From Shadowfell Geographic Society

Contents 1 Kurgan's To-Do List 2 Open Questions 2.1 Teleportation 2.2 Slaying Action 2.3 When Daze Begins/Ends 3 Closed Discussions 3.1 Result equals Reaction 3.2 Movement While Prone 3.3 When do magic weapons return? 3.4 Against All Odds 3.5 Maximizing Damage 3.6 Halving Damage 3.7 Stealth and Unusual Senses 3.7.1 Ruling Mark 1 3.7.2 Ruling Mark 2 3.8 Potions 3.9 Drawing Weapons 3.10 Marks When You Go Down 3.11 Does Divine Challenge Degrade 3.12 Flaming Sphere 3.13 Brian's attempted summary of the newly written Stealth system 3.13.1 In-combat Stealth 3.13.2 Who gets a Surprise Round? 3.13.3 Monster Awareness 3.14 Stealth before Combat 3.15 When does the elf racial power apply? 3.16 Is Cleave one attack or two? 3.17 Is Regeneration Healing? 3.18 Rituals without skills

Kurgan's To-Do List

Unsorted list of questions Kurgan needs to research the answers for. Players are welcome to add to this, or to comment on the items which are here.

Open Questions

Teleportation

Teleporting is moving, both in general and for the purpose of the "Keep Still" requirement of Stealth.

In consequence, Feylocks gain concealment for teleporting, Eladrin have to re-roll for Stealth after they teleport, and you can't teleport when immobilized (your speed is 0, and when your speed is 0, you may not move). BrianSniffen

AT: I agree with points 1 and 2 (they were the points under discussion in the email thread which spawned this ruling). I disagree with point 3. Immobilized does not set speed to 0. Quoting PHB.277: "You can't move from your space, although you can teleport and can be forced to move by a pull, a push, or a slide." This ruling thus does not change the interpretation of Immobilized. And indeed that definition of Immobilized (and of other similar effects) is what causes me to think that teleport is a subset of move if not called out as an exception in this way.

AE: Glah. This totally breaks so much of what is teleportation. I think you should define what movement is separately.

AT: Can you clarify what it is you think is broken, and what you mean by defining what movement is? The term "move" is sadly overloaded in the book, but I think that its most common use is as a generic term, not a specific one. The primary exception is when used in an action (e.g. "you move 2 squares"), in which case the generic term has to be taken to mean the default choice among the more specific modes (i.e. the "move" which is not shift, or slide, or any other sort of special mode).

Slaying Action

Martial Power has a Rogue Feat "Slaying Action" which says this:

If you spend an action point to take an extra action and have alraedy dealt Sneak Attack damage during this round, you can deal the extra damage a second time during this turn.

Questions:

1. Which of the conditions on the use of Sneak Attack (the various clauses at the beginning of the description) does this negate? Specifically:
   1. "Once per round": Obviously negated.
      1. AE: I believe this is, very clearly, the only negated condition.
   2. "when you have combat advantage against an enemy": I think this isn't negated, but it's unclear, and Brian clearly thought it was negated.
      1. AE: disagree with Brian. the extra backstab and the AP action are in no way tied together. For instance, you could SA, AP, fail to SA, and then have a leader grant you an attack (Commander's Strike), and you could Sneak Attack again. To negate this condition, the correct wording would be: "On the attack gained by using an action point, you deal Sneak Attack damage, whether you have combat advantage against that enemy or not. This use of Sneak Attack does not count against your limit of one use per round."
   3. "and are uising a weapon from the light blade, the crossbow, or the sling weapon group": I think this isn't negated, but it's unclear.
      1. AE: The also don't mention that this only applies to 4th ed. they shouldn't have to specify that, as there are other feats that modify this condition.
2. Does this allow you to apply Sneak Attack twice to the same attack? I think not by the argument that damage from the same source doesn't stack, but it's unclear in the wording if you take it by its most permissive interpretation.
   1. AE: how could you possibly read it that way? The feat conditionals are that you are (present tense) spending an AP, and you have (past tense) already used SA, and you can (future tense) do SA again.
3. For a multiclass Rogue who can use Sneak Attack 1/encounter (rather than 1/round), does this Feat allow use 2/encounter (in the same round)? I thorught so at first. However, thinking about the level of specificness needed for #1 above, and a forum discussion here makes me uncertain.
   1. AE: This is the only vague point here, I could argue it either way.

When Daze Begins/Ends

Being Dazed affects how many actions you get during your turn? What does that mean if you get Dazed in the middle of your turn? I don't see any guidance on that in the rules. I can attempt to rule by analogy to other prior rules:

• The Slowed effect explicitly says your move ends if you've already moved more than 2 squares. Analogy here might say your "max actions" pool immediately updates, and the actions you've already taken are compared against the new pool to decide if you get more. Or analogy might say exactly the opposite - that since Slowed has to say this explicitly, a lack of an explicit note means it's not true.
• The Haste spell in 3.0 (no analog in 3.5 or 4.0) granted an extra Partial action per round, including allowing to immediately take an extra Partial after casting the spell. The analogy here is loose.

I'm currently leaning in the direction that Dazed beginning/ending changes your "max actions" in either direction, and you then re-compare against the actions you've already taken and stop if you're overdrawn. If the thing that Dazed you was an Interrupt you could even have to abort the action you're in the middle of.

I'm still uncertain about this, though. What do you all think?

Analogy is dangerous. Changing rulings mid-run is also dangerous. Let's figure out what does something reasonable with monster and hero Daze powers. If we can rely on Daze to end turns in the middle, then Vlad should be readying his Dazing Strike more often. I actually think Daze hitting mid-turn (as last night) is probably the right choice. Daze *wearing off* mid-turn is very strange, and only happens because of the Grab-induced Daze. My conclusion: The Cube is still broken. It should be written with a Free Action attack power to Daze everyone inside it, which ends at the end of theCube's next turn. Now it's clear that when you're ejected, you're still dazed. BrianSniffen 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if that change were made to the Cube, there will still be situations in which Daze could end in the middle of the turn. (E.g. if you're Dazed (save ends) and you use a power on your turn which grants a save.) I'd rather figure out what should happen when Daze ends in the middle of a turn on its own, de-coupled from any individual situation which causes that. Modifying particular monsters would be an independant point. Given that Daze can end in the middle of a turn, the question is what that means for your actions. What's above feels the most consistent to me. An alternative I could see would be to say Daze effectively lasts to the end of your turn, because it "took away" your extra actions at the start of your turn. That's what I applied in-game, but it actually feels less consistent and more eitful to the Dazed person. Note that I think readying Dazing Strike is a clever idea. Readied actions are Reactions not Interrupts, so you can't abort an attack, but you can Daze someone who just closed on you, so that they never start their attack. Kurgan 18:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed Discussions

Result equals Reaction

This is a tentative proposed ruling based on some comments from Andy. I've been acting on it tentatively, but am open to comments before I call it final:

When effect B occurs as a result of effect A, and the timing of effect B is not specified as Interrupt or Reaction, treat it as a Reaction. This uses all of the rules for Immediate Reaction (PHB.268) except that it does not count against the limit of one Immediate action per turn. For example:

• The damage done by a Paladin's Divine Challenge is a Reaction, meaning a monster gets to complete the attack which triggered it before taking damage.
• An Eldritch Warlock teleports after the end of the action which felled her cursed foe, meaning she could safely teleport into the area of the spell which just caused the effect.

Movement While Prone

I can't find any explicit rule which specifies which movement modes you can or can't take while prone. The "Prone" status in the table is unuseful in that respect. Here are all the actions in the PHB which include movement, and any explicit requirements I can see on them:

• Charge: None.
• Crawl: Must be prone.
• Escape (includes a shift): None.
• Run: None.
• Shift: Can't enter Difficult Terrain unless you can Shift more than 1. Can't use a form of movement which requires a skill check (e.g. Climb or Swim for most people).
• Squeeze: None.
• Stand Up (may include a shift): Must be prone (implicit). Must have an available unoccupied space.
• Walk: None.

There are also generic requirements on movement expresed on PHB.282-286, which also discuss ways of moving which aren't normal movement (Falling, Push/Pull/Slide, Teleportation).

It seems oddly backward to express that Crawl requires prone without any of the other movement modes requiring not-prone. It's possible to literally interpret this as meaning you can do all the things above while prone. I'm not sure I buy that as the author's intent, though. In particular, what's Crawling good for, in that case? It's not actually defined to be useful for ducking under things (though Squeeze might be).

If forced to simply pick a set of actions which I think are valid while Prone, I'd say Crawl, Escape, Squeeze, and Stand Up are okay, Charge, Run, and Walk aren't. I'm uncertain abotu Shift, but lean toward putting it in the "not while Prone" category.

If I were redefining the system from scratch (which I'm not), I'd probably be more tempted to separate movement rules into Movement Modes (Walk, Crawl, Swim, Climb, Fly) Movement Types (Move, Shift). Movement Modes define a Speed, modifiers like double movement cost (which is distinct from half Speed in that it may disallow 1 square Move/Shift into difficult terrain), and required rolls (like Athletics to Climb). Movement Types are distinct only in provoking or not. The number of squares moved is determined the Action, which may use a fixed amount or may refer to your Speed. There's are default actions for "Fast" (Move Speed+2 with penalties), "Normal" (Speed) and "Slow" (1 square, not provoking), plus other actions which contain Move or Shift. All of these are applied to the base modifiers of your Movement Mode.

Kurgan 06:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I'm an idiot once again. The official Updates covered this. I'll leave this issue open for the moment, in case anyone wants to comment on my secondary interpratations of the unclear parts of the update (see the main Rulings page).

You really don't mean "Shift which is part of the Stand Up action," do you? The words of the book make me think you shift, then stand. In particular, if you shift off a cliff you *don't* stand, you fall and are probably prone again. Right? BrianSniffen 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan 23:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I wasn't intending to make an explicit statement about the ordering of the parts of the Stand Up action, and probably shouldn't. Maybe I'd be better off leaving out my rationale and simply saying "The Shift which is part of the Stand Up action is an explicit exception to this limitation." (Because otherwise why is it there?) I'm not sure what you're getting at in your cliff example, though. It's not obvious, but I'd guess you probably could Stand Up off a cliff, then fall, then either be standing or prone at the end based on your Acrobatics check. If you have hovering ability, then you could Stand Up off a cliff and be hovering without being Prone.

I don't have the book with me, but I thought it was "if you are prone in a square occupied by an ally, you stand up, then shift 1 to an empty square." Left out is the "if you fail to exit the occupied square, you fall back prone", which also opens the question of fighter combat opportunity attacks that halt movement. If an enemy, in another enemy's space, provokes as he moves through, is hit, and his movement is halted, does he therefore fall prone? --Andy 17:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC) It is definitely true that two creatures cannot occupy the same space unless one of them is very small, or one of them is prone. So yes, I think if your Shift gets cancelled during a Stand Up action, then you remain prone. The same could theoretically be true if you get an AOO when moving through an ally. That's less clear. I've historically used the less-eitful option of saying you simply never enter the ally's square, but that has its own issues if you move through multiple allies.

When do magic weapons return?

I just saw this in the list of consolidated Customer Service answers:

Q:A Rogue with a Magic Dagger or Shuriken using Blinding Barrage, Cloud of Steel, or Steel Entrapment. These powers seems tailor-made for the Shuriken, yet the rules seem to make it very hard to use thrown weaponry for them. Not only would you need up to 25 magic weapons, depending on number of targets, but aparently magic thrown weapons only return after ranged attacks, so you'll need to gather them all up by hand later. Is this intended?

A: For powers such as the ones you mention, you would need enough ammo to hit each viable target, i.e. up to 25 missiles for Steel Entrapment. If you have a magic thrown weapon you would like to use, you must designate which target will be hit by that weapon.

For a magic thrown weapon's returning ability, the rules do not cover their use in close attacks; your DM will have to adjudicate whether the weapon will come back or not after the power has resolved.

This makes me want to go read the rules on returning thrown weapons, and specifically make rulings on the following points:

1 If used in a Ranged attack power which grants multiple attacks, does the weapon return between individual attacks, or after the full attack power resolves. 1 Do magic weapons return at all if used in Close powers. 1 If so, do they return between individual attacks such that a single weapon can be used, or do you need multiple weapons?

Kurgan 21:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. Customer Service contradicted the official FAQ (http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396). The FAQ makes it clear that one weapon is enough, and I consider it more authoratative.

Against All Odds

Just saw this feat in the accepted expansions. Since it's a Dragon expansion, I always look hesitantly at them. At the heroic tier, there are very few (5) feats that add attack bonuses: Racial Feats (Action Surge, Hellfire Blood) or Weapon/Situational Feats (Blade Opportunist, Nimble Blade, Combat Reflexes). From a Stackability perspective, you have Action Surge+Nimble Blade, Combat Reflexes+Blade Opportunist, and I think Hellfire Blood can't stack with a weapon feat, but I could be wrong. Against All Odds can stack with Action Surge, Hellfire Blood, and Nimble Blade.

At paragon tier, there are only two attack bonus feats (Back to the Wall, Sweeping Flail), and none at epic tier. --Andy 01:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, I agree that it is wise to be hesitant about Dragon expansions. I was using the online compendium to look for feats and found it, after which I ran it past kurgan, who had said that he wanted to look at them on a case-by-case basis.

You can also consider Harmony of Erathis, Improved Fate of the Void, Moradin's Resolve, Powerful Charge, and Precise Hunter to add to attack rolls in certain circumstances at the Heroic Tier. That's 10 out of ~80 or so Heroic Tier Feats, so ~1 in 8 heroic feats grant it. I do agree that attack bonuses are limited, but not _that_ limited. I feel like you have to work to get them to apply, since most are situational.

As for stackability, Harmony of Erathis is a power bonus and Hellfire Blood is a feat bonus. Those do not stack with other power or feat bonuses, respectively, but they do stack with untyped bonuses and bonuses of different types. (Note: Hellfire Blood may be the only feat with an attack bonus with the "feat" type, so it effectively stacks with everything published so far.) So, these all stack with each other (and with other bonuses, with the exception of Maradin's Resolve and other power bonuses), whenever the situations simultaneously apply. If you have a flaming light blade that adds the fire keyword to your attack, have a divine blessing from an ally, and make an opportunity attack on a foe granting combat advantage, that's 5 feats that grant bonuses that all stack. Plus, those stack with class features and racial abilities.

So, attack bonuses are hard to get, but not that hard to get. This last session, I had +17 to hit using action surge (+3), strength mod (+4), special bonus for Sweeping Blow power (+2), proficiency bonus with weapon keyword (+3), Fighter Weapon Talent class feature (+1), enhancement bonus (+1), level mod (+1), and a power bonus the cleric granted me (+2). +10 of that I get on all my weapon-based powers. +7 of that was situational. Then again, my build is designed to accumulate bonuses but does pathetic damage (d8+6, for 10.5 average, 14 max).

Finally, you *start* your turn next to 3+ enemies less often than you'd think. I often move next to three enemies and end next to three enemies, but rarely *start* next to three enemies. For that reason, I've been waffling whether I prefer Against All Odds or Powerful Charge next (though I definitely want both in some order).

So, I think you have a point, though I do disagree about stackability. I see things more as having to work to get those situational bonuses. --Karat 09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan 21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC) The new feat definitely follows the stated philosophy for stackability of bonuses from feats. Those bonuses which apply pretty much all the time are "Feat" bonuses, so you only get the best one. Those bonuses which are contingent on some specific situation are untyped bonuses, which alway stack. You can question whether starting your turn next to 3 opponents is rare enough a situation to merit an untyped bonus, but I think it probably is. In particular, since it's the beginning of the turn, the character getting the bonus cannot force it to occur single-handedly. The enemies need to actually gang up on him. I think this is a rare bonus, and the attempt to make it less rare will encourage the kind of behavior the feat is meant to encourage - Fighters try to get out front into the thick of things.

I separately take your point about the total number of feats available which give attack bonuses. That's a possible way of balancing things, but I doubt it's the one WotC had in mind. I'd predict that Martial Power will introduce a plethora of new options along those lines. I think the real limitation turns out being the number of feat slots available (which isn't that many). In your limited number of slots, you get to decide if you want to focus on attack/damage/mobility/etc, and you get to decide which situations you want to optimize for.

Maximizing Damage

When you Crit, exactly which dice are maximizing? Specifically, are extra dice added by Quarry, Backstab, etc. maximized? I thought not, but Eddy says there's a FAQ indicating that all dice are maximized, with the only exception being dice granted only on a crit (e.g. by a magic weapon). The Help system is down right now, though, so I can't check that.

The below is from the FAQ. The discussion boards make it more explicit that "dice you would normally roll to calculate damage" includes quarry and backstab, but the below does indicate that the dividing line is crit-only damage. --Karat 08:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

11. Which dice do I maximize when scoring a critical hit?

• Only the dice you would normally roll to calculate damage are maximized. If another bonus (like from a weapon or feat) causes you to roll extra damage dice when scoring a critical hit, those dice are rolled as normal.

Kurgan 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Without the clarification from the boards that would still be unspecific. However, I'll take your word for it that the clarification came from somone authoritative. So, that means all dice are maximized, except for those which are specifically granted as a result of the crit. That's quite nice for those who get to decide to allocate their dice after seeing the attack roll.

Karat 20:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Now that the forums are up, here it is under "Consolidated Customer Service Answers" thread in the Rules Q&A subforum:
Page 117, Critical Attacks w/ Striker extra dice Answered by Joe
q: If you score a critical hit on an attack you wish to apply sneak attack damage it are the sneak attack dice maximized?
a: Yes, there are. Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, and Warlock's Curse are all maximized on a successful critical hit.

Halving Damage

When a power does Half damage on a miss, is only the power-specific damage halved, or is all damage halved? Specifically, are extra dice from Quarry, Backstab, etc. halved? Are damage bonuses from magic weapons, Weapon Focus, etc. halved? I thought not (halve the power damage, then add bonuses), but it seems like the answer should be the same as the answer above.

Kurgan 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I still think the answer to this question should be the same as the answer on what is maximized with a crit. Given the above, I think that means all damage is halved, including bonus dice and fixed bonuses. That's certainly the simplest, since you can just do your normal math and divide by 2, rather than having to figure out what's halved and what's not. Any objections/comments?

Stealth and Unusual Senses

I'm trying to decide how the new steath rules interact with Tremorsense and Blindsight. The description of those two sense modes on DMG.67 are rather minimal. MM.280 and MM.283 have versions which are more detailed but arguably orthogonal. Here's an attept to interpret how these should add up for Stealth. I think these represent a valid interpretation of the written rules, though not necessarily the only one. Comments are welcome:

Ruling Mark 1

• Blindsight: For purposes of Stealth, Concealment (including Invisibility) and lighting conditions do not apply. Cover and line of sight apply normally. Basically, the Stealth rules apply exactly as they would in a brightly-lit room for a creature with normal vision.
• Tremorsense: Stealth is impossible for a creature who is touching a common surface. Tremorsense automatically senses them. A creature who is flying, hovering, etc. can avoid this. (Note: this interprets "as if it has line of sight" as meaning unobstructed line of sight. It could instead mean only partial line of sight guaranteed (meaning you could get cover/concealment, but not superior-cover/total-concealment) but I think "without needing to make a Perception check" as . Not sure which.)

Note that both of these rules apply only within the range of Blindsight or Tremorsense. Outside range, other sense modes apply, or the creature is blind (meaning everyone is Invisible).

The Ochre Jelly (which both parties have now faced) has both of these, to 10 squares. As defined here, Tremorsense is more powerful, so it's what applies, unless you start hovering in which case Blindsight applies.

A creature with Blind, Tremorsense, no Blindsight takes a -5 penalty to attack rolls, though, right? Further, the Blind creature grants combat advantage to everyone, and has a -10 to Perception checks. Tremorsense tells it about presence and which square you're in, so you can't use Stealth to hide from it in range. A creature with Blind, Blindsight, no Tremorsense has a special light that only works for it---so you can hide behind things, as you mention, but it can see even if you turn out the lights. Does it still grant CA to those within its Blindsight range? I know it doesn't take the penalty to all its attack rolls, since you're no longer concealed from it. And I know it grants CA to those outside Blindsight. But does it still have the Blind condition in any meaningful way when interacting with those within its Blindsight range? BrianSniffen 14:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan 19:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I don't have my books right now so I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what they meant. I think tremorsense allows you to fully sense someone, not just tell what square they're in. I think Blindsight cancels all of the penalties (-to hit, CA, etc) of being Blind as applied to things within range, but not to those out of range. Benefits of blindness (e.g. immunity to gaze attacks) still apply.

Then what benefit is blindsight to something with tremorsense? I think you've defined tremorsense to do everything blindsight does *and* ensure line-of-sight despite intervening objects. Right? BrianSniffen 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan 22:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC) In the presence of Tremorsense, and assuming the same range for both, Blindsight is only relevant against targets who are not touching a shared surface.

Having now checked the MM as well as the DMG, I see that Blindsight says it removes all negative consequences of Blindness (presumably when interacting with creatures in range). Tremorsense doesn't say that. I think this means Tremorsense leaves you Blind and with all the effects of blindness *but* perceiving all creatures on the ground without regard to interrupted line of sight. Blind says they still have Total Concealment from you, so you have a -5 to hit them, and that you grant them Combat Advantage. That is, I'm suggesting just writing out each effect separately, then combining as necessary. BrianSniffen 14:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Blind:
  • You grant Combat Advantage to everybody.
  • You can't see any target (your targets have Total Concealment).
  • You take a -10 penalty to Perception checks.
  • You can't flank an enemy.
  • You are immune to Gaze attacks.

• Tremorsense (interpolated)
  • You automatically succeed at Perception checks to notice targets within range and on the same surface.
  • You ignore interrupted line-of-sight for purposes of noticing targets.

• Blindsight (interpolated)
  • You take no negative consequences of being blind when interacting with targets within range.
    • You do not grant Combat Advantage to enemies in range.
    • Your targets within range do not have Total Concealment, and you may see them.
    • You do not take a -10 penalty to Perception checks when interacting with targets in range.
    • You can flank an enemy within range.
    • You are still immune to Gaze attacks.

In consequence a creature with only Blind and Tremorsense would still grant CA, grant Total Concealment, and take a -10 to the Perception checks it doesn't make, since it automatically succeeds. It wouldn't be able to flank. Remember that CA, TC, no-flank, etc. aren't characteristics of being invisible or the room being dark. They're very specifically effects of the Blind tag, which Tremorsense doesn't interact with. BrianSniffen 14:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tangentially, how does Blindsight interact with Shadow Walk? My assumption is that the concealment effect is lost for the warlock, but is that the case? Andy 15:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a strange assumption. Ordinarily it is *blocked line of sight* that grants Concealment. Tremorsense grants a sense of perception without regard to line of sight. Invisibility removes sight, and so indirectly grants Concealment. But Shadow Walk directly grants Concealment, doesn't it? BrianSniffen 17:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan 05:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC) God, I wish the rules here were both clear and consistent, rather than neither. I'm doing my best to follow what appears to be the intent of both the MM rules and the DMG rules, which appear to be entirely unrelated to each other. I'm finding myself forced to make decisions based both on realisim and on game balance, rather than simply interpreting written rules, and that's something I don't like. A few separate responses/clarifications basedon the comments above:

1. I'm not sure I buy the idea that the various sub-effects of Blind are orthogonal. They're listed in the table that way, because the table is most useful that way. But those effects all occur because you can't perceive what's around you, and therefore can't respond. Cancel the lack of perception and you cancel all effects. Put another way, I think the "Blinded" entry in the table is really a reversal of the "Invisible" state on PHB.281. Or at least, it really should be. I notice that the Blinded entry doesn't have a "you can't take opportunity attacks" which a reversed Invisible would have. I also notice that Invisible doesn't say you can't be flanked, but that's covered by the fact that you don't provoke (since Flanking on PHB.285 states you can't if you can't take opp attacks). I think that Blinded probably should say "no opp attacks" rather than "no flanking" (broader but more consistent).

Invisible, Blind, and a Dark room all do different things. I don't know how to combine the game rules with any view of a real world---I see the rules you've printed below, which override some of the game rules about zones and perception with an intuition about what's really happening. So let's talk sim intuition: Blindsight is easy for me to understand: it negates the negative effects of Blind. That's easy. Tremorsense doesn't do that. Your tremorsense can't tell much how someone's swinging his arm, or where he's ducking... so you still take the -5 for Total Concealment. It's like fighting someone under a sheet. You can't tell where someone's going to attack, so you grant Combat Advantage. And similar. They *did* say that the Blind thing in the module grants combat advantage all the time. They printed "Blind" in its stat block. BrianSniffen 18:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I don't like that I'm depending on sim intuition either, but I don't see an alternative. I'm not sure exactly which rules you think I'm overriding. (I know of some, but think you might know of more, since I don't know how zones come into it.) Point them out and I'll consider them. Your description is one definite possible way which Tremorsense could work in an internally consistent fantasy world. I just don't think it's the one which the authors of D&D had in mind, in this edition or in previous ones. I believe tremorsense has always been a fully-functional primary sense mode, not a radar screen which gives you blips for where people's feet are. The "fully-functional" version is more fantastic than yours, but equally internally-consistent if we're talking sim. I think your version would merit lowering the Level of the monster in question.

1. That being said, I think that the differences between Brian's suggested version and mine comes down to two ends of the spectrum of possible interpretations of the ability to "perceive ... as if it has line of sight". I interpreted it as full perception, as via unblocked line of sight. Brian's interpretation maps it to automatic success (at Stealth+10) on the perception check to determine what square your opponent is in, using the "targeting what you can't see" rules on PHB.281. There could be a half-way option between them, perception meant "as if you could see" but then cover could apply normally. I think that's how Blindsight probably works, but I can't see how one could reasonably calculate cover when viewing via tremors in a shared surface. If Cover doesn't affect Tremorsense, then that explains the different wording betwen Blindsight (making Perception checks as normal) and Tremmorsense (without needing to make a Perception check).

Cover doesn't affect any sense mode. Concealment affects senses. Cover affects line-of-effect. Lots of cover grants the same level of concealment, so it's easy to confuse them---but Tremorsense lets you ignore Concealment to notice characters, but your shots/swings still have to go around the walls which aren't trembling and so can't be seen. BrianSniffen 18:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Do you see anywhere that it's indicated that "cover grants concealment"? That would sure make sense so I wish it worked that way. I'd consider house-ruling it to work that way, in fact. But I don't think that's the way it works as written. The Stealth rules reference "Cover or Concealment" explicitly. And there's at least one place in the module which explicitly states that squares grant both cover and concealment, suggesting they stack. (Which I think is dumb, but there it is.) What I was trying to do with my distinction, by the way, was allow someone to still hide from Blindsight by being around a corner or behind an obstacle, just not behind a fog-bank.

1. In hopes of divining more of the authors' intent, I went looking for other monsters:
   1. There are no more with the Blind+Blindsight+Tremorsense combo. In the Monster Manual, all the creatures with Tremmorsense are not Blind, and some also have Darkvision or Lowlight. That makes me somewhat hesitant about my interpretation. Why would a Bullette need Darkvision if it can see everything with Tremmorsense? Maybe only for seeing ranged/flying opponents?
   2. In the module, there is a creature with Blind+Tremmorsense but not Blindsight. (They must be saving it for MM2.) This is an intro module, meant to be playable without the books, so it gives a description of what Tremmorsense means. Its description doesn't match either DMG or MM, but is close to the MM: "Can perceive creatures and objects in contact with the ground or any other shared surface within N squares without needing to make a Perception check." Looking at the attack bonuses on this monster's powers, I'm pretty confident the authors didn't intent it to be taking -5 to everything, as it would if Tremorsense only gave target squares (they could've pre-calculated it in, but they I'd have expected its Melee and Close powers to have very different bonuses). I certainly think they'd have mentioned it if the monster granted combat advantage all the time. The Blind+Tremor combo to me argues strongly that Tremorsense was intended as a fully-functional sense mode, not just an enemy-finder.
2. My statements about how Concealment is affected by these sense modes was based on the DMG statement that both Blindsight and Tremorsense cancel Invisibility and Obscured Serrain. Obscured Squares normally grant Concealment (or bock line of sight entirely). I'm not sure I can see how there'd be a difference between Concealment granted by a square or Concealment granted by another source. Indeed, I'd really rather not have a system which relied on such fine distinctions (even being the rules lawyer I am).
3. I hadn't even heard of Truesight until I scanned the MM. I think it cancels Invisibility and nothing else, though, so it doesn't complicate things too much.
4. As an aside to Brian (who's honestly most affected by this discussion, though it's not my intent to target him): I notice that Vlad has been very focused on Stealth as the source of his Backstab damage. I haven't seen nearly as much use of Flanking for that. In coordination with your allies, particularly the Warlord, I think you can do lots of clever things there, and can even more reliably get Combat Advantage most of the time regardless of your enemies' perception.  %Occasional monsters who can overcome Stealth may feel like less like "Vlad negation" if you consider Vlad's other options.

I could have built Vlad to be an Artful Dodger and emphasized the flanking and movement bonuses, yes. I instead built him to use Stealth, Cover, and Concealment.

Kurgan 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I wasn't suggesting you build Vlad differently. His emphasis on Stealth, Cover, and Concealment is certainly working very well for him. I was just pointing out that he's got fallback options if he runs into situations where his primary strategy isn't the best one. That happens sometimes. Aroc will occasionally face monsters with fire resistance and fall back on Magic Missile. Tree will occasionally regret using a Frost weapon on a Kobold who resists Cold, so he'll flip the switch. Helena will be occasionally cornered and forced to draw a sword. Same phenomenon. If I built an adventure where all of the monsters were designed to negate a single character, then you'd be right to yell at me, of course. I'm not faulting you for helping me to figure out an unclear rule, mind you. I appreciate that. Just making sure you don't see it as entirely negating your character choice.

Rolling together the above, I think I'm coming back mostly to what I said originally. Here it is in clarified form (no longer limited to Stealth):

Ruling Mark 2

• Blindsight: Targets within range are perceived fully despite Blindness, Concealment (including Invisibility), and lighting conditions. Cover from solid obstacles applies normally, and can be used for Stealth.
• Tremorsense: Targets within range and touching a shared surface are perceived fully despite Blindness, Concealment (including Invisibility), Cover (including solid walls), and lighting conditions. Stealth is impossible if the range and shared surface conditions are met.

Kurgan 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC) After reading the 3.5 SRD (assuming the authors' intent was similar to 3.5) and a bunch of forums today I'm re-considering my stance on tremorsense (blindsight is unchanged). The 3.5 rules do specifically say tremorsense "senses the location" of something, not "perceives" something. That and the fact that blindsight+blindsense are nicely clear in 3.5 suggests that tremorsense in 3.5 worked the way Brian suggested after all. If that's the way it works in 4, then the DMG is blatantly wrong, and I think the monster in the module should probably have Blindsight as well as Tremorsense (for level balance if not by clear intent). I don't like having to contradict two written rules which haven't been subject to errata, but that may actually turn out to be the intended effect. I'm still not sure, and need to do more research before I can close this issue, though.

Potions

Must a potion be Ready to be administered? That is, to administer a potion to someone must I take a Minor action to ready it, then a Standard action to use it on him or myself?

Using it on yourself is a Minor action. In both cases, though, the rules are unclear on whether the action assumes the potion is already readied, though. Anyone see a clarification anywhere? I'm likely to say the action includes drawing the potion in both cases, by default.

I haven't seen any indication that anything that doesn't take a hand slot needs to be readied. So weapons, implements, wands, orbs, staves, and rods may need to be readied---but magic items in general don't. You don't need a free hand to use your hat's daily power, and you don't need a free hand to use a potion. Surely fingers are involved somewhere, but apparently not to an extent that impedes fighting with that hand. BrianSniffen 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Drawing Weapons

Is drawing a weapon a minor action? Is drawing two weapons (one per hand) a single action or two?

The only reference I see is the table on page 289. Under minor actions: "You can draw or sheathe a weapon." -- Karat 07:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything else. I'm tempted to be permissive and say you can draw or sheathe 2 weapons in a single action, assuming they're weapons you could use together. This makes it a standard of 2 minor actions to "swap your weapon set", or 1 minor if you're willing to drop your current weapon(s). Any comments? --Kurgan 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you also then clarify hand-swapping? I have a short-sword in my right hand and a dagger in my left. I want a dagger in my right and a shuriken in my left. One minor to sheath the short-sword, swap the dagger to my left hand, and draw the shuriken? BrianSniffen 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no. Assuming I go the permissive route, it still means each hand is doing one "thing". Passing to the other hand is like Sheathing, Taking from the other hand is like Drawing. In your example, both hands are trying to do two things. Yes, this means going from Sword-Dagger to Dagger-Sword is 2 minor actions. --Kurgan 00:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually now re-thinking the permissive route as being too much of a non-obvious interpretation of the rules as written. The rules say that "drawing or sheathing a weapon" is a minor action. That's "a weapon", not "some weapons". Going beyond that is about simulationist arguments about what you can do with two hands. So I think my ruling is going to be that it takes two minor actions to draw two weapons. This makes the Quick Draw Feat way cool for Rangers. Commnents? --Kurgan 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that makes Quick-Draw + Two-Weapon Fighting let you draw two weapons and use both. That's neat. But it also means that swapping from two-swords to bow or back is three Minor actions, or a full round. That's a long time. I would like to buy Vlad some tethers for his daggers so that he can drop them Free. Frankly, I'd really like a magic throwing dagger which will solve the whole problem. It's nice to want things. BrianSniffen 04:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick Draw plus Twin Strike (Ranger At-Will) definitely lets you draw both weapons, since you're about to attack with them both. Whether Two-Weapon Fighting means you can draw both and then attack with one is less clear. Looking at the Quick Draw wording, having it in your off-hand for the bonus is clearly not "attacking with the weapon", but I guess it can count as "using the object". I wonder what I might be unintentionally opening a loophole for by saying that, though. --Kurgan 17:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tying your weapon to your wrist so you can drop it without losing it is a clever idea. Not so suitable for thrown weapons, of course. Note that I don't think a magic dagger returns to your hand if you drop it rather than throwing it. That would be rather counter-productive if your goal is to free a hand for something else :). So I think you can solve one or the other problem, not both at once. (Note that someday I predict the weapon-tied-to-my-wrist idea will lead to a Monk wanting stats for Kama-swinging-from-my-wrist, which will be even more fun. And perfectly fine. The book with Monks in it may even have stats for a Kusari-Gama, which is effectively what that would be.) --Kurgan 17:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Marks When You Go Down

I can't find any discussion of whether Marks go away when either the marker or the markee goes down. I could take that to mean they don't, but I think they probably should, since if they don't a lot of weird edge cases occur. A paladin gets penalized for not challenging a dead foe. You get a penalty to an attack which doesn't include a dead foe, etc.

I think it's probably pretty non-controvercial that a Mark goes away if the marker or the markee is dead. If I need a rules-lawyer explanation, I could say that marks apply to creatures, and a corpse is no longer a creature. (That's for markee only, though.)

But what about if they're just unconscious? I'm tempted to say it goes away then too, but that's mostly from the simulationist argument that someone isn't very challenging when they're unconscious. From a gamist point of view, I don't want monsters to be encouraged to attack unconscious characters. The flip side, though, is that if your Defender marks someone, gets taken down, then gets back up within the space of a round, his mark is gone. Opinions?

--Unconscious at zero or fewer HP, yes. Unconscious but for a save, no. --Andy 03:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

By which mean specifically mark goes away if you're Dying, but not if you're just Unconscious? Do you intend that for both the marker and the markee? --Kurgan 04:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The boards do discuss this under Divine Challenge, but the conclusion wasn't obvious or official and suggested that the DM use their own judgement. I'm in favor of them going away with unconsciousness, regardless of source (eg sleep spell). However, I admit that I have no rules argument to back this up. I simply feel that losing the mark is a small price to pay for not having a Coup de Grace on you, and the books suggest that monsters not use Coup de Grace on helpless characters when other character remain threats. --Karat 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Divine Challenge Degrade

The damage-dealing part of a Divine Challenge says "... it takes radiant damage ... the first time it makes an attack that doesnt' include you as a target before the start of yoru next turn." It's unclear to me whether this suggests that the damage clause applies only on the first turn after the challenge is applied, or whether it's meant to re-set every turn. Note that if it's the former, it means you get no damage after the first turn, since you can't re-mark the same target (per the last sentence of the Special section below.)

I hadn't seen that wording before. I'm going to go on the assumption it's meant to just mean "damage at most once for each of your turns, resetting at the start of your turn". Any comments?

- I think consistent with the interpretation you didn't choose, it is easy to assert that, effectively, during your turn, you either Sustain (for free) an existing mark, or move it (at cost) to another target, and then check for mark failure clause, and then they have the eit until the start of your next turn, at which point you renew it or move it.

I interpret the English ("the first time [X happens] before the start of your next turn") to be trying to say that it only deals damage once per turn. To say that it only happens on the first turn, you'd have to say "Before the start of your next turn, [if X happens] then it takes radiant damage." It's technically ambiguous, but the clause placement does favor the "once a turn" interpretation. Also, though we are going by rules as written, the interviews/sneak peeks said that the paladin feature can deal damage each turn, which shows their intention. --Karat 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Flaming Sphere

The latest Errata have changed the wording of Flaming Sphere. It used to be:

"You conjure a Medium flaming sphere in an unoccupied square within range, and the sphere attacks an adjacent creature."

It is now:

"You conjure a Medium flaming sphere that occupies a a square within range, and the sphere attacks."

I think I understand the clarification that the sphere occupies a square. It means nobody else can occupy it or move through it, though it doesn't "fill" the square to diagonal move past it is fine. However, I wonder where the word "adjacent" went. It's been suggested to me that the sphere instead shares a square with a creature, which it attacks. But that violates my understanding of what it means to "occupy" a square.

Anny comments? For now, I'm going to pretend the word "adjacent" is still there.

I think the main point of the errata here is that conjurations in general were given an errata that made them not occupy unless mentioned otherwise, so they are mentioning otherwise. Occupying and attacking rules and then executed normally, which would mean that you can't bamf on top of a monster unless you have something else that lets you. This allows exceptional cases to operate normally -- eg Suppose there was a tiny creature that you could occupy the same square as; then you could conjure there. --Karat 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But my remaining core question is whether the "attack" is Melee, Ranged, or what. I don't think it gets the same keywords as the Power itself. By default I think it's like a Melee attack, which is what it would be if the word "adjacent" was still there. --Kurgan 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Target: One creature adjacent to the flaming sphere" remains unchanged. It is supposed to appear after the effect line, so it describes what "attack" means. --Karat 00:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian's attempted summary of the newly written Stealth system

Please rename this to "new stealth system" or something as appropriate, correcting any mistakes I make.

Stealth has three purposes: in-combat Stealth for purposes of Combat Advantage, changing the Awareness of monsters, and beginning combat with a Surprise Round. These are not new rules, only a synthesis of the existing rules (Revised Stealth Rules, DMG p36).

In-combat Stealth

Uses the rules as written at Revised Stealth Rules, noting the Failure retry condition. This only works when an initiative clock is ticking.

Who gets a Surprise Round?

Any side trying to ambush makes a single Stealth roll using the lowest modifier of its members. Anyone ten or more squares away may make a separate roll. This is compared to the Passive Perception of each member of the other side, and to the Active Perception of any Alert members of the other side. Most monsters are Ready, not Alert. All of the ambushers and any targets who made their Perception act during the Surprise round.

Those who want to hide before combat can hide using the task resolution below, and stay hidden across the boundary.

Surprise rounds never happen once the initiative clock is counting---even if you teleport in to the middle of a fight expecting a tea party, you act fully in your first round and are not surprised. There is no "Surprised" status and no equivalent to 3e Flat-Footed.

Monster Awareness

This is handled out of combat by the generic task-resolution system. Those with a bunch of time to hide may get circumstance bonuses, for example---but probably don't get to re-roll to simulate lots of time. It's a skill check. The Failure section of the Revised Stealth Rules doesn't apply here, just as Failure sections of other skills (e.g. falling damage from climbing Athletics) don't apply out of combat: the GM will just tell you after you fail what happens and when you can retry.

At the boundary entering combat, this is handled by the Surprise Round above. See that section for hiding at the entrance to a combat, too. Note that a failed Stealth roll, even when out of sight, may crack a branch and let the monsters know that Something is here.

In combat, monsters are aware of anyone not Hidden using the In-combat Stealth section above.

Stealth before Combat

Update from Kurgan: I moved this from To-Do to Open Questions because I had a chance to consult my DMG (after Eddy's comment prodded me). On DMG.36, last paragraph, this case is handled explicitly. One roll (option #3), made by the character with the lowest Stealth roll. Characters more than 10 squuares away roll separately. That's what I used for the Kobold ambushes, but I'd forgotten the specifics.

OK. Let's try using the rules-as-written, then, since we're now all refreshed on them: group stealth for monsters, alertness rules for monsters, player knowledge of skill rolls, and see what happens. I will be very surprised if this turns out to break terribly. BrianSniffen 03:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the DMG applies these rules equally to both sides of an encounter. The party's going to be making a single Stealth roll, except for outriders who are 10 or more squares away. FYI, I'm still not convinced that player knowledge of skill rolls is always going to be the expectation (and that character knowledge will definitely not be), but I'm leaving that out of this discussion as irrelevant. --Kurgan 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant to the discussion I'm having and to the positions I've set forth. I don't believe what I've said can be understood without incorporating that. BrianSniffen 17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Page 15 of the DMG discusses issues of open/hidden die rolls under Table Rules. It suggests that players should roll their dice in the open (to keep things honest). Then it talks about DM rolls being open or hidden. It's up to the DM, but there are times when you want a secret roll (for things like perception) to avoid metagaming. However, it is supposed to be up to the DM's judgement which ones are open and which are hidden.--Karat 00:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless my or others' preferences, that's the rule as written, and handles both the scouting and ambush cases. The only remaining case is if scouting succeeds, and you want to sneak up and start the combat. In this case I think I might give the players a choice about when "combat time" starts, at which point we shift to the "in combat" mechanic. Here's the trade-off. If you don't start combat time, you're using the DMG.36 mechanic when it does start, and getting a surprise round as appropriate. If you start it immediately, everyone rolls initiave with no surprise round, but the monsters are still unware of you. You can move around while far away and optimize your stealth roll if you want, but all the monsters are all either "walking a beat" or delaying, and will react appropriately. You can try to arrange yourselves to take advantage of delaying/readying yourselves if you'd like. You've got the map, and as much tactical info as your characters have: go nuts.

I would like to understand how the second alternative interacts with the Rogue power to get free Combat Advantage from those who haven't acted yet in a combat. Can you clarify? If they've been walking a beat, does Vlad have CA over them? If not, you're just packing more inside the loop. Instead of looped stealth rolls, it's now looped stealth+initiate combat sessions. This is what I meant by "One per what?" on Tuesday. BrianSniffen 03:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you start the combat, they act on their initiative. If they're delaying or walking a beat, it's no longer true that they "haven't acted yet". That's part of the trade-off here. I'll let you pick your mechanic - then you get the mechanic as written. Note I will not allow you to arbitrarily start and stop combat inside your re-try loop. No in-game-world explanation needed, it simply isn't something I'll accept in my game. --Kurgan 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't understand "the mechanic as written." I don't see what you said in the DMG p36 section on Surprise. I haven't looked at the PHB section yet, but does it say this about Surprise rounds? BrianSniffen 17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what this will do to monsters ambushing us. Does this mean that they roll once for a pack, and then either try to take a surprise round based on that first roll or wait longer and re-roll? BrianSniffen 17:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments? I still don't particularly like the ability to approach with even the Paladin having made a 20 on a Stealth roll by trying enough times, but I'm willing to see if any of you feel like pushing it.

I missed this looping discussion, but the written mechanic seems clear to me (with the exception of whether or not you need cover/concealment from someone who is distracted). As long as you keep out of sight, keep quiet, keep still, and don't attack, you stay out of combat time. The moment someone breaks one of these rules, someone fails a stealth roll, or someone succeeds in a perception roll, combat time starts with a surprise round (unless nobody is surpised, in which case it is a normal round). The side with stealth and those who succeed in perception checks or can obviously see the target act in the surprise round. Hidden characters remain hidden until they themselves break one of the rules for remaining hidden. Everyone gets CA against all surprised targets in the surprise round. The rogue, even if not hidden, still gets CA against anyone who has not acted yet. This can be both the surprise round and the first action round (if the rogue's initiative is higher). This seems all good for the stealthing side, with one exception -- they must stay out of sight with either cover, concealment, avoiding line of sight, or having the enemy be distracted. It is hard to position yourselves while maintaining cover/concealment. As for rerolling stealth, either you roll low enough to start combat (you made a sound, even if out of line of sight) or high enough that you don't need to reroll.

Ooh. I like that point. If you fail the Stealth roll, you aren't Hidden. You're just out of line of sight. You may well be hidden before they get anyone around to see you, but they got a "radar blip" anyway. If Kurgan uses that with monsters approaching in to fight us, it will lead to most excellent suspense. BrianSniffen 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to reroll anyway, you still start combat if you fail. Page 15 of the DMG allows the DM to make this roll be hidden from the players anyway. --Karat 00:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's off in Rule 0 territory. Any DM who says players don't see the results of typical checks and can't act on them is playing some game that isn't D&D. BrianSniffen 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know where you are getting that. I am claiming that this falls under "table rules" and that there are times when hidden rolls are appropriate. I provided a reference for this. I am *not* claiming that your idea is unreasonable, but instead that reasonable alternatives exist. (However, I believe the word "typical" is not sufficiently well defined in order to base an argument off of it. A frequent exception can be typical in that it is frequent but it can be atypical in that it is an exception.) To emphasize, your idea is a reasonable table rule, but it is not the only reasonable table rule possible. --Karat 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

With some additional thought, the mechanic does assume no new entities appear on the scene. It assumes that all monsters can hear you if you fail. There's no range listed, so I'm assuming it's up to the DM what's a reasonable range. However, the text obviously assumes that monsters are present. I'd say that this assumption claims implicitly that stealth only starts when you are close enough to be heard. --Karat 00:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion follows:

The rules as revised by Hasbro are posted at Revised Stealth Rules.

When using Stealth to sneak up on foes, or set an ambush for them, do you get to know how good your roll is? If it's bad, can you re-try? The possible ways I can see this working:

1. Re-try as often as you like (1 per move action), effectively taking 20.
2. Take 10, effectively using your average/passive Stealth.
3. Make a single roll which applies the first time it's important. Live with the results.

I don't buy #1, personally. I'm waffling between #2 and #3. When suggesting alternatives, players should keep in mind that I intend to use the same system for monsters as for PCs.

I don't buy #1 either: Re-try as often as you like is not the same as taking 20. I don't see any reason to introduce a take-20 mechanic now. Let's deal with these as separate questions. First, players know the result of their characters rolls and can make choices based on those rolls. Stealth is made at the end of a Move action, not the beginning, so you can't change what you're doing with the Move based on the failed roll. But you can (e.g.) change whether your Standard action afterwards is an attack or a Ready. BrianSniffen 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If the roll's bad, let's use the rules as written: you can try again at the end of another move action. When those results produce a problem in play, can we fix it then? Alternately, if problems are obvious to others, can someone explain them to me? Note that designer Mearls, at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1055454 , says that Rogues are expected to be getting Sneak Attack on just about every attack (his other comments are about the pre-errata rules). The most this gives is scouting when we're planning an attack, ambush when we're planning a defense, and Combat Advantage at the beginning of the fight. I don't see the problems from any of those, whether we or the monsters use them. BrianSniffen 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of time pressure, this equates to option #1, right? And option #1 either equates to "roll until you annoy the players" (which I am not willing to accept), or equates to taking 20 (which was a mechanic intended to avoid repeated rolls to annoy the players), or means some complicated house rule half-way between the two. --Kurgan 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't equate to your #1, which mentions "take 20". It's not a rule set, but an application of a meta-rule: don't fix what isn't broken, and you can't tell what's broken without play. When something breaks in play, fix it. BrianSniffen 03:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned "take 20" because I think it's the only reasonable response to unlimited re-rolls. I do already know one thing which is broken. Vlad wanted to re-try a failed Stealth roll without any consequences. I didn't think he should. Game paused as a result. That's broken. The disturbance was small, thanks to good player manners all around. But I'd rather deal with future problems before they occur. --Kurgan 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct. Vlad's re-try did have consequences: other PCs were off doing their thing. Vlad couldn't coordinate with them without breaking stealth, so had no way to say that he was now happy with his stealth roll and going ahead. He had a fixed amount of time to hide himself. The bonus for having 4 rounds instead of 1 round to hide yourself is that you get 4 rolls, not 1, and you stop when you have one you're happy with---note that it's not roll 4 times and take the highest. You weren't happy with the consequences, but I think that's the broken part. We've never tried the rules as written, and I'd like to before we throw them out. BrianSniffen 17:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note, however, that I didn't remember the "Keep Still" clause of the revised rules. Being limited to 4 squares per round may itself be a limitation when you're scouting during travel. That is, assuming I apply the corresponding speed reduction to the party's travel speed (which I will), and that I make the consequences of 3x travel times meaningful (which I can do if necessary). This still doesn't do anything to the prepared ambush case, though. --Kurgan 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Vlad's 2nd level utility feat is penalty negation for normal movement and Stealth. So he can keep moving at 12 squares/round while hidden, and using his minor action for an active perception check. Others don't get that. That's certainly how I intend to approach future combat/scouting on screen. Off screen, I expect you to apply the Alertness rules as intended for monsters. BrianSniffen 03:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That gets you around the penalty, not the need to re-roll if you don't "Keep Still". Still a way useful power, though. I don't think that statement nerfs it. --Kurgan 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As to using the same system for monsters as for PCs: that's fine, but monsters of the same type who aren't deployed as a group all making a single roll isn't what we're doing. Taking 20 isn't what we're doing. We're only using Stealth when in combat time, which corresponds roughly to Alert. Monsters aren't Alert for long. So they can make several rolls while Alert... but then lapse back to their default state. If you give pre-hidden monsters a 10 for their Stealth, that's fine. Pre-hidden monsters feels like a very, very minor edge---maybe worth XP as a minor trap, maybe not. It's an awfully small bonus. BrianSniffen 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't roll separate initiative for monsters either, and yet I don't expect (or hear) any complaints when a whole group of monsters rolls well or badly, even though it can sometimes be important. I see combining Stealth rolls if we choose option #3 the same way. You don't get to spot the one minion who rolled badly, but you also don't fail to see the one who rolled well. On average it works out the same. That's very different from (for instance) using option #3 for monsters while players get to use option #1. --Kurgan 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Initiative combines differently, mostly because you can't communicate initiative. It only takes one perceptive member of each side to notice one unstealthy member of the other side---initiative doesn't work like that. There are no complaints about groups of monsters rolling initiative for that reason. Grouped stealth or perception is very different. Ten people looking ought to be about nine times as good as one person looking. Ten people hiding ought to be much worse than one person hiding. Grouped Stealth or Perception rolls break that. BrianSniffen 03:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But that's a simulationist argument, which I've been trying to avoid. It's also mostly unrelated to whether one person hiding gets to re-try when they screw up. --Kurgan 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I like like the Alert analogy, which I'd take to mean that neither monsters nor PCs can "keep a good stealth roll" for more than 5 minutes. I've always felt it's somewhat awkward the way that these rules seem to be built on the implicit assumption that active rolls are better than passive rolls. For Stealth, the case I'm interested in is the opposite. Does Vlad always get to use his 21 "Passive Stealth" at the start of an encounter, or can he ever screw up and face some consequences. Honestly, I think occasional consequences are more interesting/fun than guaranteed success against most monsters. I think I agree with Eddy's comments below on that front. --Kurgan 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anything you apply consequences to is disincentivized. There's already a penalty to player investment in the skill system---scarce resources pulled from the to-hit/AC and damage/HP arenas. I don't understand why you want to make skills riskier and harder. I think reliable abilities for characters are more interesting and fun---guaranteed success against most monsters is what I paid three class features, a utility power, an at-will power, a feat, a class skill selection, a skill training, and am about to pay another feat for. Sometimes, even that won't be enough. There are monsters Vlad can't hide from. When we meet some, they'll be especially scary, memorable, and good targets---it'll cause us to have a reason to kill some monsters faster than others, to target preferentially. BrianSniffen 03:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We may have to agree to disagree on that. I think guaranteed success is uninteresting, and that if I'm forced to ramp up the opposition so as to keep Vlad from having guaranteed success, I just make sure that nobody can play the Stealth game because they haven't invested as much. It's kinda like the Exalted problem of providing worthy opponents for the Dawn Caste without killing the Eclipse. D&D is supposed to be better balanced than that. --Kurgan 05:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Of these choices, I like #3 best for two reasons:

• Taking 10 is usually for non-stressful situations or those without a huge penalty for failure.
• It makes things less predictable, which is a good thing, in my opinion.

On the other hand, I can see a case for taking 10 in cases where you lay in wait (as you would get a chance to rearrange yourselves behind the rock until you have it right).

Also, I believe the book suggests only one roll be made for a group, using the lowest modifier in the group. --Karat 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

These past discussions have ended, but are kept here for posterity, in case the issues ever need to be re-opened.

When does the elf racial power apply?

Does the Elf racial power (+1 to Perception checks for non-elf allies within 5 squares) apply when I'm asleep, or only when I'm awake? Can I sleep next to the watch station and help our scouts be better at noticing ambushes? --Kat 13:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how you'd help when you're asleep, but then I'm not entirely sure how you do it when awake either. It's not really simulationist regardless. I'd say you need to be conscious, though. Any comments? --Kurgan 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is house-ruling simulation in before we even start. The effects of unconsciousness are specified. If you start this route, you'd better specify whether she grants the bonus while dazed, helpless, grappled, stunned, immobilized, blinded, or petrified. The sane choices I can see are that it's automatic and always on---works even to notice the Elf's lies, if you're still an ally---or that it takes a Free action. BrianSniffen 13:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. For now, it'll mean exactly what it says. If your elf buddy is asleep, she still has the kludgite aura of "see things better". --Kurgan 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Cleave one attack or two?

The fighter Marks anyone he attacks. Cleave does damage to two creatures with a single attack roll. Does the second target get marked? I'm a bit worried about the general effect if I declare that the second target is not "attacked". I could imagine defensive powers being triggered "when someone attacks you" which should probably go off.

I think I recall a section about Secondary Attacks not triggering most powers that work like that; you've only *targeted* one enemy, after all. I haven't found it while flipping around, though. BrianSniffen 05:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleave is unusual in that there is no secondary target field. It is conspicuously absent. More details in personal email to kurgan. -- Eddy 20100130063707

I'd love to find an explicit rule here on my re-reading or in later errata. However, Eddy's convinced me it's not a second attack for now. --Kurgan 02:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not treat Cleave as an Area effect attack, that targets one individual, and effects someone else in range? I think that resolves the marking dilemma, as well as the Challenge issue, and should let defensive powers work appropriately - you are effectively in a Blast; if your defense works on that, great. --Char/Andy

Targets of Blasts do get individual attack rolls, though. That's new in 4E - it's now separate attacks vs. Ref/Fort/Wil rather than the old individual saves. Cleave as defined is more indirect than that. --Kurgan 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The second target of Cleave takes fixed damage, much like the missed target of Reaping Strike. The second target of Cleave isn't really a target at all. He's just somebody who "takes damage", without a defense or an attack. He hasn't been attacked. Maybe he got hit with shrapnel from the real target. There are a few other sources of naked damage in the game. Ongoing damage, for example, keeps hurting you without an attack roll. BrianSniffen 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Other powers very clearly delineate multiple targets with keywords such as "Target: All enemies in burst" or "Secondary Target." The wording here is carefully "takes damage" without the mention of the "target" or "attack" or "defense" keywords. --Karat 20100130063707

Is Regeneration Healing?

The Cleric adds his Wisdom to any Cleric Power granting Healing. Several Cleric Powers, including Melora's Tide, grant Regeneration. Regeneration is specifically defined to be a subset of Healing. Does the Cleric grant a higher level of Regeneration? For example, Melora's Tide grants Regeneration 2 until the target is unBloodied. Does a Wisdom 16 Cleric grant Regeneration 5? It's not clear to me that this is a benefit, overall: you're unBloodied faster, and have less chance of falling down, but probably gain less total HP from the effect.

"add your Wisdom modifier to the hit points the recipient regains" is the problem here. I'd say that it *is* healing because it has the healing keyword (satisfying the first part), but the ability grants no hit points (failing the second part). It grants regeneration, which will eventually grant hit points, but the ability itself does not grant hit points. -- Eddy 20100130063707

Brian pointed out a discussion thread here which points out that answers from WotC customer support (of which the posters have a low opinion) have varied. My favored interpretation is that the bonus would apply only to the first instance of regen (the bonus is to the _total_ hit points gained, not every individual instance), but that matches neither of the CSR answers. Comments? --Kurgan 02:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I like Eddy's interpretation. Reading through last night, it's the only thing that makes sense. Kurgan, yours doesn't quite work, as the definition of regen includes a "fixed number of hit points each turn."

One interpretation that backs the 5,2,2,... result is this: Melora's Tide is a Cleric Power with the Healing Keyword. It grants 0 HP of direct healing and Regeneration 2. When used by a Cleric with Healer's Lore (and Wis +3), it grants 0+3=3 HP and Regen 2. There are a number of other Cleric effects that grant better healing, such as Beacon of Hope, and a number of other effects that grant regen. Accidental details of the wording is not the right way to solve this---the general question is whether bonuses to the amount of damage healed by a Healing power affect the type of Healing called Regeneration. BrianSniffen 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation above would suggest that it's not actually 5,2,2, but 3+2,2,2. That is, as far as I know Regen doesn't give you anything immediately, but only gives you something at the beginning of your next turn when regen normally happens. The extra 3 would occur immediately, though. That's actually more of a behavioral change than expected (and a benefit when a Cleric is trying to save a dying individual), but I could live with it. --Kurgan 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, shall we try rules-as-written first, then? Regeneration is Healing. When you gain HP from a Cleric Power with the Healing keyword, gain the Cleric's Wisdom in extra HP: 5, 5, 5... BrianSniffen 13:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of the rules as written is that the power grants regeneration status, not HP. I can maybe see the argument that since the power has the HEALING keyword, it grants 0 HP + status regeneration 2, which then becomes 3 HP + status regeneration 2, but I can't see how it would change status Regeneration 2 to status Regeneration 5. You continue regenerating due to the status, even if the cleric leaves, dies, etc. (Note: "Status" may be the wrong word here. If so, please substitute the correct one.) --Karat 20100130063707

Almost no power grants HP. Lots of powers grant Healing, though. Regeneration is a subset of Healing. BrianSniffen 20:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the power is HEALING (due to the keyword). That is not the question, though, as the text of the class feature says "add ... to hit points the recipient regains" not "add ... to healing granted by the power." Otherwise, I would agree with you. What happens to a power that gives someone status regeneration 2? Does it stay status regeneration 2 because the power does not cause the recipient to regain HP? Does it become 3 immediate HP + status regeneration 2 because there is an implicit grant of HP (albeit 0 HP) due to the HEALING keyword? Does it become regeneration 5 because the recipient regains HP from the power, albeit indirectly? --Karat 20100130063707

I believe the point of this discussion is that there is legitimate disagreement on what the rules "as written" say. My intent is not to change any rules intentionally, so we wouldn't be having this conversation at all if the rules were clear. I'll need my books in front of me again before I can make a "good enough for now" ruling. --Kurgan 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rituals without skills

Clerics start with two rituals: Gentle Repose and one other. If a Cleric has training only in Religion, Insight, Heal, and Diplomacy, what can he have as his second ritual?

"You must meet two requirements to master a ritual. You must have the Ritual Caster feat (clerics and wizards get this feat at 1st level), and your level must equal or exceed the ritual's level." You don't need to actually have the key skill to master it. -- Eddy 20100130063707

Agreed. Any other comments/objections before I declare this closed? --Kurgan 02:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)