Random question I feel I should already know the answer to, but I don't: If you have a reach weapon and use it with a close burst 1 weapon attack, does that attack become a close burst 2?

  For a Weapon Keyword attack, yes.

  For a 'using your shield, Melee Keyword' power like Shield Bash, or 'Swordmage Implement Keyword attack' like Sword Burst (itself burst 1), No.

  What power do you specifically mean.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:36, Tue 27 Mar 2012.

First, sorry I haven't been posting lately, RL has been hellish.

To answer your question if the range on the power is listed as 1 or any other number, then using a weapon with reach, or without reach will not change its range.

If the range of the power is 'melee reach' then using a reach weapon will change the range from close burst 1 to close burst 2, and if you have a way to getting Reach 2 (there are a couple ways to get this) to attack targets 3 squares away it would become a close burst 3.

Unless the power says its range is Melee Reach, or Ranged Reach then what weapon you use doesn't affect it's range/reach unless there is a special property/power/ability being invoked. (Such as a weapon that specifically changes the reach/range of a power, but this mostly happens with implements.)

I do plan on resuming posting for the threads I'm up in, and in SfH later this week.

  I'm kind of confused there, how will the powers that don't even USE a weapon, get a reach boost from a reach weapon?  In crazy circumstances like that Ki Focus that boosts range by 1, sure.  But how is a whip going to increase the range of Melee 1, no Weapon Keyword, Shield Bash?  Or is this a case of Burst being a keyword itself that can't be boosted range wise by reach properties (I THINK that may be the case, but I forget).

  I don't doubt that Burst powers cant get benefits from Reach properties, but I do doubt Melee/weapon attacks that don't use the reach granting item itself would get a range increase.

  Eh, this is part of why I asked Tim what specific power they were talking about.  So many keywords, so many different items or weapons used for attacks.  The fact he's probably talking about walking arsenal May doesn't help the chances of guessing correctly, heh.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:58, Tue 27 Mar 2012.

By default, close burst and blast powers do not benefit from reach, as they are listed as Close Burst/Blast # where # is a number such as 1,2,3,4,5,etc... a power would have to have its range listed as melee reach/melee weapon in order to benefit from reach, and I do not believe there are any such powers. However single target powers like Lunging Strike (Fighter 1) has a range of 'Melee weapon +1 reach' it benefits from a weapons' reach and extends it further. While Masterful Spiral (Monk 1) increases the reach of all melee touch attacks while it is in effect. Now Hail of Arrows (Ranger 27) is effectively a Close burst ranged weapon power but it is listed as Ranged Reach and simply targets EVERY enemy in range. The key to finding 'close burst/blast' style powers that benefit from reach, is not to look for 'close' powers but melee/ranged weapon powers that target multiple targets.

Hail of Arrows with a Superior Crossbow and relevant ranged weapon feats feat can effectively be considered a Close Burst 45, although it still will provoke attacks of opportunity from adjacent enemies for using a ranged weapon unless you have a way around that, and there are a couple.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:42, Tue 27 Mar 2012.

Beguiling Strands does INT mod damage on hit.  No dice.  Requires an attack roll to hit.  So a regular hit with a +1 magic implement would be INT mod +1(enhancement) damage, and a crit would do INT mod damage + 1 +1d6, yes?
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:48, Tue 27 Mar 2012.

  I'm pretty sure that would still get crit bonus if you rolled for hit and go 20, so long as you had an implement with Crit bonus (some weapons have zero crit bonus after all, like distance weapon).

  I figure it's a safe bet you have at LEAST generic magic implement.

  If you got no crit bonus on flat damage attacks you still had to roll for, screw you rules they got a 20 on a micro damage attack, they get crit bonus.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:05, Tue 27 Mar 2012.

Using a +1 communal longsword as an implement on my swordmage/wizard hybrid, yeah.

If there is an attack roll for a damaging attack and it crits then you get the bonus damage. heck for some implements that use a non-damaging effect the effect might even be triggered for non-damaging attacks... not really sure. I'd leave it up to a DM to call, but a crit will never turn a non-damaging attack into a damaging attack, with the caveat that there could be some special specific rule too allow that in some situations. (Such as if the non-damaging power itself has a special crit bonus that does damage as such a thing is possible, or something atypical like that.)

Yeah. Can you imagine? Timothius has Astral Seal. He also has the Pacifist Healer feat. If you allowed for a non-damage power to do crit damage on a crit, poor Timothius would actually get punished for getting a crit. Stunned aka lose a turn for pulling a crit. "Omigosh! I didn't mean to hurt him!" Yes, Tim. You slapped that seal on their forehead, it hit them like someone throwing a brick at them. Only harder since bricks are improvised and thus, technically 1d4 dmg, while crit dmg is usually 1d6.

May can throw bricks (and sling stones) for 1D8 DMG though, but then that's special.

Well, I'm not listed on the map's initiative order and I listed initiative in my last post.

Then add it to the map.

A problem:

In Ascension of Heroes, Angel made a plan based off an assumption I had: That the enemies couldn't see that far. Apparently, as soon as we are on that platform with the pillars, we get noticed. Granted, I figured out F8 is the one square where line of sight is gone for the enemy, so if someone sneaked to that square, the enemy couldn't notice. But that's one square, and Chris warned me these are the kind of monsters who just go for the nearest target.

Discussed it with Chris and apparently, since this falls under "characters know what is line of sight", Angel would know her plan won't work. So I'mma have to retcon Angel's plan. The one part of her plan where Matt and Adam block the stairs? More like, they can take point and make themselves targets, one of them on H5 and H7. The part where Angel, Mitts and Mav can stay put and fire at the enemies? Maybe, but line of sight looks like it'll be a bit of a challenge.

So in short, Angel's plan is scrapped/retconned. We need to all climb down. I think.

Well, got the rough draft sheet up for Wizard.  Even if I never use this guy, not like Tim doesn't have 19 trillion sheets of varying completion up for characters not in use himself.

Also, did some double checking Of Math,

Theorycraft implement powers vs Vistani eye. (#)= freebie expertise.

lv 10: +11(12) vs stats, and +14(15) Vs Will.
lv 20: +19(21) Vs stats, and +25(27) Vs will.
lv 30: +27(30) Vs stats, and +36(39) Vs will.


This Means Fighter Shield bash (Str+2 Vs Reflex) is actually awesome.  As it's Stat+Number Vs Stat... For Heroic Tier, as that power does not upgrade over Tiers.

Stat+Number Vs Stat powers good (So long as they scale, Shield Bash WILL get obsolete eventually).  No stat, Flat Number Vs defense Bad.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:00, Thu 19 Apr 2012.

Highly recommended from an anime fan friend of mine is the series Mushi-shi. Said friend says he came back home from driving all over New York for 12 hours and by all rights, should have just fallen asleep. But he thought he'd watch the first episode. The story was so intriguing, he HAD to see the next. And the next. Until he watched half of it in one sitting and finally went to sleep. :) Sounds like a winner to me.

Ascention of heroes Spiner 2 has a burst 1 within 10 power.  phb 271 says,


They don't say that you cannot use a square full of hindering terrain as the origin square.  I'm pretty sure this came up once before with a scorching burst and we agreed that burst 1 within 10 can use a square of hindering terrain (i.e. a wall) as it's origin square.  Unless there's objection, the spiner will target G8 with it's power.  If there is objection it will target D6.

There is a difference between "Hindering" terrain like, difficult, annoying to pass over or through, etc.  And terrain that is a solid blockage.  Especially if Line of Sight and Line of Effect have no possible way of reaching it (things in which the rules DO say can/can not have results over).

G8 can not work as an origin tile.  I could see some headscratching over J9 due to the artwork for the stone pillar of that tile only filling in about 50% of the cube, but that too is a case of Complete Blockage.
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:21, Fri 04 May 2012.

Oops wrong terminology.  Blocking terrain.  I still don't recall ever seeing it spelled out you cant use a blocking terrain square as a blast's origin square.  *searches*

DMG 44:
Blocking Terrain: Forced movement can’t move a
creature through blocking terrain (page 61). Every
square along the path must be a space the creature
could normally occupy

nope.  *continues searching*

DMG 61:
Blocking Terrain
Blocking terrain prevents movement and blocks line of
sight

nope.  *continues searching*

DMG 60:

Blocking Terrain: Blocking terrain prevents movement,
blocks line of sight and line of effect, and
provides cover.

THERE it is!  Blocks line of effect.  The 'targeting is from a corner of a square' bit is what threw me.

Yes.  This is why I mentioned line of effect.  Plus common sense of "No you can not cast your spell inside of or through solid rock".  Not without some loopholes you don't (Oh Sorcerer Lightning Strike, thank you Munchkins for abusing self damage as a decoy for it's REAL cheat to remain untouched).

Actually.  Come to think of it...  that DMG wording still doesn't make it clear.  The picture on PHB 281 shows targeting is from a corner of a square.  In fact, all targeting is always from the corner of a square for determining line of effect, sight, and cover, never ever from the center of a square.  I'll have to draw up a bunch of forinstances to show that corners of squares have always been used by PCs and monster for any kind of attack, regardless of what sort of terrain is nearby.  But I must sleep now.

That's because in all of those cases he is shooting into and for the rooms OPEN tiles You were asking if you site could use G8 as your origin square.  That would be like if the PH1 image used the black solid walls it does NOT list as examples.  Imagine those black walls that your example does jack to, That's what G8 is.

No matter WHERE you shoot from, anywhere, you can not use G8 as an origin square because I am repeating myself at this point.  Same problem for why you can't say "I use one tile underneath me as the origin square... Yes, I know I am standing on solid stone. What's your point?"

The only reason this is annoying me is the whole basicness of it all.  One of the reasons STAAAAAIRS makes me self rage so.  If I ever agreed to use a completely inaccessible tile as an origin tile before, it was probably a case of "Oh god, whatever to avoid argument" at the time.
This message was last edited by the GM at 09:49, Fri 04 May 2012.

Before any flame wars happen, remember; Two blind men feel an elephant. One grabs the trunk and thinks he's handling a snake. The other grabs a leg and thinks he's handling a tree.

While I am in agreement with Joe on this, *and* see it as "obvious", apparently Chris sees it as "obvious" that you can use hindering terrain as origin square for area powers. So please throw out any conceptions of "I'm right, you're wrong" as we have now entered two completely differing views on the exact same words. Which is human. Not a personal affront.

That said, I would just as soon say that you can't target hindering terrain for purposes of area attacks and say "that's now our house rule" just to keep things civil.

I'm reminded of how matter-of-fact "makes sense" Seth was about the squeezing rules when to me, I kept imagining the person and their mount crumpling up into a cube shape. XD

So yeah. No more arging. That is the point of this post.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:41, Fri 04 May 2012.

Sorry you're annoyed.  Yes it is basic.  Which is why I fistshake at the ambiguous wording of the rules.  Tim found a fantastic example of how important wording is.  Q: "But I'm invisible!  And they're blind!  And I'm standing next to a roaring waterfall!  And I'm down wind!  Shouldn't they have no clue where I am?!"  A: "Not if you're not 'hidden.'  You must first be 'hidden' or they know where you are."

I at least managed to remember where this "ruling" I'm thinking of comes from.  Rick was DMing Shadowfell Keep for Tim and I.  We wound up in a room with a gelatinous cube and two zombie children.  Cube was defeated.  Zombies were standing next to the wall, and a PC was in front of them, 2 squares out from the wall.  I asked, "Can I use the surface of the wall as my origin square?"  Rick, ever the stickler for the rules, looked it up.  (So much a stickler for the rules that thanks to the example picture on 272, he thought that close blasts had to be centered on the caster when not cast diagonally, but thankfully wording saved the day there.)

After a few minutes of headscratching he came to the same conclusion I have: the rules aren't clear on it.  Because never do the rules say that the center of a square must be targetable in order to target anything in a square.  (In fact, they're so ambiguous, the exact wording makes it sound like dude on upper right "wall" example, same page, cannot be targeted by any attack at all because all four of his square's corners "touch a wall")  So he made the next "obvious" conclusion that I did.  Targeting is always from corners of squares.  If you have line of effect to the corner of a square, then you can use that corner for targeting purposes.  Which would mean that dude in upper right hand "wall" example can be targeted after all.  And this also means that if ever a PC wanted to attack a tree that fills a square with scorching burst, they can do that.  (What kind of doesn't make sense to me is that you can target the center of a gargantuan gelatinous cube or rock golem no problem, but not the center of a 3x3 wall.)

But that was then, and this is now.  Tim's right.  We'll just have to come to a ruling and stick to it.  The wording of said decision is important as already pointed out.  I was thinking of using the following wording: "If a creature of tiny size cannot occupy any part of a square, that square cannot be used as an origin square for a burst power."  I hope this resolves the issue.

Right, forgot that I'm not allowed to explain, or disagree with anything if I admit I'm annoyed with it, lest it automatically = Argument, yeesh.

As you said, Wording.  Hindering Terrain is MOSTLY used to talk about mere Difficult terrain, "please mack a skill check to pass over rubble the enemy does not have to for", etc.  Yes, solid walls hinder you as well.  But that's more Blocking terrain.  Unfortunately, opinion land.

Surface of the wall would, in a tile based world, be the square NEXT to the wall anyways.  Can't work if the blast/burst radius itself can't pass through it, which there seems to be zero questioning of.  If a Scorching burst can't go through it, how is it going to come from where it can not pass through, kind of deal.  Of course, that was diff GM and they probably wanted to give you "don't fry children with pyromania AoE Spam" option.  Which is a good reason for a tweak.

I can understand how "But the picture doesn't fill up an exact 5x5 cube! There is still some open space one he edges of the picture! There is a centimeter of space I'm allowed to do it!" mindset would happen, which is where your own "If it can't be occupied at all then no it can't be used" wording comes in handy to remind that explosions couldn't pass through it anyway (if potentially around it), so yeah, you got it now :D
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:27, Fri 04 May 2012.