PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Playing Githzerai



Gralamin
2009-08-16, 11:31 PM
This is a fairly good D&Di article. A bit of power creep in some of the feats.

One problem I did have though, and I encourage anyone else with a D&D Insider subscritiption to let them know about, is this ability and how HORRIBLY WORDED it is.


Rebalanced Mind (11th level): Reduce the
total penalty you are taking to your attack rolls, skill
checks, or ability checks by 2.

erikun
2009-08-17, 12:44 AM
So you ignore penalities up to -2? A racial reason to actually wear chair armor? :smalltongue:

It doesn't sound too bad, considering it allows the character to basically ignore marks, as they won't suffer the penality. Well, besides being possibly hit. I agree that the wording is funny, but as I don't have DDI.... *shrug*

The New Bruceski
2009-08-17, 04:08 AM
So you ignore penalities up to -2? A racial reason to actually wear chair armor? :smalltongue:

It doesn't sound too bad, considering it allows the character to basically ignore marks, as they won't suffer the penality. Well, besides being possibly hit. I agree that the wording is funny, but as I don't have DDI.... *shrug*

The thing is, if I have -1 to attacks, skills and abilities, do I ignore all three, or pick two? "reduce the total penalty" and all that.

Jothki
2009-08-17, 04:09 AM
The thing is, if I have -1 to attacks, skills and abilities, do I ignore all three, or pick two? "reduce the total penalty" and all that.

I'd assume that that just means penalties from every source.

FlawedParadigm
2009-08-17, 04:30 AM
As worded, you pick two, and the third still applies. Gral and I got into this on IRC - that's exactly why it has that clumsy wording instead of something like "reduce all penalties to x, y, and z by two", which is much more elegant. That's the only reason "total" has to be in there.

Yakk
2009-08-17, 02:31 PM
As I don't think there is a "when you can do it" restriction to that ability (it is a paragon path, right?) it makes sense that it applies independently to each of the 3.

Ie, whenever you make a roll that is under the category (attack rolls, skill
checks, or ability checks), and you are suffering some penalty, you get to ignore 2 of it. You don't get to ignore 2 of each penalty (so if you are suffering a -2, a -1 and a -3 (total of -6), you don't end up with -0, -0, -1 (total of -1) -- instead, you reduce the total penalty of -6 to -4).

The interpretation that you only get 2 points of penalty mitigation to spread over all 3 options ends up being silly, because there are no rules for reallocating it.

And as a final pass, the penalty-ignoring applying independently doesn't seem too good, so it passes the balance sanity check.

FlawedParadigm
2009-08-17, 03:04 PM
It doesn't matter if it passes the sanity check. As written, that's not what it does.

Now chances are, I'd probably houserule it to be that it DOES do that, because I really don't see it being that unbalanced in the rare situations it'd ever come up anyhow. It's not too often you're going to be getting penalties to hit, skills, and/or ability checks at the same time. Unless someone tosses a skill challenge in the middle of your combat or something. As I said in IRC:

'Sup dawg i herd u liek rolling so i put a skill challenge in ur combat so u can skill whiel u kill

But, as it is (terribly) worded, it does even less than you'd like. Sorry.

Sir Homeslice
2009-08-17, 03:14 PM
Free Power Attack and Doube Team is insidiously pimpage.

jmbrown
2009-08-17, 03:41 PM
The power says or meaning 1 of the 3. If you suffer from a -2 to attacks and a -2 to skill rolls, you choose to lessen either the attack or skill rolls but not both.

dragoonsgone
2009-08-17, 04:32 PM
The power says or meaning 1 of the 3. If you suffer from a -2 to attacks and a -2 to skill rolls, you choose to lessen either the attack or skill rolls but not both.

This is what I read.

There are some other nice feats in the article.

Githzerai Blade Master
Prerequisite: Githzerai
Benefit: You gain proficiency with all military
heavy blades, as well as the bastard sword and the
fullblade. Additionally, you gain a +2 feat bonus
to damage rolls with these weapons. This bonus
increases to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.

Mando Knight
2009-08-17, 04:58 PM
Githzerai Blade Master
Prerequisite: Githzerai
Benefit: You gain proficiency with all military
heavy blades, as well as the bastard sword and the
fullblade. Additionally, you gain a +2 feat bonus
to damage rolls with these weapons. This bonus
increases to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.

That is a juicy feat. It's better than Weapon Focus (Heavy Blade), and it grants proficiency in the Bastard Sword, making it the most solid feat for a Githzerai swordsman.

Mauril Everleaf
2009-08-17, 04:59 PM
I have a question, one that I have seen on a lot of racial feats.

In this case, a feat lists prerequisites as being Githzerai and having the the iron mind racial power. Since this comes as a feature of simply being a Githzerai, and not from having a certain class feature or picking up a certain other feat. So why is it necessary to list this extra prereq? If there were feats that said you could trade your iron mind racial power for some other racial power, then it would make sense. But no such thing exists, so all Githzerai have the iron mind racial power.

RTGoodman
2009-08-17, 05:06 PM
I think it's because there are ways to be considered a member of a race without actually being a member (and thus, without having their racial power). Revenants, specifically, can pick any one race, and count as a member of that race for the purpose of feats, PPs, and so on. However, they DON'T automatically gain the racial power, so a Revenant that had formerly been a Githzerai can qualify for Githzerai Blade Master, but can't qualify for the ones that require iron mind.

Mauril Everleaf
2009-08-17, 05:10 PM
Valid point. I had forgotten about Revenants, despite having built a revenant(dwarf) paladin just the other day.

Excoriating Strands has me a little confused. Not in how it works, but why it was worded thusly.

[quote]Hit: 3d10 + your highest ability modifier psychic damage, and
the target loses all resistances and immunities (save ends).
This damage ignores resist psychic and insubstantial.
Aftereffect: The target loses all resistances and immunities
(save ends).
Miss: Half damage, and the target loses all resistances and
immunities (save ends). This damage ignores resist psychic
and insubstantial.[quote]

Essentially the critter has to make two successful saves to remove the resistances and immunities on a hit, and just one on a miss, right?

erikun
2009-08-17, 05:15 PM
Interesting feat. It feels like it should be a Githyanki feat, though - they are known to be the Gish Blademages, after all. I haven't read much lore on the Githzerai, but I didn't think of them a sword-swinging martial warriors.


Since this comes as a feature of simply being a Githzerai, and not from having a certain class feature or picking up a certain other feat. So why is it necessary to list this extra prereq?
Would a Revenant Githzerai have the Iron Mind racial power, or the Revenant's racial power instead? Other than that, no clue.

Artanis
2009-08-17, 05:16 PM
Valid point. I had forgotten about Revenants, despite having built a revenant(dwarf) paladin just the other day.

Excoriating Strands has me a little confused. Not in how it works, but why it was worded thusly.

Hit: 3d10 + your highest ability modifier psychic damage, and
the target loses all resistances and immunities (save ends).
This damage ignores resist psychic and insubstantial.
Aftereffect: The target loses all resistances and immunities
(save ends).
Miss: Half damage, and the target loses all resistances and
immunities (save ends). This damage ignores resist psychic
and insubstantial.

Essentially the critter has to make two successful saves to remove the resistances and immunities on a hit, and just one on a miss, right?

Pretty much, yeah.

dragoonsgone
2009-08-17, 05:25 PM
Interesting feat. It feels like it should be a Githyanki feat, though - they are known to be the Gish Blademages, after all. I haven't read much lore on the Githzerai, but I didn't think of them a sword-swinging martial warriors.


Would a Revenant Githzerai have the Iron Mind racial power, or the Revenant's racial power instead? Other than that, no clue.

Revenant's racial power, ability score bonuses, skill bonuses etc. You just qualify for Githzerai feats, PP, and epic destiny.

Another example is Half Elf. They don't have Elven Accuracy but can take any other Elf feat.

Ninetail
2009-08-17, 08:46 PM
Hmm. That is a little ambiguous, but not the "total penalty" part.

"Rebalanced Mind (11th level): Reduce the total penalty you are taking to your attack rolls, skill checks, or ability checks by 2. "

The "total penalty" would be the sum of all penalties. If you're marked and you have a -2 to hit from, say, the PC leader's power, then your total penalty to attack rolls is -4. You can reduce this by 2, to -2.

The phrase "attack rolls, skill checks, or ability checks" is the ambiguous part. The question is whether the "or" here is exclusive.

If not, then it's essentially saying "if you have a penalty to A or B or C (or all three), ignore up to 2 points of it." It uses or instead of and because and would indicate that you needed to have penalties to all three rolls/checks in order to apply the ability. As phrased, you might have a penalty to all three, or you might just have a penalty to one.

However, if it is meant to be exclusive, then you get to choose to ignore the penalty to ONE of A or B or C. I'm not sure it makes sense, here -- if it were just "attack rolls or skill checks" I might lean this way, but ability checks? How many of those are there in 4e? Also, in 4e, when there's a choice of this sort, the phrasing often (though not always) indicates that that player choice exists.

Yakk
2009-08-18, 09:43 AM
Existing verbage:
When moving or shifting, increase the distance you are allowed to move by 2.
When you make a burst or blast attack, increase the size of the attack by 1.

You'll note that or does not mean 'exclusive or' in English or D&Dish.

As you are only rolling one of these at any time, the ability to swap between which of them you are using as a non-action or the ability to apply to whatever roll you are currently doing is identical. The reading of 'or' meaning 'any of this list' is consistent with other D&D use of the term or.

Ie, if you read it strictly (it only applies to one of them at a time!), it doesn't matter because you only roll one check at a time. And on top of that, that 'strict reading' is not the only valid reading -- the 'more lenient' reading ends up doing the same thing, is consistent with what is written, and doesn't require 'oh, and I now change my penalty-nullification over from attack rolls to attribute checks'.

Of course, there is the stupidly strict reading -- that it applies only to the total penalty. It has no impact whatsoever on the penalty to any one of your attack rolls, skill checks or ability checks -- it only has impact when you are dealing with the total penalty of all of them. This also fails the 'makes no sense' check, because there are no mechanics in 4e that talk about total penalties.

In practice, the ability means that whenever you make any of the listed roll types, and are taking a penalty, you reduce the total penalty you are taking by 2. This reduces the impact of cover, concealment, your sword being hit by a rust monster, etc.

Ninetail
2009-08-18, 03:25 PM
Existing verbage:
When moving or shifting, increase the distance you are allowed to move by 2.
When you make a burst or blast attack, increase the size of the attack by 1.

You'll note that or does not mean 'exclusive or' in English or D&Dish.


Except that there are cases when it does.

For instance, the Cleric power Command: "You can choose to knock the target prone or slide the target..."

Most of these, as I mentioned, have some form of "you can choose" verbiage. But not all of them.



As you are only rolling one of these at any time, the ability to swap between which of them you are using as a non-action or the ability to apply to whatever roll you are currently doing is identical. The reading of 'or' meaning 'any of this list' is consistent with other D&D use of the term or.


Assuming you have the ability to change the target of the benefit at will as a non-action, yes.

I can't access the article right now to double-check, Wizards' login is apparently down. But assuming the given phrasing is the complete text of the feature, yes.

Gralamin
2009-08-18, 03:48 PM
You'll note that or does not mean 'exclusive or' in English or D&Dish.


Actually, or is mostly used in English as xor. One or the other, but not both For example:
With a burger combo, you can have fries or onion rings - Exclusive or.
When moving or shifting, increase the distance you are allowed to move by 2. - Exclusive or, not that it matters since you cannot be moving and shifting at the same time.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-18, 03:48 PM
Actually, or is mostly used in English as xor. One or the other, but not both For example:
With a burger combo, you can have fires or onion rings - Exclusive or.
When moving or shifting, increase the distance you are allowed to move by 2. - Exclusive or, not that it matters since you cannot be moving and shifting at the same time.

Fires?! I want to go to your burger joint.

Gralamin
2009-08-18, 03:52 PM
Fires?! I want to go to your burger joint.

Its an Awesome Burger Joint :smallbiggrin: *Goes to fix*