Infinite damage nova...every encounter at level 16

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
There have been a number of "supercritical" builds - builds that involve using one attack to generate more attacks, repeatedly, until the enemy is dead. However, as far as I'm aware, those builds can only be used once per day, and only at epic levels.

I found a way to fix that.

Build

Level 16
Tiefling Bard/Swordmaster (MC Fighter, Avenger, and Ranger)
Theme: Wilder

Need STR, DEX, and WIS at 13 for feat prereqs. CHA should start at 20 and be boosted every time (end up at 24).

FEATS
Level 1: Turathi Weapon Training
Level 2: Combat Virtuoso
Level 4: Disciple of Divine Wrath
Level 6: Versatile Expertise
Level 8: Battle Awareness
Level 10: Novice Power
Level 11: Two-Blade Warrior
Level 12: Enhanced Psychic Surge
Level 14: Arcane Implement Proficiency (heavy blades)
Level 16: Secrets of Belial

POWERS
Novice Power: Opportunist's Rend
Secrets of Belial: Borrowed Confidence

ITEMS
(2) Rending Khopesh +3

First round, move close to the target, use OoE on them (from Disciple of Divine Wrath), and then Psychic Surge. If we hit (87.75% chance, but that's irrelevant when expected damage of a hit is infinite), then all our attacks can crit on a 16-20 until EoNT.

Second round, move next to the enemy (if necessary), use Borrowed Confidence, and then use Opportunist's Rend.

OR makes two attacks, each with roughly 68.36% chance of critting (because we're rolling 4 times and crit on 16-20). On a crit, we get to make another MBA thanks to Rending...and also, we recover OR due to Swordmaster's L16 feature.

Since our expected number of crits per OR is more than 1, and each crit creates another use of OR, the expected damage is infinite.

Why OoE and BC do stack as 4 rolls

Look very carefully at the wording.

OoE says that, when you make an attack, you make "two attack rolls".

BC, on the other hand, says that when you make an attack roll, you "roll twice".

They do not quite say the same thing, and they clearly do stack - OoE comes first, BC applies to each OoE roll.


EDIT: There is a bit of objection to OoE + BC based on the idea that OoE doesn't stack with anything that lets you "roll twice and use the higher result," and technically BC does allow that to happen. So here's the more filled-out build that doesn't require BC:
Level 16 Build

Stormsoul Genasi Fighter|Ranger/Swordmaster
Theme: Wilder
Background that gives Insight as a trained skill

ABILITY SCORES
STR: 20-24
CON: 12-13
DEX: 10-11
INT: 15-18
WIS: 11-13
CHA: 8-9

FEATS
Hybrid Talent (Two-Blade Fighting Style)
Weapon Focus (Axe)
Versatile Expertise (Axe, Holy Symbol)
Disciple of Divine Wrath
Enhanced Psychic Surge
Shocking Flame
Deadly Axe
Reckless Attacker
Devastating Critical
Critical Targeting

POWERS
Enc: Rain of Blows, Opportunist's Rend, Off-Hand Diversion
Utility: Battle Fury Stance, Insightful Riposte

ITEMS
(2) Rending Khopesh +3
(2) Eberron Shard of Lightning (paragon)
Fist of Kord +3
Iron Armbands of Power (paragon)
Ring of Giants
War Ring

Nova Breakdown

Turn 1
Minor: Oath of Enmity
Move: Promise of Storm
Standard: Psychic Surge (with Insightful Riposte if necessary)

Turn 2
Move: move adjacent if necessary (otherwise activate Battle Fury Stance, adds 119 damage to total)
Minor: Off-Hand Diversion
Standard: Opportunist's Rend (or Rain of Blows, if OHD was a crit)

All crits in turn 2 trigger another use of OR, and one of them might also trigger a Reckless Attacker MBA (sadly, can't use OR).

Expected damage on turn 2: 1687
Highest enemy HP I could find: 1645 (The Old Man with the Canaries)

In other words, expected damage is no longer actually infinite, it is only functionally infinite. I am filled with dishonor and shame.

And after your nova, you still get to be a twin strike-ing ranger... with extra-powerful crits.

I also ran some simulations to see how likely it was to explode in practice...you break 1645 damage almost 30% of the time.
Oath of Enmity specifically won't interact with Borrowed Confidence*. Still a good find.

You only roll twice per attack, for two attacks... still a high chance of critting (.4375 per attack, two attacks) - so not as much a sure thing, but then again when dealing with dice percentages often fly out the window and a 99.5% chance of infinite recursion is missed something like 30% of the time ;)

A fighter MC avenger can do this, just using an off-hand weapon. Using Bard as the core and then adding in ranger as an extra MC just wastes some feat slots for no good purpose; as you yourself mentioned about the hit chance, [w] damage is also irrelevant when counting on infinite damage.


(*per the OoE power; "If another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack. If an effect forces you to roll twice and use the lower result when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack either. If an effect lets you reroll an attack roll and you rolled twice because of this power, you reroll both dice." - Borrowed confidence lets you roll twice, not re-roll.)
Also, "expected" and "optimal" are not the same thing.

You are not guaranteed infinite damage from this combo, since you say yourself you have a nearly 70% chance to crit and recover.  Should that 70% chance fall through, the combo ends.
Oath of Enmity specifically won't interact with Borrowed Confidence*. Still a good find.

You only roll twice per attack, for two attacks... still a high chance of critting (.4375 per attack, two attacks) - so not as much a sure thing, but then again when dealing with dice percentages often fly out the window and a 99.5% chance of infinite recursion is missed something like 30% of the time ;)

A fighter MC avenger can do this, just using an off-hand weapon. Using Bard as the core and then adding in ranger as an extra MC just wastes some feat slots for no good purpose; as you yourself mentioned about the hit chance, [w] damage is also irrelevant when counting on infinite damage.


(*per the OoE power; "If another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack. If an effect forces you to roll twice and use the lower result when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack either. If an effect lets you reroll an attack roll and you rolled twice because of this power, you reroll both dice." - Borrowed confidence lets you roll twice, not re-roll.)


Borrowed Confidence doesn't tell you to take higher or lower; it just says "roll twice and use either result." I guess that isn't actually addressed by OoE, but in my mind that means roll 4 times and take your pick. Particularly since, if they wanted you to disregard it, OoE would be much more concisely written as "If another effect also lets you roll twice when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack." to cover all the possible bases in fewer words.

(I guess you could also theoretically interpret it as "roll 3 times and take your pick," but that's actually good enough, because crit chance there is still about 58%)

The weapon has to be an axe (for rending) and a light or heavy blade (for Swordmaster), so...it needed to be a khopesh.
Also, "expected" and "optimal" are not the same thing.

You are not guaranteed infinite damage from this combo, since you say yourself you have a nearly 70% chance to crit and recover.  Should that 70% chance fall through, the combo ends.


It's a 70% chance per attack, but OR makes 2 attacks. Which is why it can go supercritical (each crit adds 2 more attacks, and the expected number of crits is >1 per attack, so it grows without bound).

Even in practice, it's pretty easy to make this very reliable with some cheap L10 potions of clarity.
Except of course the average damage isn't infinite (especially with such a low hit chance). You can work out the number of attacks you would have to make before you failed to crit on any dice (the number is surprisingly for what looks like it should be inifite damage). I looked into this with the rather more simple, though level 30, hurricane of blades + sword of kings + rending weapon, which is 4 attacks, each of which generates 4 attacks when it crits and just make sure you crit more than one 1/4 (barbarian|fighter mc avenger for e.g.).
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Except of course the average damage isn't infinite (especially with such a low hit chance). You can work out the number of attacks you would have to make before you failed to crit on any dice (the number is surprisingly for what looks like it should be inifite damage). I looked into this with the rather more simple, though level 30, hurricane of blades + sword of kings + rending weapon, which is 4 attacks, each of which generates 4 attacks when it crits and just make sure you crit more than one 1/4 (barbarian|fighter mc avenger for e.g.).


...What? A low hit chance? And HoB+SoK+rending still only generates 1 new attack per crit, so the number of attacks never grows (unless you add something like Goad of Blood to repeat HoB on each crit...although SoK isn't enough on its own, you need to make HoB reliable as well, using Mul Battle Slave for example; add those two and get your crit chance over 25% somehow, then it'll work).

Here's what happens in this build: you use OR the first time. So, in the first iteration, we will make 2 attacks.

There is a 10% chance that neither attack will crit. Then we lose.

There is a 47% chance that both attacks will crit. Then our next iteration has four attacks (two uses of OR).

Otherwise, one attack crits and the other doesn't so we are back where we started (i.e. this outcome is pretty much irrelevant). If we ignore this possibility, then there's an 18% chance of stopping and an 82% chance of doubling (in iteration 1).


Once we are on iteration 2, there's even less chance of everything stopping, because both uses of OR need to have both attacks not crit.

As the number of iterations grows, we are making more and more attacks each time, until eventually the chance of not critting on any (and ending the combo) is 0.


So overall, with pretty high probability, we will do infinite damage (and the fact that the probability of it exploding is non-zero is enough to make it have infinite expected value anyway...but in this case, it's fairly reliable too).
Somebody's never read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, I see.
Sorry - you are correct, I really shouldn't post early in the morning.

The nova I was thinking of is indeed level 30 and daily (it's a variant of my level 30 one)

Rending weapon + hurricane of blades + sword of kings (my build just had 6 ways to recharge it during the nova) + goad of blood + raise the stakes + oath of emnity. 37% crit chance, 4 attacks, a crit generate as an MBA which is converted to another hurricane of blades for 4 more attacks. But that is a daily level 30 combo.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Isn't Turathi Weapon Training giving you proficiency with the kopesh as an implement as well?
Also, according to the item rarity rules I believe that you are limited to only 1 rending weapon. 
Also, according to the item rarity rules I believe that you are limited to only 1 rending weapon. 



LFR rules are not real rules.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
Somebody's never read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, I see.

This. ^^

Borrowed Confidence doesn't tell you to take higher or lower; it just says "roll twice and use either result." I guess that isn't actually addressed by OoE, but in my mind that means roll 4 times and take your pick. Particularly since, if they wanted you to disregard it, OoE would be much more concisely written as "If another effect also lets you roll twice when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack." to cover all the possible bases in fewer words.

(I guess you could also theoretically interpret it as "roll 3 times and take your pick," but that's actually good enough, because crit chance there is still about 58%)


Roll twice + roll twice = roll twice. It doesn't say "roll an additional die" or "roll as many additional dice as you need to make your build work." It says roll twice and just happens to say that more than once. Though OoE may not specifically contravene this tactic, it also doesn't need to. If you're still confused, check out some of the initiative-rolling threads (Divine Oracle+Danger Sense, etc.). You're find more fleshed-out discussions there.

Roll twice + roll twice = roll twice. It doesn't say "roll" an additional die" or "roll as many additional dice as you need to make your build work." It says roll twice, and just happens to say it twice. Though OoE may not specifically contravene this tactic, it also doesn't need to. If you're still confused, check out some of the initiative-rolling threads (Divine Oracle+Danger Sense, etc.). You're find more fleshed-out discussions there.


OoE and BC differ from each other in a very key way: OoE lets you "make two attack rolls and use either result," BC says "when you make an attack roll, roll twice and use either result".

Notice the wording: OoE is WHEN YOU ATTACK, there are TWO ATTACK ROLLS.

BC is WHEN YOU MAKE AN ATTACK ROLL, you ROLL TWICE.

I guess I should clarify that in the first post, because it's not at all obvious. But yeah, they clearly stack the way they are worded.
Borrowed Confidence:
Until the start of your next turn, when you make an attack roll or a saving throw, you roll twice and use either result.

Oath of Enmity:
If another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack

Just trying to understand your argument. Is this claim that they can stack based on the bolded parts?

Outta curiousity, is the timing of expended vs. recovered clear cut?

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Outta curiousity, is the timing of expended vs. recovered clear cut?


Well...think of it this way. If the power expends the moment you use it, then yeah, I recover it as soon as I crit.

If the power expends once it's completely resolved...then I use it again on a crit anyway, because it's still unexpended *grin*

I didn't find anything explicit about which one actually happens, but #1 is heavily implied (and #2 breaks all kinds of things). The only wording I find is that a power expends when it is "used".


Borrowed Confidence:
Until the start of your next turn, when you make an attack roll or a saving throw, you roll twice and use either result.

Oath of Enmity:
If another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack

Just trying to understand your argument. Is this claim that they can stack based on the bolded parts? 



It's both because of that and because OoE gives two attack rolls and BC lets you roll twice on an attack roll.

But the part in bold is why OoE doesn't explicitly rule out using it with an effect like BC.
There is no clarification that a power can (or can't) recover itself. Expect table variation.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
The interaction of OoE and BC is ambiguous.  BC does let you roll twice and use the higher result; it also lets you roll twice and use the lower result, etc.  That OoE is mutually exclusive with BC is a legitimate literal reading of the text.
There is no clarification that a power can (or can't) recover itself. Expect table variation.


Like I said to kilpatds: either it expends first (and therefore can be recovered), or expends last (and therefore doesn't need to be recovered yet), and I can't really see any possible way to interpret the rules that leads to expending in the middle.
The interaction of OoE and BC is ambiguous.  BC does let you roll twice and use the higher result; it also lets you roll twice and use the lower result, etc.  That OoE is mutually exclusive with BC is a legitimate literal reading of the text.


Huh. Yeah, I see what you're saying. I think my interpretation was a more natural reading of that text, but...yeah, you're totaly right, there is some ambiguity.
There's no ambiguity, the rule says that OoE has no effect if another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result. "use the higher result" is a subset of "use either result".
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
There's no ambiguity, the rule says that OoE has no effect if another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result. "use the higher result" is a subset of "use either result".


Well...think of it this way. If OoE said "if another effect lets you roll twice but use the higher result..." then you would probably agree that this does not stop Borrowed Confidence. It becomes crystal clear that it refers to effects that are "roll twice and use the higher result," but not just generally effects that are "roll twice."

Logically speaking, "and" and "but" are 100% equivalent words. So they should be interchangeable to produce the same meaning, particularly when we're being precise like we want to be in rules issues.

If I let you "paint my door pink tonight and paint it back tomorrow," is it okay to paint it pink tonight but then not repaint tomorrow?

The problem is, it's ambiguous whether "lets you roll twice and use the higher result" means that you must use the higher result in the effect, or the effect "lets you" use the higher result. Is it ("lets you roll twice" AND "lets you use the higher result") or is it (lets you "roll twice AND use the higher result").


You might say that your interpretation is a more natural reading, and I would normally agree with that...except for the fact that, if your reading was intended, the power should just be written "if another effect lets you roll twice when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack" and you clearly cover everything in only 1 sentence, instead of the current writing that uses 2 sentences and remains unclear about what to do for "roll twice and use either result." I think the entire point of the current convoluted wording is deliberately so that it does apply to "roll twice and use either."

Which is probably also why so many other people missed this technical ambiguity, because the intent seems clear that the restriction is supposed to affect only things that are specifically "roll twice and use the higher."
There's no ambiguity, the rule says that OoE has no effect if another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result. "use the higher result" is a subset of "use either result".

Hopefully repeating it will have some effect. There is no ambiguity, this question has an agreed upon answer and yours isn't it. You're wrong.
There's no ambiguity, the rule says that OoE has no effect if another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result. "use the higher result" is a subset of "use either result".

Hopefully repeating it will have some effect. There is no ambiguity, this question has an agreed upon answer and yours isn't it. You're wrong.


I mean, so far 4 people chimed in on this, you and Zathris say it's incompatible and AtG and I say it's ambiguous. Maybe that'll change, but at the moment it's a pretty strange split for an "agreed upon answer"

Anyway, I'll just repeat myself too, that's fine.
If OoE said "if another effect lets you roll twice but use the higher result..." then you would probably agree that this does not stop Borrowed Confidence. It becomes crystal clear that it refers to effects that are "roll twice and use the higher result," but not just generally effects that are "roll twice."

Logically speaking, "and" and "but" are 100% equivalent words. So they should be interchangeable to produce the same meaning, particularly when we're being precise like we want to be in rules issues.

The problem is, it's ambiguous whether "lets you roll twice 
and use the higher result" means that you must use the higher result in the effect, or the effect "lets you" use the higher result. Is it ("lets you roll twice" AND "lets you use the higher result") or is it (lets you "roll twice AND use the higher result").
There's no ambiguity, the rule says that OoE has no effect if another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result. "use the higher result" is a subset of "use either result".

Hopefully repeating it will have some effect. There is no ambiguity, this question has an agreed upon answer and yours isn't it. You're wrong.



There is a legitimate distinction between an effect that specifically lets you do a particular thing and an effect that only indirectly lets you optionally do that thing as part of its resolution.  OoE doesn't make clear which of those literal readings is correct.  I agree that incompatibility is the more natural reading.
If you want to use BC and OoE, then you can only use the lower results. How's that solve your "ambiguity"?

Lots of the rules are overly wordy and unwieldy. Others are only vaguely alluded to. The rules that are precise and concise are few and far between. The key points to remember: 1) if a power let's you reroll and pick either result, picking the higher result is one of your two options (and in 99% of the cases, the infered/intended result of the extra roll). 2) You can't combine OoE with other reroll mechanics if you get to pick the higher result.
If you want to use BC and OoE, then you can only use the lower results. How's that solve your "ambiguity"?



This, on the other hand, is not a legitimate literal reading of the rules text.

Lots of the rules are overly wordy and unwieldy. Others are only vaguely alluded to. The rules that are precise and concise are few and far between. The key points to remember: 1) if a power let's you reroll and pick either result, picking the higher result is one of your two options (and in 99% of the cases, the infered/intended result of the extra roll). 2) You can't combine OoE with other reroll mechanics if you get to pick the higher result.



No, that is one way of reading it. Consider this blocking:

If another effect lets you {roll twice and use the higher result} when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack.

"Roll twice and use the higher result" is a specific effect that is attached to a number of powers and feats. It is distinct from "roll twice and use either result" even though in terms of actual game outcomes the latter can provide all of the same results as the former. You could, conceivably, want to write up a power didn't stack with the former but did with the latter* and you could legitimately write the power text of OoE as a literal description of that power**.

RAI is pretty clear, and if I ever had to adjucate the RAW I'd say they don't work together. I just don't agree that the text is unambiguous.

* why you would want to is another matter.
** though you would be dumb to precisely because of this ambiguity.

The argument for is understandable. By the exact letter of the law, "use higher" is not the same as "use either". The argument that "use higher" is a subset of "use either" requires taking logical steps outside of the letter of the law. I agree it's ambiguous because in this case the RAI is so blatantly obvious it's hard to see that technically, RAW it works. It falls under the realm of "it doesn't need to be in the rules or the rulebook would be an encyclopedia", which includes such examples as "why can't I wear two sets of armor" - but that can't be nailed down by RAW and so it's up to interpretation.

Technically, by the exact letter of the law, I think your view works by RAW.
The argument for is understandable. By the exact letter of the law, "use higher" is not the same as "use either". The argument that "use higher" is a subset of "use either" requires taking logical steps outside of the letter of the law. I agree it's ambiguous because in this case the RAI is so blatantly obvious it's hard to see that technically, RAW it works. It falls under the realm of "it doesn't need to be in the rules or the rulebook would be an encyclopedia", which includes such examples as "why can't I wear two sets of armor" - but that can't be nailed down by RAW and so it's up to interpretation.

Technically, by the exact letter of the law, I think your view works by RAW.

You can wear two sets of armor. In the case of magical armor only the one put on last functions and in the case of non-magical armor there is no benefit because it is an Armor bonus and the stacking rules come into play.

Argument for it working is pure munchkinism, as per usual in this case.
There is no clarification that a power can (or can't) recover itself. Expect table variation.


Like I said to kilpatds: either it expends first (and therefore can be recovered), or expends last (and therefore doesn't need to be recovered yet), and I can't really see any possible way to interpret the rules that leads to expending in the middle.

I would not be surprised if, questioning both WotC designers, and questioning 4E players, if there were no majority at all on how it works, and if there was a plurality that it does not work.

Ergo, the warning about table variation. 

Granted, as soon as you have theoretical infinite damage it doesn't really matter what DMs will say or not say about individual elements
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director

Argument for it working is pure munchkinism, as per usual in this case.



The moment infinity enters the room we're automatically in munchkin territory.
Yeah, I'm actually surprised by how much disagreement there is over whether it's RAI.

In my mind, the only reason you would ever write OoE the way it is was if you wanted to leave "roll twice and use either result" effects alone. Otherwise, why go through trying to list individual cases? If you aren't allowed to use any "roll twice" effects, then just say that it doesn't work with anything else that lets you roll twice.

The wording of OoE is so particular (specifically giving you "two attack rolls" and not just "roll twice" on an attack, and specifically calling out "use the higher/lower result"), that to me it seems obvious that they were deliberately leaving other "roll twice" mechanisms intact. 

I'm curious why other people think it's not RAI?

(In my mind, the major non-RAI part of this build that I would rule out is the "Rending is a No Action" bit...that's clearly a major troublemaker all-around.)
As of how everything is worded, by sheer text, this works. The simple fix would be to as "as a free action" to the rending weapon crit.
As of how everything is worded, by sheer text, this works. The simple fix would be to as "as a free action" to the rending weapon crit.

But that would fix several other infinite damage loops too...   

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.

As of how everything is worded, by sheer text, this works. The simple fix would be to as "as a free action" to the rending weapon crit.

But that would fix several other infinite damage loops too...   



Well, yeah. I mean its probably how most DMs would rule it since it doesn't specify one way or the other.
As of how everything is worded, by sheer text, this works. The simple fix would be to as "as a free action" to the rending weapon crit.

But that would fix several other infinite damage loops too...   


Hahaha, don't be sad. You'll always have Lightning Fury (apparently)!

In my mind, the only reason you would ever write OoE the way it is was if you wanted to leave "roll twice and use either result" effects alone. Otherwise, why go through trying to list individual cases? If you aren't allowed to use any "roll twice" effects, then just say that it doesn't work with anything else that lets you roll twice.



Or it could just be a horrible design mistake or a representation of the opinion that some have that the developers do not know the rules to their own game.

Whether or not this combo works mechanically, it should not be allowed to work. In theoretical D&D you can get a way with a lot of stuff that won't fly once you sit down at a table. A good DM might let you do this once, and then fix it with a house rule. Even in LFR, depending on the group and DM, you're not going to get away with this often.
Or it could just be a horrible design mistake or a representation of the opinion that some have that the developers do not know the rules to their own game.

Whether or not this combo works mechanically, it should not be allowed to work. In theoretical D&D you can get a way with a lot of stuff that won't fly once you sit down at a table. A good DM might let you do this once, and then fix it with a house rule. Even in LFR, depending on the group and DM, you're not going to get away with this often.


Well certainly I wouldn't allow it to work in a game. Like I said: the part that I consider broken is Rending as a No Action. Without that, this nova is strong, but nothing breathtaking.

On the other hand, if you rule out BC, you still have a ridiculously high expected damage (once damage optimizations kick in), because you have a high chance of making a lot of attacks. Maybe I'll go through and calculate this later, but once you add minor action attacks and TWO, even without going "supercritical" you still murder everything.

Rending is the problem.

EDIT: Also, if you look at the other infinite damage builds, the main thing they have in common with this one is the use of Rending. Again: that's where the problem is, not in OoE + BC. 
As of how everything is worded, by sheer text, this works. The simple fix would be to as "as a free action" to the rending weapon crit.

But that would fix several other infinite damage loops too...   


Hahaha, don't be sad. You'll always have Lightning Fury (apparently)!

And the infinitie action loop too.

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, I'm actually surprised by how much disagreement there is over whether it's RAI.

In my mind, the only reason you would ever write OoE the way it is was if you wanted to leave "roll twice and use either result" effects alone. Otherwise, why go through trying to list individual cases? If you aren't allowed to use any "roll twice" effects, then just say that it doesn't work with anything else that lets you roll twice.

The wording of OoE is so particular (specifically giving you "two attack rolls" and not just "roll twice" on an attack, and specifically calling out "use the higher/lower result"), that to me it seems obvious that they were deliberately leaving other "roll twice" mechanisms intact. 

I'm curious why other people think it's not RAI?

(In my mind, the major non-RAI part of this build that I would rule out is the "Rending is a No Action" bit...that's clearly a major troublemaker all-around.)


If Borrowed Confidence lets you use either result, then doesn't it let you use the higher result, the lower result, or either result in the case if both die are the same?
Since using the higher result is one possibility of BC (regardless if there are other possibilities or not) OoE does not have an effect on the attack because it specifically reads "If another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack."
I also don't think you can guess RAI based on how something was written.  Simple human error would seem to be enough reason.  We also have the virtue of hindsight here; it's very easy to be an armchair writer.
I wish this did work, but I absolutely can not agree that it does.
^This. Well said.

Personally, I believe OoE was worded the way it was so that monster effects that force a double roll and use the lower result can still happen /while/ still allowing OoE to have some benefit (roll 2 sets of 2, taking the 2 lowest. Of those 2, you OoE then let's you take the higher of the two.) Worded as suggested to come from all double rolls would prevent this interaction.
If Borrowed Confidence lets you use either result, then doesn't it let you use the higher result, the lower result, or either result in the case if both die are the same?
Since using the higher result is one possibility of BC (regardless if there are other possibilities or not) OoE does not have an effect on the attack because it specifically reads "If another effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result when making an attack roll, this power has no effect on that attack."
I also don't think you can guess RAI based on how something was written.  Simple human error would seem to be enough reason.  We also have the virtue of hindsight here; it's very easy to be an armchair writer.
I wish this did work, but I absolutely can not agree that it does.

You're making the same argument that was addressed earlier (and to respond to it: it depends on how you parse the relevant rules passage, which is why it is ambiguous).

I agree that what you're saying is a valid reading. I also believe that my initial reading of the power was a valid reading. In order to argue against this, you can't just justify why Interpretation A is valid, because I already agree that it's technically supported by RAW...you have to say why Interpretation B is invalid, because if both are valid then it is (as I've said) ambiguous.

It's similar (though not quite identical) to this idea: an effect says that you "can roll twice and use the higher result." Do you also have the option of using the lower result? It depends on how you parse it, because English is a little ambiguous in this way. Is it "you can roll twice" and "you can use the higher result" or is it "you can [roll twice and use the higher result]," where it's a whole phrase that goes together?

You probably say no to the idea that you can use the lower result there, in which case you're saying that "can roll twice and use the higher result" should be parsed as "you can [roll twice and use the higher result]," whereas "lets you roll twice and use the higher result" gets parsed as "lets you roll twice" and "lets you use the higher result."

Taking that sentence of OoE in a vacuum, I'd probably consider your argument to be the more "natural" reading of it, and I wouldn't even bother arguing about the RAW ambiguity. But when you consider that it's being paired with the following sentence, and the repetition of wording and so on, it becomes evident that we're referring to specific wordings of the effects, not just general effect types.

Personally, I believe OoE was worded the way it was so that monster effects that force a double roll and use the lower result can still happen /while/ still allowing OoE to have some benefit (roll 2 sets of 2, taking the 2 lowest. Of those 2, you OoE then let's you take the higher of the two.) Worded as suggested to come from all double rolls would prevent this interaction.

Wait, what? OoE doesn't give you any benefit when you're forced to roll twice and use the lower result, that's very explicit. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying?

Using the interpretation that OoE isn't intended to combine with "roll twice and use either result," the only difference I see between the OoE wording and just saying "this power cannot be used with any effect that lets you roll twice when making an attack roll" is that, technically, if an effect simply gives you the option of rolling twice but using the lower result, then you can actually roll 4 times due to OoE. I cannot imagine that they were wording everything so precisely in order to leave the door open for that particular effect (which does not exist anywhere in the game that I'm aware of).

This is also clearly not a situation where they didn't think about the possibility of the interaction; OoE was obviously worded with the intent of explaining how to use it with all the other possible reroll-type effects.

Again, this is all RAI...but, as far as RAI goes, I think it's pretty darn strong.
No, I'm just daft. I didn't have the full text in front of me and forgot OoE also had a clause for forced take low rolls.

As to the RAI, I find it interesting you think your position is strong without considering the actual effect it has in game. Let us consider a moment exactly /what/ the non-interaction clause is preventing: gaining any kind of recursive benefit from other double rolls. And what kind of benefit are you trying to gain here? Exactly what the restriction is trying to prevent. Even if we accept that your interpretation has validity, it is most certainly doing exactly what the rule want to happen.

As to the RAW, let us compare all the "take either roll" effects to OoE itself. With OoE, you are not /allowed/ to take the highest. No, you are /required/ to take the highest. All of the rest, where you have a choice, /lets/ you pick the highest, specifically because you can (and not must). And what kind of powers do OoE not interact with? The ones that /let/ you take the highest. If you had a similiar power like OoE that forced you to take the higher roll (and not "let" or "can"), then you might actually have a strong RAW position.
Sign In to post comments