The swordsman whirls aside as Sarah's bomb flies towards him, but it hits and destroys one of his mirror images. The resulting fiery explosion leaves both of the combatants reeling in pain.
Reflex saves: Man: 10, Arith: 6. Both take 6 damage and the man has 3 images left (roll 1d4, 1=him).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can exempt Arith unless you aim at a square so that only the other guy is in the blast radius, in which case you only deal splash damage and don't destroy an image; I don't know if you want to ammend that action so you don't singe your own teammate...
Ah, OK, cool. Artih does not take any damage, then (though the warrior still does).
Mirror Image in Pathfinder seems to work differently; if you miss by 5 or less you hit an image anyway so yes you hit but got an image (just not in the same sense).
The nameless warrior shifts, channeling arcane power. An icy blue light passes up his blade, as he slashes rapidly at Arith, his many images making him a blur of deadly power.
Wincing at the pain from Sarah's bomb, the man shifts back from Arith's chilled body. "You will not defeat me today," he says, unimpressed. "Take your friend and go."
Ok, I have so many questions about what just happened it's not funny. But first thing's first: If he already used a Readied Action this round, how in the world is he going a second time — use of a Readied Action resets Initiative order, and means you don't act in the round you use the readied action? The second being, how was the magus able to cast 2 Frostbite spells in a single action, especially since casting a touch spell through a weapon makes it a Full Round Action? Third, how in the world is he getting 2 Melee attacks — again, goes back to the spell casting via weapon being a Full Round Action, which means he took 2 Full Round Actions during a turn in a round where he'd already taken a Readied action?
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
OK, you might have a point on the readied action, actually - I always screw up init.
I'll answer your others though. What Just Happened...Show
The guy's a Magus. He can use that ability where he casts a spell and attacks as a full-round action. He casts Frostbite, and then attacks. However, the Magus also has an ability where he can channel a touch spell through his sword. So, he casts Frostbite, channeling it through his sword, then attacks again. Because Frostbite lets you make multiple touches, his sword is still charged with it, allowing him to deliver it again. Note that he suffers a -2 penalty for this, and optionally takes another -2 to boost his Concentration check, but uses Arcane Accuracy (as a swift action) to counteract that (burns a point from his Arcane Pool, though).
Ironically, though he has two Frostbite touches left, he can't strike twice again because he needs to cast a touch spell to do that, and doing so would discharge the current one - it's very much a burst action.
You're right about the initiatve, though (I just figured he'd be taking an action later than normal). That puts the swordsman up to the top of the queue, so still William gets to act before that all happens. Sorry!
I'll answer your others though. What Just Happened...Show
The guy's a Magus. He can use that ability where he casts a spell and attacks as a full-round action. He casts Frostbite, and then attacks. However, the Magus also has an ability where he can channel a touch spell through his sword. So, he casts Frostbite, channeling it through his sword, then attacks again. Because Frostbite lets you make multiple touches, his sword is still charged with it, allowing him to deliver it again. Note that he suffers a -2 penalty for this, and optionally takes another -2 to boost his Concentration check, but uses Arcane Accuracy (as a swift action) to counteract that (burns a point from his Arcane Pool, though).
Ironically, though he has two Frostbite touches left, he can't strike twice again because he needs to cast a touch spell to do that, and doing so would discharge the current one - it's very much a burst action.
edit: read frostbite again, what the hell? Your melee touch attack..? Thats more how i would describe a buff, like your next x attacks do y. But thats obviously not meant since the target is not self but a creature. And anyway i don't think you have melee touch attacks by default to be changed. So that leaves making THE melee touch attack at the time you cast the spell, and the target is the one that is attacked. Now since you can make more than one the question is do they all need the standard action or are they delivered all at once? It doesn't really say, but the instantaneous really draws me to say all at once. As i explained its not a buff but an attack.
And thats why i like 4e - so much less room for interpretations I'd interpret spellstrike differently or maybe its that i'd interpret frostbite differently.. Full Round (Spell Combat): You can make the attack with the weapon, and as a free action cast a spell seperate from that. You decide to cast the spell first, thats fine. Frost bit has touch attacks the number of levels you have, since you suggested that you had two left, that would be 4. Version 1: At this point you can decide to deliver the spell as is (4 attacks - thats one nice spell once you level up oO), or make ONE attack with weapon+spell effect(yes it explicitly states one) Version 2: You interpret making one attack plus the spells effects as making one "enhanced" attack and still having 3 touch attacks to make Version 3: Delivering the touch attack includes all attacks, so all can be made with the weapon (but.. 5 attacks total at level 4 that really hurt, thats unfair! (unless you're a summoner, than its fair))
Then you do the weapon attack, and i don't see how that second weapon attack would be affected. Frost Bite does not affect the weapon for some time, its an instantaneous spell that gives you touch attacks. In any case i can't see how what you did should have happened..
Also his attack is pretty high for still having a -3 penalty, even at level 4
Sorry for the confusion - guess I should have chosen a less contraversial first foe...
Frostbite allows you to make "up to one time per level", so it works like Chill Touch. You can "hold the charge" between attacks and make the rest at a later time.
Now I myself wasn't sure whether later attacks could be channeled through Spellstrike, but the FAQ on the Magus page suggests they can. It says that even if you miss with a touch attack, you can hold the charge, pick up a completely different weapon even, and attack again. In this case, Frostbite is not affecting the weapon at all, it's just being transmitted through the weapon.
Pathfinder also clarifies that a touch attack gives you a "free attack" as part of the casting.
So, putting this together: - The guy can cast a spell and attack at -2 penalty. He casts Frostbite, then attacks. - By casting Frostbite, he's able to attack for free, and by using Spellstrike, he channels Frostbite through his sword. - Since Frostbite lasts for 3 more touches, he holds the charge and channels it again through his second attack.
This does seem rather powerful (and damn I want to play a Magus now) but note some points: Notes Show
- He doesn't get four attacks, he gets two. If he misses one, he misses with Frostbite, as well (though he can hold the charge). - By doing this he's giving up his touch attacks. These have to strike full AC, and with a -2 or greater penalty. He just rolled quite well there. - He can't cast another spell or even touch anything without losing the rest of his charges. - Since he's taking a full-round action, he has to be within 10ft of his foe for this to work (so he can 5ft-step in and still attack). When he's adjacent, as he was here, he also has to cast defensively or provoke an AoO. If he fails his concentration check he loses the spell, and with it the attack. The DCs are higher in PF too, so if he'd rolled a 6 or less he'd get a single attack at -4 (an extra -2 for the +2 on his Concentration check) with no Frostbite. That's a 30% chance of sucking fairly badly, since his attacks are pretty poor on their own. - He's actually a Kensei, so he has very few spell slots. He can only pull that trick once, because he hasn't memorised any more Frostbites.
This is very much a "shock" manoeuvre; once, he can do big damage and knock someone out, if it works. Though I did say I wasn't going to pull punches, with hindsight it wasn't a very nice one for the first fight.
So .. you interpret that the melee touch attack from the spell is a weapon attack and thus can be used as the second attack from spell combat? I'm not sure about that.. You can only use spellstrike on casting a spell, not on making the attack with the sword, which i would assume you should do, you know, main hand and off-hand and stuff.
Yes - the description of Spellstrike itself suggests it's only the "free" attack which can be made with a weapon, but the FAQ/errata suggests that a Magus can attempt to deliver a touch spell through an attack at a later date - including the attack from Spell Combat.
