Idiot's Guide to 4E


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

People should feel free to ask questions about experiences with 4th Edition, or general questions about how the game works. This thread doesn't need to exist solely for Q&As about specific rulings.


I think that leads to heated debate, so people may be skirting those sorts of questions. Not to mention many have already given their experiences.

Scarab Sages

Why isn't a reached weapons attack of opportunity threat range the same as its attack range?


Ubermench wrote:
Why isn't a reached weapons attack of opportunity threat range the same as its attack range?

Why? I dont know. To get "reach" threat, you need a specific entry in the monster stat block called "threatening reach". Currently I dont think this is available to players.


Ratchet wrote:
Ubermench wrote:
Why isn't a reached weapons attack of opportunity threat range the same as its attack range?
Why? I dont know. To get "reach" threat, you need a specific entry in the monster stat block called "threatening reach". Currently I dont think this is available to players.

There have recently been a few ways to get it for players.

A Dragon article presented Spiked Chain Weapon Mastery - this is essentially a way for a character, instead of multiclassing, to super-specialize in a weapon via a chain of feats (no pun intended.) One of the later feats lets them swap a utility power to get a daily power that gives them threatening reach for an encounter.

In PHB2, there is a Paragon Path for Goliaths (a race of big rock dudes), which gives a power that lets them get threatening reach for a round once per encounter.

So you can't have it really available all the time, but there are a few ways to get it here and there.

As for the question itself:

Ubermench wrote:
Why isn't a reached weapons attack of opportunity threat range the same as its attack range?

In-character explanation: Wielding a reach weapon allows you the ability to make thrusts at a long distance (such as with a polearm), or whip around a chain and hurl one end at an enemy some distance away (such as with a spiked chain). However, it takes a decent bit of effort to make such an attack - your weapon isn't actually constantly held 10' away from you, threatening all foes that approach. It is only that far away when you attack, and enemies can walk up to you without impaling themselves upon it - whereas when they walk by you, it is a much quicker effort to slice an unwary opponent who is only a few feet away. Thus, you can attack a distance away with reach weapons, but you aren't constantly threatening with it.

Out-of-character explanation: One of the goals of 4E was to make combat less static and more mobile. Part of this was done by making all attacks standard actions (rather than worrying about full-rounds), so characters could always have a move action available. But they also wanted to encourage movement and dynamic, shifting combats. Threatening reach - especially combined with the ability to stop a foe or trip them - made this much harder. Thus, they made it much rarer - in some fights, it is a danger, but as a general rule, they want to make it easy for you to get in the enemy's face!

Hope those explanations make sense!

Scarab Sages

It's a better explanation than I got on the WotC boards but the reasons still sound bad. With the rules as they are it defeats the purpose and function of pole arms which is to attack multiple times before a guy with a sword gets in close enough to use it.


Ah! I believe I see the crux of the problem. We have a disconnect between the real world and the abstraction of a role playing game.

How much abstraction do you prefer and how much can be houseruled into submission?


There is a reach-focused paragon path in martial power that gives you the equivalent of threatening reach as a daily stance. So true masters of the polearm do in fact use reach to gain more attacks.

Scarab Sages

CourtFool wrote:

Ah! I believe I see the crux of the problem. We have a disconnect between the real world and the abstraction of a role playing game.

How much abstraction do you prefer and how much can be houseruled into submission?

If the rules stated that weapons with reach get an opportunity attack at 2 squares but not at 1 square would make much more sense to me and still keep the combat abstract.


I see your point and I agree with you. You could always house rule it that way in your game.

To me, there are much larger flaws that turn me off.

If the rules stated that armor reduced damage from a successful hit instead of reducing the chance of being hit, it would make more sense to me and still keep combat abstract.

I apologize if this sounds like a bash on 4e or even D&D. It is not meant to be. My point is reach weapons not getting opportunity attacks at 2 squares seems a minor issue. And that is not meant as a bash on Ubermench.

Scarab Sages

CourtFool wrote:

I see your point and I agree with you. You could always house rule it that way in your game.

To me, there are much larger flaws that turn me off.

If the rules stated that armor reduced damage from a successful hit instead of reducing the chance of being hit, it would make more sense to me and still keep combat abstract.

I apologize if this sounds like a bash on 4e or even D&D. It is not meant to be. My point is reach weapons not getting opportunity attacks at 2 squares seems a minor issue. And that is not meant as a bash on Ubermench.

No problem. I also agree with what you said about armor reducing damages instead of reducing the chance to get hit but I can overlook it (3.5 has the same issues). What I can't overlook is a pike hedge that won't stop an incoming charge until the attackers get in close enough that they can use daggers to attack back.


Speaking of daggers, you kind of have the same problem with sword vs. dagger.

Scarab Sages

CourtFool wrote:
Speaking of daggers, you kind of have the same problem with sword vs. dagger.

True.

I just want a system that balances the realism of Phoenix Command with the cinematic style of WoD.


Fair enough. Like I said, you could house rule it. I believe G.U.R.P.S. has a penalty for shorter weapons vs. longer weapons. I believe Hero’s is a -1 for each reach difference between the two until you 'get under' the guard, at which point the penalty is transferred to the person with the longer weapon.

Of course, neither of those rules address the issue of attacking first.


Ubermench wrote:
No problem. I also agree with what you said about armor reducing damages instead of reducing the chance to get hit but I can overlook it (3.5 has the same issues). What I can't overlook is a pike hedge that won't stop an incoming charge until the attackers get in close enough that they can use daggers to attack back.

To be honest, the lack of threatening reach has a lot more to do with favoring players over monsters. A lot of classic monsters are bigger than the PCs (dragons, giants, ogres, trolls, ect.). As a player, it sucks when the giant with a 15' (3 squares :)) reach gets multiple free attacks before you even get close. It's no secret that 4E design makes a lot of concessions in the realism department in an effort to make combat more "fun". Luckily, it's not difficult to house rule if your gaming group prefers a more realistic approach.

Spoiler:
Completely off topic: In a way, I agree with the designers' choice to do it that way. I think gaming groups that prefer that type of realism are more willing to change things to fit their style rather than strictly adhering to the rules, adventure, ect. as written. On the other hand, groups that wouldn't bat an eyelash at that kind of stuff are probably the same groups that religiously adhere to rules as written and play published adventures exactly as presented. Just a thought, anyway.


Ubermench wrote:
CourtFool wrote:

I see your point and I agree with you. You could always house rule it that way in your game.

To me, there are much larger flaws that turn me off.

If the rules stated that armor reduced damage from a successful hit instead of reducing the chance of being hit, it would make more sense to me and still keep combat abstract.

I apologize if this sounds like a bash on 4e or even D&D. It is not meant to be. My point is reach weapons not getting opportunity attacks at 2 squares seems a minor issue. And that is not meant as a bash on Ubermench.

No problem. I also agree with what you said about armor reducing damages instead of reducing the chance to get hit but I can overlook it (3.5 has the same issues). What I can't overlook is a pike hedge that won't stop an incoming charge until the attackers get in close enough that they can use daggers to attack back.

You could just Ready an action to attack as soon as they are within 2 of you. I think that would work fine, and would seem a pretty apt mechanical description of a pike hedge.


besides just readying an action (Which I think is the most apt way to do it) there is also polearm gamble, where you can take a free opportunity attack against anyone who goes adjacent to you, but also give them combat advantage. Paragon Tier Feat.

Isn't it amazing what RTFM will do eh?


Logos wrote:

besides just readying an action (Which I think is the most apt way to do it) there is also polearm gamble, where you can take a free opportunity attack against anyone who goes adjacent to you, but also give them combat advantage. Paragon Tier Feat.

Isn't it amazing what RTFM will do eh?

Polearm Gamble is indeed what you want to look into, here. It's the equivalent of gaining Threatening Reach-lite and gives you a serious leg-up as a defender or Warlord.

There is a clarification on the use of Polearm Gamble at this link.


I have a quick question regarding combat. This has come up a couple of times in our game.

What all gets added to the attack rolls and damage rolls for powers?

Also how do you guys work divine challenge when the paladin uses it at the end of his turn to mark a creature (but does not end his turn next to that enemy) and then next round attacks a different enemy and marks that enemy (never engaging the previous enemy)?

Thanks Guys


Runfer wrote:
What all gets added to the attack rolls and damage rolls for powers?

If the power has the "weapon" keyword:

attack bonus = half level + attribute modifier specified in the power + weapon's proficiency bonus
damage = [w] (i.e., the weapon’s base damage die) x any multiplier specified in the power + specified attribute modifier

If the power does not have the "weapon" keyword:

attack bonus = half level + attribute modifier specified in the power
damage = specified damage dice + specified attribute modifier

So, to use the example of a level 5 paladin with a 15 Strength and 18 Charisma wielding a longsword:

Holy Strike, weapon keyword, attack is Str vs.AC, damage is 1[w] + strength modifier

2 (half level rounded down) + 2 (strength modifier) + 3 (proficiency bonus of a longsword) + d20 = d20+7 vs. target’s AC

1d8 (1 x base longsword damage) + 2 (strength modifier) = 1d8 + 2

On Pain of Death, implement keyword, attack is Cha vs. Will, damage is 3d8 + charisma modifier

2 (half level rounded down) + 4 (charisma modifier) + d20 = d20 + 6 vs. target’s Will defense

3d8 (specified damage dice) + 4 (charisma modifier) = 3d8 + 4

Runfer wrote:
Also how do you guys work divine challenge when the paladin uses it at the end of his turn to mark a creature (but does not end his turn next to that enemy) and then next round attacks a different enemy and marks that enemy (never engaging the previous enemy)?

If the paladin doesn’t a) attack the marked enemy or b) end his turn adjacent to the marked enemy, then Divine Challenge has no effect that turn. In addition, the paladin can’t use Divine Challenge on his next turn.

Runfer wrote:
Thanks Guys

You’re welcome. :)


Sebastrd wrote:

If the power has the "weapon" keyword:
attack bonus = half level + attribute modifier specified in the power + weapon's proficiency bonus
damage = [w] (i.e., the weapon’s base damage die) x any multiplier specified in the power + specified attribute modifier

If the power does not have the "weapon" keyword:

attack bonus = half level + attribute modifier specified in the power
damage = specified damage dice + specified attribute modifier

So, to use the example of a level 5 paladin with a 15 Strength and 18 Charisma wielding a longsword:

Holy Strike, weapon keyword, attack is Str vs.AC, damage is 1[w] + strength modifier

2 (half level rounded down) + 2 (strength modifier) + 3 (proficiency bonus of a longsword) + d20 = d20+7 vs. target’s AC

1d8 (1 x base longsword damage) + 2 (strength modifier) = 1d8 + 2

On Pain of Death, implement keyword, attack is Cha vs. Will, damage is 3d8 + charisma modifier

2 (half level rounded down) + 4 (charisma modifier) + d20 = d20 + 6 vs. target’s Will defense

3d8 (specified damage dice) + 4 (charisma modifier) = 3d8 + 4

Runfer wrote:
Also how do you guys work divine challenge when the paladin uses it at the end of his turn to mark a creature (but does not end his turn next to that enemy) and then next round attacks a different enemy and marks that enemy (never engaging the previous enemy)?

If the paladin doesn’t a) attack the marked enemy or b) end his turn adjacent to the marked enemy, then Divine Challenge has no effect that turn. In addition, the paladin can’t use Divine Challenge on his next turn.

Runfer wrote:
Thanks Guys

You’re welcome. :)

Thanks, this is the way I thought it would be. We had a rogue hitting an AC 19 with a 5. Turned out he was adding 1/2 level twice (for each ability) using Sly Flourish. He was also adding levels with damage. I asked him how he was getting the numbers and I was shocked when he told me.

The paladin does have a problem with divine challenge at the end of his turn, and not engaging the target since he used the minor action as the last part of his turn. So when I told him he couldn't divine challenge a different target, we had a 5 minute discussion of why he couldn't.

Thank you for the response.

Contributor

If I wanted to convert a 1st ed Illusionist into a 4e character, how would I do it? Would I have enough spells to make it feel at all the same?


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
If I wanted to convert a 1st ed Illusionist into a 4e character, how would I do it? Would I have enough spells to make it feel at all the same?

The free Class Acts: Wizard article from Dragon #364 contains illusionist spells for levels 1-10. Beyond that you'll have to make do with other spells, but there's a good chance that Arcane Power next month will include more illusionist-flavored spells.

There are also a number of illusion-based rituals: Hallucinatory Item, Conceal Object and Hallucinatory Creature, just to name a few.


Scott Betts wrote:
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
If I wanted to convert a 1st ed Illusionist into a 4e character, how would I do it? Would I have enough spells to make it feel at all the same?

The free Class Acts: Wizard article from Dragon #364 contains illusionist spells for levels 1-10. Beyond that you'll have to make do with other spells, but there's a good chance that Arcane Power next month will include more illusionist-flavored spells.

There are also a number of illusion-based rituals: Hallucinatory Item, Conceal Object and Hallucinatory Creature, just to name a few.

Also, there was once speculation that a specialized Illusionist class would be appearing at a later date underneath the aegis of the Shadow power source. Whether or not this is true, however, will have to wait for a later PHB ...

Liberty's Edge

This is a roleplaying question to do with the newer races introduced by 4E.

I have a problem with the standard "you are all in a pub, and old man in robes approaches you and your friends. I have a job for you..." type of thing. I thought I would make this clear, I like the party to have a reason to be togther based on background etc.

So now on with the question.

How common are dragonborn and telflings meant to be? They don't seem to quite fit in the "normal" (no laughing) world to me. How are DM's handling this? I write most (nearly all) my adventures, most times I start with the "home" town of the PC's when designing an adventure. I am giving my first 4E adventure a go, and just am having a little issues of not ending up with either a metropolis of races or restricting the PC's with relation to the races they can play. I mean dragonborn must stand out in a crowd after all, are they still treated as normal citizens? Obviously I'm talking from the general D&D world stand point and NOT a specific dragonborn city!!! I do hope that the sentiment of what I'm getting at comes across - I'm not after lots of replies along the lines of "well you are DM, make it whatever you want", that would be unhelpful to say the least.

Thanks for your time and constructive comments,
Stefan.


Honestly, if an almost 8 foot tall dragonman who can breath fire came into your town and expected to be treated like anyone else, would you be the one to tell him, that he's just xp fodder?


Stefan Hill wrote:
How common are dragonborn and telflings meant to be? They don't seem to quite fit in the "normal" (no laughing) world to me. How are DM's handling this? I write most (nearly all) my adventures, most times I start with the "home" town of the PC's when designing an adventure. I am giving my first 4E adventure a go, and just am having a little issues of not ending up with either a metropolis of races or restricting the PC's with relation to the races they can play. I mean dragonborn must stand out in a crowd after all, are they still treated as normal citizens? Obviously I'm talking from the general D&D world stand point and NOT a specific dragonborn city!!! I do hope that the sentiment of what I'm getting at comes across - I'm not after lots of replies along the lines of "well you are DM, make it whatever you want", that would be unhelpful to say the least.

The two races are both descendants of fallen empires, and both I think are often found as travelers out in the world. As such, they are generally common enough for most people to be aware of them - they will still often stand out, but not be seen as completely bizarre.

I tend to view it as actually very similar as to how I've often seen spellcasters positioned in such a society. Your run of the mill village in the middle of nowhere will think of a wizard as a pretty remarkable thing. One might wander through every once in a while, and it will be quite a curiousity to the locales, but not necessarily a cause for alarm. The village might even have a hedge-mage or similar who lives in town, and who the locals think of as a natural part of the town, albeit one who still stands out from them. Similarly, they might have a dragonborn blacksmith in town, who decided to settle in their village. They consider him pretty unique and unusual, but still able to have a place in their community.

Meanwhile, in a larger city, dragonborn would be more common. The locals might be used to seeing them in street or at the tavern, plenty will know some personally. Just as you could have a wizard's school in the city, you might have a small area of town that has a large dragonborn populace. People probably imagine things are a lot stranger there than they actually are - just as they probably imagine the wizard's enclave is filled with all manner of crazy rituals and summonings, when it is mainly just a place where most of the students have barely mastered cantrips.

Same goes for tieflings - and I've actually seen more than a few settings that have handled elves and dwarves in the same exact fashion. Curiosities, but ones considered a part of civilization. In major centerpoints of civilization, they are considered completely part of the ordinary. In a distant village in the middle of nowhere, they are a sight of interest, but not necessarily one of alarm. Some folks might specifically distrust them - just as they might distrust humans from other countries, or spellcasters, or so forth. In your average town, the fact that Bob the Merchant is a tiefling wouldn't really bother his neighbors, but it is probably the most common descriptor they would use to describe him. It wouldn't be so ordinary as to be irrelevant, but also not so strange as to cause alarm.

I'm sure it will change from campaign to campaign. (I know, the sort of generic comment you were hoping to avoid!) But this is the view I largely have in my mind of the core setting. I might be off, as well - I know some parts of it probably have them as entirely commonplace. But from the parts I've read through and the adventures I've seen so far, this is the impression that sort of hovers in the back of my mind in response to your question.

Hope it helps!


Matthew Koelbl wrote:

I tend to view it as actually very similar as to how I've often seen spellcasters positioned in such a society.

Just as you could have a wizard's school in the city, you might have a small area of town that has a large dragonborn populace.

[They] wouldn't be so ordinary as to be irrelevant, but also not so strange as to cause alarm.

I just wanted to highlight some great examples Matthew gave. In addition, you might want to check out the Dungeoncraft articles by James Wyatt on D&DI. He does a great job of showing the design process behind the starting locale for his newest campaign including the role and origin of local races. If you don't have a D&DI subscription, I could always email you the campaign handout I created for my campaign that's very much based on his.

Contributor

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
The two races are both descendants of fallen empires, and both I think are often found as travelers out in the world.

The fallen empires business is some of the most troubling business with both races. It behooves DMs, if not pitching both races from his chronology (always an option) to either come up with some alternate origin story for them (equally an option) or to have to shoehorn in not only massive empires named Bael Turoth and Arkhosia, but to figure out where their capitals are/were, what they fell to, and who lives there now. Is there an Istanbul was Constantinople thing going, and Bael Turath and Arkhosia now known as Waterdeep and Saltmarsh? And what do these races do when they're not being nobles or persecuted outcasts?


Regarding how common Dragonborn and Teifling are I would also say it would be up to your DM. I find these races have a built-in backstory. Even in the real world there exists communities or area where certain races aren't particular liked. While these two races may be "common" it definitely allows the DM to flavor an area to dislike or distrust them. This can go for any of the races as mentioned. Lets face the truth. Racism does exist.

In the game I play in myself, I am a teifling. Not just a teifling, but from a union of a human and teifling. There is no half-teifling and the PHB says that teiflings always breed true. That line stuck out to me as a interesting way to make a character. I roleplay this being an issue and my DM has taken the stance that most "common" people (as in people who spend the majorities of their lives within the area they were born.) have a general mistrust towards tielfings. Oral traditions would speak of their pacts with devils for power.

Overall, the core books seem to run under the assumption that race shouldn't really be a limiting factor but it does play a "role" (get it?) Many of the races in their "Play a {race} if you want..." section will mention something about their history or heritage. That implies to me that the races' background is considered. But as the same time PC are above the average. It really comes down to a roleplaying function.

One of the things that stood out about Eberron was how "monstrous races" were almost common in large cities. If you read the fiction there is mentions of parts of Sharn were medusas live and operate business. To some of the traditional ideals of the fantasy genre its an odd notion, but the setting makes it work.

Dark Archive

Sorry if these questions have already been answered, as i'm at work, i dont have the time to search messageboards.

Though my group has no interest in playing 4E, I have become more and more curious about it. I know the books are a bit expensive, and I'd need both phb's to have enough options open to my players to keep them satisfied.

Are there PDF versions of PHB, PHB 2, DMG, and MM?

Is the errata/faq free as it is/was for 3E products?

With all the errata included, is 4E worth it?

Can I get by with just those 4 books, or will i need to buy more or pay for a subscription to be able to play?


Jason Beardsley wrote:

Are there PDF versions of PHB, PHB 2, DMG, and MM?

As far as I understand there arent any PDF versions of the rulebooks FOR SALE......

Jason Beardsley wrote:


Is the errata/faq free as it is/was for 3E products?

yes

Jason Beardsley wrote:


With all the errata included, is 4E worth it?

I personally think 4e is worth it even without the FAQ or errata.

Jason Beardsley wrote:


Can I get by with just those 4 books, or will i need to buy more or pay for a subscription to be able to play?

If you want to play all you really need is the PHB. If you wish to DM then the DMG (which is AWESOME) is required, as is the MM in nearly all cases.

Any other book, as well as a DDI subscription is just gravy but in my opinion well worth it. Probably not worth it unless you have a game to play/prepare however...or you just like reading the books.


Jason Beardsley wrote:

Sorry if these questions have already been answered, as i'm at work, i dont have the time to search messageboards.

Though my group has no interest in playing 4E, I have become more and more curious about it. I know the books are a bit expensive, and I'd need both phb's to have enough options open to my players to keep them satisfied.

Are there PDF versions of PHB, PHB 2, DMG, and MM?

There are indeed: http://www.rpgnow.com/index.php?cPath=4500

Jason Beardsley wrote:
Is the errata/faq free as it is/was for 3E products?

Yep - though, I must admit, they have done a somewhat weak job of making it accessible. You've got the Q&A Archive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4mst/ask), the Updates page (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates), and some other section in their CS area... but I think those two links covers the FAQ and Errata, respectively.

Jason Beardsley wrote:
With all the errata included, is 4E worth it?

I have certainly found it so, as have all the friends I game with. The most positive respond has come from the DMs, in particular.

Jason Beardsley wrote:
Can I get by with just those 4 books, or will i need to buy more or pay for a subscription to be able to play?

They contain all you need for a complete game. Other stuff certainly is useful, and I love my DDI subscription, but is definitely not required.

Dark Archive

Ah! Thank you! I hadn't realized RPG Now had the PDFs. I'm certainly glad to see that they are, in fact, marked down from the hardcover price as well.

How does 4E handle Gods/Religion when it comes to divine magic, domains, and clerics?

How easy would it to use the Pathfinder pantheon in place of 4E standard pantheon?

Heck, how easy would it to simply use 4E rules with the Pathfinder Setting?


I do not see that Dragonborn and Tieflings need an extinct ancient city buried beneath the PC’s hometown. Dragonborn’s pops and moms showed up at the village some years back. The village was very suspicious until pops helped the local militia fend off an Orc raid. Now they are in like Flint. Dragonborn is unique but accepted in the village because of his pops.

Change the race, bonding circumstance, rinse and repeat for your next PC.

Scarab Sages

For handling Gods/religion, many divine classes have channel divinity powers in their class. You can use 1 channel divinity power per encounter. You can buy extra such powers with feats, and the available powers depend on the God you follow.

The Pathfinder pantheon is larger than the 4E standard pantheon, and a 1-1 correspondence doesn't work too well. Still, you can use the divinity feats as guidelines, and only make up new feats when you have a character worshiping a god you haven't done yet.

I am using the Pathfinder setting with 4E rules. We did Curse of the Crimson Throne, and will be starting Legacy of Fire in 2 weeks. It is possible, but it does take a bit of work to convert the modules. Some of my earlier conversions relied too much on elite monsters, trying to keep the number of creatures similar. That proved to be a mistake - it's better to add more monsters, and I usually wind up doubling the size of all the buildings so there's enough room. Traps are the hardest thing to convert, since a trap alone is a good 3.5 encounter, but 4E assumes there will be something else going on, and the trap is just an added element.

Drew Garrett


agarrett wrote:
The Pathfinder pantheon is larger than the 4E standard pantheon, and a 1-1 correspondence doesn't work too well. Still, you can use the divinity feats as guidelines, and only make up new feats when you have a character worshiping a god you haven't done yet.

Fan-created Channel Divinity feats for the Golarion pantheon are available at this link.


Another rules-oriented post.

Gelatinous cubes.
We all love them. If I remember correctly, their damage has been eratta'ed on the official WotC site, but one of the weirder rulings has not been addressed yet officially.

They can engulf characters (two at a time, with no apparent limit for number of characters engulfed).

"On a hit, the target is grabbed and pulled into the cube’s space"
The cube is large, and thus takes up 4 spaces.
(We houseruled it to give the cube a maximum capacity of 4 med creatures, and the DM placed the character's miniatures on top of the cube in the corner "slot" they were taking up)

All fine and good, so far, but if the party wizard attacks the cube using Scorching Burst, or anyone uses any AOE attacks, do they hit the characters inside the cube as well? Or are the engulfed characters no longer "on the board" and can't be attacked or afected?

I can see rationalizations for both yes and no answers, and I guess this question could apply to other creatures which swallow/engulf.


Evilturnip wrote:

Another rules-oriented post.

Gelatinous cubes.
We all love them. If I remember correctly, their damage has been eratta'ed on the official WotC site, but one of the weirder rulings has not been addressed yet officially.

They can engulf characters (two at a time, with no apparent limit for number of characters engulfed).

"On a hit, the target is grabbed and pulled into the cube’s space"
The cube is large, and thus takes up 4 spaces.
(We houseruled it to give the cube a maximum capacity of 4 med creatures, and the DM placed the character's miniatures on top of the cube in the corner "slot" they were taking up)

All fine and good, so far, but if the party wizard attacks the cube using Scorching Burst, or anyone uses any AOE attacks, do they hit the characters inside the cube as well? Or are the engulfed characters no longer "on the board" and can't be attacked or afected?

I can see rationalizations for both yes and no answers, and I guess this question could apply to other creatures which swallow/engulf.

The errata for Gelatinous Cubes is as follows:

"Replace the slam damage: “1d6 + 2 damage” with “2d6 + 2 damage.”
Add the melee attack symbol to engulf."

This doesn't really shed a lot of insight as to the engulfed condition. As you say, I can see it being ruled either way. Technically the AoE attack's area contains the player, but it wouldn't be a stretch to say that since the player is engulfed completely by the cube, the AoE attack doesn't have line of effect. I'm leaning more towards this latter ruling, myself.


If the damage is enough to kill the cube, I would say those inside take some of the damage. If it is not enough to kill the cube, I would say those inside do not take any damage. The cube essentially acts like hermetically sealed armor.

As for other creatures that can engulf, I would look at it on a case by case basis. How much damage was done, what is the weapon type, is it likely the point of impact is the same location as the engulfee.

Dark Archive

Perhaps a compromise of having the players take half the normal amount of damage?


Unless enough damage was done to kill the cube, thereby penetrating its outer layer, I see no reason why the characters inside would take any damage.

Liberty's Edge

I think your 1/2-damage idea is a good one. The other two extremes (none or all) hinge on the absorption capability of the cube, how close the PC's are to the surface of the cube, and also the relative penetration of spell X / ability Y and there actual duration.

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:

I think your 1/2-damage idea is a good one. The other two extremes (none or all) hinge on the absorption capability of the cube, how close the PC's are to the surface of the cube, and also the relative penetration of spell X / ability Y and there actual duration.

S.

Actually, they hinge on pretty much nothing but whether the DM thinks that PCs within the cube should take AoE damage. After all, even the 1/2-damage idea could, by your logic, be implemented based on some imagined "absorption capability" of the monster. The reality is that we have no way of measuring any of these things, and even if we did it would be way too much work to justify the effort for such a minor issue. The best solution is to pick one of the rules already mentioned (full damage, half damage, or no damage) and then justify it to your players however you want. In the same way that there's no real way that you can argue one interpretation is any better than the others, there's no real way your players could argue that your particular choice is a bad one.

In situations like this, it's best to make up a rule that "sounds right" and just move on. Don't bog your game down trying to figure out exactly how many pounds of pressure a 3-inch thick layer of gelatinous cube can withstand.

EDIT: Two final ways of adjudicating this situation that I just thought of - rule that all such AoE effects do have line of effect to the engulfed character, but that they automatically miss. Spells which deal some damage on a miss still effect engulfed players. Or, rule that the AoE effects do have line of effect to the engulfed character, but that the engulfed character has superior cover (-5 penalty to the attack roll).

Dark Archive

Well, you could test the theory.. it would involve a heck of a lot of jello, and a flamethrower.. but i don't think it'd be worth the effort and expense just to find out the answer lol.


Jason Beardsley wrote:
Well, you could test the theory.. it would involve a heck of a lot of jello, and a flamethrower.. but i don't think it'd be worth the effort and expense just to find out the answer lol.

The interests of science would be advanced by this experiment, I am certain.

Dark Archive

Scott Betts wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:
Well, you could test the theory.. it would involve a heck of a lot of jello, and a flamethrower.. but i don't think it'd be worth the effort and expense just to find out the answer lol.
The interests of science would be advanced by this experiment, I am certain.

I'd imagine id go something like this:

Flame applied to just jello.
Flame applied to just person*.
Flame applied to both jello and person*.

You'd have to test each of these, and record the amount of 'damage' (percentage of burn coverage?), and make a ruling based on the results.

*person = crash test dummy, of course..


Jason Beardsley wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:
Well, you could test the theory.. it would involve a heck of a lot of jello, and a flamethrower.. but i don't think it'd be worth the effort and expense just to find out the answer lol.
The interests of science would be advanced by this experiment, I am certain.

I'd imagine id go something like this:

Flame applied to just jello.
Flame applied to just person*.
Flame applied to both jello and person*.

You'd have to test each of these, and record the amount of 'damage' (percentage of burn coverage?), and make a ruling based on the results.

*person = crash test dummy, of course..

I smell an episode of Mythbusters brewing...

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:


Actually, they hinge on pretty much nothing but whether the DM thinks that PCs within the cube should take AoE damage. After all, even the 1/2-damage idea could, by your logic, be implemented based on some imagined "absorption capability" of the monster.

My point was as you so kindly clarified was that we don't know any of these physical parameters, and it is the DM's call (again as you point out quite correctly). But the answer must lie between the two extremes of all or none. I suggested that the middle ground approach taken was while no more correct than any other solution, has an inherent feeling of fairness in that the 1/2-damage ruling neither favours the monster nor the players. This without the need for complicating things with line of sight (given the gel. cubes are clear...) or cover (and I agree with you that this could be another fair option).

S.

51 to 100 of 277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Idiot's Guide to 4E All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.