Threatening Strike needs errata?

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Looking at the assassin's 3rd level encounter power Nightshade's kiss, who lets you slide the target 1 or more squares every time the target is hit until the end of your next turn, I started to tinker with the idea of exploiting the forced movement to trigger some further attack.
I then found the avenger's 23rd level power Threatening Strike. This power lets you teleport close to the target and make a MBA against it every time he moves.
So if we start a round hitting with Threatening strike and then an action point for Nightshade's Kiss we can slide the target, thus triggering the teleport and attack, who the lets us slide the target and create a loop. As long as the MBA is connecting we can go on hitting. This sort of reminds me Blade Cascade before errata and can lead to very long chains. OoE will help in hitting consistently and if we go assassin/MC Avenger and take Soul Thief we can really go for long chains every other encounter.

My impression is that the wording of Threatening Strike needs to be changed. The intent is clear: if your prey runs away you teleport close to it and punish it for running away, but the power as it is can be exploited in too many ways. Teleporting and making an MBA should either be an immediate reaction or be limited in some way, like once around or when the target takes a move action to move away, thus negating the chance to use forced movement as a trigger.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Pursuit Avenger ftw!

Though I see your point. Once per round sounds appropriate.
I think they decided "move" means voluntary movement.  Though i can't remember where i saw it, so doupt away.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Yeah, when they say move they mean move action, not forced movement like slides or pushes.  This was a point of contention with polearm-cheese until they nerfed that.
Hrm... I missed that memo. Do you have a link to a copy?
Yeah, when they say move they mean move action, not forced movement like slides or pushes.  This was a point of contention with polearm-cheese until they nerfed that.


Polearm gamble doesn't trigger on forced movement because forced movement never triggers opportunity attacks unless you have a power that specifically overrides that.

CS has said forced movement doesn't count as movement in some responses and that it does count in others.  As far as I know, the official position currently is that forced movement does count, based on PHB FAQ 29- Wall of Fire does damage to "a creature that moves into the wall's space":

29. Can you slide a target multiple times (by using a warlock's diabolic grasp or harrowstorm powers) into a wizard's wall of fire for iterative damage?



There are several factors to take into consideration here. First, a target must move into the wall's space—that is, moving into every square of that space does not inflict iterative damage. However, if a target moves into the wall's space, then back out, and then back in again, it will take more damage; but remember, entering each square occupied by the wall costs 3 extra squares of movement (which might be possible with a high-level use of a harrowstorm).




Based on the update to Storm Pillar, forced movement counts as a 'move' for triggering effects.  They wouldn't have updated it otherwise in the way they did.
An Avenger can use Overwhelming Strike + Power of Skill to take advantage of Threatning Strike's loop.

An Avenger can use Overwhelming Strike + Power of Skill to take advantage of Threatening Strike's loop.



That's another way to do that.

My original intent was to go assassin/MC avenger to use the high dexterity to take Deadly Trickster as the ED. The multiclass OoE is fine as we do all in one round.
And going elf for the race.

This way we'll have:
two rolls for every attack.
one reroll (both rolls) as an encounter power
three rerolls daily (ED)
a reasonable to-hit bonus from Soul Thief's action (going from +2 to +7).

But it's not all: if we finally end our chain, then we only need one of our buddies to hit the target within the round, so that we can activate the slide (Nightshade's kiss) and restart again. And we have pretty much immobilized the target (if he moves then he'll take another round of hits).

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Yes, it needs errata.  You should post this in the Divine Power errata forum.
I think they decided "move" means voluntary movement.  Though i can't remember where i saw it, so doupt away.



Incorrect. This was a fabrication by some forum users who thought Storm Pillar was overpowered, and who missed the design concept that forced movement is intended to synergize with zone spells.

It has been officially clarified that "move" means "move", community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... (and also, Storm Pillar got errata'ed so this fabrication is no longer needed).

Pushing, sliding, and pulling are not "moving". They are pushing, sliding, and pulling.

This power is not at all overpowered, because of the reasons outlined above. It has to be voluntary.
Voluntary movement is voluntary movement. From the same book:

Censure of Pursuit: If your oath of emnity target moves away from you willingly, you gain a bonus to damage rolls against the target...

Pushing, sliding, and pulling are forced movement. They do not provoke OA, but are moving nonetheless. This power needs an errata to add the WILLINGLY word.

Also in my oppinion the whole deal with entering a damage zone deal needs to be made once per round. I see no reason why entering fire twice should deal twice as much damage as staying into the fire for twice as long.

Pushing, sliding, and pulling are not "moving". They are pushing, sliding, and pulling.



Both the PHB and basic English grammar disagree with you.

PHB page 285, "When you slide a creature, there’s no restriction on the direction you can move it ... The power you’re using specifies how many squares you can move a target."

Forced movement is a obviously a form of movement. You need to do pull really twisted rules lawyery to support the silly claim that movement isn't movement.

There's a lot of room for misunderstanding in the movement rules, including this case. That's why my proposal in the errata forum is to limit it to either once per round or an immediate action, avoiding any discussion about what "moving" is. My guess is that Wizards doesn't want to enter this field because for any change in the movement rules they will have to recheck a lot of powers and potentially issue a huge update.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

If we're going for cheese I'd say to use a punisher of the gods just to see how huge we can get the damage.  I'll also try the sage of ages too.
DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
If we're going for cheese I'd say to use a punisher of the gods just to see how huge we can get the damage.  I'll also try the sage of ages too.


Punisher of the Gods is nerfed every time there's an update.  Probably not optimal anymore.
Looking deep into the character I would say that if you don't want to depend too much on your leaders, the best thing to do is to increase the chance to hit with your MBA, as missing will send you out of the loop. My take would be Perfect Slayer (+2 to Dex combined with melee training + automatic CA on your target combined with a light blade and nimble blade).
I currently worked out a build that will miss only on a 20 on all the attacks against any monsters except Bahamut, and possibly Tiamat (she's not in the Compendium). OoE will help us rolling twice on all the attacks for a 1/400 chance of missing. In average I guess nothing will survive in average.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Move is an action like Standard. You dont' attack with your standard action, you use your standard action to perform an attack.

When you spend a move action you can:

1) Walk (what is commonly referred to as a move)
2) Shift
3) Run
4) Other power and feat based actions that require you to spend a move action.

I posit that things that trigger off of move, mean that they trigger off of the move action being used.

We have all seen the trigger wording "moves without shifting". This means that the creature walks or runs after spending the move action.
Move is an action like Standard. You dont' attack with your standard action, you use your standard action to perform an attack.

When you spend a move action you can:

1) Walk (what is commonly referred to as a move)
2) Shift
3) Run
4) Other power and feat based actions that require you to spend a move action.

I posit that things that trigger off of move, mean that they trigger off of the move action being used.

We have all seen the trigger wording "moves without shifting". This means that the creature walks or runs after spending the move action.


Writing "moves" when you mean "takes a move action" would make as much sense as writing "standards" when you mean "take a standard action."  There are plenty of ways to move as part of non-move actions; are you actually arguing that someone that uses deft strike, which tells you to "move 2," has not moved because it was part of a standard action?

You move anytime you change your position from one square to another.
Perhaps the wording that would satisfy you would be one related to movement form. When you deft strike, you walk two squares. Walking and Running provoke, but moving doesn't always provoke, because you can spend a move action to shift, or you can shift as part of a power.

It's a shame that common sense can't prevail here because of rules lawyering.

How about his wording:

Move: The process and the action required to go willingly from one square to another. When a move action is spent, the character can shift, walk, run or use a different action that requires a move action. Walking and running provoke OAs and can trigger effects that key off of movement. Movement as part of a power will specify the movement mode (walking, shifting, etc.) for the purposes of OAs and other movement based triggers.
I posit that things that trigger off of move, mean that they trigger off of the move action being used.

We have all seen the trigger wording "moves without shifting". This means that the creature walks or runs after spending the move action.



It would mean that creatures hit by effects such as Cause Fear wouldn't trigger OAs, which is demonstrably false. I don't think there can be any doubts whatsoever that the creature that runs away from Cause Fear has its movement treated in exactly the same way as it would had it been a voluntary move on its own turn. It's also obvious that a hypothetical ability that said "as a minor action you can move two squares" would still be subject to all normal movement rules, even though it uses a minor action rather than a move action (for instance, summoned creatures move using minor actions, but no-one argues that they're not subject to OAs).

The second suggestion doesn't work for the same reason.

Forced movement is obviously movement. There is a remote possibility to claim that there is a difference between 'movement', 'moves' and 'move', but even this is a serious stretch that isn't supported by the rules. It's much better to say that all movement modes, along with teleportation, forced movement, and forced teleportation, and others, are all "movement" and "moves". OAs are handled through specific rules regarding shifting and forced movement.

In short: Whether the move is voluntary can't matter, for reasons of Cause Fear etc.
Whether a Move action is used can't matter, for reasons of minor-action moves, such as the moves of summoned creatures.
If your Cause Fear example is being held up because you are saying that the movement it creates is not voluntary, well, I would disagree with that.  The Fear is involuntary.  The movement caused by the involuntary Fear is entirely voluntary, because the target is afraid, unwillingly.  So Cause Fear creates voluntary movement.  My understanding is that involuntary movement cannot be used to trigger other actions.  I don't know why that is, but that seemed to be the winner on the day when everyone was freaking out about the Paragon Tier Feat: Agile Opportunist and whether or not "VOLUNTARY FORCED" movement allowed this feat to trigger...  Not to mention Cause Fear states that the movement it creates does provoke OAs.  Of course it leaves you to determine if the a'Feared is sensible enough to avoid "dangerous squares" that would provoke OAs...  Move, Moves, Movement is jacked up, but that's why they've got DMs.
Not for LFR. That's the only reason I ever argue rules on these boards.
The issue of movement is pretty tricky. Take Threatening Strike as an example. The power is clearly meant to punish enemies who flee from you. If we say "move" means taking a move action or any other kind of action who lets you move we can still leave around some unsettled cases.
Imagine that your target is in a group of monsters with a leader that has a power that lets him slide all allies within a burst/blast. If he slides your target away from you, does Threatening Strike trigger?
If you say yes, then you have to accept that forced movement triggers it, and then you will have to decide if forced movement has also to be divided in two categories: forced movement due to allies' actions or to enemies' actions.
If you say no, you will violate the idea behind Threatening Strike, giving the target a way to get away from you without taking punishment.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

I submit that this power does not require errata, because it cannot trigger more than once, RAW.

Threatening Strike reads:
If the target moves before the start of your next turn, you can teleport to a square adjacent to it and make a melee basic attack against it.


Let's compare this to Avenger's Censure of Pursuit:
If your oath of enmity target moves away from you willingly, you gain a bonus to damage rolls equal to 2 + your Dexterity modifier until the end of your next turn.

Notice that the wording is the same. Both use "if" instead of "when."

The claim being made here is that if your target moves more than once after you use Threatening Strike, you can make multiple MBAs against it. If that interpretation is correct, then by the same token, Censure of Pursuit's bonus stacks if your oath moves away from you more than once.

It doesn't. Why? Because "if" is necessarily a yes-or-no trigger. Either you have it, or you don't. "If" just asks the question, "is this true?" If the answer is yes, you get something; if it's "no," you don't. Meeting the trigger requirement more than once doesn't make it "more true." Contrast this with "when," which triggers every time the trigger event happens.

Let's assume for a second that Threatening Strike and Censure of Pursuit can trigger multiple times. How often can they trigger? There's nothing to say they don't trigger for each square the target moves. If your target moves 6 squares, you get 6 MBAs or 6 Pursuit bonuses.

If that is true, both Threatening Strike and Censure of Pursuit need errata. I don't think it is, and I think the "if" sets up a yes-or-no conditional that can only trigger once, meaning both abilities are fine as written.
I see your point, and that can be an interpretation, but the power still needs errata.
It should at least specify when you make the teleport, especially if the target has more instances of movement. Do you teleport once at the end of the target's turn? Can you teleport at any time after he moves? Or exactly when he moves the first time? Is your teleport an interrupt or a reaction?
Imagine that the target moves twice and then uses an AP to deliver the killing blow to one of your buddies. Do you teleport only after he's finished, after first move or when he ends is movement after the second move? These are all different cases and have a different impact on the outcome of the round.
Censure of pursuit doesn't need this kind of specification because it just gives you a bonus for a given amount of time.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

I see your point, and that can be an interpretation, but the power still needs errata.
It should at least specify when you make the teleport, especially if the target has more instances of movement. Do you teleport once at the end of the target's turn? Can you teleport at any time after he moves? Or exactly when he moves the first time? Is your teleport an interrupt or a reaction?
Imagine that the target moves twice and then uses an AP to deliver the killing blow to one of your buddies. Do you teleport only after he's finished, after first move or when he ends is movement after the second move? These are all different cases and have a different impact on the outcome of the round.
Censure of pursuit doesn't need this kind of specification because it just gives you a bonus for a given amount of time.


RAW, the teleport is neither an interrupt nor a reaction, but a free action. This muddles everything up considerably. Since the trigger is "if" instead of "when," RAW, you can make this teleport anytime before the trigger expires, which I read as "before the start of your next turn." If we assume that Censure of Pursuit doesn't stack, we can therefore assume that after Threatening Strike, you can teleport+MBA exactly once between the time the target moves and the start of your next turn.

That is making a lot of assumptions, so yes, I agree this power needs clarification or errata of some kind. Especially since free actions can be made in the middle of other actions, which means you can interrupt the target's next melee attack with an Overwhelming Strike MBA (Power of Skill), sliding the target away so it whiffs on whoever it was trying to attack...

DP is a really messy book. There are errors everywhere.

RAW, the teleport is neither an interrupt nor a reaction, but a free action.



It's not even a free action since it doesn't say that. Usually a power specifies "you can do so-and-so as a free action". In this case it doesn't. I guess this power lacks something like "as an opportunity action" which should fix it.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)


RAW, the teleport is neither an interrupt nor a reaction, but a free action.



It's not even a free action since it doesn't say that. Usually a power specifies "you can do so-and-so as a free action". In this case it doesn't. I guess this power lacks something like "as an opportunity action" which should fix it.


You are correct, it's not even a free action. The trigger should be reworded to something like "when the target moves before the start of your next turn, as an opportunity action, you can teleport to a square adjacent to it and make a melee basic attack against it."
Yep.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)


RAW, the teleport is neither an interrupt nor a reaction, but a free action.



It's not even a free action since it doesn't say that. Usually a power specifies "you can do so-and-so as a free action". In this case it doesn't. I guess this power lacks something like "as an opportunity action" which should fix it.


You are correct, it's not even a free action. The trigger should be reworded to something like "when the target moves before the start of your next turn, as an opportunity action, you can teleport to a square adjacent to it and make a melee basic attack against it."



That would still be ambiguous to the hardcore RAWers. If you added a clause like "When the target ends a move" that would restrict the attack to once at the end of the move rather than once per square of movement.

I still think move (the action) needs to be clarified from move (the verb). That solves everything.
We all know what a move action is, but nowadays you can "move" with almost any kind of action: shifting as a minor, charging as a standard, teleporting as an immediate...
Then we have forced movement, either by an action taken by opponents or in some special cases due to an action of one of our companions (battlefield-rearranging powers).
Apparently, according to the last changes in some powers (adding "willingly" to "moves") and some answers from CS or devs (like the one I received that states that forced movement triggers Threatening Strike's teleport + MBA) if a given creature changes the square it is in, it "moves", no matter what kind of action it takes, if it does it willingly or if it is subject to forced movement.
Some discussions about Blood Pulse's abuse triggered (pun intended) the statement that it doesn't matter how many squares you "move" but only the number of "movement instances" you take and this is also valid for sentences like "leaving a square or entering a square" (Blood Pulse works with "leaving a square").

Let's take a power I examined when I was looking for ways to exploit Nightshade's Kiss' forced movement on every hit. It is called Barbed Automaton (artificer 13th level encounter).

The effect line states:

Effect: You create a barbed automaton in an unoccupied square within range. The automaton occupies a square and counts as an ally for the purpose of flanking. The automaton lasts until the end of your next turn. Any enemy that enters a space adjacent to the automaton or starts its turn there is subject to the following attack.

Aside from the fact that we have no definition of "space" (they probably meant "square"), let's imagine that I slide a monster in front of the automaton so that it moves through two different squares adjacent to the automaton. RAW the automaton should make two attacks, one for each square entered. If we apply the "instances of movement" interpretation, the monster should be subject to one attack only, as the movement is one single slide.

By the way Barbed Automaton would make the loop with Nightshade's Kiss absolutely RAW. You hit it, you slide it, you can attack it again. I didn't go deeper as I'm not sure if you can apply temporary bonuses like Soul Thief's Action when you attack with a conjuration. I'm sure you cannot do that with summonings as it is clearly stated but am not sure about conjurations. The other drawback is that you cannot use Oath of Enmity via a conjuration and you miss the double rolls.
To properly pull the trick as a daily you should probably use two characters, a warlord(tactical) mc artificer for Perfect Front and Barbed Automaton and an Assassin for Nightshade's Kiss.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)