Author Topic: Ask a simple question...4e style  (Read 34050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Archmage Joda

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Parenchaaaaaaaaaannn!!!
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #100 on: June 12, 2008, 02:29:11 AM »
Q33 I saw mention of a way for archmage to continuously refresh their daily powers. How does this work (full explanation please, I'm rather dim at this 4e stuff currently)?
How about this one?
"My advanced brain is far too meaty to be swayed. Plus, it's practically dripping with genius sauce made from a special recipe of 11 herbs and spices" - Black Mage

heffroncm

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #101 on: June 12, 2008, 03:17:39 AM »
Q33 I saw mention of a way for archmage to continuously refresh their daily powers. How does this work (full explanation please, I'm rather dim at this 4e stuff currently)?
How about this one?

I don't think there is a way to make it continuous, but Archmage has many recycling powers available:
1 Daily spell becomes an Encounter spell.  This is a 5th Encounter spell AND doesn't use a Daily slot, giving you more Attack powers than anyone else, and the ability to use one of your Dailies every fight.

1 Daily spell every day can be prepared with 2 uses, giving you an extra Daily spell.

Every day, you can refresh one Daily spell that has been used.

These give an Archmage effective unlimited Daily attacks.  Not only do you get 6 Dailies, 2 more than most others, but you also get that one Daily turned into an Encounter spell.

DemonLord57

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #102 on: June 13, 2008, 01:06:30 AM »
Q33 I saw mention of a way for archmage to continuously refresh their daily powers. How does this work (full explanation please, I'm rather dim at this 4e stuff currently)?
How about this one?

You're talking about a trick that has been shown to not actually work. The idea was that you would use Archspell (the 30th level Archmage feature) to turn Shape Magic (the 26th level Archmage utility power) into an encounter power. This would allow you to recover one daily spell for every short rest, meaning you just have to wait 30 minutes after battle before you're fully ready to go again, with all dailies and Shape Magic recovered (assuming you used all your dailies and Shape Magic). This doesn't work, though, because Shape Magic is not an "arcane power". It does not have the arcane keyword, which is what makes something an arcane power. There was a thread about this somewhere.

DemonLord57

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #103 on: June 13, 2008, 01:27:06 AM »
Q34 This is a somewhat complicated question (I think it is, anyway.) Okay, so the rules for opportunity attacks state in multiple different places how things provoke opportunity attacks, but it doesn't impose some sort of limit on range or anything. What I want to know is: If I have something that makes an opponent forcibly provoke an OA, then can someone take the opportunity attack at range? For example, if an ally is wielding a glaive, or some other reach weapon, and a warlord uses viper's strike on the ally (causes them to provoke from an ally of choice if shifting), then can he hit the opponent with the OA, or does it only work when adjacent?
      All of the examples I found talked about being adjacent, and there is an ability called "threatening reach", which allows the creature to "make opportunity attacks against any opponents within its reach," which seems to imply that normally you can't. However, the feat Polearm Gamble allows you to make an opportunity attack against a creature who "enters a square adjacent to you", which would mean that you hit them with the OA when they are not adjacent to you, since it interrupts their action. The feat doesn't mention anything indicating this is different from the norm, however.

Q35 On the daily warlord attack power Break The Tempo, there is a sustain minor effect. It says, "The effect continues until your next turn." Is this just a normal sustain effect, or is it implying that it can only be done once? Most of the time they indicate that you can do it indefinitely by saying something like "the effect continues" or "the zone persists". Also, what do you think about using sustain effects on the turn they are cast? Some particularly.... perplexing examples of sustain effects would be Warlock 5 dailies "Crown of Madness" and "Curse of the Bloody Fangs". They each have a sustain minor condition that has (save ends). Does this mean that you can impose this effect each turn? Does this mean that you can impose this only once, but need to keep sustaining for it to continue, but they can save to end it anyway? Do you have to sustain on the turn you cast them, or do you have to wait until the turn after? Can you do either?
   
Q36 About delaying, and using it beneficially: it says that "beneficial" effects end when you delay, but "negative ones do not. How are you to go about determining this? With most, it's pretty obvious, but sometimes it's not. Also, it allows abuse either way. For example, Ice Tomb, the Wizard 17 encounter power. It says that they are entombed until "the end of your next turn". If you delay, this either means 1) you are keeping them there, or 2) you now have the opportunity to attack them, since they are no longer entombed. Either way, delaying gives you an advantage (though the first is more abusable) Another example would be the Warlock 16 utility power, Cloak of Shadow, which, until the end of your next turn turns you insubstantial but does not allow you to attack, use powers, or affect others. So, we have a similar situation as above, by delaying, we can either remain insubstantial, or lose the negative effect. How do you think these should be ruled?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 01:50:22 AM by DemonLord57 »

munin

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • I may or may not be a Quantum Taoist
    • MemEng
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2008, 03:08:47 AM »
A35b

I think that 'save ends' in that case means that you can sustain the effect until the target makes their save.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan/A stately Pleasure-dome decree/Where Alph, the sacred river, ran/Through caverns measureless to man/Down to a sunless sea

AlienFromBeyond

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2008, 03:20:33 AM »
Q34 This is a somewhat complicated question (I think it is, anyway.) Okay, so the rules for opportunity attacks state in multiple different places how things provoke opportunity attacks, but it doesn't impose some sort of limit on range or anything. What I want to know is: If I have something that makes an opponent forcibly provoke an OA, then can someone take the opportunity attack at range? For example, if an ally is wielding a glaive, or some other reach weapon, and a warlord uses viper's strike on the ally (causes them to provoke from an ally of choice if shifting), then can he hit the opponent with the OA, or does it only work when adjacent?
      All of the examples I found talked about being adjacent, and there is an ability called "threatening reach", which allows the creature to "make opportunity attacks against any opponents within its reach," which seems to imply that normally you can't. However, the feat Polearm Gamble allows you to make an opportunity attack against a creature who "enters a square adjacent to you", which would mean that you hit them with the OA when they are not adjacent to you, since it interrupts their action. The feat doesn't mention anything indicating this is different from the norm, however.
By default you only threaten squares adjacent to you. Polearm Gamble is a special case, as it lets you get an OA when you normally wouldn't. In addition, by the time you take the OA granted from it, the opponent has already entered a square adjacent to you, and thus no rules about only threatening adjacent targets is broken.

Okay, this next question is actually a ton of separate questions, so I'll try to do each individually. It helps if you split these up you know, they're supposed to be simple questions :P.
Q35 On the daily warlord attack power Break The Tempo, there is a sustain minor effect. It says, "The effect continues until your next turn." Is this just a normal sustain effect, or is it implying that it can only be done once?
It's a normal sustain effect, they just worded it a bit oddly this time for some reason.
Also, what do you think about using sustain effects on the turn they are cast?
Considering page 278 says you sustain on the turn after you use the power, I think it would be cheating :P.
Some particularly.... perplexing examples of sustain effects would be Warlock 5 dailies "Crown of Madness" and "Curse of the Bloody Fangs". They each have a sustain minor condition that has (save ends). Does this mean that you can impose this effect each turn? Does this mean that you can impose this only once, but need to keep sustaining for it to continue, but they can save to end it anyway? Do you have to sustain on the turn you cast them, or do you have to wait until the turn after? Can you do either?
From my reading, Sustaining the power causes an effect, in the case of say Curse of the Blood Fangs, it's making the target and all adjacent targets take 1d10 damage ongoing that ends with a save, making multiple sustains very powerful over a period of time. But, I can also see that the intention might be that it is ongoing damage that you both need to sustain and that can be cut short if the save is made. Might want to ask CustServ about this one.
   
Q36 About delaying, and using it beneficially: it says that "beneficial" effects end when you delay, but "negative ones do not. How are you to go about determining this? With most, it's pretty obvious, but sometimes it's not. Also, it allows abuse either way. For example, Ice Tomb, the Wizard 17 encounter power. It says that they are entombed until "the end of your next turn". If you delay, this either means 1) you are keeping them there, or 2) you now have the opportunity to attack them, since they are no longer entombed. Either way, delaying gives you an advantage (though the first is more abusable) Another example would be the Warlock 16 utility power, Cloak of Shadow, which, until the end of your next turn turns you insubstantial but does not allow you to attack, use powers, or affect others. So, we have a similar situation as above, by delaying, we can either remain insubstantial, or lose the negative effect. How do you think these should be ruled?
Another question that can be easily answered. Page 288 clearly states what happens with things that end until your next when you delay. In this case, if they are beneficial to you or your allies, they end immediately.

DemonLord57

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #106 on: June 13, 2008, 05:05:21 AM »
By default you only threaten squares adjacent to you. Polearm Gamble is a special case, as it lets you get an OA when you normally wouldn't. In addition, by the time you take the OA granted from it, the opponent has already entered a square adjacent to you, and thus no rules about only threatening adjacent targets is broken.
But an opportunity attack interrupts the action being taken, meaning that the moving next to you doesn't actually happen until after you're finished hitting them, meaning that if you are a fighter, you can stop them one space away from you. (At least that's how opportunity attacks normally work, and I don't see anything about the feat suggesting it works differently)
Quote
Okay, this next question is actually a ton of separate questions, so I'll try to do each individually. It helps if you split these up you know, they're supposed to be simple questions :P.
Oh... right... Ask a simple question oops, my bad, I guess I kind of got carried away.
Quote
Considering page 278 says you sustain on the turn after you use the power, I think it would be cheating .
Well, it actually says that "Starting on the turn after you create an effect, you sustain...", which tells you that that is how to sustain the effect, and it also says that you can sustain once per turn, but it never says you can't sustain before that. It simply tells you that you sustain (the effect) by taking the action, starting on the turn afterward (because the effect was going to last until that turn anyway). This may seem like a stupid way of looking at it, but it makes sense to me... 1) you're allowed to sustain once per turn, and 2) on the turn after the power is used, you sustain it by taking the action, but 3) you're not forbidden from sustaining on the turn you use the power, and some weird powers like the warlock ones seem to be strange to "sustain," since it doesn't "sustain" an effect, it creates a new one. Maybe my way of looking at it is completely wrong, though. I think it's worded badly, in any case.
Quote
Some particularly.... perplexing examples of sustain effects would be Warlock 5 dailies "Crown of Madness" and "Curse of the Bloody Fangs". They each have a sustain minor condition that has (save ends). Does this mean that you can impose this effect each turn? Does this mean that you can impose this only once, but need to keep sustaining for it to continue, but they can save to end it anyway? Do you have to sustain on the turn you cast them, or do you have to wait until the turn after? Can you do either?
From my reading, Sustaining the power causes an effect, in the case of say Curse of the Blood Fangs, it's making the target and all adjacent targets take 1d10 damage ongoing that ends with a save, making multiple sustains very powerful over a period of time. But, I can also see that the intention might be that it is ongoing damage that you both need to sustain and that can be cut short if the save is made. Might want to ask CustServ about this one.
First: How might I contact them?
Second: Ongoing damage of the same source (including untyped) does not stack, so this would just end up being around 7-10 ongoing damage until saving, at which point it starts again (or doesn't), which is still really nice, but not ridiculous. The rules are unclear about whether the lower damage stays around and needs to be saved against, but based on the inclusion of the text, "You make a separate saving throw against each damage type" in the "different damage types" section, I would say the implication is that the lower ongoing is absorbed into the larger one, making it one save at the higher one.
Third: I was also trying to use these as examples of the idea above of using the sustain power during the turn you use the power, and it being weird to be "sustaining" an effect when it doesn't exist yet.

Quote
   
Q36 About delaying, and using it beneficially: it says that "beneficial" effects end when you delay, but "negative ones do not. How are you to go about determining this? With most, it's pretty obvious, but sometimes it's not. Also, it allows abuse either way. For example, Ice Tomb, the Wizard 17 encounter power. It says that they are entombed until "the end of your next turn". If you delay, this either means 1) you are keeping them there, or 2) you now have the opportunity to attack them, since they are no longer entombed. Either way, delaying gives you an advantage (though the first is more abusable) Another example would be the Warlock 16 utility power, Cloak of Shadow, which, until the end of your next turn turns you insubstantial but does not allow you to attack, use powers, or affect others. So, we have a similar situation as above, by delaying, we can either remain insubstantial, or lose the negative effect. How do you think these should be ruled?
Another question that can be easily answered. Page 288 clearly states what happens with things that end until your next when you delay. In this case, if they are beneficial to you or your allies, they end immediately.
But I'm saying that these cannot be characterized as necessarily good or bad effects, sometimes you would prefer them to end and sometimes you wouldn't, depending on the situation, not the actual effect. Thus, how do we characterize the effect as either good or bad (and thus determine whether the effect ends due to delaying)? I for one would think that, if no better solution is available, erring on the side of it being "beneficial" is better, otherwise you can get abuses of effects like "entombed".

In any case, thank you for answering. I know I can sometimes ramble off and end up with mountains of text in my post, even if I don't mean to...
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 05:10:24 AM by DemonLord57 »

AlienFromBeyond

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #107 on: June 13, 2008, 08:32:24 AM »
By default you only threaten squares adjacent to you. Polearm Gamble is a special case, as it lets you get an OA when you normally wouldn't. In addition, by the time you take the OA granted from it, the opponent has already entered a square adjacent to you, and thus no rules about only threatening adjacent targets is broken.
But an opportunity attack interrupts the action being taken, meaning that the moving next to you doesn't actually happen until after you're finished hitting them, meaning that if you are a fighter, you can stop them one space away from you. (At least that's how opportunity attacks normally work, and I don't see anything about the feat suggesting it works differently)
OAs do interrupt the action, and in this case the action is moving. After the attack, the guy you just hit could keep on moving.
Quote
Okay, this next question is actually a ton of separate questions, so I'll try to do each individually. It helps if you split these up you know, they're supposed to be simple questions :P.
Oh... right... Ask a simple question oops, my bad, I guess I kind of got carried away.
Haha, that's okay.
Quote
Considering page 278 says you sustain on the turn after you use the power, I think it would be cheating .
Well, it actually says that "Starting on the turn after you create an effect, you sustain...", which tells you that that is how to sustain the effect, and it also says that you can sustain once per turn, but it never says you can't sustain before that. It simply tells you that you sustain (the effect) by taking the action, starting on the turn afterward (because the effect was going to last until that turn anyway). This may seem like a stupid way of looking at it, but it makes sense to me... 1) you're allowed to sustain once per turn, and 2) on the turn after the power is used, you sustain it by taking the action, but 3) you're not forbidden from sustaining on the turn you use the power, and some weird powers like the warlock ones seem to be strange to "sustain," since it doesn't "sustain" an effect, it creates a new one. Maybe my way of looking at it is completely wrong, though. I think it's worded badly, in any case.
I'm not sure how you're getting you can sustain a power the same turn you use it. Since you sustain starting the turn after you use the power, you can't by definition sustain the turn you use the power. Just because the rules don't say you can't doesn't mean you can.
Quote
Some particularly.... perplexing examples of sustain effects would be Warlock 5 dailies "Crown of Madness" and "Curse of the Bloody Fangs". They each have a sustain minor condition that has (save ends). Does this mean that you can impose this effect each turn? Does this mean that you can impose this only once, but need to keep sustaining for it to continue, but they can save to end it anyway? Do you have to sustain on the turn you cast them, or do you have to wait until the turn after? Can you do either?
From my reading, Sustaining the power causes an effect, in the case of say Curse of the Blood Fangs, it's making the target and all adjacent targets take 1d10 damage ongoing that ends with a save, making multiple sustains very powerful over a period of time. But, I can also see that the intention might be that it is ongoing damage that you both need to sustain and that can be cut short if the save is made. Might want to ask CustServ about this one.
First: How might I contact them?
Here you go.
Quote
   
Q36 About delaying, and using it beneficially: it says that "beneficial" effects end when you delay, but "negative ones do not. How are you to go about determining this? With most, it's pretty obvious, but sometimes it's not. Also, it allows abuse either way. For example, Ice Tomb, the Wizard 17 encounter power. It says that they are entombed until "the end of your next turn". If you delay, this either means 1) you are keeping them there, or 2) you now have the opportunity to attack them, since they are no longer entombed. Either way, delaying gives you an advantage (though the first is more abusable) Another example would be the Warlock 16 utility power, Cloak of Shadow, which, until the end of your next turn turns you insubstantial but does not allow you to attack, use powers, or affect others. So, we have a similar situation as above, by delaying, we can either remain insubstantial, or lose the negative effect. How do you think these should be ruled?
Another question that can be easily answered. Page 288 clearly states what happens with things that end until your next when you delay. In this case, if they are beneficial to you or your allies, they end immediately.
But I'm saying that these cannot be characterized as necessarily good or bad effects, sometimes you would prefer them to end and sometimes you wouldn't, depending on the situation, not the actual effect. Thus, how do we characterize the effect as either good or bad (and thus determine whether the effect ends due to delaying)? I for one would think that, if no better solution is available, erring on the side of it being "beneficial" is better, otherwise you can get abuses of effects like "entombed".
Well, I'd say that delaying when you've entombed something would immediately break them free.
Quote from: PHB
For example if you stunned an enemy until the end of your next turn, the stunned condition ends.
Seems clear to me that the stun and the extra effect that tags along with it on Ice Tomb will end immediately if you Delay. Beneficial, in this case, is also anything that would be harmful to an enemy, and stun is definitely harmful (it is a condition after all).

Again, possibly a question you may want to ask CustServ. When in doubt, I would say err on the side of caution and say the effect is beneficial for you and thus ends right away if you delay.

Runestar

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #108 on: June 13, 2008, 01:50:17 PM »
Q37) How do you rationalize a monster having a reflex save higher than his AC?

For example, the kobold slinger has an AC of 13 but a reflex save of 14. This means that it may be able to dodge a magic missile fired at it from a wizard (int vs reflex), but not a crossbow bolt (dex vs AC), assuming both end up with the same attack roll (or for simplicity's sake, the wizard has the same dex and int scores).

How would he be able to dodge the magic missile, but not the crossbow missile, seeing that they would both involve, well, dodging?
A clear conscience is the surest sign of a failing memory.

phelanarcetus

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #109 on: June 13, 2008, 04:50:52 PM »
A37:  Racial bonuses to reflex, putting faith in armor for AC rather than in dodging?  Size bonus to reflex?  Mechanically, that's just how the monster tables put things for a monster of that role and that level.

Perhaps a magic missile needs to strike full on, but it's much more possible for a grazing crossbow bolt to do harm?  Whatever semantics suit the table.

DemonLord57

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #110 on: June 13, 2008, 05:49:35 PM »
By default you only threaten squares adjacent to you. Polearm Gamble is a special case, as it lets you get an OA when you normally wouldn't. In addition, by the time you take the OA granted from it, the opponent has already entered a square adjacent to you, and thus no rules about only threatening adjacent targets is broken.
But an opportunity attack interrupts the action being taken, meaning that the moving next to you doesn't actually happen until after you're finished hitting them, meaning that if you are a fighter, you can stop them one space away from you. (At least that's how opportunity attacks normally work, and I don't see anything about the feat suggesting it works differently)
OAs do interrupt the action, and in this case the action is moving. After the attack, the guy you just hit could keep on moving.
[/quote]
Yeah, but my point is that they would *not* be adjacent to you, and in fact if you were a fighter, you could keep them one square away from you (given that combat superiority stops movement). This means that you *can* take an opportunity attack on someone who is not adjacent to you, which means that they don't necessarily inherently need adjacency. It could be that it's just this feat, but normally they provide reminder text to tell you that it's okay to break the general rule for the feat. They never say that you need to be adjacent to opportunity attack, it is merely implied. Yet, this implies the opposite...

thanks for answering my questions  :)

heffroncm

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #111 on: June 13, 2008, 05:56:23 PM »
Well, let's look at some particulars from PHB 290:

1) An Opportunity Attack is a Melee Basic Attack
2) You can take an Opportunity Attack when the rules say you can
3) The rules for provoking Opportunity Attacks are all about being 'adjacent.'
4) The Able to Attack portion of Opportunity Attacks tells us that you CAN make an Opportunity Attack against any creature that you can see and can make a Melee Basic Attack against.

So, yes, if you are given the opportunity in any way and have a Reach weapon, you can make an OA against a creature 2 spaces away.  However, creatures only provoke OA's on their own if they are Adjacent to you, unless you have Threatening Reach.

Polearm Gamble only breaks the rule about what provokes an attack, and does not break the rules about what you can attack with an Opportunity Attack.

And, the spaces you "threaten" is a 3.x concept.  There is a small nod to it in the Threatening Reach ability, but that's all.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 05:59:58 PM by heffroncm »

DemonLord57

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2008, 06:43:25 PM »
Well, let's look at some particulars from PHB 290:

1) An Opportunity Attack is a Melee Basic Attack
2) You can take an Opportunity Attack when the rules say you can
3) The rules for provoking Opportunity Attacks are all about being 'adjacent.'
4) The Able to Attack portion of Opportunity Attacks tells us that you CAN make an Opportunity Attack against any creature that you can see and can make a Melee Basic Attack against.

So, yes, if you are given the opportunity in any way and have a Reach weapon, you can make an OA against a creature 2 spaces away.  However, creatures only provoke OA's on their own if they are Adjacent to you, unless you have Threatening Reach.

Polearm Gamble only breaks the rule about what provokes an attack, and does not break the rules about what you can attack with an Opportunity Attack.

And, the spaces you "threaten" is a 3.x concept.  There is a small nod to it in the Threatening Reach ability, but that's all.
Okay, that makes sense, I didn't really look at the Able to Attack portion too carefully, and reading that, it becomes clearer that  (it is at least strongly implied that) you *can* make an OA against anything that you can melee basic attack. Thanks.

Malric

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #113 on: June 14, 2008, 06:44:38 PM »
Q38 Does fighter class feature combat superiority work when missing with reaping strike in OA (heavy blade optimization etc.) ?

Combat superiority:
"An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving..."

Reaping strike:
"On miss half/full str dam."


heffroncm

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #114 on: June 14, 2008, 08:50:58 PM »
A39  Combat Superiority specificies that you have to hit the enemy, not just deal damage to them, to stop movement.

Quote from: PHB 76
An enemy struck by your Opportunity Attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack.
Emphasis mine.

McDungeon

  • Monkey bussiness
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #115 on: June 16, 2008, 02:52:25 PM »
Q40:  Symbols, do they take up a slot?  (seems like they're worn, but where?)

heffroncm

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
    • Email
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #116 on: June 16, 2008, 03:14:14 PM »
Q40:  Symbols, do they take up a slot?  (seems like they're worn, but where?)

A40: By RAW, no.  They can be worn anywhere on the body.  If they had to go into a slot, the book would say so.  An intentional advantage of Clerics and Paladins, as they have many, many powers that are Melee based along with their Implement powers.

DrowVampyre

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 19
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #117 on: June 18, 2008, 10:42:17 AM »
Sorry if this is really obvious - I'm still reading through the books and figuring out how things work, but I'm hoping someone that knows can help me out with a simple decision.

Q41: I'm going to be starting a game in the next day or two, but we'll be shorthanded, only myself and one, possibly two others. The one I know of will be going for a gish type thing, though i don't know his build. If we have a third, I have no idea what it'll be. So...given that, would a rogue or ranger be a better addition to the party? I'd be shooting for a melee focus either way, if that plays into things...
« Last Edit: June 21, 2008, 06:16:17 AM by DrowVampyre »

Omen of Peace

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1053
  • Wise Madman
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #118 on: June 21, 2008, 03:34:54 AM »
A41 This is not really a simple question !
I think both can work: the Ranger is probably the best damage dealer, but the Rogue can inflict conditions.

--
Q42 Consider Winter's Wrath (Wizard Encounter 7, p163). Do people outside the area have concealment from people inside ? This used to be the case in 3.5 but the rules on concealment that I found don't explain it very well.
Silanah heard their songs and prayers. And she watched. Sometimes mortals did indeed forget. Sometimes, mortals needed… reminding…
The Malazan Book of the Fallen, Steven Erikson

Runestar

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
Re: Ask a simple question...4e style
« Reply #119 on: June 22, 2008, 04:06:50 PM »
Q43: What are the rules for aiming area-affecting powers in the air?

For example, a fireball is burst3. Can I aim it in the air to catch the dragon hovering above us? If so, what area does it fill - a 7x7x7 cube? Am I allowed to aim it slightly higher in the air to exclude my own party members? Say the dragonborn fighter is facing a large foe who is taller than him. Could I cast the fireball 2 squares above the ground to catch the upper half of the larger foe, while excluding the comparatively shorter PC? How would this work on close blast powers like burning hands?
A clear conscience is the surest sign of a failing memory.