Simple Q&A D&D 4e Thread 3

[Savannah]

(This is a fairly high procedure thread; please read the entire instructions carefully before posting. Thanks.)

Ever have a simple, straight-forward rules question that you can’t figure out the answer to? Ask it here. No question is too simple. No more worrying about whether your question is “worth” starting a thread. Ask here and receive an answer. You are, of course, welcome to start a thread for your question, and if you think your question is subject to many interpretations or will start a debate, you are encouraged to start a new thread for it.

This thread will serve as a catch-all for simple, discreet questions that can be answered quickly according to the RAW (Rules As Written). This thread is for all simple RAW questions about D&D 4e.

The Procedure:

Do:
Label your questions with bold Q#s.
Label your answers with the bold Q# that you are responding to and/or quote the question.
Be sure that your answer is correct before you post it; if you are the least bit uncertain, just let it pass and get the next one.
Try to give your answers in as clear and straightforward terms as possible.
Feel free to quote or link to relevant rules in the SRD, Errata, or FAQ that supports your answer. (You may want to give your answer and then modify it to add support – otherwise someone else may answer while you’re assembling yours.)

Don’t:
Ask Homebrew rules questions here.
Ask trick questions or attempt to “stump the panel,” so to speak.
Answer a question that’s already been answered.
Offer contradictions, clarifications, exceptions, or extensions of prior answers unless, in your opinion, the answer give is plainly and completely wrong.
Post to debate the answers given.
Post to carry on other conversations whether tangentially related or wholly unrelated.

Dispute Resolution Procedure:
If you dispute someone’s answer – meaning that they got it wrong in a critical fashion – post your answer and suggest that the original questioner start a thread to discuss it further if they want it hashed out.
If someone disputes your answer, don’t respond. Just wait to see if the original questioner starts a new thread to discuss it.
If your question leads to a disputed answer, start a new thread if you’d like it discussed further.

Here are some sample questions. “Bad” questions just mean they should be asked in their own thread where you can get many answers and opinions. “Good” questions just mean that these are the types of questions that are amenable to a quick straightforward answer (probably).

Sample “Bad” Questions:
How do I play D&D? (Great question, but not for this thread.)
What is the best class? (Far too broad and requires much opinion)
Which is better GURPS or D&D?

{The first several versions of this thread seemed to run pretty efficiently, but if you have any comments about how this thread could be improved please PM me.}

The previous version of this thread can be found here.

Please start over with the numbering. Thanks.

[Terdarius]

Q1: The lvl 15 Sorcerer attack Lightning daggers is causing some discussion at my table for 2 reasons.
The effect line of the power says: "Until the end of the encounter, you can repeat the attack as a free action once per round during your turn."

So does this allow the player to make the same attack as a free action during the same turn as the initial power was used? I would think RAI it wouldn't?

And does the free attack have to be vs the initial target or can you freely choose who to attack? The fluf line seems to imply the same target? but since it doesn't specify "against the same target" I would think it's not limited to one target?

[Sol]

Q1: The lvl 15 Sorcerer attack Lightning daggers is causing some discussion at my table for 2 reasons.
The effect line of the power says: "Until the end of the encounter, you can repeat the attack as a free action once per round during your turn."

So does this allow the player to make the same attack as a free action during the same turn as the initial power was used? I would think RAI it wouldn't?

And does the free attack have to be vs the initial target or can you freely choose who to attack? The fluf line seems to imply the same target? but since it doesn't specify "against the same target" I would think it's not limited to one target?

A1:

RAI simply isn't a thing. It's impossible to know, and arrogant to assume. If something is poorly written and thus ambiguous, it's up to the DM. In general, though, powers do what they say they do, and here this means that yes, it can be repeated on the same turn it's used, and yes, you can freely choose new targets each turn if you want to.

[Terdarius]

Re: A1

Well that was a bit harsh...

I am in fact the DM in this case and perhaps I should have elaborated on that fact.
I believe RAI is definately something, though I agree it is never a certainty what the developers were thinking (or smoking) at the time. Though you can glance what they wanted to achive by looking at the fluf line and the relative power level compared to other powers of similar level.

But regardless, my underlying questions about using the power as a free action right away was of course if there is any rule errata or president that prevents this. If not, i'm fine with it.

As for the power targeting the same creature or not. I'm actually the one telling the player that he can target others with it, but he refuses this because of the fluf line... So I was hoping someone could back me up in the fact that if it isn't stated to be the same target you can also target others. (I believe there are other powers that make that distinction but i'm not sure)

[masteraleph]

Fluff is irrelevant to rules, because there are a number of rulebooks that suggest strongly that players should refluff. Could the Lightning Daggers be physical daggers? Sure. Could they be bits of a Lightning Soul Genasi launched at enemies? Sure. Could they be electrical shocks to an enemy's heart? Sure. Could you frame all of your lightning attacks and damage as fire (as long as you still use the items/feats/etc. for lightning attacks and damage)? Sure. That's actually a big difference between 4e and previous editions, and it's one of the reasons a number of people disliked it- they wanted to be told how to interpret their actions, while WotC basically said "as long as you follow the rules, describe it how you want."

[Sol]

Fluff is irrelevant to rules, because there are a number of rulebooks that suggest strongly that players should refluff. Could the Lightning Daggers be physical daggers? Sure. Could they be bits of a Lightning Soul Genasi launched at enemies? Sure. Could they be electrical shocks to an enemy's heart? Sure. Could you frame all of your lightning attacks and damage as fire (as long as you still use the items/feats/etc. for lightning attacks and damage)? Sure. That's actually a big difference between 4e and previous editions, and it's one of the reasons a number of people disliked it- they wanted to be told how to interpret their actions, while WotC basically said "as long as you follow the rules, describe it how you want."

In addition to this, for non-Dragon magazine powers, fluff was almost universally added later by copywriters and editors, and not actually written by a game designer, much less by the same person who wrote the mechanics of the powers.

[Kurald Galain]

In addition to this, for non-Dragon magazine powers, fluff was almost universally added later by copywriters and editors, and not actually written by a game designer, much less by the same person who wrote the mechanics of the powers.

Q2 Well, that would explain a lot (and I know the MtG team works that way)... nevertheless, do you have a source for that claim?

[Sol]

Q2 Well, that would explain a lot (and I know the MtG team works that way)... nevertheless, do you have a source for that claim?

A2:

Multiple friends who worked with WotC during the 4e run (one of them was a copywriter!), which I realize would be a pretty easy thing to lie about on the internet. I'll do some googling and see if it was ever mentioned publicly.

[Dacia Brabant]

A2: FWIW I once looked into an editor job at WOTC early in the 4E era, and my understanding of what they wanted from their editors comports with that separation of game design and flavor, since the intent was for design to be portable across the flavor spectrum.

[Obiter Dicta]Based on two decades of work experience in publications, I suspect this is the lion's share for much of the company's infamous ambiguity and outright contradictions between published "crunch" and "fluff" going back to 3rd Edition, as copy is cheap and easy enough to produce, but real bona fide editing is a long, painstaking process that relies on free and open communication between the parties who are generating and editing content, and no corporation I have ever worked for has ever respected that process.[/Obiter Dicta]

Anyway, A1: yes, Lightning Daggers can be repeated as a free action in the round it was first used for the simple reason that free actions are used during the turn of the character using them. From a game balance perspective this isn't that unreasonable, as it's a L15 striker daily on a class build written after MM3. It's definitely powerful, especially on a storm soul genasi, but I've been in a mid-paragon game where it was used frequently and we still had to rely on a good bit of luck and player intelligence to survive due to encounter design.

Q3: has there ever been RAW that states that replacement stats for basic attacks (via feats like Melee Training or class features like Attack Finesse) also apply to generic attacks like grabs and bull rushes?

[masteraleph]

A3 No. But neither is so powerful that a DM should have any problem with it (unless you're strictly RAW).

[Dimers]

Q 4

Psionic Power p151 says that superior implement training allows you to apply one of a superior ki focus's properties per attack, and that you need multiple instances of the feat to learn more than one property. Is there any later alteration to either rule?

[MwaO]

A4: That's more that if as an example, you want an Accurate Ki Focus and a Mighty Ki Focus, you need to take the feat separately twice. And any given Ki Focus can only be one kind of Superior and you can only use one ki focus at a time - so for practical reasons, no one would ever take the feat more than once.

[Dimers]

A4: That's more that if as an example, you want an Accurate Ki Focus and a Mighty Ki Focus, you need to take the feat separately twice. And any given Ki Focus can only be one kind of Superior and you can only use one ki focus at a time - so for practical reasons, no one would ever take the feat more than once.

Ehhh, all but the Accurate ki focus have two properties, like Mighty includes both Unerring and Empowered Crit. But unlike other superior implements, you can only use one property per feat, not one variety of ki focus. It strikes me as odd that ki focuses would be different from other implements that way. I love ki focuses, but I can't say I think they're in need of a nerf like that. Like, if you spend a feat on crystal orb, you get Energized (Psychic) and Undeniable, but spending a feat on inexorable ki focus gets you Energized (Force) or Unstoppable.

[masteraleph]

Take a look at the Superior Implement rules on page 40 of Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, which seems to suggest that the superior ki focus language in PsP has been depreciated.

[Jesse Booth]

Q5

Can a beastmaster ranger (mp1) put out damage like the two builds in the phb1? Specifically, I'm curious how they compare in late paragon to early epic.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Q5

Can a beastmaster ranger (mp1) put out damage like the two builds in the phb1? Specifically, I'm curious how they compare in late paragon to early epic.

No. It is generally considered a weaker build, although it is still high teer. Not exactly a Rules question, though - you may want to open a thread to ask for optimization of the beastmaster for tips.

GW

[Finleyville]

Q6

If I use the psychic power Living Missile on a creature to slide them in and out of a psychic power Cerulean Cage augmented zone multiple times does the creature take multiple instances of the cage's noted damage within the same round?



Most magic zones that I know of state if the creature "starts" or "ends their turn in the zone" then X amount of damage occurs. Makes sense.

The zone from the Cerulean Cage states, "Any creature that leaves the zone takes X damage." So if I slide the creature in/out of the zone 5 separate times with the Living Missile power isn't the creature "leaving" the zone 5 times and therefore going to receive 5X damage in the round?

[Sol]

Q6

If I use the psychic power Living Missile on a creature to slide them in and out of a psychic power Cerulean Cage augmented zone multiple times does the creature take multiple instances of the cage's noted damage within the same round?

Most magic zones that I know of state if the creature "starts" or "ends their turn in the zone" then X amount of damage occurs. Makes sense.

The zone from the Cerulean Cage states, "Any creature that leaves the zone takes X damage." So if I slide the creature in/out of the zone 5 separate times with the Living Missile power isn't the creature "leaving" the zone 5 times and therefore going to receive 5X damage in the round?

Yes. Zone abuse was one of the most common methods of dealing ridiculous damage early on in 4e's lifespan. For some reason, their solution was to apply errata on a power-by-power basis, near ubiquitously inserting the phrase, "A creature can take this damage only once per turn," instead of adding that to the rules about Zones.

Since they missed this one, it's legal, but your DM still may throw things at you if you actually do it.

[MwaO]

Q5

Can a beastmaster ranger (mp1) put out damage like the two builds in the phb1? Specifically, I'm curious how they compare in late paragon to early epic.

A5: The major problem for beast master rangers is that the beast master gives up Prime Shot. Prime Shot gives access to the Prime Shot feat tree of Called Shot+Improved Prime Shot(i.e. +2 to hit/+5 to damage at a cost of 2 feats - that's really strong). Also, as you can't take Archer Fighting Style, you can't qualify for Battlefield Archer, a really strong Archer paragon path.

At the same time, though, Twin Strike is really good and Sharpshooter isn't a bad paragon path.

[Jesse Booth]

Q6

Do you add an enchanted weapon's enhancement once per attack, or on every roll? For example, if I have an attack that does 2d8 damage and a +2 wand, would I deal [d8+2] + [d8+2] damage, or 2d8+2 damage?

[Tegu8788]

A 6

Only the once per roll, sorry. If you made multiple attacks you get to add them each time, but only once for each damage roll.

[darkbard]

A 6

Only the once per roll, sorry. If you made multiple attacks you get to add them each time, but only once for each damage roll.

Which is why multiattack powers rule in 4E, especially beyond early Heroic, when the static modifiers begin to accumulate if you build for them.

[Tegu8788]

Q 7

What are the mechanics for learning how to enchant an item? I don't mean the Enchant Item ritual, but applying a specific enchantment on a weapon. Enchanting a heavy blade with an Aegis Blade enchant vs a Carnage weapon enchantment, does each different enchantment have a cost? Is this even covered? I'm the DM, and prepared to make this its own thread.

[georgie_leech]

Q 7

What are the mechanics for learning how to enchant an item? I don't mean the Enchant Item ritual, but applying a specific enchantment on a weapon. Enchanting a heavy blade with an Aegis Blade enchant vs a Carnage weapon enchantment, does each different enchantment have a cost? Is this even covered? I'm the DM, and prepared to make this its own thread.

You may want to just make another thread, as to my knowledge the Enchant Item Ritual is how specific enchantments are applied, with the cost determined by the item's/encahnment's level.

[matrix_machine]

Q8

For the item: Horn of Revelry, it mentions "Enemies cannot move through a satyr’s space, but allies can.", which makes sense, but it doesn't say anything about enemies being able to target satyrs directly. It seems like they can only target you and hope to miss (which removes 1 satyr). Am I missing something, or can they just not be directly targeted?

[georgie_leech]

A8

The general rules of Conjuration Powers laid out in PHB, p.220, state that Conjuration generally cannot be attacked or physically affected. Lacking text to the contrary, the satyrs conjured by the Horn of Revelry cannot be attacked.

[matrix_machine]

Q 9

I'm curious about the interaction between the feat, Mark of Warding, and the Talaric Ironjack class feature Defensive Aura. Defensive Aura provides a +2 power bonus when you hit with an un-augmented at-will psionic attack power. Mark of Warding provides an additional +1 bonus to defense when a power grants that defensive bonus. My question is do they interact?

My reasoning is that, even though Defensive Aura is a class feature, it's bonus is triggered (and applied to) an attack power, and as Mark of Warding provides a bonus when a power applies a defensive bonus (which it seems to technically be doing in this case, although implemented through a class feature), it seems to me that I could be receiving a +3 bonus to defenses when I hit with an un-augmented attack power.

[masteraleph]

A9: They do not interact. Defensive Aura provides a power bonus but is not a power.

[Sol]

A9: They do not interact. Defensive Aura provides a power bonus but is not a power.

If Mark of Warding were less fantastic of a feat otherwise, I'd recommend asking your DM if he'd allow it -- as a conditional +1 to defenses is not even a very powerful feat. But the real meat of the feat is enhancing your mark penalty from -2 to -3, and that's already incredibly powerful, before the secondary bonuses are involved.

It's still maybe worth asking, if your DM is often generous with readings -- but Aleph is correct in terms of the rules as they're written.

[matrix_machine]

Q 10

This question is in regards to the item "giggle gas", the description:

Spoiler: spoiler

Show

Area burst 1 within 10 (creatures in the burst).
Attack: Item's level + 3 vs. Fortitude.
Hit: The target is dazed and slowed until the start of its next turn.

It seems like this is totally ineffective, as the effect fades when the enemy has a turn. What am I missing here?