Ratchet wrote:

Not to sure, probably for completionism.

I believe its just 360gp.

Does anyone know if there is a more definitive answer?

The price is the price. I just double-checked the PHB, and there is nothing in there about adding the base cost of the item. In the price section, it uses the example of a +5 Holy Avenger costing 625,000 gp, not 625,000 gp plus the item value.

They simplified the pricing because, when you are dealing with magic items, the cost of the base item is negligible anyway and just causes extra calculations.

I understand that. However, I want to know if you can hold a shield and wield an implement in the same hand, or if an implement is more like a weapon, in that you can't wield both a shield and an implement in the same hand.

BTW, I used the term 'shield hand' because that's the term the book uses.

Unfortunately, I can't find a good definition for "wield". The Implement entries for every class except those that use holy symbols state that the implement must be wielded to confer any bonuses. As pointed out earlier, the rules state that holy symbols need only be worn, and also that an implement is not required to use the powers.

The entry for "light shield" says that you can hold another item with your shield hand, whereas with a heavy shield, you can't use your shield hand for any other task. The question is, does hold = wield. I would rule that it does, so a character could benefit from a light shield and wield an implement in the same hand. This would be of particular benefit to sorcerers that have the shield proficiency and dual implement spellcaster feats (although the ability requirements for such a build might make this route unpopular).

The rules do seem to be a little unclear, though.

The rules do seem to be a little unclear, though.

We should ask the sage. :)

I am just curious on various house rules when a flying target becomes immobilized, do they plumment to the ground for damage or gently float?

Celestial Healer wrote:

The rules do seem to be a little unclear, though.

We should ask the sage. :)

I'd say the implement needs to be held, yes. A staff, weapon, tome, orb, wand, rod, whatever it is. I'm 99% certain of this. It just sounds silly if you have a wizard or warlock using a wand or staff tied to his back or stuck in his belt. You gotta point that thing at what you want blasted!!!

Holy symbols appear to be the only exception as they can be worn and it specifically states that.

DoveArrow wrote:

Celestial Healer wrote:

The rules do seem to be a little unclear, though.

We should ask the sage. :)

I'd say the implement needs to be held, yes. A staff, weapon, tome, orb, wand, rod, whatever it is. I'm 99% certain of this. It just sounds silly if you have a wizard or warlock using a wand or staff tied to his back or stuck in his belt. You gotta point that thing at what you want blasted!!!

Holy symbols appear to be the only exception as they can be worn and it specifically states that.

Agreed. That's exactly what I said.

The question is whether wielding is any more involved than simply holding an item. Per the light shield description, you can hold another item in your shield hand. Is that adequate to be considered wielding the item?

I would personally say that to "wield" an item you need to be holding it freely in your hand without being encumbered by a shield. Presumably you need to wave it around and present it boldly at your foes and the like. I think this would be too difficult to manage while having a shield strapped to your arm. Also ruling it this way helps keep all the annoying munchkins out there in line.

I would personally say that to "wield" an item you need to be holding it freely in your hand without being encumbered by a shield. Presumably you need to wave it around and present it boldly at your foes and the like. I think this would be too difficult to manage while having a shield strapped to your arm. Also ruling it this way helps keep all the annoying munchkins out there in line.

Yeah. That's pretty much how I've been playing it. Not that it's really come up, since we're 1st level, but you know.

Do you get level bonus' on attacks when you use a magic item power.

Example, Fireblazer ring says Con. or Chr. +4 vs. reflex. It dosn't mention if you add half your level.

Do you get level bonus' on attacks when you use a magic item power.

Example, Fireblazer ring says Con. or Chr. +4 vs. reflex. It dosn't mention if you add half your level.

In the section on attack rolls, it says you always get half your level, so I would say so.

yes you do get 1/2 level.

Do you get level bonus' on attacks when you use a magic item power.

Example, Fireblazer ring says Con. or Chr. +4 vs. reflex. It dosn't mention if you add half your level.

Thanks, I reread the attack rules after I posted and answered my own question but thanks again for the trouble.

OK I have a new player ask me for my Honest View on which would be a better controller The Wizard or the Invoker...i am very biased towards the Invoker so which would be the better class, As he wants to do Crowd Control on a large scale but knows he won't be able to do much damage.

OK I have a new player ask me for my Honest View on which would be a better controller The Wizard or the Invoker...i am very biased towards the Invoker so which would be the better class, As he wants to do Crowd Control on a large scale but knows he won't be able to do much damage.

I'm playing an Invoker, and it's a lot of fun. I'd enjoy playing a Wizard too, though. They both are solid classes and bring unique things to the table.

OK I have a new player ask me for my Honest View on which would be a better controller The Wizard or the Invoker...i am very biased towards the Invoker so which would be the better class, As he wants to do Crowd Control on a large scale but knows he won't be able to do much damage.

What level is this at? I'm playing a low level Invoker, and they get some cool tricks early on, but I think Wizards really start to come into their own at the mid-to-later levels. Both are good choices, in the end - I'd see which flavor he prefers (educated master of the arcane, or righteous conduit of divine power), and go with that!

Can someone clarify the mage's power "Icy Rays" for us? It says it will affect one or two targets and (on one reading of the power) seems to imply there is one attack per target - so if you only choose one target you only make one attack. Another interpretation was that if you only use it on one target you make two separate attacks - there are two rays and you can use them to strike two opponents or the same guy twice.

Is there a place where resolving this situation (or similar) is spelt out?

My interpretation would be the latter. You can target one person, and if you do, you fire both rays at the target and make two attack and damage rolls. It is an encounter power, so it needs to be somewhat useful.

My interpretation is the opposite; the power allows one attack per target, and the Targets: field clearly states one or two creatures. If only one creature is targeted, there is only one target, and you only receive a single attack.

In other words, you're not getting the full use out of your power unless you have two targets to attack.

Again, though, that's just one interpretation.

Icy Rays tells you precisely how many attacks you get: One per target, end of story. If you target one guy, you can make one attack against him. If you target two guys, you can make one attack against each.

It might seem weak that you could end up with only one target, and getting 'half' the attacks you are entitled to. But keep in mind - the Wizard is all about hitting multiple enemies, rather than just one. This attack is good to compare against an area effect attack. It is essentially a multi-target attack that is friendly fire - pick out two enemies, pretty much anywhere on the field, and you can attack them each without worrying about hurting any allies. But, just like when you drop a fireball, if there is only one enemy you can hit with it, that doesn't mean you get to make extra attacks against that one enemy.

An attack that would work let you stack attacks would be Twin Strike - note that is specifies "Target: One or Two Creatures" and "Attack: Str or Dex vs AC, two attacks." So that tells us it gets two attacks every time - which means if there is only one creature being attacked, you make both attacks against it. if there are two creatures being targeted, you get one against each. Many ranger powers work similarly - whereas many wizard powers are like Icy Rays, and designed to target multiple enemies, rather than let you attack one enemy many times.

Each attack will typically be clear on how it works - just check whether it simply lists a number of attacks (which means it is up to you to distribute), or if it says you get one attack per target. If you only get one attack per target, then that's the way it works, no matter how nice it might be to be otherwise.

Yeah, Actually I think you are right now that I look at it again.

My interpretation is the opposite; the power allows one attack per target, and the Targets: field clearly states one or two creatures. If only one creature is targeted, there is only one target, and you only receive a single attack.

In other words, you're not getting the full use out of your power unless you have two targets to attack.

Again, though, that's just one interpretation.

Thank you all (yet again). I play the mage and was in the strange position of arguing for the "only one attack per target" interpretation even though the others generally thought I should get two rays against the one foe.

I get to go back with both the moral highground and the inferred authority of the paizo-4thed-gurus now. :)

Thank you all (yet again). I play the mage and was in the strange position of arguing for the "only one attack per target" interpretation even though the others generally thought I should get two rays against the one foe.

I get to go back with both the moral highground and the inferred authority of the paizo-4thed-gurus now. :)

If I count as a guru, I agree with the interpretations above - 1 attack.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Thank you all (yet again). I play the mage and was in the strange position of arguing for the "only one attack per target" interpretation even though the others generally thought I should get two rays against the one foe.

I get to go back with both the moral highground and the inferred authority of the paizo-4thed-gurus now. :)

If I count as a guru, I agree with the interpretations above - 1 attack.

You definitely do. Cheers. :)

My next idiot question - can a fighter mark more than one opponent at a time?

My next idiot question - can a fighter mark more than one opponent at a time?

They can mark anyone they attack (note, it works whether they hit or miss) on their turn, which can certainly include more than one target. That includes people they make an Opportunity Attack against, which I've just realised we had wrong.

Steve Geddes wrote:

My next idiot question - can a fighter mark more than one opponent at a time?

They can mark anyone they attack (note, it works whether they hit or miss) on their turn, which can certainly include more than one target. That includes people they make an Opportunity Attack against, which I've just realised we had wrong.

Cheers. We've been doing it quite wrong.

Is there a werebear in 4e yet? Either as a monster or a template? Thank you.

Is there a werebear in 4e yet? Either as a monster or a template? Thank you.

Not yet. There are a number of were-creatures (weretigers, wereboars, wererats, werewolves, etc.) but no bears. It shouldn't be difficult to create one, though. I'd just pick another were-creature of about the level you want and refluff a couple of its powers to be more bear-like.

Galdor the Great wrote:

Is there a werebear in 4e yet? Either as a monster or a template? Thank you.

Not yet. There are a number of were-creatures (weretigers, wereboars, wererats, werewolves, etc.) but no bears. It shouldn't be difficult to create one, though. I'd just pick another were-creature of about the level you want and refluff a couple of its powers to be more bear-like.

I wonder what the werebear lore should look like ;)