|
If he wants to take more Skill Powers as feats, just let him---most of them are just utility powers or the kind of stuff a better skill system would let you do anyway. Or let him trade out utility powers, there's no real harm in it, since for a ton of classes their specific benefits from utility powers have more combat impact than given skill powers, and outside of combat's already so ill-supported by the rules that it never hurts to have more options. The LAST thing I'd suggest is letting someone replace attack powers with skill powers, because burning out the (already limited) number of attack options a character has in favor of giving them more utility/edge case bonus options is just going to lead to a player getting bored when they run out of all their "good" attacks that much sooner.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Dremcon posted:What if assassin shrouds were more of an internal counter thing and could be invoked on any target. So instead of putting them on targets you put them on yourself and use them up whenever. In the 4E game I'm in we have a shroud Assassin and they use this exact houserule, it works fine. In fact Mike Mearls himself once said in an article that this should probably have been incorporated into the Assassin class but I guess being the D&D Lead Designer at the time it wasn't within his remit to do anything like update a purely digital class or anything, oh well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
That would have the benefit of cluttering our Masterplan battlemap less with connections between tokens. We've already got two marks and at least one curse up at all times and it has more than once gotten to the point where we couldn't see a token for all the labels. They're already more or less steamrolling everything but then the most fun battle we had recently was one where they weren't in any real danger to begin with so if it removes a source of frustration, I'm willing to give it a shot. Have to have a look at those powers and feats though. Skill powers: yeah as far as I'm concerned he can load all his utility slots up with skill powers, no issue with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
There are some powers that do extra damage to targets with a shroud on them, stuff like that, but it in no way makes the Assassin overpowered or imbalanced to just say "you get any such bonuses so long as you have at least one shroud built up, go to town."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Ha, we even just now finished the storyarc where he officially entered the Assassin's Guild, this will make a great reward. Superior training to make it Assassin's Focus or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Yeah, Shroud Assassin's are underpowered as poo poo unless you either: A)Homebrew them, and even then they usually won't be on par or B) Use some EXTREMELY legalistic assumptions about shrouds that describe them as seperate damage rolls that are part of the attack invoking them, allowing them to benefit from any vulnerabilites or extra damage one might deal. From the charop forums- Look Very Carefully: The Shroud Assassin's Handbook Look Very Carefully: The Shroud Assassin's Handbook posted:Assassin's Shroud
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Yeah, Shroud Assassin's are underpowered as poo poo unless you either: Honestly, I think that even if the authors of feats and powers and classes didn't always fully appreciate/comprehend this kind of legalistic interpretation when they wrote the powers, it's one of 4e's strengths that it CAN be parsed so precisely, and I would also support that interpretation of shrouds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
One instance of damage per shroud seems a bit much. I dunno. I feel like the wording is essentially "extra damage, just in other words" but distinction by omission of key words and proofreading errors are both things known to happen in 4E so who knows. Anyway, something else entirely. I'm toying with the idea of giving my party a gun. Not in the sense that guns are a common weapon in the world, storywise it would be somewhere between a one-of-a-kind irreproducable special weapon and, at best, a prototype. I'd also like to invite them to use alchemical items more because one of them decided to be an alchemist, so I'm thinking about something that could be called the Alchemical Cannon. Now, it could be a reflavoured repeating crossbow and alchemy comes into play simply by making custom ammo - my favourite option but none of them uses ranged weapons and they probably wouldn't start just for that. So it could also be something like a grenade launcher that shoots regular alchemical items (or ammo-ified ones), but offers the option to load them up in advance so they don't have to waste actions drawing them (again, similar to a repeating crossbow). Regular bullets could reenter the equation as custom alchemical items, or maybe it's just the launcher, to keep things simple. I'm vaguely aware of the Alchemical Launcher for Warforged but I'm not sure that's what I want this gun to do. It's mostly supposed to make using alchemical items a bit easier and introduce the concept of complex technology. e: for story reasons, this should also be something an NPC companion can wield for a while, but if it's more complex than a single power it can just be his entire gimmick. My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:One instance of damage per shroud seems a bit much. I dunno. I feel like the wording is essentially "extra damage, just in other words" but distinction by omission of key words and proofreading errors are both things known to happen in 4E so who knows. "Extra Damage" is a defined game term that has a specific meaning. If the shrouds were supposed to be merely "extra damage" they would have been labeled as such. Further shrouds don't say "the attack does an additional 1d6.." which would lend credence to your argument that it would be extra damage in other words. However, the way the phrasing on shrouds is currently written, it essentially adds the relevant text to the effect line of the attack. Whether or not each shroud counts as its own damage instance or if all shrouds count as 1 damage instance is a relatively pointless argument. If invoking each shroud grants a separate damage instance, it is still optimal to place 1 shroud and invoke it upon the next attack. Really, all the ruling that it doesn't grant an additional damage instance does is make the feats that grant additional shrouds useless, and prevent the assassin from occasionally performing a coup de grace in combat with all his shrouds, which is a bit of a flavor fail. I personally would rule that the assassin can use each shroud as a separate damage instance, to incentivize them to place all their shrouds and invoke them, rather than doing necessarily that which is mechanically optimal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
I just ran my first game! I had fun, and I think most of my players had fun. One of them didn't, but I'll see if I can't help him rework his character into something he'll have fun playing. Skill challenges were surprisingly well received, the one fight we had was a bit slow due to us learning the game but was overall fun, with lots of movements and tactics. The Cahulaks are crazy good weapons. My players: - A Dragonborn Sorcerer Templar, works for the new King Tithian - A Mul Arena Fighter, crazy and looking for his sanity (a bit fishmalkish, but the players ahd fun, so heh) - A Half-Elf Bard Minstrel, looking inconspicuous - A Mul Battlemind Nomad, just trying to survive - An Elven Druid Elemental priest, who wants to bring back the rains - A Dwarven Druid Primal Warden, who wants to bring back balance (the players who didn't have fun because he thought Druids would be closer to their 3.5 versions) I'm crazy excited about the next game in two week. So far 4E seems to be what i wanted it to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
It's obvious that each invoked shroud isn't a separate instance of vulnerability-proccing bonus damage, and even more obvious that the Assassin's Shroud power is missing the word "extra". That is to say, it should read "the attack deals 1d6 extra damage per shroud", not "the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud", since the existing wording implies that the shrouds somehow overwrite the damage the attack was actually going to deal. Even if it instead said "additional" or "complimentary" there's no reason to believe that the whole affair doesn't sum to a single damage total which then interacts with vulnerability or extra damage in the usual manner. The way you include a shroud assassin is a game is by making sure the other characters aren't all built exclusively to ping an enemy with Vuln 30 All with twenty separate instances of 1d4+40 damage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Shroud Assassin suffers by compare even in lightly/near unoptimized parties, though, so. While treating every individual shroud as a damage roll is probably going too far, shroud invocation as a whole being a damage roll is an interesting method of lifting Assassin up out of the well of suck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
In a lightly/near-unoptimized party, shroud invocation being a whole separate damage roll wouldn't help because it wouldn't be true that every enemy is constantly suffering vulnerability to all damage and separately adding extra damage to every attack thrown at it and so on. You'd be like, hooray, this is a separate damage roll! But it just deals its listed dice expression anyway because we aren't piling on the game elements that care. I don't think the shroud assassin is that bad in unoptimized parties, though. Its main problem is that it can't take multiple turns per turn the way that rangers, rogues, wizards, and fighters effectively can. If you roll with rogues that don't stack up on the minor action attacks, wizards that that use fire-and-forget dailies, etc you'll be working on the same basic math that your friends are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
For what it's worth, he's having fun, the main source of frustration for him wasting his shrouds when he misses. The others taking down a shrouded monster is even a secondary concern. I think a small problem is that he never seems to think of just putting on one shroud and invoking it immediately (which would put his damage on roughly the same level as that of a ranger, rogue or warlock), it's usually all or nothing. It has lead to some nice one-shots but I might have to tip him off that waiting for four shrouds works best for elites and solos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Except the rogue will by their features will do more damage than an assassin. Per turn, at heroic, an assassin deals 1d6 extra damage per turn while the rogue does 2d6. At paragon, the assassin will do 1d6+3 while the rogue will do 3d6. At epic, the assassin will do 1d6+6 versus the rogue's 5d6. While the assassin can stack shrouds, this both reduces their damage for the turns they don't invoke them and runs the risk of the creature dying before the assassin can activate the shrouds. Edit: That was in response to Ferrinus, but it works with My Lovely Horse, too. djw175 fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
That's true. Scratch the rogue. Never played or DMed for one very long so I don't know their details. And of course, the warlock can have multiple curses up, the ranger can hold back his extra damage until after a confirmed hit etc...
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
For what it's worth, they do have around parity with the warlock. But the warlock has the curse benefits and is also partly a controller. And the ranger also has parity, but it has dual strike, so it comes out ahead there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
There are more things than just vulnerability that care about being a separate damage roll - some of them are difficult to apply to Shroud, but they exist.djw175 posted:Except the rogue will by their features will do more damage than an assassin. Per turn, at heroic, an assassin deals 1d6 extra damage per turn while the rogue does 2d6. At paragon, the assassin will do 1d6+3 while the rogue will do 3d6. At epic, the assassin will do 1d6+6 versus the rogue's 5d6. While the assassin can stack shrouds, this both reduces their damage for the turns they don't invoke them and runs the risk of the creature dying before the assassin can activate the shrouds. Sure, Assassin has Night Stalker.. but it's conditional and also doesn't have any tier scaling, so even if you were landing Night Stalker consistently and rolling shrouds, you'd still fall behind again by Paragon. And you're still the worst choice for granted attacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:For what it's worth, he's having fun, the main source of frustration for him wasting his shrouds when he misses. The others taking down a shrouded monster is even a secondary concern. I think a small problem is that he never seems to think of just putting on one shroud and invoking it immediately (which would put his damage on roughly the same level as that of a ranger, rogue or warlock), it's usually all or nothing. It has lead to some nice one-shots but I might have to tip him off that waiting for four shrouds works best for elites and solos. This is the most important thing. As long as the guy is having fun, then just school him a little on different ways of using his shrouds. Make sure he understands that there is no difference to him unleashing 2 shrouds twice and 4 shrouds once. Make sure he understands that losing his shrouds on a miss is not a bad thing - hell he is getting damage on a miss which no one else gets to do outside of dailies (unless there was only one, so in that case there is no downside) If he has 1 or more shrouds on a target and he gets a bonus to hit from flanking or another character buff then he should invoke them If he wants to go for the big impressive one shot, build them up on a target that no one has engaged yet (a little un optimised but hey) If I remember correctly there are also a bunch of attack/utility powers that interact with shrouds in interesting ways - make sure he is using these too. On paper their extra damage mechanic is not as good as the 3 original strikers (rogue, warlock, ranger) but they still work in their role and can contribute to a party - they are far from being a seeker or vampire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's obvious that each invoked shroud isn't a separate instance of vulnerability-proccing bonus damage, and even more obvious that the Assassin's Shroud power is missing the word "extra". That is to say, it should read "the attack deals 1d6 extra damage per shroud", not "the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud", since the existing wording implies that the shrouds somehow overwrite the damage the attack was actually going to deal. Even if it instead said "additional" or "complimentary" there's no reason to believe that the whole affair doesn't sum to a single damage total which then interacts with vulnerability or extra damage in the usual manner. I won't argue with you about whether or not EACH shroud invoked grants a separate damage instance, or not. The wording is vague enough that it could go either way, but it is certain that invoked shrouds are a separate damage instance. Since the power is missing the word "extra" the shrouds are not granting the defined game term "extra damage". Further the ability was never errata'd to reflect this, so by RAW, the shrouds are an extra instance of damage rather than "extra damage". Shrouds don't overwrite the attack as the ability doesn't say "instead of" any where in its text. You can argue about RAI until you are blue in the face, and I could even concede that your perception of the designers intent is accurate, but that would not make you any more correct about how shrouds actually function, which is how I outlined in my above post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:I won't argue with you about whether or not EACH shroud invoked grants a separate damage instance, or not. The wording is vague enough that it could go either way, but it is certain that invoked shrouds are a separate damage instance. Since the power is missing the word "extra" the shrouds are not granting the defined game term "extra damage". Further the ability was never errata'd to reflect this, so by RAW, the shrouds are an extra instance of damage rather than "extra damage". Shrouds don't overwrite the attack as the ability doesn't say "instead of" any where in its text. You can argue about RAI until you are blue in the face, and I could even concede that your perception of the designers intent is accurate, but that would not make you any more correct about how shrouds actually function, which is how I outlined in my above post. So I activate my shrouds hit with an attack that should deal 5 damage. Now the attack deals 5 damage and 1d6 damage, also known as 1d6+5 damage. Where does it say those two instances separately proc vulnerability, extra damage, or other rules toys? It doesn't. In fact, the language states that shroud damage is considered to be coming from the attack, not from something distinct from the attack and therefore entitled to separately trigger whatever special conditions apply to that mysterious, second entity. The simplest assassin buff is probably a flat declaration that an assassin automatically and for free places a shroud on anything they attack, 1/turn, in addition to shrouds they place by activating powers or triggering feats or whatever. Then they, like other strikers, would be at least reasonably attractive to grant attacks to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
The assassin also suffers from lacking feat support, not just in terms of lots of feats, but in terms of good feats. Like, consider. At Paragon, any Warlock's going to take Twofold Pact, which lets you curse two enemies/turn. The closest comparison for the Assassin is Killer's Insight (a Heroic feat), which lets you put two shrouds on one guy...once per encounter. And then half their Paragon feats are dumb fiddly concealment poo poo or buffing racial powers for more "1/encounter, get something useful out of this feat" stuff. If they either added shrouds to targets per attack, or could spend additional actions for more shrouds (hell, make it a feature called Studying the Target, letting you spend a minor for a shroud in addition to the free action 1/turn or a move for 2, then bump those numbers up by one at either Paragon or Epic or with a feat or something), and suddenly they'd start looking a lot more competitive. And all that, without having to rely on the most disingenuously Charoppy interpretation of the relatively straightforward language of quote:If you invoke your shrouds, the attack deals 1d6 damage per shroud, minus one shroud if the attack misses, and all your shrouds then vanish from the target. This damage roll never benefits from bonuses to damage rolls, and is in addition to the attack’s damage, if any.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
What the assassin needs is minor/multi/off-turn attacks so that it's not worse than Rogue in every respect. I really like the assassin and its features/utilities, but it's attack powers suck something fierce.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
quote:and is in addition to the attack’s damage, if any. That phrasing makes me think that they were very deliberate in not using the words extra damage, as extra damage cannot be applied to attacks that don't already deal damage. They wanted you to be able to kill somebody with a Bull Rush or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Anyone run Zeitgeist in this thread? Was thinking about running it for my group and was wondering if there is anything I should know off the bat about it. Been reading through the players guide and about to start the Campaign guide. I do also realize it's not done and they are taking their sweet time to finish it
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:Anyone run Zeitgeist in this thread? Was thinking about running it for my group and was wondering if there is anything I should know off the bat about it. Been reading through the players guide and about to start the Campaign guide. I do also realize it's not done and they are taking their sweet time to finish it I subscribed to the whole thing, and get an update every couple months, which . . . seems about right, for the level of quality they're producing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
homullus posted:I subscribed to the whole thing, and get an update every couple months, which . . . seems about right, for the level of quality they're producing. Cool I'll probably try the intro see if my group like it then grab a sub. Those updates, how long ish do they last in terms of sessions? I mean if I start now I'll have a bunch of backlog but I'm kind curious Cerepol fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:Cool I'll probably try the intro see if my group like it then grab a sub. Forums superstar dwarf74 is the only one I know of actually playing through it right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Really Pants is running Zeitgeist here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:Anyone run Zeitgeist in this thread? Was thinking about running it for my group and was wondering if there is anything I should know off the bat about it. Been reading through the players guide and about to start the Campaign guide. I do also realize it's not done and they are taking their sweet time to finish it The main thing I noticed is that NPC dialogue is extremely bare-bones--just a couple lines per scene, along with some basic motivations and response guidelines. You have to be pretty good at improvising, or at least better than me, to keep it rolling well at an IRL table.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:Anyone run Zeitgeist in this thread? Was thinking about running it for my group and was wondering if there is anything I should know off the bat about it. Been reading through the players guide and about to start the Campaign guide. I do also realize it's not done and they are taking their sweet time to finish it My only concern is that the maps are gigantic! Otherwise, it runs really well. The first adventure is pretty short. Past that each one is probably 30 to 40 table hours if you're not rushing. My biggest advice is to get player buy-in for the setting. Strongly encourage Zeitgeist themes, if not outright enforcing them; it runs way better that way. Second, try and get your players to think kind of holistically and to keep track of NPCs. There are downloadable cards to help. Stuff like prestige and investigation require this. I also prefer inherent bonuses. They work well, here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:So I activate my shrouds hit with an attack that should deal 5 damage. Now the attack deals 5 damage and 1d6 damage, also known as 1d6+5 damage. Where does it say those two instances separately proc vulnerability, extra damage, or other rules toys? It doesn't. In fact, the language states that shroud damage is considered to be coming from the attack, not from something distinct from the attack and therefore entitled to separately trigger whatever special conditions apply to that mysterious, second entity. 1) RC 222. "... an attack power might contain multiple damage rolls ... if a creature has a bonus to damage rolls and uses such a power, the creature applies the bonus to every damage roll of that power." 2) RC 223. "Extra damage is always in addition to other damage and is of the same type or types as that damage ... An effect that deals no damage cannot deal extra damage. However, a power doesn't necessarily have to hit a target to deal extra damage - it needs only to deal damage to the target." 3) RC 225. "Being vulnerable to a damage type means a creature takes extra damage from that damage type. ... For instance, if a creature has vulnerable 5 fire, it takes 5 extra fire damage whenever it takes that type of damage." So, as mentioned upthread: Shrouds aren't an attack, they're part of the attack. However, they're not extra damage, which means it's not added to the rest of the power's damage, which can only mean it's a separate instance. This is further reinforced by the rule for damage rolls, since Shroud is a damage roll - it just can't gain bonuses to damage rolls. Since it's a separate instance, it would therefore trigger vulnerability independently, as it's another instance of taking damage. Ultimately, this is RAW. It's not a disingenuous or charitable interpretation, this is How It Works. 4e's language choices are deliberate and intentional, to the occasional detriment of the designer who forgets that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
What I'm not seeing is any indication that a power with multiple damage rolls therefore triggers vulnerability or extra damage multiple times. You're right that assassin's shroud would be able to double up on bonuses to damage rolls... which is why it explicitly does not benefit from bonuses to damage rolls. Otherwise, multiplying an attack's extra damage by the number of damage rolls that attack requires, even when all those damage rolls occur in the same instant in response to the same single d20 attack vs. defense roll, comes out of nowhere. If I had to pick a single biggest problem with your reasoning, it would be this: quote:However, they're not extra damage, which means it's not added to the rest of the power's damage, which can only mean it's a separate instance. That doesn't follow. You can not be formal, capital-letters Extra Damage... but still be added to the rest of a power's damage. Nowhere in the book does it say that only things called Extra Damage are allowed to do that. 4e very frequently simulates rules concepts without directly invoking those rules concepts, usually to create loopholes or otherwise avoid triggering certain effects. For example, if I used a Move-action power to Slide myself a number of squares equal to my speed, I would be able to dodge Immobilized. In this case, by not being actual Extra Damage, Assassin's Shroud is capable of adding damage to missed at-wills, bull rushes, etc. However, there's no reason to assume that it counts as a helpful ghost who attacks simultaneous to your character and therefore doubles a bunch of your miscellaneous/weirdly-worded bonuses. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What I'm not seeing is any indication that a power with multiple damage rolls therefore triggers vulnerability or extra damage multiple times. You're right that assassin's shroud would be able to double up on bonuses to damage rolls... which is why it explicitly does not benefit from bonuses to damage rolls. Otherwise, multiplying an attack's extra damage by the number of damage rolls that attack requires, even when all those damage rolls occur in the same instant in response to the same single d20 attack vs. defense roll, comes out of nowhere. The "extra damage" from vulnerability happens whenever the creature with vulnerable takes damage. A damage roll is one instance of damage. Each time a creature takes damage, vulnerability pings. This can happen multiple times during an attack. Thats why "Extra Damage" is a defined game term, as is "bonus", those are modifiers to a damage roll/damage that do not count as their own separate instance of damage. Pinging vulnerability and abusing this fact of 4e design is a good portion of 4e striker optimization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:The "extra damage" from vulnerability happens whenever the creature with vulnerable takes damage. A damage roll is one instance of damage. Is it, though? Where's it say so? I'm pretty sure there's no such game term as "instance of damage". The vulnerability rules certainly don't use it - they just say "whenever". What we do have, though, is this language in Extra Damage: "Extra damage is always in addition to other damage" And this language in Assassin's Shroud: "This damage roll never benefits from bonuses to damage rolls, and is in addition to the attack’s damage, if any." So the two actually work the same way. They're both in addition to damage. Why would one, but not the other, double-tap vulnerability and other miscellaneous not-technically-bonuses?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What I'm not seeing is any indication that a power with multiple damage rolls therefore triggers vulnerability or extra damage multiple times. You're right that assassin's shroud would be able to double up on bonuses to damage rolls... which is why it explicitly does not benefit from bonuses to damage rolls. Otherwise, multiplying an attack's extra damage by the number of damage rolls that attack requires, even when all those damage rolls occur in the same instant in response to the same single d20 attack vs. defense roll, comes out of nowhere. quote:That doesn't follow. You can not be formal, capital-letters Extra Damage... but still be added to the rest of a power's damage. Nowhere in the book does it say that only things called Extra Damage are allowed to do that. 4e very frequently simulates rules concepts without directly invoking those rules concepts, usually to create loopholes or otherwise avoid triggering certain effects. For example, if I used a Move-action power to Slide myself a number of squares equal to my speed, I would be able to dodge Immobilized. In this case, by not being actual Extra Damage, Assassin's Shroud is capable of adding damage to missed at-wills, bull rushes, etc. However, there's no reason to assume that it counts as a helpful ghost who attacks simultaneous to your character and therefore doubles a bunch of your miscellaneous/weirdly-worded bonuses. Ferrinus posted:Is it, though? Where's it say so? I'm pretty sure there's no such game term as "instance of damage". The vulnerability rules certainly don't use it - they just say "whenever". That's seriously the only difference. The Assassin rabbit hole is deep, unlike their power set.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
It's not called out as being "its own" or an "independent" damage roll (more terms appearing nowhere in the rules). It's called out being: A) damage dealt by the attack B) damage in addition to any already dealt by the attack That second part is how extra damage works. Extra damage is, and here we actually do have explicitly matching language, dealt in addition to any already dealt by the attack. So, unless you think that an enemy with Vuln 5 all takes 10 extra damage from a rogue striking from combat advantage, you don't have any grounds on which to claim that an enemy with Vuln 5 all takes 10 extra damage from an assassin striking with prep time. An attack having multiple damage rolls is unusual, but it doesn't automatically spawn new rules in its wake. There are powers floating around 4e that deal, like, 2W + Stat weapon damage and also 1d6 thunder damage. Such a power is still a power which generates a single attack which has a single Hit: line attached. "Damage roll" isn't the thing that triggers extra damage - the only thing it triggers is damage bonuses. Damage is. Having multiple damage rolls isn't the same time as dealing damage multiple times. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
No, but it's called out as being a damage roll, which is what makes it independent. It is not a modification to a damage roll, or a bonus, or extra damage. It is a damage roll. That has very definite meaning, since a damage roll is what all those bonuses and modifiers stick to. RC 222, Damage Rolls: "When most attacks deal damage, they do so through a damage roll: a roll of dice to determine damage. Whenever a power or other effect requires a damage roll, it specifies which dice to roll and how many of them. For instance, an attack might indicate that it deals 2d8+4 damage on a hit. When a creature hits with that attack, roll 2 eight-sided dice and add 4 to determine how much damage it deals." RC 222, Modifiers to Damage Rolls: "Many powers, feats, and other game features grant bonuses or penalties to damage rolls. A bonus to a damage roll is added to the damage roll as a whole, not to each die within it. ... If a creature has a bonus to damage rolls and uses such a power, the creature applies the bonus to every damage roll of that power." This isn't the same for rogues: When Sneak Attack comes along as part of a successful hit, it's just as extra damage. You're right that there is a match between extra damage and in addition to, and normally I'd agree that would be enough to just rule it as poorly-worded extra damage, but in this case you're putting the cart before the horse: it's a damage roll in addition to the attack's damage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Just be a Monk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Really Pants posted:Just be a Monk. Monks have there own rules weirdness to deal with. Specifically their poorly written, and therefore awesome, powers that let you use the attack technique of certain full disciplines as part of the movement technique. Dance of the Stinging Hornet is the first one that comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:47
|
|