# Excerpt: powers (merged)



## jaelis (Apr 25, 2008)

*Excerpt: powers*

Excerpt up:  http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080425a


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 25, 2008)

*Excerpt:  Powers*

It's up:

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080425a


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain (Apr 25, 2008)

*Reading a Power*

It's up:


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080425a





Name and Level
Acid Wave 		Wizard Attack 19


The first line of a power description gives the name of the power, the class it’s associated with, the kind of power it is (attack or utility), and the power’s level (or the fact that it’s a class feature). In the above example, acid wave is an attack power that a wizard can choose at 19th level.

Some powers, such as the racial powers in Chapter 3 and the feat powers in Chapter 6 of the Player’s Handbook, carry different information on the right side of this line.
Flavor Text
A wave of acid dissolves all creatures that stand before you.


The next section of a power description gives a brief explanation of what the power does, sometimes including information about what it looks or sounds like. The flavor text for acid wave appears here as an example. A power’s flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. Your wizard’s magic missile spell, for example, might create phantasmal skulls that howl through the air to strike your opponent, rather than simple bolts of magical energy.
Keywords

    At-Will Martial, Weapon
    Encounter Divine
    Daily Acid, Arcane, Implement

A power’s keyword entry gives you important rules information about the power. The first keyword indicates whether the power is an at-will, encounter, or daily power. (One example of each type is given above.) The color used in the line containing the power name also conveys this information: At-will powers have a green bar, encounter powers have a red bar, and daily powers have a black bar.

The other keywords define the fundamental effects of a power. For instance, a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword. A power that has the poison keyword might deal poison damage, or it might slow the target, immobilize the target, or stun the target. But the poison keyword indicates that it’s a poison effect, and other rules in the game relate to that fact in different ways. Dwarves have a bonus to saving throws against poison effects, for example.

Keywords help to determine how, or if, a power works when the target has resistance, vulnerability, or immunity to a damage type or an effect type, or if the power interacts with existing effects. For example, a ritual that forbids teleportation could block a power that has the teleportation keyword.

Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects. When damage of a power is described as more than one type, divide the damage evenly between the damage types (round up for the first damage type, round down for all others). For example, a power that deals 25 fire and thunder damage deals 13 fire damage and 12 thunder damage.

If a power allows you to choose the damage type, the power then has that keyword for feats, resistances, and any other information that applies. For example, the wizard spell elemental maw does 6d6 + Intelligence modifier damage of a type chosen from the following list: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. If you choose lightning damage, the Astral Fire feat (+1 feat bonus to damage rolls when you use powers that have the fire or radiant keywords) doesn’t add to the power’s damage, but the Raging Storm feat (+1 feat bonus to damage rolls when you use powers that have the lightning or thunder keywords) does.
Keyword Categories

Aside from usage keywords (at-will, encounter, and daily), keywords fall into four categories.

Power Source: The power sources described in the Player’s Handbook are arcane, divine, and martial. Basic attacks, racial powers, and epic destiny powers have no power source. Every class relies on a particular source of energy for the “fuel” that enables members of that class to use powers.

The three power sources associated with the classes in this book are arcane, divine, and martial.

Arcane: Drawing on magical energy that permeates the cosmos, the arcane power source can be used for a wide variety of effects, from fireballs to flight to invisibility. Warlocks and wizards, for example, use arcane magic. Each class is the representative of a different tradition of arcane study, and other traditions exist. Arcane powers are called spells.

Divine: Divine magic comes from the gods. The gods grant power to their devotees, which clerics and paladins, for example, access through prayers and litanies. Divine magic excels at healing, protection, and smiting the enemies of the gods. Divine powers are called prayers.

Martial: Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers to grant fighters, rangers, rogues, and warlords, among others, their power. Martial powers are called exploits.

Damage Type: Many powers create energy or a substance that deals damage to their targets.

    Acid: Corrosive liquid.
    Cold: Ice crystals, arctic air, or frigid liquid.
    Fire: Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition.
    Force: Invisible energy formed into incredibly hard yet nonsolid shapes.
    Lightning: Electrical energy.
    Necrotic: Purple-black energy that deadens flesh and wounds the soul.
    Poison: Toxins that reduce a creature’s hit points.
    Psychic: Effects that target the mind.
    Radiant: Searing white light or shimmering colors.
    Thunder: Shock waves and deafening sounds.

Effect Type: Some powers are classified according to how their effects work.

    Charm: Mental effects that control or influence the subject’s actions.
    Conjuration: Powers that create objects or creatures of magical energy.
    Fear: Effects that inspire fright.
    Healing: Powers that restore hit points.
    Illusion: Powers that deceive the senses or the mind.
    Poison: Substances that hamper or impede a creature.
    Polymorph: Effects that alter a creature’s physical form.
    Reliable: If you miss when using a reliable power, you don’t expend the use of that power.
    Sleep: Powers that cause sleep or unconsciousness.
    Stance: A stance power lasts until the end of the encounter, for 5 minutes, or until you use another stance power.
    Teleportation: Powers that transport creatures instantaneously from one location to another.
    Zone: Powers that create lingering effects that extend over an area.

Accessories: These keywords identify items used with the power. If you have a proficiency bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls from your weapon or an enhancement bonus to your attack rolls and damage rolls from a magic weapon or an implement, you add that bonus when you use a power that has the associated keyword.

    Implement: Many arcane spells are more effective when used in conjunction with an implement—a wizard’s staff, orb, or wand, or a warlock’s rod or wand. Many divine prayers use holy symbols as implements. To grant its benefit to a divine character, a holy symbol must represent the character’s patron deity or one of a group of deities the character serves. It’s not necessary to have an implement in order to use a power that has the implement keyword.

    Weapon: Many martial powers, as well as several divine powers, can be used only if you’re wielding a weapon. (You can use an unarmed attack as your weapon.) A weapon’s reach or range determines the reach or range of a power it’s used with.

Action Type

The next line of a power description begins with what type of action you have to take when you use the power. Most powers require a standard action. Some powers are move actions, a few are immediate interrupts or immediate reactions, a handful are minor actions or free actions, and a scant few require no action.

Trigger: Some powers come into effect only if a triggering condition occurs.
Attack Type and Range

Following a power’s action type on the same line is the power’s attack type and its range. The four attack types are melee, ranged, close, and area. Each of these attack types (fully described in Chapter 9 of the Player’s Handbook) has rules for range and targeting.

Even though these terms are called “attack types,” they apply to utility powers as well as attack powers.
Prerequisite or Requirement

Certain powers are usable only if you meet a predetermined condition.

Prerequisite: You must meet this provision to select this power. If you ever lose a prerequisite for a power (for example, if you use the retraining system to replace training in a skill with training in a different skill), you can’t use that power thereafter.

Requirement: You must meet this provision to use this power. You can have the power in your repertoire, but it is not available to you unless you fulfill the requirement.
Target

If a power directly affects one or more creatures or objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry.

When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you.
Attack

Most attack powers that deal damage require you to make an attack roll. The “Attack” entry specifies the kind of attack you make and which of the target’s defenses you check against. If you have a modifier to your attack roll, that’s mentioned here as well.

If your power can attack multiple targets, you make a separate attack roll against each target.
Hit

Every power that requires an attack roll includes a “Hit” entry, which explains what happens when an attack roll succeeds. See “Attacks and Defenses,” page 269 of the Player’s Handbook, for how to make attack rolls, how to deal damage, and how to apply various effects, including conditions and forced movement.

Ongoing damage is a fixed amount rather than an amount determined by a die roll. Ongoing damage is applied to a target each round at the start of the target’s turn until the target makes a successful saving throw.

If a “Hit” (or “Effect”) entry contains “(save ends)” or “(save ends both),” the indicated consequence of the successful attack persists until the target makes a successful saving throw.

If a hit grants you the ability to compel the target to move, whether through forced movement or teleportation, you can move it any number of squares up to the number specified (or not move it at all, if you so choose).

Some powers add modifiers to attack rolls or damage rolls. These modifiers apply to any roll of the dice, but not to ongoing damage or other static, nonvariable effects. The paladin’s wrath of the gods prayer, for example, adds her Charisma modifier to her and her allies’ damage rolls until the end of the encounter. When her cleric ally invokes flame strike, the damage equals 2d10 + Wisdom modifier + the paladin’s Charisma modifier fire damage and ongoing 5 fire damage. The ongoing damage doesn’t increase, because it’s a static effect.

Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed. For example, when a paladin uses divine challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin.
Miss

Sometimes the dice are against you, and you miss your target. Missing isn’t always the end of the story, however. A miss can indicate a splash effect, a glancing blow, or some other incidental effect of a power.
Secondary Target and Secondary Attack

Some powers allow you to make secondary (or even tertiary) attacks. The power description indicates if you can make such an attack after the previous attack was a hit, if that attack was a miss, or regardless of whether the previous attack hits or misses.

Unless otherwise noted, the range of a secondary (or tertiary) attack is the same as for the attack that preceded it.
Effect

Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required.

The effects of powers are as varied as the powers themselves. Some effects impose a condition on the power’s target. Other effects provide a bonus or a benefit (for you or your allies) or a penalty (for enemies). Still others change the nature of the battlefield or create something that didn’t exist a moment ago.

Two kinds of powers—conjurations and zones—produce distinctive effects that are governed by special rules.
Sustain

If a power has a “Sustain” entry, you can keep that power active by taking a specified type of action (minor, move, or standard) during your turn. The “Sustain” entry tells you if a power has an effect that occurs when you take the action to sustain it.
Power Cards

One of the best ways to keep track of your powers is with power cards. The D&D Character Record Sheets package contains not only character sheets, but also perforated cards to write your powers (and magic items) on. These cards contain spaces for all the important info. Here’s a playtest version of what the cards looked like; it’s what I’ve been using for awhile now. Although this is more of a work in progress, it gives you the general idea of how the information is broken out.

The cards have spots for all the information in a power entry, and an “Additional Effects” section at the bottom. In this section, you can include things like the Arcane Reach feat, which lets you fire a close arcane attack from a square other than your own.

Personally, I like to put my cards in sleeves (Magic: the Gathering sleeves are shown in these images) and mark my attack and damage (with critical damage/damage with sneak attack listed separately) with a wet-erase marker. That way, I can update my numbers whenever I need to.

There are a couple ways to keep track of your powers. You can keep your cards in a hand and discard them as you use them. I prefer to set mine up on the table, more like a game of Magic. If I use an encounter power, I flip the card upside-down until the end of the encounter. For a daily power, I flip the card around inside the sleeve so I know it’s expended when I come to the session next week.
--Logan Bonner

    We've already given you a look at devils. Be sure to return Monday for a look at angels!


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 25, 2008)

Hey! Actual definitions for things like "target" and "ally"! Sweet!


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain (Apr 25, 2008)

doh seconds to late to post.

looks interesting


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 25, 2008)

> “Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not).




Bag of rats ftw!

edit - also 



> Unless otherwise noted, the range of a secondary (or tertiary) attack is the same as for the attack that preceded it.



No cleaving to creatures out of melee!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 25, 2008)

Nice list of Damage Types and Effect Types:

*Damage Type:* Many powers create energy or a substance that deals damage to their targets.

*Acid:* Corrosive liquid.
*Cold*: Ice crystals, arctic air, or frigid liquid.
*Fire*: Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition.
*Force*: Invisible energy formed into incredibly hard yet nonsolid shapes.
*Lightning*: Electrical energy.
*Necrotic*: Purple-black energy that deadens flesh and wounds the soul.
*Poison*: Toxins that reduce a creature’s hit points.
*Psychic*: Effects that target the mind.
*Radiant*: Searing white light or shimmering colors.
*Thunder*: Shock waves and deafening sounds.

*Effect Type:* Some powers are classified according to how their effects work.

*Charm*: Mental effects that control or influence the subject’s actions.
*Conjuration*: Powers that create objects or creatures of magical energy.
*Fear*: Effects that inspire fright.
*Healing*: Powers that restore hit points.
*Illusion*: Powers that deceive the senses or the mind.
*Poison*: Substances that hamper or impede a creature.
*Polymorph*: Effects that alter a creature’s physical form.
*Reliable*: If you miss when using a reliable power, you don’t expend the use of that power.
*Sleep*: Powers that cause sleep or unconsciousness.
*Stance*: A stance power lasts until the end of the encounter, for 5 minutes, or until you use another stance power.
*Teleportation*: Powers that transport creatures instantaneously from one location to another.
*Zone*: Powers that create lingering effects that extend over an area.

Very interesting...


----------



## Hawke (Apr 25, 2008)

Those power cards... YUCK. A few hours of work by several people over in the power card thread here have turned out some amazing results. No mention of even providing a blank template to print them out yourself so they don't look like a 3rd grader made them.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Apr 25, 2008)

hmm, mostly stuff we knew or guessed, and im not going to be the one to photoshop the handwritten power cards into legibility. (although I hope someone will) 

Cat Burglers Gambit?  are they just taunting us now?

this is kind of fun to have : 







> *Effect Type:* Some powers are classified according to how their effects work.
> Zone: Powers that create lingering effects that extend over an area.




_Edit - removing clutter from merged thread.  Now we know what dispel magic is going on about. _


----------



## AndruC (Apr 25, 2008)

"Basic attacks, racial powers, and *epic destiny powers *have no power source."

Emphasis mine.  I guess Epic Destinies are going to be a fair bit different from Paragon Paths, and this is one distinction.  Perhaps EDs won't be class specific?

Also, there's a nice shot of a (potentially) finalized character sheet at the end of the article.


----------



## jaelis (Apr 25, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> No mention of even providing a blank template to print them out yourself so they don't look like a 3rd grader made them.



Well, they do say


> The D&D Character Record Sheets package contains not only character sheets, but also perforated cards to write your powers (and magic items) on.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 25, 2008)

"Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed."

Hahaha. Interesting. So powers are always overt unless otherwise specified.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 25, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> Those power cards... YUCK. A few hours of work by several people over in the power card thread here have turned out some amazing results. No mention of even providing a blank template to print them out yourself so they don't look like a 3rd grader made them.



I'm not sure if those pics are for the actual product in the Char Record Sheets set.  The ones shown don't have the color-coding mentioned in the first Keywords paragraph.


----------



## NaturalZero (Apr 25, 2008)

You dont need an implement to use a power that has "implement" listed in teh description. I guess the warlock can eldritch blast with his fingers after all.


----------



## Vempyre (Apr 25, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> Those power cards... YUCK. A few hours of work by several people over in the power card thread here have turned out some amazing results. No mention of even providing a blank template to print them out yourself so they don't look like a 3rd grader made them.




The ones shown are old models "work in progress". I do not know why they bothered showing them, especially since these are far from the final product.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Apr 25, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Bag of rats ftw!



Woe to the DM that allows this....


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 25, 2008)

NaturalZero said:
			
		

> You dont need an implement to use a power that has "implement" listed in teh description. I guess the warlock can eldritch blast with his fingers after all.



You can also punch with a "weapon" power. Very interesting.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 25, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Woe to the DM that allows this....



I would simply declare them a "creature": 







> “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you.


----------



## Vael (Apr 25, 2008)

Interesting. The 4e character sheet has a landscape format. There seems to be more effort into making some clearer definitions and using consistent language. All quite good.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 25, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I would simply declare them a "creature":



Well, enemy is subset of creature, so that doesn't actually do anything. But yes, since I don't want Galahad the pure to be able to heal people by killing puppies, I don't intend to allow this either.


----------



## AndruC (Apr 25, 2008)

Vael said:
			
		

> Interesting. The 4e character sheet has a landscape format.




As does the new Dungeon Master's screen.


----------



## Andur (Apr 25, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I would simply declare them a "creature":




And I would declare them a dead creature if they've had them more than a day.  Feeding them are a problem and since rats are cannibilistic and tend to eat their weight each day...


----------



## Zamkaizer (Apr 25, 2008)

I like how they use one of those cute multi-page pieces of artwork, then sandwich it together, largely defeating the purpose.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 25, 2008)

Wizards 4e Excerpt said:
			
		

> Effect Type:




So does this mean that words like Charm, Fear, do not have a universal effect associated with all abilities with that keyword?  In other words, do all Fear powers cause foes to flee X rounds, or is simply a keyword associated with specific feats.

This may shed some light on all nonsense around the succubus and her abilities.


----------



## jaldaen (Apr 25, 2008)

I wonder how long it'll take for someone to blow up the character sheet and power cards at the bottom and translate the whole thing for us? Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2008)

Something that I noticed (and perhaps this is old news)



> Conjuration: Powers that create objects or creatures of magical energy.




Creatures of magical energy?  Perhaps summoning spells are going to be closer to Astral Constructs now?  Also explains why Dispel Magic bamfs them away.


----------



## med stud (Apr 25, 2008)

Enemy = player that tries to use bag-of-rats


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 25, 2008)

I still REALLY hate the tiefling's bizarrely awkward tail.

CUT IT OFF! RIP IT OUT! NO NO BAD BAD!

Also, between this guy and the Cambions, I'm really not liking the look that 4e has for the devilish types. Why do they look like those loser kids who called themselves "Raven Darkone" in high school?! WHY GODS WHY?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Apr 25, 2008)

4ed=D&D the card game

j/k


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 25, 2008)

hmm... what's up with the two different damage texts on that cat burglar's gambit card?

one of em is 3d6+6 (30+2d6)
the other is  6d8+9 (57+2d8)

I get that the number in parenthesis is the critical hit value (maximized version of what's before) but I don't understand the extra dice or the differing [w] values (1d6 vs 2d8).


Sneak attack varies by weapon perhaps?


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 25, 2008)

lots of definitions, so that''s good, and some crunch... one real power, and a picture of a bunch more, and a character sheet.

So the race is on to see who can scale it up to a readable size!


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 25, 2008)

Well considering the wealth of info we got in the last several previews, this one was definitely on the light side. But hey, at 3 previews a week, not everyone of them can be a gold mine of info.

I think the article mostly told us things we already knew, however, there were a couple of interesting tidbits:

1) Powers are obvious, and the person knows you did something to them. Does that mean no more stealth wizards casting spells on unsuspecting people? Or perhaps there are feats for that.

2) We now know how fire/cold spells work, etc. Actually those are quite useful because of the way vulnerabilities work. Since vulnerabilities just add more damage, having lots of energy types allows you to trigger them more often. On the other hand, more chance to meet some resistance as well.

3) We know more about implements. However, they didn't answer a very important question, one that has come up time and time again since the pregens were created:

Does a cleric have to wield (in his hand) his holy symbol to get the implement bonus, or does he just have to wear it?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Apr 25, 2008)

bjorn2bwild said:
			
		

> hmm... what's up with the two different damage texts on that cat burglar's gambit card?
> 
> one of em is 3d6+6 (30+2d6)
> the other is  6d8+9 (57+2d8)
> ...




Cat Burglar's Gambit

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/9458/catburglerne0.png


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 25, 2008)

Difficult to read the last picture once scaled up, but, it looks like most of the powers have 1d8+6 or 4d8+9 for their damage values.

Two different weapons perhaps?


----------



## A'koss (Apr 25, 2008)

bjorn2bwild said:
			
		

> hmm... what's up with the two different damage texts on that cat burglar's gambit card?
> 
> one of em is 3d6+6 (30+2d6)
> the other is  6d8+9 (57+2d8)
> ...



It's either a rogue-ish weapon property, class ability or the like that adds 2d6 on a crit, 2d8 on a sneak attack-crit.


----------



## Alikar (Apr 25, 2008)

Well well well. Hello Landscape Character sheet.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 25, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Cat Burglar's Gambit
> 
> http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/9458/catburglerne0.png




There are a few things we can glean from this card, assuming the info is accurate.

1st: The fact that this is an encounter power, yet does 3[w] damage, suggests that higher level powers do in fact get stronger.

2nd: Based on number 1, we can assume that this power is for a moderately higher level character than 1st level. Yet, her dex modifier to damage (+6) is not significantly higher than a 1st level rogue's would be (+4 or +5 most likely). While this is obviously circumstantial, it does give some credence to the notion that damage does not directly scale with level.

3rd: The weapon is doing d8's and has sneak attack, yet rogue's normally sneak attack with light blades (d6's or less). This indicates two possibilities: Either a rogue can eventually learn to SA with a heavier blade, or the rogue's damage die scales up with level.


----------



## A'koss (Apr 25, 2008)

Another interesting bit, more "+1 damage" feats... 

*Astral Fire* feat: +1 feat bonus to damage rolls when you use powers that have the fire or radiant keywords. 

*Raging Storm* feat: +1 feat bonus to damage rolls when you use powers that have the lightning or thunder keywords.


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 25, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> There are a few things we can glean from this card, assuming the info is accurate.
> 
> we can assume that this power is for a moderately higher level character than 1st level.




I'm guessing that the blue 14 written over the "hit" means that this card is adjusted for this character playing at 14th level.

The power itself looks to be picked up at 11, according to the card.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 25, 2008)

looks like that ability will be on page 127 of the PHB


----------



## A'koss (Apr 25, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 2nd: Based on number 1, we can assume that this power is for a moderately higher level character than 1st level. Yet, her dex modifier to damage (+6) is not significantly higher than a 1st level rogue's would be (+4 or +5 most likely). While this is obviously circumstantial, it does give some credence to the notion that damage does not directly scale with level.



You'll note that on the card it says that it's an 11th level power for the Cat Burgler Paragon Path.



> 3rd: The weapon is doing d8's and has sneak attack, yet rogue's normally sneak attack with light blades (d6's or less). This indicates two possibilities: Either a rogue can eventually learn to SA with a heavier blade, or the rogue's damage die scales up with level.



Someone mentioned already that the "Backstabber" feat turns SA damage from d6s to d8s. The base weapon damage could be bumped from a lesser weapon as well.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 25, 2008)

bjorn2bwild said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that the blue 14 written over the "hit" means that this card is adjusted for this character playing at 14th level.
> 
> The power itself looks to be picked up at 11, according to the card.



No, +14 to hit.

He's got 14s written in the same place on most of his cards, but then a +13 on one of them in that same place.


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 25, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> No, +14 to hit.
> 
> He's got 14s written in the same place on most of his cards, but then a +13 on one of them in that same place.




Ah good call!  That makes more sense.

The 13 was bugging me, but I figured they had just randomly put cards out there for the photo teaser.


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 25, 2008)

From the pic of the cards and sheet, I'm seeing three different types of cards.  One for attacks (arranged like the cat burglar's gambit card), one for utility, and I'm guessing one for other powers that don't involve attacks.

It also looks like he's got all of his consumable attacks oriented on the far right with his at wills above the character sheet.


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 25, 2008)

He appears to have 3 utilities along the top side to the left of the at wills, meaning he's very likely exactly level 11.

If he was 12, he'd have his paragon utility up there too. Of course, there might be another card off camera, but just going by what you can see here, he's level 11. 

The gold ones are probably items with usable powers.


----------



## zephen18 (Apr 25, 2008)

just a guess.

3d8 + 6 : normal damage
30 + 2d6 : crit w/  extra damage due to a magic weapon. 
6d8 +9 : normal damage w/ sneak attack
57 + 2d8 : crit w/ sneak attack and magic weapon and possible a feat to increase the die on the magic weapon crit rolls.


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 25, 2008)

zephen18 said:
			
		

> just a guess.
> 
> 3d8 + 6 : normal damage
> 30 + 2d6 : crit w/  extra damage due to a magic weapon.
> ...




And if he had a feat or class ability (brutal path perhaps) that gave 1 1/2x attribute bonus damage on sneak attacks, that would correlate the +6 with the +9.

edit: could be a paragon path feature

There would also have to be something about that magic weapon that increased its bonus damage on sneak attack crits.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 25, 2008)

"When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and *both terms assume willing targets*."

It seems Warlords can't forcefully move their allies around the battlemat, after all.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Apr 25, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if those pics are for the actual product in the Char Record Sheets set.  The ones shown don't have the color-coding mentioned in the first Keywords paragraph.




A little bit of reading and you can find out your answer


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 25, 2008)

I have to say, while I've LOVED some of these previews, this one was pretty boring. Very little I didn't already know, and I like MY landscape character sheet and power cards better.   

Fitz


----------



## TwinBahamut (Apr 25, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> "When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and *both terms assume willing targets*."
> 
> It seems Warlords can't forcefully move their allies around the battlemat, after all.



This will spare us a few arguments when the Warlord next comes up as a topic for discussion.

It is nice to actually have some of the basic rules framework. Way too many debates were going on regarding things that are apparently quite clear just using the basic rules that govern all powers. It even cleans up the "Pit Fiend blowing up a rival Devil" debate...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 25, 2008)

The rogue article said sneak attack does +3d6 at paragon tier, and +5d6 at epic.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Apr 25, 2008)

Also +x magic weapons (and possibly implements) do +xd6 damage on a critical.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (Apr 25, 2008)

bjorn2bwild said:
			
		

> And if he had a feat or class ability (brutal path perhaps) that gave 1 1/2x attribute bonus damage on sneak attacks, that would correlate the +6 with the +9.
> edit: could be a paragon path feature



Could also be a base +3.



> There would also have to be something about that magic weapon that increased its bonus damage on sneak attack crits.



My guess is: human error.


----------



## Xyl (Apr 25, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> And I would declare them a dead creature if they've had them more than a day.  Feeding them are a problem and since rats are cannibilistic and tend to eat their weight each day...



My pet rat would like it to be known that rats are highly social animals and most definitely not cannibals. He would also like to point out that he does not eat his own weight in a week, let alone a day.


----------



## Szatany (Apr 25, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 2nd: Based on number 1, we can assume that this power is for a moderately higher level character than 1st level.




Of course it is. At the bottom it says _Class: Cat Burglar._ Surely a paragon path for rogue.


----------



## OakwoodDM (Apr 25, 2008)

Why is sneak attack even being discussed. It's not mentioned on the card. Surely the simplest solution is that the character has 2 weapons to choose from, one which does 1d8 and has a special crit property adding 2d6, and another which does 2d8+1 and has a 2d8 crit property...


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 25, 2008)

OakwoodDM said:
			
		

> Why is sneak attack even being discussed. It's not mentioned on the card. Surely the simplest solution is that the character has 2 weapons to choose from, one which does 1d8 and has a special crit property adding 2d6, and another which does 2d8+1 and has a 2d8 crit property...



Because the second one is 3d8 + 3 higher, and 3d8 is close to what sneak attack would be at that level


----------



## bramadan (Apr 25, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> "When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and *both terms assume willing targets*."
> 
> It seems Warlords can't forcefully move their allies around the battlemat, after all.




Don't want to say "I told you so" but...

I TOLD YOU SO


----------



## That One Guy (Apr 25, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think the article mostly told us things we already knew, however, there were a couple of interesting tidbits:
> 
> 1) Powers are obvious, and the person knows you did something to them. Does that mean no more stealth wizards casting spells on unsuspecting people? Or perhaps there are feats for that.



After reading this post it got me to thinking... would charm make sense if a person knew that they were charmed?
A: "You've been acting weird lately, why?"
B: "Oh, I dunno. I was charmed by a pretty-looking (guy or gal) the other day."

...seems like mind-influencing effects shouldn't be so obvious.

Overall an unimpressive excerpt... but I imagine for someone it was useful. Also, I want to know the exact arrangement of their character sheet... Or if someone could link me to their awesome landscape character sheet (and didn't mind me printing out several copies for possible test games) I'd dig that.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 25, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> My pet rat would like it to be known that rats are highly social animals and most definitely not cannibals. He would also like to point out that he does not eat his own weight in a week, let alone a day.




Rats are highly social animals but they are prone to killing each other if either food or space are dangerously low.


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 25, 2008)

Powers Preview said:
			
		

> Effect
> 
> Many powers produce effects that take place regardless of whether your attack roll succeeds, and other powers have effects that occur without an attack roll being required.
> 
> ...




Only thing I would have liked to see added here is "you may activate an effect without making an attack roll, should you so desire" just to head off the dumb "clerics can only buff by thumping people" arguments--other than that, good, solid terms definitions in this article.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 25, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Rats are highly social animals but they are prone to killing each other if either food or space are dangerously low.




_People_ are prone to killing themselves if food or space is dangerously low...


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 25, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> _People_ are prone to killing themselves if food or space is dangerously low...




For that matter, so do most living things. Rats, like pigs, have an undeserved negative reputation.


----------



## tanj (Apr 25, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Rats, like pigs, have an undeserved negative reputation.




People, on the other hand, have a deservedly earned reputation.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 25, 2008)

and an that note... anyone who tries that stupidity in any game I run dies instantly, of rat swarm, and all their gear is destroyed.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 25, 2008)

I really fail to see the point. The cleric buffs from attacks only last a single round.


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 25, 2008)

Ever try to pick a squirming rat from a bag of rats while someone is swinging a mallet at your head. Me neither, I doubt it would end well.

Between OAs and biting rats, that is if they haven't not died of suffocation, starvation or at each others furry paws, is the tiny bonus you get from this worth it? I really doubt it.


----------



## Dalamar (Apr 25, 2008)

Hmm... I think this bit is news to the collective EN World: 







> Accessories: These keywords identify items used with the power. *If you have a proficiency bonus to* attack rolls and *damage rolls* from your weapon or an enhancement bonus to your attack rolls and damage rolls from a magic weapon or an implement, you add that bonus when you use a power that has the associated keyword.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (Apr 25, 2008)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> Hmm... I think this bit is news to the collective EN World:



 Nope, that's fairly old.  At least as old as the Expo pre-gens.  I guess it's solidly confirmed now.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 25, 2008)

Generally interesting.

One thing that I don't particularly like and will strongly consider house-ruling



> When damage of a power is described as more than one type, divide the damage evenly between the damage types (round up for the first damage type, round down for all others). For example, a power that deals 25 fire and thunder damage deals 13 fire damage and 12 thunder damage.




I've never liked that approach.

I'd like to consider that when a power is described as more than one type, the damage applies unless the resistance or immunity is available to BOTH damage types.

In the above example I'd like a power that deals 25 fire and thunder damage to do full damage to anyone unless they are resistant to fire AND thunder.

Just a personal quirk, and it might nor work out IRL, but I'm going to consider it.

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 25, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Generally interesting.
> 
> One thing that I don't particularly like and will strongly consider house-ruling
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree, I prefer that approach, too. Maybe there are balance considerations why they don't do it? It might make multi-energy powers to strong or something...


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 25, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> One thing that I don't particularly like and will strongly consider house-ruling



Yes that's a surprisingly clunky rule.


----------



## Dalamar (Apr 25, 2008)

DevoutlyApathetic said:
			
		

> Nope, that's fairly old.  At least as old as the Expo pre-gens.  I guess it's solidly confirmed now.



I'm quite sure I haven't seen mention of Proficiency bonus also adding to damage, and I've been scouring the threads pretty carefully.


----------



## Cirex (Apr 25, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Generally interesting.
> 
> One thing that I don't particularly like and will strongly consider house-ruling
> 
> ...




What happens with vulnerable targets then?

--

Todays' excerpt was nice to clarify things, but not too exciting. I like the new character sheet style.




			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> I'm quite sure I haven't seen mention of Proficiency bonus also adding to damage, and I've been scouring the threads pretty carefully.





Maybe the extra damage on criticals?


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS (Apr 25, 2008)

Well this power card confirms one thing, the damage don't is modified by the +1/2 level.


----------



## Voss (Apr 25, 2008)

Hurrah.  Far more crunchy than I expected it to be.  Definition of terms is always a good thing.

Interestingly the definitions of allies (and I'm pleased that you aren't your own ally.  MPD is annoying) and enemies explicitly allows bag o' rat tricks, like with cleave.  Of course, if thats really your best option in around, you should really consider what you're doing.   

The cards are pretty much irrelevant.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 25, 2008)

zephen18 said:
			
		

> just a guess.
> 
> 3d8 + 6 : normal damage
> 30 + 2d6 : crit w/  extra damage due to a magic weapon.
> ...




Hi everyone,

I can't believe you guys are missing the obvious explanation here.

The character is a Paragon Tier rogue (+3d6 sneak attack) who chose the Brutal Scoundrel tactic (+Str to sneak attack damage), the Backstabber feat (bumps sneak attacks to +d8's), and probably is using a rapier (d8 weapon).

C'mon. Seriously. 

Laterz.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 25, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> What happens with vulnerable targets then?



Any vulnerability means extra damage. (Note that in 4E, this also means "only" taking a fixed amount of extra damage, not +50%). At least that's how I would do it.


----------



## Just Another User (Apr 25, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> "When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and *both terms assume willing targets*."
> 
> It seems Warlords can't forcefully move their allies around the battlemat, after all.



I wonder how that works with dominatation. For example, let's say the warlord use Bastion of defense, a power that gives his allies a bonus +1 to all defenses until the end of combat, then one of his allies is dominated. He would still get that bonus?


----------



## Simon Marks (Apr 25, 2008)

As for the half-n-half rule for two energy types, it's irrelevant except in the case of immunities and resistances.

Immunity = 1/2 damage, resistance = -resistance upto maximum of half.

Seems simple to me.


----------



## neceros (Apr 25, 2008)

I'm not too thrilled about a Landscape character sheet. I'll have to test it to see how it turns out.

Might play around and test one of my own. We'll see.


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 25, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> I wonder how that works with dominatation. For example, let's say the warlord use Bastion of defense, a power that gives his allies a bonus +1 to all defenses until the end of combat, then one of his allies is dominated. He would still get that bonus?




Quick Guess:

Dominated - No
Charmed   - Yes (until he is convinced to attack, then his Green Circle turns Red)


----------



## Cirex (Apr 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Any vulnerability means extra damage. (Note that in 4E, this also means "only" taking a fixed amount of extra damage, not +50%). At least that's how I would do it.




Ah, sorry, I made some basic maths mistake. I mixed vulnerabilities and resistances in my mind and not an equal splitting of the damage, like fire thunder being 13/12. 

Nothing, forget what I said!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 25, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Ah, sorry, I made some basic maths mistake. I mixed vulnerabilities and resistances in my mind and not an equal splitting of the damage, like fire thunder being 13/12.
> 
> Nothing, forget what I said!



I don't know what you're talking about? Did you post something?


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 25, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Woe to the DM that allows this....



Woe to _us _ who have to endure insipid 'bag of rats' posts for the next few years.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 25, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Generally interesting.
> 
> One thing that I don't particularly like and will strongly consider house-ruling
> 
> ...




fire AND thunder 25 should do 25 Fire and 25 Thunder.

fire OR thunder should do either 25 fire or 25 thunder... it would have been clearer then...


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 25, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> It even cleans up the "Pit Fiend blowing up a rival Devil" debate...



Actually, making 'alliance' conditional to consent only exacerbates the Pit Fiend debate (assuming the point of contention was: "would a summoned demon consent to be blown up given a choice in the matter?")

(and for the record, I voted 'who the hell cares, they're NPCs')

/tangent


----------



## DandD (Apr 25, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> fire AND thunder 25 should do 25 Fire and 25 Thunder.



That would be probably too powerful. Also, the idea of mixed elemental effects is probably inspired from Magic: The Gathering, where they put up multi-colored cards. 
Although, the idea of mixed energy effects isn't one restricted to 4th edition. That already existed in 3rd, with spells that had some divine or unholy properties. The Book of Exalted Deeds or its counterpart came up with attack spells, where one part was an elemental effect, whereas the other half of the damage couldn't be resisted at all, because it was either hell-energy or something more divine. Now, it's just a 4th edition core rules that applies to all energy type attacks, the same as epic tier is now core.


----------



## Vempyre (Apr 25, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> There are a few things we can glean from this card, assuming the info is accurate.




It probably is not.

The excerpt mentions these are pictures taken from the playtests. So it is old pictures with probably inaccurate info since rules probably have changed quite a bit since that picture might have been taken. (another reason why I think they shouldn't have shown these pictures)



> Here’s a playtest version of what the cards looked like;




Although it doesn't also mean the info on the cards is old, but the probability is high that it is. We will only know if it is confirmed or when we get the books.


----------



## Voss (Apr 25, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Actually, making 'alliance' conditional to consent only exacerbates the Pit Fiend debate (assuming the point of contention was: "would a summoned demon consent to be blown up given a choice in the matter?")
> 
> (and for the record, I voted 'who the hell cares, they're NPCs')
> 
> /tangent



The hierarchy of hell forces them to consent?
If they aren't willing it never happens so the power couldn't exist, so the powers very existence means he can blow up his subordinates


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 25, 2008)

With regards to the bag-of-rats:



			
				catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Woe to the DM that allows this....




Even more woe to the player who tries it at my table . . .


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 25, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The hierarchy of hell forces them to consent?
> If they aren't willing it never happens so the power couldn't exist, so the powers very existence means he can blow up his subordinates



"Explode now, or be tortured to Death later. What do you pick, Devil Legionnaire?"


----------



## med stud (Apr 25, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The hierarchy of hell forces them to consent?
> If they aren't willing it never happens so the power couldn't exist, so the powers very existence means he can blow up his subordinates



Exactly. It would be a lousy power if the devil minions would put their self-preserving above the loyalty to the pit fiend.

Thinking about, it since devils most likely don't leave Hell when they die, maybe sacrificing yourself for a pit fiend would increase your chances of promotion? It's not only a honour and a duty to lower devils, it's also a career path? That way, devils will be like the ultimate samurais; they don't throw their lives away, but they sacrifice it witout blinking if ordered to.


----------



## med stud (Apr 25, 2008)

Ingolf said:
			
		

> With regards to the bag-of-rats:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more woe to the player who tries it at my table . . .



I can't understand why this bag-of-rats crap is even brought up. It's so obvious that it is stupid metagaming that no DM would let it pass anyway.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Apr 25, 2008)

I don't think all powers are obvious. I think it was referring to marks specifically. That way if you use a mark to make sure an enemy only attacks you it would be nice if the enemy knew that they are going to be negatively effected if they attack anyone else.

Edit: Well maybe not marks specifically, but definitely all powers that act like attacks. There are probably some powers that are exempt.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 25, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I can't understand why this bag-of-rats crap is even brought up. It's so obvious that it is stupid metagaming that no DM would let it pass anyway.




Because acting as if stupid metagaming rules-lawyering behavior is normal and commonplace - and that DMs are helpless in the face of such tactics - is one of the principle debate techniques employed in arguments about D&D. Any edition.

It's also a sure bet that the person trotting it out has already lost the argument, but don't tell them that . . .


----------



## FireLance (Apr 25, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Actually, making 'alliance' conditional to consent only exacerbates the Pit Fiend debate (assuming the point of contention was: "would a summoned demon consent to be blown up given a choice in the matter?")



The pit fiend's Infernal Summons is a Conjuration effect, which means the summoned devils are created from magical energy. I'd simply assume that mindless obedience to the creator is part of the specifications. 


> (and for the record, I voted 'who the hell cares, they're NPCs')



Not only NPCs, but magically created NPCs to boot, for a double dosage of "Who cares?"


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 25, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> The Book of Exalted Deeds or its counterpart came up with attack spells, where one part was an elemental effect, whereas the other half of the damage couldn't be resisted at all, because it was either hell-energy or something more divine. Now, it's just a 4th edition core rules that applies to all energy type attacks, the same as epic tier is now core.




Errr... For 3.0 how about the PHB with Flame Strike (half fire, half divine)? That must be the first instance, surely?


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 25, 2008)

I like the 50/50 energy damage.  Saves me from trying to figure out what thunder-fire looks like.

The only complaint I have is that I wouldn't mind if they spelled out the split in the spell description.  You know, instead of 25 fire and sonic damage divided in half, 15 fire damage and 10 sonic.  But I'll get over it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> _People_ are prone to killing themselves if food or space is dangerously low...



True, but no one is suggesting a "bag o' humans" trick. Since rats were the animal being discussed, their behaviour is the appropriate behaviour to discuss.

_Edit: typo._

_Edit: realized I used the term "relevant" when discussing the bag o' rats. My bad. The bag o' rats is *never* relevant. Changed to something more appropriate._


----------



## Storminator (Apr 25, 2008)

I wish we could get "bag of rats" added to the cursing filters, so we can't even see it if someone types it.   

PS


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2008)

Ingolf said:
			
		

> Because acting as if stupid metagaming rules-lawyering behavior is normal and commonplace - and that DMs are helpless in the face of such tactics - is one of the principle debate techniques employed in arguments about D&D. Any edition.



It's _the_ principle debate technique employed in _online_ arguments about D&D.

"But what about <_patently absurd corner-case ridiculous hypothetical example_>? If the book doesn't contain rules specifically preventing it, the game is clearly broken and the designers are incompetent."

Or something like that.


----------



## Stormtalon (Apr 25, 2008)

I believe, at least from the powers we've seen so far, that the "bag of rats" issue is actually made moot by the powers themselves.  Every one we've seen is quite explicit in which and how many targets it allows, so the old "Whirlwind/Great Cleave/bag'o'rats" schtick never gets a chance to get going.  And if you'll remember, all those feats which used to be exploitable in that way are 1) now martial powers, 2) each take a standard action to pull off and 3) in some cases (such as Cleave) do lessened damage to the secondary targets.

They don't need to define "enemy" any more specifically, as the previously-cheezable situations and combos simply won't come up anymore.  Will there be new ones?  Probably, but those are (as discussed before) most likely going to involve actions from multiple party members, moving them into the realm of "creative tactics."


----------



## Montkiva (Apr 25, 2008)

Does it bother anyone else how much space those power cards take up? My group has a DM plus 5 players, and we simply don't have the table space for everyone to spread out their cards like that. There is surely a business opportunity out there for someone who can come up with a solution needing less space.

I was thinking of use the old baseball card full plastic sheets with 9 pockets. You could insert a card into each one, write on them, and just use a wet-erase marker to "check off" a daily or encounter power.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 25, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I like the 50/50 energy damage.  Saves me from trying to figure out what thunder-fire looks like.



Yep. No need to tinker with this one at all (IMO)


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2008)

Montkiva said:
			
		

> Does it bother anyone else how much space those power cards take up? My group has a DM plus 5 players, and we simply don't have the table space for everyone to spread out their cards like that. There is surely a business opportunity out there for someone who can come up with a solution needing less space.
> 
> I was thinking of use the old baseball card full plastic sheets with 9 pockets. You could insert a card into each one, write on them, and just use a wet-erase marker to "check off" a daily or encounter power.



I don't see any reason why you'd have to spread them out like that. Personally, I'm thinking more in terms of a small deck of cards, and flipping through them to find the one I need. Spreading them out takes up a lot of space, and said space is not being used very often - only when that particular power needs to be referenced.


----------



## malraux (Apr 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I don't see any reason why you'd have to spread them out like that. Personally, I'm thinking more in terms of a small deck of cards, and flipping through them to find the one I need. Spreading them out takes up a lot of space, and said space is not being used very often - only when that particular power needs to be referenced.



Deck of cards?  Real powergamers use a rolodex.


----------



## Caliber (Apr 25, 2008)

I was under the impression that all abilities and spells in 3E also instantly alerted their target. Something like "when you make a Saving Throw, you know WHY you made it". Is that wrong?

Also, doesn't Dispel Magic dispel summons in 3E as well?

Overall, the preview was good, but mostly stuff we knew. Some of the definitions WERE   though.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 25, 2008)

Montkiva said:
			
		

> Does it bother anyone else how much space those power cards take up? My group has a DM plus 5 players, and we simply don't have the table space for everyone to spread out their cards like that. There is surely a business opportunity out there for someone who can come up with a solution needing less space.
> 
> I was thinking of use the old baseball card full plastic sheets with 9 pockets. You could insert a card into each one, write on them, and just use a wet-erase marker to "check off" a daily or encounter power.




I was imagining that the players would be holding them like decks of cards. Spreading them out all over the table like that would not be particularly popular, I think, with most gaming groups.


----------



## hong (Apr 25, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Deck of cards?  Real powergamers use a rolodex.



 Rolodex? 21st century powergamers use a PDA!


----------



## abyssaldeath (Apr 25, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Deck of cards?  Real powergamers use a rolodex.





I think powergamer is going to have a new meaning.


----------



## Voss (Apr 25, 2008)

Ingolf said:
			
		

> Because acting as if stupid metagaming rules-lawyering behavior is normal and commonplace - and that DMs are helpless in the face of such tactics - is one of the principle debate techniques employed in arguments about D&D. Any edition.
> 
> It's also a sure bet that the person trotting it out has already lost the argument, but don't tell them that . . .




Its a thought experiment, like Schroedinger's Cat.  Its a way of testing rules out to see if they meet a certain criteria.  Its particularly useful in the design stages of a game to see if the rules you are writing have stupid side effects.


Honestly, if someone is actually pulling it out at the table, its a little sad.  Almost anything else they could do would actually be more effective, so its not something you actually have to worry about.


----------



## Voss (Apr 25, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Deck of cards?  Real powergamers use a rolodex.





You know, I actually ran into this at a game run at GenCon back around 1990.  The DM handed over a rolodex full of the wizards spells along with the character sheet.  It was a pretty decent reference.  

Its seems somewhat unnecessary for 4e though, since even at level 30, you'll have less than 20 powers.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Apr 25, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Well, enemy is subset of creature, so that doesn't actually do anything. But yes, since I don't want Galahad the pure to be able to heal people by killing puppies, I don't intend to allow this either.




thats where you rez Dr Evil and his bag of zombie puppies TM
"Im evil so you don't have to be!"


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> "But what about <_patently absurd corner-case ridiculous hypothetical example_>? If the book doesn't contain rules specifically preventing it, the game is clearly broken and the designers are incompetent."




Humans (and probably dwarves) are tool using creatures.  IMO it's a bad idea to somehow think that it's sufficient to rely on DM blustering and guilt-trips to keep characters from acting intelligently.  If a bag of rats, handful of pebbles, long stick, etc. is sufficient to cause some undesired effect in a rule then the rule is badly designed.  

That being said, an entire game isn't broken, nor are designers incompetent just because there is a badly conceived rule somewhere in the game system.  Game systems are huge and complicated IMO, and DMs need to be given respect (and should count on it) if they need to modify a rule on the fly when they feel that the spirit of the rule and it's text don't match.  However, game designers (and DMs) should take these things seriously.  If you design a "magic wall" spell, for example, that vanishes when an "object strikes it" and it surprises you that a character throws a pebble at the wall, then you need to try harder or should spend some more time DMing.  In any case, focusing your wrath at the player that's following the rules IMO is unwise.


----------



## davethegame (Apr 25, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The hierarchy of hell forces them to consent?
> If they aren't willing it never happens so the power couldn't exist, so the powers very existence means he can blow up his subordinates




I can just see the D&D Rules citing philosophical texts to try to come up with a working definition of "willing".


----------



## hong (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Humans (and probably dwarves) are tool using creatures.  IMO it's a bad idea to somehow think that it's sufficient to rely on DM blustering and guilt-trips to keep characters from acting intelligently.




The characters act perfectly intelligently. The constraints on their behaviour just happen not to be all written down in a 2-column, 9-point serif font.


----------



## eleran (Apr 25, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> Ever try to pick a squirming rat from a bag of rats while someone is swinging a mallet at your head. Me neither, I doubt it would end well.
> 
> Between OAs and biting rats, that is if they haven't not died of suffocation, starvation or at each others furry paws, is the tiny bonus you get from this worth it? I really doubt it.





Not to mention the fact that Rats, being rodents would likely chew themselves right out of the bag before you even got to the dungeon.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Apr 25, 2008)

That One Guy said:
			
		

> After reading this post it got me to thinking... would charm make sense if a person knew that they were charmed?
> A: "You've been acting weird lately, why?"
> B: "Oh, I dunno. I was charmed by a pretty-looking (guy or gal) the other day."
> 
> ...seems like mind-influencing effects shouldn't be so obvious.




If a particular mind-influencing effect needs to be not obvious, then it should say so in the text for that particular power.  Exception-based design.


----------



## JesterOC (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Humans (and probably dwarves) are tool using creatures.  IMO it's a bad idea to somehow think that it's sufficient to rely on DM blustering and guilt-trips to keep characters from acting intelligently.  If a bag of rats, handful of pebbles, long stick, etc. is sufficient to cause some undesired effect in a rule then the rule is badly designed.




I don't agree.  A rule is always a compromise between complexity and simplicity.  A rule should be considered a bad design if the problem comes up fairly often.  If you keep having to add rules for silly circumstances, then the ruleset will become too complex and too combersome.  If you do not assume some level of sanity amongst your players, you will get rules that start looking like warning labels.  "Don't use microwave in a bathtub", "Do not spray bug poison in eyes!". "Do not allow players to use a bag of rats".

JMHO

JesterOC


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Apr 25, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Not to mention the fact that Rats, being rodents would likely chew themselves right out of the bag before you even got to the dungeon.




Excellent point .... that would need to be one heck of a tough bag.   

To get back to the topic on hand -- I don't see any reason to not have the power cards as  a deck, either. They're just spread out like that for the photograph.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Humans (and probably dwarves) are tool using creatures.



Partially correct. Humans are tool users, dwarves don't exist, and elves use tools made from saplings, brightly-colored mushrooms, and dew drops. 



> IMO it's a bad idea to somehow think that it's sufficient to rely on DM blustering and guilt-trips to keep characters from acting intelligently.



It's a bad idea to game with prats.



> If a bag of rats, handful of pebbles, long stick, etc. is sufficient to cause some undesired effect in a rule then the rule is badly designed.



Stupid misuse of a tool doesn't indicate that it's badly designed. Hammers are well-designed even though, on occasion, nutters use to them to attack random passersby in shopping mall parking lots, and liquid hydrocarbon fuels are well designed, even though, on occasion, teenagers huff them.


----------



## The_Fan (Apr 25, 2008)

I'm surprised no one has commented on the Acid Wave power. My first thought was "don't cast the brown acid wave." Dude...far out man...


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 25, 2008)

Caliber said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that all abilities and spells in 3E also instantly alerted their target. Something like "when you make a Saving Throw, you know WHY you made it". Is that wrong?



Yes, it's wrong. Unless you saw the attack (and succeeded at a spellcraft check) you only knew that you just resisted something but not what it was and who did tried to do it you.

I think it was in the official FAQ


----------



## Voss (Apr 25, 2008)

JesterOC said:
			
		

> I don't agree.  A rule is always a compromise between complexity and simplicity.  A rule should be considered a bad design if the problem comes up fairly often.  If you keep having to add rules for silly circumstances, then the ruleset will become too complex and too combersome.  If you do not assume some level of sanity amongst your players, you will get rules that start looking like warning labels.  "Don't use microwave in a bathtub", "Do not spray bug poison in eyes!". "Do not allow players to use a bag of rats".
> 
> JMHO
> 
> JesterOC



Except nothing terrible happens if someone does smack a rat around.  The best you can do from what we've seen is a tiny amount of damage or a small temporary bonus.  Fiddling around with the bag doesn't need to be 'Verboten!', because its a stupid thing to be doing in the middle of a fight. Its at least a move action (at the very least equivalent to getting gear out of a bag), the first time you get a character killed by goblins because you're too busy mucking about with a bag to fight them, it pretty much solves itself.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 25, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Except nothing terrible happens if someone does smack a rat around.  The best you can do from what we've seen is a tiny amount of damage or a small temporary bonus.  Fiddling around with the bag doesn't need to be 'Verboten!', because its a stupid thing to be doing in the middle of a fight. Its at least a move action (at the very least equivalent to getting gear out of a bag), the first time you get a character killed by goblins because you're too busy mucking about with a bag to fight them, it pretty much solves itself.



Nit-pick - since moves are reserved for actual moving or "downgrading" to minor action, it's easier a minor action or a standard action. To "nerf" the tactic, standard action is the way to go. (and honestly, considering that you try to manipulate the rat(s) to get in a specific position, standard is the only thing that really makes sense). I don't think it would have been different in 3E. 

What you really need is a hench-man to do this job. (Probably a Minion. Let's hope none of the bats try to bite him... that would be a pathetic death... At higher levels, he might at least die due to some area effect)


----------



## carborundum (Apr 25, 2008)

I'm curious about how the powers as spells thing will work out. You only have a limited number of powers, depending on your level, right? How does this compare to a wizard with many tens of spells to choose from every day?

Or did I miss something and am I now foolish?


----------



## Michele Carter (Apr 25, 2008)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> I'm quite sure I haven't seen mention of Proficiency bonus also adding to damage, and I've been scouring the threads pretty carefully.




Yes, well, it was a surprise to me too, and it's an error. It's clear under the discussion of proficiency bonuses elsewhere that they don't apply to damage. 

A DM who allows the bag of rats hasn't read page 40 of the DMG, where that example is specifically invoked under the discussion of (non)legitimate targets.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 25, 2008)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> A DM who allows the bag of rats hasn't read page 40 of the DMG, where that example is specifically invoked under the discussion of (non)legitimate targets.




*LAUGH*

Okay, I'm not sure whether it bothers me more that you (the designers) felt the need to do it, or that some people feel the book would be incomplete if you hadn't.

In either case, that ought to make gizmo33 happy.


----------



## FourthBear (Apr 25, 2008)

carborundum said:
			
		

> I'm curious about how the powers as spells thing will work out. You only have a limited number of powers, depending on your level, right? How does this compare to a wizard with many tens of spells to choose from every day?
> 
> Or did I miss something and am I now foolish?



I don't think you've missed anything.  We know that the first level wizard presented for demo play had only one daily power per day, but could use his spellbook to choose at the start of the day from two different dailies.  We don't yet know how many daily spells a wizard can have in their spellbook as they go up in level.  It could always be "Two choices per daily slot" with an option to use a feat to get another daily choice.  

Also remember that characters can have access to ritual casting, which is planned to include a significant amount of what was once out of combat spellcasting.  So divination, resurrection, long range teleportation will be rituals.  From what has been said, there are no hard limits on the number of rituals a character can know.  We don't yet know if there are standard costs to rituals and what the typical ritual will look like.  We do know that they will take too long to cast to be used in combat.  I suspect that they will also discourage rituals that grant significant combat bonuses and recreate the buffing issues from previous editions.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 25, 2008)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> Yes, well, it was a surprise to me too, and it's an error. It's clear under the discussion of proficiency bonuses elsewhere that they don't apply to damage.
> 
> A DM who allows the bag of rats hasn't read page 40 of the DMG, where that example is specifically invoked under the discussion of (non)legitimate targets.




On the one hand, that's funny.

On the other hand, I'm sad it had to be spelled out.


----------



## Alkiera (Apr 25, 2008)

The guy who flipped through the PHB/DMG at GAMA said that ritual casting times start at 10 minutes and go up from there; and that there are material components, possibly expensive ones.  They come in book and scroll form; scroll are one-use, a book has enough information to teach you the ritual so you know it forever.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 25, 2008)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> A DM who allows the bag of rats hasn't read page 40 of the DMG, where that example is specifically invoked under the discussion of (non)legitimate targets.



Okay, that right there is bringing the 4wesome.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 25, 2008)

On a more serious note, I believe we have at least some information relevant to our Half-elf Warlock friend Tira.

Good ol' Tira has the following ability:

*Ray of Frost*    Wizard Attack 1
_A blisteringly cold ray of white frost streaks to your target._
*At-Will • Arcane, Cold, Implement*
*Standard Action      Ranged* 10
*Target:* One creature
*Attack:* +2 vs. Fortitude
*Hit:* 1d6 + 2 cold damage, and the target is slowed until the end of your next turn.

According to the most recent excerpt, "The first line of a power description gives the name of the power, the class it’s associated with, the kind of power it is (attack or utility), and the power’s level (or the fact that it’s a class feature)."

Interestingly, this means that the power above is an attack power that a wizard can choose at 1st-level. Tira, however, is a _warlock_ which means this is obviously some form of multiclassing. My guess, as before, is that half-elves get a free multiclass ability of their choice.

(As an aside, does anyone know the code for putting longer spaces into the middle of a line? I can't seem to recall what it is.)


----------



## Voss (Apr 25, 2008)

Hmm.  I don't consider it a big deal, but if she's actually serious, I'm glad they put some thought into it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> That being said, an entire game isn't broken, nor are designers incompetent just because there is a badly conceived rule somewhere in the game system.



True. But the thing is, we're not actually talking about badly-designed rules. We're talking about instances of tortured reading of the written rules to arrive at a ridiculous result. We're talking about cases of arguing against the natural, obvious meaning of phrases in order to achieve something that was clearly not intended. That's what the bag o' rats is about - not a badly-designed or even a badly-described rule, but a ridiculous interpretation of said rule.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 25, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> I don't think you've missed anything.  We know that the first level wizard presented for demo play had only one daily power per day, but could use his spellbook to choose at the start of the day from two different dailies.  We don't yet know how many daily spells a wizard can have in their spellbook as they go up in level.  It could always be "Two choices per daily slot" with an option to use a feat to get another daily choice.
> 
> Also remember that characters can have access to ritual casting, which is planned to include a significant amount of what was once out of combat spellcasting.  So divination, resurrection, long range teleportation will be rituals.  From what has been said, there are no hard limits on the number of rituals a character can know.  We don't yet know if there are standard costs to rituals and what the typical ritual will look like.  We do know that they will take too long to cast to be used in combat.  I suspect that they will also discourage rituals that grant significant combat bonuses and recreate the buffing issues from previous editions.




We can only hope. I believe (hope?) that high-level wizards may have access to more minor cantrip type magic that they can use freely. Otherwise, the notion of a wizard with a few basic spells that they turn to frequently and a host of more complex rituals that they can invoke by spending some time is very much the way magic works in _The Dresden Files._ Which I've mentioned before is one of my favorite presentations of magic.

Essentially, the wizard's "default" spells are his evocations (offensive and defensive), charms, and maybe some minor illusions and transformations. Basically, combat and utility magic are readily at-hand. Long-term or very complex things like divination, summoning, and more complex wards, enchantments and transformations would all involve rituals. 

If that's the case, I think the system will work fine for me.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In either case, that ought to make gizmo33 happy.



Bag of _cats._


----------



## drjones (Apr 25, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> It seems Warlords can't forcefully move their allies around the battlemat, after all.



Who would have guessed that they would not intentionally make every foolish design decision some griper straw-manned up.


----------



## drjones (Apr 25, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Generally interesting.
> 
> One thing that I don't particularly like and will strongly consider house-ruling
> 
> ...



Thing is I think they are working it this way because they do not want to have to say 'x power does 1d8 fire, 1d8 thunder, 1d8 cold' they just say the damage and you can divide out the fraction when it comes up, which will probably me a minority of the time.  Otherwise you are basically 'nerfing' resistances by only letting them work for pure damage.  If I was a player under this rule I would always take the spell that did more than one type of damage and have an advantage that the monsters are not balanced for.

That's fine of course, house rules change the math, but I am not sure what what be gained in return.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> True. But the thing is, we're not actually talking about badly-designed rules. We're talking about instances of tortured reading of the written rules to arrive at a ridiculous result. We're talking about cases of arguing against the natural, obvious meaning of phrases in order to achieve something that was clearly not intended. That's what the bag o' rats is about - not a badly-designed or even a badly-described rule, but a ridiculous interpretation of said rule.




I think the defensiveness I've seen in some of the posts ("I'd do such and such to any player that even thought about putting a rat into a bag") IMO is indicative of people who *don't* believe that they are logically on solid ground.  There's no reason to be so insecure otherwise.  If it's really all that natural and obvious then that's the end of it.

But IME, "natural", "obvious", "clearly" etc. are often in the eye of the beholder and players often have legitimate reasons to see things differently.  The name-calling that's gone on in this thread regarding those interpretations IMO is not warranted or respectful.  You're just a DM, not an expert on other people's morality/character.

So I find a strategy of "if a player uses this element of the game in the way that I didn't anticipate, they're being a jerk" is disrespectful and narrow-minded - and this goes for game designers that are tempted to be lazy about thinking through things.  As much as some DMs probably hate to share control, DnD IMO is a shared environment.  Players want to be creative with the elements they have to work with.  You have a feat, a bag, and some rats and if you think of a way to put those together to accomplish something then it's not evil for you to do so.  What's evil IMO is a DM or game designer who thinks that the only legitimate ideas are the ones that he's comfortable with.  IMNSHO, to some degree a successful DM must realize that he has to share a degree of authority with the players and the rule system, otherwise you'll just wind up DMing for zombies.


----------



## drjones (Apr 25, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one has commented on the Acid Wave power. My first thought was "don't cast the brown acid wave." Dude...far out man...



Ah for the 4ed oozemaster: 
Brown Wave 
Daily * Arcane * Fecal
_You really don't want to know.  Ick._


----------



## KidSnide (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So I find a strategy of "if a player uses this element of the game in the way that I didn't anticipate, they're being a jerk" is disrespectful and narrow-minded



It is not a matter of players using rules elements in a way that I didn't anticipate.  That's fine.  It's a matter of players using rules elements in a way that doesn't make any sense.  

To take a real world analogy, someone who takes a coat hanger and repairs the plumbing on his toilet is clever.  And that is an example of using a coat hanger in a way in which it was not intended.  By contrast, someone who uses a coat hanger as a pair of pants is an idiot.

Similarly, the idea that a character gets +20/+15/+10 against the demon alone, but gets +20/+20/+20/+20/+20/+20 against the demon if he is surrounded by a half-dozen rats is absurd.  And so, if I meet a player who does think he can get that bonus by dragging a bag of rats into the dungeon, I think that player is an...

Well, I don't think he's clever.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 25, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> Similarly, the idea that a character gets +20/+15/+10 against the demon alone, but gets +20/+20/+20/+20/+20/+20 against the demon if he is surrounded by a half-dozen rats is absurd.  And so, if I meet a player who does think he can get that bonus by dragging a bag of rats into the dungeon, I think that player is an...
> 
> Well, I don't think he's clever.




KidSnide indeed!   Getting +20/.../+20 against a demon isn't the same thing as wearing a coat hanger for pants at all!  There's nothing stupid about finding a way to get +20/.../+20 against a demon, whereas a coat-hanger around your waist probably doesn't do much useful.  So I don't see the comparison.

Hypothetically if you have a feat that says "you can get one attack against a demon at +20 for each rat that he's surrounded by" then you'd be stupid *not* to carry a bag of rats with you.  I'm sure the first person in history that tried to ride a horse got laughed at too.  History is full of examples of people using all sorts of animals for all sorts of things - canaries in coal mines, etc.  It only looks stupid until it works.

Ok, so there's probably not a feat that says that specifically about rats, demons, et. al.  What it might say is something like "if a demon is surrounded by creatures, then you get an attack at your max BAB for each creature" or something like that.  Still, rats are creatures, and a bag full of rats is not a concept that boggles the mind, so if the game designer was thinking "medium-sized creatures", "allies", or something and just wrote "creature" then it's a bad design on his part.  But that happens - and if the DM wants to make an on-the-fly ruling and say "medium-creatures only, not tiny rats, for example" then I think that's reasonable. 

But AFAICT, a player that reads a rule and comes to a different conclusion is not an idiot.  Sure, it would have been polite for a player with any experience with DnD to instinctively know that a feat is not going to give him +20/.../+20 on all of his attacks, and to politely inform the DM of what appears to be vagueness/error in the rules.  A player who aggressively assumes that he knows better than the DM here is being a jerk, not an idiot.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 25, 2008)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> Yes, well, it was a surprise to me too, and it's an error. It's clear under the discussion of proficiency bonuses elsewhere that they don't apply to damage.
> 
> A DM who allows the bag of rats hasn't read page 40 of the DMG, where that example is specifically invoked under the discussion of (non)legitimate targets.




Would you mind horribly quoting that section?  The problem I have with the idea is that there *are* situations where a rat (or a blind kobold, IIRC the original form of the Bag-o-Rats was a blind kobold) *would* be a legitimate target.


----------



## Rabbitbait (Apr 25, 2008)

Why do we need to bother with power cards at all, why not have it exactly like the pregen character sheets we've already seen with the powers printed in full as part of the character?

I'd love it if the character generator did this and automatically worked out the variable numbers for you that become static based on your level or abilities.

I don't want a handful of cards that players will lose or get mixed up with other peoples cards.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Hypothetically if you have a feat that says "you can get one attack against a demon at +20 for each rat that he's surrounded by" then you'd be stupid *not* to carry a bag of rats with you.  I'm sure the first person in history that tried to ride a horse got laughed at too.  History is full of examples of people using all sorts of animals for all sorts of things - canaries in coal mines, etc.  It only looks stupid until it works.
> 
> Ok, so there's probably not a feat that says that specifically about rats, demons, et. al.  What it might say is something like "if a demon is surrounded by creatures, then you get an attack at your max BAB for each creature" or something like that.  Still, rats are creatures, and a bag full of rats is not a concept that boggles the mind, so if the game designer was thinking "medium-sized creatures", "allies", or something and just wrote "creature" then it's a bad design on his part.  But that happens - and if the DM wants to make an on-the-fly ruling and say "medium-creatures only, not tiny rats, for example" then I think that's reasonable.
> 
> But AFAICT, a player that reads a rule and comes to a different conclusion is not an idiot.




You're right, he's not an idiot. He's a powergaming tweaker with no grasp on "reality" who's looking to rules lawyer any advantage he can out of the system by taking the most absurdist interpretation possible.

To provide any kind of flanking bonus (for example), the "creatures" should have to be:

a) legitimately threatening to the target in question.
b) actively attacking the target in question.

In other words, if you dump out a bag of rats, they're only a legitimate threat if you have a way to make them attack the creature in question and they can actually hurt it. In other words, if you're the Rat-King and can direct them to attack, you can use your bag o' rats. What kind of flanking bonus they provide may be another matter.

Moreover, to a demon with damage resistance 5+, the rats (who can _maybe_ do 1 hp of damage) aren't dangerous enough to even qualify as a nuisance.

However, based on what Michele said, I imagine this is all covered in the DMG.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (Apr 25, 2008)

It's always funny to find a loophole in the rules.  But the idea of Balance exists for a reason, not merely for the DM to maintain order in his/her campaign.
A DM that allows the rat rule as a legitimate interpretation of the rules is just a terrible DM, because unless there is a way they counterbalance the strength of the exploit, it hurts the game in general.  For the players.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But AFAICT, a player that reads a rule and comes to a different conclusion is not an idiot.



That depends on the conclusion he comes to, doesn't it?

Giz, if you're looking at the rules as tools for creating a consensus imaginary space for adventure stories, the Bag of Rats is absurd. Because actively imagining King Conan emptying a sack full of rodents in the air in front of him as a preface to the mighty hewing of foes is an undeniably ridiculous picture. It's about as 'epic' as getting really, really stoned and watching Lazytown...


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> KidSnide indeed!   Getting +20/.../+20 against a demon isn't the same thing as wearing a coat hanger for pants at all!  There's nothing stupid about finding a way to get +20/.../+20 against a demon, whereas a coat-hanger around your waist probably doesn't do much useful.  So I don't see the comparison.



The idea is that if you are familiar with the rules there is NO way for a fighter to get 7 attacks against a creature at full BAB in one round.  In fact, probably the closest you can get is 3 attacks at your full BAB.  So, anyone assuming that the wording of a feat, power, spell, or ability could give you that much power is just being silly.  Especially when there is another perfectly logical reading of the same ability that gives you a much more minor benefit.


			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Ok, so there's probably not a feat that says that specifically about rats, demons, et. al.  What it might say is something like "if a demon is surrounded by creatures, then you get an attack at your max BAB for each creature" or something like that.  Still, rats are creatures, and a bag full of rats is not a concept that boggles the mind, so if the game designer was thinking "medium-sized creatures", "allies", or something and just wrote "creature" then it's a bad design on his part.  But that happens - and if the DM wants to make an on-the-fly ruling and say "medium-creatures only, not tiny rats, for example" then I think that's reasonable.



The thing is, it is rare in D&D to have the PCs fighting against things that aren't at least worthwhile opponents for them.  They don't fight enemies who are 10 levels below them.  So, there is a default assumption that says "enemy" has a 99% chance of being a creature that you are in combat with, is difficult to kill, and has a real danger of killing you.

So, that is the assumption when an author writes "enemy".  When a player realizes that an ability is broken when you define enemies as creatures who die in one hit, you can carry with you, and have no chance of killing you, then it is not the rules that are the problem.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 25, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> ...
> So, that is the assumption when an author writes "enemy".  When a player realizes that an ability is broken when you define enemies as creatures who die in one hit, you can carry with you, and have no chance of killing you, then it is not the rules that are the problem.




*cough* 4e minions rules *cough*


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> You're right, he's not an idiot. He's a powergaming tweaker with no grasp on "reality" who's looking to rules lawyer any advantage he can out of the system by taking the most absurdist interpretation possible.




Since, in the example you give, you've already established exactly what the rules are regarding flanking, and established exactly why the rats don't qualify, then I don't see what the problem is.  If a feat said "you get +3 to attack rolls with an axe" and someone tried to claim the bonus while using a sword then it's not anything like what I would call an "absurdist interpretation" - it's just simply wrong and not something I am threatened by as a DM.


----------



## DandD (Apr 25, 2008)

We don't know how the minion rules work. On one hand, we have the puny kobold minions. On the other, we have vampire spawns with 10 hitpoints. And the kobold minions did quite much of a hurt. Also, the Vampire Minions are really brutal if they get to surround you. They might die easily, but they can dish out damage if you don't take care of them as soon as possible.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 25, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Giz, if you're looking at the rules as tools for creating a consensus imaginary space for adventure stories, the Bag of Rats is absurd. Because actively imagining King Conan emptying a sack full of rodents in the air in front of him as a preface to the mighty hewing of foes is an undeniably ridiculous picture. It's about as 'epic' as getting really, really stoned and watching Lazytown...




Aha!  See now we're getting more into what I really think is the subtext here.  JohnSnow's argument about the specifics of the flanking rules doesn't really do justice to the issue - exhibit A is your example regarding King Conan, which has nothing to do with an erroneous and illogical conclusion regarding rules.  Well, depending on what you mean by "illogical".  Because your opinions about what constitutes epic and heroic fantasy are important,  but they're not, by definition, rational or logical and accusations of evilness, idiocy, etc, should not be leveled in the direction of someone who doesn't share those opinions.

All one really has to do to solve this problem is to figure out what the spirit of the flanking rules really intended, and be careful and thoughtful about defining the rules appropriately.  The downside of the "guilt trip the player" approach to rules management is that the next time, the situation may not be so "ridiculous" as that of a bag of rats.  It instead might be a blind kobold, trained badger, etc.  If you, as a game designer even, haven't thought through the definitions sufficiently to cover these problems then IMO you've written a bad rule.  

And besides, your choice of "King Conan" as the character archetype might not even be correct in terms of the way the PC sees their character.  A story where Greymouser or Cudgel the Clever throws a bag of rats at his foe is much more reasonable I think.  So rather than get into the (IMO bad) habit of calling players idiots and making unecessary assumptions about what you think heroic adventuring is all about, I think it's a lot easier to just do a good job with the rules.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> That's what the bag o' rats is about - not a badly-designed or even a badly-described rule, but a ridiculous interpretation of said rule.



Actually, bag o' rats is just about ridiculing a badly-designed rule. No sane player would ever consider using it in a game.

I find it funny that so many people don't understand that and really believes someone was seriously thinking about using a bag o' rats as a valid trick. Of course it's not a valid trick, but the fact that the rule allows something so ridiculous may indicate that the rule is badly-designed. At least, that's the point that the guy that calls the bag o' rats in a rules' discussion is trying to do.

Bag o' rats is not a minmaxing discussion. It's a game designing discussion.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Since, in the example you give, you've already established exactly what the rules are regarding flanking, and established exactly why the rats don't qualify, then I don't see what the problem is.  If a feat said "you get +3 to attack rolls with an axe" and someone tried to claim the bonus while using a sword then it's not anything like what I would call an "absurdist interpretation" - it's just simply wrong and not something I am threatened by as a DM.




The thing here gizmo, is that to my mind, those "rules for flanking" that I established shouldn't, in my mind, have to be written down anywhere. Flanking involves characters getting a bonus to their attacks because their enemy is being threatened by multiple attackers. As such, he's obviously distracted.

To me, this is the _self-evident definition_ of how flanking _works._ Ergo, a creature that is incapable of threatening the creature being flanked, in a meaningful way, shouldn't be able to provide a flanking bonus. You don't get a benefit from a creature being surrounded by 20 rats unless they're actively attacking it (and capable of doing something to it). To me, this shouldn't have to be spelled out, and I'm frankly slightly offended to be losing space that could be devoted to other, more interesting things to specifically disallowing stupid crap like this.

Likewise, using a rat to get the benefit of cleave should restrict your future targets for cleave to creatures about the same size. Because it makes sense that you should be able to use cleave to kill a pair of pixies, or two spiders, or...


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 25, 2008)

As a side note, the Bag-o-Rats scenario is largely (entirely?) equivalent to a Pit Fiend traveling with an entourage of lvl 15 demons to blow up.  This is part reason of why I find the idea of a section in the DMG "solving" the BoR to be somewhat funny.  BoR type strategies are already *enshrined* in the MM.

Oops?


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 25, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> So, anyone assuming that the wording of a feat, power, spell, or ability could give you that much power is just being silly.  Especially when there is another perfectly logical reading of the same ability that gives you a much more minor benefit.




If one interpretation of a rule is as equally logical as another, then it's simply a matter of the DM establishing what he believes the correct interpretation is.  It's not up to the DM to have options about the players intelligence who suggested an alternative interpretation.  In the specifics you give, the problem I have is that feats *often* give the character an ability that exceeds the normal parameters - so your generalized advice doesn't really hold up at the boundaries.  However, I agree with your basic notion that says that more extreme the results are, the more likely that there is a problem with the rule interpretation.  



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The thing is, it is rare in D&D to have the PCs fighting against things that aren't at least worthwhile opponents for them.  They don't fight enemies who are 10 levels below them.  So, there is a default assumption that says "enemy" has a 99% chance of being a creature that you are in combat with, is difficult to kill, and has a real danger of killing you.




I'd rather that the rules avoid making too many assumptions about what the word "enemy" means that aren't spelled out in the rules.  There is a mind-boggling myriad of possible circumstances that can occur in a fantasy game with magic, I don't want 4E assuming it knows something about my game like that, especially when it's not necessary.  There are plenty of game concepts, like CR, BAB, size, threatened square, etc. that the rules can use to define exactly who they mean by "enemy" in a way that excludes completely wacky results like rats.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> So, that is the assumption when an author writes "enemy".  When a player realizes that an ability is broken when you define enemies as creatures who die in one hit, you can carry with you, and have no chance of killing you, then it is not the rules that are the problem.




Yes, I believe the rules are actually the problem where and I ask you to consider the arbitrariness of your definitions here.  First of all, the word "enemy" is extremely vague - probably the reason why the wand of enemy detection didn't survive into 3E.  It greatly behooves the 4E designers to define "enemy" in the same rigorous way they define "fire subtype" if they're going to insist on using the concept in the rules.

Secondly, you think it's obvious that a creature who is killed in one hit is not an enemy.  But how about 2 hits?  What if it takes you 10 hits, but your armor class is 20 points better than their best attack roll?  I can come up with bunches of ways that one character is not a threat to another, and then come up with gray areas along the entire spectrum of trivial to dangerous.  "Enemy", as nebulously defined as above then, is extremely unhelpful as a game concept, and IMO a game designer really doesn't know as much about his job as he needs to if he's going to use such a term with such a weak definition.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 25, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The thing here gizmo, is that to my mind, those "rules for flanking" that I established shouldn't, in my mind, have to be written down anywhere.




As I've said before though, there are all sorts of things that exist "in your mind" and in any other DMs or game designers.  But DnD is a shared experience and IMO the DM needs to respect the rules interpretations of polite players who have an honest difference of opinion.  Ultimately, of course, the decision rests with the DM.  But IMO, it's good communication, good DMing, and good game design to anticipate the game concepts that could be a problem and to clarify them in terms that everyone can understand - not to punish or ridicule people for not having the same initial impression of what a word means.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Flanking involves characters getting a bonus to their attacks because their enemy is being threatened by multiple attackers. As such, he's obviously distracted.




I'd be distracted if someone upended a bag of rats on my head.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> To me, this shouldn't have to be spelled out, and I'm frankly slightly offended to be losing space that could be devoted to other, more interesting things to specifically disallowing stupid crap like this.




It seems to me paradoxical (and actually, wrong) that you would assume on one hand that a concept is "self-evident" and on the other hand describing this concept is then so onerous that doing so makes you angry.  IME to the degree that something is difficult to define it is worth defining when you care about what other people think.  Granted, you can always find extreme examples that make the process of defining what you're talking about seem ridiculous, but defining what it means to "threaten" or flank someone, as you did above, IMO is completely sensible.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2008)

Double post.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Actually, bag o' rats is just about ridiculing a badly-designed rule. No sane player would ever consider using it in a game.
> 
> I find it funny that so many people don't understand that and really believes someone was seriously thinking about using a bag o' rats as a valid trick. Of course it's not a valid trick, but the fact that the rule allows something so ridiculous may indicate that the rule is badly-designed. At least, that's the point that the guy that calls the bag o' rats in a rules' discussion is trying to do.
> 
> Bag o' rats is not a minmaxing discussion. It's a game designing discussion.



Two points:

1. If no one would ever actually try it in-game, then it is not really relevant to the discussion. The point of designing game rules is not to have perfect game rules - it is to use the rules to play the game. If there is no problem in-game, there is no problem.

2. The claim that the rules "allow" something this ridiculous is the point of contention. Those who argue it does allow this typically use a tortured, absurd reading of the rules in order to achieve the result.

Besides, doesn't Whirlwind Attack specifically state that extra attacks from other feats (such as Cleave) are not allowed?


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Granted, you can always find extreme examples that make the process of defining what you're talking about seem ridiculous, but defining what it means to "threaten" or flank someone, as you did above, IMO is completely sensible.



Indeed, threatening and flanking are not the issues here. (For the record, the rats wouldn't provide flanking because they are not friendly to you - which is a requirement for flanking - and they couldn't anyway since creatures with reach 0 can't provide a flanking bonus.)

The issue is that to make the bag o' rats trick work (it doesn't, of course, but stay with me), is that each rat must be considered an "opponent" for the Whirlwind Attack. So you need to argue that these rats, which pose no threat to you and are not attacking you, are "opponents", because you need them to be in order for your trick to work (it doesn't).

Edit: I guess the point is, terms like flanking and threatening need to be defined, because they are specialized terms in the game that mean something very specific, in-game, that do not match the general definitions of the words. "Opponent" is not the same, and as such the typical sense of the word should be used be default.

Edit: Also, realize that I'm not talking about rules for which there exists more than one reasonable interpretation. I'm talking only about the absurd, bag o' rats type stuff.


----------



## gizmo33 (Apr 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Edit: I guess the point is, terms like flanking and threatening need to be defined, because they are specialized terms in the game that mean something very specific, in-game, that do not match the general definitions of the words. "Opponent" is not the same, and as such the typical sense of the word should be used be default.




As this concept has been alluded to several times, I would like to point out that to the degree that the rules already prohibit the hypothetical rule abuse, then there is no issue.  To the degree that WotC has defined "flanking" or whatever sufficient to preclude the BoR then I have no issue - WotC has done it's job, the rule is well-written, end of story IMO.  This makes the debate hypothetical, to some extent, but very relevant to the concept of how rigorous 4E should be in defining game terms.  Lots of these mistakes have been made in previous editions of DnD, hopefully the new designers are familiar with those.

Typical sense of the word "opponent" on the otherhand, IMO is not helpful.  Say, for example, that my character is invisible/undetected in a room with a bunch of people that I haven't made up my mind about whether I want to attack or not.  Then it becomes my turn to attack for the round.  All of the sudden, now, my whirlwind attack's capabilities depend on whether or not the people I'm targeting had some intention of attacking my character?  If I can't really see a substantial difference between an orc warrior, a rat, and an inanimate statue in terms of how whirlwind attack operates, then I think the game designers would have to do some thinking about how the feat ought to function.  Yea- sometimes it's not easy to take an abstract idea, like a whirlwind of attacks, and turn it into a solid concept that works well with an abstraction like DnD combat.  But that's why being a game designer is probably hard.  

In fact, ironically, when it comes to *whirlwind* attack, the image I have in my mind is of a sword weilder whose blade is whirling (hence the name) through empty space and only periodically connecting with an opponent.  This means forget about rats, I would even consider *empty space* to be a "target" if it suited the flavor of the feat.  Ultimately, while it is interesting to fantasize about a rule book saying "read the DM's mind for all relevant game term definitions", I think it's a (admittedly challenging) necessity for the DM to realize that you're sharing the gaming space with other thinking people that deserve some respect, and that some things that seem stupid at first glance (like taking a canary in a cage with you into a mine) might actually make sense if you expanded your perspective a little.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Ultimately, while it is interesting to fantasize about a rule book saying "read the DM's mind for all relevant game term definitions",



Wow. How about "ask the DM for all relevant game term definitions?"


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 25, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> In fact, ironically, when it comes to *whirlwind* attack, the image I have in my mind is of a sword weilder whose blade is whirling (hence the name) through empty space and only periodically connecting with an opponent.  This means forget about rats, I would even consider *empty space* to be a "target" if it suited the flavor of the feat.



Do you think that inanimate objects and empty space both fall within the definition of "opponent"? Either in a general sense or a D&D specific sense?


----------



## Andor (Apr 25, 2008)

I'm surprised no one picked up on this line. "Some powers, such as the racial powers in Chapter 3 and the feat powers in Chapter 6 of the Player’s Handbook, carry different information on the right side of this line."

So there _are_ feat powers. Earlier we had heard that feats are all passive. I'm gald to see some of them do provide new options rather than +1 to hit with Nerf Bats or +1 to Damage with Sea Turtles.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 26, 2008)

There was something that caught my eye, this may have been already discussed, but:


> Prerequisite: You must meet this provision to select this power. If you ever lose a prerequisite for a power (for example, if you use the retraining system to replace *training in a skill* with *training in a different skill*), you can’t use that power thereafter



Does that mean you can use retraining to not only pick different feats but also what trained skills you have? Or that there are feats that gain more trained skills.

Also, the way it was worded, it sounds like there are powers that require certain trained skills.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 26, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Also, the way it was worded, it sounds like there are powers that require certain trained skills.




Hi Fallen Seraph,

That's because there are.

The Rogue's _tumble_ power (level 2 utility power) requires training in Acrobatics.

Laterz.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 26, 2008)

Yeah forgot about that.  Still though, makes me wonder if you can switch Skills around, how much will that affect Powers? How common will prerequisites for powers be, you could see characters becoming quite different thanks to switching skills.


----------



## Rabbitbait (Apr 26, 2008)

Crikey,

I thought this thread was meant to be about power cards, but it seems to be about Bags o' rats.

Maybe you semantics arguers should start up your own bags o' rats thread (again)   

Back on topic - does anyone know if you will be able to print out descriptions of powers as part of a character sheet in the DDI character sheet generator. I'd much rather do that that have a whole heap of easily lost cards. Especially if the generator can pre-calculate anything that comes from the character and their abilities rather than having to add things up with every attack. ie: 1(w)+strength modifier becomes 1d8+3 because the generator knows that your usual weapon is a longsword and you have 17 strength.


----------



## Riley (Apr 26, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one has commented on the Acid Wave power. My first thought was "don't cast the brown acid wave." Dude...far out man...




4e's Acid Wave causes serious flashbacks, man.

My first experience of D&D (circa 1980) was watching a wild adventure where the PC paladin was repeatedly using a 'Wand of Acid' which launched 10x10 acid walls, which disintegrated everything in its path (doors, indoor jungles, iron golems, and, unfortunately, treasure).


----------



## Riley (Apr 26, 2008)

Rabbitbait said:
			
		

> Back on topic - does anyone know if you will be able to print out descriptions of powers as part of a character sheet in the DDI character sheet generator. I'd much rather do that that have a whole heap of easily lost cards. Especially if the generator can pre-calculate anything that comes from the character and their abilities rather than having to add things up with every attack. ie: 1(w)+strength modifier becomes 1d8+3 because the generator knows that your usual weapon is a longsword and you have 17 strength.




One would really hope so - it seems the kind of thing that computers and the DDI would be good for.  It shouldn't take too much code to make it work, and Trolls, etc. in the Power Cards thread have done some great mock-ups.


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But AFAICT, a player that reads a rule and comes to a different conclusion is not an idiot.




No, just this particular rule.


----------



## Alkiera (Apr 26, 2008)

Re: bags of rats.


			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Besides, doesn't Whirlwind Attack specifically state that extra attacks from other feats (such as Cleave) are not allowed?



This.

Both the text on SystemReferenceDocuments.org and my dead tree copy of 3.5 PHB state (in the Whirlwind Attack Benefit section) that you can't get extra attacks from other feats or spells when using whirlwind attack.  The PHB text even specifically mentions Cleave.

You get one attack per adjacent opponent, period.  If that's a Demon Lord and a bunch of recently-freed rats, you likely have a bunch of dead rats, and a slightly more injured, and much more confused, Demon Lord.  Who gets another round of full attacks on you, since you spent a full round action to only attack him once for normal damage.  8)

Re: powers/power cards
I was not impressed by the power cards pictured... but then, given an image someone posted in the power card thread, I wasn't all that surprised, either.  I'd rather see WotC or a 3pp produce a set of high quality cards (like Magic or WoW TCG cards) in decks by class/tier than some postcard things I have to hand-copy text from the PHB on to.  If I was going to do that, might as well just pick up actual postcards.  Or go to a place like plaincards.com and have them ship me a bunch of blanks the right size, in sheets ready for my printer.  I'm sure someone will have taken a format like Troll's and made a template for MSG2 to generate nice cards with.

Seriously, I think that WotC could get something like that printed up pretty easily, and I bet they'd sell.  I hope a third party, at least, jumps on this.


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

3.0 Whirlwind Attack had no restrictions on extra attacks. It was 3.5 that introduced the restrictions.


----------



## Crashy75 (Apr 26, 2008)

Ok.  I've read the whole 6 pages and nobody has deciphered the blurry cards at the bottom of the excerpt.  Does anybody have photoshop?  


And, now I have this odd urge to play a dwarven rat-keeper.  I wonder how a bag of rats would work as a grenade-like weapon.  It's gotta be good for a distraction...


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 26, 2008)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> Ok.  I've read the whole 6 pages and nobody has deciphered the blurry cards at the bottom of the excerpt.  Does anybody have photoshop?
> 
> 
> And, now I have this odd urge to play a dwarven rat-keeper.  I wonder how a bag of rats would work as a grenade-like weapon.  It's gotta be good for a distraction...



No photoshop here, I am afraid. And even less skill to use Gimp to actually make them legible...failed miserably.
Dwarven Rat-catcher?....best thing is you get to fry and eat the rats afterwards on the camp fire. yumm!


----------



## Ulthwithian (Apr 26, 2008)

Why is the BoR still even being mentioned after we've been told that the issue is dealt with in the 4E DMG?

Stop beating those dead rats, for all our sakes.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 26, 2008)

I dearly hope there's a Druid Rat-Flinger Paragon Path in the PHB2.  Maybe it could extend to Squirrels, Marmots, Weasels, and Hedgehogs, as well.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> 3.0 Whirlwind Attack had no restrictions on extra attacks. It was 3.5 that introduced the restrictions.



Not quite. 3.0 had no _explicit_ restriction on "extra" attacks such as Cleave. IIRC, it said you gave up your "regular" attacks, and this had to be interpreted to mean that you still get your Great Cleave attacks while using Whirlwind Attack in order for the bag of rats trick to work. It was, of course, a silly interpretation. The additional 3.5 wording was intended as a clarification, not a rule change.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 26, 2008)

Ulthwithian said:
			
		

> Why is the BoR still even being mentioned after we've been told that the issue is dealt with in the 4E DMG?
> 
> Stop beating those dead rats, for all our sakes.



I tell you, the DMG says _nothing_ about a bag of _cats._

The issue lives!


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2008)

Ulthwithian said:
			
		

> Why is the BoR still even being mentioned after we've been told that the issue is dealt with in the 4E DMG?
> 
> Stop beating those dead rats, for all our sakes.




As I noted above, a Pit Fiend w/weenie minions is a form of BoR tactics...  The DMG may rail against BoRs, but the MM appears to be condoning them.  And that doesn't even begin to get into the complexity of defining a BoR when the BoR's contents are creatures that *are* legitimate targets, elsewhere.

For example, Sunless Citadel *has* an encounter with normal rats.  I do hope you wouldn't prevent an fighter w/cleave from using that feat in that encounter; but if you let him, then clearly rats are a possible cleave source...


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As I noted above, a Pit Fiend w/weenie minions is a form of BoR tactics...  The DMG may rail against BoRs, but the MM appears to be condoning them.  And that doesn't even begin to get into the complexity of defining a BoR when the BoR's contents are creatures that *are* legitimate targets, elsewhere.
> 
> For example, Sunless Citadel *has* an encounter with normal rats.  I do hope you wouldn't prevent an fighter w/cleave from using that feat in that encounter; but if you let him, then clearly rats are a possible cleave source...



 It's very simple. If the target has a red circle around its feet, it's not an instance of bag-of-rats.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It's very simple. If the target has a red circle around its feet, it's not an instance of bag-of-rats.




There might be wisdom there, but I'm not seeing it.  Then again, I consider circle-color to be largely secondary to BoR tactics (unless the ability you want to use requires blue circles, a la Pit Fiend).  After all, it only takes one person to turn circles red...


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> There might be wisdom there, but I'm not seeing it.  Then again, I consider circle-color to be largely secondary to BoR tactics (unless the ability you want to use requires blue circles, a la Pit Fiend).  After all, it only takes one person to turn circles red...



It takes two people to turn circles red. The player, and the DM.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It takes two people to turn circles red. The player, and the DM.




There was a recent, massive thread on the general board that disagrees with you.  Of course, it does provide glorious examples of how things can go bad if the players and the DM happen to disagree on the color of the circles... but that is a separate issues.


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> There was a recent, massive thread on the general board that disagrees with you.  Of course, it does provide glorious examples of how things can go bad if the players and the DM happen to disagree on the color of the circles... but that is a separate issues.




"When in doubt, the DM's definition of reasonableness holds."


----------



## Njall (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> As I noted above, a Pit Fiend w/weenie minions is a form of BoR tactics...  The DMG may rail against BoRs, but the MM appears to be condoning them.  And that doesn't even begin to get into the complexity of defining a BoR when the BoR's contents are creatures that *are* legitimate targets, elsewhere.




The Pit Fiend carring around "explosive minions" and the BoR aren't even remotely related, IMO.
The BoR was a rules exploit, that was unbalanced and made no sense ("Hey! As long as I keep killing rats in one hit, I can get an infinite number of cleave attacks on the BBEG! Cool!"), and you didn't even need the rats: as long as a BBEG was surrounded by some low level monsters you could kill in one hit, you could use whirlwind attack and then redirect all of the cleave attacks on him; the Pit Fiend hanging around with a group of minions he can make explode is just like Rambo walking around with a pack of sentient grenades: he uses his minions as a personal guard, and, when they're no longer useful, he uses his influence/magical bond/whatever on them to blow them up ( one at a time ) and damage his foes. 
Frankly, I don't even know how you could compare the two...


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 26, 2008)

I don't see how a Pit Fiend using his actions to a) lose an ally and b) deal damage to an enemy even remotely compares to a player using a roiling sack of fur to get a dozen plus free attacks.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> I don't see how a Pit Fiend using his actions to a) lose an ally and b) deal damage to an enemy even remotely compares to a player using a roiling sack of fur to get a dozen plus free attacks.




You don't think that a pit fiend carrying a sack of lemures (even lvl 15 minion lemures) to use as grenades compares?


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> You don't think that a pit fiend carrying a sack of lemures (even lvl 15 minion lemures) to use as grenades compares?



 A level 15 anything has a red circle around its feet.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> You don't think that a pit fiend carrying a sack of lemures (even lvl 15 minion lemures) to use as grenades compares?



Not at all.  I'm not even sure exactly what the stats on a lemure is, but if it is level 15, It likely has some major pluses to hit and a decent AC.  4 lemures are likely to hit as hard as the 1 pit fiend.  Not the sort of thing you ignore for long.


----------



## Njall (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> You don't think that a pit fiend carrying a sack of lemures (even lvl 15 minion lemures) to use as grenades compares?




Not really, since the problem with the BoR was never that PCs looked stupid with all those bags full of living rats they carried around, but that whirlwind + great cleave, under the right circumstances, gave them way more attacks than they were intended to have.
Since the Pit Fiend can only sacrifice 1 lemure/round, this has nothing to do with the BoR. 
It was a balance issue, not a flavor issue.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Not at all.  I'm not even sure exactly what the stats on a lemure is, but if it is level 15, It likely has some major pluses to hit and a decent AC.  4 lemures are likely to hit as hard as the 1 pit fiend.  Not the sort of thing you ignore for long.




So you wouldn't complain about lvl 26 PCs bagging a bunch of lvl 15 minion lemures and using them as fuel for PC abilities?


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> So you wouldn't complain about lvl 26 PCs bagging a bunch of lvl 15 minion lemures and using them as fuel for PC abilities?



 Do said lvl 15 lemures have red circles around their feet?


----------



## neceros (Apr 26, 2008)

What the damn does red and blue circles have to do with anything?


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> What the damn does red and blue circles have to do with anything?




Got me.  I do hope Hong turns his non-sequitors into insightful gems by explaining.


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Got me.  I do hope Hong turns his non-sequitors into insightful gems by explaining.



 There are three kinds of people in the world: those with red, blue and green circles around their feet.

There are two kinds of things in the world: those with circles around their feet, and those without.

Rats in bags do not have circles around their feet.


----------



## Njall (Apr 26, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> What the damn does red and blue circles have to do with anything?



I believe the point Hong's trying to make is that if the "rats" aren't considered hostile, then you can't BoR, and since deciding if something as a rat or a lemure, in this case, is hostile is up to the DM, he could in fact ban the BoR outright by simply deciding that the rats weren't considered "opponents", and thus you couldn't attack them with whirlwind attack and redirect the cleaves, and the same goes for lemures.

Frankly, I don't really think it matters: as long as you were surrounded by lvl 1 goblins or cobolds and you were adjacent to the BBEG, you could technically perform a BoR style trick, that was both unbalanced and made no real sense.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> There are three kinds of people in the world: those with red, blue and green circles around their feet.
> 
> There are two kinds of things in the world: those with circles around their feet, and those without.
> 
> Rats in bags do not have circles around their feet.




But no one ever suggested that you attack a rat in a bag.  You need to take the rat *out* of the bag.  We have examples of rats-out-of-bags as having circles in WotC modules, and 4e will be full of small sized minions who most certainly have circles.

BoR is merely shorthand for situations where it is to your advantage to be surrounding by allies/enemies who are too weak to, by their own actions, affect the tactical situation.  Once those situations exist, it is to your advantage to import such creatures.  Rats are merely an evocative and compact means of doing so.


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> But no one ever suggested that you attack a rat in a bag.  You need to take the rat *out* of the bag.




Oh dear.



> We have examples of rats-out-of-bags as having circles in WotC modules, and 4e will be full of small sized minions who most certainly have circles.




If they can hit you and do damage, they are not rats.



> BoR is merely shorthand for situations where it is to your advantage to be surrounding by allies/enemies who are too weak to, by their own actions, affect the tactical situation.  Once those situations exist, it is to your advantage to import such creatures.  Rats are merely an evocative and compact means of doing so.




No, BoR is shorthand for situations where you surround yourself with creatures who are too weak to be considered even trivial participants in the continuing narrative.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> ...
> If they can hit you and do damage, they are not rats.




3E rats have +4 to hit (!!), and do damage comparable to small pcs who used strength as a dump stat (the minimum, 1).  In fact, 3e rats are generally more dangerous than halfling commoner 1s.  Odd, but true.



> No, BoR is shorthand for situations where you surround yourself with creatures who are too weak to be considered even trivial participants in the continuing narrative.




Which is different from what I said... how?


----------



## hong (Apr 26, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> 3E rats have +4 to hit (!!), and do damage comparable to small pcs who used strength as a dump stat (the minimum, 1).  In fact, 3e rats are generally more dangerous than halfling commoner 1s.  Odd, but true.




"Rat" is shorthand for things that cannot hit you and/or cannot do damage. If the foolishness of 3E scaling at the bottom end offends you, substitute dust mites.



> Which is different from what I said... how?




Whether something is worthy of having a circle around its feet is not measured just in numbers.


----------



## Xyl (Apr 28, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In the above example I'd like a power that deals 25 fire and thunder damage to do full damage to anyone unless they are resistant to fire AND thunder.



I'd suggest averaging the resistances.


----------

