I have gotten into the habit of bolding words and phrases in my posts that I think are noteworthy. Usually, they're things that are key to the mechanics, like who is targeting whom with what, and what that outcome is. If it's annoying, I can stop, and no one else is obligated to do it.

The marks the knights apply are nothing fancy, just the standard: -2 any attack that doesn't include the marking creature as a target.

With two dragonborn on the field, I'll note that the knights are positioned in such a way that it would be impossible to catch them both in a close or area attack without targeting Sietnyas.

I have some informal ways of stating positions, when the exact number of squares isn't known or doesn't matter too much. I can't say I didn't steal this from some other game.
Adjacent means adjacent.
Engaged usually means adjacent and implies that blows have been traded or are about to be.
Near or close means within a move. If the slowed condition or difficult terrain is in play, this might need further clarification.
Far means more than a move away, but probably not two moves away. Again, certain types of effects might mean some clarification is in order.
I find 4th Edition situations don't usually get further apart than that, but if they do I'll make it as clear as I can.

Remember that a flanked character needs to move at least 2 squares not to be adjacent to at least one of them.

Take it away, Drake!

Per the rules, a charge ends a character's turn, unless they spend an action point. However, since Drake wound up not benefiting from the charge and was close enough to have moved, attacked and used lay on hands, there was no overall advantage gained.

In reply to DM Paul (msg # 32):
I used my burst one on the two knights and three allies. If I read all of it correctly, all five of them are in a three by three area.
So top of the round to you all!

In reply to DM Paul (msg # 32):

Thanks Paul I just reread the charge rule and noted the two sentences over the page. I’ll know for next time whoops.

Hmm. I have a very position-dependent ability I'm not sure how to use - Shifty Maneuver which lets himself and allies in a burst two all shift one. Sietnyas would like to get a flank and/or get adjacent to at least two enemies. Is that possible?

In reply to Sietnyas (msg # 35):

This is a good example of "if you think it's possible, then it's possible." Read over what has gone before to get a sense of things, then, if what you want to do still seems plausible to you, do it.

The only minor difficulty this power presents is that there would be choices for the other players to make. However, since you have some particular locations to which you would like your allies to shift (namely to provide flanking), and no one stated any preference not to be moved, I suspect they won't have problem with it. They have really high defenses right now, so one place will be much like any other to them.

As you're flanked, you're already adjacent to two enemies, though they are not adjacent to each other.

Tuur is up! Well, he's prone, but it is his turn!

In reply to DM Paul (msg # 37):

Looks like Tuur forgot to save against the ongoing damage!

In reply to Frug (msg # 38):

And to take the damage. I'll update the damage when I post. Tuur, please roll a save.

In reply to DM Paul (msg # 39):

Gah! Sorry!
Rolled a nat 1!

I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would include just a few more details in their dice rolls and posts. I'd like to know what power is being used, and what its effects are, though if I know the power I can look it up.

Be sure to read through the stat block when you start your turn, to catch effects that might pertain to you. Then make sure to scan through again and update with any changes (which will help catch things like necessary saves).

The gravehound, not unsurprisingly, has vulnerable 5 radiant. Tuur's radiant attack on it should have done 5 more damage, so I've fixed that.

In reply to DM Paul (msg # 41):
I put a +4next to Drake’s HP, it should be next to AC

In reply to Frug (msg # 42):

OK. His HP aren't likely to change in the near future anyway.

Ah, I did include that the first time around, but missed it this time. Shall ensure I remember each time as much of what Tuur does is radiant. My bad!

Quick observation
The sergeant has reloaded the crossbow, which is a minor action as stated, but isn't he also holding a heavy shield, which, for players at least, doesn't allow for 2 hands to be free for the task of loading?

If it's different for NPCs then I'm cool with that - they tend not to have a choice of weapons and listing someone with more than one bolt would seem daft if they couldn't use them, especially where they aren't an ongoing entity beyond one encounter.

In reply to Froodle (msg # 45):

You make a good point about NPCs possibly being different. A closer look at Monster Manual entries, at least early ones, indicates that not only do they not operate on most of the same basic rules as PCs, but they don't even abide by the guidelines in the DMG for making monsters.

There's nothing I'm aware of that requires a DM to change a creature's defenses depending on circumstances like the use of a shield of not. However, on the listing in the Challenges tab, you'll note that there are two different scores listed for the sergeant's AC and Reflex, one with the shield and one without. At present, in the stat block, his defenses are set to those without the shield.

Again, though, if anyone looked at those scores and thought they should be different, they could change them. No one has attacked the sergeant yet, and even if they had the different scores would only matter if they has only hit him by two.

I hope that helps.

I can understand how monsters need to be different in their calculations, constraining them to PC rules might make them a bit weak in some circumstances, as well as time consuming trying to generate one for a different circumstance.

I remember reading a post / thread of comments a while ago about descriptive combat and how everyone, even monsters can be assumed to have a base AC and anything above that relates to their armour / shield / hide etc. So for example a roll of 17 against a creature / PC wearing armour and carrying a shield giving an AC of 20 might be described as hitting but not penetrating the armour while a roll of 18 or 19 would hit the shield etc.

I can't remember who wrote it, it may even have been you.

I don't think we need to overcomplicate monsters, I'm happy with them being face value

In reply to Froodle (msg # 47):

That's a whole different topic, to my mind. You may notice that I don't describe any attacks specifically as hitting. Since HP isn't just structural integrity, an attack or effect can lower HP even if the subject isn't even physically affected.

I just saying that something might be listed as wearing one kind of armor and have an AC that doesn't make sense. And of course monsters usually don't have magic amulets and the like. Their numbers are mostly formulaic.

But, when it comes to things like having a shield or not, or using an action to load a crossbow that's something easy to take into account, and I think it's intended. If the creature was designed to, say, make two corssbow shots and then perform a shield bash, then I'd say, yep, it's just very different from a PC. But this guy isn't like that.

In reply to DM Paul (msg # 48):

The sergeant was hit by Sientyas throwing a dagger on his first turn.

In reply to Frug (msg # 49):

Right, my mistake. But the roll would have hit even if his shield had been equipped, so at this point there's no difference.

Drakes Divine sanction stays in place till the end of my next turn. If the enemies don’t include me as a target in their attack then they take 7 Radient damage the first time they do so on their go.

I believe that all the enemies but the Sergeant are within 3 squares of me which is why they are all subject to my sanction.

I know this nullifies Froodles mark for now but he can do it again on his turn.

Frug you’re up
This message was last edited by the player at 20:43, Wed 28 Apr 2021.

In reply to Drake (msg # 51):

Cool, that all makes sense.

Nice finisher Sietnyas

Three down, but most of our encounter powers are used, I think. That Fanatic property is annoying; next time, we have to try to take down fanatics at range.

I won't worry about Tuur posting this weekend, but I'll move things ahead on Monday. Have a good weekend!