Daughter’s Promises
Prerequisite: Warlock, Infernal Pact
Benefit: Replace your pact boon with the following: When an enemy under your Warlock’s Curse drops to 0 hit points, you deal fire damage equal to 5 + one-half your level to any enemy within 1 square of that enemy. You also gain temporary hit points equal to one-half your level.
Infernal Pact's Boon always seemed like a weird fit for what was ostensibly one of the more striker-oriented Pacts.
So the brief discussion of Magic: the Gathering settings as DnD settings, and as someone mentioned, Ravnica in particular, got the old wheels turning. I starting thinking about how I might convert some of the significant characters in that setting into DnD NPCs and monsters.
I that finding inspiration for monsters from an external source, rather than imagining them from a vacuum, helps generate more interesting mechanics--for me, anyway. When I first started playing around with the Monster Builder, I was a little stuck. Actually trying to adapt something into a monster really jump-started my interest. What works for everyone else in terms of monster building and inspirations?
Anyways, I was hoping to get a monster critique. The beastie's called Experiment Kraj. Here's the background on it: there's a guild in the aforementioned Ravnica setting called the Simic. They're pretty similar to House Vadalis from Eberron, in that they're interested in using magic to enhance nature. Their crowning achievement is the development of the cytoplasm, a gooey orb that looks like a single cell writ large. Grafted onto individuals, cytoplasms offer their users increased strength, vitality, or other myriad capabilities. There is, however, a sinister suggestion that cytoplasms may be part of Simic bid for world dominance through mind control.... Experiment Kraj is basically a huge mass of cytoplasms, and its implementation in the card game had this mechanic of making other creatures stronger, but simultaneously allowing Kraj to mimic their abilities.
Here's an image of Experiment Kraj:
And here's the statblock. This is my first genuine attempt at a monster, so I expect he'll be absurdly unbalanced in some respect. I'd appreciate any criticisms or suggestions you have.
Saurfang on
0
Options
TiamatZGhost punsThe Banette of my existenceRegistered Userregular
So the brief discussion of Magic: the Gathering settings as DnD settings, and as someone mentioned, Ravnica in particular, got the old wheels turning. I starting thinking about how I might convert some of the significant characters in that setting into DnD NPCs and monsters.
I that finding inspiration for monsters from an external source, rather than imagining them from a vacuum, helps generate more interesting mechanics--for me, anyway. When I first started playing around with the Monster Builder, I was a little stuck. Actually trying to adapt something into a monster really jump-started my interest. What works for everyone else in terms of monster building and inspirations?
Speaking of Ravnica, can one use Orcus' Stat block for Rhakdos?
(Rhakdos' a Greater Demon and Leader of the Cult Rhakdos (a Ravnica house in charge of demolitions, bodyguards, murderers, prostitutes, etc. [pretty much everything to do with Red/Black spectrum of magic])
Damn, these Magic Setting ideas makes me want to start a Ravnica or Kamigawa based DnD campaign...
So the brief discussion of Magic: the Gathering settings as DnD settings, and as someone mentioned, Ravnica in particular, got the old wheels turning. I starting thinking about how I might convert some of the significant characters in that setting into DnD NPCs and monsters.
I that finding inspiration for monsters from an external source, rather than imagining them from a vacuum, helps generate more interesting mechanics--for me, anyway. When I first started playing around with the Monster Builder, I was a little stuck. Actually trying to adapt something into a monster really jump-started my interest. What works for everyone else in terms of monster building and inspirations?
Speaking of Ravnica, can one use Orcus' Stat block for Rhakdos?
(Rhakdos' a Greater Demon and Leader of the Cult Rhakdos (a Ravnica house in charge of demolitions, bodyguards, murderers, prostitutes, etc. [pretty much everything to do with Red/Black spectrum of magic])
Damn, these Magic Setting ideas makes me want to start a Ravnica or Kamigawa based DnD campaign...
I did Kamigawa for 3E, back in the day. It was great, if hugely derivative of the OA stuff.
Well, a cliff ought to be treated the same as normal vertical teleportation. I assume when they address the issue, they'll say that any unsafe teleport will allow a save to negate, which is fair.
Also: If a monster is in a position to drop someone 18 squares (90 feet down) with a teleport, either the DM has put too high of a cliff in the encounter, or you're playing in high paragon/epic, where I'm totally cool with crazy stunts like that.
Teleporting into the air adds additional distance ONTO the drop. If you have a 10 square drop, that will do some damage but it's hardly going to be lethal. But if you can add a teleport on TOP of an already higher drop a terrain hazard that's just damaging becomes considerably more damaging than oroginally intended. I would like to point out that Pyramid of Shadows, an official adventure has a 50 foot (5d10) drop. This is late heroic tier and adding an additional 25 feet onto that, all without a saving throw (by RAW) is certainly not intended for such hazards. When you throw that 25 feet on you make that a 7d10 drop at late heroic tier. So I'm not sure why you're being so incredulous with your statement there when official modules clearly think otherwise. This isn't the only pretty large drop either, but the point here is that getting to 90 feet isn't so hard when you can augment any existing drop. That was the point.
So drops can already be fairly large even in heroic tier.
And no, this is no less daft and ridiculous at paragon/epic than it is at heroic.
Edit: It's dumber at epic tier, one of my campaigns (people playing in these should not click)
Has a ten thousand foot drop directly over the Nine Hells during a titanic battle in the astral sea above the plane itself. Of course this is an aerial battle (mounted on dragons and other flying creatures), has many astral skiffs and other ships involved (Githyanki, abyssal marauers and such forth) so there are lots of opportunities for catching yourself and not dying. But being able to instantly punt people into unsafe squares or increase the distance dropped between ships (the battle itself takes place over six different ships) would be a majorly imbalancing factor - as by design the distance between ships is just to make for more interesting combat - not as a mechanic to add massive amounts of extra damage (or instant death).
Edit2: Not to mention that dumping an enemy straight into the middle of hazardous terrain that would be difficult to push someone further in with forced movement and knock them prone in the middle of it is beyond overpowered. Especially as they're going to end up stuck taking further damage. Teleporting them in there and leaving them stuffed is powerful enough, but extra damage + hazard damage + prone ? No.
Alright, let's cool down the hyperbole a notch. We're discussing relative power balance, there's no call to insinuate my battles are held on infinite featureless plains.
Secondly, the word "irrelevant" was used in reference to your spoiler from your game, when I didn't know forced movement would be blocked like that. An extra 20-50 feet wouldn't have made a difference in that situation, is what I'm saying.
Third, what exactly is your argument here? I already admitted that the devs have the right idea to give unsafe teleports a save, and you and Incenjucar do make good points about how offensive teleports are very effective (although they aren't 100% better than forced movement; they'll be able to be cancelled outright by a save, and some monsters are trained in Acrobatics). I shouldn't have equivocated them to a push+prone, they can have some very different applications. But what are you saying? Are you arguing for something like 3.5's conjuration rules, where the target had to be supported at its destination?
YesNoMu on
0
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
I could totally go for playing a Dimir Changeling Assassin who has infiltrated the party posing as someone else, or possibly an Elven Golgari Druid or Shaman.
On one hand, a lot of the "political intrugue" offered by Ravnica is already covered by Eberron, but it has enough of its own nifty story bits to be appealing.
I could totally go for playing a Dimir Changeling Assassin who has infiltrated the party posing as someone else, or possibly an Elven Golgari Druid or Shaman.
On one hand, a lot of the "political intrugue" offered by Ravnica is already covered by Eberron, but it has enough of its own nifty story bits to be appealing.
A Golgari Elf Warden with reflavored powers that kept coming back from the dead with extra parts would be awesome.
Alright, let's cool down the hyperbole a notch. We're discussing relative power balance, there's no call to insinuate my battles are held on infinite featureless plains.
But this is what it sounds like, because the theory behind powers that push/pull/slide doesn't always quite work all the time. Teleports have none of the restrictions or penalties, bonus damage AND prone. Some forced movement powers have some additional damage and some forced movement powers will knock prone. All forced movement powers concede saving throws and are entirely at the mercy of the terrain, their allies and enemies positions on the battlefield. Teleport powers not so, except for teledropping abuse where you have a low ceiling. I don't design every dungeon in existence to have a ceiling just tall enough for the monsters that live there to prevent a rules quirk from working.
In general this makes powers that force teleportation better and then better again for no real logical or coherent balancing reason. Do you feel teleport powers need the extra damage? Do they need the prone condition as a bonus to any other effect? Do you feel forced teleport powers are underpowered if they don't do bonus damage + prone?
Secondly, the word "irrelevant" was used in reference to your spoiler from your game, when I didn't know forced movement would be blocked like that.
I don't design my campaigns on planet bowling ball :P
An extra 20-50 feet wouldn't have made a difference in that situation, is what I'm saying.
Yeah it does make a difference, because it's increasing the height. A creature that would fall the distance safely now doesn't and takes damage plus is knocked prone. Where before it fell safely, took no damage and wasn't knocked prone.
Is that a "difference"? Falling 50 feet is 10 squares of movement, that's about the upper limit for many creatures that can fly in 4E. Adding another 25 feet onto that, or even from 40 feet to 65 feet or so suddenly takes a creature that flies out of "Safe fall" into "Damage + prone". That's significant in my book any day of the week.
(although they aren't 100% better than forced movement; they'll be able to be cancelled outright by a save, and some monsters are trained in Acrobatics)
Precious few monsters are trained in acrobatics, most have no skills trained at all (I actually make a specific point of training monsters I create in skills but many don't have anything at all).
For point, I just looked at the iconic "flying" monster of any edition of Dungeons and Dragons the Dragon and in Draconomicon II (I had it on hand), I noted only the Mercury dragon being trained in Acrobatics. They are commonly trained in athletics though, not that helps much in this situation. Of course they also fly, but this returns to the point when you can dump extra distance on top of a flying creature, you enter in territory where they would land safely suddenly becomes damage + prone.
I shouldn't have equivocated them to a push+prone, they can have some very different applications.
It's strictly put superior unless we again, go to playing on planet bowling ball. A push+prone can frequently end up no movement + prone. A teleport is ALWAYS going to get that movement (plus free vertical movement) + prone with the one exception of a very low ceiling. I would say that push + prone is going to be more frequently inhibited than teleport + damage + prone. Because the teleport will always get its forced movement at least, even if it can't always cheese the extra damage and falling prone from a drop.
But what are you saying? Are you arguing for something like 3.5's conjuration rules, where the target had to be supported at its destination?
That's exactly how I rule it. A forced teleport must end where the creature can be supported (so not up in the air by default). If the teleport sticks them somewhere dangerous they get a saving throw, pulling themselves out of the forced teleport moments before they would hit the hazardous area by sheer force of will, ending up prone next to the hazard as any other form of forced movement.
Edit: I can't help but notice immediately that there is "Fitting Curse" in the new Warlock Article. With a sufficiently high ceiling/outside you can exchange 1d6 of curse damage for 3 squares of teleport. You can get rid of 2d6 curse die damage to teleport a creature up six squares to do 3d10 extra damage with teledropping and knock them prone. That easily turns a pretty neat and quirky feat into imbalanced territory (free 3d10+prone? Really? Who wouldn't ever take that?!).
An extra 20-50 feet wouldn't have made a difference in that situation, is what I'm saying.
Yeah it does make a difference, because it's increasing the height. A creature that would fall the distance safely now doesn't and takes damage plus is knocked prone. Where before it fell safely, took no damage and wasn't knocked prone.
Is that a "difference"? Falling 50 feet is 10 squares of movement, that's about the upper limit for many creatures that can fly in 4E. Adding another 25 feet onto that, or even from 40 feet to 65 feet or so suddenly takes a creature that flies out of "Safe fall" into "Damage + prone". That's significant in my book any day of the week.
Argh, stop taking what I'm saying out of context. 20-50 extra vertical feet doesn't matter when you're talking about
falling thousands of feet into Hell,
that's what I'm saying. Of course it matters otherwise.
Also, why are you mentioning flying creatures here? Why would being teleported cause them to crash? Certainly something with hover (like a dragon) would just float there.
In general this makes powers that force teleportation better and then better again for no real logical or coherent balancing reason. Do you feel teleport powers need the extra damage? Do they need the prone condition as a bonus to any other effect? Do you feel forced teleport powers are underpowered if they don't do bonus damage + prone?
I think it's OK for forced teleportation to be stronger (even a lot stronger) than regular old forced movement. I think it's balanced out by having fewer powers that do so, and having shorter distances than forced movement, at least until you get to crazy stuff like Elemental Maw. Plus, I think the tactic is fairly iconic (think Nightcrawler). However, I do agree that a save should be allowed for unsafe teleports. I'd just cancel the teleport outright, rather than put them on the outside of a hazard, but that's just an implementation difference. I think that the risk of total failure (and the rarity of the powers) balances out the strength of tele-dropping.
EDIT: Also, I'm not sure I'd ever use the word overpowered in relation to Warlocks, yet anyway.
YesNoMu on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Argh, stop taking what I'm saying out of context. 20-50 extra vertical feet doesn't matter when you're talking about
But it does when you can be teleported and dropped onto different surfaces below as well. Adding on height = more damage.
Also, why are you mentioning flying creatures here?
A flying creature often has to be moving before its flight takes over and if it is already falling it "crashes" its speed safely and then will take damage for whatever it falls beyond that. Not all flying creatures have hover and I'm not convinced you could be teleported vertically and go from standing on the ground (not flying) to hovering straight away. Much like how you cannot go from the prone condition to flying without taking a stand action first either. Hover doesn't let you fly without taking a move action to fly, hover lets you keep flying after you have started flying without spending a move action - a key difference.
If you were already flying you would be fine, but that's not the particular situation and a lot of creatures don't fly while attacking (often because of a lack of hover or flyby attack - most commonly because they have already been bought down to the ground during the fight by powers/prone etc).
I think it's balanced out by having fewer powers that do so,
So if there was 1 level 1 free at-will power that was "Add 3d10+prone damage to every X power" that would be balanced if there was only one of it? That's the worst possible reason I've ever heard for this being balanced just about. That's effectively what this is, add + damage + prone on every type of power with a certain function (teleportation). Nowhere IMO is this at all accounted for in the balance of these powers. Not that I buy your logic here anyway, because increasing numbers of books means there are more powers and abilities that teleport enemies all the time. Plus there are plenty of monsters that could use it as well, Mithral dragons come to mind and I don't see anywhere in their stat blocks where their powers balance accounts for drop damage + prone.
This sounds, now I recall, like your logic for why the ritualists ring wasn't a problem for the games magic item economy. Less than a month after we had that discussion the Elven High Mage ED was released, which as a feature lowered the costs of rituals by the same means as the ring. Just because something is rare at this point in time now doesn't mean being "Broken and rare" is acceptable. Broken and rare can soon turn into "Broken and completely common". It's interesting to note that the exact reason I pulled the ritualists ring up for being broken was the reason it was nerfed in the major errata update recently - it's now a fine and very desirable item without being overpowered at all due to breaking the games magic item economy.
Dungeons and Dragons is an evolving game and this kind of argument is truly baffling. Do you honestly believe that in another year with another PhB with another set of classes and more "Martial/Arcane/Divine/Primal/Psionic" power books that the ever increasing number of powers that teleport over a party is not going to increase? Problems should be solved before they become truly epically game breaking, especially when they are already this obvious.
You also did not answer the question:
In general this makes powers that force teleportation better and then better again for no real logical or coherent balancing reason. Do you feel teleport powers need the extra damage? Do they need the prone condition as a bonus to any other effect? Do you feel forced teleport powers are underpowered if they don't do bonus damage + prone?
Do they need the bonus damage + prone or are they underpowered without it?
Edit: In response to the quip about Warlocks, Warlocks are not the only class with powers that Teleport, for example Thunder Summons from a Sorcerer can teleport as can other powers from other classes. Plus monsters can and I can already tell you they are NOT in any way underpowered without having bonus damage + prone on all their teleportation attacks.
having shorter distances than forced movement
That you are more normally able to get and you ignore terrain, which is a huge advantage you constantly try to dismiss.
Again, pushing a gargantuan sized creature is different than teleporting it.
I think that the risk of total failure (and the rarity of the powers) balances out the strength of tele-dropping.
There is no risk of total failure. There is no current errata anywhere on the issue, considering that the standard use of teledropping for extra damage does not have a saving throw (However the errata MAY in fact make it so that if you try to teledrop the creature gets a save in this situation as well). So this is nonsense. I would agree that if they add a save in general, one that cancels the movement entirely if it is in the air or similar when successful it would balance the effect out (50% chance of failure and 75% against solos is a pretty stiff penalty). At the moment it is clearly not intentional by the rules to add bonus damage + prone to every forced teleportation power, especially as they are already significantly improved over other kinds of forced movement.
Again, pushing a gargantuan sized creature is different than teleporting it.
I'm curious, because I've never played against anything bigger than Large - how does it differ? When you teleport 5 squares, is it just that the creature must occupy a single square in that 5-square radius, so you can (for all practical purposes) reposition him further than if you push him straight back five squares?
I think it's more to do with the fact that you need a clear path for forced movement, and finding one when the creature is more than 2 squares wide is pretty difficult.
Teleporting into the air adds additional distance ONTO the drop. If you have a 10 square drop, that will do some damage but it's hardly going to be lethal. But if you can add a teleport on TOP of an already higher drop a terrain hazard that's just damaging becomes considerably more damaging than oroginally intended. I would like to point out that Pyramid of Shadows, an official adventure has a 50 foot (5d10) drop. This is late heroic tier and adding an additional 25 feet onto that, all without a saving throw (by RAW) is certainly not intended for such hazards. When you throw that 25 feet on you make that a 7d10 drop at late heroic tier. So I'm not sure why you're being so incredulous with your statement there when official modules clearly think otherwise. This isn't the only pretty large drop either, but the point here is that getting to 90 feet isn't so hard when you can augment any existing drop. That was the point.
So drops can already be fairly large even in heroic tier.
In the Scales of War adventure path in Dragon Magazine (so also official WotC) there's an adventure for 3rd level characters with a final encounter that included
oh and that wasn't the only large drop in that adventure!
there was another map with a series of narrow bridges heading down a mountain... I called the encounter "Khazad-Dum"... oh, and you start up at around 120 feet... with enemies that can push you off the edge with their giant fucking crossbows. i was not a fan of that. luckily my fighter had a jousting shield... i think i charged almot every single round.
Hey, Aegeri, out of curiosity, did you ever make Shaktari? I'm not rushing you or anything if you haven't, but I'd really like to see it if it's done.
Hexmage-PA on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Yes. The core of the creature is shared with another monster I made recently, so I'm looking at how some of the mechanics work out this weekend before I finalize Shaktari. Once I've seen how some of my ideas work out I'll post the full stat block for Shaktari.
Yes. The core of the creature is shared with another monster I made recently, so I'm looking at how some of the mechanics work out this weekend before I finalize Shaktari. Once I've seen how some of my ideas work out I'll post the full stat block for Shaktari.
AKA After Saphelon DOMINATES this mofo he will make it more awesome. That's right, I went there and will continue to do so.
Saphelon couldn't dominate a house plant, much less an epic-level creature. Does he even have any dominate powers to miss with yet?
Terrendos on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
I have come to the conclusion that the Draconomicon II is the best book I have bought in a long time. Metallic dragons are much more compelling as antagonists than chromatic dragons for numerous reasons - one of them being that I feel they are much more manipulative than chromatics. There is a sort of maligned cunning in how they operate that actually makes them more evil, as nothing is worse than the villain who is murdering everyone because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
It also helps that I find most of them mechanically pretty compelling as well. I am saddened every single time I read the Silvers entry and see "Brute" as their type though.
I'm curious, because I've never played against anything bigger than Large - how does it differ? When you teleport 5 squares, is it just that the creature must occupy a single square in that 5-square radius, so you can (for all practical purposes) reposition him further than if you push him straight back five squares?
It's easier for a huge + creature to block itself in with terrain features. The other complication arises, ironically enough, from allies and even other enemies (depending). Flanking allies can depending on the creatures position completely negate any kind of push from certain directions (because you can't shove an enemy though an allies space with forced movement). It's even possible for allies to completely prevent any form of movement of a huge or bigger creature if they are flanking it in certain ways especially combined with terrain. This is usually because the creature is positioned in such a way that anywhere you could move it legally will end up with the ally in the middle of the creatures space, which disallows the forced movement (as it can't legally end that way - the exception would be if the creature was helpless at the time I think). The one form of forced movement, on thinking about this that can avoid this problem is a slide, because you have finer control over where the creature goes.
An example from an epic campaign was a Dragon in the center of a volcano. Numerous holes in the walls punched out into magma on the outside, which was exceptionally dangerous to anyone. The PCs however could make absolutely no use of this hazard as the Dragon could not be pushed/pulled/slid into it. All the spaces were simply 3 squares wide. The dragon was 5 squares. So while it could punt them through the gaps into the magma, the PCs could not force the dragon into the magma except by teleporting it (even then that was pretty difficult). This provided an epic solo a nice "boost" to terrain and a reason for fighting around the magma vents.
This was also a solo version of the Catastrophic dragon (Volcanic dragon) that
A) Was not shit (I really hate Volcanic dragons) Was not the most horribly abusive monster in 4th edition - Honestly a ton of expanding auto-damage auras? Strips resistances without even having to attack? Auto-damaging zones that remain for an entire combat? I mean really wizards, really?
C) Did I mention it was a proper dragon, which IMO should be a solo by definition and so it stands comparison with Chromatics and Metallics.
My greatest regret is I lost the dragons stat block, but it went down very well in the end with someone almost dying horribly in magma.
So, random rules question I think I already know the answer to;
A Shaman that Multiclasses Avenger can't get Oath of Enmity bonuses on an enemy that is adjacent only to her spirit companion, right? The shaman herself has to be adjacent to the target to get the free reroll and such. My reading does say that the bonuses apply to melee attacks made through the spirit companion, but the shaman can't be across the room when they're made.
So, random rules question I think I already know the answer to;
A Shaman that Multiclasses Avenger can't get Oath of Enmity bonuses on an enemy that is adjacent only to her spirit companion, right? The shaman herself has to be adjacent to the target to get the free reroll and such. My reading does say that the bonuses apply to melee attacks made through the spirit companion, but the shaman can't be across the room when they're made.
RAW says 'target is the only enemy adjacent to you' so that would be a no. However, I use OoE on reach attacks made with a plane splitter longsword, but I didn't take this wording into consideration.
Because a spirit attack has the melee keyword in its range, I would say you could without being adjacent. However, if another enemy was adjacent to the Shaman or spirit companion, I would rule that they do not meet the conditions for the additional roll.
So, random rules question I think I already know the answer to;
A Shaman that Multiclasses Avenger can't get Oath of Enmity bonuses on an enemy that is adjacent only to her spirit companion, right? The shaman herself has to be adjacent to the target to get the free reroll and such. My reading does say that the bonuses apply to melee attacks made through the spirit companion, but the shaman can't be across the room when they're made.
RAW says 'target is the only enemy adjacent to you' so that would be a no. However, I use OoE on reach attacks made with a plane splitter longsword, but I didn't take this wording into consideration.
Because a spirit attack has the melee keyword in its range, I would say you could without being adjacent. However, if another enemy was adjacent to the Shaman or spirit companion, I would rule that they do not meet the conditions for the additional roll.
The melee type on the spirit attack powers definitely covers that portion of the OoE text. The real issue is whether or not the Shaman's Spirit Companion counts as the Shaman in terms of being adjacent to the attacked enemy. I can't find any statements in the text that would indicate that it does.
Which is unfortunate, because an avenging angel of justice as a spirit companion would be pretty boss.
So, random rules question I think I already know the answer to;
A Shaman that Multiclasses Avenger can't get Oath of Enmity bonuses on an enemy that is adjacent only to her spirit companion, right? The shaman herself has to be adjacent to the target to get the free reroll and such. My reading does say that the bonuses apply to melee attacks made through the spirit companion, but the shaman can't be across the room when they're made.
RAW says 'target is the only enemy adjacent to you' so that would be a no. However, I use OoE on reach attacks made with a plane splitter longsword, but I didn't take this wording into consideration.
Because a spirit attack has the melee keyword in its range, I would say you could without being adjacent. However, if another enemy was adjacent to the Shaman or spirit companion, I would rule that they do not meet the conditions for the additional roll.
The melee type on the spirit attack powers definitely covers that portion of the OoE text. The real issue is whether or not the Shaman's Spirit Companion counts as the Shaman in terms of being adjacent to the attacked enemy. I can't find any statements in the text that would indicate that it does.
Which is unfortunate, because an avenging angel of justice as a spirit companion would be pretty boss.
"You don't understand... I'm not the Avenger. It's the rabbit over there. He's the fanatical one. Don't say anything derogatory about Pelor, he'll go crazy."
So you are going to interpret it as if an Avenger with a reach weapon would be unable to use its Oath because it is not adjacent to the target? That's how I think of Spirit attacks, a really really long reach.
So you are going to interpret it as if an Avenger with a reach weapon would be unable to use its Oath because it is not adjacent to the target? That's how I think of Spirit attacks, a really really long reach.
Pretty sure that's the case, actually.
When you make a melee attack against the target and the target is the only enemy adjacent to you...
You get your Oath benefit if your target is the only enemy adjacent to you. If your target isn't adjacent to you, then it cannot be the only enemy adjacent to you.
Which exist now, since there is one that lets you do it on a ranged basic attack. This makes me wonder what I need to do in rethinking about some of my choices as far as powers/feat selection if Aegeri wants to change how I've been using this.
And i hear tell that Google Wave is pretty good for this purpose.
Anyone know of anyone that would be willing to run a google wave game?
I have invites i can send out.
Drswords on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
There's a Google Wave thread on this forum, although neither it nor the CF wave itself has been active this week. Maybe someone needs to stir it up and see who's getting ready to run a game.
Part of the problem is currently both the lack of Wave users and of proper gadgets & bots to do more tactical gaming. D&D 4e absolutely depends upon a grid for combat, yet a sufficient map tool or whiteboard gadget hasn't cropped up yet. At least as far as I know. That, and waves facilitate a kind of communication that's not quite a forum and it's not quite IRC, and so there's the matter of learing ways to play on it that works with it.
Which exist now, since there is one that lets you do it on a ranged basic attack. This makes me wonder what I need to do in rethinking about some of my choices as far as powers/feat selection if Aegeri wants to change how I've been using this.
No, due to this it's only really dawned on me the mistake actually (I did notice this with a regular avenger, but I forgot to really think about it with regards to multiclassing). Due to the mistake happening about 2 billion years ago in the game and given it doesn't affect anything balance wise really at this point (late paragon/epic) there isn't any point in disallowing you from doing it for this game.
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
I always fuck up the rules of the Oath of Enmity. It's kinda pathetic, really.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
I don't play this game at all essentially, so while I do read the books when I get them related to PCs I usually pay them no attention afterwards. Pretty much all I think about is EL, experience charts and similar that I all have off the top of my head. Anything I don't really think about often, like specific classes, powers and similar I simply pay no attention to. 90% of the time I rely on PCs knowing how their own powers work, except in certain situations where something seems to create odd scenarios where I am prompted to give a ruling on how it functions (The Warpriest level 20 daily attack for example).
I do this because being obsessive and micromanging billions of powers and probably classes in 4E just isn't worth it. Especially when I'm more interested in creating monsters and other things on my mind. If I played 4E I am sure I would pay more attention to a general class.
Apparently some people at WotC think that the emphasis on balance has made magic items in 4E feel boring. Also, 4E designer Chris Perkins apparently gave players in his Iomandra campaign an orb that can control dragons at-will.
It's an interesting read that pretty much amounts to "feel free to create 'overpowered' magic items for your games if you want to, but don't expect them from an official book".
Hexmage-PA on
0
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
Apparently some people at WotC think that the emphasis on balance has made magic items in 4E feel boring. Also, 4E designer Chris Perkins apparently gave players in his Iomandra campaign an orb that can control dragons at-will.
It's an interesting read that pretty much amounts to "feel free to create 'overpowered' magic items for your games if you want to, but don't expect them from an official book".
While I can see the complaints about "boring" magic items, I still find it infinitely better than your characters being almost entirely defined by their magical swag.
Then again, my favorite OGL game is Iron Heroes, so my opinion on magic items may be suspect
Posts
Infernal Pact's Boon always seemed like a weird fit for what was ostensibly one of the more striker-oriented Pacts.
Also, critique my monster.... I beg of you!
Speaking of Ravnica, can one use Orcus' Stat block for Rhakdos?
Damn, these Magic Setting ideas makes me want to start a Ravnica or Kamigawa based DnD campaign...
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Secondly, the word "irrelevant" was used in reference to your spoiler from your game, when I didn't know forced movement would be blocked like that. An extra 20-50 feet wouldn't have made a difference in that situation, is what I'm saying.
Third, what exactly is your argument here? I already admitted that the devs have the right idea to give unsafe teleports a save, and you and Incenjucar do make good points about how offensive teleports are very effective (although they aren't 100% better than forced movement; they'll be able to be cancelled outright by a save, and some monsters are trained in Acrobatics). I shouldn't have equivocated them to a push+prone, they can have some very different applications. But what are you saying? Are you arguing for something like 3.5's conjuration rules, where the target had to be supported at its destination?
On one hand, a lot of the "political intrugue" offered by Ravnica is already covered by Eberron, but it has enough of its own nifty story bits to be appealing.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But this is what it sounds like, because the theory behind powers that push/pull/slide doesn't always quite work all the time. Teleports have none of the restrictions or penalties, bonus damage AND prone. Some forced movement powers have some additional damage and some forced movement powers will knock prone. All forced movement powers concede saving throws and are entirely at the mercy of the terrain, their allies and enemies positions on the battlefield. Teleport powers not so, except for teledropping abuse where you have a low ceiling. I don't design every dungeon in existence to have a ceiling just tall enough for the monsters that live there to prevent a rules quirk from working.
In general this makes powers that force teleportation better and then better again for no real logical or coherent balancing reason. Do you feel teleport powers need the extra damage? Do they need the prone condition as a bonus to any other effect? Do you feel forced teleport powers are underpowered if they don't do bonus damage + prone?
I don't design my campaigns on planet bowling ball :P
Yeah it does make a difference, because it's increasing the height. A creature that would fall the distance safely now doesn't and takes damage plus is knocked prone. Where before it fell safely, took no damage and wasn't knocked prone.
Is that a "difference"? Falling 50 feet is 10 squares of movement, that's about the upper limit for many creatures that can fly in 4E. Adding another 25 feet onto that, or even from 40 feet to 65 feet or so suddenly takes a creature that flies out of "Safe fall" into "Damage + prone". That's significant in my book any day of the week.
Precious few monsters are trained in acrobatics, most have no skills trained at all (I actually make a specific point of training monsters I create in skills but many don't have anything at all).
For point, I just looked at the iconic "flying" monster of any edition of Dungeons and Dragons the Dragon and in Draconomicon II (I had it on hand), I noted only the Mercury dragon being trained in Acrobatics. They are commonly trained in athletics though, not that helps much in this situation. Of course they also fly, but this returns to the point when you can dump extra distance on top of a flying creature, you enter in territory where they would land safely suddenly becomes damage + prone.
It's strictly put superior unless we again, go to playing on planet bowling ball. A push+prone can frequently end up no movement + prone. A teleport is ALWAYS going to get that movement (plus free vertical movement) + prone with the one exception of a very low ceiling. I would say that push + prone is going to be more frequently inhibited than teleport + damage + prone. Because the teleport will always get its forced movement at least, even if it can't always cheese the extra damage and falling prone from a drop.
That's exactly how I rule it. A forced teleport must end where the creature can be supported (so not up in the air by default). If the teleport sticks them somewhere dangerous they get a saving throw, pulling themselves out of the forced teleport moments before they would hit the hazardous area by sheer force of will, ending up prone next to the hazard as any other form of forced movement.
Edit: I can't help but notice immediately that there is "Fitting Curse" in the new Warlock Article. With a sufficiently high ceiling/outside you can exchange 1d6 of curse damage for 3 squares of teleport. You can get rid of 2d6 curse die damage to teleport a creature up six squares to do 3d10 extra damage with teledropping and knock them prone. That easily turns a pretty neat and quirky feat into imbalanced territory (free 3d10+prone? Really? Who wouldn't ever take that?!).
Also, why are you mentioning flying creatures here? Why would being teleported cause them to crash? Certainly something with hover (like a dragon) would just float there.
I think it's OK for forced teleportation to be stronger (even a lot stronger) than regular old forced movement. I think it's balanced out by having fewer powers that do so, and having shorter distances than forced movement, at least until you get to crazy stuff like Elemental Maw. Plus, I think the tactic is fairly iconic (think Nightcrawler). However, I do agree that a save should be allowed for unsafe teleports. I'd just cancel the teleport outright, rather than put them on the outside of a hazard, but that's just an implementation difference. I think that the risk of total failure (and the rarity of the powers) balances out the strength of tele-dropping.
EDIT: Also, I'm not sure I'd ever use the word overpowered in relation to Warlocks, yet anyway.
But it does when you can be teleported and dropped onto different surfaces below as well. Adding on height = more damage.
A flying creature often has to be moving before its flight takes over and if it is already falling it "crashes" its speed safely and then will take damage for whatever it falls beyond that. Not all flying creatures have hover and I'm not convinced you could be teleported vertically and go from standing on the ground (not flying) to hovering straight away. Much like how you cannot go from the prone condition to flying without taking a stand action first either. Hover doesn't let you fly without taking a move action to fly, hover lets you keep flying after you have started flying without spending a move action - a key difference.
If you were already flying you would be fine, but that's not the particular situation and a lot of creatures don't fly while attacking (often because of a lack of hover or flyby attack - most commonly because they have already been bought down to the ground during the fight by powers/prone etc).
So if there was 1 level 1 free at-will power that was "Add 3d10+prone damage to every X power" that would be balanced if there was only one of it? That's the worst possible reason I've ever heard for this being balanced just about. That's effectively what this is, add + damage + prone on every type of power with a certain function (teleportation). Nowhere IMO is this at all accounted for in the balance of these powers. Not that I buy your logic here anyway, because increasing numbers of books means there are more powers and abilities that teleport enemies all the time. Plus there are plenty of monsters that could use it as well, Mithral dragons come to mind and I don't see anywhere in their stat blocks where their powers balance accounts for drop damage + prone.
This sounds, now I recall, like your logic for why the ritualists ring wasn't a problem for the games magic item economy. Less than a month after we had that discussion the Elven High Mage ED was released, which as a feature lowered the costs of rituals by the same means as the ring. Just because something is rare at this point in time now doesn't mean being "Broken and rare" is acceptable. Broken and rare can soon turn into "Broken and completely common". It's interesting to note that the exact reason I pulled the ritualists ring up for being broken was the reason it was nerfed in the major errata update recently - it's now a fine and very desirable item without being overpowered at all due to breaking the games magic item economy.
Dungeons and Dragons is an evolving game and this kind of argument is truly baffling. Do you honestly believe that in another year with another PhB with another set of classes and more "Martial/Arcane/Divine/Primal/Psionic" power books that the ever increasing number of powers that teleport over a party is not going to increase? Problems should be solved before they become truly epically game breaking, especially when they are already this obvious.
You also did not answer the question:
Do they need the bonus damage + prone or are they underpowered without it?
Edit: In response to the quip about Warlocks, Warlocks are not the only class with powers that Teleport, for example Thunder Summons from a Sorcerer can teleport as can other powers from other classes. Plus monsters can and I can already tell you they are NOT in any way underpowered without having bonus damage + prone on all their teleportation attacks.
That you are more normally able to get and you ignore terrain, which is a huge advantage you constantly try to dismiss.
Again, pushing a gargantuan sized creature is different than teleporting it.
There is no risk of total failure. There is no current errata anywhere on the issue, considering that the standard use of teledropping for extra damage does not have a saving throw (However the errata MAY in fact make it so that if you try to teledrop the creature gets a save in this situation as well). So this is nonsense. I would agree that if they add a save in general, one that cancels the movement entirely if it is in the air or similar when successful it would balance the effect out (50% chance of failure and 75% against solos is a pretty stiff penalty). At the moment it is clearly not intentional by the rules to add bonus damage + prone to every forced teleportation power, especially as they are already significantly improved over other kinds of forced movement.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
In the Scales of War adventure path in Dragon Magazine (so also official WotC) there's an adventure for 3rd level characters with a final encounter that included
Level 3 Elite Skirmisher
Level 3 Soldier (2)
Level 4 Brute
and 3 minions spawning every round
it was encounter level 7 or so
and the room featured an 80 foot drop.
oh and that wasn't the only large drop in that adventure!
AKA After Saphelon DOMINATES this mofo he will make it more awesome. That's right, I went there and will continue to do so.
It also helps that I find most of them mechanically pretty compelling as well. I am saddened every single time I read the Silvers entry and see "Brute" as their type though.
It's easier for a huge + creature to block itself in with terrain features. The other complication arises, ironically enough, from allies and even other enemies (depending). Flanking allies can depending on the creatures position completely negate any kind of push from certain directions (because you can't shove an enemy though an allies space with forced movement). It's even possible for allies to completely prevent any form of movement of a huge or bigger creature if they are flanking it in certain ways especially combined with terrain. This is usually because the creature is positioned in such a way that anywhere you could move it legally will end up with the ally in the middle of the creatures space, which disallows the forced movement (as it can't legally end that way - the exception would be if the creature was helpless at the time I think). The one form of forced movement, on thinking about this that can avoid this problem is a slide, because you have finer control over where the creature goes.
An example from an epic campaign was a Dragon in the center of a volcano. Numerous holes in the walls punched out into magma on the outside, which was exceptionally dangerous to anyone. The PCs however could make absolutely no use of this hazard as the Dragon could not be pushed/pulled/slid into it. All the spaces were simply 3 squares wide. The dragon was 5 squares. So while it could punt them through the gaps into the magma, the PCs could not force the dragon into the magma except by teleporting it (even then that was pretty difficult). This provided an epic solo a nice "boost" to terrain and a reason for fighting around the magma vents.
This was also a solo version of the Catastrophic dragon (Volcanic dragon) that
A) Was not shit (I really hate Volcanic dragons)
C) Did I mention it was a proper dragon, which IMO should be a solo by definition and so it stands comparison with Chromatics and Metallics.
My greatest regret is I lost the dragons stat block, but it went down very well in the end with someone almost dying horribly in magma.
This wasn't a reference to the condition of dominated so much as deadinated.
A Shaman that Multiclasses Avenger can't get Oath of Enmity bonuses on an enemy that is adjacent only to her spirit companion, right? The shaman herself has to be adjacent to the target to get the free reroll and such. My reading does say that the bonuses apply to melee attacks made through the spirit companion, but the shaman can't be across the room when they're made.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
RAW says 'target is the only enemy adjacent to you' so that would be a no. However, I use OoE on reach attacks made with a plane splitter longsword, but I didn't take this wording into consideration.
Because a spirit attack has the melee keyword in its range, I would say you could without being adjacent. However, if another enemy was adjacent to the Shaman or spirit companion, I would rule that they do not meet the conditions for the additional roll.
Which is unfortunate, because an avenging angel of justice as a spirit companion would be pretty boss.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"You don't understand... I'm not the Avenger. It's the rabbit over there. He's the fanatical one. Don't say anything derogatory about Pelor, he'll go crazy."
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Pretty sure that's the case, actually.
You get your Oath benefit if your target is the only enemy adjacent to you. If your target isn't adjacent to you, then it cannot be the only enemy adjacent to you.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
And i hear tell that Google Wave is pretty good for this purpose.
Anyone know of anyone that would be willing to run a google wave game?
I have invites i can send out.
Part of the problem is currently both the lack of Wave users and of proper gadgets & bots to do more tactical gaming. D&D 4e absolutely depends upon a grid for combat, yet a sufficient map tool or whiteboard gadget hasn't cropped up yet. At least as far as I know. That, and waves facilitate a kind of communication that's not quite a forum and it's not quite IRC, and so there's the matter of learing ways to play on it that works with it.
No, due to this it's only really dawned on me the mistake actually (I did notice this with a regular avenger, but I forgot to really think about it with regards to multiclassing). Due to the mistake happening about 2 billion years ago in the game and given it doesn't affect anything balance wise really at this point (late paragon/epic) there isn't any point in disallowing you from doing it for this game.
I do this because being obsessive and micromanging billions of powers and probably classes in 4E just isn't worth it. Especially when I'm more interested in creating monsters and other things on my mind. If I played 4E I am sure I would pay more attention to a general class.
Magic Items: The Items We Can't Publish
It's an interesting read that pretty much amounts to "feel free to create 'overpowered' magic items for your games if you want to, but don't expect them from an official book".
While I can see the complaints about "boring" magic items, I still find it infinitely better than your characters being almost entirely defined by their magical swag.