# May Rules Update



## renau1g (May 4, 2010)

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateMay2010.pdf

They're up.

1st thing I saw is the reduction of Healer's Lore to only affect powers that require the user to use a surge. Healics take a big hit to Astral Seal now

Pit Fighter got punched in the gut also. No more ranger MC'ing to PF for the huge bonus to damage

As widely expected Daggermaster was finally addressed to be only rogue powers or daggermaster powers. This effectively kicks out the sorcerers and Twin Strikers also.

Throw and Stab was nerfed...apparently Twin Strike is still fine


----------



## Obryn (May 4, 2010)

And I've heard that Feycharging was finally addressed!

-O


----------



## mneme (May 4, 2010)

Wow.  Fantastic update.

Big fixed things:

Pit Fighter (fighter/pf powers only)
Daggermaster (rogue/dm powers only)
Forced movement: Now works correctly in 3d.  You can pull/push flying things vertically.  You can push things down or up an incline!
Movement in general: clarified that special forms of movement are just movement; they can now be used when taking actions that move you.
Stealth: now usable whenever you move, not when you take a move action.
Healics: Lovely kneecapping.  Healing bonuses from Healer's Lore, Healer's implement, etc now only work when you let someone spend a surge.
Hop down: you can now roll to hop down without being trained in Acrobatics (DC: 15)
Aid Another: big fix/change.  DC for aiding skill checks now scales, and failure gives a -1to the base roll.  Aiding attacks/defenses is now automatic.
Charge: No charging around corners
Flying: Stun now causes you to fall.  Hover is not needed to shift (but stops you from falling if you're stunned)
Goblin Totem: Item bonus
Feycharger: nerfed
Enlarge Spell: wizard-only, and no dailies
Spirit of Healing : halved (plus the nerf to healing bonuses)
Sudden Call: 1/encounter
Brawler Style: now an enchancement bonus (as it should have been)
Throw and Stab: not a charge any more; have to be different targets
Intuitive Strike: now a +2 power bonus (on top of combat advantage)


----------



## Nikosandros (May 4, 2010)

renau1g said:


> 1st thing I saw is the reduction of Healer's Lore to only affect powers that require the user to use a surge. Healics take a big hit to Astral Seal now



This one was sorely needed. I'm not a big fan of at-will surgeless healing in general and the way it was phrased, Astral Seal was way over the top.


----------



## Votan (May 4, 2010)

They also seem to have changed the Tiefling's racial power.  

I admit that the volume of errata, even if well founded, is about to be a serious issue for me.  I dislike needing to look things up in multiple places just to make sure the rule was not changed.  The Rules Compendium may assist with some of this, though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 4, 2010)

also that healing zone (holy ground?) was nerfed a lot (indirectly) which seems like a good thing imho


----------



## Obryn (May 4, 2010)

Votan said:


> The Rules Compendium may assist with some of this, though.



100%.

If you're using the Character and Monster Builders, you basically just need a quick overview to see if anything applies to your group.  If not, just set it aside and forget about it; it'll all work its way in.

-O


----------



## renau1g (May 4, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> also that healing zone (holy ground?) was nerfed a lot (indirectly) which seems like a good thing imho




All healing powers were affected, regen ones also as well as cure X wounds 

Definitely no longer the super healers anymore. Now they are more like very good healers.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 4, 2010)

yeah, but regen owers never benefitted from healing word. Only when regen was emulated by regains hpevery turn...

+7 hp on a cure wound is much less noticeable tha +7hp per round on a heal 1+cha modifier per round power...

but clerics will still be very good/the best healers.


----------



## renau1g (May 4, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> yeah, but regen owers never benefitted from healing word.




Oh...but they did. The old Healer's Lore said "one of your cleric powers that had the healing keyword, add your Wis mod to the hit points the recipient regains". See the below example which has the healing keyword. There are others, but the below would grant 5+5 (assuming at least 20 Wis by now) + 2 healer's implement feat + 2 Healer's Armor = Regen 14 instead of the 5 granted by the power. 

Divine Power - Cleric 9 Daily

Daily        Divine, *Healing*, Radiant, Weapon
Standard Action      Close burst 2

Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you gain regeneration 5, and you and each ally within the burst gain a +2 power bonus to AC.


----------



## weem (May 4, 2010)

I'm confused on the Restrained update. I'm sure I'm just missing something - maybe someone can help me understand...

Under the "Restrained" condition, it says that you (the one being Restrained) can't be forced to move...



> You can’t move, unless you teleport. You can’t even be pulled, pushed, or slid.




But, under the Grab rules, it seems to indicate that the grabbed (Restrained) creature CAN be moved by force...



> Effects that End a Grab: If you are affected by a condition that prevents you from taking opportunity actions (such as dazed, stunned, surprised, or unconscious), you immediately let go of a grabbed enemy. If you move away from the creature you’re grabbing, you let go and the grab ends. *If a pull, a push, or a slide moves you or the creature you’re grabbing out of your reach*, the grab ends.




What am I missing?

<edit> The Grab info is from the Compendium - maybe it has an update incoming (I thought they released them together) <edit>


----------



## Pelenor (May 4, 2010)

renau1g said:


> All healing powers were affected, regen ones also as well as cure X wounds
> 
> Definitely no longer the super healers anymore. Now they are more like very good healers.




Some of that healing reduction was probably needed.  Just as a curiosity I built a first level character to see how much healing I could squeeze out of him.  I never actually got to play him so I can't say I have play experience to back this up but It looked to me like he could keep the party alive through far more than it seemed he should be able to do.  But thats just a gut feeling based on eyeballing the characters.  I may try again in light of this update and see if I can get him in a game to see what he does.


----------



## Nifft (May 4, 2010)

Votan said:


> I admit that the volume of errata, even if well founded, is about to be a serious issue for me.  I dislike needing to look things up in multiple places just to make sure the rule was not changed.  The Rules Compendium may assist with some of this, though.



 Yeah. The errata inclusion was a big part of what I liked about d20srd.org, and it's a similarly large part of what I like about the Rules Compendium.

However, it's also a big reason to *never buy a physical book from WotC ever again*.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## TerraDave (May 4, 2010)

So a nice little article on how updates are great.

Then I see also this and its like WTF.

But then I see the healer's lore thing, which the healbot cleric in my game has totally abused, and think, OK, not bad.

He can be the one saying WTF.


----------



## renau1g (May 4, 2010)

One thing to consider about the healing is that the cleric wasn't doing any damage so the enemy would stay on its feet longer and therefore do more damage to the party.


----------



## Elric (May 4, 2010)

A summary of some changes is here

Displacer Armor changed to only last for a turn, making it completely worthless at +3 levels over basic "Magic" armor.  

War of Attrition, Path of the Storm (Baattlelord of Kord PP daily), and Quickening Order Warlord powers from MP all nerfed.  War of Attrition still seems decent.

This has been true for a while, but using the errata without the Character Builder seems quite infeasible.


----------



## renau1g (May 4, 2010)

Nifft said:


> However, it's also a big reason to *never buy a physical book from WotC ever again*.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Yup, I haven't purchased a book since the first batch of errata made my PHB ....err....shall we say less than useful?


----------



## keterys (May 4, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Oh...but they did.




Regen never actually worked with this, though that was a debated topic (ie, table variance) up until the FAQ a year or two ago which noted that no, it really didn't work. It's fairly probably some tables played it otherwise, of course.

Grabs immobilize, not restrain, so the prevention about push, pull, slide (which was already in restrain before) doesn't change anything about grab.


----------



## keterys (May 4, 2010)

Elric said:


> Displacer Armor changed to only last for a turn, making it completely worthless at +3 levels over basic "Magic" armor.




I think you and I have different definitions for "useless". It's changed from lasting ~3 rounds of probably being too strong to 1 round of still being quite strong for that one round. It's no longer a premium armor, but it's totally fine, and I doubt players who find it in their games will go "This sucks. I'm not going to bother switching out of my Magic armor to get into it."


----------



## renau1g (May 4, 2010)

keterys said:


> Regen never actually worked with this, though that was a debated topic (ie, table variance) up until the FAQ a year or two ago which noted that no, it really didn't work. It's fairly probably some tables played it otherwise, of course.





Funny...they really should have updated their CB in the last year or two to include this as the CB shows clearly that the bonus from Healer's Lore and Healer's Armor are included in the level 9 example I posted earlier even right now when I just checked


----------



## kerbarian (May 4, 2010)

With the new charge wording, it looks like you can charge to adjacent with a reach weapon if you want.  It also makes it much clearer what happens with immediate actions interrupting a charge, since legal charge movement is now defined per square.

I don't understand why they updated Evard's Black Tentacles for the reason "To escape this zone, a creature had to save and also be missed by the attack in the Sustain entry" but didn't change Visions of Avarice, which has exactly the same issue 14 levels earlier.


----------



## Obryn (May 4, 2010)

Any nerfs to Temple of Hidden Light (Avenger 15) yet?

My group just hit 15th level, and I am absolutely dreading this Daily. 

-O


----------



## Elric (May 4, 2010)

keterys said:


> I think you and I have different definitions for "useless". It's changed from lasting ~3 rounds of probably being too strong to 1 round of still being quite strong for that one round. It's no longer a premium armor, but it's totally fine, and I doubt players who find it in their games will go "This sucks. I'm not going to bother switching out of my Magic armor to get into it."




I said "worthless", in that it's not nearly worth the +3 levels over magic armor that it costs.  Of course, plenty of armors/weapons/neck slots at levels +3/+4 over basic magic versions are worthless in the same way.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 4, 2010)

weem said:


> I'm confused on the Restrained update. I'm sure I'm just missing something - maybe someone can help me understand...
> 
> Under the "Restrained" condition, it says that you (the one being Restrained) can't be forced to move...
> 
> ...



Seems that grabbed and restrained are different conditions now... (didn´t realize they were similar conditions before)


----------



## renau1g (May 4, 2010)

Nope just Temple of Brilliance <- to Obryn


----------



## weem (May 4, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Seems that grabbed and restrained are different conditions now... (didn´t realize they were similar conditions before)




Excellent, thank you.

Yea, I assumed (incorrectly perhaps) before that if someone grabbed you, that you were Restrained.

But I see there is a "Grabbed" entry (different than "Grab") in the compendium which states the things that end being "Grabbed"...



> Certain circumstances end a grab: if the grabber is affected by a condition that prevents it from taking opportunity actions, if either the grabber or the creature it’s grabbing moves far enough away that
> the grabbed creature is no longer in the grabber’s reach, or if the grabbed creature escapes. See also “Escape” and “Grab”




So I am assuming then that someone grabbed can be forced (pushed/pulled/slid) out of the grab.

This is what we were doing anyway, it's just that it didn't seem to cover that until now with Restrained.

Anyway, thanks again


----------



## MrMyth (May 4, 2010)

weem said:


> Excellent, thank you.
> 
> Yea, I assumed (incorrectly perhaps) before that if someone grabbed you, that you were Restrained.




I think what is confusing you is the difference between the Immobilized and Restrained conditions. 

Immobilizes is the lesser version - you can't move from your current spot, but aren't otherwise hindered in combat, and forced movement can still move you.

Restrained is a more significant condition, representing being really wrapped up, covered in vines, ice, etc, such that not only can't you move, but others can't move you, and you even take penalties (-2 on attacks, grant Combat Advantage) due to the difficulty of fighting in that condition.

Grabbing someone Immobilizes them, it does not Restrain them. Thus, forced movement can break a grab.


----------



## yesnomu (May 4, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Yup, I haven't purchased a book since the first batch of errata made my PHB ....err....shall we say less than useful?



To be fair, the PHB is easily the most errata'd book, and even now it's still at least 80% compendium accurate. I keep my books up to date with a pencil, and it's not too difficult. 

On the other hand, my copies of Divine and Primal Power have next to no edits at all.


----------



## Joshua Randall (May 4, 2010)

Never mind; already answered.


----------



## keterys (May 4, 2010)

Elric said:


> I said "worthless", in that it's not nearly worth the +3 levels over magic armor that it costs.  Of course, plenty of armors/weapons/neck slots at levels +3/+4 over basic magic versions are worthless in the same way.




Oops, I was reading a different board at the same time where someone called it useless or I probably wouldn't have responded. Not worth the price increase, eh, maybe, but I don't think it's that horrible either. 

A lot of dnd gear isn't on the optimized money scale of 'What is the absolute bang for my buck I can get' but on the 'You found this on a creature and can use it' metric. They might like a +4 Magic over a +3 Displacement, certainly, but that's worth more than twice the gold value.

Anyhow, sorry for mis-wording you there


----------



## Markn (May 4, 2010)

Auras & Zones

Tell me if this is correct.

Aura and zone damages stack, but penatlies (such as to hit) do not and you only take the worst penatly.


----------



## Felon (May 4, 2010)

No discussion yet about infernal wrath--a core race ability--being turned into something completely different?

Was there something commonly-acknowledged as being wrong with the power that I wasn't aware of? This new version is somehow more "in line" with other racial powers?

They had to go down the line to update virtually every feat that augmented infernal wrath.


----------



## interwyrm (May 4, 2010)

As much as I loved the feychargers... keeping fey charge from working with other fey step feats was a necessary change.


----------



## BobTheNob (May 4, 2010)

That is, without a doubt, the best line up of errata they have put out to date. All of those little holes in the game that players liked to abuse plugged.

Its funny though. Alot of those things that are now official rules, we ave been running with as house rules for months now (Healing bonus's on surged heling only...thank you very much!). I can start thowing out my house rules. Yay!


----------



## Mort_Q (May 4, 2010)

Felon said:


> No discussion yet about infernal wrath--a core race ability--being turned into something completely different?




I don't have my books here, and I honestly don't remember what it used to be.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 4, 2010)

weem said:


> I'm confused on the Restrained update. I'm sure I'm just missing something - maybe someone can help me understand...
> 
> Under the "Restrained" condition, it says that you (the one being Restrained) can't be forced to move...
> 
> ...



Grab isn't restrained. Grab inflicts the Immobilized condition, not the Restrained condition.


----------



## circadianwolf (May 4, 2010)

> No discussion yet about infernal wrath--a core race ability--being turned into something completely different?
> 
> Was there something commonly-acknowledged as being wrong with the power that I wasn't aware of? This new version is somehow more "in line" with other racial powers?
> 
> They had to go down the line to update virtually every feat that augmented infernal wrath.




The original Infernal Wrath was next to useless. Presumably it was intended to balance against tieflings' otherwise powerful features. The new version is at least guaranteed to do something while still being quite weak (compared to Fey Step, Elven Accuracy, Second Chance, etc.)


----------



## Samir (May 4, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Any nerfs to Temple of Hidden Light (Avenger 15) yet?
> 
> My group just hit 15th level, and I am absolutely dreading this Daily.
> 
> -O



Temple of Brilliance was nerfed so that it blinds everyone in the zone except for the target. It's not particularly good anymore.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (May 4, 2010)

Nifft said:


> However, it's also a big reason to *never buy a physical book from WotC ever again*.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




You don't get the fluff from the books via DDI, so it's a reason to avoid crunch-heavy books IMO. But I'm biased anyway because I'm a collector at heart. 


I'm very pleased with the recent errata rules updates, though I'm sure some players will be up in arms because their characters have been nerfed hard (e.g. sorcerer daggermasters and ranger pitfighters).


----------



## Wormwood (May 4, 2010)

Felon said:


> Was there something commonly-acknowledged as being wrong with the power that I wasn't aware of? This new version is somehow more "in line" with other racial powers?




I've played tieflings since the release of 4e, and yeah, Infernal Wrath was not just weak, but honestly more trouble to track than it was worth. I even took Diabolic Soul (DR381) *just* to get rid of the stupid thing from my character sheet.

The new version is at least something I would _consider _keeping.


----------



## Felon (May 4, 2010)

circadianwolf said:


> The original Infernal Wrath was next to useless. Presumably it was intended to balance against tieflings' otherwise powerful features. The new version is at least guaranteed to do something while still being quite weak (compared to Fey Step, Elven Accuracy, Second Chance, etc.)



Personally, I used infernal wrath to kill things. Seemed like a pretty useful thing to do at the time. 



Mort_Q said:


> I don't have my books here, and I honestly don't remember what it used to be.



It was sort of implicit in my post that someone who actually was invested in playing a tiefling might have something to say.

Infernal wrath was originally intended to buff a power so that it got a bonus to attack and damage, and then you could add more effects through feats. Now, it's radically altered into a burst 10, free-action, auto-damage power. I'm not sure if that's any better or worse, so I don't know how it's more "in line" with other racial powers. It's probably better overall, and I'm not sure I agree circadianwolf's assertion that it's "quite weak" compared to other class racial abilities. 

I'm not resentful or anything. Mostly just curious if anyone was going around starting heated discussions about this power. It worked fine as far as I could tell, and it was just such an innocuous thing to overhaul. Something had to prompt it. 

And I have to say, if something about tieflings needed a radical change--in fact, if there was just one PHB rules update I could wish into existence--it would be to make tieflings +2 Int, +2 Cha or Con.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (May 4, 2010)

Woe is me.  My swordmage must replace Enlarge Spell, and my barbarian can no longer abuse Rage of the Crimson Hurricane.  The barbarian will still be awesomeness incarnate, but the swordmage loses the only thing that made her worth playing.  Time for her to set off some traps...


----------



## Akaiku (May 4, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Woe is me.  My swordmage must replace Enlarge Spell, and my barbarian can no longer abuse Rage of the Crimson Hurricane.  The barbarian will still be awesomeness incarnate, but the swordmage loses the only thing that made her worth playing.  Time for her to set off some traps...




If your barbarian was using pit fighter, you could always try swapping to kensai instead? +4 damage forever and +1 hit forever is often good, or did they make that one fighter only as well?

Perhaps they should just do a global update? "All paragon paths only work with the intended base class' powers and the paths own ones." Would get rid of all that 'synergy' that keeps irritating people.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (May 4, 2010)

Akaiku said:


> If your barbarian was using pit fighter, you could always try swapping to kensai instead? +4 damage forever and +1 hit forever is often good, or did they make that one fighter only as well?
> 
> Perhaps they should just do a global update? "All paragon paths only work with the intended base class' powers and the paths own ones." Would get rid of all that 'synergy' that keeps irritating people.




My barbarian is a Bear Warrior,  which works a LOT better in practice than I imagined. Between the Rageblood and Half-Orc THP and the extra healing from Bear Warrior, she never got within shouting distance of bloodied.

I don't know about your suggestion for a global update.  It's interesting that they are doing it piecemeal -- presumably they have a reason.  I'm not big on crossing class boundaries for paragon paths, but especially for newly-introduced classes which do not yet have many PP options, I can see wanting to keep it open.


----------



## Felon (May 4, 2010)

Wormwood said:


> I've played tieflings since the release of 4e, and yeah, Infernal Wrath was not just weak, but honestly more trouble to track than it was worth.



That's true, it was easy to miss opportunities to use it.


----------



## Markn (May 4, 2010)

As much as I like the new updates, it feels like the updates were not thorough.  For example, changes to auras in the Monster Manual were not changed in the MM2.  Going to the compendium still gives the def from the MM2 - which now do not match.

Edit:  Nevermind, it looks like it does now.  Wierd.


----------



## elawai (May 4, 2010)

*Love Hop Down!*

This has to be one of my favorite updates.  Didn't really affect any of our characters in a negative ways, and then it solved one of the major discussions in our group - how to handle small step down type falls.  I totally in love with the new Hop Down option under Acrobatics.


----------



## Festivus (May 4, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> also that healing zone (holy ground?) was nerfed a lot (indirectly) which seems like a good thing imho




You are thinking of Consecrated Ground (daily), which heals 1+Cha in a moveable burst 1 zone.

I was a bit grumpy about this at first but after thinking about it, yeah it was pretty overpowering and broke the whole concept of surges and healing.  With Pacifist Healer and Astral Seal (and a few other powers) I could keep a party fully healed and hardly expending any surges.


----------



## NMcCoy (May 4, 2010)

Something else that hasn't been noted here yet is that flying creatures no longer need to keep moving in order to stay aloft.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 5, 2010)

Servers still clogged, can't get my update yet. 

This is the main part of the game that feels like WOW to me. 
It even updates on Tuesday, so it serves as maintenance day for both games.


----------



## fba827 (May 5, 2010)

elawai said:


> This has to be one of my favorite updates.  Didn't really affect any of our characters in a negative ways, and then it solved one of the major discussions in our group - how to handle small step down type falls.  I totally in love with the new Hop Down option under Acrobatics.




I like the "Hop Down" and the changes to Aid Another (I always wanted it to scale, and the fact that it has a small chance to impose a minor penalty is kind of nice too the more I think about it).


----------



## MarkB (May 5, 2010)

That's certainly a solid update, covering some long-overdue issues. I'm particularly happy that they finally spelled out the Charge rules, and allowed vertical forced movement.

I'm not entirely keen on the new take on Aid Another. It needed to be done (at 14th level, my Jack of All Trades wizard was incapable of failing an Aid Another check on any skill), but scaling it to character level doesn't feel right to me. I'd have much preferred to see it scaled to the difficulty of the skill check.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 5, 2010)

Felon said:


> No discussion yet about infernal wrath--a core race ability--being turned into something completely different?
> 
> Was there something commonly-acknowledged as being wrong with the power that I wasn't aware of? This new version is somehow more "in line" with other racial powers?
> 
> They had to go down the line to update virtually every feat that augmented infernal wrath.



The change makes infernal wrath way better. It guarantees that it is useful rather than make it a hit-or-miss affair. (Pun intended.)


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 5, 2010)

Thank goodness it is now clear that one can spend an action point after a charge.


----------



## Obryn (May 5, 2010)

Samir said:


> Temple of Brilliance was nerfed so that it blinds everyone in the zone except for the target. It's not particularly good anymore.



Sweet!  That power was giving me headaches already, and he's only had it one session.   We both knew it was on the nerf list, so this is hardly unexpected.



Prestidigitalis said:


> but the swordmage loses the only thing that made her worth playing.  Time for her to set off some traps...



Really?  The swordmage in my group doesn't even have Sword Burst, and does a great job.  Aegis of Shielding is a major thorn in my side.

-O


----------



## keterys (May 5, 2010)

Markn said:


> Auras & Zones
> 
> Tell me if this is correct.
> 
> Aura and zone damages stack, but penatlies (such as to hit) do not and you only take the worst penatly.




That is correct! It was the change that felt the scariest to me, by far, but I... 'get it' from the perspective of being able to predict how much damage creatures do.

It does make me want to go through the monsters and put in for some errata changes for the ones with zones and auras that are problematic (Bloodfire Harpies being the obvious example)


----------



## Markn (May 5, 2010)

keterys said:


> That is correct! It was the change that felt the scariest to me, by far, but I... 'get it' from the perspective of being able to predict how much damage creatures do.
> 
> It does make me want to go through the monsters and put in for some errata changes for the ones with zones and auras that are problematic (Bloodfire Harpies being the obvious example)




Thank you sir!  That certainly does have a major impact for some creatures.  The one downside to this is that player created zones now stack and from my experience players don't need this boost in damage.  In our epic group, every PC is capable of creating a zone that increases damage.  That is a scary though indeed.


----------



## keterys (May 5, 2010)

True, but player zones could stack before as long as they did different damages or they could just use them in different encounters.

I don't think it'll be too strong for players. Worst case is probably for crazy frostcheese parties, where people can layer frost zones.


----------



## TAKERU (May 5, 2010)

I can see a pratical issue here. WoTC errata often take the long way putting things that end being confusing. Lets take a look at Errated Paragon Paths. If they just don't want abusive multiclassing like everyone taking Daggermaster, D.of Caiphon or Pit Fighter, was enough to say that "multiclass feats do not qualify for paragon paths unless specfically noted in a paragon path entry requirements".

The way it is now, you can expect lots of PP nerfed to almost worthless.

See, as a Hybrid (that counts as both classes) can only take one chosen PP. A monk/rogue wielding a dagger will not benefit from daggermaster, at least not as often. So why to take a PP that's only useful with half (more or less) of his powers?

I hope they see that some combos are part of Role-Playing Games. Every time you kill something that work nice together, you kill the game a bit.


----------



## Akaiku (May 5, 2010)

TAKERU said:


> See, as a Hybrid (that counts as both classes) can only take one chosen PP. A monk/rogue wielding a dagger will not benefit from daggermaster, at least not as often. So why to take a PP that's only useful with half (more or less) of his powers?




The trend I'm thinking they are trying to do is that pure class characters with intended same class paragon path tailored to their pre-defined build is the max personal power a character can ever have. Any deviation from that you must sacrifice things for a nebulous 'versatility' claim.


----------



## holywhitetrash (May 5, 2010)

so it seems to me that people like the changes to healer's lore because of astral seal
then why not nerf astral seal by saying that it does not benefit from bonuses to healing
instead of nerfing the thing that made clerics standout


----------



## Jools (May 5, 2010)

As is, the new Infernal Wrath is only slightly better than its previous incarnation. Add the feat Ferocious Rebuke (push target one square) and it becomes a winner. Free actions can interrupt so Tieflings can now completely avoid a melee 1 attack once per encounter. Thats pretty darned spiffy at level 1.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 5, 2010)

holywhitetrash said:


> so it seems to me that people like the changes to healer's lore because of astral seal
> then why not nerf astral seal by saying that it does not benefit from bonuses to healing
> instead of nerfing the thing that made clerics standout




Astral seal was merely the most visible abuse of the surgeless healing problem.

There are lots more problems, and this rewording fixes all of them.


----------



## keterys (May 5, 2010)

Jools said:


> As is, the new Infernal Wrath is only slightly better than its previous incarnation. Add the feat Ferocious Rebuke (push target one square) and it becomes a winner. Free actions can interrupt so Tieflings can now completely avoid a melee 1 attack once per encounter. Thats pretty darned spiffy at level 1.




Free actions actually aren't immediate interrupts, so this part is less clear. The trigger is on being hit, so you were definitely hit by the power. You'll get table variance on whether a DM allows a power to hit you but not damage you, ie letting you insert the free action between the 'Hit' and 'Damage' steps.


----------



## BobTheNob (May 5, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Astral seal was merely the most visible abuse of the surgeless healing problem.
> 
> There are lots more problems, and this rewording fixes all of them.



Absolutely. The issue with the cleric wasnt Astral seal, it was his ability to use all sorts of tricks (consecrated ground e.t.c.) to do surgeless healing. Astral seal was just the most visible of the pack.

Surgless healing is ok when it comes in little chunks, but when you combine bonus's on to it like the cleric could, and those little chunks quickly became quite large and the toughness and durability of a party backed by a properly specced cleric became such that the only way to break such a group was stupidly tough encounters way above their level. The game became trivial.

Excellent change.


----------



## Obryn (May 5, 2010)

Elric said:


> A summary of some changes is here



Holy crap, that thread's got more whine than Napa.

I mean, really?  Declaring the Sorcerer a dead class because of the Daggermaster nerf?  Declaring the Swordmage irrelevant because there's no longer feycharge cheese and enlarged swordbursts?  It's like they're playing some other game and calling it 4e.

I am so glad I mostly stick around here, CM, and RPG.net. 

-O


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2010)

A few interesting changes:

- Mounts no longer need to be Large, and you no longer need a saddle;
- A close "creatures"-targetting spell may hit the mount if the caster doesn't choose an origin square carefully (and in the case of a close burst, *will* hit the mount);
- For the first time, I see the PCs being called out as "Adventurers" (in the mount section). I guess that's the new technical term for the PCs?


----------



## Stalker0 (May 5, 2010)

The good

1) Better aid another rules!
2) Better infernal wrath. This will make the bard tiefling in my party very happy.
3) Nerfing surgeless healng. Healing imo is one of the most overpowered things in 4e.
4) General skill updates.
5) The new format. Finally I can flip through 3 pages and get my updates...not 20

The bad
1) Using character level for aid another. I overall like the intent, but I really dislike linking to character level. Why not link to...oh I don't know...the DC! So the more difficult the skill, the harder it is to aid. 
2) Tons of nerfs and few buffs. The errata always takes those proud nails and knocks them down, but to me there's tons of things that aren't worth the paper they are printed on right now and could use a buff.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 5, 2010)

holywhitetrash said:


> so it seems to me that people like the changes to healer's lore because of astral seal
> then why not nerf astral seal by saying that it does not benefit from bonuses to healing
> instead of nerfing the thing that made clerics standout



The intention was actually to nerf surgless healing, Astral Heal was just the go-to surgless healing At-Will.


----------



## holywhitetrash (May 5, 2010)

i still don't see why healer's lore needed the nerf at best you will get an addiontal 10 points out of those powers 
yes i can see how combining it with all those healing items could get out of hand and how an at will surgeless could get cheesy so again why is my cleric (who doesn't use any of the powers i have seen mentioned) getting a nerf as opposed to those weapons and powers
idk maybe this bothers me just because my group just recently started using the errata


----------



## The Weregamer (May 5, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> The bad
> 1) Using character level for aid another. I overall like the intent, but I really dislike linking to character level. Why not link to...oh I don't know...the DC! So the more difficult the skill, the harder it is to aid.




My thought was it should be tied to the level of the person you are trying to aid.  The more competent they are at a given task, the harder it becomes for you to offer them useful assistance.

Granted, in most cases of one PC aiding another PC, they will be the same level anyway, but it makes more sense to me this way.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2010)

yes, it definitively should be 10+1/2 the targets level... read it that way anyway 

@ throw and stab: seems a little bit on the weak side nwo, but should still be a very useful power to get rid of some minions etc...


----------



## stonegod (May 5, 2010)

10+1/2lvl is scaling for Aiding: Its the difficulty of a Medium DC skill check.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 5, 2010)

holywhitetrash said:


> why is my cleric (who doesn't use any of the powers i have seen mentioned) getting a nerf as opposed to those weapons and powers




If your cleric doesn't use any of those powers, then he didn't get a nerf. Only surgeless healing was affected afaik.


----------



## hvg3akaek (May 5, 2010)

A question about the new flying rules: it sounds like anyone with a flying speed now no longer has to move to remain flying (ie, what Hover used to do).  And now, hover allows you to remain flying even if stunned.

Is that correct?  
(the MM2 Hover rules don't seem to have been updated, just the DMG flying ones).



Also - the changes to the Quickcurse Rod now mean that for that attack, you cannot deal your curse damage, as the target wasn't cursed before you hit it, right?


----------



## hvg3akaek (May 5, 2010)

Oh! Also charging:  you no longer have to move to the closest square (so can effectively charge "past" someone).  I assume this also means that those with reach weapons no longer have to stop a square away from their target - good news for my halberd fighter!


----------



## Stalker0 (May 5, 2010)

hvg3akaek said:


> Oh! Also charging:  you no longer have to move to the closest square (so can effectively charge "past" someone).  I assume this also means that those with reach weapons no longer have to stop a square away from their target - good news for my halberd fighter!




Actually the errata even more specifically says you can't charge past someone. Every single square of movement must put you closer to the target than the last.

If any square of movement keeps you as far away or moves you away, its illegal.


----------



## Iron Sky (May 5, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Woe is me.  My swordmage must replace Enlarge Spell ... the swordmage loses the only thing that made her worth playing.  Time for her to set off some traps...




Replace Arcane Initiate with Arcane Admixture (apply it to Sword Burst), then replace Enlarge Spell with Resounding Thunder.  This requires Paragon, but it still gives you Close Burst 2 Sword Bursts.

Mix with White Lotus Riposte + Master Riposte and you still have a pile of awesome (speaking from my experience with my Swordmage at least).


----------



## Derulbaskul (May 5, 2010)

It looks like they've done a good job on this update. I would love to see a document compiling all the updated conditions as it seems practically all have changed and I am too lazy to do it myself.



TerraDave said:


> So a nice little article on how updates are great. (snip)




Is it just me or did Andy Collins really display an appalling lack of diplomatic skills/basic good manners towards his customers in that article?


----------



## FireLance (May 5, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> Actually the errata even more specifically says you can't charge past someone. Every single square of movement must put you closer to the target than the last.



Yeah, but with 4E geometry, you can move diagonally to sidestep one opponent and diagonally in the other direction to attack another opponent behind him while moving closer to the second opponent with each step. As follows:
X
. \
. . \
O. . \
. . . /
. . /
. /
Y​


----------



## Stalker0 (May 5, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Yeah, but with 4E geometry, you can move diagonally to sidestep one opponent and diagonally in the other direction to attack another opponent behind him while moving closer to the second opponent with each step. As follows:
> X
> .
> . .
> ...




Sweet, well in that case go crooked charge!


----------



## Baumi (May 5, 2010)

I have a question about the new Version of Throw & Stab:

Do you have to move to an enemy? As far as I understand you get a move and a free melee attack but it doesn't say how you have to move. If it is now allowed to just move around instead of charging an enemy than it would still be a very useful skirmisher power (either attack to enemies or throw and move around)


----------



## Mesh Hong (May 5, 2010)

The change of *Solar* *Wrath* from burst 8; 3d8+wis damage to burst 3; 2d6+wis is pretty major.

Thats going to have an impact on the exploding cleric in my game!


----------



## Xyrlove Woodsoul (May 5, 2010)

I like the errata.

1. I'm glad Infernal Wrath was changed; the Tieflings (in my different groups) usually forgot to plan with it or use it. I never expected errata though.

2. I have a healic. So I'm a bit dazed by the healing errata. But it needed it. I would turn all the strikers into striker-tanks.

3. Aura's damage stacking is going to be interesting, especially, for fighters who attract a lot of enemies (for example, with Come and Get It).

4. There's a Druid in my Group with the Spirit Talker feat, Spirit Companion. I'll be interested in knowing what he thinks about the errata.

5. Our Wizard had Enlarge Spell: He really liked using it with his Dailies. Our DM lets us "retrain," errata, and the Wizard player said he's going to retrain it for Superior Implement.

6. I'm glad they nerfed the Daggermaster. On the optimization boards that's all one would ever hear about (not really, but it got a lot of love)

 7. Our Bard has Wail of Angusih. It was a really good. But now. I dunno. No damage die, thus no static mods to damage either now. I'll be interested in what she thinks too.

I wish they'd buff some of the more useless things.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 5, 2010)

Xyrlove Woodsoul said:


> Those are my thoughts so far. I like the changes. But, like a previous poster stated, i wish they would buff some of the more "useless" things.




I keep hoping that the essentials line will buff some of the PHBI classes and things. It seems a perfect opportunity.


----------



## Istar (May 5, 2010)

Is a mellee basic attack a rogue power ?


----------



## Istar (May 5, 2010)

Oh I see the Bloodiron Dagger component of the Twin Striking dAggermaster is also gone.

I wonder if this Weapon is now any good after this change.

You cant add War Ring and such onto the 2nd damage roll.

Maybe Wraithblade is better now ?


----------



## Istar (May 5, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Yeah. The errata inclusion was a big part of what I liked about d20srd.org, and it's a similarly large part of what I like about the Rules Compendium.
> 
> However, it's also a big reason to *never buy a physical book from WotC ever again*.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Yes I agree, what we need it someone to make all the errata changes to their books, paste in colour prints of the new versions, and then publish them on 4-shared regularly so we can have the updated books at our fingertips.


----------



## Garthanos (May 5, 2010)

Putting on a pirates voice .... Argh me wants more enlarged spells, in z game not less... making a new feat superior enlargement that was wizard spell specific would have been interesting... gimping the ability for mixed class arcanists shrug might be "bad form" old man "bad form"


----------



## Garthanos (May 5, 2010)

Why nerf any Ranger At-will if you are not going to nerf Twin Strike??


----------



## Dausuul (May 5, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> yes, it definitively should be 10+1/2 the targets level... read it that way anyway




That was my reaction, too. It's still highly abstracted but in the right ballpark. (Of course, 99% of the time it won't make a difference to players, since you'll be aiding another PC who's the same level as you.)


----------



## hvg3akaek (May 5, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> Actually the errata even more specifically says you can't charge past someone. Every single square of movement must put you closer to the target than the last.
> 
> If any square of movement keeps you as far away or moves you away, its illegal.




Nope, you can charge past.  See attached.

You can also do other crazy things like zig-zag about the place...


----------



## Kingreaper (May 5, 2010)

hvg3akaek said:


> Nope, you can charge past.  See attached.
> 
> You can also do other crazy things like zig-zag about the place...




That's not charging past, that's clotheslining.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (May 5, 2010)

Iron Sky said:


> Replace Arcane Initiate with Arcane Admixture (apply it to Sword Burst), then replace Enlarge Spell with Resounding Thunder.  This requires Paragon, but it still gives you Close Burst 2 Sword Bursts.




Can you tell me how to get the Close Burst 3 Swordburst that I was going to get by _combining_ Enlarge Spell with Resounding Thunder+Arcane Admixture?


----------



## Obryn (May 5, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Why nerf any Ranger At-will if you are not going to nerf Twin Strike??



Because Throw and Stab was better than Twin Strike.*

While I think we can all agree that Twin Strike is basically at the apex of At-Will powers, I think we can also agree that any At-Will that's _better _than Twin Strike is particularly problematic.

-O


(*especially when combined with Marauder's Rush and the various Chargemania items and feats )


----------



## renau1g (May 5, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Can you tell me how to get the Close Burst 3 Swordburst that I was going to get by _combining_ Enlarge Spell with Resounding Thunder+Arcane Admixture?




You could ignore that part of the errata? I personally like that change a lot. Sorcerers could really benefit from it with their area powers and a -2 to damage is pretty insignificant to them.


----------



## Klaus (May 5, 2010)

Istar said:


> Is a mellee basic attack a rogue power ?



No.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (May 5, 2010)

renau1g said:


> You could ignore that part of the errata? I personally like that change a lot. Sorcerers could really benefit from it with their area powers and a -2 to damage is pretty insignificant to them.




I assume you meant to suggest that my DM and I could _jointly_ decide to ignore that part of the errata.  As our DM has a policy of NOT ignoring errata, that's not an option.

Incidentally, though it's great for sorcerers, it's also very expensive for them.  Most sorcerers will probably put 10s in Int and Wis, so a 13 in each uses up 6 points.

Note: I'm not arguing with the change.  I'm not sure why WotC decided it was necessary -- it's certainly not one of the issues that has generated lots of complaints -- but I believe the most important part of setting out rules for a game is that it sets out default points of agreement.  If you _start_ by assuming that you are all going to play by the official rules, you avoid an awful lot of wrangling.


----------



## saitir (May 5, 2010)

Istar said:


> Yes I agree, what we need it someone to make all the errata changes to their books, paste in colour prints of the new versions, and then publish them on 4-shared regularly so we can have the updated books at our fingertips.




Absolutley.

However, some of us will need to keeping buying them otherwise they'll cease to be!  There's only so long Magic and other products can prop up the D&D product if sales plummet.  Do masses of errata suck (in a keeping track of things way, not in a keeping the game playable way)? Yes.  Does having no new D&D suck more?  I personaly think so!


----------



## Herschel (May 5, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Holy crap, that thread's got more whine than Napa.
> 
> I mean, really? Declaring the Sorcerer a dead class because of the Daggermaster nerf? Declaring the Swordmage irrelevant because there's no longer feycharge cheese and enlarged swordbursts? It's like they're playing some other game and calling it 4e.
> -O




No doubt. It seems there's a lot of people around that aren't happy unless they can have some sort of 'broken cheese' working in their favor. 

Like in your campaign, my Swordmage doesn't use Sword Burst, isn't an Eladrin and works just fine while having the opposite Aegis.


----------



## Garthanos (May 5, 2010)

saitir said:


> Absolutley.
> 
> However, some of us will need to keeping buying them otherwise they'll cease to be!  There's only so long Magic and other products can prop up the D&D product if sales plummet.  Do masses of errata suck (in a keeping track of things way, not in a keeping the game playable way)? Yes.  Does having no new D&D suck more?  I personaly think so!




I like books reading them is relaxing the art is softer and more portable even than my wifes lap top computer.(I had to put the last word on it it was more than a little necessary).


----------



## renau1g (May 5, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> I assume you meant to suggest that my DM and I could _jointly_ decide to ignore that part of the errata.  As our DM has a policy of NOT ignoring errata, that's not an option.




Yes I meant your group actually, not even just you and the DM, as if the group had major opposition to allowing it then he/she (DM) shouldn't allow it. I think the change has less to do with the SM, but instead with arcane strikers, at least that's what the errata says.


----------



## Garthanos (May 5, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Because Throw and Stab was better than Twin Strike.*
> 
> While I think we can all agree that Twin Strike is basically at the apex of At-Will powers, I think we can also agree that any At-Will that's _better _than Twin Strike is particularly problematic.
> 
> ...




Ah I will admit to not having paid that close of attention to T&S.. it sounded a flavorful alternative to Twin Strike. But we havent built a ranger recently. Charges are very boosted variously arent they.


----------



## MrMyth (May 5, 2010)

TAKERU said:


> See, as a Hybrid (that counts as both classes) can only take one chosen PP. A monk/rogue wielding a dagger will not benefit from daggermaster, at least not as often. So why to take a PP that's only useful with half (more or less) of his powers?




Well... yeah. If you are a monk/rogue, and aren't focused on the use of rogue dagger powers, then daggermaster isn't the best choice. You have plenty of other PP options available. And you certainly can focus to a large extent, having 3/4 of your encounter and daily powers work with it. Having one at-will, one encounter, and one daily power that don't work with it isn't going to cripple the character. 

As it is right now, the option remains open to multiclass and hybrid characters while being reduced in potency for them. Your suggestion would leave it full power for hybrids, and remove it entirely for multiclassing. I don't see that as an especially good approach - it leaves open more potential for abuse while simultaneously restricting more casual use. I much prefer the direction they have chosen, myself.


----------



## Obergnom (May 5, 2010)

hmm, personaly, I could not care less for most of the power and feat changes, as we have a group policy of 'playing nice' ... but I really like what they did to the rules themselves... new fly rules, changes to some skills and I really like the new Aid Another rule.

I am looking forward to september, while we will not use the Essentials line in our group, the Rules Compendium combined with the Char Builder seems to give us some kind of D&D 4.5 ...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 5, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Ah I will admit to not having paid that close of attention to T&S.. it sounded a flavorful alternative to Twin Strike. But we havent built a ranger recently. Charges are very boosted variously arent they.




It went beyond that even. A hybrid ranger could use the power to effectively combine functions of two classes in ways that weren't really intended.

For example you could T&S, whack the enemy with your thrown weapon and take HQ damage on them, then charge them and drop a fighter power on them via charge substitution and mark the target (on top of whatever ungodly amount of charge damage you could do). This basically made hybrids between ranger and many defender classes markedly superior to single classed characters of EITHER of the two classes in question.

As it is now you can still hit a target for HQ damage and mark another target (if you can use a power of your defender class as an MBA), but you can't pile it on top of the same target at least. Combined with the loss of all the charge buffs the power is now at least not astronomically better than any other at-will in the game for certain builds.

There is one hidden benefit to the change though, since the second half of the power is no longer a charge you can effectively move anywhere you want to with it and as I read it you really don't HAVE to go after the secondary target, you could just toss your thrown weapon and run away, or you could move behind the secondary target etc such as to gain flanking or for other tactical reasons. This is no way going to make up for the nerf, but it does suggest some more interesting ways to use T&S that are probably more fun overall. 

Gotta say, I really like the Healer's Lore change too. Surgeless healing was a little bit too easy to crank up to crazy levels. I think CLW being hit by this was sort of collateral damage though since basically it was pretty close to worthless already with Astral Seal around. Now its truly useless. Maybe they'll errata back in the HL bonus specifically for that power in a later update or do something else for it. The concept of CLW was good. I even recall back in the early days of the game it saw some use.


----------



## MrMyth (May 5, 2010)

MarkB said:


> I'm not entirely keen on the new take on Aid Another. It needed to be done (at 14th level, my Jack of All Trades wizard was incapable of failing an Aid Another check on any skill), but scaling it to character level doesn't feel right to me. I'd have much preferred to see it scaled to the difficulty of the skill check.




My group has experimented with some different Aid Another rules recently, and what we settled on was tying it to the skill check of the player being aided. The DC is his normal skill check bonus. If you succeed, you give a +1 bonus on the check. Succeed by 10, and it becomes the normal +2. 

Thus, everyone usually has a chance to somewhat contribute, but the better someone is to start, the less chance everyone can easily boost his bonus through the roof.


----------



## Kingreaper (May 5, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Gotta say, I really like the Healer's Lore change too. Surgeless healing was a little bit too easy to crank up to crazy levels. I think CLW being hit by this was sort of collateral damage though since basically it was pretty close to worthless already with Astral Seal around.




Cure light wounds says you regain hit points as though you spent a healing surge.

Had you spent a healing surge, healer's lore would apply.

So, you can make an argument (probably technically incorrect, but pretty close, and pretty reasonable) that Healer's Lore applies to CLW.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 5, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> @ throw and stab: seems a little bit on the weak side nwo, but should still be a very useful power to get rid of some minions etc...



I made a goliath ranger who used a farbond spellblade greatsword, plate mail, an amulet that prevented OAs from charge movement, and a horned helm (plus a couple of other things). That character established nicely that the nerf on throw and stab was needed.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 5, 2010)

Istar said:


> Is a mellee basic attack a rogue power ?



No, it's a rouge power.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2010)

Kwalish Kid said:


> I made a goliath ranger who used a farbond spellblade greatsword, plate mail, an amulet that prevented OAs from charge movement, and a horned helm (plus a couple of other things). That character established nicely that the nerf on throw and stab was needed.



I just think a two target requirement is a bit too much... I just don´t like them in general as they stress my suspension of disbelief a bit...

If it was move your speed and fling a weapon durng the movement i would be more ok, or if it is a real two target power, why not just have the first attack a ranged basic attack (with attribute bonus). This way you could even have a dex ranger with melee training make good use of this power.

also if you read carefully you need a throwing weapon and a melee weapon now. This is preventing a misuse of a farbond fullblade which i really approve. 

But: as you can now throw and move anywhere you like, you can use it, as pointed out by others, in a different, very interesting way: move and run...


----------



## Stalker0 (May 5, 2010)

Mesh Hong said:


> The change of *Solar* *Wrath* from burst 8; 3d8+wis damage to burst 3; 2d6+wis is pretty major.
> 
> Thats going to have an impact on the exploding cleric in my game!




Yeah, one thing about clerics that kills them at high levels imo is there complete lack of ranged options past 5 squares.

At least fighters can chuck a javelin a long distance, but clerics get nothing.


----------



## mneme (May 5, 2010)

Well, not complete, but they've not got a lot.  Some summons, Flame Strike, Crown of Light...at very high levels, Astral Storm, Sunburst, Healing Torch


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> Yeah, one thing about clerics that kills them at high levels imo is there complete lack of ranged options past 5 squares.
> 
> At least fighters can chuck a javelin a long distance, but clerics get nothing.



A strength cleric can also throw a Javelin.  Also there is a nice little thing called multiclassing. You can also distribute your attributes in a way that you have a ranged option.

Everything needs a weakness. In the clerics case it is average range. (Like in all editions before)


----------



## DracoSuave (May 5, 2010)

yesnomu said:


> To be fair, the PHB is easily the most errata'd book, and even now it's still at least 80% compendium accurate. I keep my books up to date with a pencil, and it's not too difficult.
> 
> On the other hand, my copies of Divine and Primal Power have next to no edits at all.




I mean, really... it's not like we're talking about 3e Polymorph here."Oh, Dragon's out, I wonder what Polymorph does this month!"

And it's not like they've added 3 completely new action types yet.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2010)

@polymorph:

not a bug, its a feature... a spell so uncontrollable that it evolves all the time.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 5, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> @polymorph:
> 
> not a bug, its a feature... a spell so uncontrollable that it evolves all the time.




Or worse, the derivative spells that had text as long, but started with 'See polymorph, except.....' because THAT was the easiest way to describe them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2010)

Yeah, too difficult to make such a spell abusive proof.

This is the reason why spells in 4e are so narrow. Sadly. But we have rituals for something like polymorph now, which is nice.


----------



## circadianwolf (May 5, 2010)

> So, you can make an argument (probably technically incorrect, but pretty  close, and pretty reasonable) that Healer's Lore applies to CLW.




The CharOp people had this thought, too, and a dev confirmed to them the same day the errata went out that this isn't the case (but obviously it wouldn't be harmful to pretend it is).


----------



## MarkB (May 5, 2010)

The Weregamer said:


> My thought was it should be tied to the level of the person you are trying to aid.  The more competent they are at a given task, the harder it becomes for you to offer them useful assistance.
> 
> Granted, in most cases of one PC aiding another PC, they will be the same level anyway, but it makes more sense to me this way.




I like this method - it makes more sense to me than the updated version.

And it can make quite a difference in games such as LFR, where there may be anything up to a 4-level spread between the PCs in a single game (though, of course, that's also where houserules like this can't be applied).


----------



## keterys (May 5, 2010)

MarkB said:


> I like this method - it makes more sense to me than the updated version.
> 
> And it can make quite a difference in games such as LFR, where there may be anything up to a 4-level spread between the PCs in a single game (though, of course, that's also where houserules like this can't be applied).




Maximum spread of 3 levels in LFR (ex: 11th -> 14th) and that means it'll never make a difference of more than _1_ to the DC. Simplification outweighs that pretty easily.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2010)

Hopefully this will get changed in next update... could really be an oversight...

i was befuddelt by creature and target anyway...


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 5, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> also if you read carefully you need a throwing weapon and a melee weapon now. This is preventing a misuse of a farbond fullblade which i really approve.



It always had this requirement. But it does not say that one needs two weapons. A farbond spellblade is both a thrown weapon and a melee weapon, so it meets the requirements.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 5, 2010)

depends how you read it...

a throwing weapon and a melee weapon are two weapons...

otherwise it is rather redundant, as throwing weapons are usually melee...


----------



## sigfile (May 5, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Cure light wounds says you regain hit points as though you spent a healing surge.
> 
> Had you spent a healing surge, healer's lore would apply.
> 
> So, you can make an argument (probably technically incorrect, but pretty close, and pretty reasonable) that Healer's Lore applies to CLW.



Not the case, unfortunately.



> May  4, 2010 --   1:18PM, WotC_GregB  wrote:You don't gain the bonus to healing in powers  that say "as if you had spent a healing surge."


----------



## DracoSuave (May 5, 2010)

sigfile said:


> Not the case, unfortunately.




So, let's get this straight.


It's now the rule that

You may do THINGA as tho you did THINGB

Means that you no longer get to treat it as tho you did THINGB?


This ruling does not compute.

Cure Light Wounds does not say 'Heals their surge value.'  It says 'regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge.'

Which, if Greg's ruling is correct, means that if it had spent a healing surge, it'd get a different number than this ability gives you, which means that the power does NOT actually do what it says it does... so you don't regain hit points as if...


....in other words.  The rules break.  The new feature has to actually say 'Powers that do not actually spend the healing surge are not affected by this feature' in order for it not to work.


In otherwords, your errata is bad if someone has to clarify it with additional rules text the DAY it comes out.

Also, fail for no errata on Mindlink Surge.


----------



## kerbarian (May 5, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> So, let's get this straight.
> 
> 
> It's now the rule that
> ...



If you look at it as only "regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge" instead of "regains hit points as if it had been healed by a cleric while spending a healing surge", it makes sense.  The target heals its surge value (plus any surge bonuses like dragonborn Con), and then the cleric piles some extra healing on top of that.  When determining the extra cleric healing, you check whether the target spent a surge, and in the case of CLW, it didn't.

It's not necessarily how I would have ruled it, but I don't think it creates a paradox.


----------



## Incendax (May 5, 2010)

*First of all:* I cannot believe they did not issue errata for Harmonious Thunder! How could they overlook the craziness of this power? Should I take this to mean that the power is working exactly as intended?

*Second of all:* Nothing in the May errata about the Battlemind, so it looks like DracoSuave gets to keep his Avatar!


----------



## sigfile (May 5, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> I assume you meant to suggest that my DM and I could _jointly_ decide to ignore that part of the errata.  As our DM has a policy of NOT ignoring errata, that's not an option.
> 
> Incidentally, though it's great for sorcerers, it's also very expensive for them.  Most sorcerers will probably put 10s in Int and Wis, so a 13 in each uses up 6 points.
> 
> Note: I'm not arguing with the change.  I'm not sure why WotC decided it was necessary -- it's certainly not one of the issues that has generated lots of complaints -- but I believe the most important part of setting out rules for a game is that it sets out default points of agreement.  If you _start_ by assuming that you are all going to play by the official rules, you avoid an awful lot of wrangling.



Well... sorcerers.  

Swordmages could take a significant feat investment to make a unique at-will absolutely huge.  And do relatively little damage with it.  Feat support helps make it a VERY useful spell, but you'd never demolish anything short of a minion horde with it at maximum pimpage (barring thunderglaive silliness).

Sorcerers could swing a similar feat investment (if slightly harder due to stat requirements, but manageable by epic) and have an at-will area burst 2 cold-radiant zone that capitalizes on both radiant vulnerability AND frostcheese that inflicts extra cold and fire damage when an enemy exits the zone.  Or it could be an extra-large area burst 3, inflicting radiant-thunder and fire-thunder damage, receiving the bonus of any of the thunder enhancing feats.   With a sorcerer's damage base -2.  God forbid anything in that zone attack the sorcerer in response...

Wash, rinse, repeat with similar results for Burning Spray.  And that's just the at-wills.  And I only dabble in strikers, so I'm probably missing some additional horrible that makes this all the worse.

I *do* play a swordmage, and I am sad to see this combo go.  Given that it was a wizard's feat, though, I'm not surprised to see it limited to wizards-only.


----------



## sigfile (May 5, 2010)

Incendax said:


> *First of all:* I cannot believe they did not issue errata for Harmonious Thunder! How could they overlook the craziness of this power? Should I take this to mean that the power is working exactly as intended?
> 
> *Second of all:* Nothing in the May errata about the Battlemind, so it looks like DracoSuave gets to keep his Avatar!



Check out what else is notably absent from this round of updates.

I expect the PHB3 stuff to occupy a significant portion of the NEXT update.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (May 5, 2010)

I have seen several people say that with T&S you can just move and nothing else.  I dont get that from the reading of the power.  The way its written you must move and attack.  If they had worded it differently I could see what others are saying but by use of the word AND it makes it a requirement of the effect.


----------



## Obryn (May 5, 2010)

Incendax said:


> *Second of all:* Nothing in the May errata about the Battlemind, so it looks like DracoSuave gets to keep his Avatar!



There wasn't anything on PHB3 this time around apart from Wormhole Plunge.  I still think there will be an update to Blurred Step in the July updates, along with a few powers which technically don't work at all yet.

But seriously - you think I picked this avatar and title on purpose?! 

-O


----------



## DracoSuave (May 5, 2010)

Obryn said:


> But seriously - you think I picked this avatar and title on purpose?!
> 
> -O




I suspect there was SOME design in it.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 5, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> I have seen several people say that with T&S you can just move and nothing else.  I dont get that from the reading of the power.  The way its written you must move and attack.  If they had worded it differently I could see what others are saying but by use of the word AND it makes it a requirement of the effect.




Attacks other than the primary in any power are voluntary by the user of that power.  Movement is also voluntary.  These are both by default.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (May 5, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Attacks other than the primary in any power are voluntary by the user of that power.  Movement is also voluntary.  These are both by default.




I know that that is true when movement etc appears in the actual attack line.  But am not sure if it is true when it is an effect of a power.


----------



## sev (May 5, 2010)

Istar said:


> Yes I agree, what we need it someone to make all the errata changes to their books, paste in colour prints of the new versions, and then publish them on 4-shared regularly so we can have the updated books at our fingertips.




and repaginate the whole book each time errata comes out -- much of it is longer than what it replaces.

I used to print out the errata and tape it into the book over the old stuff.  I don't do that anymore, because often shrinking it down so it fits in the space the old text was makes it too small to read.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 5, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> Yeah, one thing about clerics that kills them at high levels imo is there complete lack of ranged options past 5 squares.
> 
> At least fighters can chuck a javelin a long distance, but clerics get nothing.





Ah, but now there's this little bit of sexiness:


*Silvery Arrow*     Cleric Attack 1
_Your arrow bites deep into your opponent. The next time the
enemy is hit, the arrow shatters into a shower of light._
*At-Will*  *  Divine, Radiant, Weapon
Standard Action     *Ranged weapon*
Requirement: You must be wielding a bow.
Target: One creature
Attack: Wisdom vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Wisdom modifier damage, and the next ally to hit
the target before the end of your next turn deals extra radiant
damage equal to your Charisma modifier.


Check out the _Channel Divinity: Sehanine_ article from Dragon 386.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (May 5, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> I know that that is true when movement etc appears in the actual attack line.  But am not sure if it is true when it is an effect of a power.




The problem is, in what fashion would this be involuntary? Its just hard to understand how it would work. Am I forced to move within melee attack range of the target? The problem with this is what target IS that? I don't have to choose a target for the Effect until AFTER I make the thrown weapon attack. 

Beyond that the exact wording of the effect is "you move up to your speed and make a melee basic attack against a creature other than the target." That sounds to me like I move up to my speed, then I can make an MBA (but not against the original T&S target). When I MAKE the MBA I do need to pick a target for it, but as with any power if I have no valid targets then the MBA simply fails. So I think by RAW T&S can't really FORCE the user to do anything.

Now, you may as a DM decide to force T&S users to move up to and attack an enemy, but I don't think its obligatory by RAW.


----------



## Skallgrim (May 6, 2010)

Mesh Hong said:


> The change of *Solar* *Wrath* from burst 8; 3d8+wis damage to burst 3; 2d6+wis is pretty major.
> 
> Thats going to have an impact on the exploding cleric in my game!



My game too, but since I'm the DM, and that cleric was outdoing the blaster wizard in damage output, at least two peopl are happy about it (me, and the wizard player, of course)!


----------



## Klaus (May 6, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> Ah, but now there's this little bit of sexiness:
> 
> 
> *Silvery Arrow*     Cleric Attack 1
> ...



Yeah, and I wrote that precisely to give clerics some ranged capability!


----------



## Garthanos (May 6, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Yeah, and I wrote that precisely to give clerics some ranged capability!




I thought you wrote it to emulate the Archers of Diana (Sehanine by another name) and the Eastern sects which practiced zen archery (priestess archers are very archetypal)


----------



## firesnakearies (May 6, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Yeah, and I wrote that precisely to give clerics some ranged capability!




Nicely done, it's a good article!


----------



## Mesh Hong (May 6, 2010)

Skallgrim said:


> My game too, but since I'm the DM, and that cleric was outdoing the blaster wizard in damage output, at least two peopl are happy about it (me, and the wizard player, of course)!




I've weighed up the pros and cons and have decided to ignore the errata. My game is approaching level 26 now and the cleric has been using this power for 15 levels. We have all got use to Solar Wrath as is, and it is a factor I subconsciously consider when designing encounters so it seems too late to change it now.

Even though we have worked out that at level 26 the cleric could _possibly_ use Solar Wrath 5 times in an encounter.


----------



## Klaus (May 6, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> I thought you wrote it to emulate the Archers of Diana (Sehanine by another name) and the Eastern sects which practiced zen archery (priestess archers are very archetypal)



Somewhat, but not quite. I included a ranged weapon at-will because I'm a firm believer that the rules should have more than one way to accomplish a build.

That article not only had a Wis-based ranged weapon at-will, but also a feat that allowed Wis to replace Dex for ranged basic attacks.

Iit also offered two ways for a bow to be used as an implement (a feat and a magic weapon), which join the already existing Seldarine Dedicate paragon path that also allowed it.


----------



## Garthanos (May 6, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Somewhat, but not quite. I included a ranged weapon at-will because I'm a firm believer that the rules should have more than one way to accomplish a build.
> 
> That article not only had a Wis-based ranged weapon at-will, but also a feat that allowed Wis to replace Dex for ranged basic attacks.
> 
> Iit also offered two ways for a bow to be used as an implement (a feat and a magic weapon), which join the already existing Seldarine Dedicate paragon path that also allowed it.




I am a firm believer in never doing anything for just one reason... heheh

Oh and there is another Wisdom based ranged weapon move and it too is divine ... The Avengers Focused Fury. I missed seeing the Feat for wisdom based range but I allow "Ranged Training". Looks like I need to read the article with focus ;-).  

I wonder about Feats which are only properly/obviously useful for somebody having a higher X.... requiring a higher X... why bother with the prerequisit on Serene Archery? I have seen this elsewhere.. guess it makes randomly generated characters more valid ;p


----------



## DarkLord Of DForce (May 6, 2010)

Skallgrim said:


> My game too, but since I'm the DM, and that cleric was outdoing the blaster wizard in damage output, at least two peopl are happy about it (me, and the wizard player, of course)!




Big change for my Avenger/Radiant Servant PP character. Its still a minion buster, but not nearly as good a one.

Session before last, our DM packed 8 minions in pretty close to us, I rolled high initiate and got off SW early. Killed 7 of 8. 

I'm sure my DM will be happy as well....


----------



## Klaus (May 6, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> I am a firm believer in never doing anything for just one reason... heheh
> 
> Oh and there is another Wisdom based ranged weapon move and it too is divine ... The Avengers Focused Fury. I missed seeing the Feat for wisdom based range but I allow "Ranged Training". Looks like I need to read the article with focus ;-).
> 
> I wonder about Feats which are only properly/obviously useful for somebody having a higher X.... requiring a higher X... why bother with the prerequisit on Serene Archery? I have seen this elsewhere.. guess it makes randomly generated characters more valid ;p



I'll be honest: my original version of Serene Archery included a Dex requirement, because I didn't want a character to dump Dex.


----------



## Herschel (May 6, 2010)

A nice thought, but a bit tough because the primary and secondary are the same defensive stat and the religion skill is INT-based. With having to get points in to DEX, it would probably have been a bit too MAD.


----------



## Garthanos (May 6, 2010)

In real world terms an 8 might be seen as no big deal... somebody with extraordinary discipline that doesnt get distracted by other things when aiming and has extraordinary perception and practices a lot... could be good at archery. .. even if his typing is crap and he cant dodge worth beans


----------



## Kurzak T (May 6, 2010)

*Not a fan*

Spirit of Healing was insanely good and needed a big nerfstick whack but to seriously nerf a core class ability (Healer's Lore) that's been in place from the beginning of the game just sucks.  The two combined make Spirit of Healing a waste of time.

Astral Seal did heal well but it was hardly overpowered.  I play a support cleric and at 16th level Astral Seal was never a guaranteed heal like healing word was.  The intended healing target would still miss regularly and I'm giving up a standard action to put the Seal on the bad guy.  I'll likely completely re-do my whole character concept and go to more of a damage dealing cleric.  I don't see the point of giving up all the other stuff I could be doing in a round to act as a support character when that support will now have little impact on our success or failure.  A minus 2 penalty to defenses isn't even worth bothering with.


----------



## keterys (May 6, 2010)

Kurzak T said:


> Spirit of Healing was insanely good and needed a big nerfstick whack but to seriously nerf a core class ability (Healer's Lore) that's been in place from the beginning of the game just sucks.  The two combined make Spirit of Healing a waste of time.




I'm pretty sure getting 4-9 healing per hit, for a combat, is a pretty good thing. It's like Stirring Shout on every enemy for half your party. That's really good.



> Astral Seal did heal well but it was hardly overpowered.




The internet begs to differ. Heck, my own play experience begs to differ, but I can tell you that there are hundreds of posts about how overpowered and broken Astral Seal is, on this forum, on wotc's forums, etc.



> I play a support cleric and at 16th level Astral Seal was never a guaranteed heal like healing word was.




But, it was one that was at-will and surgeless.



> I'm giving up a standard action to put the Seal on the bad guy.  ...  A minus 2 penalty to defenses isn't even worth bothering with.




You vastly underestimate the effect of a -2 to all defenses. It's a very good thing, and very often equivalent (or even better, in some groups) to if you yourself did a damaging attack. Astral Seal also has a +2 attack on its own, which makes it very likely to land round to round.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 7, 2010)

Spirit of Healing and Astral Seal were not the reasons for the Healer's Lore nerf.

Well, okay, they -were- but not the only reasons-- Consecrated Ground, all sorts of repeatable healing were much a problem.  It's -repeatable- healing that is the problem, not just 'surgeless'.  If it uses a daily, that's a resource gone just the same.


----------



## babinro (May 7, 2010)

Does the change to aura's essentially mean that all creatures operate like Chillborn Zombies? (pg 275MM1) in that their aura damage stack with creatures of the same type?

If so, I really like the change.  It makes standing up next to aura creatures deadly and promotes more positioning tactics.  It will also ramp up the difficulty of such encounters significantly.


----------



## keterys (May 7, 2010)

Yep, everything works like Chillborn now. Fear the Bloodfire Harpies


----------



## Ferghis (May 7, 2010)

sigfile said:


> Kingreaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm very happy with this update but I have to say that I agree with Dracosuave. The Cure X Wounds powers have language that specifically say "as if the target spent a healing surge." This language means, unequivocally, that the power acts in all ways as if a healing surge was spent. The ONLY exception is that a healing surge is not actually spent. If they meant that the power heals an amount of HP equal to a healing surge (or two or three), then they should have said just that. They've used that kind of language elsewhere. And they obviously had thought it through, since it was corrected so quickly. But they should have put the correction in the update. As things stand now, there is an update, and there is an authoritative forum post that contradicts it.

And I'm not being cavillous here. It's annoying that a game director came out on a message board to correct this mistake shortly after the update came out. For what it's worth, I realize that the job of desiging a game as complex and massive as the fourth edition of D&D is frought with difficulty. They do have my sympathy. Still, the game apparently is in immediate need of another update to the update.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 7, 2010)

More importantly, look at this language:

'"Corellon’s Implement (11th level): Choose an arcane implement that you specialize in, whether the wand, staff, or orb. You can use a longsword as if it were that type of arcane implement when casting your spells."   (Wizard of the Spiral Tower, PHB)

If Cure Light Wounds does not benefit from Healing Lore, then that tears apart a LARGE number of the rules fabric regarding sarrogate or substitution-based powers and abilities.  The precident becomes:  "Using something as if it were that thing does not mean that you benefit from that thing."

That means that Corellon's Implement now means that if you use a long sword to use your arcane powers, you no longer are able to use your Implement Mastery for that chosen implement; it's pretty clear however the intention behind this is that you ARE able to do so.

Such a ruling extends behind Cure Light Wounds; it actually tears apart a number of rules in the game.  In other words, it breaks 4e.

That's why the ruling cannot stand, if it does, 4th edition breaks; I don't disagree with the intent of the ruling, but either Healer's Lore needs re-errata, or every 'foo as if bar' ability in the game would have to be errata'd to do what they're supposed to do.


----------



## keterys (May 7, 2010)

Eh, there are some limits to that. For example, Virtuous Recovery gives you resistance to damage when you spend a healing surge. Do you get it when a cleric uses cure light wounds on you?

No, you didn't spend a surge.

So, now we have two things:

Cure Light Wounds
The target regains hp as if it had spent a healing surge.

Healer's Lore
When you let a creature spend a healing surge to regain hit points with one of your cleric powers that has the healing keyword, add your Wisdom modifier to the hit points the recipient regains.

Does the power let a creature spend a healing surge? 

Nope. The power unequivocally does not allow the creature to spend a healing surge.

I'd personally have let it work, but it not working doesn't break 4e. Don't go hyperbolic for effect


----------



## Ferghis (May 7, 2010)

I have to say that the fix is easy. Just change the Cure Light Wounds power to state "The target regains hit points equal to a surge value." Make similar changes to the other Cure X Wounds. If you want to be super-precise, add "... but does not spend any surges" to the end of the sentence. I realize this occupies space in the errata, but at this point, that horse has left the barn months and months ago.



keterys said:


> Eh, there are some limits to that. For example, Virtuous Recovery gives you resistance to damage when you spend a healing surge. Do you get it when a cleric uses cure light wounds on you?
> 
> No, you didn't spend a surge.



Well, CLW says "The target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge." Not "The target gains all the benefits, including recovering hit points, as if it had spent a healing surge." That paladin feat in no way cures hit points. Healer's Lore does.


----------



## keterys (May 8, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> Well, CLW says "The target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge." Not "The target gains all the benefits, including recovering hit points, as if it had spent a healing surge." That paladin feat in no way cures hit points. Healer's Lore does.




And Healer's Lore only triggers on powers where you let a target spend a surge. 

And CLW isn't a power where you let a target spend a surge. It just isn't.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 8, 2010)

keterys said:


> And Healer's Lore only triggers on powers where you let a target spend a surge.
> 
> And CLW isn't a power where you let a target spend a surge. It just isn't.




Except that Cure Light Wounds says you regain hit points as if you gained a healing surge.

Notice that... things that are involved in regaining hit points are treated as if you spent a healing surge.

If you have a feat that increases the number of hit points you get when spending a healing surge, it works with Cure Light Wounds, because, according to Cure Light Wounds, for the purposes of regaining hit points, you are treated as if you had spent a healing surge.

That's what 'Do X as if Y' means in the ruleset.  It doesn't mean 'You do X, but you don't treat it as if you had done Y.'  That's something else entirely.


Follow along:

Healing lore says you regain additional hit points when a Cleric power allows you to spend a healing surge.  Cure Light Wounds is a cleric power that gives you hit points -as if you had spent a healing surge-.  

If you had spent a healing surge, Healing Lore would give you hit points.  Therefore you gain the amount of hit points you'd have gotten if you'd spent a healing surge:  Surge value + Clerics Wisdom mod.

X as if you do Y means certain things in the game, and if you undermine that, you break the game rules.  That's not desirable.  So yes, Healing Lore requires more errata for it to exclude CLW.


----------



## MarkB (May 8, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Follow along:
> 
> Healing lore says you regain additional hit points when a Cleric power allows you to spend a healing surge.  Cure Light Wounds is a cleric power that gives you hit points -as if you had spent a healing surge-.




But _not_ -as if you had been affected by a Cleric power that let you spend a healing surge-.

The effects of Healer's Lore aren't invoked in that hypothetical - it simply returns a value for what the target critter would heal if _it_ spent a surge. You then plumb that figure into the actual power, and apply any modifiers derived from it being a Cleric power. Which, as of the update, does not include Healer's Lore.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 8, 2010)

why not decide it at the table for yourselves... no harm done... and for LFR a ruling was just made... not the right one IMHO, but still a reasonable...


----------



## keterys (May 8, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> X as if you do Y means certain things in the game, and if you undermine that, you break the game rules.  That's not desirable.  So yes, Healing Lore requires more errata for it to exclude CLW.




It doesn't require errata, though it could use an FAQ. It's not breaking game rules. Is it, perhaps, undesirable? Well, sure, that's totally different.

If a Ruffian Rogue is attacking with a mace, he's able to use his mace in any power that requires a light blade, and get his sneak attack. Great. He can't use Light Blade Precision or Deft Blade, which actually require a light blade though.

If Healer's Lore granted a saving throw, temporary hp, a shift, or anything other than hp, you'd be clear that it didn't apply to Cure Light Wounds under the new wording. You're clear it doesn't because you're approaching the problem from one direction (the cleric goes 'Hey, have a free surge at +15') instead of from the other direction (the target goes 'Okay, I get a free surge' and the cleric goes 'I get to add 3 to all healing powers, and, hmm, this other stuff doesn't matter since you didn't spend a surge. So have another 3.')

If they had worded Healer's Lore differently - there'd be no wriggle room. But they didn't. So we'll get table variance on how it's played, but it's clear how WotC wants it handled and that is a valid interpretation. So, that's fine, moving right along.


----------



## boar (May 8, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> If you have a feat that increases the number of hit points you get when spending a healing surge, it works with Cure Light Wounds, because, according to Cure Light Wounds, for the purposes of regaining hit points, you are treated as if you had spent a healing surge.




Draco, normally you're spot on with your rules interpretations, but you're simply incorrect here.  Feats don't "increase the number of hit points you get when spending a surge."  This is unusually sloppy and inaccurate language, coming from you.  Feats and items *add a bonus to your surge value,* e.g. Dwarven Durability:

_Benefit: Increase your number of healing surges by two and *your healing surge value by* your Constitution modifier._

When your surge value increases, then of course Cure X Wounds takes the bump into account -- it has to use your surge value to figure out the number of hitpoints to restore.  This is entirely different from something that triggers when you actually spend a surge.

In other words: no, the ruling doesn't break 4e.  There is nothing contradictory about Cure X Wounds working with Dwarven Durability and not working with Healer's Lore.


----------



## phil500 (May 8, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> why not decide it at the table for yourselves... no harm done... and for LFR a ruling was just made... not the right one IMHO, but still a reasonable...




what ruling was that?

as for the nerf to astral seal: i dont see anyone talking about the nerf to recovery strike.  that was even more damaging since str/cha clerics have almost no support.

recovery strike was bordering on being op with the power of love domain.  +5 temp hp to 2 alllies instead of damage?  pretty good, at paragon it becomes +10.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 8, 2010)

No healers lore on CLW etc...


----------



## DracoSuave (May 8, 2010)

keterys said:


> It doesn't require errata, though it could use an FAQ. It's not breaking game rules. Is it, perhaps, undesirable? Well, sure, that's totally different.
> 
> If a Ruffian Rogue is attacking with a mace, he's able to use his mace in any power that requires a light blade, and get his sneak attack. Great. He can't use Light Blade Precision or Deft Blade, which actually require a light blade though.




That's not the equivalent argument tho.

Ruthless Ruffian is:

Ruthless Ruffian: You are proficient with the club and the mace, and you can use those weapons with Sneak Attack or any rogue power that normally
requires a light blade. If you use a club or a mace to deliver an attack that has the rattling keyword, add your Strength modifier to the damage roll.

It's not the same wording.

The argument here isn't that you didn't spend a healing surge.  The argument is that you regain hit points as if you'd spent a healing surge.  Are you saying you do not regain hit points as if you'd spent a healing surge?



More importantly, the argument that it breaks the game isn't about CLW specifically.  It's about setting the precident that 'Do X as if it were Y' abilities do not actually do so.  That means that -other- abilities that allow 'as if it were' type substitutions no longer work.  An example was given above of how it falls apart, in Wizard of the Spiral Tower.  That would mean that the wizard who took that class couldn't use Accurate Wand or Staff of Defense or Orb of Imposition.  

The argument against CLW giving hit points goes like this:

You regain hit points as if you spent a healing surge.
-But you didn't actually do so, so Healing Lore doesn't kick in.
-So, therefore, you just get your surge value.

So applying that precident to other rules:

Wizard of the Spiral Tower:

You treat a longsword as if it were a staff of defense.
-But it's not actually a staff, so Staff of Defense is not available.
-So, therefore, you do not get your +1 to AC.

Conjurations:

You determine line of sight normally. but you determine line of effect from the conjuration. as if you were in its space.
-But it's not actually your space
-so stuff that blocks line of effect can still block it if it's between you and the enemy.


See, this is where it gets problematic.  Rules DO break down.  Healer's Lore needs additional errata to make it not work with CLW in order for it to function.

"When you let a creature spend a healing surge to regain hit points with one of your cleric powers that has the healing keyword, add your Wisdom modifier to the hit points the recipient regains."

The way CLW is written, it treats regaining hit points as if he had spent that surge.  Healer's Lore is a regaining hit point-affecting thing, so it fully applies.  If it did not, CLW would NOT be working as it is stated, it would NOT be letting you regain hps as if you spent that surge.

Either that or 'Do X as if it were Y' doesn't work.

One.  Or the other.  And the second breaks the game rules apart.


----------



## keterys (May 8, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> The argument here isn't that you didn't spend a healing surge.  The argument is that you regain hit points as if you'd spent a healing surge.  Are you saying you do not regain hit points as if you'd spent a healing surge?




Are you arguing that if Healer's Lore said:
'When you use a cleric healing power where the target spends a surge, they get a saving throw with a bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier'
that they'd get a saving throw from Cure Light Wounds? 

Or, to make it even more interesting:
Do you believe that a Battle Standard of Healing heals everyone in a group when Cure Light Wounds is used on someone?

If so, I believe you're quite wrong.
If not, then I don't understand why you think this breaks the game.

Either way, I think you're reading either too much or too little into this argument.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (May 8, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> The argument here isn't that you didn't spend a healing surge. ...




I may be late to this soiree, but... um... its not? I think this is the key point in the ruling.

a) CLW grants healing as if the target spent a surge, but a surge is not actually spent.

b) Healers Lore triggers when a cleric power enables a target to spend a healing surge.

a + b = Healer's Lore does not apply to CLW.



I agree with *keterys* in that I think you are reading too much into this one.


----------



## Mirtek (May 8, 2010)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> I agree with *keterys* in that I think you are reading too much into this one.



It's not this one, it's all the other instances using similar languages which are now wracked by this specific ruling.

RAI is clear, we heard it from the designers themselves, they didn't meant for HL to apply to CLW. However it seems as if the designers tripped over a snarl in their own rules language.

The way to make HL no longer apply to CLW would be the update CLW to just say "The target regains hit points equal to it's healing surge value" instead of "The target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge."

Because the "as if" wording has a special meaning in 4e rules language and their current answer about HL and CLW is generally changing this meaning across a lot of different powers. 

While it changes the meaning of CLW to match RAW, the changes it brings to a host of other powers is certainly not intended.

E.g. the Wizard of the Spiral Tower has already been mentioned as an example. Until the designers answer to HL and CLW, a Wand of Accuracy wizard could use his wand of accuracy feature while using a longsword. With the answer regarding to HL and CLW he can no longer do so, even if the answers certainly was never intended to affect any other instances of the "as if" rules language being used, that's what it does nonetheless.


Primitive Screwhead said:


> I agree with *keterys* in that I think you are reading too much into this one.



 In this case it's the designers not thinking enough into what the intend and what the actually write down and how what they say about case A does affect cases B, C, and D


----------



## DracoSuave (May 8, 2010)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> I may be late to this soiree, but... um... its not? I think this is the key point in the ruling.
> 
> a) CLW grants healing as if the target spent a surge, but a surge is not actually spent.
> 
> ...




Mirtek's got what I'm trying to say.

It's not that I disagree with the ruling, it's that the ruling now makes OTHER things break.

The other (and probably better fix) is to cause Healer's Lore to specify explicitly that it does not grant the hit points when a surge is not spent.

As it is, effects that treat things as if something else happen DO trigger that something else.  Yes, other healing surge triggers don't trigger, because Cure Light Wounds is specific in HOW it's treated:  You regain hitpoints as if... which means that additional saving throws, etc, aren't applicable.  But anything to do with regaining hit points IS.  And Healer's Lore is 100% absolutely a 'regaining hit points' effect.

The correct and elegant solution would be an additional 'You must actually spend a healing surge for this to take place; effects that mimic a spent healing surge will not benefit from this' on the end which solves the problem succinctly.


----------



## keterys (May 9, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> As it is, effects that treat things as if something else happen DO trigger that something else.  Yes, other healing surge triggers don't trigger, because Cure Light Wounds is specific in HOW it's treated:  You regain hitpoints as if... which means that additional saving throws, etc, aren't applicable.  But anything to do with regaining hit points IS.  And Healer's Lore is 100% absolutely a 'regaining hit points' effect.




So's a Battle Standard of Healing - it makes you regain hit points. But when you use Cure Light Wounds on a guy, and he goes 'Oh, do I get a hp from the battle standard cause I regain hp as if I spent a healing surge, and it makes me regain hp?' the cleric goes 'No, you didn't spend a surge.'

Replace Battle Standard with Healer's Lore, now, apparently. 

If the _target_ has a thing that says 'Add your constitution bonus (or item bonus, or whatever) to the amount of hp you regain when you spend a healing surge' then that would actually apply. Since it's 'as if they had spent a surge'.


----------



## Artoomis (May 9, 2010)

keterys said:


> Are you arguing that if Healer's Lore said:
> 'When you use a cleric healing power where the target spends a surge, they get a saving throw with a bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier'
> that they'd get a saving throw from Cure Light Wounds?
> 
> ...




Oh, please.  That is a archetypal red herring, because CLW grants "The target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge."

Only the *TARGET* gets *HIT POINTS*  as if it had spent a healing surge.

Other effects of spending a healing surge are outside the scope of CLW because they have nothing to do with the number of hit points granted.


----------



## keterys (May 9, 2010)

Actually, I wanted to be _really_ sure he didn't believe either of those things. Because if you do, you're right out of the conversation.

At which point, you're trying to establish the dividing line for imitation. 

Corellon's Implement says "*Corellon’s Implement (11th level)*: Choose an arcane implement  that you specialize in, whether the wand, staff, or orb. You can use a  longsword as if it were that type of arcane implement when casting your  spells." and some people will allow you to count it as a staff, and then use "Staff of Defense" wizard class feature to gain a defense bonus. Even though, it's not a staff, and they're not casting a spell. Some won't. There's table variation. Even before Healer's Lore, just because of the words "when casting your spells"

Just like there now will be with Healer's Lore.

And the game _won't break_.


----------



## keterys (May 9, 2010)

It may be easier to think of it as order of operations:

PC's got a feat that gives +2 feat bonus to damage with powers that deal fire damage. 

Creature has a power that allows it to convert damage that hit it, into fire damage from whatever it was before.

PC throws a Ray of Frost at the Creature, dealing 10 damage. Creature converts that into fire damage. It does not suddenly gain the +2 bonus to damage that PC gets when his powers deal fire damage.

Because his power didn't deal fire on examination or at cast, even though it eventually effectively did.

Cleric casts Cure Light Wounds, sees what applies. Hmm, some stuff doesn't, cause it's only on stuff when a healing surge is spent and the power doesn't spend a surge, so that feat doesn't apply to it. 

He then tells the target 'Hey, regain hp as if you spent a surge, but don't actually spend the surge'.

Out of curiosity, if you had a splufty feat: 'When you use a healing power where the target does not spend a surge, the target regains an additional Wisdom modifier hp' would that _also_ apply to CLW, in your theory?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (May 9, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> The correct and elegant solution would be an additional 'You must actually spend a healing surge for this to take place; effects that mimic a spent healing surge will not benefit from this' on the end which solves the problem succinctly.






			
				UPDATE said:
			
		

> When you let a creature spend a healing surge to regain hit points with one of your cleric powers that has the healing keyword,...




Ya see, this is where I get confused. Semantically your correct and elegant solution is the same as the WoTC update....

 I don't see this breaking any other 'as if..' rules either. I actually see this as enforcing the 'as if..' mechanic. Just like with "Corellon's Implement" there is a 'gain ability X when condition Z'

 With Corellon's Implement you get to "treat a sword as a staff implement" when "casting spells".
 With Healer's lore you get "add bonus HPs" when "target spends a surge".

If the caster isn't casting a spell, the sword doesnt count as a staff implement.
If the target does not spend a surge, you don't grant bonus HPs.

But maybe I am off base and ned to brush up on my grammer...


----------



## Istar (May 9, 2010)

Okay level 6 Half Elf rogue effectively retired, now its a definite penalty to be one.
And in fact they also nerfed Blood Iron Dagger.
Only took them 2 updates to the weapon this year to get it right, which is a bit slack in my mind.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 9, 2010)

Istar said:


> Okay level 6 Half Elf rogue effectively retired, now its a definite penalty to be one.
> And in fact they also nerfed Blood Iron Dagger.
> Only took them 2 updates to the weapon this year to get it right, which is a bit slack in my mind.



Can´t see te penalty of beeing a half elf rogue, sorry...

not optimal, ok... but a penalty?

with 18 dex, 15 cha and 15 con or 16 cha, 13 con you can hardly say it is a bad atribute array... take a good dilletant at will instead of one you only took to abuse 10 levels later and you are doing fine...


----------



## Istar (May 9, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Can´t see te penalty of beeing a half elf rogue, sorry...
> 
> not optimal, ok... but a penalty?
> 
> with 18 dex, 15 cha and 15 con or 16 cha, 13 con you can hardly say it is a bad atribute array... take a good dilletant at will instead of one you only took to abuse 10 levels later and you are doing fine...




Lol

Tell me one good at-will then that does better than a rogue one with 18 to 20 crit range ?

The monk burst 1 at-will ?


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (May 9, 2010)

Instead of looking at the half-elf's Dilettante ability as a way to increase your damage you could see it as a way to increase your versatility, e.g. if you find yourself in a situation where your rogue at-wills won't help you or your party much. Inescapable Blade and Executioner's Noose (Assassin) are worth looking at in case your rogue is immobilized, whereas Focusing Strike (Ardent) is good for a Cha-secondary rogue if one of your allies is stunned or dominated.


----------



## keterys (May 9, 2010)

Monk powers are actually extremely good, since you get both the move and the attack option.

And Twin Strike is still probably a good at-will whenever your static bonus is good - it's just less effective combined with daggermaster, but it's still better than many other rogue at-wills unless you want to move or gain combat advantage or whatever. Two attacks at 5% crit isn't quite as good as 15% crit chance, but it's pretty darn close, and two chances to land sneak attack is a boon, and two times the other static modifiers potentially eclipse Dex+Cha.

But, yeah, grabbing up a paladin, ardent, monk, seeker, ranger, assassin or warlock at-will is still good for a rogue, even if you aren't a very specific build trying to max out twin strike with daggermaster anymore.


----------



## BobTheNob (May 9, 2010)

Istar said:


> Okay level 6 Half Elf rogue effectively retired, now its a definite penalty to be one.
> And in fact they also nerfed Blood Iron Dagger.
> Only took them 2 updates to the weapon this year to get it right, which is a bit slack in my mind.



I dont understand this. To me (and Im not saying Im the best or final authority) the nerf to bloodiron was perfectly correct. In fact, its how we were playing it to date, which I was particularly pleased the rules aligned to.

Im guessing your rogue was a versatile dilletante twin strike cheese master build, in which case slap on the wrist to the player for putting pure mathematics and game legalities in front of gameplay and flavour.

I like to encourage players to build to a theme, and then work with them how to optomise within that. Not start with an optomisation and somehow develop that into a theme. That way, when the collection of numbers they call a character is finally destroyed by (quite correct) errata, we dont have the specious "Its not fair" arguments.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 9, 2010)

Istar said:


> Lol
> 
> Tell me one good at-will then that does better than a rogue one with 18 to 20 crit range ?
> 
> The monk burst 1 at-will ?



This was exactly what i took when tinkering with the build after commenting...  also took monk multiclass... even though the damage is lousy, a slide comes in very handy for a rogue. (Especially with the PHB 3 deadly draw feat)

edit: especially good if you look at the movement technique which comes for free with the at will...

edit2: and don´t forget, there are other good rogue paragon paths out there...


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 9, 2010)

BobTheNob said:


> I dont understand this. To me (and Im not saying Im the best or final authority) the nerf to bloodiron was perfectly correct. In fact, its how we were playing it to date, which I was particularly pleased the rules aligned to.




Indeed.  Again, I'm surprised that people read it any other way, same as Staff of Ruin.

Brad


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 10, 2010)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Indeed.  Again, I'm surprised that people read it any other way, same as Staff of Ruin.
> 
> Brad




There is a test for being able to read things that way to join Charop.

I failed that test.


----------



## Kishin (May 10, 2010)

I'm disappointed to see Throw and Stab nerfed largely because it was an alternative to Twin Strike (Which you may as well just auto-slot as a Ranger), but it was kinda super synergistic with Marauder's Rush.


----------



## Baumi (May 10, 2010)

Throw and Stab lost his damage potential but is IMHO much better now since it gives you a free move (no requirement to end your move adjacent to an enemy) which makes it much more versatile.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 10, 2010)

Kishin said:


> I'm disappointed to see Throw and Stab nerfed largely because it was an alternative to Twin Strike (Which you may as well just auto-slot as a Ranger), but it was kinda super synergistic with Marauder's Rush.




I kinda thought this was the -entire point- behind the Marauder Ranger's build.

Errata that fixes problems?  Sure.  Errata that makes removes a build option from the game?  Eh.

I'm kinda torn by how I feel about this one.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 10, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Errata that makes removes a build option from the game?  Eh.




I'm fairly certain that it doesn't do _that_.  Sounds like hyperbole to me.  Specifically, hyperbole of the "if my character class/race/option isn't the bestest, most optimized powergamer thing available, then it's GARBAGE!" variety.

But I could be wrong.  Correct me if so.


----------



## MrMyth (May 10, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> I kinda thought this was the -entire point- behind the Marauder Ranger's build.
> 
> Errata that fixes problems? Sure. Errata that makes removes a build option from the game? Eh.
> 
> I'm kinda torn by how I feel about this one.




I don't think the build option has been removed from the game in any way. Throw and Stab remains quite strong. Marauder's Rush remains a powerful base for a charging ranger build. I don't see how the inability to combine those elements, though, prevents anyone from using them individually.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I don't think the build option has been removed from the game in any way. Throw and Stab remains quite strong. Marauder's Rush remains a powerful base for a charging ranger build. I don't see how the inability to combine those elements, though, prevents anyone from using them individually.




I didn't say the powers.  I was refering to the Marauder build option, which was 'Take power that lets you charge, and take power that can be used on charge.'  It's not that these are two powers that accidentally combined like peanut butter and chocolate... but more like they were presented in a manufactured Reese's Cup form, advertising that you have them both and they both taste delicious.

It was finally a build where Twin Strike wasn't needed, you could have two powers that, individually, were decent utility, but together were competitive damage.  It was a much needed breath of fresh air.

Now Rangers go 'Throw and Stab, and Twin-Strike' or 'Marauder's Rush, and Twin-Strike', and few go with the actually build in the book for them.  Thusly bringing Rangers back into the 'most seriously boring class in the game' catagory.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 10, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Now Rangers go 'Throw and Stab, and Twin-Strike' or 'Marauder's Rush, and Twin-Strike', and few go with the actually build in the book for them.  Thusly bringing Rangers back into the 'most seriously boring class in the game' catagory.




If people are only willing to play the most optimal stuff, then I have no pity for their being bored. The other options ARE there, whether they are the best or not.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 10, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> If people are only willing to play the most optimal stuff, then I have no pity for their being bored. The other options ARE there, whether they are the best or not.




It's not a matter of being optimal, Twin-Strike is just too overshadowing to make picking other at-wills worth the utility, and the utility of those at-wills is too underwhelming to take more than one of them.

Let's face it, you ARE a striker, so doing pin-point damage IS part of your duty.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 10, 2010)

But you could do more damage with Throw and Stab (the new version) than Twin Strike, AND get a whole free move out of it.

It's still an amazingly good power, if a bit more restrictive in how you use it.

With all of the stuff you could stack onto charging, and a very high Strength and Wisdom, I'd bet you could do more damage with Marauder's Rush than Twin Strike, too.  And get movement as part of the bargain.

Twin Strike is just the _easiest_ way to do good damage, requiring the least amount of tactics to employ effectively.  It's not necessarily better than either of those other two, and at least some of the time, could be considered worse.


----------



## MrMyth (May 10, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> It's not a matter of being optimal, Twin-Strike is just too overshadowing to make picking other at-wills worth the utility, and the utility of those at-wills is too underwhelming to take more than one of them.
> 
> Let's face it, you ARE a striker, so doing pin-point damage IS part of your duty.




Throw and Stab is comparable with Twin Strike, especially for a build designed around it. I'd say that you could certainly take it, along with Marauder's Rush, without feeling the loss of Twin Strike. 

Especially since an optimized build for this would likely involve some form of throwing Fullblade or the like, rendering Twin Strike not an option anyway. 

The build remains solid, and Throw and Stab remains useful. No need for Twin Strike to even enter the picture.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 10, 2010)

disagreed...

twinstrike doesn´t give any utility at all, demands two high enchanted weapons and doesn´t do a lot more damage if you are not crit fishing...

shift 2 at will seems a lot better to me even if you don´t use the attack mode at all...

the hole is fixed, live with it...

@marauders rush and throw and stab:
the combo was a bit too obvious... and not a bit better than twin strike + anything else...


----------



## bganon (May 10, 2010)

[Edit: totally ninja'd, was responding to DracoSuave]

I think you underestimate how good Marauder's Rush can still be in a charge build.  Simply taking Powerful Charge and grabbing a Horned Helm can push Marauder's Rush DPR quite high, well above vanilla Twin Strike (dunno about super-optimized Twin Strike, but I bet it's still competitive).

Pre-errata, the Throw and Stab+Marauder's Rush combo was *strictly better* than Twin Strike in almost every way.  It was basically two Str-based attacks, total damage 1[W] "offhand" + 1[W]+Str+Wis "main hand", plus it enabled full charge-build optimization.  The only disadvantage is you don't get such great damage dice off the thrown part, but Ranger powers are basically all about static bonuses anyway.  Now it's been nerfed to 1[W] "offhand" + 1[W]+Str "main hand" vs a different target... that's still good. 

I think plenty of Marauder-Style Rangers will still want to take both Throw and Stab and Marauder's Rush.  Also, both enable you to get the Running Attack bonus, which Twin Strike doesn't.  They're still good powers.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 10, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> disagreed...
> 
> twinstrike doesn´t give any utility at all, demands two high enchanted weapons and doesn´t do a lot more damage if you are not crit fishing...




Or use any feat or item that increases damage rolls.

Weapon Focus is double strength.  Iron Armbands of Power double their effectiveness.  And it inherently multiplies your DPR contribution from Hunter's Quarry by 1.5 by dint of being able to apply it more often.

Twin-Strike is not merely a crit-fisher.  That's just -one- application of it.


----------



## kaomera (May 10, 2010)

Throw & Stab + Marauder's Rush was way too obvious of a combo, because they where specifically supposed to compliment one-another. That was to be the basis of the Marauder build, now you have Throw & Stab and something else, and the power named after the build no longer even has a real place in it. Actually, I was almost worried that the "solution" to one of the Ranger's at-wills being nearly a fixed value was going to be a build where both the at-wills where fixed, so at least that's cleared up...

Throw & Stab seems to be a good way of taking the traditionally very focused-firing Ranger and spreading out the damage, if that's something you want to do. The only way I can see that working out really well is if you're handing out conditions somehow... Pair it with Hit & Run and you can move out to Throw & Stab two more targets...

Marauder's Rush also seems like it could pair well with Hit & Run, for a charging build. This actually seems like it could work as a two-hander build. (Maybe?) Both of these options seem like they're more Barbarian than Ranger, actually...

Of course, either of these at-wills can also compliment Twin Strike, being good ways to reach your target.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 11, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Or use any feat or item that increases damage rolls.
> 
> Weapon Focus is double strength.  Iron Armbands of Power double their effectiveness.  And it inherently multiplies your DPR contribution from Hunter's Quarry by 1.5 by dint of being able to apply it more often.
> 
> Twin-Strike is not merely a crit-fisher.  That's just -one- application of it.



yeah, but in the context of rogue daggermaster it is. 

Also you may not forget that careful attack gives a +2 bonus to attack AND strength to damage. So the gap is becoming lower. Also you only need one top weapon and you may use a parrying dagger in the off hand to increase your defenses.

rogues have an attack that is against reflex which may be even better than a +2 bonus to hit. Twin strike is very good, but it makes you very item (and feat) dependant.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 11, 2010)

kaomera said:


> Throw & Stab + Marauder's Rush was way too obvious of a combo, because they where specifically supposed to compliment one-another. That was to be the basis of the Marauder build, now you have Throw & Stab and something else, and the power named after the build no longer even has a real place in it.




marauders rush can be used in conjunction with encounter powers that allow a throw and a charge (hurling charge e.g.)

it is still a very good opening combo. and if you have no adjacent target you can still use it.

So in a surprise round quarry, throw, marauder rush (a single standard action by the use of hurling charge) with dirty fighting has the potential to take the first enemy out. Of course you need to have high wisdowm to make it worth taking.


----------



## Shazman (May 11, 2010)

I understand that some of the things they nerfed seemed to be on the strong side, but, quite frankly, I think the game needs things like ranger/fighter/pitfighters and half-elf avengers with twin strike and daggermaster to help PC's deal enough damage to take out foes in a reasonable amount of time.  In the end, I think these changes will only serve to help drag out paragon level combats even more.


----------



## MrMyth (May 11, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I understand that some of the things they nerfed seemed to be on the strong side, but, quite frankly, I think the game needs things like ranger/fighter/pitfighters and half-elf avengers with twin strike and daggermaster to help PC's deal enough damage to take out foes in a reasonable amount of time. In the end, I think these changes will only serve to help drag out paragon level combats even more.




My party of optimized PCs, at level 25, tossed out something like 900 damage in a single round against the last solo they came up against. And that was only with 2-3 PCs actually focusing resources on the fight. 

I am confident you can have high damage PCs without needing these extreme optimization tricks. Saying that you need these very specific combos is just silly - plenty of games out there don't feature them, and plenty more have entirely average PCs that still get through fights in a reasonable amount of time. 

Given that WotC is also apparently moving towards more use of monsters that are lower hp and higher damage (based on MM2 solos, and potentially indicated by Dark Sun previews), I think getting rid of such clearly unbalanced mechanics is absolutely in the best interest of the game.


----------



## kaomera (May 11, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> marauders rush can be used in conjunction with encounter powers that allow a throw and a charge (hurling charge e.g.)



Ah, thanx. It's what I get for going to the compendium instead of my books, I was only looking at the at-wills.


----------



## DracoSuave (May 11, 2010)

As an aside, I've never -really- got the whole charge-based min/maxing idea in terms of -real- CharOp.  It's always seemed kinda niche for me, and a one trick pony.

After all, it's a single target damage build, but it seems it's single target damage plan is to:

Step 1) Charge the enemy really hard.
Step 2) ????
Step 3) Profit!


Don't get me wrong, the charge is REALLY good... but most charging-based characters are underpants gnomes, they don't do anything good -but- charge.


----------



## keterys (May 11, 2010)

I've got a not-charge-based lvl 17 barbarian (thunderborn / iron vanguard) who, in most fights (ie, ones in which I have a decent rage going) can charge for about 5d6+36. If I were actually built for charging, I'd have another 2d6+2 to 2d6+8 on there I suppose. Maybe more, haven't looked too closely at it.

Which is on par or better than a some of my more situational encounter powers (like the one that gives a -6 to all defenses only does like 4d6+30), but two clearly do more damage than that - something like 5d6+48 for one and 3d6+42 for another (along with pushing or granting combat advantage, and actually hitting all enemies in a close blast 4 for a decent slice of that damage). 

Meh, I'd not want to get stuck charging _every_ round.


----------



## kaomera (May 11, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> As an aside, I've never -really- got the whole charge-based min/maxing idea in terms of -real- CharOp.  It's always seemed kinda niche for me, and a one trick pony.



Seriously optimized charge builds try and have a way to repeat the process. But I think that one of the reasons there are so many good bonuses available for charging is that it's supposed to be situational. I haven't seen what I would consider a CharOp-level charging build, but I've seen several PCs built to be good at charging, among other things, and they seem to be plenty effective without sacrificing all of their options to be a "super-charger".


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 11, 2010)

kaomera said:


> Ah, thanx. It's what I get for going to the compendium instead of my books, I was only looking at the at-wills.



actually i looked at the compendium... but actually i skipped throw and stab before the nerf when i tried building a marauder, because i thougt one charge at the beginning with hurling charge is enough and then stay in melee using a non throwing weapon in the off hand


----------



## Iron Sky (May 11, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> As an aside, I've never -really- got the whole charge-based min/maxing idea in terms of -real- CharOp.  It's always seemed kinda niche for me, and a one trick pony.
> 
> After all, it's a single target damage build, but it seems it's single target damage plan is to:
> 
> ...




The barbarian in my group ends up charging pretty much every round where he isn't immobilized or restrained.  Boots of Adept Charging are the most important single item to pull it off (shift 1 after a charge).  He just charges and shifts back.  If the enemy pursues, he shifts away from them and charges something else, otherwise he just backs up and charges them again.

Most of his encounter powers are to use when he can't charge(Avalanche Strike for example).  They tend to do about the same damage (or a bit less) than he does charging with his at-will Howling Strike.

As for your last comment, when you do around 40 damage a round at level 11 with an at-will charge (he's done 150 or more in a round when there's a crit involved), you don't _need_ to do anything else.  He would regularly deal as much damage a round as the sorcerer and the assassin _combined_...


----------



## CovertOps (May 11, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> It's not this one, it's all the other instances using similar languages which are now wracked by this specific ruling.
> 
> RAI is clear, we heard it from the designers themselves, they didn't meant for HL to apply to CLW. However it seems as if the designers tripped over a snarl in their own rules language.
> 
> ...




I think you've missed the obvious.  Specific beats general.  Normally CLW would be the specific (with it's "as if" wording) and Healer's Lore would be the general, but in this case Healer's Lore specifically says the ability must allow you to spend a surge.  CLW does not allow this so it does not apply.  Also since specific beats general it doesn't break any other rules using the "as if" wording because it only applies to this situation.


----------



## The Bluemanarc (Oct 11, 2018)

Samir said:


> Temple of Brilliance was nerfed so that it blinds everyone in the zone except for the target. It's not particularly good anymore.




Yes it is, as target is "Creature" so you just put in on yourself, has same power set up structure as paladins Lay on Hands.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 16, 2018)

The Bluemanarc said:


> Yes it is, as target is "Creature" so you just put in on yourself, has same power set up structure as paladins Lay on Hands.



You'd have to hurt yourself in the process, wouldn't you?


----------



## The Bluemanarc (Oct 16, 2018)

Minimal damage, 2D6 plus Wisdom, or half on a miss, don't use your Symbol.
You could put it on your tank.
But more fun on yourself, being able to constantly Blind all enemy within 2 who ends turn there.
And great for a Pursuit Avenger, they either go Blind or move away and you get your extra damage.


----------



## MwaO (Oct 16, 2018)

pemerton said:


> You'd have to hurt yourself in the process, wouldn't you?




There are some legitimate target problems there...


----------



## Morrus (Oct 16, 2018)

The Bluemanarc said:


> Yes it is, as target is "Creature" so you just put in on yourself, has same power set up structure as paladins Lay on Hands.




The post you replied to was made in May 2018, over 8 years ago.


----------



## The Bluemanarc (Oct 16, 2018)

snore snore ..........


----------



## The Bluemanarc (Oct 16, 2018)

Morrus said:


> The post you replied to was made in May 2018, over 8 years ago.




I think I have just over slept and woke up in 2026 

Damn Nurse Who

Never should have left a woman in charge of that Tardis


----------

