The free townships of the Elsir Vale are points of light in these dark times. The peaceful lives of the good inhabitants rely on strong heroes to keep the darkness at bay.
Not dead yet…. :)
Rules Discussion: knowledge of effects – so here is the thing, several of our powers have additional negative effects on the target. When these are conditional, how should this be played? For example, when Bren had the evil eye power, it had a conditional effect that if he was attacked by his target, the bonus Bren granted increased. There are also powers where if a target moves after being hit, or does not move, then another effect takes place.
My question is how do we play the knowledge of that secondary effect? In some cases, it is quite obvious. Stand next to the flaming sphere and the heat damages you. Pretty clear that you may want to move away. With other powers though, it isn’t always obvious.
The reason I bring it up is that due to the new options our characters keep getting, Nathan is frequently surprised by what we hit him with. I’m sure that can get frustrating. On the other hand, if an effect can easily be avoided due to the enemy taking an action (or not taking actions), that can get frustrating for us.
I think if we are more descriptive with the powers we use, we should be up front with any secondary effects and let Nathan decide whether or not the monster would figure out how to avoid effects.
It would be ok, but you would have to switch out something you had at 1st level for something you could have had at second level.
PS. I left my hat and sunglasses over there. I have also been missing my Humboldt hat for a few weeks. So, if a Humboldt hat turns up let me know.
Quick question for the DM. On the issue of Retraining, are we allowed to use Retrains from previous levels? Or are Retrains a one-shot deal once you level up? For instance, my character used retrains at 3rd and 4th level, but not 2nd. Could I go back and retrain something using my 2nd level retrain, or is that opportunity lost?
Anyone know the plan for Monday? I have a soccer game at 8:15 unfortunately, so I will have to leave the game early. You all are more than welcome to stay and play. Hopefully I’ll get back before you wrap up though.
So Robert is going to give it a go. He finally settled on a dragonborn warlock with a somewhat dark side. Should be a good add to the group.
Looks like Robert is going to give it a try. He’s currently courting either a Sorcerer or a Warlock character. I think he’s leaning towards a dragonborn Sorc which I think will be a good fit for the group. I know it isn’t a defender, but it will fit his play style a lot better and still provide us with more punch. Maybe Ask can start swapping out spells for more controller themed ones.
5th character options:
1) Robert decides to play. I’m cool with this and won’t mind whatever he wants to bring in.
2) If Robert says no thanks, advertise for another player.
3) If it ends up just being us four, then I think we have two options for a 5th character.
a) make a guy and rotate control amongst those that want to.
b) If Matt wants to, let him bring in a barbarian, and make Ask the NPC.
Where’s are XP???? :) I needz to level!
So I talked to my friend Robert and he seems very interested in giving it a go. He is a bit concerned about being a complete newb towards D&D. I’ve assured him that its a cooperative game and that being new is fine for our group. If you guys are fine with him giving it a go, I’ll let him know. He also doesn’t mind playing a defender.
So a couple of things. I’m feeling a little disheartened about Bren right now. I thought I had created a good battle cleric. Good at healing, decent in melee. Now I do recognize that my rolls were shit last night and that no 5th level character, let alone a 2nd level character would have been hitting with what I was tossing. However, the fact was I still needed a 15 or better anyways. It was frustrating. Was this just a bad set of encounters for us?
The half-orc thing. I just want to say my piece about it without arguing. From my perspective, I did not even consider the possibility that she was an NPC plant to help us out. We go into the dungeon, find orcs, and immediately attack them. The setup from what was described and confirmed by Nathan, was that the orcs were invading this dungeon as well, and fighting the kobolds. So then we find a half-orc fighting kobolds alone. My take on it was that she was the leader of the orcs (which was later confirmed). Therefore, in my mind, that made her no different from the orcs we had just all finished killing. So Bren treated her as the enemy. That never changed. We discovered magic items on her, and so just like any enemy we would normally kill and then strip, I took them. Honestly, the only reason Bren spared her in the first place is because we could get info out of her. And the info we got confirmed her as an enemy to Bren.
I do understand that metagaming wise, we could have thrown roleplaying out the window and offered her to join us. I get that now, after the fact. But at that time, based on everything that happened, I did not see that as the intent. All I was doing was trying to play my character.
I honestly never considered that Nathan had placed her there to join us.
Alex cannot make it tonight, but I have a copy of his character at home. He apologizes for the late notice. I may see if a friend of mine can stand it for him, otherwise, one of us can simply run his character.
Yes, it is an issue. However, it is one that can be exploited by both PC’s and monsters. As long as we play it consistantly, then its all good. Also, there is always the risk of the trigger not occuring and the person wastes their standard action. Think also of this negative, the PC or monster has to give up their previous spot in the init order.
Since nothing has come from Wizards on this, I say we play it as written.
‘this is different than Ready Action. Positive or negative effects that apply to you end on your original initiative (for those that are ‘save ends’ a roll must be made). Therefore, it is quite possible for a negative effect ending on the ready person, and not affecting their readied action.’
This is the crux of it! In this case a savvy PC might say I blast them with my super daily power (or whatever) as soon as the next ally, enemy or leaf moves. Then he rolls his saving throw and ends the negative effect. Sure enough, a leaf falls and shwooop, the super daily power (or whatever) goes off without the negative effect that was intended to be hindering the PC. This interpretation of the ruling might complicate the mechanics.
Well actually, I’m not proposing applying the delaying rules to Ready Action at all. They are two seperate things and should be treated seperately.
Delay – you are delaying your whole turn. However Delaying cannot cause the extention of positive effects. They will end as soon as you say “I’m going to delay.”
this is different than Ready Action.
Positive or negative effects that apply to you end on your original initiative (for those that are ‘save ends’ a roll must be made). Therefore, it is quite possible for a negative effect ending on the ready person, and not affecting their readied action.
In terms of minor, move, and standard, a Delay allows you to retain all of them until you return to init. However, a ready action is again different. You spend your standard action to ready either a standard, move, or minor action. Therefore, before your ready, you can use a move and minor action. However, if you don’t, you lose them once the ready takes place.
UGH. OK: Minor and Move actions during delayed (and readied) actions.
This is something maybe best explored with sets of little chips or markers for Standard, Move and Minor actions, but just to take a stab at it:
(I don’t mean these as assertions, but just as outlines of what the rules SEEM to indicate. I don’t really care one way or the other.)
This section is just looking at Delayed actions for simplicity’s sake:
1) You can only delay your entire turn (pg 288)
2) There’s no indication that you lose your move or minor action during a delayed action.
3) So you should still get your move and minor action when you delay.
4) So you come in after a combatant completes their turn, at which time you get your minor, move and standard actions in any order you want, as normal.
But now, let’s look at Readying an Action:
1) You can only postpone your entire turn if we apply the text on pg 288 to Ready.
2) There’s no indication that you lose your move or minor action during a readied action.
3) So you should still get your move and minor action when you Ready an Action.
4) So you come in after A) an event or B) a combatant completes some PART OF their turn.
5) At this time, there are two questions re: option B (acting in response to another character):
A) If your reentry interrupted character’s turn, are you obliged to complete every element of your turn before the triggering combatant gets to complete his turn?
B) Do you get your minor, move and standard actions in any order you want, as normal, or are you obliged to do your readied action first, and then free to take any other unused actions?
Delaying vs Readying re: “Delay Entire Turn”
OK, one more question:
Shall we also apply the “Delay Entire Turn” text on pg 288 to Ready an Action” on pg 291?
Note: If so, I think the differences between Delay and Ready are now clear:
1) Obviously, with Delay, you just say when you come back in; with Ready, the triggering action determines your return (unless you “choose to ignore it” and lose your turn).
2) With Delay, you can only come in “after any other combatant has completed a turn”,
3) But with Ready, you can come back in the middle of another character’s turn if the triggering action is not the last action of that character’s turn. BUT you come in AFTER that triggering action is completed.
4) With Ready an Action, you can also come back in after some trigger that is not related to or caused by a combatant (e.g. an “event”), but with Delay, you are explicitly restricted to come in after a combatant finishes a turn. (So you can Ready an Action to pull on the rope around a comrade’s waist if the ice he’s walking on breaks, but you CANNOT do this with Delay.)
-One big result of this difference is that one can now Ready an Action outside of combat (as opposed to 3.5), but you can still only Delay during combat.
...and now, a clarifying question on readying:
This is just a small thing, I think. But just to be clear about pg 291:
A readied action occurs AFTER the action that triggered it, but also:
After the reaction is resolved, you then reset your initiative to the place immediately BEFORE the triggering creature or event.
...so, in the turn you take a readied action, you act AFTER your foe, but from then on, you act BEFORE your foe. (Unless some other change to initiative order occurs.)
Readying vs Delaying resolved?
This is a useful conversation. I wish the PHB had been explicit where it means to be; but it hasn’t taken too long to hash this out. It sounds like the consensus is:
1) We’ll apply the “Start of your Turn” and “End of your Turn” rules for Delay on pg 288 to the Ready an Action text on page 291 verbatim.
2) As “End of your Turn” states, beneficial effects will end at the moment you say “I delay” or “I ready an action.”
3) Also according to that passage, harmful effects persist during the delaying or readying period, and disappear only after the character has come back into the initiative order and completed all action.
4) Also according to that passage, the character rolls Saving Throws only after the character has come back into the initiative order and completed all action.
Does this sound OK?
Exactly. So I think ready action should not delay the end of turn phase for a player or mob. You take a risk when you ready and action and you put on a restriction…so if it pays off, you might be able to do something that you normally couldn’t have done. But it isn’t guaranteed.
Excuse me,.. by ‘delays an action’, I mean ‘readies an action’ that happens to occur after the ally. The delay an action rules clearly state that the beneficial effect ends when the turn would have ended had there been no delay.
Another case to consider. A PC gives an ally +2 to hit until the end of PC’s next turn. (This is designed to give the ally +2 to hit for one turn) Ally gets a bonus on his turn which is after the PC in initiative. It should not be expected that the ally gets +2 again in the next turn if the PC merely delays an action till after the allies next turn.
Well the wizard boards seem to indicate that the turn is not extended and all “end of turn” events takes place on the original initiave placement. So yes, you could ready an action to attack with the hopes that whatever effect is on you has been saved. I actually see it as a smart move by a player as opposed to an abuse. Plus, it works for monsters too.
True, but if you don’t end effects as if the PC’s turn has ended, then say its the PC’s power that blinded an opponent. By readying an action that will only come after the opponent’s turn, the PC extended the blind effect longer than it should have gone on.
I’m sure this has come up on the wizard boards.
Consider the case that a PC is blinded and can’t target (targets have total concealment). You ready an action to target the first person who attacks you. Should you get to then take a saving throw to save from blindness before the readied action happens? The result is a potential loophole allowing the PC to attack with his standard action in that turn not blinded.
Well after reading it, Readying very clearly talks about actions, and nothing about an extention of your turn. In fact, it uses terminology for reseting your initiative instead of talking about ending your turn. So therefore, I would say that you would end your turn as normal with a readied action at the original initiative spot. So any saves you would need to make or effects that need to end would do so then. Then, if your trigger event occurs, you can take your readied action, and then move your init spot.
On a side note, recall that you can only take one immediate action in a round, so by readying an action, you have to choose to take your ready, or perhaps take an attack of opportunity.
Page 288 on Delay is clear. The only gray area is is whether or not you can make a saving throw or end harmful effects at the end of your original turn if you ready an action. The strict nature of Delay makes me think that you can’t gain any benefit from readying an action, so your character will have to live with the condition until after you reset initiate. Any beneficial or sustained effects (that an action is not used to sustain) will end with your original turn.
The issue with that logic may be in the question of “does readying an action extend your turn?” I’m not sure it does. Delaying is quite clear, you are actually not taking a turn until you come back into the initiative. But readying is different. You are taking your turn, but then providing a condition to finish an action. I’ll have to read up on it, but I think it is just safer to play that readying an action won’t extend effects, just like delaying. Is it monday yet?
Sorry for some formatting and sense errors…
I had some lists in that post below that got turned into a sentance without punctuation, and I missed one other misplaced modifier. I haven’t found an edit function yet, so please bear with the bits that are hard to read.
Delaying vs Readying an action
I’ve been looking at readying vs delaying, specifically relating to effects and powers ending at the start OR end of someone’s turn; the errata are silent, so it seems the PHB is intended to be definitive.
So here’s what I see:
1) Under “Delaying”, pg. 288, there are specific and detailed rules about not avoiding harmful effects or extending beneficial effects “by delaying.” That sounds very clear.
2) There’s absolutely so such restriction for readying an action, pg. 291.
I think there is good reason to take this literally, and that one can, in some cases, avoid harmful effects or extend beneficial effects by readying an action.
The first and weaker reason is that while delaying lets you take your turn whenever you want (and so you can avaoid or delay effects and still act when you want), readying carries the risk that you won’t act at all (if the conditions for action don’t occur).
So giving up a whole turn’s worth of doing damage, etc may be a theoretically fair price to pay for extending some +2 bonus or some resistance.
But second, I notice that many powers last until the “beginning” of someone’s next turn, and many until the end of that turn. It seems that one huge difference this distinction produces is that you wouldn’t be able to extend an effect by readying an action that lasts to the beginning of your next turn.
Examples of Warlord powers that last to the beginning of one’s next turn include:
Hammer Formation (MP)
Lead by Example (MP)
Inspired Belligerence (MP)
Especially these last three are especially good powers; it makes sense that they last to the start of the character’s next turn precisely so there’s no chance that the character can ‘trade’ his turn to extend them.
But the text of delaying and readying are starkly different re: extending effects, and it would seem, both by the written rules and by an examination of some powers, that this difference is both intentional, real, and also tightly limited (by a power’s ending at the beginning or end of a character’s turn).
What do the rules seem to indicate for you guys?
D&D Insider is going to have a price increase starting in July. Also, they will be adding content from the new Players Handbook 3 (not due out until March) each month until its release. Anyone in the group thinking of subscribing. I am. I have found the character tool to be great. And eventually they will add the campaign tools as well. I just have to figure out how to afford it. However, $50 for a year right now isn’t too bad. After July 1st, it will go up to $70 a year…
By the way, I’ve added Bren to the character section and put down a description, some background, and his magic wishlist.
So what is the XP take from this past monday? We went thru 5 encounters I think. Hopefully that got us quite a good way to 3rd.
The scale armor that once belonged to the mixed blood is ‘+1 scale armor of (acid)resistance’.
Dwarven Weapon Training: so I know we discussed this a bit at the game yesterday. I’ve done some research on the D&D forums about this and it has helped me understand why this hasn’t been errata’d.
The big reason is that otherwise, there really is no reason for dwarves to take the traditional weapons. Due to all hammers and axes being only +2 to hit instead of +3, it basically makes a trade of damage increase for a loss of accuracy.
Apparently, in the higher levels, the weapon focus line will take the damage to +3, thus better than DWT. Also, getting bonuses to hit are fairly rare compared to bonuses to damage.
A few people threw up numbers to compare and basically the dwarves were slightly inferior overall in terms of damage output to those races that enjoy a bonus to their main melee stat using a +3 prof weapon.
So overall, that feat is there to encourage dwarf characters to take weapons other than swords and is overall, fairly balanced.
by the way, i am not dming tomorrow at GG. :(
That would be fine with me. I hope Matt is in.
What time do you guys want to get together on Monday? I would say maybe 1pm or 2pm.