The Gaming Den

I've posted this build a couple of times before, but since 4E has been coming up a lot lately I thought I would post it again.

The original idea came from ShakaUVM, of the WotC forums. So, points to him!

Basic idea, in Martial Power there's a ranger variant (Beastmaster Ranger) which grants you an animal companion of some time. There's an epic destiny that... oh, I'll just post the relevant passages.

Fused Fate (24th Level): Whenever an effect targets you, you can choose for it to target your beast companion in addition to you or instead of you, as long as the beast is within 20 squares of you and you can see it.

Shared Life (30th Level): As long as either you or your beast companion has at least 1 hit point, the other can't be killed, regardless of negative hit points or failed feath saving throws. Keep track of negative hit points and failed death saving throws as normal. If you both are reduced to 0 hit points or fewer, the negative hit points and failed death saving throws immediately take effect.


So in other words, you do this:

On the plus side, being attached like that, he's always within 20 squares. On the downside, I don't think Yogi has at least one hp left...

The potentially more disturbing question, frankly, is "what happened to Booboo?"

tic wrote:On the plus side, being attached like that, he's always within 20 squares. On the downside, I don't think Yogi has at least one hp left...

The potentially more disturbing question, frankly, is "what happened to Booboo?"

It doesn't matter whether Yogi has any hit points or not. As long as Ranger Rick is alive, Yogi can't die. And as long as Yogi isn't dead yet and within 20 squares, any and all attacks that would hurt Ranger Rick can be redirected to Yogi.

So Ranger Rick can't take any damage ever, so Yogi in turn doesn't die een as he gets driven farther and farther into the negatives. And Ranger Rick can bring his bear back at the end of any day by using a single healing effect that brings Yogi all the way back to full.

The key to this combo is that in 4e an area attack "targets" every creature in the area, so the ability to redirect any attack that targets you allows you to redirect all possible and even theoretical sources of damage and inconvenience. The only way to hurt him is to push his Yogi Hat more than 20 squares off and then insta gib Ranger Rick before he gets back into range. And at 30th level padded sumo numbers that just isn't going to ever happen.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:As long as Yogi isn't dead yet and within 20 squares, any and all attacks that would hurt Ranger Rick can be redirected to Yogi.

I thought it was only "effects" that were redirected?

MartinHarper wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:As long as Yogi isn't dead yet and within 20 squares, any and all attacks that would hurt Ranger Rick can be redirected to Yogi.

I thought it was only "effects" that were redirected?

It is, but an "effect" is everything in the game. Every damage source, power activation, status condition, and continuing rules text is an "effect." And everything that an effect affects is its "target." As written, the Yogi Hat allows you line item veto on all "stuff" in the game. If the two of you are in a fiery explosion your Yogi hat takes one hit, and you can redirect the hit on you to your Yogi hat. And so on.

I mean, you're 30th level, you can beat a Yogi Hat Ranger. You could, for example, have a Warlock dump a Hurl Through Hell (which would get redirected to the Yogi Hat) and then while the hat is in hyperspace you could hae a Tempest unleash a hurricane of blows to do about 350 damage in one round - instantly KOing Ranger Rick. So it can be done. Although only barely, since if Ranger Rick was really clever he'd share the Hurl Through Hell and come back from hell with his Yogi Hat intact, singed but not meaningfully damaged (and still invulnerable). But you know, there's um... stuff you can do. It's just... really hard.

-Username17

That's actually kind of really cool for a character idea.

Someone wearing their undying animal companion as a cloak, belt, helmet, etc.; and also being rendered nearly immortal because their undying pet's soul protects them.

Btw, why does this require level 30? You can still see your beast companion when it is dead, and Fused Fate doesn't require the beast companion to be alive, as far as I can see.

MartinHarper wrote:Btw, why does this require level 30? You can still see your beast companion when it is dead, and Fused Fate doesn't require the beast companion to be alive, as far as I can see.

Looks like because you need to be 30 to get the ability.

Someone throw this at the 4.Fails to watch them squirm.

FrankTrollman wrote: It is, but an "effect" is everything in the game.

Well actually, no. Powers have a specific "effect" line to them. So a rules lawyering DM could say that just the Effect line of any power is redirected, but not the hit or miss section.

MartinHarper wrote:Btw, why does this require level 30? You can still see your beast companion when it is dead, and Fused Fate doesn't require the beast companion to be alive, as far as I can see.

Because that could be considered exploitative, a case of "well, the rules don't say I can't". The argument presented above uses a far more reasonable interpretation of the rule text that renders it more difficult to argue against.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: It is, but an "effect" is everything in the game.

Well actually, no. Powers have a specific "effect" line to them. So a rules lawyering DM could say that just the Effect line of any power is redirected, but not the hit or miss section.

I'll just post ShakaUVM's reply.

ShakaUVM wrote:Uh, no. Read the PHB. Pages 54, 55, 57, 58. Effect is the outcome of a power.

Under your interpretation, the Dwarven "Stand Your Ground" ability, which says that you reduce forced movement by one when any EFFECT moves you, would be ineffective against half the forced movement powers in the PHB -- which aren't under Effect, but as part of Hit, most of the time. There's a bunch of other completely nonsensical outcomes if that is true, like Within X Squares of You powers not affecting anyone unless they have an Effect: keyword in the power description, or making ongoing damage not work unless it's listed in the Effect: section of a power.

There's two different usages for the word Effect in the PHB, one is the Effect: line in the power, the other refers to all outcomes of a power. Like I said, if your interpretation was right (which it isn't), then all sorts of silly things would happen, like ongoing damage not working unless it was part of the Effect block, Dwarven Stand Your Ground not working unless the forced movement was part of the Effect block, etc.

End of Turn: At the end of your turn, you make a saving throw against each effect on you that a save can end.

Oops, contradiction. Either effect is everything that is the result of a power, or you can't actually save against half the crap in the PHB, since they're not in Effect lines. I don't know what you mean by an Effect type, since that's not a term used anywhere in the PHB.

FrankTrollman wrote:

tic wrote:On the plus side, being attached like that, he's always within 20 squares. On the downside, I don't think Yogi has at least one hp left...

The potentially more disturbing question, frankly, is "what happened to Booboo?"

It doesn't matter whether Yogi has any hit points or not. As long as Ranger Rick is alive, Yogi can't die. And as long as Yogi isn't dead yet and within 20 squares, any and all attacks that would hurt Ranger Rick can be redirected to Yogi.

Yeah, I reread the wizards boards after I posted, and realised my error.

Someone throw this at the 4.Fails to watch them squirm.

Meh. It's the same as Pun-Pun, or any of the other infinite loop/invincible/kills everything in one round/whatever type of builds that exist in both editions. It's an interesting mental exercise that, once found, would be avoided in most games. Playing an invincible character isn't actually all that fun for any length of time. Sometimes a DM would just ban it, other times the players wouldn't bother to try and play it.

And, most importantly, it's no more a condemnation of 4e than Pun-Pun is of 3e.


EDIT: Actually, I just looked at the thing. It requires that you can see your beastie. Shaka's example of embedding a hair in your arm... unless you have translucent skin, how does that work? It also requires you to accept "a hair" as "the creature it belongs to". That opens up other problems, too - adventurers need to clean every place they sleep in, because a single hair left behind could be the target of a disintegrate spell, or other nasty. It's like sympathetic magic gone nuts.

Meh. It's the same as Pun-Pun, or any of the other infinite loop/invincible/kills everything in one round/whatever type of builds that exist in both editions. It's an interesting mental exercise that, once found, would be avoided in most games. Playing an invincible character isn't actually all that fun for any length of time. Sometimes a DM would just ban it, other times the players wouldn't bother to try and play it.

It's not an interesting mental exercise at all. There's no rules cobbling or dumpster diving involved; you just take the Beastmaster Ranger variant and the Beast Lord ED and you become pretty much invincible for no reason. Even the level 24 feature is freakishly overpowered, giving you an enormous reservoir of hit points for no reason and causing you to pretty much go 'F you' to status effects. The level 21 feature is just disgustingly overpowered by contrast.

That's why I tagged this thread as an incompetency incompetency instead of an exploit. It'd be like Wizards creating a class feature of 'you win the game'. The Yogi-Hat thing was just done for humor value; the trick works just as fine with a raptor.

EDIT: Actually, I just looked at the thing. It requires that you can see your beastie. Shaka's example of embedding a hair in your arm... unless you have translucent skin, how does that work? It also requires you to accept "a hair" as "the creature it belongs to". That opens up other problems, too - adventurers need to clean every place they sleep in, because a single hair left behind could be the target of a disintegrate spell, or other nasty. It's like sympathetic magic gone nuts.

That's why I went for the Yogi-Hat.

So my question is whether 4e has some counterintuitive definition of what it means to "see" something. I mean, I'd have a pretty hard time seeing something on top of my head unless I was looking in the mirror.

But yeah, the "effects" dodge doesn't work at all. They never specifically define the word, and they use it in so many different places that the narrowest possible definition you can infer is "any result of the use of a power."

tic wrote:

Someone throw this at the 4.Fails to watch them squirm.

Meh. It's the same as Pun-Pun, or any of the other infinite loop/invincible/kills everything in one round/whatever type of builds that exist in both editions. It's an interesting mental exercise that, once found, would be avoided in most games. Playing an invincible character isn't actually all that fun for any length of time. Sometimes a DM would just ban it, other times the players wouldn't bother to try and play it.

And, most importantly, it's no more a condemnation of 4e than Pun-Pun is of 3e.

You haven't been around this board enough to appreciate what they're going for. What they're attacking here is the competence of the 4e designers and devs. Some 4e fanboys think these guys are gods gifted with incredible gaming wisdom. Thus the desire to point out how incapable these guys are of wording anything right. Sort of like the "you are your own enemy" rule.

EDIT: Never mind. Since the definition of "see" in the PHB only involves whether you can draw a line from "any corner of your space" to "any part of the target's space," you can always "see" anything you're wearing by RAW.

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:

tic wrote:

Someone throw this at the 4.Fails to watch them squirm.

Meh. It's the same as Pun-Pun, or any of the other infinite loop/invincible/kills everything in one round/whatever type of builds that exist in both editions. It's an interesting mental exercise that, once found, would be avoided in most games. Playing an invincible character isn't actually all that fun for any length of time. Sometimes a DM would just ban it, other times the players wouldn't bother to try and play it.

And, most importantly, it's no more a condemnation of 4e than Pun-Pun is of 3e.

You haven't been around this board enough to appreciate what they're going for. What they're attacking here is the competence of the 4e designers and devs. Some 4e fanboys think these guys are gods gifted with incredible gaming wisdom. Thus the desire to point out how incapable these guys are of wording anything right. Sort of like the "you are your own enemy" rule.

Aye, I got the gist of it - the precise motivation had escaped me, I was thinking of it more as a "share and discuss the problems" than a "share the problems and wave them in the face of fanboys", but close enough.

EDIT: Never mind. Since the definition of "see" in the PHB only involves whether you can draw a line from "any corner of your space" to "any part of the target's space," you can always "see" anything you're wearing by RAW.

But what's that definition for? I mean, that'd be for targetting spells and whatever, no? Can you reasonably "see" anything in your back pocket, or on the sole of your shoe? What about something hovering behind your head? (Yes, I'm aware there's no facing. You know what I mean).

It's not an interesting mental exercise at all. There's no rules cobbling or dumpster diving involved; you just take the Beastmaster Ranger variant and the Beast Lord ED and you become pretty much invincible for no reason. Even the level 24 feature is freakishly overpowered, giving you an enormous reservoir of hit points for no reason and causing you to pretty much go 'F you' to status effects. The level 21 feature is just disgustingly overpowered by contrast.

Fair enough. Bad choice of words. Still, it's not something that you would expect to see played in that way. With the beastie fighting beside you, it's still rather powerful, but not "I am now invincible".

It also falls into the same category as a paladin boosting his power by crippling orphans. Mechanically possible (note: the paladin may or may not be mechanically possible, it was descriptive), but completely against the flavour and fluff of the class. You've got this beast, an extension of your own soul, and you decapitate it to give yourself a 'coonskin cap of invincibility. A valid defense? No, not really. But there is that added defense against it being used in-game.

Still bad, though.

Look, the Yogi Hat thing is a frickin joke, the fact that it works by RAW is just funny. It's not important. The important part is that if you use the ability as intended you simply redirect all damage to your bear, who then goes to over negative 9000 hit points while you don't take a scratch. Then you pop a single healing effect on your bear and he pops up to positive hit points.

It's not a combo or an obscure interpretation. The Epic Destiny by itself makes you immune to "attacks."

-Username17

Well, no. You're not immune, you just have a bucketload more hp. Once the bear goes down, you'll want to get it back up fairly quickly, because if the nasties can get the bear out of your sight or away from you, your shiny trick goes away.

But okay, now I'm just arguing semantics and "what if's". No, it's not true invincibility. Yes, it's close enough that the difference is probably irrelevant.

tic wrote:Aye, I got the gist of it - the precise motivation had escaped me, I was thinking of it more as a "share and discuss the problems" than a "share the problems and wave them in the face of fanboys", but close enough.

Certain members of this board have a real grudge against the fanboys. For the rest of us: well, so few of us play 4e that we mostly just get laughs from the rules craziness in the allegedly balanced, well thought out edition.

But what's that definition for? I mean, that'd be for targetting spells and whatever, no? Can you reasonably "see" anything in your back pocket, or on the sole of your shoe? What about something hovering behind your head? (Yes, I'm aware there's no facing. You know what I mean).

True, but it's the only specific definition of "see" in the rules. Because the designers never thought your ability to "see" things on your person would be an issue, they never thought to cover this situation. Obviosly, common sense would dictate that you can never see something that's attached to your body and above or behind you, but you can't count on every DM having common sense.

I can't see a hat or a helmet I'm wearing? That's ridiculous. I can put on a baseball cap right now and see the brim of my hat. Or get a football helmet.

Stop getting friggin caught up over the goddamn hat part. If you can't wrap your mind around it get a gigantic Yogi Codpiece. There, you'll be able to see your animal companion at all times now. Sheeeesh.

NOT WHEN YOU'RE ASLEEP, LAGO! If the DM has an assassin coup-de-grave you in your sleep, you die!

Psychic Robot wrote:NOT WHEN YOU'RE ASLEEP, LAGO! If the DM has an assassin coup-de-grave you in your sleep, you die!

No you don't. A 4e coup de grace to a sleeping target is just an automatic critical hit that wakes you up. You're 30th level, if you get "assassinated" by a 30th level solo (say: an Ancient Red Dragon), you just take 36 points of physical and 36 points of fire damage and wake up. It's not even a big deal.

-Username17

Roy wrote:Looks like because you need to be 30 to get the ability.

Fused Fate is level 24, and that's all you need for invulnerability. Shared Life only lets your Yogi Hat be invulnerable, and I'm not a big bear lover, so I don't care. You could also play Yogi and have a Ranger Hat.

tic wrote:Once the bear goes down, you'll want to get it back up fairly quickly, because if the nasties can get the bear out of your sight or away from you, your shiny trick goes away.

I'm pretty sure you can patch that hole at level 30. Putting a Recalling Harness on your hat would be a good start.

Also:

PHB wrote:When you hit, you usually deal damage and sometimes produce some other effect

This reminds me of the good old days of 3e optimisation. Characters with extremely stupid and overpowered abilities are hilarious. Sometimes even useful for highlighting real rules problems.

If we only go by "It goes against the fluff" to balance broken rules, then 3E never had many problem.

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:

tic wrote:Aye, I got the gist of it - the precise motivation had escaped me, I was thinking of it more as a "share and discuss the problems" than a "share the problems and wave them in the face of fanboys", but close enough.

Certain members of this board have a real grudge against the fanboys. For the rest of us: well, so few of us play 4e that we mostly just get laughs from the rules craziness in the allegedly balanced, well thought out edition.

Mostly, I like smiting them as part of my general crusade against stupidity, not because they did anything special themselves. Also, it is quite hilarious to mock irony. It is similar to the attacks on Paizo in most aspects. The only difference is that 4.0 did something that's actually different. Which is both better and not better. Like Schrodinger's Fail. Of course, regardless of its status relative to Paizo, they're both the types of things where you have more fun with the packaging (in this case, blithely mocking their existence) than the actual product.