Duelist's Prowess recommended?

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
In the rogue's guide it says this is not a recommended daily because it doesn't have the weapon keyword. Has this changed? In the character builder it says the power has the weapon keyword so is the guide just old and not updated?

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, “Are you really sure?”

In the rogue's guide it says this is not a recommended daily because it doesn't have the weapon keyword. Has this changed? In the character builder it says the power has the weapon keyword so is the guide just old and not updated?



Probably.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Nope, its just an ongoing mistake in the Compendium and CB that has never been corrected. There is no errata to the power so it still lacks the weapon keyword. 
Nope, its just an ongoing mistake in the Compendium and CB that has never been corrected. There is no errata to the power so it still lacks the weapon keyword. 



The power, as listed in the compendium, shows the secondary attack to have the weapon keyword.  The fact that it requires a light blade and has a range of melee weapon should probably clue you in that it has the weapon keyword.

www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/po...
As a known, ongoing mistake that has been "corrected" in the compendium and character builder, though technically not in the book's official errata, it seems pretty safe to say that any DM that's even slightly reasonable would treat it as if it had the keyword.  Could you imagine the situation otherwise?  "I'm sorry, but... one sec while I get the book... it's not printed here nor in the official errata.  Yes, I know, by all means it really should and seems completely intended to have the Weapon keyword, but it doesn't so screw you."
Hi, welcome to the forum where we talk about what the rules actually say, not what we think they say.

Yes, it would be very reasonable for a DM to use a version of the power that has Weapon keyword. That is not the official version of the power, though, and that fact must always be noted when the power is discussed.
Nope, its just an ongoing mistake in the Compendium and CB that has never been corrected. There is no errata to the power so it still lacks the weapon keyword. 



The power, as listed in the compendium, shows the secondary attack to have the weapon keyword.  The fact that it requires a light blade and has a range of melee weapon should probably clue you in that it has the weapon keyword.

www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/po...



Most of this is meaningless supposition, and Compendium has issues.
10/10 Would Flame Again: An Elite Paladin|Warlock The Elemental Man (or Woman): A Genasi Handbook The Warlord, Or How to Wield a Barbarian One-Handed The Bookish Barbarian Fardiz: RAI is fairly clear, but RAZ is different That's right. Rules According to Zelink!
That's the official charop party line, yes, and I'm obligated to rate it honestly that way. Realistically though? Talk to your DM about it. A reasonable person would likely allow you the compendium vesion.
Of course, now I'm curious how it'd be rated compared to other powers if it had the "houseruled" Weapon keyword.
It seems that everyone is in agreement that the power should probably have the "Weapon" keyword, so the Handbook should probably include another rating in its description that assumes the houserule. That way the power listing would be more useful to the people that add the keyword in.
Hi, welcome to the forum where we talk about what the rules actually say, not what we think they say.

Yes, it would be very reasonable for a DM to use a version of the power that has Weapon keyword. That is not the official version of the power, though, and that fact must always be noted when the power is discussed.



Sorry.  I thought I was in CharOp.
Sorry.  I thought I was in CharOp.

You are. That is how CharOp operates. It is everyone who comes in here, sees incredibly powerful builds (in their opinion), and knee jerks "The rules don't say you can do that!" who are the people who give CharOp the reputation of not obeying RAW (when the reality if, of course, that they have no idea what the rules actually are and CharOp is chock full of rules experts who know exactly what the rules say).
If it ever worked the way it's suppose to, it would be light blue, and probably be something you revisit back from you D5 if you passed up on it as your D1.
Since it has the keyword in the builder and it seems like it obviously should have that keyword, most non-CO-browsing DMs probably won't give it a second thought when they see it.
I don't understand why the initial power which just starts the stance, somehow overrides the attack power which the stance allows. The attack power has the keyword. Everyone is saying, "It's RAW that it doesn't," but... it does, it's right there... there is no RAW that says the stance power description overrides the attack power description or that the attack power description can't ADD a keyword. Has anyone in the rules department said it doesn't work this way or that it's not RAI to work that way?

It's pretty obvious that it's meant to have the weapon keyword in the initial power and it's just an oversight. It's also not THAT powerful for a daily. It's not like it'd suddenly become a CharOp gold with the keyword.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, “Are you really sure?”

I'd probably take it every time as a melee rogue.

RenZhe, would you be against adding a second rating in the description explaining the difference if the keyword was added?

In this case, it seems detrimental to the handbook to cleave so strongly to the "RAW or bust" mentality that you can't even mention the possibility of a houserule alongside a RAW rating.
I don't understand why the initial power which just starts the stance, somehow overrides the attack power which the stance allows. The attack power has the keyword. Everyone is saying, "It's RAW that it doesn't," but... it does, it's right there... there is no RAW that says the stance power description overrides the attack power description or that the attack power description can't ADD a keyword. Has anyone in the rules department said it doesn't work this way or that it's not RAI to work that way?

It's pretty obvious that it's meant to have the weapon keyword in the initial power and it's just an oversight. It's also not THAT powerful for a daily. It's not like it'd suddenly become a CharOp gold with the keyword.

Fluff does not add keywords. To the rest: How to Read a Power rules.
I don't understand why the initial power which just starts the stance, somehow overrides the attack power which the stance allows. The attack power has the keyword. Everyone is saying, "It's RAW that it doesn't," but... it does, it's right there... there is no RAW that says the stance power description overrides the attack power description or that the attack power description can't ADD a keyword. Has anyone in the rules department said it doesn't work this way or that it's not RAI to work that way?

It's pretty obvious that it's meant to have the weapon keyword in the initial power and it's just an oversight. It's also not THAT powerful for a daily. It's not like it'd suddenly become a CharOp gold with the keyword.



Basically, what Alcestis and everyone else is saying that since the original power does not have the weapon keyword (just martial and stance, I believe) and the secondary power doesn't *add* the keyword, the power doesn't have the keyword.  If the secondary power did add the keyword, it would be listed under the "secondary attack" section of the original power as (weapon) or keyword: (weapon) or something like that.

Alternatively, the original power could just be given the weapon keyword as errata and that would solve the problem since keywords from the parent power are inherited by secondary powers.
I've removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  
You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Fluff does not add keywords. To the rest: How to Read a Power rules.


Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, “Are you really sure?”

Fluff does not add keywords. To the rest: How to Read a Power rules.





Umm, have you been reading this thread? Nobody is debating that the keywords are in the Compendium and the CB. The problem is that neither of those is a rules source and those keywords are NOT in Dragon 381, which is the official source for the power. In fact, in the Dragon article the secondary attack isn't even broken out as a separate power and therefore has no keywords of its own.
Yeah... looking up the source material is usually step number one when discussing RAW.
By CharOp standards, the official version of a power is based on two things:

1. The version of the power in the printed material the power came in.

2. Any Errata on the power specifically.

The Compendium and Character Builder, while extremely useful tools, are not a rules source. While a lot of information in them is correct, there are are errors (such as this) that crop up in them, so you should never rely on them 100% as a rules source.

I'm pretty sure that most of the CharOp regulars agree that it's likely that it's supposed to have the Weapon Keyword. However, CharOp does not deal in what is supposed to be; it deals with what is. The official version of the power does not have the Weapon keyword, so that is the version CharOp works with.

akaddk: While I can see where you are coming from, and it does seem likely that the power is supposed to have the Weapon keyword, the fact is that it officially doesn't. You're more than welcome to talk to your DM and ask him to allow you to use the Compendium version of the power. Hell, given the way the power works, I'd probably say that he'd go for it. The problem is that that is houserule territory, and is therefore something that CharOp does not deal with. You can keep arguing the point, but others have already stated why your 'proof' isn't proof by the standards of CharOp, so continuing to do so is just going to get you a lot more flak. I'd simply drop the point, then talk to your DM and ask to use the Compendium version of the power.
Hasn't it been established that at least some "stealth" errata has taken place on the Character Builder? (E.g., I saw someone claiming that some Warlord powers were rewritten on the builder to specify that granted attacks were free actions.) Authoritative sourcing is a worthy goal and nice idea, but if WotC hasn't maintained that standard in its own handling of content, then it simply doesn't exist.
I'd have to see a specific example, but the rules are that the original source and the errata documents are the official versions of content, so if the CB and Compendium differ from those then they are the ones that are incorrect. 

Now most cases that I've seen of 'stealth errata' are when they have changed the Dragon content without calling it out in an errata document or, like Flaming weapons, when a new version is published in a later supplement.  
Hasn't it been established that at least some "stealth" errata has taken place on the Character Builder? (E.g., I saw someone claiming that some Warlord powers were rewritten on the builder to specify that granted attacks were free actions.) Authoritative sourcing is a worthy goal and nice idea, but if WotC hasn't maintained that standard in its own handling of content, then it simply doesn't exist.



Until I see it in an Errata doc, I (and the rest of CharOp) am sticking with the books here. Otherwise you get the Elemental Pact Warlock burning Immediates to gain his pact boon and that's just too stupid for words.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Another mistake the DDi Compendium and CB did with Duelist Prowess  is make Duelist's Prowess Attack a Daily Power. It should be At-will if anything since it can be used each time an enemy hits or misses you. Wink
A non-weapon attack with a light blade.  Nice.

So are there any equivalent powers we should keep an eye out for?  Fire damage powers without the Fire keyword, arcane powers without Arcane, powers that require an Orb but don't have Implement?
Blazing Starfall has the fire and radiant keywords, but doesn't do radiant damage unless you are a cosmic sorcerer.
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
A non-weapon attack with a light blade.  Nice.

So are there any equivalent powers we should keep an eye out for?  Fire damage powers without the Fire keyword, arcane powers without Arcane, powers that require an Orb but don't have Implement?

I think they finally removed all the magic items that don't actually exist from the Compendium. There are some powers listed as encounter in the compendium that are dailies (and vice versa). The Compendium is about 95% accurate, a vast majority of the errors in it have been reported... but I believe they fired the one person who actually made corrections and haven't reassigned the job to anyone. So there you go.
Hasn't it been established that at least some "stealth" errata has taken place on the Character Builder? (E.g., I saw someone claiming that some Warlord powers were rewritten on the builder to specify that granted attacks were free actions.) Authoritative sourcing is a worthy goal and nice idea, but if WotC hasn't maintained that standard in its own handling of content, then it simply doesn't exist.



Until I see it in an Errata doc, I (and the rest of CharOp) am sticking with the books here. Otherwise you get the Elemental Pact Warlock burning Immediates to gain his pact boon and that's just too stupid for words.



Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on which side of the fence you are standing, I guess) most DMs are going to go by the online Compendium or the online character builder.  They will not have errata documents printed out because, usually, those errata and updates are loaded into the builder and compendium at the end of the month.

This means that most DMs are using the compendium and/or the character builder as a rules source, whether it is meant to be or not. And I still have yet to see anyone post a WotC dev stating that.  Saying that they contain errors and, therefore, cannot be rules sources, is just silly.
There are people who don't use errata, either. Doesn't make them right as to the rules. Source material is correct, period.

The Compendium isn't a rules source because it isn't meant to be. Even if it were completely correct all the time and in all cases, it still wouldn't be a rules source because it isn't published books, errata, or Dragon/Dungeon magazine.
Blazing Starfall has the fire and radiant keywords, but doesn't do radiant damage unless you are a cosmic sorcerer.


That one makes sense to me, though it's the other way around.  The initial burst does radiant damage, and if you're a Cosmic sorc it leaves a zone that deals fire damage.  I rather like that it has both damage type keywords, a nice "rules fits the fluff" thing.
Sorry, it's late - the other way round indeed. But it should just have the radiant keyword and it would automatically get the fire keyword from the second part because it did fire damage.
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
Sorry, it's late - the other way round indeed. But it should just have the radiant keyword and it would automatically get the fire keyword from the second party because it did fire damage.



No, that's *why* it has the fire keyword - because the second part of it deals fire damage.  Just because you, as a wild sorcerer, cannot access that second part, doesn't mean it doesn't still have the potential.

If it did not, then the zone could *not* deal fire damage.
"If a power had such a keyword, it deals that type of damage" - So it shouldn't have that keyword for a dragonsorc.
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
"If a power had such a keyword, it deals that type of damage" - So it shouldn't have that keyword for a dragonsorc.



There is the potential that a feat or item might allow for a dragon sorcerer to gain access to the second part of the power, so the power has to have the keyword; otherwise, it can never deal fire damage.

They did not include rules in the Sorcerer class for the spell sources to add or remove keywords to powers they have rides based on the spell source.
"If a power had such a keyword, it deals that type of damage" - So it shouldn't have that keyword for a dragonsorc.



There is the potential that a feat or item might allow for a dragon sorcerer to gain access to the second part of the power, so the power has to have the keyword; otherwise, it can never deal fire damage.

They did not include rules in the Sorcerer class for the spell sources to add or remove keywords to powers they have rides based on the spell source.





So why does Blazing Starfall inherently proc Firewind Blade?
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
@Undrhil: you have it backwards. If the did not have the fire keyword, when a cosmic sorc uses it, it would automatically gain the keyword. Do a damage type = gain a keyword.

Since it has the keyword, though, it creates a wheird situation. If a dragon sorc uses it, one of two possible rulings can come about: 1) no fire damage means it loses they keyword, or 2) it has the keyword, so it /must/ do fire damage (the initial damage becomes fire and radiant, in this case). Either way, its messy when it shouldn't be.
"If a power had such a keyword, it deals that type of damage" - So it shouldn't have that keyword for a dragonsorc.



There is the potential that a feat or item might allow for a dragon sorcerer to gain access to the second part of the power, so the power has to have the keyword; otherwise, it can never deal fire damage.

They did not include rules in the Sorcerer class for the spell sources to add or remove keywords to powers they have rides based on the spell source.



So why does Blazing Starfall inherently proc Firewind Blade?



Because it has the fire keyword and that is how keywords work.... ?

@Undrhil: you have it backwards. If the did not have the fire keyword, when a cosmic sorc uses it, it would automatically gain the keyword. Do a damage type = gain a keyword. Since it has the keyword, though, it creates a wheird situation. If a dragon sorc uses it, one of two possible rulings can come about: 1) no fire damage means it loses they keyword, or 2) it has the keyword, so it /must/ do fire damage (the initial damage becomes fire and radiant, in this case). Either way, its messy when it shouldn't be.



Or 3) the power has the firs keyword because it *can* deal fire damage.  The fact that you cannot access that damage does not mean the power doesn't have the potential to deal it.  The fact that you are not a cosmic sorcerer just means that you don't get to make a zone with the power.  It doesn't change the fact that a cosmic sorcerer would get a zone of fire damage when using this power.

What you guys are saying would come down to a power *never* having a danage keyword until you hit with the power.  Since you didn't hit with the power, it didn't deal radiant damage and since it didn't deal radiant damage, it doesn't have the radiant keyword, right?  Wrong.
"If a power had such a keyword, it deals that type of damage" - So it shouldn't have that keyword for a dragonsorc.



There is the potential that a feat or item might allow for a dragon sorcerer to gain access to the second part of the power, so the power has to have the keyword; otherwise, it can never deal fire damage.

They did not include rules in the Sorcerer class for the spell sources to add or remove keywords to powers they have rides based on the spell source.



So why does Blazing Starfall inherently proc Firewind Blade?



Because it has the fire keyword and that is how keywords work.... ?

@Undrhil: you have it backwards. If the did not have the fire keyword, when a cosmic sorc uses it, it would automatically gain the keyword. Do a damage type = gain a keyword. Since it has the keyword, though, it creates a wheird situation. If a dragon sorc uses it, one of two possible rulings can come about: 1) no fire damage means it loses they keyword, or 2) it has the keyword, so it /must/ do fire damage (the initial damage becomes fire and radiant, in this case). Either way, its messy when it shouldn't be.



Or 3) the power has the firs keyword because it *can* deal fire damage.  The fact that you cannot access that damage does not mean the power doesn't have the potential to deal it.  The fact that you are not a cosmic sorcerer just means that you don't get to make a zone with the power.  It doesn't change the fact that a cosmic sorcerer would get a zone of fire damage when using this power.

What you guys are saying would come down to a power *never* having a danage keyword until you hit with the power.  Since you didn't hit with the power, it didn't deal radiant damage and since it didn't deal radiant damage, it doesn't have the radiant keyword, right?  Wrong.



I don't think you understand the point of the question. Do you consider it logical that a power that does no fire damage procs the Firewind Blade, when it shouldn't?

EDIT: And no, what we're saying is that proper keywording would add a line that says 'this power gains the fire keyword' to the secondary effect. Simple and clean.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Sign In to post comments