Use Vulnerability rules..

[Newoblivion]

Use Vulnerability (Scholar Utility)
Encounter * Free Action
Personal
Arcane
Trigger: You succeed on a monster knowledge check against a monster that you can see or hear.
Effect: If your check result meets or exceeds the hard DC for the monster level, you gain a +4 power bonus to all defenses against the monster's attacks until the end of your next turn. Additionally, until the end of your next turn, you gain a power bonus to damage rolls against the target equal to your Intelligence modifier, but not when you deal damage that the target resists.
If your check result does not meet or exceed the hard DC, your attacks against the target deal only half damage until the end of your next turn.

**************************************

It say that the trigger is a success on a monster knowledge check, even thuogh in the effect it says that if the check result does not meet or exceed the DC the attack will deal only half damage. But if the check result does not meet the DC then the power wasn't triggered in the first place...

Anyone have any knowledge about this???

Thanks :)

[Gavran]

There are multiple DCs for Monster Knowledge checks. Succeeding on the lowest DC gives you the monster's name, type, and keywords in addition to triggering the utility. If X is the lowest DC, and your check is lower than Y, you'll deal half damage.

Y = X + 5 or 10, can't remember which and afb.

[Tegu8788]

I may succeed a medium DC but not a hard DC.

[Newoblivion]

There are multiple DCs for Monster Knowledge checks. Succeeding on the lowest DC gives you the monster's name, type, and keywords in addition to triggering the utility. If X is the lowest DC, and your check is lower than Y, you'll deal half damage.

Y = X + 5 or 10, can't remember which and afb.

But the trigger of the power is a success on monster knowledge check. You can't fail and use this power. So you can't ever do half damage. The hard DC is 25 in hc, 30 on Paragon and 35 on epic. If I don't get this resoult I just won't trigger the power.

[Tegu8788]

You succeed in making an easy or medium DC, triggering this power. But since you did not succeed hard DC, you are nerfed.

[Newoblivion]

You succeed in making an easy or medium DC, triggering this power. But since you did not succeed hard DC, you are nerfed.

Unless the DM is rolling secretly the player can see the result. So if I didn't rolled a 25 + on the knowledge check why should I trigger the power?

Unless I must trigger it on success. Do I?

[Kurald Galain]

It say that the trigger is a success on a monster knowledge check, even thuogh in the effect it says that if the check result does not meet or exceed the DC the attack will deal only half damage. But if the check result does not meet the DC then the power wasn't triggered in the first place...

Anyone have any knowledge about this???

It's probably intended to say "trigger: you attempt a knowledge check". I blame sloppy editing.

[Dimers]

On my character who has it, I declare the use before rolling my check, and if I don't hit the hard DC then I deal half damage. It's definitely not written right, but that's what I assume was intended.

Um, so, pre-ninja'ed by Kurald. What he said, with the addition that I've used it as such in play.

[Newoblivion]

@Dimers, @Kurald Galain, thank you. This is what I meant :smallsmile:

[tcrudisi]

Okay, since no one else has given it, here's the RAW answer.

The power says that you must succeed on a monster knowledge check, right? Well, what constitutes a success?

RC p. 130:
DC: The DM sets the DC using the Difficulty Class by Level table (p 126), selecting the MODERATE DC for the MONSTER'S level instead of the level of the character making the check.

Success: The character identifies the monster and knows its origin, type, typical temperament, and keywords. If the character meets or exceeds the hard DC for the monster's level, he or she also knows the monster's resistances and vulnerabilities, as well as what its powers do."

So what does this mean, other than the power is worded fine and there's a lot of ignorance about the monster knowledge checks? It means: you choose to use the power when you've succeeded on a monster knowledge check. In other words: You've beaten the moderate DC. Do you know if you've beaten the hard DC before you trigger the power? No. "But I saw my roll!" That's fine - do you know what level the foe is you are fighting? Because the DC is based on that; not on your level. If you are fighting monsters that are a few levels above you, it's possible that you roll a 20 and still miss the hard DC.

In the case of a player having this power, the DM should simply say "success" or "failure" when the player rolls their monster knowledge check. Once the player has announced whether or not they are using the power, the DM can announce whether the player made the moderate or hard DC.

It's not a broken (as in, poorly written so that it doesn't function as intended) power. It's fine as written as it makes perfect sense within the rules.

[BlckDv]

Correct me if I'm wrong; but didn't errata change it so that Monster Knowledge is a passive skill use and only learning Monster Lore is an active use?

In that case, you would never have a choice; your result is either Moderate or Hard, so if you want to use it against a monster you don't exceed Hard on your passive, you get nerfed.

[tcrudisi]

Correct me if I'm wrong; but didn't errata change it so that Monster Knowledge is a passive skill use and only learning Monster Lore is an active use?

In that case, you would never have a choice; your result is either Moderate or Hard, so if you want to use it against a monster you don't exceed Hard on your passive, you get nerfed.

No. There is nothing in the rules about Monster Knowledge Checks or Knowledge Checks being a passive roll. Monster Knowledge is something you either know or you don't know. As such, it takes no time to do it. It's qualified as a "No Action" action. It does not state in the rules that monster knowledge checks or knowledge checks are a passive check. It's a reasonable enough house-rule (if this power is not being used), but it is not official.

RC p. 282 defines passive checks. It's worth noting that it doesn't explicitly call out only perception and insight as the only skills which can be passive, but a search through one of the Essentials PHB's show's the word passive is always followed by either the word "insight" or "perception" EXCEPT for in the the rules on passive checks: "In some situations, luck does not affect whether a skill check succeeds or fails. Two special types of checks reflect this fact: taking 10 and passive checks." And the rules concerning passive checks:

"Passive Checks: When characters aren't Instinctively using a skill they're assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. Doing so is called making a passive check. For example, a group of adventurers is walking through an area without making Perception checks to look for danger, so they are assumed to be using their passive Perceptions to notice hidden objects and creatures. If an adventurer's passive Perception beats a creature's Stealth check, the adventurer notices the creature without having to make a Perception check."

So those times are the ONLY times when the word passive is used without Insight or Perception following. Is it possible to have "passive" other skills? Sure, but note that they must be opposed checks. Is a knowledge or monster knowledge check an opposed check? No, therefore by the rules, it must be an active check. (But it's a fine house-rule as far as I'm concerned.)

[Newoblivion]

Okay, since no one else has given it, here's the RAW answer.

The power says that you must succeed on a monster knowledge check, right? Well, what constitutes a success?

RC p. 130:
DC: The DM sets the DC using the Difficulty Class by Level table (p 126), selecting the MODERATE DC for the MONSTER'S level instead of the level of the character making the check.

Success: The character identifies the monster and knows its origin, type, typical temperament, and keywords. If the character meets or exceeds the hard DC for the monster's level, he or she also knows the monster's resistances and vulnerabilities, as well as what its powers do."

So what does this mean, other than the power is worded fine and there's a lot of ignorance about the monster knowledge checks? It means: you choose to use the power when you've succeeded on a monster knowledge check. In other words: You've beaten the moderate DC. Do you know if you've beaten the hard DC before you trigger the power? No. "But I saw my roll!" That's fine - do you know what level the foe is you are fighting? Because the DC is based on that; not on your level. If you are fighting monsters that are a few levels above you, it's possible that you roll a 20 and still miss the hard DC.

In the case of a player having this power, the DM should simply say "success" or "failure" when the player rolls their monster knowledge check. Once the player has announced whether or not they are using the power, the DM can announce whether the player made the moderate or hard DC.

It's not a broken (as in, poorly written so that it doesn't function as intended) power. It's fine as written as it makes perfect sense within the rules.

My group is level 3 so the level range of the monsters they can fight is not that great. If I want my player to gamble on this power, I will have to roll monster knowledge check secretly, I guess, or he just won't bother if the result is below 21.

[tcrudisi]

My group is level 3 so the level range of the monsters they can fight is not that great. If I want my player to gamble on this power, I will have to roll monster knowledge check secretly, I guess, or he just won't bother if the result is below 21.

The level range of the monsters remains fairly constant through your adventuring life. Of course, a lot of it is also table dependent. In the group where I play, I can expect to fight monsters between our level and our level +6. In the group where I DM, I put them against monsters from their level -2 to their level +4. In the other group that I DM, they will fight monsters between their level and their level +7.

The point being, in each, there tends to be about a 6 level spread. That 21 won't succeed on a hard check against a level 5 or higher monster. I'm guessing, that since they are level 3, they fight the occasional level 5 (or higher) monster.

My point? Well, he can wait until he rolls a 25, but then what? He's basically wasted a power selection. No, he'll likely start to risk it a bit more or retrain it once he's realized that he's not rolling as high as he desires. Or even option 3: He'll devote a lot into those knowledge skills -- so much so that he'll need the bonus from the power just to stay competitive.

The point is that it will resolve itself. Just use that table, vary the level of monsters that they fight (which you are probably doing anyway), and things will work out fine.

[Mando Knight]

The power's benefit (or penalty) only lasts for two turns at most out of the entire encounter anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

The power's benefit (or penalty) only lasts for two turns at most out of the entire encounter anyway.

But given that encounters on the average table last 3 to 5 rounds... :smallcool:

[Sol]

Even the gamiest way a player could possibly play this power is pretty mediocre compared to other theme powers, and they don't have obnoxiously awful downsides.

Just because a power has a written-in failure penalty doesn't mean it's success benefit is overpowered and that the power should fail often.

[Kurald Galain]

Even the gamiest way a player could possibly play this power is pretty mediocre compared to other theme powers, and they don't have obnoxiously awful downsides.
Actually, on an intelligence-based class with some form of multiattacks, this is very powerful. For a free action, gain +5 to +9 on damage to your main target? Sign me on! Int-based classes are also highly likely to pass the knowledge check.

[Sol]

Actually, on an intelligence-based class with some form of multiattacks, such as which class? There are no INT-based strikers (though there are INT-secondary warlocks and avengers, neither of which are overly known for their multi-attacks.) Wizards, Invokers, and Psions have a handful of (mostly daily) non-standard action attacks. Artificers have nothing notable until Prismatic Strike at 23. Avengers have a very small handful of non-standard attacks across their career, as do warlocks.

This would be at its best on an Assault Swordmage|Barbarian or |Warlock.


this is very powerful.
For some definitions of very powerful, I guess. For a controller, control should be more important than damage. For control, Slime Master or Beguiler are much better than Scholar. For a single-tapping striker, Sohei or Ironwrought are better. For a multi-attacking striker, whether single-target or AOE, Sarifal Feywarden is substantially superior to Scholar, even if it requires a minor action. And requiring typed damage isn't a fault either, since deciding not to focus on a specific damage type is a decision that costs you 6-20 static damage anyway.

[Newoblivion]

such as which class? There are no INT-based strikers (though there are INT-secondary warlocks and avengers, neither of which are overly known for their multi-attacks.) Wizards, Invokers, and Psions have a handful of (mostly daily) non-standard action attacks. Artificers have nothing notable until Prismatic Strike at 23. Avengers have a very small handful of non-standard attacks across their career, as do warlocks.

This would be at its best on an Assault Swordmage|Barbarian or |Warlock.


For some definitions of very powerful, I guess. For a controller, control should be more important than damage. For control, Slime Master or Beguiler are much better than Scholar. For a single-tapping striker, Sohei or Ironwrought are better. For a multi-attacking striker, whether single-target or AOE, Sarifal Feywarden is substantially superior to Scholar, even if it requires a minor action. And requiring typed damage isn't a fault either, since deciding not to focus on a specific damage type is a decision that costs you 6-20 static damage anyway.

What about RP reasons to take Scholar? :smallwink:

[Sol]

Oh I'm not saying its a terrible theme. I love it and have used it multiple times when it fit the character. That said, the power is not the reason the theme is worth taking.

Any DM trying to make sure their player "fails" use vulnerability sometimes is being a ****. It's a mediocre power when it works, and forces bad decisions when it doesn't work. And a player of even medium RL-INT should be able to guess on their own with pretty decent accuracy when they succeeded the hard DC and opt to trigger it then.

[tcrudisi]

Oh I'm not saying its a terrible theme. I love it and have used it multiple times when it fit the character. That said, the power is not the reason the theme is worth taking.

Any DM trying to make sure their player "fails" use vulnerability sometimes is being a ****. It's a mediocre power when it works, and forces bad decisions when it doesn't work. And a player of even medium RL-INT should be able to guess on their own with pretty decent accuracy when they succeeded the hard DC and opt to trigger it then.

Why would a DM make sure their player fails with this power? The point is variety. If your players are always fighting monsters of a certain level, then it's not hard for them to figure out anything: monster defenses, monster attacks, DC's for various things... it's just boring and takes away the challenge. That's why I like to vary the level of the monsters by about 6.

As for knowing when you've passed the Hard DC? Yeah, that one is a bit easier. Even if you are fighting a monster that's 6 levels above you, that's only, what, maybe 4 or 5 points difference between an at-level monster? The point is the "pretty decent accuracy" line. It's powerful to know when you are going to auto-succeed (or fail) at something. There's a reason that Dice of Auspicious Fortune are one of the better magical items. The difference is that Use Vulnerability has a bit more of a drawback than "you waste the power", but by the same token, it has an innate built in accuracy booster in, "You can pretty easily guess when you've succeeded ... for the most part."

When can I see this power being failed? During a boss fight. They've just hacked their way past level and level +1 monsters and suddenly they've got the level +6 BFEG in front of them. The player knows about what the previous hard DC's have been and he beats that by 2 or 3... only to see the power fail. Which also is the worst time to fail at this power. Of course, that's not really a big deal: You simply attack other creatures for 2 rounds.

But it IS a strong power. With the use of Action Points, minor and move action attacks, and granted attacks from leaders, I can see this easily spiking up to ridiculous levels.

[tcrudisi]

such as which class? There are no INT-based strikers (though there are INT-secondary warlocks and avengers, neither of which are overly known for their multi-attacks.) Wizards, Invokers, and Psions have a handful of (mostly daily) non-standard action attacks.

The Wizard is a better striker than the Sorc. An Artificer can hybrid well with other classes and make use of this power very easily. The Invoker is one of my favorite strikers in the game, although this power isn't as good for them as others. Assault Swordmages can also put this to terrific use.

[Sol]

The Wizard is a better striker than the Sorc. An Artificer can hybrid well with other classes and make use of this power very easily. The Invoker is one of my favorite strikers in the game, although this power isn't as good for them as others. Assault Swordmages can also put this to terrific use.

The wizard/sorc discussion depends entirely on your tolerance for flame spiral abuse. Since 1/turn zone errata, the sorc does actually win. But that's not really relevant, because Sarifal's Blessing is both superior to Use Vulnerability and affects multiple targets with no fail chance.

There is no need to focus overmuch on the rules interactions for Use Vulnerability as a DM, because even at 100% success rate, it's not better than other theme powers it competes with. That's all I'm saying here.

[Kurald Galain]

The wizard/sorc discussion depends entirely on your tolerance for flame spiral abuse.
The fact that you call it "abuse" is a pretty good indication for how many DMs are actually going to tolerate it :D


Sarifal's Blessing is both superior to Use Vulnerability and affects multiple targets with no fail chance.
Except that the most popular striker races for a wizard are Genasi and Tiefling, neither of which can use Sarifal Feywarden.