game?  Follow what's written.  Don't make up rules to detriment what is already a subpar choice because you think two fists behave FUNDAMENTALLY differently depending on whether they are wearing spiked gauntlets or not.

Seriously, that's what it comes down to.  You believe that an unarmed weapon which does not occupy your hand cannot be two weapons, unless it is an unarmed weapon which does not occupy your hand.  To translate that from RAW to english, you think a monk's unarmed strike is fundamentally different from a spiked gauntlet, because... punching is harder without a glove?  Because you hate all monks and their superior weapon choice of the mighty unarmed strike?  Because you like skewing rules to the least favorable way they could possibly be interpreted, no matter how small a benefit they grant?  Or because you like to fabricate non-existing rules where a clear pattern has already been established, because FLAVOR TEXT gives you some idea that something is completely mechanically different from every other example given.

Let me re-iterate that last point.  Your only leg to stand on exists in flavor text.

May 10, 2013 -- 4:03PM, NinjaKhan wrote:

May 10, 2013 -- 8:42AM, RisingZan wrote:

Figuring out the interaction of feats like TWF and MUS is a bit tricky because of the exact wording of the feats and MUS, and they should have just issued a clear ruling in PHB3 to make it clear.

   TWF and TWD both specify you must be "wielding a melee weapon in each hand"; MUS is considered a one-handed melee weapon, but it doesn't actually have to be your hand, and it can never actually be in your hand.

  I haven't had a monk in my group yet, but as a DM I'd probably rule that it can count as one of two weapons for TWF and TWD and other similar feats and powers and you still have to wield another weapon, with the reasoning being that then you have two distinctly independent weapons.   If you aren't holding another weapon, then you really only have 1 Monk Unarmed Strike that you're wielding, even if you can deliver it with any part of your body.

To be perfectly honest, I think most anti-twf sentiments about this discussion are formed around a rule that does not exist in 4e.

d20srd.org: There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

They specified it this way in 3e because it served a very specific purpose, and that had to do with the distinction between the two weapon fighting rules and the flurry of blows mechanic, which did not mix.  However, even then you were allowed full access to two weapon fighting as a monk fighting unarmed, you merely couldn't use those rules at the same time as flurry of blows.

Come 4e and that distinction is irrelevant because flurry behaves in a completely different fashion.  Between that and the whopping 2 feats they spent on the entire "unarmed" weapon group, it's obvious WotC spent very little attention to detail on the monk or monk unarmed strike in general.

However, it still baffles me that you think a 4e monk cannot make an off-hand attack with unarmed, when it both has the off-hand property, and precedent in 3e.  The only thing it doesn't have is a specific rule that allows it, which literally no other one handed weapon does.  You want specific wording from the least supported, least defined weapon in the game?  Follow what's written.  Don't make up rules to detriment what is already a subpar choice because you think two fists behave FUNDAMENTALLY differently depending on whether they are wearing spiked gauntlets or not.

Seriously, that's what it comes down to.  You believe that an unarmed weapon which does not occupy your hand cannot be two weapons, unless it is an unarmed weapon which does not occupy your hand.  To translate that from RAW to english, you think a monk's unarmed strike is fundamentally different from a spiked gauntlet, because... punching is harder without a glove?  Because you hate all monks and their superior weapon choice of the mighty unarmed strike?  Because you like skewing rules to the least favorable way they could possibly be interpreted, no matter how small a benefit they grant?  Or because you like to fabricate non-existing rules where a clear pattern has already been established, because FLAVOR TEXT gives you some idea that something is completely mechanically different from every other example given.

Let me re-iterate that last point.  Your only leg to stand on exists in flavor text.

To be fair, it is called Monk Unarmed Strike, not Monk Unarmed Strikes.  The issue comes down to the fact that two-weapon fighting doesn't work the same way in 4e that it used to work in previous editions.  In 4e, *any* weapon with the off-hand property can be in your off-hand.  Normally, it won't matter because you can only attack with one weapon.  There are powers which specify to attack with main-hand weapon and off-hand weapon.  There are feats which depend on you wielding two weapons.  But those powers and feats are very few and far between (unless you are a TW Ranger or a Whirling Barbarian.) 

Also, no offense, but this is 4e, not 3e.  Precedence from 3e doesn't matter much in 4e. 

The garrotte has specific rules text which says it cannot be used unless a power says to use a garrotte.

The fact that WotC spent very little time or attention to detail on the Monk was obvious when they decided to throw it in as a Psionic class, simply because people wanted the monk and the PHB3 was all about Psionics.   

I actually think the Monk as a Psionic class, making Ki a form of psionics, makes sense.

Also, I don't have a problem with Monk's making an off-hand attack with his unarmed strike.  In fact, only monks can make an off-hand attack with their Monk Unarmed Strike, because the improvised Unarmed Attack of all other classes does not have the off-hand property. 
 
  The reason they didn't both put in any rules discussion about how TWF, TWF or off-hand attacks actually work as a monk is because since they made Monk an implement class, where no Monk powers have the weapon keyword, or allow you to use an off-hand weapon, it is largely irrelevant to how the class works.  It only comes up as an issue when you start getting into the various optimization discussions, which they probably didn't consider people would do, like multiclassing to get Twin Strike or taking feats requiring two weapons.
 
 Ultimately, to figure out if TWF or TWD work it comes down to a single question: Can a monk simulataneously wield "Monk Unarmed Strike"  both hands?

  Monk Unarmed Strike is defined as a melee weapon, so it seems it meets that requirement of wielding a melee weapon.  It just isn't clear if you you can wield 1 "Monk Unarmed Stirke" per hand, or if you only have 1 Monk Unarmed Strike shared between both hands, in which case you need another weapon.

Mindwarp Staff + Mindbite Scorn.

The staff adds +2 bonus to damage rolls (from psychic origin), Mindbite scorn gives one extra curse die (which you roll) that is psychic damage.

So my question is, if I use, say, Hand of Blight (which has a psychic keyword), do I get the + 2 damage on the die roll for damage (added to the 1d8), AND + 2 damage to the 1 curse roll for damage?

Or, does the Staff only effect the actual single damage roll from the power, and none of the extras?

Mindbite Scorn increase Warlock's Cuse damage, which will be in addition to Hand of Blight's damage being an extra damage but this entire process is still a single damage roll and so Mindwarp Staff's bonus will apply only once.

May 10, 2013 -- 9:22PM, RisingZan wrote:

  Monk Unarmed Strike is defined as a melee weapon, so it seems it meets that requirement of wielding a melee weapon.  It just isn't clear if you you can wield 1 "Monk Unarmed Stirke" per hand, or if you only have 1 Monk Unarmed Strike shared between both hands, in which case you need another weapon.

You do realize how ridiculous that argument is when you replace Monk Unarmed Strike with Spiked Gauntlet, correct?

This is the logic being used:
"I am wearing two spiked gauntlets on my fists, how many weapons do I have? Two."
"I take off the spiked gauntlets, how many weapons do I have? One."*

I simply don't see any way that logic follows.  Both are unarmed weapons with the off-hand property.  There are only two differences between them, one is that a Spiked Gauntlet can be enchanted (and occupy the hands slot) and the Monk Unarmed Strike specifically cannot, the second is a line of flavor text that never even mentions the word punching.

Furthermore, so long as you're wearing the spiked gauntlets, you qualify for all TWF things and can still use Monk Unarmed Strike for any attack you choose to make.  The only thing you've accomplished is charging characters 10gp to buy two spiked gauntlets to do what they should already be able to do without them.  It'd be like forcing a dual dagger rogue to buy a spiked gauntlet for one hand because he isn't "fighting with two different weapons."

*Is your hand supposed to come off along with the second gauntlet?  Did you put it on backwards?  How exactly do you think attacks are made with spiked gauntlets?

Thank you Plaguescarred, I do have one more quick question.

When using 'Dual Implement Spellcaster' + 'Vicious Rod (d8 Curse Damage) + Mindwarp Staff (of Ruin in this case), in the builder, if I look under the powers, it takes the properties of the Vicious Rod, and adds it to the Midewarp Staff for damage.

For example it lists as both having the same attack bonus, the Mindwarp Staff as doing plus 3 damage (+2 for being a psychic move, +1 because of ruin) BUT it has both of them doing 1d8 + 1d8 Curse Damage (I still have Mindbite Scorn.)

So it is calculating the damage of each weapon individually (if I cast it with that specific weapon), so am I correct to say that Dual Implement Spellcaster takes the properties of both weapons, or is it a glitch in the character builder?

I think if you look at the monk unarmed strike you'd find your answer. It's a simple one-hand weapon in the unarmed weapon group with the off hand property. The Monk class doesn't give you an unarmed strike, it gives you proficiency with the unarmed strike. As it only requires one hand to wield, you can obviously wield one in each hand, as long as your hand are free. There's really nothing in the rules which gives any indication that the weapon could not be dual wielded. And it doesn't hurt anything else in the rules so why would you want to rule it in any other way?

May 11, 2013 -- 6:33AM, Qwhatchet wrote:

When using 'Dual Implement Spellcaster' + 'Vicious Rod (d8 Curse Damage) + Mindwarp Staff (of Ruin in this case), in the builder, if I look under the powers, it takes the properties of the Vicious Rod, and adds it to the Midewarp Staff for damage.

For example it lists as both having the same attack bonus, the Mindwarp Staff as doing plus 3 damage (+2 for being a psychic move, +1 because of ruin) BUT it has both of them doing 1d8 + 1d8 Curse Damage (I still have Mindbite Scorn.)

So it is calculating the damage of each weapon individually (if I cast it with that specific weapon), so am I correct to say that Dual Implement Spellcaster takes the properties of both weapons, or is it a glitch in the character builder?

Its a bug from the Character Builder IMO, since Dual Implement Spellcaster doesn't use the off-hand implement's Property, only it’s enhancement bonus to damage rolls and you're not dealing your Warlock’s Curse damage with the Vicious Rod as you're attacking with the Mindwarp Staff of Ruin.

So if the +1 Mindwarp Staff of Ruin is in your main hand and the +1 Vicious Rod is in your off-hand when you hit with Hand of Blight for exemple, you should be dealing; 

1d8 + charisma modifier + 2 untyped (energized) + 1 enhancement (staff of ruin) + 1 item (staff of ruin) + 1 untyped (dual implement proficiency - vicioud rod) + 2d6 (warlork's curse) + others

And if the +1 Vicious Rod is in your main hand and the +1 Mindwarp Staff of Ruin is in your off-hand when you hit with Hand of Blight for exemple, you should be dealing; 

1d8 + charisma modifier + 1 enhancement (vicious rod) + 1 untyped (dual implement proficiency - mindwarp staff of ruin) + 2d8 (warlork's curse) + others

Spoiler: Show

Lion's Den Monk At-will power has following line:

Until the start of your next turn, once per turn as a free action, you can deal damage equal to your Constitution modifier to any enemy that enters a square adjacent to you.

Does this count for forced movement?

Does it activate if the enemy moves from one adjacent square to another adjacent square?

May 11, 2013 -- 5:01PM, thiotes wrote:

Lion's Den Monk At-will power has following line:

Until the start of your next turn, once per turn as a free action, you can deal damage equal to your Constitution modifier to any enemy that enters a square adjacent to you.

Does this count for forced movement?

Does it activate if the enemy moves from one adjacent square to another adjacent square?

Since this is not an opportunity attack, forced movement triggers this damage just fine, as long as the forced movement moves them into a square adjacent to you and you haven't dealt this damage already this turn.

If the enemy is entering a square adjacent to you and you haven't already dealt this damage this turn, then the enemy can take this damage.

May 11, 2013 -- 5:01PM, thiotes wrote:

Does this count for forced movement?

Does it activate if the enemy moves from one adjacent square to another adjacent square?

 
1) Yes ''enter a square'' include unwilling movement such as forced movement unless noted otherwise.

2) Yes it triggers whenever an enemy enters a square adjacent to you this regardless if he was already adjacent.


RC 200 Enter a Square: Move into a square on the battle grid by any means, wether willingly or unwillingly.  

Is it possible to use the Sword of Assault AP feature to charge, and then follow it up with your normal standard action?

I would think no; you can only specifically use the extra AP action after charging. Otherwise you'd be able to AP Charge, then take your normal move+minor+standard, which seems incorrect (and the rules say only free actions are allowed after a charge, and the reason APs can happen after is that spending the AP is your free action).

Assaulting Charge doesn't specifically let you use standard actions after a Charge, so Charge's No Further Actions limitation still apply.

May 11, 2013 -- 2:41AM, NinjaKhan wrote:

May 10, 2013 -- 9:22PM, RisingZan wrote:

  Monk Unarmed Strike is defined as a melee weapon, so it seems it meets that requirement of wielding a melee weapon.  It just isn't clear if you you can wield 1 "Monk Unarmed Stirke" per hand, or if you only have 1 Monk Unarmed Strike shared between both hands, in which case you need another weapon.

You do realize how ridiculous that argument is when you replace Monk Unarmed Strike with Spiked Gauntlet, correct?

This is the logic being used:
"I am wearing two spiked gauntlets on my fists, how many weapons do I have? Two."
"I take off the spiked gauntlets, how many weapons do I have? One."*

I simply don't see any way that logic follows.  Both are unarmed weapons with the off-hand property.  There are only two differences between them, one is that a Spiked Gauntlet can be enchanted (and occupy the hands slot) and the Monk Unarmed Strike specifically cannot, the second is a line of flavor text that never even mentions the word punching.

Furthermore, so long as you're wearing the spiked gauntlets, you qualify for all TWF things and can still use Monk Unarmed Strike for any attack you choose to make.  The only thing you've accomplished is charging characters 10gp to buy two spiked gauntlets to do what they should already be able to do without them.  It'd be like forcing a dual dagger rogue to buy a spiked gauntlet for one hand because he isn't "fighting with two different weapons."

*Is your hand supposed to come off along with the second gauntlet?  Did you put it on backwards?  How exactly do you think attacks are made with spiked gauntlets?

Logic and the rules have a tenuous relationship at best. Again, the arguement doesn't matter. Either it works and you're fine, or you put on two Spiked Gauntlets and you're still fine. Since there is no way of resolving the ambiguities in the RAW (and there are a lot of them you'd have to work out that you two haven't even brushed on yet), but there is a RAW loophope that works, the discusssion is pointless.

May 10, 2013 -- 12:34PM, mvincent wrote:

May 8, 2013 -- 12:27PM, peteincary wrote:

The table for long jumping shows that a check of 9 or less results in zero squares cleared for a total move of 0 squares.

"clearing" zero squares still moves you one 1 square (i.e. jumping moves you to the square on the other side of the distance you "clear"). PHB p.182: "The creature lands 1 square beyond the squares it clears." "If the creature ends the movement over a drop, it falls and can’t move any farther as part of the current action"

Actually no, a 9 or less jump check results in moving 0 squares.  A 10 lets you move two squares - one jumped over, landing in the square beyond.  This is clearly described in the jump rules as they explain the table:

Athletics Result	Distance Cleared	Total Move
9 or lower	0 squares	0 squares
10–19	1 square (3 feet up)	2 squares
20–29	2 squares (4 feet up)	3 squares
30–39	3 squares (5 feet up)	4 squares
40–49	4 squares (6 feet up)	5 squares

May 13, 2013 -- 5:53AM, Mand12 wrote:

Athletics Result	Distance Cleared	Total Move
9 or lower	0 squares	0 squares

There seems to be an error in the total square moved because the creature in this table doesn't lands 1 square beyond the squares it clears.

The difference is that "clears zero squares" is a non-jump in the same way that "takes zero damage" is a non-damage.

If you roll 9 or lower, you didn't jump.

May 13, 2013 -- 1:35PM, Mand12 wrote:

The difference is that "clears zero squares" is a non-jump in the same way that "takes zero damage" is a non-damage.

If you roll 9 or lower, you didn't jump.

But the problem is that the rules text doesn't state this as an exception. What if it was a running long jump?

May 13, 2013 -- 1:35PM, Mand12 wrote:

The difference is that "clears zero squares" is a non-jump in the same way that "takes zero damage" is a non-damage.

If you roll 9 or lower, you didn't jump.

I would instead say "You jumped, and then landed in the very next square.  The effect of this is identical to moving without jumping, unless something weird and specific happens *when you jump*."

But apart from that, I would agree.

May 13, 2013 -- 3:05PM, mvincent wrote:

May 13, 2013 -- 1:35PM, Mand12 wrote:

The difference is that "clears zero squares" is a non-jump in the same way that "takes zero damage" is a non-damage.

If you roll 9 or lower, you didn't jump.

But the problem is that the rules text doesn't state this as an exception. What if it was a running long jump?

Yes it does, in the table.

We don't have the bizarre text/table priority system that 3e did.

I  find a little ridiculous that you can't jump less than 10 ft in 4E :P 

Well, since you don't use squares of movement if you didn't move, you can just make Athletics check until you get a result of 10+ since nothing prevent you from Jumping more than once per move action or movement anyway (unless you hit an obstacle along the way) 

May 13, 2013 -- 6:01PM, Mand12 wrote:

May 13, 2013 -- 3:05PM, mvincent wrote:

May 13, 2013 -- 1:35PM, Mand12 wrote:

If you roll 9 or lower, you didn't jump.

But the problem is that the rules text doesn't state this as an exception. What if it was a running long jump?

Yes it does, in the table.

I do not believe the jumping table says "If you roll 9 or lower", and I believe running long jumps are an example where we could possibly agree this is untrue.

Question regarding the Gelatinous Cube:

So while you are inside a gelatinous cube, you are restrained and dazed and are taking ongoing damage.
To get out of that is to escape-from-a-grab.

The confusing situation came from our Paladin who has the feat that allows him a saving throw at the start of his turn to end conditions like Dazed and Stunned.

The condition imposed by the gelatinous cube does not ask for a saving throw and escaping the cube removes all conditions at once.

So the question was "Should he even roll the saving throw against the daze condition in the first place? And if so and he succeeded, what would that do?" 

He can roll the save.  If he succeeds, he removes the daze and restrain and ongoing - however, since he's still inside the gelcube, it comes back immediately, as the save doesn't ALSO remove him from the gelcube's space etc, so the save has no effect on the conditions.  He can MAKE the same if he wants - and he may well do, if for instance, he has the Hero's Poise feat.

AT least, that's how I'd rule it.

May 13, 2013 -- 10:01PM, mvincent wrote:

May 13, 2013 -- 6:01PM, Mand12 wrote:

May 13, 2013 -- 3:05PM, mvincent wrote:

May 13, 2013 -- 1:35PM, Mand12 wrote:

If you roll 9 or lower, you didn't jump.

But the problem is that the rules text doesn't state this as an exception. What if it was a running long jump?

Yes it does, in the table.

I do not believe the jumping table says "If you roll 9 or lower", and I believe running long jumps are an example where we could possibly agree this is untrue.

"result of 9 or lower" is, in fact, what it says.  Running Start modifies things before checking on the table, not after.

May 13, 2013 -- 9:18PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

I  find a little ridiculous that you can't jump less than 10 ft in 4E :P 

Well, since you don't use squares of movement if you didn't move, you can just make Athletics check until you get a result of 10+ since nothing prevent you from Jumping more than once per move action or movement anyway (unless you hit an obstacle along the way) 

It says you can make a Jump check as part of an action that involves moving.  It doesn't say you can make as many Jump checks as you want as part of an action that involves moving.

And no, there is no mechanism to jump from one square to an adjacent square.  It may be ridiculous, but it is the rule.  Long Jump is, at its core, about clearing squares, not about replicating the full range of jumping possibilities.

A jump check result of 9 or lower results in no movement and no expenditure of squares of movement.  You're then free to move to the adjacent square as normal, but you're not jumping to it under the Long Jump rules. 

May 14, 2013 -- 5:53AM, thespaceinvader wrote:

He can roll the save.  If he succeeds, he removes the daze and restrain and ongoing - however, since he's still inside the gelcube, it comes back immediately, as the save doesn't ALSO remove him from the gelcube's space etc, so the save has no effect on the conditions.  He can MAKE the same if he wants - and he may well do, if for instance, he has the Hero's Poise feat.

AT least, that's how I'd rule it.

Seconded.  Same deal as with that feat and aura effects, and any other position-based effect.  You saved, great, but you're still in the effect so it doesn't go away.

Just saving against Dazed doesn't end the Grab any more than saving against Dazed while using Unnatural Vitality ends the Dying condition on Revenants.

the effect isn't 
(grabbed, taking ongoing, and dazed, until escape), it's 
(grabbed, until escape)+(these other bad things happen because you are inside a gelatinous cube, escaping the grab puts you outside the cube by definition)

If you made the save it would give you another action to try to escape, and you could do cool stuff like use Immediates while still engulfed assuming you didn't escape.  You would remain undazed until the Cube reapplies the Engulf attack on its turn, and you get Dazed again. 

May 14, 2013 -- 6:26AM, FLAvatar wrote:

If you made the save it would give you another action to try to escape, and you could do cool stuff like use Immediates while still engulfed assuming you didn't escape.  You would remain undazed until the Cube reapplies the Engulf attack on its turn, and you get Dazed again. 

This is incorrect.  In cube = dazed.

May 14, 2013 -- 6:26AM, FLAvatar wrote:

the effect isn't 
(grabbed, taking ongoing, and dazed, until escape), it's 
(grabbed, until escape)+(these other bad things happen because you are inside a gelatinous cube, escaping the grab puts you outside the cube by definition)

Actually the effect is the first line you give, where all effects apply until escape, although each cube words it slightly differently due to various updates.

From Gelatinous Cube: Spoiler: Show

From Massive Gelatinous Cube: Spoiler: Show

From Gluttnous Cube: Spoiler: Show

All of which are functionally the same.

May 14, 2013 -- 6:15AM, Mand12 wrote:

It says you can make a Jump check as part of an action that involves moving.

No it doesn't say that, you are the one making it singular by saying ''a jump'' It says;

Action: The check is usually part of a move action, but it can be part of any of the creature’s actions that involve the creature moving.

May 14, 2013 -- 6:15AM, Mand12 wrote:

It doesn't say you can make as many Jump checks as you want as part of an action that involves moving.

It doesn't say you cannot make as many Jump checks as you want as part of an action that involves moving and its not limited in use.

May 14, 2013 -- 11:39AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

It doesn't say you cannot

Improper 4e rules construction.

The improper construction is the one you claim the rules to say. Me and RisingZan already told you the rules didn't say you couldn't make more than one check per move action or movement as you claim to.

May 14, 2013 -- 11:47AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

the rules didn't say you couldn't

This, still this.  Do you not understand what I'm saying here, about how this doesn't work?

May 13, 2013 -- 9:18PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

I  find a little ridiculous that you can't jump less than 10 ft in 4E :P 

Well, since you don't use squares of movement if you didn't move, you can just make Athletics check until you get a result of 10+ since nothing prevent you from Jumping more than once per move action or movement anyway (unless you hit an obstacle along the way) 

Completely agree. My Rogue/Executioner has the At-Will Utility Ghost on the Rooftops and just hops his movement distance everywhere. The rest of the party thinks it's somewhat comical.

-Just Say NO to difficult terrain!-

 

May 14, 2013 -- 12:06PM, da_duke wrote:

May 13, 2013 -- 9:18PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

I  find a little ridiculous that you can't jump less than 10 ft in 4E :P 

Well, since you don't use squares of movement if you didn't move, you can just make Athletics check until you get a result of 10+ since nothing prevent you from Jumping more than once per move action or movement anyway (unless you hit an obstacle along the way) 

Completely agree. My Rogue/Executioner has the At-Will Utility Ghost on the Rooftops and just hops his movement distance everywhere. The rest of the party thinks it's somewhat comical.

-Just Say NO to difficult terrain!-

 

Well you can always jump less distance than your check result, so if you had a jump check of 15, you could say you cleared 0 squares and landed in the next square, hopping over a low wall or something similar.

 Otherwise you'd have a problems with jumping challenges where characters with good athletic checks keep jumping over the target square because they can't jump less than 15 feet.

May 14, 2013 -- 8:44AM, RisingZan wrote:

May 14, 2013 -- 6:26AM, FLAvatar wrote:

the effect isn't 
(grabbed, taking ongoing, and dazed, until escape), it's 
(grabbed, until escape)+(these other bad things happen because you are inside a gelatinous cube, escaping the grab puts you outside the cube by definition)

Actually the effect is the first line you give, where all effects apply until escape, although each cube words it slightly differently due to various updates.

From Gelatinous Cube: Spoiler: Show

Until the grab ends, the target takes ongoing 10 acid damage and is dazed.

From Massive Gelatinous Cube: Spoiler: Show

...the target is grabbed, pulled into the cube’s space, dazed, and takes ongoing 11 acid damage until the grab ends.

From Gluttnous Cube: Spoiler: Show

the target is dazed and takes ongoing 15 acid damage until it escapes the grab.

I was quibbling over the point that ending the Daze should not end the Grab.  If succeeding on the save ended all the conditions, the victim (assuming Medium size) would be illegally occupying the Cube's space if he doesn't get shifted outside the cube, and no longer inside the Cube for the conditions to get re-applied if he does shift to a legal square.

I guess my POV is that ending a Grab via a saving throw is functionally the same as Escaping a Grab, and that I have no problem with leaving an un-Dazed Paladin stuck in a box.  Even if it isn't the same, the moment the Grab ends the victim has to occupy a legal square.

It's no excuse for screwing up argument beyond all recognition by trying to parse it out for illustration, and failing miserably =)

May 14, 2013 -- 11:49AM, Mand12 wrote:

May 14, 2013 -- 11:47AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

the rules didn't say you couldn't

This, still this.  Do you not understand what I'm saying here, about how this doesn't work?

I understand what your argument , but I believe you're misapplying that maxim in this instance.  The argument Plaguescarred and I are making is that Jump does not need to specifically state that you can jump multiple times during movement because jump can occur at any time during any other movement.

 Let's step away from the Jump example and apply it to another movement related skill that is written in a similar way:

HOP DOWN

Make an Acrobatics check to hop down 10 feet and land standing.

        Action: The check is usually part of a move action, but it can be part of any of the creature’s actions that involve the creature moving.
        DC: DC 15. The creature can make this Acrobatics check only if the drop is no more than 10 feet.
        Success: The creature hops down, lands standing, and takes no falling damage. The downward move uses no movement from the action.
        Failure: The creature falls.

  Now let's say the character has an Acrobatics skill of +20, so success at Hop Down is automatic, and is standing at the edge of a terrain feature, where there is a 5' ledge 10 feet down, then there is another 5' ledge 10 feet below that, and then the ground level 10 feet below that.
Looking something like this, where P is the player:

P
  |
  |_
     |
     |_
        |
        |_

 Would you only allow the player to hop down one ledge per action because the Acrobatics skill does not specifically state you can hop down multiple times per action allowing movement?

 Note that both Jump and Hop Down have no action type and are not limited by action type - they are instead part of any other action that allows movement. 

  I can conceive of scenarios where a single character hops down, jumps, swims, climbs and flies in the same action.  None of Hop Down, Jump or Climb explicitly state that you can take one of those other actions during the same movement action, but that is not because its not allowed, its because they are implicitly all allowed to occur at any time during any movement. 
   There is a specific rule about combining climbing, burrowing, flying, walking and swimming, but that rule particularly pertains to how to calculate total speed when combining movement modes.


 

I completely admit that it is stupid, pointless, completely counterintuitive, and shouldn't be applied by any rational DM to any actual game.

None of that is relevant to what the rules actually say.  We need to be clear about what they say before we dismiss them, not distort what they say to what we think they should say.

Sorcerous Blade Channeling + Weapon of Speed's minor action power or Ruthelss Spellfury.  Both of the latter allow you to make a ranged basic attack.  Can that then be turned into a melee attack, even though they're explicitly ranged?  (Note: I'm aware that they'd function as melee attacks, not melee basic attacks; that's not the question).

May 14, 2013 -- 7:12PM, masteraleph wrote:

Sorcerous Blade Channeling + Weapon of Speed's minor action power or Ruthelss Spellfury.  Both of the latter allow you to make a ranged basic attack.  Can that then be turned into a melee attack, even though they're explicitly ranged?  (Note: I'm aware that they'd function as melee attacks, not melee basic attacks; that's not the question).

Just because it becomes melee doesn't make it not an RBA. Still an RBA.

Is there a way for a Sorcerer to use the properties of a dagger when the dagger is used as an implement? For instance, I have a Jagged Dagger that increases the crit range to 19-20. Can that crit range be used on my burst/blast powers?

There isn't "a way" in the sense of "you do this trick, or take this feat" - it just does.  A weapon enchantment has to actually say things like "weapon attack" in order to not work.  Jagged implement works fine, no adjustment required.  Do what the enchantment says.

I have two questions about Knightly Intercession (paladin level 9 daily attack power).

1. I can choose not to subject the target to divine sanction even if I hit it with the attack, right?
2. Suppose the triggering event is an enemy hitting with a ranged attack.  As an effect I pull it adjacent to me and make the stated attack, as an immediate interrupt.  Can I also get an opportunity attack against it, since it has now made a ranged attack against me while adjacent?

Thanks.

1. No, the target is subject to your divine sanction even if you don't want to.

2. No because the triggering enemy wasn't adjacent to you when it used the ranged power.

May 15, 2013 -- 5:54PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

1. No, the target is subject to your divine sanction even if you don't want to.

2. No because the triggering enemy wasn't adjacent to you when it used the ranged power.

Okay, then.  Follow up to #1: can I choose not to make the attack?  Alternatively, can I choose to release the mark after it's applied?

The Effect line doesn't seem to give a choice if you can make the attack or not.

You cannot released a mark unless noted otherwise. It last until it ends or its superceded.

Bummer, okay then.  Thanks!

Check with your DM. He may say ypu don't have to attack it if you don't want to, similar to how PHB2 FAQ explain how you don't have to attack an ally with Chaos Bolt. While not identical case, they are pretty similar in that way they tells you to ''make the following attack/secondary attack''

Right, thanks.  This is for a hybrid cavalier where marks would mess up his defender aura, which is superior.  I'll probably go with a safer, legal-by-RAW power for LFR and ask my DM for the home game.

Not sure if this has been asked yet, couldn't find it in my quick search. Just wondering, if a player has an ability (such as the monk's Dragon Tail) which knocks a target prone, does that always knock the target prone on a hit? Even for large or larger creatures?
It just seems weird that a medium creature could potentially knock a gargantuan creature prone with an at will.

Yes,  an effect always know prone regardless of size unless it specifically mention it only work against creature of a some size only (ex. Serpent Dance Strine, Shadow Sever etc...)

Say a player's char is 2 squares from a door diagonally. S/he decides to move the char 6 squares directly through the door and into the room, only to find an enemy inside. Can the player 'decide' to move the char just three squares to the door, instead of the entire 6 squares? Yes? No? DM-dependent?

Movement is resolved square-by-square.

May 16, 2013 -- 12:11AM, Azedenkae wrote:

Say a player's char is 2 squares from a door diagonally. S/he decides to move the char 6 squares directly through the door and into the room, only to find an enemy inside. Can the player 'decide' to move the char just three squares to the door, instead of the entire 6 squares? Yes? No? DM-dependent?

Yes. Movement is done square-by-square by 5 feet increment. If after moving two squares into the doorway, the character see enemies inside the room, it can use the remainder of his or her movements to keeping going into the room or move back anywhere else it want to.

[Ninja'ed!]

Can a player do a charge attack against a creature that it cannot see? ie the enemy has become Invisible and successfully Hidden, and the player is guessing the square the enemy is in?

Thanks Alcestis and Plaguescarred. That was easy. :D

May 16, 2013 -- 3:54AM, peteincary wrote:

Can a player do a charge attack against a creature that it cannot see? ie the enemy has become Invisible and successfully Hidden, and the player is guessing the square the enemy is in?

Yes, they can.  If the target is Hidden, they must guess which square it is in.

Can a player do a charge attack against an open square where they think an enemy might be hiding? (Even if there is no real reason to think there is actually an enemy in that square?)

* As for why he might want to attempt this charge attack: He is standing next to 3 enemies and wants to run away without taking an opp attack, and he has a neck item that causes movement as part of a charge to not provoke opp attacks. So he wants to charge against an open square.

Unless he has a good reason to believe that there is an enemy there (he saw something hide, for isntance) I'd call bag of rats myself.

On reading the charge rules, I'm not convinced you can charge a hidden target.

Ok guys. I have something of a complex question, that I am sure has a simple answer. It's about damage rolls in regards to skills with 2(w) or higher. My friends and I are new to 4E rules, and most of us are new to D&D period. As such, to simplify, we've all created our characters using an Excel sheet where you put in basic info, make some choices, roll your abilities, and it spits out everything for you. We'll go on my character as an example so I can give you some real stats.

Half-Elf Paladin - lvl4
Str - 19  mod +4  mod+1/2lvl +6
Con - 15  mod +2  mod+1/2lvl +4
Dex - 12  mod +1  mod+1/2lvl +3
Int - 11  mod +0  mod+1/2lvl +2
Wis - 12  mod +1  mod+1/2lvl +3
Cha - 13  mod +1  mod+1/2lvl +3

I use a Maul+2. Between my Str ability mod, and my maul's +2, my damage when doing a normal attack (according to the damage workspace on the sheet) is 2D6+6. My question is regarding that +6.

If I perform one of my dailys, Paladin's Judgement, it says that I do 3[W] + STR modifier. So is that going to mean that I roll 2d6+6, 2d6+6, 2d6+6, plus my strength modifier of +6? Or would it be 2d6, 2d6, 2d6, plus strength modifier of 6? I don't think it'd be that one, because at the very least, my maul has a plus 2 inherent with every hit. I guess, the question is, am I doing just a bonkers amount of damage, with a minimum of 30 and a max of 60? or am I doing rolls without the bonus plus 6 for a minimum of 12 and a max of 42?

That's super convoluted to write out, if it's not clear, please let me know and I'll try to rephrase it.

 

It doesn't matter how many dice you roll, the attack is still one damage roll.  Whether it's 1[W] or 7[W], whether [W] itself is 1d12 or 2d6, you add modifiers to the damage roll once.

In your case, "3[W]+Str" on the power, used with a Maul, will be 6d6+6.  The +6 will include +4 for your Str mod, and +2 for your enhancement bonus to damage rolls. 

Standard rules of algebra still apply, including PEMDAS.  '3[W] + STR modifier' means '(3[W]) + STR modifier', not '3([W] + STR modifier)'.

Ok, so the +strength modifier listed in the skill description does not stack on any strength modifier inherent in a normal swing? What if, as in the case of Bolstering Smite it's a 1[W]+Charisma modifier. So does that mean it'd be a roll of 2d6+3?

I suppose +2 for the maul+2, making it 2d6+5?

May 16, 2013 -- 10:39AM, TunicaDartos wrote:

I use a Maul+2. Between my Str ability mod, and my maul's +2, my damage when doing a normal attack (according to the damage workspace on the sheet) is 2D6+6. My question is regarding that +6.

If I perform one of my dailys, Paladin's Judgement, it says that I do 3[W] + STR modifier. So is that going to mean that I roll 2d6+6, 2d6+6, 2d6+6, plus my strength modifier of +6? Or would it be 2d6, 2d6, 2d6, plus strength modifier of 6? I don't think it'd be that one, because at the very least, my maul has a plus 2 inherent with every hit. I guess, the question is, am I doing just a bonkers amount of damage, with a minimum of 30 and a max of 60? or am I doing rolls without the bonus plus 6 for a minimum of 12 and a max of 42?

 

If you admit that the first sounds "bonkers," why do you think the second is wrong?

The second, bolded part, is correct. (W) only refers to the weapons actual damage dice. A maul is 2d6, so 3(W) is 6d6. The strength and enchantment bonus only apply once to each damage roll, not to each die or (W) of damage.

May 16, 2013 -- 10:49AM, TunicaDartos wrote:

Ok, so the +strength modifier listed in the skill description does not stack on any strength modifier inherent in a normal swing? What if, as in the case of Bolstering Smite it's a 1[W]+Charisma modifier. So does that mean it'd be a roll of 2d6+3?

There is no modifier "inherent" in a normal swing.  A "normal swing" in 4e is actually a power in itself:  Melee Basic Attack.  It deals 1[W]+Str mod.  There isn't an automatic modifier that you add to all weapon attacks like there was in prior editions.

This is most evident in classes that don't use Strength for attacks.  If you take your Paladin and have a Charisma attack, that uses the Charisma modifier for its attack roll and damage roll, then you don't apply your Strength modifier.  Basically, you only add your Strength modifier is the power actually says "+ Strength Modifier" where it tells you how much damage it does.

In your case of Bolstering Smite, with your +1 Cha mod, then your damage is 2d6+1, with the extra +2 for the enhancement bonus to end up with 2d6+3.  It's not that it doesn't "stack" with the Strength mod, it's that the Strength mod doesn't exist for this attack.

May 16, 2013 -- 10:51AM, TunicaDartos wrote:

I suppose +2 for the maul+2, making it 2d6+5?

No, your Charisma Mod is only +1. The half level bonus never applies to damage. Your damage with Bolstering Smite is 2d6+3, and your to hit is only +5 (as opposed to the +10 to hit with Strength based powers).

May 16, 2013 -- 11:01AM, MalakLightfoot wrote:

your to hit is only +5 (as opposed to the +10 to hit with Strength based powers).

Actually it's +7 to hit with Bolstering Strike.  Half level is applied to the attack roll.

May 16, 2013 -- 10:56AM, MalakLightfoot wrote:

If you admit that the first sounds "bonkers," why do you think the second is wrong?

 Wishful thinking? lol.

::EDIT:: nevermind, you answered before I finished typing.

You're using Cha instead of Str.  I read your post before you edited it out, it was a valid question.

Thanks so much guys. My party has a lot to discuss on Monday. 

May 16, 2013 -- 11:03AM, Mand12 wrote:

May 16, 2013 -- 11:01AM, MalakLightfoot wrote:

your to hit is only +5 (as opposed to the +10 to hit with Strength based powers).

Actually it's +7 to hit with Bolstering Strike.  Half level is applied to the attack roll.

You're right. I forgot to add the proficiency bonus when i was adding it up.

May 16, 2013 -- 10:59AM, Mand12 wrote:

There is no modifier "inherent" in a normal swing.  A "normal swing" in 4e is actually a power in itself:  Melee Basic Attack.  It deals 1[W]+Str mod.  There isn't an automatic modifier that you add to all weapon attacks like there was in prior editions.

This is most evident in classes that don't use Strength for attacks.  If you take your Paladin and have a Charisma attack, that uses the Charisma modifier for its attack roll and damage roll, then you don't apply your Strength modifier.  Basically, you only add your Strength modifier is the power actually says "+ Strength Modifier" where it tells you how much damage it does.

In your case of Bolstering Smite, with your +1 Cha mod, then your damage is 2d6+1, with the extra +2 for the enhancement bonus to end up with 2d6+3.  It's not that it doesn't "stack" with the Strength mod, it's that the Strength mod doesn't exist for this attack.

I'll just +1 this for making sure to read your powers specifically for which ability modifiers apply to damage.  Different powers for the same class can vary greatly.

 For example, the Ranger's Twin Strike power uses Strength or Dex on the attack roll, depending on if its a Melee or Ranged Attack, but does not apply either strength or dex to the damage roll : "1[W] damage per attack."
  Also note that because the power specifies you use Dexterity for ranged attacks, you always have to use Dexterity for ranged attacks with twin strike, even if you're using a Heavy Thrown weapon.

  Marauder's Rush on the other hand uses Strength for the attack roll, but damage gets + Strength and Wisdom "1[W] + Strength modifier + Wisdom modifier damage."

  The maxim that usually gets repeated around here is "Powers only do exactly what they say they do, no more, no less", which is very true when reading attack powers.  Feats and other bonuses (such as weapon/implement enhancement bonus) aren't listed on the power, but they apply as they state they do.
 
  Also note that if a power's damage doesn't include rolling any dice, for example if its just "Strength modifier damage", then you do not get to add any other static bonuses to that damage because things like Enhancement bonuses specifically state they apply to "damage rolls". Extra damage such as from sneak attack that applies may still be added, and that may then give you a damage roll to which the other bonuses can be applied.

Remember: the rules do WHAT they say, and ONLY what they say.  Your weapon power says you use CHA for attack and damage?  DO that, and ONLY that.  Don't assume anything.

May 16, 2013 -- 11:01AM, MalakLightfoot wrote:

No, your Charisma Mod is only +1. The half level bonus never applies to damage. 

Guys, thanks again so much for your help thus far, and please excuse my continued ignorance here.

Unless I'm just blind, while reading the leveling up and ability scores sections of the player's handbook, I haven't found any distinction between the ability mod and the half level bonus. Could you please give me a quick run down of what the difference between them? I've always just assumed that they grouped together to form your bonus, irregardless of what you are using the bonus for (i.e., checks, attacks, damage, etc).

The ability mod is (score-10)/2, round down.  Nothing else, ever.

The half-level bonus is something that gets added to d20 rolls and defenses (AC/Fort/Ref/Will). 


They're not the same thing.  The default character sheet and some of the language in the PHB suggests that you calculate "mod plus half level" as something useful, and it's one of the most misleading things 4e has ever done because it results in exactly the kind of confusion you are facing now.  The specific roll will tell you when you use half-level.  It's attack rolls, skill checks, and defenses that get the half-level bonus, and they get the bonus because they say so, not because it's an inherent part of the modifier.

I really wish they were more clear, but they were trying to save you an extra step of arithmetic and spawned an entire confusing problem in doing so.

May 17, 2013 -- 6:43AM, TunicaDartos wrote:

May 16, 2013 -- 11:01AM, MalakLightfoot wrote:

No, your Charisma Mod is only +1. The half level bonus never applies to damage. 

Guys, thanks again so much for your help thus far, and please excuse my continued ignorance here.

Unless I'm just blind, while reading the leveling up and ability scores sections of the player's handbook, I haven't found any distinction between the ability mod and the half level bonus. Could you please give me a quick run down of what the difference between them? I've always just assumed that they grouped together to form your bonus, irregardless of what you are using the bonus for (i.e., checks, attacks, damage, etc).

The 1/2 level bonus gets added to almost everything for which you throw a d20, except saving throws. Attack rolls, initiative, skill checks and raw ability checks.

Probably something I missed, just woke up, still a little sleepy.

Hahaha, I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who finds some of the new rules a bit ambiguous. Thanks for the info! Now to delve back into the PHB. 

How conspicuous are bard rituals? Do they simply require a tune to be played, or is it more obvious that there is magic involved? For example, if a bard were pretending to be part of a royal music court, could he perform the Lullaby ritual without drawing attention to himself, just by playing?

Rituals don't have a rigorously-defined set of rules associated with them to this level of detail.  Basically, up to the DM.

Seems silly, but I have to ask: if you use Elven Accuracy with a power that says "Make two attack rolls, take the higher result", do you get to re-roll both dice or just one?

May 18, 2013 -- 9:57AM, spunxow wrote:

Seems silly, but I have to ask: if you use Elven Accuracy with a power that says "Make two attack rolls, take the higher result", do you get to re-roll both dice or just one?

Basically, you make your two attack rolls, decide which one is the higher result, then trigger Elven Accuracy, which would let you re-roll the "higher result" die from the two die rolls you made previously.

May 18, 2013 -- 9:57AM, spunxow wrote:

Seems silly, but I have to ask: if you use Elven Accuracy with a power that says "Make two attack rolls, take the higher result", do you get to re-roll both dice or just one?

Elven accuracy says

Trigger: You make an attack roll and dislike the result.Effect: Reroll the attack roll. Use the second roll, even if it’s lower

The power let you make two attack rolls, so Elven Accuracy lets you reroll 1 of the two attack rolls you disliked the result of and reroll that one attack roll.

So for example, an Elven Avenger Ranger that gets to make two attack rolls due to Oath of Enmity for Split the Tree can use Elven Accuracy to reroll one of the two dice, and then use the higher of or the reroll or the original die that was not rerolled.

(Edited due to my snafu on forgetting Oath of Enmity's special reroll rules)

May 18, 2013 -- 10:04AM, RisingZan wrote:

So for example, an Elven Avenger that gets to make two attack rolls due to Oath of Enmity can use Elven Accuracy to reroll one of the two dice.

Well, no, not exactly. OoE specifically says that if you get to reroll, you reroll both dice. But for other properties like that, then yeah.

May 18, 2013 -- 10:16AM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 10:04AM, RisingZan wrote:

So for example, an Elven Avenger that gets to make two attack rolls due to Oath of Enmity can use Elven Accuracy to reroll one of the two dice.

Well, no, not exactly. OoE specifically says that if you get to reroll, you reroll both dice. But for other properties like that, then yeah.

ah, you're right, I recalled Oath as being a way to get double rolls but forgot it had the special rules for rerolls.