Aura Traits in 4e

[vitruvian]

Yeah, those were my concerns ... so how do I tie an Innate Attack to a melee weapon attack?

We evidently won't really know until Powers comes out, but in the interim I would say that it was no more advantageous than linking two Innate Attacks or other Advantages, so would probably house rule it as a +20% Enhancement (more than offset by the -30% Melee Attack Limitation).

[errant42]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

We evidently won't really know until Powers comes out, but in the interim I would say that it was no more advantageous than linking two Innate Attacks or other Advantages, so would probably house rule it as a +20% Enhancement (more than offset by the -30% Melee Attack Limitation).

Blast. When is Powers coming out again? Can I playtest it if I sign over my soul? Wait ... I think I already have about 3 mortgages on my soul, so if they do a "soul credit check," I"ll probably get screened out....

Anyway, that suggestions seems pretty reasonable ... I was a bit thrown that it ended up costing only 2 points, when Aura of Courage (a somewhat less useful advantage) cost 45. The discrepancy will still be there, but it won't be quite so pronounced.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by errant42

Yeah, those were my concerns ... so how do I tie an Innate Attack to a melee weapon attack?

Just use the Follow Up (Melee attack) 0% like thus.

Smite Evil [2] (Innate Attack: Burning (5/lvl), Follow-Up (Melee attack{melee weapon in hand}, +0%), Accessibility (Only Demons, Undead, etc, -30%), Limited Use (2/day, -30%); Total mods: -60% for 2pts/lv) [4] -- twice a day you can attempt to Smite Evil by striking your foe, if your attack penetrates DR then you do an additional 2d damage with no DR reduction. If your attack does not penetrate DR, then the target gets to reduce the burning attack by DR normaly.

Follow up already links it to another attack accordingly.

[lawman]

Link, which links two advantages, is only a +10% modifier. It's an odd use, but I think it'd be reasonable to link an advantage to a melee attack in this way. However, normally both advantages pay for the link, so I think making it +20% makes sense, instead of +10%.

[vitruvian]

Just use the Follow Up (Melee attack) 0% like thus.

If your attack does not penetrate DR, then the target gets to reduce the burning attack by DR normaly.

Except as already noted, if the attack doesn't penetrate DR, the follow-up doesn't come off *at all*. It does not go against DR normally.

Link, which links two advantages, is only a +10% modifier.

Link goes up to +20% if the link is optional. I figured this was necessary if you wanted to be able to conserve your smitings for the big bads.

[Kromm]

I explained reversing the HT roll for beneficial Afflictions in many other threads. Summary: An Affliction that's HT-x to resist instead requires a HT+x to provide its benefits. Duration becomes margin of success instead of margin of failure.

[vitruvian]

I explained reversing the HT roll for beneficial Afflictions in many other threads. Summary: An Affliction that's HT-x to resist instead requires a HT+x to provide its benefits. Duration becomes margin of success instead of margin of failure.

Missed those somehow... does DR have any effect one way or the other?

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Reverse the HT roll for beneficial Afflictions; Powers will make it official. So if it would normally be a HT roll to resist, it's instead a HT roll to benefit. Use Based on (Other Attribute) if you'd prefer an IQ roll.

What about Afflictions that can be beneficial and detrimental, i.e. an Affliction that grants Claws, Flight (Winged), or Extra Arms could be horribly inconvenient if you're not expecting them, but rather handy otherwise.

[the Devourer of Worlds]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

What about Afflictions that can be beneficial and detrimental, i.e. an Affliction that grants Claws, Flight (Winged), or Extra Arms could be horribly inconvenient if you're not expecting them, but rather handy otherwise.

It would probably depend on whether the target would rather resist or not. If he wants the effect, he would roll to accept, if he doesn't want the effect he would roll to resist.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by the Devourer of Worlds

It would probably depend on whether the target would rather resist or not. If he wants the effect, he would roll to accept, if he doesn't want the effect he would roll to resist.

Target's player, or the target itself?

Like, if another PC tries to transform my character into a deinonychus for the duration of a fight without first consulting with him, I want to accept, but my character has no clue that Bob the Transmuter is hitting him with an effect of any kind, let alone the nature of it. I just heard Bob's player say "I turn Frank into a deinonychus so he can kick ass!".

Does it change if Bob has a history of impulsive decisions, not all of which are particularly good ideas? Frank might get a tingly feeling, but it's not like he knows who's trying to do it.