OK... I have a question. Why is there no way to improve an impliment to hit chance without having a magical impliment. The new change takes away the prof bonus of the weapon for those impliments, so they will be the same as regular impliments when using impliment powers. Why go through this trouble to hamper the casters?
Why have a non-magical impliment at all?
OK... I have a question. Why is there no way to improve an impliment to hit chance without having a magical impliment. The new change takes away the prof bonus of the weapon for those impliments, so they will be the same as regular impliments when us
You were adding prof bonus, when using a weapon as an implement? That was never the rule.
Non-magical implements still give the user a benefit from Implement Expertise and the various Wizard implement class powers. You can't use Orb of Imposition without an orb.
You were adding prof bonus, when using a weapon as an implement?That was never the rule.Non-magical implements still give the user a benefit from Implement Expertise and the various Wizard implement class powers. You can't use Orb of Imposition witho
OK... I have a question. Why is there no way to improve an impliment to hit chance without having a magical impliment. The new change takes away the prof bonus of the weapon for those impliments, so they will be the same as regular impliments when using impliment powers. Why go through this trouble to hamper the casters?
Why have a non-magical impliment at all?
Well a Level 1 Wizard has to have an Implement to receive the benefits from his Arcane Implement Mastery, be it magical or not.
EDIT: seems someone beat me to the punch =)
Well a Level 1 Wizard has to have an Implement to receive the benefits from his Arcane Implement Mastery, be it magical or not.
I had thought it could be done, yes, but haven't the chance to do it, not having played any of the classes that had such impliments.
So, the cleric really doesn't need his impliment at all, then? It is only for show unless he pays the expense of buying a magical one, right?
Wow, this sucks.
I had thought it could be done, yes, but haven't the chance to do it, not having played any of the classes that had such impliments. So, the cleric really doesn't need his impliment at all, then? It is only for show unless he pays the expense of buyi
So, the cleric really doesn't need his impliment at all, then? It is only for show unless he pays the expense of buying a magical one, right?
Correct, but not only the cleric, the same goes for any implement user who doesn't happen to also have annother class feature tied to their implements other than just being able to use them for powers.
Correct, but not only the cleric, the same goes for any implement user who doesn't happen to also have annother class feature tied to their implements other than just being able to use them for powers.
No self respecting cleric will forgo buying a holy symbol just because it isn't magical!
Which is worth more in the long run, self respect or 10 gold?
No self respecting cleric will forgo buying a holy symbol just because it isn't magical!Which is worth more in the long run, self respect or 10 gold? :)
No self respecting cleric will forgo buying a holy symbol just because it isn't magical!
Seriously, what kind of a holy man/charlatan are you? How are you going to fleece your flock without the right accessories? As mentioned above, Implement Expertise still works with 'mundane' implements.
Seriously, what kind of a holy man/charlatan are you? How are you going to fleece your flock without the right accessories? As mentioned above, Implement Expertise still works with 'mundane' implements.
No self respecting cleric will forgo buying a holy symbol just because it isn't magical!
Which is worth more in the long run, self respect or 10 gold?
I would hope self respect, but I hear some people make a living by having none.
No self respecting cleric will forgo buying a holy symbol just because it isn't magical!Which is worth more in the long run, self respect or 10 gold? :)I would hope self respect, but I hear some people make a living by having none.
Why is there not a separate entry for the Dragon Annual instead of a confused mess of dragon articles tied to a "magazine" that they were eventually tied into?
Is anything changed that effects the Annual, or is that put on there for future reference just in case?
Why is there not a separate entry for the Dragon Annual instead of a confused mess of dragon articles tied to a "magazine" that they were eventually tied into? Is anything changed that effects the Annual, or is that put on there for future reference
Martial Power used to have errata for it. Is that undone now, or where can I find that errata now?
All the books are updated in the same document. Download that PDF and either follow the bookmark to Martial Power, or just jump ahead to Page 49.
Aha. I can't believe I missed that.
All the books are updated in the same document. Download that PDF and either follow the bookmark to Martial Power, or just jump ahead to Page 49.Aha. I can't believe I missed that.
And this is really the issue, which part of that damage does the power get credit for?
Huh?
The feat says that THE POWER deals FIRE DAMAGE.
The power previously did untyped damage, or cold damage, or necrotic damage, or stupid damage, or whatever. I will stipulate that it did any kind of damage, at all, as long as there was no Fire damage, for our explanation.
Now apply the Feat. The Feat says the Power deals 2 Fire damage. Or 2 lightning damage, but we picked Fire, for no reason other than we felt like it.
Now the power deals all the damage it did before, and also fire damage.
The damage types of the power have changed. The power didn't do Fire damage before the Feat, now the power does fire damage.
Since the damage types of the power have changed, the power's Keywords change.
Since it gained Fire damage, it gains the Fire Keyword.
Shocking Flame: "your melee attacks deal an extra 2 fire damage" (and also some other stuff) 1W+STR Untyped +2 Fire.And this is really the issue, which part of that damage does the power get credit for?Huh?The feat says that THE POWER deals FIRE
"Your power deals 1d6 extra fire damage" causes YOUR POWER to deal FIRE DAMAGE.
Seriously, why is this even remotely a *question*?
Because it's critical to understand how this works with resistances?
Let's say your firesoul genasi with shocking flame hits a tiefling (resist fire:10) with a melee basic attack. Your unmodified MBA does 1d8+5 damage untyped damage. Let's say you roll a 3, for a total of 8 untyped damage. When you add the shocking flame damage (+2 fire), how much damage does the Tiefling take? If shocking flame turns your whole attack in to a fire attack -- which is what I believe you're advocating -- you've just inflicted zero damage. If shocking flame instead just tacks on a 2-point fire damage packet, you've still inflicted eight damage.
Nobody is talking, at all, about changing the existing damage.
What we're talking about is extra damage changing the KEYWORD of the power.
A power that does 8 untyped damage and 2 fire damage has the Fire keyword, because damage type determines Keyword. Why does damage type determine Keyword? Because the rules, as of noon today, SAY it does.
Shocking Flame doesn't talk about a change -- it just adds a little damage packet. In the example above, it's the difference between 1d8+5+2(fire) and (1d8+7)fire.
Nobody is saying that Shocking Flame changes your existing damage.
I'm saying that it gives your power the Fire keyword, because your power now does Fire damage, and changing the damage type done by a power changes the keywords of the power. Period. Full stop. Dirge was arguing that "adding a new type of damage" is not "a change to the types of damage done by the power", and is now arguing that things that say "your power deals X" don't actually mean that *the power* deals X. Both of these arguments are wrong.
Because it's critical to understand how this works with resistances?Let's say your firesoul genasi with shocking flame hits a tiefling (resist fire:10) with a melee basic attack. Your unmodified MBA does 1d8+5 damage untyped damage. Let's say you
Weaplements never uses their Weapon Properties now.
Just want to stipulate that you don't use non-magical weapon properties. You can still use magical weapon properties unless the property stipulates that it only works with weapon attacks. I'm sure that's what you meant, but I just wanted to alleviate any confusion.
Just want to stipulate that you don't use non-magical weapon properties. You can still use magical weapon properties unless the property stipulates that it only works with weapon attacks. I'm sure that's what you meant, but I just wanted to alleviat
The flaming weapon item power is turned off. The player rolls a crit. Does Astral Fire add it's +1 to damage? There's not a huge problem in timing here as the damage will be rolled after the attack roll.
Of course. Their power did not have the Fire Keyword until it crit, but once it crit it did Fire damage and thus gained the Fire keyword. Since the power now has the Fire keyword, Astral Fire adds 1 to it's damage.
Scenario B: Tiefling, Hellfire Blood, Daggermaster, Flaming dagger. (welcome to a corner case) The flaming dagger item power is turned off. The player rolls an 18 to attack, but, due to massive penalties, would not hit without the Hellfire Blood attack bonus. Do they hit?
No. An 18 in this case is not a hit, and only a natural 20 auto-hits. Since the power isn't a fire power unless it crits, and it missed, it doesn't crit, it doesn't become a fire power, and it doesn't get +1 to hit.
You'd have a better chance at an argument if he needed a natural 21 to hit at all and rolled a natural 20 - and, even then, a nat 20 when you need more than natural 20 is NOT A CRIT, and since it's not a crit, the critical damage doesn't get done, the fire keyword doesn't get added, and you still don't get the +1 to hit that you'd have needed to turn it into a crit.
Of course. Their power did not have the Fire Keyword until it crit, but once it crit it did Fire damage and thus gained the Fire keyword. Since the power now has the Fire keyword, Astral Fire adds 1 to it's damage.No. An 18 in this case is not
Weaplements never uses their Weapon Properties now.
Just want to stipulate that you don't use non-magical weapon properties. You can still use magical weapon properties unless the property stipulates that it only works with weapon attacks. I'm sure that's what you meant, but I just wanted to alleviate any confusion.
Yeah that's what i meant by Weapon Properties. But clarifying should remove any confusion. Thanks.
Just want to stipulate that you don't use non-magical weapon properties. You can still use magical weapon properties unless the property stipulates that it only works with weapon attacks. I'm sure that's what you meant, but I just wanted to alleviat
For scenerio B, if the attack wasn't fire keyworded when the tiefling rolled, then Hellfire Blood won't kick in.
That's a nice opinion. Any justification? Any reason to treat it differently than scenario A?
The power has no keyword when the attack is rolled in either scenario, so why should scenario B not get to retroactively benefit from their crit if scenario A does? The fire damage in either situation isn't showing up till during the damage roll.
Thank you. You are forgetting that the damage showing up at the damage roll isn't the only thing going on here. The two scenarios have different timing issues. One is getting triggered after the "On Hit" stage is confirmed, the other is never getting triggered at all. There is no retroactive going on.
That's a nice opinion. Any justification? Any reason to treat it differently than scenario A?The power has no keyword when the attack is rolled in either scenario, so why should scenario B not get to retroactively benefit from their crit if scena
Is the new Lasting Frost some attempt to migitate Forstcheese ?
Frostcheese still works fine (the writer's intended the combination to begin with)... it just isn't as nasty with area effects now.
Who nerfed it is now is exactly ? In comparison to before....
Frostcheese still works fine (the writer's intended the combination to begin with)... it just isn't as nasty with area effects now.Who nerfed it is now is exactly ? In comparison to before....
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.
The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
I don't see what's hard to understand about the keyword/damage type thing. Before, it was unclear because in different places keywords were mentioned whereas in other places, a damage type is mentioned. Since the difference is nonexistent, this just synthesizes everything... It doesn't change how the damage actually works, ie nothing about the game has changed.
If I add some fire damage, it doesn't mean all the damage I do from that attack is fire, but the power can benefit from fire damage feats or effects referencing either fire keyword or fire damage.
If I make all my damage fire, it means the damage is fire damage in addition to what it was before.
If a creature is immune to fire, I only remove the fire-only damage, eg not the fire/acid/radiant damage.
I don't see what's hard to understand about the keyword/damage type thing. Before, it was unclear because in different places keywords were mentioned whereas in other places, a damage type is mentioned. Since the difference is nonexistent, this j
PHB: Death: When you take damage that reduces your current hit points to your bloodied value expressed as a negative number, your character dies.
Update: Remove "expressed as a negative number" from the last sentence
New Rule: Death: When you take damage that reduces your current hit points to your bloodied value, your character dies.
Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Death took an update as well. PHB: Death: When you take damage that reduces your current hit points to your bloodied value expressed as a negative number, your character dies.Update: Remove "expressed as a negative number" from the last sentenceNew
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.
The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investment to achieve it.
Multi-attack ?
EDIT Oh for Controllerish to do some Frostcheese so the Roguish can SA at will. I see.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investmen
PHB: Death: When you take damage that reduces your current hit points to your bloodied value expressed as a negative number, your character dies.
Update: Remove "expressed as a negative number" from the last sentence
New Rule: Death: When you take damage that reduces your current hit points to your bloodied value, your character dies.
Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Hah!
But no. That's an ancient update, and it's not changing the "Death" section, it's changing the Death Saving Throws section.
The original PHB reads:
20 or higher: Spend a healing surge. When you do so, you are considered to have 0 hit points, and then your healing surge restores hit points as normal. You are no longer dying, and you are conscious but still prone. If you roll 20 or higher but have no healing surges left expressed as a negative number, your condition doesn’t change.
✦ Death: When you take damage that reduces your current hit points to your bloodied value expressed as a negative number, your character dies.
That update takes the "expressed as a negative number" out of "If you roll 20 or higher but have no healing surges left expressed as a negative number," where it was an obvious cut-and-paste error.
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.
The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investment to achieve it.
Multi-attack ?
It's not just Combat Advantage, it's *+5 to all damage rolls* because you're inflicting Vulnerability and then taking advantage of that.
A Ranger using Blade Cascade, Cruel Cage Of Steel, and Follow-Up Blow on a nova turn will expect an extra 50-80 damage from Frostcheese alone, easily. In general, simply using it with Twin Strike will give you an extra 5 damage on the first round and 10 on all subsequent rounds, because a Ranger with Combat Advantage will very rarely miss.
And if the entire party gets in on the action, the extra damage gets absurd VERY fast.
Hah!But no. That's an ancient update, and it's not changing the "Death" section, it's changing the Death Saving Throws section.The original PHB reads:That update takes the "expressed as a negative number" out of "If you roll 20 or higher but have n
PHB: Death: When you take damage that reduces your current hit points to your bloodied value expressed as a negative number, your character dies.
Update: Remove "expressed as a negative number" from the last sentence
New Rule: Death: When you take damage that reduces your current hit points to your bloodied value, your character dies.
Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
That's an old update not a new one ... you're removing the "expressed as a negative number" from the wrong paragraph ... Look at the text that starts: 20 or Higher
That's an old update and a new one ... you're removing the "expressed as a negative number from the wrong paragraph ...Old Text:20 or higher: Spend a healing surge. When youdo so, you are considered to have 0 hit points,and then your healing surge re
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.
The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investment to achieve it.
Multi-attack ?
EDIT Oh for Controllerish to do some Frostcheese so the Roguish can SA at will. I see.
There was also some confusion as to whether or not the hit that applied the vulnerability got the benefit of the damage bonus.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investmen
Might there now be a contradiction on PHB 226 and PHB 276 with the update?
PHB 226: Like racial powers and class powers, magic item powers often have keywords that indicate their damage or effect types. When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power, the keywords of the item’s power and the other power all apply. For instance, if a paladin uses a flaming sword to attack with a power that deals radiant damage, the power deals both fire damage and radiant damage.
PHB 276: If the damage types in a power change, the power both loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed and gains the keywords for any damage types that are added (the poison keyword is removed from a power only if that power neither deals poison damage nor has any nondamaging effects). For example, if a wizard casts ray of frost through a flaming staff and uses the staff ’s ability to change the damage to fire, ray of frost gains the fire keyword and loses the cold keyword for that use, since the power is dealing fire damage instead of cold damage. That use of the power can therefore benefit from effects, like feats, that affect fire powers, but not from effects that affect cold powers.
But, in the first example on pg. 226, apart from crits, how can the flaming weapon be dealing fire damage unless one of its powers has been used?
Might there now be a contradiction on PHB 226 and PHB 276 with the update?PHB 226: Like racial powers and class powers, magic item powers often have keywords that indicate their damage or effect types. When you use a magic item as part of a racial po
"When you use a magic version of the weapon as an implement, you can use the magic weapon’s enhancement bonus, critical hit effects, properties, and powers."
I actually didnt expect this great buff but my radiant weapon swordmage says thanx
"When you use a magic version of the weaponas an implement, you can use the magic weapon’senhancement bonus, critical hit effects, properties,and powers."I actually didnt expect this great buff but my radiant weapon swordmage says thanx
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.
The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investment to achieve it.
Multi-attack ?
EDIT Oh for Controllerish to do some Frostcheese so the Roguish can SA at will. I see.
Not so much for the CA, but for the vulnerability. Twin strike with a frost weapon for example will deal 1|W| on the first attack, and 1|W| + 5 on the second, next round it's 1|W|+5 and 1|W|+5. Even assuming 1/2 miss, your still doing +5 damage a round for a feat. Setup a hurricane of blades or something, and your damage just sky rocketed.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investmen
They put in a change to Dice of Auspicious which I find really annoying. They changed the dice from a nice multi-purpose item you were you could use the die rolls for any skill or saving throw you make once per encounter to and item that can only be used on attack rolls. I was really liking the possibilities of the dice before, once per encounter, if I had a high roll stored, I could be guaranteed a success on a skill or save (like a death save) if I really thought I needed it. Now I can only use it for attacks.
This does not feel like something that halflings would make since they cant use it for gambling any more, and that is what the flavor text made it fell like they were made for.
They should really have changed it so that if it was used for an attack roll you would use the new wording but you could continue to use they for any kind of d20 roll.
They put in a change to Dice of Auspicious which I find really annoying. They changed the dice from a nice multi-purpose item you were you could use the die rolls for any skill or saving throw you make once per encounter to and item that can only be
Oh thanks i see mellored. Yeah the Vulnerability and combat Advantage.
I know you can do that with radiant as well, i'm just not up on the paticulars.
Fortunatly, radiant + frost is harder to come by now.
Radiant Weapon + Frozen Whetstone. It'll burn through your item dailies in a hurry, but it'll work.
I know you can do that with radiant as well, i'm just not up on the paticulars.Fortunatly, radiant + frost is harder to come by now.Radiant Weapon + Frozen Whetstone. It'll burn through your item dailies in a hurry, but it'll work.
They put in a change to Dice of Auspicious which I find really annoying. [snip]
This does not feel like something that halflings would make since they cant use it for gambling any more, and that is what the flavor text made it fell like they were made for.
My problem with the item is you're supposed to have good luck, not guaranteed luck. If such an item actually existed in a game world, high stakes gambling would cease to exist as the only people willing to place a big wager would be those who had the dice and a 20 on hand.
I just house ruled it to provide 3 rerolls, usable at one per encounter and you can use them to reroll any die roll that you don't like; keeping the higher result. That's good luck, exactly what the item is supposed to provide.
Alternatively, the DM can roll the 3 dice and not tell the player, with the player given the ability to replace a roll they don't like with the high, middle or low roll, without knowing in advance what that roll is. But I dislike extra book keeping.
My problem with the item is you're supposed to have good luck, not guaranteed luck. If such an item actually existed in a game world, high stakes gambling would cease to exist as the only people willing to place a big wager would be those who had the
So does Immunity to something check the Keywords of a Power or the actual Damage the Power deals?
What about Resistance?
If it checks only the Damage for the purposes of Immunity and/or Resistance, than your way works fine, LoW; I can add all the Keywords I want with Extra X Damage, gain a few small benefits from Feats or Items or some such, but the Power's actual Damage would still be ignored/lessened.
However, if either Resistance or Immunity check Keywords, then it gets really funky, really fast. Let's say I use Burning Spray (Fire Keyword/Damage) on a Djinn (Immune to Fire); if I add Cold Damage with Gloves of Eldritch Admixture and Warlock's Curse Damage, and the Power gains the Cold Keyword, the Djinn would suddenly take all of my Burning Spray's damage, because he isn't Immune to Fire and Cold.
IMHO, Extra Damage (like things you add on to a Power after the Attack Roll is already made) shouldn't add Keywords, and adding cold Curse Damage to a Power (since Curse Damage is added after all of the Power's damage is done) shouldn't retroactively change the Power's Keywords, nor should a Flaming Weapon's Crit Die; it doesn't make any sense, especially for AoE Powers. Let's say I use the same Burning Spray mentioned above on a horde of enemies Immune to Fire; if I'm using a Frost Weapon without the At-Will Power activated, and I Crit one of them, does that mean the rest of them retroactively take full damage since the Power now has the Cold Keyword??
Again, Extra Damage giving Keywords to Powers doesn't make any sense whatsoever, creates very weird instances within the game, and is only one interpretation of the (admittedly very ambiguous) new Errata + the Old Rules.
So does Immunity to something check the Keywords of a Power or the actual Damage the Power deals?What about Resistance?If it checks only the Damage for the purposes of Immunity and/or Resistance, than your way works fine, LoW; I can add all the Keywo
Might there now be a contradiction on PHB 226 and PHB 276 with the update?
They simply missed the reference on pg226. It'll probably be in the April update and/or PHB3 will just make PHB1 obsolete on such matters.
It's not a contradiction if the staff actually changes the damage type and not adds the damage type.
They simply missed the reference on pg226. It'll probably be in the April update and/or PHB3 will just make PHB1 obsolete on such matters.It's not a contradiction if the staff actually changes the damage type and not adds the damage type.
There are 75 Feats in the Compendium that have the words "Feat Bonus To Hit", but that includes a metric ton of Feats that have a "Feat Bonus to Whatever" and also the word "Hit" or "Hit points".
Worse than that. Every feat has the word "Feat", so essentially you did a search for feats that have "bonus" and "hit" in them. (Are you sure it wasn't "attack"?)
I don't think any feats are. They've changed a few feat bonues to untyped bonuses.Feats that give a feat bonus to attack rolls and do or might involve weapons:Bloodied Spear (Tribal) *dDiabolic Soul *2Draconic Spellcaster *dElven Guardian *2Feyborn
They put in a change to Dice of Auspicious which I find really annoying. [snip]
This does not feel like something that halflings would make since they cant use it for gambling any more, and that is what the flavor text made it fell like they were made for.
My problem with the item is you're supposed to have good luck, not guaranteed luck. If such an item actually existed in a game world, high stakes gambling would cease to exist as the only people willing to place a big wager would be those who had the dice and a 20 on hand.
I just house ruled it to provide 3 rerolls, usable at one per encounter and you can use them to reroll any die roll that you don't like; keeping the higher result. That's good luck, exactly what the item is supposed to provide.
Alternatively, the DM can roll the 3 dice and not tell the player, with the player given the ability to replace a roll they don't like with the high, middle or low roll, without knowing in advance what that roll is. But I dislike extra book keeping.
That logic fails though since anyone with a reasonable arcane skill could see that they are magic dice just by looking at them. I would expect places with gambling would already have anti-magic effects in place to prevent low level wizards from messing with things using the cantrips they have access to. Your house-rule is not unreasonable but to take it from something that could be used on any d20 roll and making it into something only usable on attack rolls reduces its value to me considerably. It went from an item I was considering getting as a fun utility item to an item with almost no value.
Of couse if I were using it for gambling I would never try to us it in a formal location, shooting dice in an alley or tavern in an informal way, maybe, regarless of where you did it you would still be risking trouble if you were to try it.
My problem with the item is you're supposed to have good luck, not guaranteed luck. If such an item actually existed in a game world, high stakes gambling would cease to exist as the only people willing to place a big wager would be those who had the
Let's say I use the same Burning Spray mentioned above on a horde of enemies Immune to Fire; if I'm using a Frost Weapon without the At-Will Power activated, and I Crit one of them, does that mean the rest of them retroactively take full damage since the Power now has the Cold Keyword??
I suspect you don't understand how keywords and damage types interact.
Burning Spray has the Fire keyword. If you use Burning Spray and hit 3 guys, it does Fire damage to all of them. If you crit against one enemy with a Frost Weapon and Burning Spray, *one enemy* takes Fire damage and Cold damage.
This does not change the damage dealt to anyone else.
Because that hit did fire damage and cold damage, Burning Spray is now doing Fire damage and Cold damage. Because the damage types have changed, the Keywords change, and Burning Spray is, for that action, a power with both the Cold keyword and the Fire keyword.
AT NO TIME does the Fire damage done to the critted target or to the non-critted target change. It's still fire damage. And since they're immune to fire, they're immune to fire damage, and still take no damage.
You appear to be working from the assumption that adding a keyword changes the damage types of a power. This is wrong, and entirely unsupported by the text. Keywords do not affect or alter damage. A power that does 1d6+Strength Damage and 1d6 Fire Damage has the Fire Keyword, but still does 1d6+Strength UNTYPED Damage. All the damage is not converted to Fire just because the power has the Fire keyword.
Damage alters keywords. Keywords do not alter damage.
Sheesh.
I suspect you don't understand how keywords and damage types interact.Burning Spray has the Fire keyword.If you use Burning Spray and hit 3 guys, it does Fire damage to all of them.If you crit against one enemy with a Frost Weapon and Burning Spray,
That logic fails though since anyone with a reasonable arcane skill could see that they are magic dice just by looking at them.
You don't physically roll those particular dice on the table, you just need to own them to get the benefits. Nothing is preventing you from moving that enchantment onto another object. Con men can have arcana too and a ritual to disguise the magical nature of an object, or conversely to make a normal object appear to be magical, would be widely known.
By the time I'd be using those to gamble with I'd have more than a dozen magic items and there isn't much chance that I'd be walking around defenseless by leaving them all at home.
As for anti-magic areas, Paragon level magic items are not cantrips. If you can stop Paragon level magic at a cost justifyable for a commercial enterprise, any competant opponent is going to use it as well and there goes the entire game balance. 4e decided to get rid of some of the less than fun things from earlier editions; including zones where only some characters can meaningfully participate in encounters.
You don't physically roll those particular dice on the table, you just need to own them to get the benefits. Nothing is preventing you from moving that enchantment onto another object. Con men can have arcana too and a ritual to disguise the magi
Most situational bonuses to hit from non-Expertise Feats are now untyped, not Feat!
Eh, really? I thought most were unchanged and now obsolete. I haven't done a breakdown of which ones were updated and which ones are deliberately rendered obsolete, though.
Eh, really? I thought most were unchanged and now obsolete. I haven't done a breakdown of which ones were updated and which ones are deliberately rendered obsolete, though.
Most situational bonuses to hit from non-Expertise Feats are now untyped, not Feat!
Eh, really? I thought most were unchanged and now obsolete. I haven't done a breakdown of which ones were updated and which ones are deliberately rendered obsolete, though.
I wasn't counting Feats from Dragon at all, and there's apparently a great many more than I'd thought.
Eh, really? I thought most were unchanged and now obsolete. I haven't done a breakdown of which ones were updated and which ones are deliberately rendered obsolete, though.I wasn't counting Feats from Dragon at all, and there's apparently a great
Let's say I use the same Burning Spray mentioned above on a horde of enemies Immune to Fire; if I'm using a Frost Weapon without the At-Will Power activated, and I Crit one of them, does that mean the rest of them retroactively take full damage since the Power now has the Cold Keyword??
I suspect you don't understand how keywords and damage types interact.
Burning Spray has the Fire keyword. If you use Burning Spray and hit 3 guys, it does Fire damage to all of them. If you crit against one enemy with a Frost Weapon and Burning Spray, *one enemy* takes Fire damage and Cold damage.
This does not change the damage dealt to anyone else.
Because that hit did fire damage and cold damage, Burning Spray is now doing Fire damage and Cold damage. Because the damage types have changed, the Keywords change, and Burning Spray is, for that action, a power with both the Cold keyword and the Fire keyword.
I still don't agree that the update works like you think it works. But thats another discussion.
Assuming you're right, what happens in this scenario (Burning Spray, crit 1 enemy, hit others) when the PC has the Burning Blizzard feat (+1 damage with attacks that have the cold keyword)?
Do the enemies you didn't crit now take one +1 damage because the power gained the cold keyword due to the crit against the other target?
I suspect you don't understand how keywords and damage types interact.Burning Spray has the Fire keyword.If you use Burning Spray and hit 3 guys, it does Fire damage to all of them.If you crit against one enemy with a Frost Weapon and Burning Spray,
Most situational bonuses to hit from non-Expertise Feats are now untyped, not Feat!
Eh, really? I thought most were unchanged and now obsolete. I haven't done a breakdown of which ones were updated and which ones are deliberately rendered obsolete, though.
Hellfire Blood is now untyped. *arm pump*
Eh, really? I thought most were unchanged and now obsolete. I haven't done a breakdown of which ones were updated and which ones are deliberately rendered obsolete, though.Hellfire Blood is now untyped. *arm pump*
Assuming you're right, what happens in this scenario (Burning Spray, crit 1 enemy, hit others) when the PC has the Burning Blizzard feat (+1 damage with attacks that have the cold keyword)?
Do the enemies you didn't crit now take one +1 damage because the power gained the cold keyword due to the crit against the other target?
Yes. Burning Spray gains the Cold keyword when it does Cold damage, and Cold keyword powers do +1 damage when you have Burning Blizzard. Thus, a Cold-keyworded Burning Spray does +1 damage *even if the hit in question didn't actually do any Cold damage*, because Burning Spray is a single attack.
A more interesting question arises if you've got a true multi-attack power, like Icy Rays or Twin Strike. I suspect there'll be a further clarification on that soon, but handling of single attack powers seems obvious and trivial.
Yes. Burning Spray gains the Cold keyword when it does Cold damage, and Cold keyword powers do +1 damage when you have Burning Blizzard. Thus, a Cold-keyworded Burning Spray does +1 damage *even if the hit in question didn't actually do any Cold
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.
The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investment to achieve it.
Multi-attack ?
EDIT Oh for Controllerish to do some Frostcheese so the Roguish can SA at will. I see.
Not so much for the CA, but for the vulnerability. Twin strike with a frost weapon for example will deal 1|W| on the first attack, and 1|W| + 5 on the second, next round it's 1|W|+5 and 1|W|+5. Even assuming 1/2 miss, your still doing +5 damage a round for a feat. Setup a hurricane of blades or something, and your damage just sky rocketed.
Interesting, we have always interpreted that the two twin strikes each hit simultaneously, so you would not get the frost benefit on the first round with the second swing against a given foe. Is there any reason that can be cited to interpret whether they are simultaneous or whether they should be handled sequentially?
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investmen
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.
The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investment to achieve it.
Multi-attack ?
EDIT Oh for Controllerish to do some Frostcheese so the Roguish can SA at will. I see.
Not so much for the CA, but for the vulnerability. Twin strike with a frost weapon for example will deal 1|W| on the first attack, and 1|W| + 5 on the second, next round it's 1|W|+5 and 1|W|+5. Even assuming 1/2 miss, your still doing +5 damage a round for a feat. Setup a hurricane of blades or something, and your damage just sky rocketed.
Interesting, we have always interpreted that the two twin strikes each hit simultaneously, so you would not get the frost benefit on the first round with the second swing against a given foe. Is there any reason that can be cited to interpret whether they are simultaneous or whether they should be handled sequentially?
Nope, i can't. That might be a better way to play it.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investmen
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.
The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investment to achieve it.
Multi-attack ?
EDIT Oh for Controllerish to do some Frostcheese so the Roguish can SA at will. I see.
Not so much for the CA, but for the vulnerability. Twin strike with a frost weapon for example will deal 1|W| on the first attack, and 1|W| + 5 on the second, next round it's 1|W|+5 and 1|W|+5. Even assuming 1/2 miss, your still doing +5 damage a round for a feat. Setup a hurricane of blades or something, and your damage just sky rocketed.
Interesting, we have always interpreted that the two twin strikes each hit simultaneously, so you would not get the frost benefit on the first round with the second swing against a given foe. Is there any reason that can be cited to interpret whether they are simultaneous or whether they should be handled sequentially?
Nope, i can't. That might be a better way to play it.
There are advantages and disadvantages to simultaneous. An advantage is that if someone had some effect that might go off between sequential attacks (e.g., teleport away, do a push on the attacker, etc.), they wouldn't get to do it. A disadvantage is that if one hit would fell the opponent, then the other swing couldn't be directed to another target. A related disadvantage occurred before also, where one minion was giving cover to another minion, both of which I was shooting at - if I could kill the first one with the first shot, I would not have the -2 penalty to hit the second one.
I do not recall the exact reason why we interpreted them as simultaneous before, it has been a while. It might be because of applying analogous rules such as for charge, that the move and the attack go off together, such that moving out from cover with a charge (or a Deft Strike) does not break Combat Advantage from Stealth, as it would otherwise for a separate move action from cover to standard action attack the foe.
But as I look at certain higher level attack powers with multiple attacks, it certainly seems sequential, e.g., Cruel Cage of Steel allows for movement between each attack, but is otherwise written up substantially similar to Twin Strike.
It can be a bit confusing to work with based on the Hunter's Quarry text as well, which says that if you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide to apply it after all the attacks are rolled. So if you had a round where you attacked an already quarried foe, then decided to quarry another foe, and either minor action attack or action point attack that subsequent foe, it seems arguable you could wait to do all those rolls (and see which might be a crit!) and apply the quarry damage to whichever foe you preferred. Maybe the switch of quarry would mean you would have to apply it to the second foe, but you might have not even hit that foe. It also isn't clear that "after attacks are rolled" includes after damage is rolled, e.g., in the above example, if the attack damage killed the first foe without applying quarry damage, then you could hold onto the quarry damage to apply it to the second foe.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investmen
Frostcheese is only broken with multi-attacks, or if the entire party gets in on the action.
The first is really a multi-attack problem, the second.... well... dunno what can be done about that.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investment to achieve it.
Multi-attack ?
EDIT Oh for Controllerish to do some Frostcheese so the Roguish can SA at will. I see.
Not so much for the CA, but for the vulnerability. Twin strike with a frost weapon for example will deal 1|W| on the first attack, and 1|W| + 5 on the second, next round it's 1|W|+5 and 1|W|+5. Even assuming 1/2 miss, your still doing +5 damage a round for a feat. Setup a hurricane of blades or something, and your damage just sky rocketed.
Interesting, we have always interpreted that the two twin strikes each hit simultaneously, so you would not get the frost benefit on the first round with the second swing against a given foe. Is there any reason that can be cited to interpret whether they are simultaneous or whether they should be handled sequentially?
The rules on Immediate actions of p268 of the PHB indicate that if a power allows two attacks as part of a single action, and the target can take an immediate reaction when attacked, that reaction will occur after the first attack but before the second. This seems to imply a universal rule that multi-attack powers make their attacks sequentially, and the text of Twin Strike does not contradict this view.
I thought the Frostcheese was Wintertouched + Lasting Frost and some Cold damage via a weapon or At-Will Power in order to gain an auto-Combat Advantage. Of which only Rogues really WOW's it. Others gets a +2 to Hit and can become quite an investmen
The rules on Immediate actions of p268 of the PHB indicate that if a power allows two attacks as part of a single action, and the target can take an immediate reaction when attacked, that reaction will occur after the first attack but before the second. This seems to imply a universal rule that multi-attack powers make their attacks sequentially, and the text of Twin Strike does not contradict this view.
Which sounds like a good way to handle the keyword alterations mid multi-attack. A power may not have a keyword for the first X attacks and end up having it for the last Y attacks.
Which sounds like a good way to handle the keyword alterations mid multi-attack. A power may not have a keyword for the first X attacks and end up having it for the last Y attacks.
So does Immunity to something check the Keywords of a Power or the actual Damage the Power deals?
Check the MM2 or Compendium for the current rules on immunity. Immunity means completely different things depending on what they're immune to. But the short answer is: immunity to damage types check the damage type, immunity to anything else checks the keyword, immunity to poison checks both.
Check the MM2 or Compendium for the current rules on immunity. Immunity means completely different things depending on what they're immune to. But the short answer is: immunity to damage types check the damage type, immunity to anything else chec
Thanks, I recently re-read that rule on immediate actions which was another reason to push the change to sequential hitting. It does make applying hunter's quarry potentially more cumbersome though, since you won't just roll it with your regular damage all the time. Also, it still leads to some potential timing issues, e.g., you hit a foe with the first swing then go to roll the second swing and the GM interrupts your action like noted above (e.g., for a shift away), then it is questionable whether you can go back and apply the quarry damage to the first swing (since it says "If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled.") - can you apply the damage even if the foe moved out of range? Can you apply the damage before going on to further attacks (e.g., if the first is a crit, maybe you want to go ahead and apply it for the full crit damage, especially if you know he gets to do something funny between your attacks like push you away).
Thanks, I recently re-read that rule on immediate actions which was another reason to push the change to sequential hitting. It does make applying hunter's quarry potentially more cumbersome though, since you won't just roll it with your regular da
Thanks, I recently re-read that rule on immediate actions which was another reason to push the change to sequential hitting. It does make applying hunter's quarry potentially more cumbersome though, since you won't just roll it with your regular damage all the time. Also, it still leads to some potential timing issues, e.g., you hit a foe with the first swing then go to roll the second swing and the GM interrupts your action like noted above (e.g., for a shift away), then it is questionable whether you can go back and apply the quarry damage to the first swing (since it says "If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled.") - can you apply the damage even if the foe moved out of range? Can you apply the damage before going on to further attacks (e.g., if the first is a crit, maybe you want to go ahead and apply it for the full crit damage, especially if you know he gets to do something funny between your attacks like push you away).
The wording on quarry, that you yourself just quoted, explains this clearly.
"If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled."
You can use Follow-up Blow, Blade Cascade, Trip-up, Action Point, and Cruel Cage Of Steel, figure out ALL of the attacks you're going to make in the entire round, roll *all* of the attacks and damage rolls, and then decide to go back and apply your Quarry damage to the 8th attack, which is the only one that crit.
Hunter's Quarry lets you apply it after rolling *all* of the attacks in the round, not just in an action and not even just the actions on your turn, although I suspect your GM would look at you funny if you tried to hold off on applying Quarry damage yet because you were thinking you might crit on an OA or Disruptive Strike.
So, if you get interrupted after attack #1 of Twin Strike, and you're not going to make any more attacks, you can go back and apply your Quarry damage to it.
The wording on quarry, that you yourself just quoted, explains this clearly."If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled."You can use Follow-up Blow, Blade Cascad
Agree, though I really think it should be worded to prevent someone from waiting until their turn almost comes around again and then deciding that their first attack on their last turn also did quarry damage. "in an turn" or even "in an action" would be more appropriate to me. Though care would have to be taken to not disallow applying quarry damage to opportunity or immediate action attacks if it has not been used that round yet.
Agree, though I really think it should be worded to prevent someone from waiting until their turn almost comes around again and then deciding that their first attack on their last turn also did quarry damage. "in an turn" or even "in an action" wou
Thanks, I recently re-read that rule on immediate actions which was another reason to push the change to sequential hitting. It does make applying hunter's quarry potentially more cumbersome though, since you won't just roll it with your regular damage all the time. Also, it still leads to some potential timing issues, e.g., you hit a foe with the first swing then go to roll the second swing and the GM interrupts your action like noted above (e.g., for a shift away), then it is questionable whether you can go back and apply the quarry damage to the first swing (since it says "If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled.") - can you apply the damage even if the foe moved out of range? Can you apply the damage before going on to further attacks (e.g., if the first is a crit, maybe you want to go ahead and apply it for the full crit damage, especially if you know he gets to do something funny between your attacks like push you away).
The wording on quarry, that you yourself just quoted, explains this clearly.
"If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled."
You can use Follow-up Blow, Blade Cascade, Trip-up, Action Point, and Cruel Cage Of Steel, figure out ALL of the attacks you're going to make in the entire round, roll *all* of the attacks and damage rolls, and then decide to go back and apply your Quarry damage to the 8th attack, which is the only one that crit.
Hunter's Quarry lets you apply it after rolling *all* of the attacks in the round, not just in an action and not even just the actions on your turn, although I suspect your GM would look at you funny if you tried to hold off on applying Quarry damage yet because you were thinking you might crit on an OA or Disruptive Strike.
So, if you get interrupted after attack #1 of Twin Strike, and you're not going to make any more attacks, you can go back and apply your Quarry damage to it.
That sounds all well and good, but there is the extra step to take into account, of switching your quarry mid-action, e.g., what if you attack one foe who was previously quarried, then quarry another foe, and attack that other foe? The book says "The hunter's quarry effect remains active until the end of the encounter, until the quarry is defeated, or until you designate a different target as your quarry." So would the switch mean you CANNOT apply it to the first foe, because you haven't finished rolling all your attacks and because the first foe would no longer be quarried? If not, that would make for some weirdness if you crit'd the first foe, but cannot apply the quarry damage until all your attack rolls are over, when you quarry the other foe in the meantime, then finish your attack rolls.
Another weirdness comes from rigorous application of the ordering of actions. If for instance you are 2 squares from one foe but want to quarry the foe 5 squares away you are going to charge at, it seems that if you had to first use the minor action to quarry, then the standard action to charge, that you could not quarry your intended target. But instead, it seems you should be able to apply your quarry mid-standard action, between the move and the attack, for it to apply sensically as opposed to oddly due to overly strict rules constraints.
The wording on quarry, that you yourself just quoted, explains this clearly."If you can make multiple attacks in a round, you decide which attack to apply the extra damage to after all the attacks are rolled."You can use Follow-up Blow, Blade Cascade
Agree, though I really think it should be worded to prevent someone from waiting until their turn almost comes around again and then deciding that their first attack on their last turn also did quarry damage. "in an turn" or even "in an action" would be more appropriate to me. Though care would have to be taken to not disallow applying quarry damage to opportunity or immediate action attacks if it has not been used that round yet.
Certainly, I have missed before only to have the Warlord Commander's Strike so quarry damage could still be applied, which is yet another out-of-turn use that should not be barred. But it would be weird to hold onto quarry damage, see what the foe does, then decide "hmmm...let me go ahead and apply the damage to that foe since I don't like what he is about to do and maybe the damage will kill him."
Certainly, I have missed before only to have the Warlord Commander's Strike so quarry damage could still be applied, which is yet another out-of-turn use that should not be barred. But it would be weird to hold onto quarry damage, see what the foe
Agree, though I really think it should be worded to prevent someone from waiting until their turn almost comes around again and then deciding that their first attack on their last turn also did quarry damage. "in an turn" or even "in an action" would be more appropriate to me. Though care would have to be taken to not disallow applying quarry damage to opportunity or immediate action attacks if it has not been used that round yet.
Certainly, I have missed before only to have the Warlord Commander's Strike so quarry damage could still be applied, which is yet another out-of-turn use that should not be barred. But it would be weird to hold onto quarry damage, see what the foe does, then decide "hmmm...let me go ahead and apply the damage to that foe since I don't like what he is about to do and maybe the damage will kill him."
Or for that matter, what he just did. Since the quarry damage is applyed to the attack it would mean that if you waited you could see that the target then attacked you and damaged you so you decided to apply the quarry dmg to your attack against him two init points ago, which was enough to kill the target, so his attack never could have happened because he was dead on your turn. Ridiculous and definately not what was intended unless I grossly underestimate the logic of the writers... hmmm
Certainly, I have missed before only to have the Warlord Commander's Strike so quarry damage could still be applied, which is yet another out-of-turn use that should not be barred. But it would be weird to hold onto quarry damage, see what the foe
Another weirdness comes from rigorous application of the ordering of actions. If for instance you are 2 squares from one foe but want to quarry the foe 5 squares away you are going to charge at, it seems that if you had to first use the minor action to quarry, then the standard action to charge, that you could not quarry your intended target. .
But instead, it seems you should be able to apply your quarry mid-standard action, between the move and the attack, for it to apply sensically as opposed to oddly due to overly strict rules constraints.
.... why does that "make sense"?
You can only Quarry the closest enemy. You can't use a Minor Action in the middle of a Charge. Why "should" you be able to do that?
That's correct. .... why does that "make sense"?You can only Quarry the closest enemy. You can't use a Minor Action in the middle of a Charge. Why "should" you be able to do that?
Another weirdness comes from rigorous application of the ordering of actions. If for instance you are 2 squares from one foe but want to quarry the foe 5 squares away you are going to charge at, it seems that if you had to first use the minor action to quarry, then the standard action to charge, that you could not quarry your intended target. .
But instead, it seems you should be able to apply your quarry mid-standard action, between the move and the attack, for it to apply sensically as opposed to oddly due to overly strict rules constraints.
.... why does that "make sense"?
You can only Quarry the closest enemy. You can't use a Minor Action in the middle of a Charge. Why "should" you be able to do that?
Because the charged foe is ultimately the closest enemy and the one you are attacking. The very point of quarrying is to apply increased damage to the closest enemy you are attacking, but due to oddities in the timing in rules constraints, this cannot be done.
I would instead ask you the opposite question, why should you NOT be able to quarry the closest enemy you are attacking?
What's the harm of being able to do another action within an action, as long as it is sensical? Presumably one can drop a weapon as a free action during the charge move, or other free actions, so how is doing a minor action then a problem?
That's correct. .... why does that "make sense"?You can only Quarry the closest enemy. You can't use a Minor Action in the middle of a Charge. Why "should" you be able to do that?Because the charged foe is ultimately the closest enemy and the one
I am still in shock that they made the change to Call Spirit Companion like they did. I mean, did they forget about Primal Power's "Sudden Call" feat being added as a heroic-tier feat? They certainly didn't errata it. My Shaman will definitely be taking Sudden Call at level 6 now ... it was undecided before, but it's a no-brainer now.
Also, if they are changing Righteous Brand, I wonder how long it will be before they change Commander's Strike to be a flat damage bonus. Currently, my 21-INT Warlord likes giving +5 bonus damage to the local Fighter or Barbarian. She would cry rivers of herself (she *is* a Watersoul Genasi, after all...) if they made it only +3 damage. (NOTE: I am *not* complaining about Commander's Strike! Do *not* change it and then point at me and say "Well, he complained!")
I am still in shock that they made the change to Call Spirit Companion like they did. I mean, did they forget about Primal Power's "Sudden Call" feat being added as a heroic-tier feat? They certainly didn't errata it. My Shaman will definitely
And here's a perfect example of the wonky stuff I was talking about, LoW. Let's say I make that Burning Spray against three guys using a Frost Weapliment with the At-Will Power turned off; I miss the first two guys by 1 point, but I Crit the last guy. So now the Attack has the Cold Keyword, right, because adding Extra Cold Damage makes it so, correct?
But wait! I'm a Dragonborn with Cold Breath and the Draconic Sorcerer Feat! Do I now go back and retroactively hit the two guys I originally missed by 1 point? Is that really how it works, or how it should work to make any sense?? IMO, not even remotely. Extra Damage that is added on to a Power should not add Keywords; since Resistance/Immunity/Vulnerability ignore Keywords when it comes to Damage anyway (btw, thanks for that, MindWanderer; that is exactly what I was looking for), that means the Extra Damage will still be subject to the Resistance/Immunity/Vulnerability, but the System will ignore ridiculous antics like the above example and the one about gaining Keyword-specific Bonuses from Feats like you were talking about earlier.
And here's a perfect example of the wonky stuff I was talking about, LoW. Let's say I make that Burning Spray against three guys using a Frost Weapliment with the At-Will Power turned off; I miss the first two guys by 1 point, but I Crit the last guy
Also, if they are changing Righteous Brand, I wonder how long it will be before they change Commander's Strike to be a flat damage bonus. Currently, my 21-INT Warlord likes giving +5 bonus damage to the local Fighter or Barbarian. She would cry rivers of herself (she *is* a Watersoul Genasi, after all...) if they made it only +3 damage. (NOTE: I am *not* complaining about Commander's Strike! Do *not* change it and then point at me and say "Well, he complained!")
Bonuses to damage are not NEARLY as big a deal as bonuses to hit.
Bonuses to damage are not NEARLY as big a deal as bonuses to hit.
The very point of quarrying is to apply increased damage to the closest enemy you are attacking,
No. Wrong. The point of Quarry is to give you a damage bonus against an enemy, and you can only apply it to the nearest enemy. It doesn't matter which one you *want* to attack.
I would instead ask you the opposite question, why should you NOT be able to quarry the closest enemy you are attacking?
Because that's the same as "quarry anyone on the battlefield", and part of the point of Hunter's Quarry (and Warlock's Curse) having the "closest enemy you can see" restriction is to force Rangers and Warlocks to get up close and personal with their targets before getting their bonus damage.
Presumably one can drop a weapon as a free action during the charge move, or other free actions, so how is doing a minor action then a problem
Because Free Actions are free. Minor actions are not.
Because the charged foe is ultimately the closest enemy and the one you are attacking. No. Wrong. The closest enemy was *2* squares away from you, and you attacked someone *5* squares away, who was not the closest enemy.No. Wrong. The point
And here's a perfect example of the wonky stuff I was talking about, LoW. Let's say I make that Burning Spray against three guys using a Frost Weapliment with the At-Will Power turned off; I miss the first two guys by 1 point, but I Crit the last guy. So now the Attack has the Cold Keyword, right, because adding Extra Cold Damage makes it so, correct?
But wait! I'm a Dragonborn with Cold Breath and the Draconic Sorcerer Feat! Do I now go back and retroactively hit the two guys I originally missed by 1 point?
First: You do not "go back and retroactively hit them", because it's one attack. All the attack rolls are simultaneous. To say otherwise would be to open up the question of what happens if the *first* attack roll is a crit. Since your power does Cold damage now, and gains the Cold keyword because of it, you'd get +1 to hit on *subsequent* rolls.
Second: Of course you get the +1 to hit. A power that does Cold damage is a Cold power. This power does cold damage. You get +1 to hit with Cold powers. Therefore, you get +1 to hit with this power.
Extra Damage that is added on to a Power should not add Keywords;
You can argue "should" all you want, but you're dead about "does". Changing the types of damage done by a power changes the keywords of the power, period.
since Resistance/Immunity/Vulnerability ignore Keywords when it comes to Damage anyway (btw, thanks for that, MindWanderer; that is exactly what I was looking for), that means the Extra Damage will still be subject to the Resistance/Immunity/Vulnerability,
Are you seriously trying to misread that to say that a guy with Resist 30 Fire who takes 20 Fire and 10 Cold damage from an crit with Burning Spray will resist all of it?
Someone with Immunity To Fire will still take damage from a Fire-Keyword power. They simply won't take any of the FIRE damage.
First: You do not "go back and retroactively hit them", because it's one attack. All the attack rolls are simultaneous. To say otherwise would be to open up the question of what happens if the *first* attack roll is a crit. Since your power d
You can only Quarry the closest enemy. You can't use a Minor Action in the middle of a Charge. Why "should" you be able to do that?
Because the charged foe is ultimately the closest enemy and the one you are attacking.
No. Wrong. The closest enemy was *2* squares away from you, and you attacked someone *5* squares away, who was not the closest enemy.
That's just a silly response. You get my point. You move adjacent to a foe, and you attack that adjacent foe, who is the closest to you when you attack. In most every other circumstance in the game, you can use your minor action in between the move and the attack and get quarry on that foe. But in a few situations like Charge or certain powers that include a move with the attack, you do not get that opportunity.
The very point of quarrying is to apply increased damage to the closest enemy you are attacking,
No. Wrong. The point of Quarry is to give you a damage bonus against an enemy, and you can only apply it to the nearest enemy. It doesn't matter which one you *want* to attack.
And yet another silly response, you are way too tied up with trying to come up with smartass responses than to address the substantive underlying point. Quarry is balanced against Warlock's Curse and Sneak Attack in various ways. Sneak Attack requires no action, but requires Combat Advantage. Quarry requires you to see the target, to spend a minor action, and for that target to be closest. Only because the system works in a wonky fashion with actions that wrap up a move and an attack together in standard action do you get the odd result of not necessarily being able to quarry your ultimately closest opponent. Instead, it should be worded to spend a minor action and during your turn you can select the closest foe to you at a given time to become your quarry.
I would instead ask you the opposite question, why should you NOT be able to quarry the closest enemy you are attacking?
Because that's the same as "quarry anyone on the battlefield", and part of the point of Hunter's Quarry (and Warlock's Curse) having the "closest enemy you can see" restriction is to force Rangers and Warlocks to get up close and personal with their targets before getting their bonus damage.
No it is not, you are clearly wrong here. If it was, then the archer could just quarry the enemy wizard in the back and shoot at him with impunity. If it were written as I wrote above, it would still be the closest foe but address the anomaly that arises when move/attacks are wrapped up together.
What's the harm of being able to do another action within an action, as long as it is sensical?
Well, for one thing, it lets you use Quarry on someone who isn't the closest enemy when you have the Minor Action available to spend.
Wow, another smartass response that doesn't get to the heart of the matter, really surprising! How about trying to identify a truly substantive problem instead.
Presumably one can drop a weapon as a free action during the charge move, or other free actions, so how is doing a minor action then a problem
Because Free Actions are free. Minor actions are not.
And a tautological statement to finish things off, that is about as worthless a statement as could have been made, nice.
Do you *really* think Wizards intended for the quarry effect to not be useful in those limited circumstances, or that this was probably an oversight? I seriously doubt that was a planned limitation but rather a byproduct of how other aspects of the game system work.
Get off your high horse with the "No. Wrong." stuff. Or maybe you're just some immature kids who gets his rocks off with that stuff. But this *should* be an educated discussion about the rules.Because the charged foe is ultimately the closest ene
I would instead ask you the opposite question, why should you NOT be able to quarry the closest enemy you are attacking?
Because that's the same as "quarry anyone on the battlefield", and part of the point of Hunter's Quarry (and Warlock's Curse) having the "closest enemy you can see" restriction is to force Rangers and Warlocks to get up close and personal with their targets before getting their bonus damage.
No it is not, you are clearly wrong here. If it was, then the archer could just quarry the enemy wizard in the back and shoot at him with impunity. If it were written as I wrote above, it would still be the closest foe but address the anomaly that arises when move/attacks are wrapped up together.
You said "the closest enemy you are attacking".
The bowranger isn't attacking any of the enemies between him and the enemy wizard at the back, just like the melee ranger who's Charging to get extra movement and a plus to hit isn't attacking any of the enemies that were closer to him when he last had an action to spend.
Stop being wrong and I'll consider it.Because that's the same as "quarry anyone on the battlefield", and part of the point of Hunter's Quarry (and Warlock's Curse) having the "closest enemy you can see" restriction is to force Rangers and Warlocks to
Guest703856308, a charge is a single action. It is movement and an attack rolled up into one. There is no time to do anything else, not even a free action. [a move action].
Also your wording above was "I would instead ask you the opposite question, why should you NOT be able to quarry the closest enemy you are attacking?" Should the ranger take out his bow and only attack the wizard in the backline, then your wording is satisfied. Your intent is probably different.
edit: see below
Guest703856308, a charge is a single action. It is movement and an attack rolled up into one. There is no time to do anything else, not even a free action.Also your wording above was "I would instead ask you the opposite question, why should you NOT
Guest703856308, a charge is a single action. It is movement and an attack rolled up into one. There is no time to do anything else, not even a free action.
Actually, there's a lack of consensus on that. Many people are of the opinion that you can take a free action even in the middle of another action, often pointing to Elven Accuracy as an example.
Actually, there's a lack of consensus on that. Many people are of the opinion that you can take a free action even in the middle of another action, often pointing to Elven Accuracy as an example.
Many people are of the opinion that you can take a free action even in the middle of another action, often pointing to Elven Accuracy as an example.
IMO, mostly because they ignore the fact that it wouldn't work any other way and make leap of faith that all Free Actions must be given the same ability to act "out of turn." Or put another way, exceptions don't become the rule. =)
IMO, mostly because they ignore the fact that it wouldn't work any other way and make leap of faith that all Free Actions must be given the same ability to act "out of turn." Or put another way, exceptions don't become the rule. =)
Get off your high horse with the "No. Wrong." stuff.
Stop being wrong and I'll consider it.
I'm not being wrong, you're being intentionally dumb. I'm merely stating that my opinion is that a ranger should be able to quarry the closest enemy, regardless whether the closest enemy ends up being the closest as a result of a combined move/attack action. I am not saying that is the rule or saying something else that can be characterized as wrong, just expressing an opinion, so for you to say it is wrong is just nonsensical.
Stop being wrong and I'll consider it.I'm not being wrong, you're being intentionally dumb. I'm merely stating that my opinion is that a ranger should be able to quarry the closest enemy, regardless whether the closest enemy ends up being the close
Get off your high horse with the "No. Wrong." stuff.
Stop being wrong and I'll consider it.
I'm not being wrong, you're being intentionally dumb. I'm merely stating that my opinion is that a ranger should be able to quarry the closest enemy, regardless whether the closest enemy ends up being the closest as a result of a combined move/attack action. I am not saying that is the rule or saying something else that can be characterized as wrong, just expressing an opinion, so for you to say it is wrong is just nonsensical.
Here's the thing: Charge is a single action that just so happens to have moving up to your speed as part of it. If you can quarry as a free action, then yes you can quarry immediately before you need to roll to hit. HOWEVER, as Hunter's Quarry is normally a minor action, and you're still resolving your standard action (or action point, or free charge, whatever), you cannot quarry until you fully resolve your charge action because quarrying is a minor action and NOT a free action.
EDIT: If the logic that charge is a combined move/attack action applies, then Combat Agility should allow you to penalize charges by knocking the charger prone before he could attack whoever he wants to charge. I believe there are exceptions to the rule that DO state that you can do that -- attack at the end of the movement aspect of a charge -- but generally speaking, I see no reason why you could do that as a non-power attack.
It's almost the equivalent of a ranger daily... Shot on the Run... where you could make two attacks in the middle of moving your speed...
Stop being wrong and I'll consider it.I'm not being wrong, you're being intentionally dumb. I'm merely stating that my opinion is that a ranger should be able to quarry the closest enemy, regardless whether the closest enemy ends up being the close
It seems to me that a saner solution to the "Expertise" debacle would be to make the Expertise feats deal their own bonus type. An "expertise bonus", maybe? This stops them stacking with each other but protects stacking with everything else.
Admittedly, I'm of the opinion that the Expertise feats themselves are a glaring wart of game design failure (insert image of using oxy torch to cauterise a scratched knee), and they should either be excised completely or converted into an inherent bonus to all attack rolls granted at levels 5/15/25. The number of clumsy ad-hoc fixes that have been required to fix this clumsy ad-hoc fix suggests that the original fix was worse than the problem it solved.
It seems to me that a saner solution to the "Expertise" debacle would be to make the Expertise feats deal their own bonus type. An "expertise bonus", maybe? This stops them stacking with each other but protects stacking with everything else.Admit
Using Hunters' Quarry is a minor action. If you read the description of the Quarry you will understand why it is not a fre action. When you set your Quarry you are "Studying the target to understand better how to hurt it" (Paraphrasing). This is not something you can do in the almost zero speed of free actions. You are intentionally studying the nearest enemy to know how you can do more damage to him. Charging a target is similar to tackling someone in football but you are tackling with your sword, you are not going to run up to them, stop to study them for a couple of seconds and then attack them, and expect to do all of it in the time of a standard action.
Of course, if you really want to Quarry someone in the middle of a charge at free action speed then you just need to get all the parts of the Blade Dancer's Regalia. When you have all 5 parts of the Regalia using Hunter's Quarry becomes a free action instead of a minor action.
It certainly does not hurt that the set is filled with bonuses for 2 weapon rangers...
Using Hunters' Quarry is a minor action. If you read the description of the Quarry you will understand why it is not a fre action. When you set your Quarry you are "Studying the target to understand better how to hurt it" (Paraphrasing). This is not
You can argue "should" all you want, but you're dead about "does". Changing the types of damage done by a power changes the keywords of the power, period.
...in your opinion. IMO, adding additional Typed Damage doesn't change the original Damage of the Power in any way, and therefore, doesn't add a Keyword to the Power.
Are you seriously trying to misread that to say that a guy with Resist 30 Fire who takes 20 Fire and 10 Cold damage from an crit with Burning Spray will resist all of it?
Someone with Immunity To Fire will still take damage from a Fire-Keyword power. They simply won't take any of the FIRE damage.
What is wrong with you??
I'm saying he'll resist the Fire Damage because Resistance/Immunity/Vulnerability check for Damage Type rather than specific Keyword; that was what my original question, the one that MindWanderer answered, was asking. I'm not misreading anything.
...in your opinion. IMO, adding additional Typed Damage doesn't change the original Damage of the Power in any way, and therefore, doesn't add a Keyword to the Power.What is wrong with you?? :confused: I'm saying he'll resist the Fire Damage because
Guest703856308, a charge is a single action. It is movement and an attack rolled up into one. There is no time to do anything else, not even a free action.
This is not true. It has been confirmed that Wardens can use their Nature's Wrath feature as a free action during a charge.
This is not true. It has been confirmed that Wardens can use their Nature's Wrath feature as a free action during a charge.
Guest703856308, a charge is a single action. It is movement and an attack rolled up into one. There is no time to do anything else, not even a free action.
This is not true. It has been confirmed that Wardens can use their Nature's Wrath feature as a free action during a charge.
Correct, MindWandererB beat you to the punch.
This is not true. It has been confirmed that Wardens can use their Nature's Wrath feature as a free action during a charge. MindWandererB beat you to the punch.
Lasting Frost got hit pretty hard, and I think almost everyone agrees that it did not get the fix that it needed. I was having a hard time putting my finger on why I felt they mis-fixed it, and then it occurred to me: Arcane Fire.
Lasting Frost (PHB paragon feat - post update): Benefit: Once per turn, the first target you hit with a power that has the cold keyword gains vulnerable 5 cold after the attack. The vulnerability lasts until the end of your next turn.
Arcane Fire (Arcane Power heroic feat): Prerequisite: Int 13. any arcane class Benefit: When you hit a target with an arcane fire power, that target gains vulnerable 5 cold against the first arcane attack power you use against it before the end of your next turn.
As the player of a Wizard with Lasting Frost, I traded Arcane Fire for Lasting Frost at level 12. My typical opening salvo for an encounter is Frostburn, dealing Fire and Cold damage, with a damage rider in the zone. With the update, the HeroicFeat is actually better than the Paragon Feat! I wonder if the prerequisite of Arcane Fire wouldn't do a lot more to fix Frostcheese than the update we got. As for my Wizard, since it is a home game, we plan on ignoring the change to Lasting Frost, the DM agrees that the 5 extra damage has not been a problem, but in LFR that isn't an option.
Lasting Frost got hit pretty hard, and I think almost everyone agrees that it did not get the fix that it needed. I was having a hard time putting my finger on why I felt they mis-fixed it, and then it occurred to me: Arcane Fire.Lasting Frost (PHB
Hi. I had to remove some content from this thread because it violates the Code of Conduct or it refered to content that did.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Hi. I had to remove some content from this thread because it violates the Code of Conduct or it refered to content that did.Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You can argue "should" all you want, but you're dead about "does". Changing the types of damage done by a power changes the keywords of the power, period.
...in your opinion. IMO, adding additional Typed Damage doesn't change the original Damage of the Power in any way, and therefore, doesn't add a Keyword to the Power.
But the update doesn't say "change the type of damage". It says "change the types of damage".
Changing the types from "untyped damage" to "fire damage" is clearly a change in the types.
Changing the types from "cold damage" to "cold damage and fire damage" is also a change in the types.
...in your opinion. IMO, adding additional Typed Damage doesn't change the original Damage of the Power in any way, and therefore, doesn't add a Keyword to the Power.But the update doesn't say "change the type of damage". It says "change the types of
You can argue "should" all you want, but you're dead about "does". Changing the types of damage done by a power changes the keywords of the power, period.
...in your opinion. IMO, adding additional Typed Damage doesn't change the original Damage of the Power in any way, and therefore, doesn't add a Keyword to the Power.
But the update doesn't say "change the type of damage". It says "change the types of damage".
Changing the types from "untyped damage" to "fire damage" is clearly a change in the types.
Changing the types from "cold damage" to "cold damage and fire damage" is also a change in the types.
And many of us question whether adding a few points of fire damage to an attack through a feat should be considered changing the damage type of a power. The example given in the update doesn't let us know.
This issue isn't going to go away until there's some guidance from something besides CS.
...in your opinion. IMO, adding additional Typed Damage doesn't change the original Damage of the Power in any way, and therefore, doesn't add a Keyword to the Power.But the update doesn't say "change the type of damage". It says "change the types of
If the damage types in a power change, the power both loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed and gains the keywords for any damage types that are added (the poison keyword is removed from a power only if that power neither deals poison damage nor has any nondamaging effects).
The original keywords of the power are only removed if the damage types are removed. That's the important part of that rule "for any damage types that are removed". The magic item/feat/feature has to change/convert all the damage of a power to a different type of damage to lose any keywords.
A Flaming weapon's at-will power changes all damage of a power you use to fire so under the new rules the power will lose all other keyword because it lost the damage type. If you you are using a +1 Flaming Weapon without the at-will switched on and crit you will now do +1d6 fire damage, but the rest of the power will be unaffected because the original damage types were not changed.
I'll trow in my two cents.From the March update:The original keywords of the power are only removed if the damage types are removed. That's the important part of that rule "for any damage types that are removed". The magic item/feat/feature has to ch
If the damage types in a power change, the power both loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed and gains the keywords for any damage types that are added (the poison keyword is removed from a power only if that power neither deals poison damage nor has any nondamaging effects).
The original keywords of the power are only removed if the damage types are removed. That's the important part of that rule "for any damage types that are removed". The magic item/feat/feature has to change/convert all the damage of a power to a different type of damage to lose any keywords.
A Flaming weapon's at-will power changes all damage of a power you use to fire so under the new rules the power will lose all other keyword because it lost the damage type. If you you are using a +1 Flaming Weapon without the at-will switched on and crit you will now do +1d6 fire damage, but the rest of the power will be unaffected because the original damage types were not changed.
Nothing about Flaming Weapon says that all damage is only fire damage or that all damage is changed to fire damage. Fire+cold is still doing fire damage--it still triggers fire vulnerability.
Compare:
Flaming Weapon: All damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage. Elemental Challenge: When you deal damage to a creature by using your divine challenge power, you can change the damage type from radiant to acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. Power of the Storm: When you use a power associated with this feat, you can choose to change itsdamage type to thunder.
They simply missed the reference on pg226. It'll probably be in the April update and/or PHB3 will just make PHB1 obsolete on such matters.It's not a contradiction if the staff actually changes the damage type and not adds the damage type.... Didn't y
Suoitidure] Nothing about Flaming Weapon says that all damage is only fire wrote:
Nothing about Flaming Weapon says that all damage is only fire damage or that all damage is changed to fire damage. Fire+cold is still doing fire damage--it still triggers fire vulnerability.
Compare:
Flaming Weapon: All damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage.
What makes this slighly problematic is the example given in the Rules Update:
For example, if a wizard casts ray of frost through a flaming staff and uses the staff ’s ability to change the damage to fire, ray of frost gains the fire keyword and loses the cold keyword for that use, since the power is dealing fire damage instead of cold damage.
Do they mean an implement named Flaming Staff? No such named implement exists in CB. Staff of Fiery Might is similar in name, but its power is unrelated to what is being discussed.
Do they mean a Flaming Weapon, that happens to be a staff? Then this behavior doesn't match the description of Flaming Weapon (which Suoitidure referenced above).
My thoughts: I suspect they meant the example to refer to a generic Flaming Weapon. So I read their intent as having the item fully convert the attack to fire, resulting in the loss of the cold damage type AND cold keyword.
What makes this slighly problematic is the example given in the Rules Update:Do they mean an implement named Flaming Staff? No such named implement exists in CB. Staff of Fiery Might is similar in name, but its power is unrelated to what is being
Of course, the rewording does add a SIGNIFICANT limitation on the Dice of Auspicious Fortune (DAF): they can not be used to score a critical hit. Here is my rational for this ruling:
1. The rules for scoring a critical, per the compendium this morning, read as follows: "Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target's defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically." To me, this implies that if you did not ROLL your 20, you CANNOT score a critical hit.
2. The rules for the DAF, again per the compendium this morning, read as follows:
Daily Usage - "...Effect: Roll 3 d20s..."
Encounter Usage - "...Effect: When you make an attack, instead of making an attack roll,..."
There is NOTHING in the rules for the DAF that indicate the user is making an attack roll. Therefore, the results from the DAF cannot be used to score a critical hit.
Having said that, the DAF are still valuable items. I have a couple of characters would enjoy a pair.
Of course, the rewording does add a SIGNIFICANT limitation on the Dice of Auspicious Fortune (DAF): they can not be used to score a critical hit. Here is my rational for this ruling:1. The rules for scoring a critical, per the compendium this mor
Nothing about Flaming Weapon says that all damage is only fire damage or that all damage is changed to fire damage. Fire+cold is still doing fire damage--it still triggers fire vulnerability.
Compare:
Flaming Weapon: All damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage. Elemental Challenge: When you deal damage to a creature by using your divine challenge power, you can change the damage type from radiant to acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. Power of the Storm: When you use a power associated with this feat, you can choose to change itsdamage type to thunder.
Might there now be a contradiction on PHB 226 and PHB 276 with the update?
They simply missed the reference on pg226. It'll probably be in the April update and/or PHB3 will just make PHB1 obsolete on such matters. It's not a contradiction if the staff actually changes the damage type and not adds the damage type.
They simply missed the reference on pg226. It'll probably be in the April update and/or PHB3 will just make PHB1 obsolete on such matters.It's not a contradiction if the staff actually changes the damage type and not adds the damage type.... Didn't y
Of course, the rewording does add a SIGNIFICANT limitation on the Dice of Auspicious Fortune (DAF): they can not be used to score a critical hit. Here is my rational for this ruling:
1. The rules for scoring a critical, per the compendium this morning, read as follows: "Natural 20: If you roll a 20 on the die when making an attack roll, you score a critical hit if your total attack roll is high enough to hit your target's defense. If your attack roll is too low to score a critical hit, you still hit automatically." To me, this implies that if you did not ROLL your 20, you CANNOT score a critical hit.
2. The rules for the DAF, again per the compendium this morning, read as follows:
Daily Usage - "...Effect: Roll 3 d20s..."
Encounter Usage - "...Effect: When you make an attack, instead of making an attack roll,..."
There is NOTHING in the rules for the DAF that indicate the user is making an attack roll. Therefore, the results from the DAF cannot be used to score a critical hit.
Having said that, the DAF are still valuable items. I have a couple of characters would enjoy a pair.
On the contrary, "...instead of making an attack roll, you can use one of the results stored in the dice..." exactly means you are doing the same thing as if you had rolled an attack roll. So, of course you can score a critical hit with this. If not, well, I suspect you could not hit either.
On the contrary, "...instead of making an attack roll, you can use one of the results stored in the dice..." exactly means you are doing the same thing as if you had rolled an attack roll. So, of course you can score a critical hit with this. If
I think the key element of the question and the attempted answers are breaking out into two separate issues which are generating confusion. I'm going to try to answer them here, but please, if I am mistaken on some of this, I would appreciate it if someone could correct me.
First, let's break this down into the component parts of the questions. I'm going to use a few iconic magic items to try to demonstrate where the problem originates, and will mention some feats that can potentially be impacted. Please assume implement and weapon proficiency for the purposes of this example.
Issue 1: Warlock A possesses a Flaming Dagger, as well as Gloves of Eldritch Admixture.
1. Warlock A triggers Dagger "make me fire" power, changing all damage through it to fire damage. 2. Warlock A curses creature X. 3. Warlock A throws Eldritch Blast at creature X, hits. 4. Warlock A now chooses to inflict curse damage on X. 4a. Warlock A now chooses to apply curse damage through Gloves as Cold damage.
The question at hand is twofold: * Does the use of the flaming weapon change all damage to fire damage? * Does 4a addition of "Cold" thereby override and remove "Fire" keyword applied when it is used per "changing keywords" text quoted several times before?
The answer to the first question, does the use of the flaming weapon change all damage to fire, is yes. Any power using this weapon as a weapon or implement is explicitly inflicting damage with this weapon, ergo it falls under the umbrella of its text: "All damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage." As such, it gains the Fire keyword. Whether that power is a MBA or a fancier power, if it uses the dagger when the dagger is turned on, it's going to become fire, and per PHB3 and the errata, it will lose all other damage types in becoming so. It will have the Fire keyword prior to the to-hit roll and will be subject to bonuses to hit and damage as a Fire power.
The second question is the nebulous one, which leaves a vagueness behind.
I believe the confusion that is arising is that some people are assuming the gloves are imparting cold on the power, and that some are assuming that the gloves are imparting cold on the damage, and hearing the answer to the first question and assuming the Fire is being overridden by the addition of Cold.
I'm going to take the step of pointing out that no, the Cold is not overriding the Fire - quite the contrary. The Cold becomes irrelevant as soon as the damage is delivered by the dagger, which is the case for 'extra damage.' The curse damage becomes part of the Eldritch Blast damage, and was delivered through the implement. It was cold when it was generated, but the dagger delivered it and changed it to fire per its text.
Issue 2: 1. Warlock A throws Eldritch Blast at creature X with his flaming dagger currently turned off. 2. Warlock hits critically with the attack, generating additional Fire damage. 3. Warlock A now chooses to inflict curse damage on X. 3a. Warlock A now chooses to apply curse damage through Gloves as Cold damage.
So attack is now generating untyped, plus fire, plus cold damage.
Which inspires the questions, is this power now considered to have the Fire or Cold keywords? Is it considered to have had them, even prior to the attack? And most importantly - does all the damage dealt by the attack take on the same keyword or keywords?
The answer to these three questions are yes, and no, and yes.
When the attack was made, the dagger was off, and it was a normal Eldritch Blast. No keywords attached. No to-hit bonuses for Fire or Cold would apply.
When he hit critically, it acquired the Fire keyword. As the to-hit roll was already made, no modifiers to-hit would be considered. Fire damage modifiers or vulnerabilities do now come into play. It was still dealing some untyped damage, but it has now acquired the Fire keyword.
After evaluating damage, Warlock applied curse damage as cold. Per the rules quoted previously, the power both loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed, and gains the keywords for any damage types that are added. Since this doesn't remove a damage type, the power doesn't lose anything. So, the power now acquires the Cold keyword. It does not remove the Fire keyword, because unlike the dagger there is no rider on the gloves specifying that all damage is now cold, or that other keywords should be removed, and the dagger's text is turned off, so the cold is not overridden. So now any Cold damage modifiers or vulnerabilities come into play.
After finishing application of damage, the attack has both Fire and Cold keywords. Since it didn't have either one during the to-hit roll, effects like Wintertouched could not enter the equation, because there were no keywords to give them a grip. On the other hand, Lasting Frost could kick in after the hit, because cold damage was dealt.
But what about resistances? If Warlock A did 3 untyped, 3 Fire, and 3 Cold, then what would be the outcome of the hit if Creature X had: Resist 5 Fire? Resist 5 Cold? Resist 2 Fire and Resist 2 Cold? Resist 3 Fire and Resist 1 Cold? etc.
This is where it gets complicated, because I think this is what is not understood clearly. The power has become keyworded as
"Arcane, Implement, Fire, Cold"
...which yields, respectively: 4 Fire and Cold damage 4 Fire and Cold damage 7 Fire and Cold damage 8 Fire and Cold damage
Because only the least resistances would apply (flip a coin where they are even). Vulnerabilities to Fire or Cold would add their values to the total.
However, I think a good argument could be made that the damage, although delivered together, should be considered of separate types. I think that would actually make more logical sense, and were I to run into such a houserule it would not upset me, but it would not be RAW.
Again, correct me if this is mistaken. In any case, I hope it is found helpful.
T
I think the key element of the question and the attempted answers are breaking out into two separate issues which are generating confusion. I'm going to try to answer them here, but please, if I am mistaken on some of this, I would appreciate it if
[snip] Lasting Frost (PHB paragon feat - post update): Benefit: Once per turn, the first target you hit with a power that has the cold keyword gains vulnerable 5 cold after the attack. The vulnerability lasts until the end of your next turn.
Arcane Fire (Arcane Power heroic feat): Prerequisite: Int 13. any arcane class Benefit: When you hit a target with an arcane fire power, that target gains vulnerable 5 cold against the first arcane attack power you use against it before the end of your next turn.
As the player of a Wizard with Lasting Frost, I traded Arcane Fire for Lasting Frost at level 12. My typical opening salvo for an encounter is Frostburn, dealing Fire and Cold damage, with a damage rider in the zone. With the update, the HeroicFeat is actually better than the Paragon Feat! I wonder if the prerequisite of Arcane Fire wouldn't do a lot more to fix Frostcheese than the update we got. As for my Wizard, since it is a home game, we plan on ignoring the change to Lasting Frost, the DM agrees that the 5 extra damage has not been a problem, but in LFR that isn't an option.
How do you figure Arcane Fire is better? It is restricted in its vulnerability to only your next arcane attack power against it before your next turn. Arcane Fire requires the source to be you, and only one single instance of cold will be enhanced, it's gone after your one tap.
Lasting Frost's vulnerability is against any cold damage done to it at all, from any source. So that could mean environmental, your companions, anything that generates a plink of cold is going to add five more.
I'd be really curious to see what's better about AF versus LF, other than maybe you have more fire attacks that can trigger it.
T
How do you figure Arcane Fire is better? It is restricted in its vulnerability to only your next arcane attack power against it before your next turn. Arcane Fire requires the source to be you, and only one single instance of cold will be enhanc
Guest703856308, a charge is a single action. It is movement and an attack rolled up into one. There is no time to do anything else, not even a free action.
Actually, there's a lack of consensus on that. Many people are of the opinion that you can take a free action even in the middle of another action, often pointing to Elven Accuracy as an example.
They, of that opinion, would be wrong.
T
Actually, there's a lack of consensus on that. Many people are of the opinion that you can take a free action even in the middle of another action, often pointing to Elven Accuracy as an example.[/quote]They, of that opinion, would be wrong.
For me it comes to Frostburn, or Scorching Burst with Arcane Admixture to cold. The updated version of Lasting Frost would hit one target in an area with vulnerability until the end of your next turn. Arcane Fire would let you drop a Scorching Burst on a group and deal extra damage to every repeat customer.
So while it isn't strictly better, it certainly creates a case where a Wizard taking Lasting Frost is better served with Arcane Fire. You are absolutely right about the synchronizing effect Lasting Frost can give the rest of the party, though.
My understanding of why Lasting Frost got changed was that it combined with Frost weapons on multi-weapon attacks. The change that went in affected Wizards, and left the problematic "frost-cheese" alone. I was mostly drawing a comparison between Arcane Fire and Lasting Frost to highlight why the actual update was not a good one.
For me it comes to Frostburn, or Scorching Burst with Arcane Admixture to cold. The updated version of Lasting Frost would hit one target in an area with vulnerability until the end of your next turn. Arcane Fire would let you drop a Scorching Bu
Aha! That makes sense, got it. So your AoE fire was setting up for an AoE cold or somesuch?
The LF change actually does remove the multi-weapon attack issue - it's now restricted to a one-shot deal, which yes, unfortunately kills your AoE bit.
Thanks for the clarification.
T
Aha! That makes sense, got it. So your AoE fire was setting up for an AoE cold or somesuch? The LF change actually does remove the multi-weapon attack issue - it's now restricted to a one-shot deal, which yes, unfortunately kills your AoE bit.
