|
3 years ago ::
Mar 02, 2010 - 10:17PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
Second, what feats have been made "obsolete (and we're not going to change that!)" by the Expertise changes? Anyone have a full list?
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) *d
Diabolic Soul *2
Draconic Spellcaster *d
Elven Guardian *2
Feyborn Charm *d
Half-Orc Vengeance *2d
Improved Bull Runs *4
Improved Grab *4
Improvised Missile *2d
Lolth's Meat
Mror Stalwart
Swift Blade Style
Turathi Assault Style
Warding Shield Style *variable
Watchful Guardian *2
(Characters after *:
. d = bonus also applies to damage rolls
. a number = bonus size other than 1
)
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"?)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 12:20AM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Jul 27, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 12:30AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2005
|
Ever see the movie "Casino"? The guys who were caught got limbs/digits broken for cheating at cards.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 7:07AM
#94
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 8:25AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 8:47AM
#96
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 8:52AM
#97
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 10:07AM
#98
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 10:15AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
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*
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 10:16AM
#100
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
