Feb 4, 2011 -- 12:18PM, Feralspirit wrote:

Question: Question 4) Does the Starborn feature of the Radiant One add the Radiant Keyword to attack powers when the target is granting combat advantage?
Answer: Effects that add extra damage do not add keywords to the power that causes the extra damage.

This is wrong i think and nowhere to be read.  If an Extra damage is of different damage type than the Power deals, it indeed gains a damage type and its associated Keyword.

D366 Starborn: Whenever you deal damage to a target that is granting combat advantage to you, you deal extra fire and radiant damage to the target equal to your Intelligence modifier.

RC 311 Extra Damage: Extra damage is always in addition to other damage and is of the same type or types unless otherwize noted.

RC 115 Adding or Removing Damage Type: If a Power gains or loose a damage type, the Power gains the Keyword for any damage type that are added, and it loose the keyword for any damage type that are removed.

Feb 4, 2011 -- 12:18PM, Feralspirit wrote:

CS answer..

Should've just made a thread in the QA forum. Asking CS complex rules questions is beyond useless.

I asked how Divine Oracle's 16th level feature Terrifying Insight interacts with its 20th level daily power Hammer of Fate. Specifically, if you choose to roll twice with Hammer of Fate, are you dazed because you missed? Or are you not dazed because you rewound time and never attacked in the first place?

CustServ's answer: You're not dazed.

Full text of my question Show
Full text of the CustServ reply Show

Feb 4, 2011 -- 3:54PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

Feb 4, 2011 -- 12:18PM, Feralspirit wrote:

Question: Question 4) Does the Starborn feature of the Radiant One add the Radiant Keyword to attack powers when the target is granting combat advantage?
Answer: Effects that add extra damage do not add keywords to the power that causes the extra damage.

This is wrong i think and nowhere to be read.  If an Extra damage is of different damage type than the Power deals, it indeed gains a damage type and its associated Keyword.

D366 Starborn: Whenever you deal damage to a target that is granting combat advantage to you, you deal extra fire and radiant damage to the target equal to your Intelligence modifier.

RC 311 Extra Damage: Extra damage is always in addition to other damage and is of the same type or types unless otherwize noted.

RC 115 Adding or Removing Damage Type: If a Power gains or loose a damage type, the Power gains the Keyword for any damage type that are added, and it loose the keyword for any damage type that are removed.

I don't think the power is gaining a keyword. It is just the extra damage. The extra damage in this case is not of the same type (it is noted as being fire/radiant). This does not change the power itself. At least, that would be my interpretation. Can someone show otherwise?

Hi,

I have searched in most of the forums and never found a definite answer to my problem.

In Dragon magazine issue 368 (p.60)

Deft Hurler Style [Arena Fighting]

Cleave ( fighter, PH 77): You can forgo dealing damage to the adjacent enemy to instead make a ranged basic attack with a heavy thrown weapon. This ranged basic attack does not provoke opportunity attacks.

Question:

1) From the wording, am I right to assume that the secondary ranged attack given by the feat is not obligated to be done on an adjacent enemy but rather on another target within the weapon range?

2) If 1 is a yes, is it even possible that the attack be redirected at the primary target since it says that it transforms the cleave adjacent enemy damage to a new range attack.

3) If 1 is a no, except for the ability to mark two targets, is there a point of making a feat that lets you make a range attack on an adjacent target instead of just making any attack be it melee or range that would let you mark the adjacent enemy?

Thanks in advance for the response.

Feb 19, 2011 -- 10:06AM, Kainqc wrote:

Hi,

I have searched in most of the forums and never found a definite answer to my problem.

In Dragon magazine issue 368 (p.60)

Deft Hurler Style [Arena Fighting]

Cleave ( fighter, PH 77): You can forgo dealing damage to the adjacent enemy to instead make a ranged basic attack with a heavy thrown weapon. This ranged basic attack does not provoke opportunity attacks.

Question:

1) From the wording, am I right to assume that the secondary ranged attack given by the feat is not obligated to be done on an adjacent enemy but rather on another target within the weapon range?

2) If 1 is a yes, is it even possible that the attack be redirected at the primary target since it says that it transforms the cleave adjacent enemy damage to a new range attack.

3) If 1 is a no, except for the ability to mark two targets, is there a point of making a feat that lets you make a range attack on an adjacent target instead of just making any attack be it melee or range that would let you mark the adjacent enemy?

Thanks in advance for the response.

The Feat has been updated.

1) Yes, as long as its not the creature targeted by Cleave.

2) No See Update

3) The Point is to Multi-Mark and possibly deal more damage. A creature damaged by Cleave's static damage is not Mark. 

Deft Hurler Style [Arena Fighting]
Prerequisite: Dex 13 or halfling race, any martial class
Benefit: You gain a benefit with any of the following exploits you possess.


Update (11/23/2009)
In the cleave entry, add “against one creature other than the target of your cleave” to the end of the first sentence.

Cleave: You can forgo dealing damage to the adjacent enemy to instead make a ranged basic attack with a heavy thrown weapon against one creature other than the target of your cleave. This ranged basic attack does not provoke opportunity attacks.

Feb 19, 2011 -- 10:06AM, Kainqc wrote:

Thanks in advance for the response.

Just to be clear, this thread is for the posting of answers you receive from Customer Service. It isn't for posters to ask questions and see what the community might think is the answer. (Doing that elsewhere is totally fine, just not the point of this thread).

Question on Warden's Font of Life and Death Saving Throws:

Q:  "A common question: Can a Warden use his Font of Life to roll a death saving throw if he is dying? If so, what happens when he rolls less than 10, or 11-19, or 20 or higher? And finally, if he fails his saving throw does he still have to make his normal death saving throw at the end of his turn?"

A:  "Thanks for the question! The Warden's Font of Life can't be used against a Death saving through.

Thanks and have fun!"

I guess the reasoning here is that Dying is not a condition that a save can end, which is a requirement for using Font of Life.  Successfully saving on a DST does not end dying, only gaining HP from spending a surge after rolling a 20+ in this situation ends the Dying condition.  So FoL cannot even be used since a successful save does not end the condition.

Nice simple conformation

 Hello Mello,

Thanks for the question! 

You could absolutely use Superior Will to counteract the Daze effect of Unnatural Vitality. In this case, you remain fine until you failed a death saving throw. Then, you'll simply fall unconscious normally.

Apr 10, 2011 -- 12:07PM, mellored wrote:

Nice simple conformation

 Hello Mello,

Thanks for the question! 

You could absolutely use Superior Will to counteract the Daze effect of Unnatural Vitality. In this case, you remain fine until you failed a death saving throw. Then, you'll simply fall unconscious normally.

This is incorrect.
Even though it mimics the effect, Unatural Vitality never makes you Dazed at any time and therefore cannot be affected by Superior Will.

Superior Will: In addition, if you are dazed or stunned, you can make a saving throw at the start of your turn to end that effect, even if the effect doesn’t normally end on a save.

Unnatural Vitality: Whenever you drop to 0 hit points or fewer, you are dying but you can choose to remain conscious until you attempt your first death saving throw. If you remain conscious, you can take only one standard action before you attempt your first death saving throw.

Apr 10, 2011 -- 2:43PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

Apr 10, 2011 -- 12:07PM, mellored wrote:

Nice simple conformation

 Hello Mello,

Thanks for the question! 

You could absolutely use Superior Will to counteract the Daze effect of Unnatural Vitality. In this case, you remain fine until you failed a death saving throw. Then, you'll simply fall unconscious normally.

This is incorrect.
 Unatural Vitality never makes you Dazed at any time and therefore cannot be affected by Superior Will.

Superior Will: In addition, if you are dazed or stunned, you can make a saving throw at the start of your turn to end that effect, even if the effect doesn’t normally end on a save.

Unnatural Vitality: Whenever you drop to 0 hit points or fewer, you are dying but you can choose to remain conscious until you attempt your first death saving throw. If you remain conscious, you can take only one standard action before you attempt your first death saving throw.

Hero's of Shadow has a "new" Revenant.  You are dazed until you fail your first death saving throw.

Though here's some follow ups

Hello Mello,

Thanks for following up! 

Extra Manifestation allows a Genasi to take another manifestation that, in essence, replaces his or her current one. A Revenant cannot utilize any powers or abilities of his previous race. Extra Manifestation adds power to the Revenant's old race, which he or she cannot utilize.

If you are reduced below 0, and then are healed above 0, and then drop back down, you will be re-dazed. The Revenant's ability triggers every time it is reduced to 0 or fewer HP. By the same token, if you are dropped below 0 and save versus the daze, more damage wont re-incur the daze. The power only dazes when that character is reduced below 0. 

Apr 10, 2011 -- 2:49PM, mellored wrote:

Hero's of Shadow has a "new" Revenant.  You are dazed until you fail your first death saving throw.

Oh, okay. Didn't know that.  Tx

Then it looks fine i guess.

Stormhawk Vengeance wins with revenant.

Hello Mello,

Unnatural Vitality tracks a state change. It triggers once when the creature is sent to the normal unconscious 'territory' of hit points. 

Stormhawk's Vengeance triggers every time an attack results in you having zero or negative hit points.

Apr 10, 2011 -- 2:49PM, mellored wrote:

Apr 10, 2011 -- 2:43PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

Apr 10, 2011 -- 12:07PM, mellored wrote:

Nice simple conformation

 Hello Mello,

Thanks for the question! 

You could absolutely use Superior Will to counteract the Daze effect of Unnatural Vitality. In this case, you remain fine until you failed a death saving throw. Then, you'll simply fall unconscious normally.

Holy ridiculous ruling Batman!  So now you will end up with a move and minor from Ghostly Vitality IN ADDITION to your full suite of actions from not being dazed anymore... lets get us some more minor action attacks...

Apr 13, 2011 -- 12:47PM, JohnnyBlaise wrote:

Holy ridiculous ruling Batman!  So now you will end up with a move and minor from Ghostly Vitality IN ADDITION to your full suite of actions from not being dazed anymore... lets get us some more minor action attacks...

That's a debatable, but possible reading of Ghostly Vitality.

...and one that CS agrees with

Hello again Mello,

Since both feats, Elf Soul and Past Soul, require the racial power obtained to be used instead of Dark Reaping you would not be able to use Elven Accuracy twice, unless you have a way of using Dark Reaping twice in an encounter.
.
As far as your other questions, the way those feats are worded you would gain the extra actions so long as you are at 0 hit points and using Unnatural Vitality to keep acting whether you are dazed or not. However, as usual, your DM is the final arbiter for these sorts of rules interactions and I suggest you ask them how they want those feats act when you are no longer dazed.

Hello Mello,

Thanks for following up. In the case of the Elf, the feat is redundant. Both Past Soul and Elf Soul allow you access to the Elven Accuracy feat. In both cases, it requires you to give up a use of your Dark Reaping. Because Elves only have one racial power to take, having both Past Soul and Elf Soul is redundant. You can use it twice if you utilize Reaping Renewal, but that has nothing to do with the 2nd Soul feat that you take.

I got this answer 3 of the 6 times i asked...

I disagree with it, but it's what i got.

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they refer to it as 'the Elven Accuracy feat'...

FWIW, I agree with you - the way Past Soul is phrased certainly doesn't imply that you can only use one racial encounter power in a gven encounter, just that you cannot use Dark Reaping an another racial encounter power in the same encounter.  And realistically, who wants dark reaping enyway, it sucks.

Apr 14, 2011 -- 1:55PM, thespaceinvader wrote:

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they refer to it as 'the Elven Accuracy feat'...

FWIW, I agree with you - the way Past Soul is phrased certainly doesn't imply that you can only use one racial encounter power in a gven encounter, just that you cannot use Dark Reaping an another racial encounter power in the same encounter.  And realistically, who wants dark reaping enyway, it sucks.

Well by my reading.  You should be able to take Past Soul, and Elf Soul, and get elven accuracy twice (not expending Dark Reaping).  Reaping Renewal wouldn't do anything.

But again, that's the 6th time i asked.  So if someone else want's to try, plz do.

I'd like to get another "yes" on the extra actions (Death's Quickening) too, if possible.  I agree with it, but it's definatly fuzzy, so a second would be nice to have.

When I hit a target with the secondary effect of Arcing Fire and this  target is cursed by me as a half-elf warlock.... can I deal curse  damage? The curse description says I have to "hit with an attack". Does  the damage to creatures granting cover count as "hit by an attack"?

"Because Arc of Fire is an attack, you can certainly utilize your  Warlock's Curse.  If the secondary target is hit, you can apply your  Warlock's Curse to the damage.  Just keep in mind you can only do it  once per turn, so you can't affect both targets with the extra damage." 04/12/2011 12:44 PM

Apr 19, 2011 -- 4:15PM, Cypher2009 wrote:

"Because Arc of Fire is an attack, you can certainly utilize your  Warlock's Curse.  If the secondary target is hit, you can apply your  Warlock's Curse to the damage.  Just keep in mind you can only do it  once per turn, so you can't affect both targets with the extra damage."

This is a great example of why CustServ answers have such a bad reputation.

Every statement here is true (well, minus the typos): In order to deal curse damage, you need only hit a cursed target with an attack.  Arcing Fire is an attack, so you can deal your Warlock's Curse damage with it.  You can apply your curse damage to any target hit by Arcing Fire.

The part that's left out is the actual answer to your question, which is: The only enemy hit with Arcing Fire is the target of the attack.  An enemy providing cover to that target (and so taking automatic fire damage) is neither attacked, nor hit, and so you cannot deal curse damage to him.

Question:

The Hunter at-will power "Rapid Shot" seems to have two areas that concern me greatly.

The power says, "Effect: You make a ranged basic attack with a weapon against each creature in or adjacent to a square within the attack’s range. You take a -2 penalty to the attack rolls."

First, it says "each creature" not "each enemy". To my knowledge this is the only ranged weapon power that includes allies in this fashion, so I suspect it was done in error. Is the intention to require the Hunter to attack his allies?

Answer: Currently it does say "Each Creature" so it will hit allies.

Second, the power is open to at least two interpretations regarding exactly who gets targetted. The first "plain language" reading is that you attack each creature within your weapons range+1. Most DM's see that can be rather abusive, so they houserule this power with the more restrictive reading, "effect: choose one square within the range of your weapon; make a ranged basic attack against each creature in or adjacent to that square".

Unfortunuately, while the first reading does seem a little too powerful, even given the fact that Hunter's have niether daily nor encounter attack powers, the second seems drastically underpowered, since it is in effect a burst 1 with a -2 to hit.

Many other classes have at-will area burst 1 powers that not only deal damage with no penalty to hit, but also include secondary attacks, conditions and penalties (Grasping Tide (Druid), Grasping Shards (invoker), Vanguard's Lightning (invoker), Blazing Starfall (sorceror), and about 5 other wizard powers). Given that Hunters are already so limited by thier lack of access to encounter and daily powers, giving them at-will that is far less effective than the at-will attacks of so many other classes simply doesn't make sense.

We have considered changing the wording entirely to something like: "effect: you may make a ranged basic attack against each creature within range of your weapon. each attack you make with this power takes a -1 cumulative penalty to the attack roll." So you are -1 for the first target, -2 for the second, -3 for the third etc. etc."

What is the "correct" interpretation of the way it is currently written?

Answer: The Target square is the only square that is required to be in range of the attack.

Question:
If I'm a monk and I have prof with a fullblade, I can use it as an implement

Do I need to hold the fullblade in 1 or 2 hands to use it with implement powers?

On the Q/A forums, they can't come to agreement on the issue. The thread is community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

********************

Answer

Discussion Thread
Response Via Email (Support Agent)	04/26/2011 07:02 PM
Hey there, The fullblade is a two-handed weapon, and would therefore constitute a two handed implement as well. An item doesn't become easier to wield by classifying it as an 'implement' instead of a 'weapon' I hope that clarifies this for you. Justin

Furious_Kender, did you mention the quarterstaff to Justin? It can be wielded in one hand as an implement...

Apr 27, 2011 -- 1:04AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Furious_Kender, did you mention the quarterstaff to Justin? It can be wielded in one hand as an implement...

I wrote a response and got back the following, consistent answer:

QUESTION:
Justin,
Thanks for the clarification.
One follow up question:
Monks have quarterstaff prof and can use them as implements. However, monks don't have staff implement prof, but a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.
So if a monk is using a quarterstaff/staff as an implement, how many hands does he need to hold it in?
Thanks so much

ANSWER (from Daniel)

In order to use the staff as a quarterstaff, he must hold it in two hands. To reiterate what Justin said, making something an implement does not change how it is wielded. Remember, however, that the DM is the final arbitrator on any rules question. Any decision made by the DM, even if it contradicts our rule book, is final. Make sure you double check with your DM if you want to attempt anything that isn't in our rule book! If you have any other questions, please let us know! Daniel Online Response Crew

Saying a Staff Implement needs two hands to use as an Implement because its also a Two-handed weapon is plain ridiculous and screw Small Sized creatures. Also, its simply written nowhere in the Rules to support such statement.

There is no such classification for Implement as One-handed or Two-handed. You need to hold it unless otherwise noted as written in Using An Implement RC 274. a Halfling can hold a 7 feet stick.  

Saying any more than that is making up Rules, and CS shouldn't do.  

For the last time, Weapon classifications of One-handed Two-handed are for when using the weapon physically to make weapon attacks not when channeling energy through it to make Implement Attacks.   

In other words:

You need to wield a Quatterstaff with two hands to make weapon attacks
But you only need to hold it when using a Weapon as an Implement to make Implement attack   

Apr 27, 2011 -- 10:18AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

Saying a Staff Implement needs two hands to use as an Implement because its also a Two-handed weapon is plain ridiculous and screw Small Sized creatures. Also, its simply written nowhere in the Rules to support such statement.

There is no such classification for Implement as One-handed or Two-handed. You need to hold it unless otherwise noted as written in Using An Implement RC 274. a Halfling can hold a 7 feet stick.  

Saying any more than that is making up Rules, and CS shouldn't do.  

For the last time, Weapon classifications of One-handed Two-handed are for when using the weapon physically to make weapon attacks not when channeling energy through it to make Implement Attacks.   

In other words:

You need to wield a Quatterstaff with two hands to make weapon attacks
But you only need to hold it when using a Weapon as an Implement to make Implement attack   

CS clarified that staff implement prof and quarterstaff as implement prof are two different things, and that you wield a weapliment in the same way as the weapon unless otherwise noted.

This was a needed clarification, as the RC says you need to hold an weapliment to wield it, but didn't specify the number of hands needed to do so.   

CS specifically did NOT say you always needed to wield a staff implement in two hands to use it as an implement.  However, monks have quarterstaff as implement prof, and CS said they needed to wield a staff implement as a quarterstaff to use it as an implement.  As such, the CS response has no relevance to how a halfling wizard can wield a staff implement. 

But at any rate, this isn't the thread to discuss these things.  We already have a thread devoted to just this issue. 

I see what you are saying. I think they are just being confusing.

So, what I think it ends up being is:

- An actual implement is one-handed.
- A weapon is whatever it is listed as being when used as a weapon.
- A weapon used as an implement ("weapliment") takes up hands the way it would as a weapon, not as an implement.

Is that what we are saying?

I'm still confused on the monk bit.

 Its only written when an adventurer use such an Implement as a weapon that it follow the normal rule for using a weapon, not when using it as an implement.  

RC 275 Using Implement as a weapon: Most Implement cannot be used as weapon, but a few, such as Staffs, are expressely usable as both implements and weapon. When an adventurer use such an Implement as a weapon, follow the normal rule for using a weapon.  

That's what I thought, but the CS responses above seem to contradict that, such as the monk example.

Apr 27, 2011 -- 11:02AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

I see what you are saying. I think they are just being confusing.

So, what I think it ends up being is:

- An actual implement is one-handed.
- A weapon is whatever it is listed as being when used as a weapon.
- A weapon used as an implement ("weapliment") takes up hands the way it would as a weapon, not as an implement.

Is that what we are saying?

I'm still confused on the monk bit.

You sir have it correct.

A Staff Implement is always an implement, but it can also be used as a Quarterstaff.  It is not a Quarterstaff but can be used as one. Why people always confuse this is beyond me.

Apr 27, 2011 -- 11:30AM, Mithreinmaethor wrote:

A Staff Implement is always an implement, but it can also be used as a Quarterstaff.  It is not a Quarterstaff but can be used as one. Why people always confuse this is beyond me.

Because it count as one ? 

RC 274 Staff: This Implement also count as a Quatterstaff.

Apr 27, 2011 -- 11:02AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

I see what you are saying. I think they are just being confusing.

So, what I think it ends up being is:

- An actual implement is one-handed.
- A weapon is whatever it is listed as being when used as a weapon.
- A weapon used as an implement ("weapliment") takes up hands the way it would as a weapon, not as an implement.

Is that what we are saying?

I'm still confused on the monk bit.

This is correct, as per the CS responses.  Monks are confusing because they have quarterstaff as implement profeciency but lack staff implement profeciency.  The CS responses suggests that this was not some oversight, and quarterstaff as implement profeciency is not the same as staff profeciency.

I think it's worth pointing out that just getting a reply email is not a sufficient condition for adding a CS response to this thread.  The response has to not be full of wrong.

Apr 27, 2011 -- 12:01PM, furious_kender wrote:

Apr 27, 2011 -- 11:02AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

I see what you are saying. I think they are just being confusing.

So, what I think it ends up being is:

- An actual implement is one-handed.
- A weapon is whatever it is listed as being when used as a weapon.
- A weapon used as an implement ("weapliment") takes up hands the way it would as a weapon, not as an implement.

Is that what we are saying?

I'm still confused on the monk bit.

This is correct, as per the CS responses.  Monks are confusing because they have quarterstaff as implement profeciency but lack staff implement profeciency.  The CS responses suggests that this was not some oversight, and quarterstaff as implement profeciency is not the same as staff profeciency.

Awesome. That clears it up. They have a weapon as an implement, not the implement version, so it still takes up hands like the normal weapon.

So:
- An actual implement is one-handed (unless noted otherwise, none exist so far).
- A weapon is whatever it is listed as being when used as a weapon.
- A weapon used as an implement ("weapliment") takes up hands the way it would as a weapon, not as an implement, unless the class grants proficiency in an implement version.

For example, classes (like wizard) that can use a staff implement can hold it one-handed as an implement or two-handed as a weapon. Classes (like monk) that can use a quarterstaff as an implement (a weapliment) must still use two hands even when using it as an implement.

I can't say I like the complexity, but at least I understand it! Thanks!

Just to muddy the waters further, if you take a staff implement (which is normally wielded one handed as an implement, even though it requires two hands to use as a weapon) and deliberately wield it with two hands, does it count as two implements for the purpose of using the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat?

May 10, 2011 -- 7:47PM, AJGibson wrote:

Just to muddy the waters further, if you take a staff implement (which is normally wielded one handed as an implement, even though it requires two hands to use as a weapon) and deliberately wield it with two hands, does it count as two implements for the purpose of using the Dual Implement Spellcaster feat?

I assume you are asking us and not Customer Service (they don't read this tread), but the answer I would give is No. Just look at the wording like "Both of your implements". It is pretty clear.

However, if you take Staff Fighting...  Then, I'd say yes.

Fine in a home campaign, but treating a staff as a double weapon is not the same as "Both of your implements" (let alone the spirit of "Dual Implement" in the name). We can argue that "you are wielding a magic implement in each hand" might be met by staff fighting, but I think it is the kind of thing to do only in home campaigns. Someone can always ask CS, explainign the wording and seeing what they say.

Edit: Also, "You can treat the quarterstaff as a double weapon" is likely not going to work. Implement and weapon are different, and my guess is the staff remains a one-handed implement. That might be an interesting question to try to settle via CS.

I asked CS this morning. Waiting for a response.

It's true that Dual Implement specifies 2 implements, but the wording is similar to several feats and powers for 2 weapons. It is understood that when Twin Strike says "You must be wielding 2 weapons" that a double weapon counts as 2 weapons.

Also, having to multiclass into fighter to take a feat to use an implement better strikes me as odd.

May 11, 2011 -- 10:00AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Fine in a home campaign, but treating a staff as a double weapon is not the same as "Both of your implements" (let alone the spirit of "Dual Implement" in the name). We can argue that "you are wielding a magic implement in each hand" might be met by staff fighting, but I think it is the kind of thing to do only in home campaigns. Someone can always ask CS, explainign the wording and seeing what they say.

Edit: Also, "You can treat the quarterstaff as a double weapon" is likely not going to work. Implement and weapon are different, and my guess is the staff remains a one-handed implement. That might be an interesting question to try to settle via CS.

Double Weapons are, explicitly, two of the same item, with each end sharing the same properties. You'd need a very contrived argument for it not to work, by RAW.

May 11, 2011 -- 10:52AM, Alcestis wrote:

May 11, 2011 -- 10:00AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Fine in a home campaign, but treating a staff as a double weapon is not the same as "Both of your implements" (let alone the spirit of "Dual Implement" in the name). We can argue that "you are wielding a magic implement in each hand" might be met by staff fighting, but I think it is the kind of thing to do only in home campaigns. Someone can always ask CS, explainign the wording and seeing what they say.

Edit: Also, "You can treat the quarterstaff as a double weapon" is likely not going to work. Implement and weapon are different, and my guess is the staff remains a one-handed implement. That might be an interesting question to try to settle via CS.

Double Weapons are, explicitly, two of the same item, with each end sharing the same properties. You'd need a very contrived argument for it not to work, by RAW.

Well, my thought is around the definition of Implement vs. Weapon. A "weapliment" takes up hands as if it were a weapon, not an implement. But the same is not true of an implement. See the difference? A staff as a weapon or weapliment is a two-handed weapon and you get that Weapon benefit from staff fighting. But, as an implement, I'm not sure it applies. Great, I can treat that staff as a double weapon. I'm holding a weapon in each hand... except I want to wield an implement in each hand. The feat doesn't do that for me.

Of course, there is always the RAW vs. RAI. Is anyone truly arguing that when they wrote Staff Fighting or Dual Implement Spellcaster that they thought these should work together? Really? Or are we in the realm of exploiting something due to wording?

This isn't about exploiting something. A character can easily pick up a second implement and use it in their off hand (since a staff is a one handed implement). The only advantages to the staff being a double implement are:
-you can get Hafted Fighting
-you get a good MBA
-you don't have to pay for a second implement
But you lose out on the versatility of having a second implement with different powers from the first. For sorcerers, taking a rhythm blade as an off-hand weapon and versatile expertise fixes the first two problems, leaving the only issue being whether you want to pay for another magic item. It's not a big deal. This is mostly a flavour issue. I could just as easily carry a staff in each hand and have no MBA, but that would just be strange.

The idea that CS would actually settle it amuses me.

They would provide an interpretation.  If you're lucky, it wouldn't be provably wrong.  I don't generally trust CS as far as I can throw them.

May 11, 2011 -- 11:22AM, Alphastream1 wrote:

Well, my thought is around the definition of Implement vs. Weapon. A "weapliment" takes up hands as if it were a weapon, not an implement. But the same is not true of an implement. See the difference? A staff as a weapon or weapliment is a two-handed weapon and you get that Weapon benefit from staff fighting. But, as an implement, I'm not sure it applies. Great, I can treat that staff as a double weapon. I'm holding a weapon in each hand... except I want to wield an implement in each hand. The feat doesn't do that for me.

Of course, there is always the RAW vs. RAI. Is anyone truly arguing that when they wrote Staff Fighting or Dual Implement Spellcaster that they thought these should work together? Really? Or are we in the realm of exploiting something due to wording?

Actually a Weapliment just means it can also be used as a weapon..... that's it. Swordmages can wield a Glaive one-handed and use it as an Implement and still trigger things that trigger off of "attacking using a weapon." Welcome to look it up. And yes, if you're holding a staff in each hand, because double weapons have mundane and magical properties on both hands, then.. you're wielding a staff in each hand. Not unclear at all.

I don't think I am alone in saying that RAI is baseless speculation at best. We have the rules text. We operate by it. Done. If they intended something else, they'd errata it.

So I got my answer back:

Q:If a character with a staff implement is using it two-handed (even  though a staff implement will work with just one hand if it's only being  used as an implement) does it count as two implements for purposes of  this feat?

A:Unfortunately, this won;t work. The staff grants a single bonus, which  can't be 'doubled' on the virtue of being two handed. The Dual Implement  feat is designed so you can use a variety of implements to stack  acceptable bonuses. Now, you can certainly use a wand or rod in the  other hand to stack these bonuses... Just a thought.

Frankly, I'm disappointed. From a gaming point of view, letting a character double-hand a staff has the advantage of being cheaper and giving the character a decent MBA at the cost of not having a second set of properties be available to them (for example, a frostcheese character might have a frost weapon in one hand, and a do-more-damage weapon in the other). Staff-only users (a classic wizard archetype) are pretty much shafted for no reason.

I have a question about the flaming sphere I'm hoping someone could answer for me.

Under effect the text says: Any creature that starts its turn adjacent to the sphere takes 1d4 + intelligence modifier fire damage.

Under hit it says: 2d6 + intelligence modifier fire damage.

I know you can move the sphere and it's text says the target is an adjacent creature.

Which damage do I apply and at what times? Is one for the first hit and the other for when you move it?  

Any help would be appreciated. 

May 20, 2011 -- 7:49PM, Anchovy wrote:

I have a question about the flaming sphere I'm hoping someone could answer for me.

Under effect the text says: Any creature that starts its turn adjacent to the sphere takes 1d4 + intelligence modifier fire damage.

Under hit it says: 2d6 + intelligence modifier fire damage.

I know you can move the sphere and it's text says the target is an adjacent creature.

Which damage do I apply and at what times? Is one for the first hit and the other for when you move it?  

Any help would be appreciated. 

This thread is for posting the answers received from Wizards of the Coast Customer Service. You might want to post in the "Ask a Quick Question" thread next thread over

Doom of the Unworthy

Effect: Until the end of your next turn, your allies can treat each attack roll against the target as a 10 instead of rolling the attack.

Holy Ardor (11th level): Whenever you make two attack rolls because of your oath of enmity and hit the target of your attack, you score a critical hit if both dice have the same roll, except if both rolls are 1.


Do the 2 things combine to ensure crits (assuming the avenger hit's on a 10).[/quote}

Hello Mello,

Thanks for contacting Wizards of the Coast! Doom of Unworthy applies to your allies attacks, while Holy Arbor requires you to make two of the same attack roll. So, these attack rolls would not apply for the critical hits. In a different situation, if you replace two of your attack rolls with 10, you would be able to count those as the same roll and use Holy Arbor to grant a critical hit. 

One of my player asked:

"Hello, 
Can you help me and give an answer for a question about DnD 4e. 

My character have a feat Cleaving Axe (www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/fe...  and an item Belt of Breaching ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/it...  . 
First grants me a melee basic attack as a free action when I reduce an enemy to 0 HP and the second one have a property that allows me to spend a healing surge and teleport when I reduce an ememy to 0 HP. 

The question is : "Can I use both the feat and the item when I reduce a creature to 0 HP ?"
And more specific :
1) When I've reduced an enemy to 0 HP can I make a melee basic attack to another enemy within my melee reach and then teleport 5 squares ?
2) When I've reduced an enemy to 0 HP can I teleport 5 squares and then make a melee basic against the enemy to which I have teleported ?'

We recived the answer:

"Hey there Andrey!

Thanks for the question! I would be happy to answer it for you:

If two abilities trigger on the same condition, you can choose the order in which they resolve. In this case, you can do them in either order, so both of your scenarios are valid."

I homeruled it like this:

Jul 19, 2011 -- 9:22AM, WeAreDND wrote:

I homeruled it like this:

On one trigger - one player can activate only one power per round.

Only you know the power level of your campaign, but the belt requires a surge and they both require that the PC kill the foe. Would it be so broken in play if the player could use both? It sounds cool to me.

Recently, there's been some questions on how the cleric powers Servitude in Death and Shackles of the Grave are meant to function. Namely, exactly what happens to the raised creature's maximum hp? I decided to ask CS to find out:

Spoiler: Show

This is the first answer I got from them:

Spoiler: Show

Astounded by this response, I decided to ask a more specificc question and see whether CS would stick to their guns:

Spoiler: Show

This is what I got next:



Spoiler: Show

 

 Well, at least they were consistent. But I can't say this really helps out. Going by this, HP would always reference max HP, but p. 293 of the Players Handbook seems to disagree with that.  Anyone else want to make sense of this?

I asked:

I was working on an Executioner and I had a question regarding garrote strangle.

1. Does the +1d8 from attack finesse trigger on the sustain standard  effect (IE does it count as a weapon attck since it is part of garrote  strangle's text)?

Custserv answered:

1. "Since the sustain is part of the attack power you will be able to add the bonus damage from Attack Finesse."

We asked:
Hello,
Some monsters have a "Rise" ability when they are killed (for  example trolls and some zombies). Can you clarify few details :
1) Will  the monster be prone when it rises or not.
2) In most cases such abilities  is performed as a move action ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/mo... ) but few monsters lacks such note ( www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/mo... ) . Will such monsters rise as a free action ? or 'rise' is always a move action  ?

They answered:
I will be happy to answer these questions for you! When a creature is dropped to  0 hp it is usually destroyed/removed from combat. Each specific monster will  state if, and how, these rules are modified. For the Troll there has been some  updated wording I have reproduced here for you:

Whenever an attack that  doesn’t deal acid or fire damage reduces the troll to 0 hit points, the troll  does not die and instead falls unconscious until the start of its next turn,  when it returns to life with 15 hit points. If an attack hits the troll and  deals any acid or fire damage while the troll is unconscious, it does not return  to life in this way.

For the troll it will be prone and then wake up. For  the zombie in your example the move action is the rise so it will start its turn  using its move action but standing. Whether the shade is prone or standing is  really up to the DM as the rules don't explicitly state one way or the  other.

 

Jul 19, 2011 -- 10:18PM, ShinQuickMan wrote:

Recently, there's been some questions on how the cleric powers Servitude in Death and Shackles of the Grave are meant to function. Namely, exactly what happens to the raised creature's maximum hp? I decided to ask CS to find out:

Spoiler: Show

Title: Servitude in Death/Shackles of the Grave

When a creature rises from either of these powers, the creature apparently "has 1 hit point". Does this only indicate that the creature's current number of hit points is 1, or does it also make their MAXIMUM hit point value to 1 as well?

This is the first answer I got from them:

Spoiler: Show

Greetings Shin,

I will be happy to answer these questions for you! Both of these powers work basically the same way. They turn the creature raised, for all intents and purposes, into a minion that is dominated by you. This means its max HP is 1 so it can't be healed above this, however it can be granted temp HP.

Please let me know if you have any other questions!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here: [link removed] to fill out a short questionnaire

To login to your account, or update your question please [link removed]

Raymond
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada
425-204-8069 (From all other countries
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST

Astounded by this response, I decided to ask a more specificc question and see whether CS would stick to their guns:

Spoiler: Show

Thank you for the response Raymond.

I would like some clarification on your response. For all intents and purposes, the raised creature would thus have a max HP of 1, correct? So, for example, the creature's surge value would change as well, since its surge value is based on its maximum HP, right?

This is what I got next:



Spoiler: Show

Hello Shin,
Thanks for the reply.

Raymond has left for the day, so I'll be answering in his stead. There wouldn't actually be a healing surge value, as Raymond mentioned, max HP is 1 on a minion creature, and is therefore killed with a single successful hit. However, as he mentioned, temp HP can offset that to a degree. Make sense?

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. [link removed]
To login to your account, or update your question please [link removed]

Justin
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST

 

 Well, at least they were consistent. But I can't say this really helps out. Going by this, HP would always reference max HP, but p. 293 of the Players Handbook seems to disagree with that.  Anyone else want to make sense of this?

I don't understand your confusion.  The powers change the monsters into Minions.  Normal rules for Minions apply: 1 hp, never take damage on a missed attack.  That's what the powers do.  Also, both of the CS reps said this in their responses.  Are you hoping that someone will say "Oh, well, it's CS.  *Obviously* those powers allow you to heal the creature back to it's maximum hp after it's been dominated by you."

Well, no one is going to say that this time.  Also, most healing powers target allies and the dominated creature is still considered your enemy, so you wouldn't be able to heal it anyway.  Not sure how you would give it temp. hp, but I guess there might be something which lets your give creatures temp. hp.  Or if the powers have the Summoning keyword...

The powers change the monsters into Minions

Sorta.  It doesn't actually say it makes them a "minion".  Though it does give them minion qualities.

Jul 29, 2011 -- 10:42AM, Undrhil wrote:

Also, most healing powers target allies and the dominated creature is still considered your enemy, so you wouldn't be able to heal it anyway.

Definatly False.  The power makes it an ally.

I think RAI is that they are supposed to be minons, and can't be healed.  But it really doesn't say that.

Does the power say the creature is an ally?  Because ordinarily, dominated does not make that change.

Jul 29, 2011 -- 1:28PM, Undrhil wrote:

Does the power say the creature is an ally?  Because ordinarily, dominated does not make that change.

Yes.  

Jul 29, 2011 -- 1:28PM, Undrhil wrote:

Does the power say the creature is an ally?  Because ordinarily, dominated does not make that change.

For both powers: "...an undead creature allied with you and your allies."

A question came up in a VT game the other night.  Elesdri (Tomb of Horrors, p23. a Lamia) has an attack "Devouring Swarm - Melee 5, Target (1, 2, or 3 creatures), etc.  a Fighter had her marked, and was upset that I ruled that since one of her three attacks were against the fighter, he could not interrupt an attack vs the leader with Combat Challenge.

The fighter's grounds for the argument was that Melee attack and damages are rolled separately for each target, therefore each individual attack either needs to be vs the fighter, or trigger Mark/CC

For the sake of keeping the game going, I ruled that one of the attacks was vs the Fighter, and therefore the conditions to pass the Mark were met.  There was a little bit of "But melee attacks are all made separately, are each individual attacks. 

So I presented the situation to CS  and asked CS 

So, my main question then, is does Combat Challenge (and other Defender Interrupts) trigger in this manner? If someone gets multiple melee attacks from a single Attack/Power usage, do they risk Defender Interrupts if they use of those melee attacks vs "A target that does not include" the Defender? Or are they safe because at least 1 of the multiple attacks from the Power/Attack Entry targetted the Defender? 

extra bits for the discussion Show

Anyway, CS replied today with

Greetings ,

Thank you for your patience as we looked into this for you! I have double checked with the developers and the combat challenge will not trigger in this case, only when no part of an attack targets the fighter.

Please let me know if you have any other questions!

Since I asked about multiple attacks in a single power, then I am going with that interpretation, but there are some that will still argue that "attack" does not always mean "attack power", even though according to the Compendium, and Rules Compendium p308

Attack

An attack roll and its effects, including any damage rolls. The word “attack” is sometimes used as shorthand for “attack power.” Some attack powers include multiple attacks, and some powers, such as magic missile, are designated as attacks yet lack attack rolls (using such a power counts as making an attack if the power has a target).

I am going to reply and ask them why.. to see if they break it down to say that Combat Challenge should trigger when "An enemy adjacent to you uses an attack [power] that does not include you as one of the targets".. since the big part of argument comes from people thinking multiple attacks in a single attack POWER are separate, and thus must each be on the Fighter, or trigger Mark/CC Interrupt/abilities

"When using a 'choose a target for someone else's attack' power, can you make the attacker hit itself?"

This one came up in a couple PbPs of mine (between mages and Skald's armor, lots of forced attacks).  I'd made a ruling that two of the players disagreed with, so I finally got around to doing full research on it.  The only discussion I found related to the subject (here), which initially came up with a different answer than I had and then devolved into a debate about Dominated.  So I finally got around to asking CS…

My Q Show

Their A Show

Just adding this to the compilation, in case anyone else starts searching for it.

Sep 9, 2011 -- 10:22PM, swmabie wrote:

Their A
...The  easiest way to describe this is that you can't make a hypnotized person  cause harm to themselves.

Hypnotism and pretty much  all the other Powers mentioned indeed allow you to make the targets attack themselves RAW, because they are meeting the requirement of bening a creature of your choice still.

This is pretty much a concensus on the Rule Q&A Forum if i am not mistaken. You can find previous related answer here, here, here and so forth...

Hypnotism: The target uses a free action to make a melee basic attack against a creature of your choice, with a +4 power bonus to the attack roll.

Yes, totally legal. 

If the design intent really was 'you can't make a hypnotized person  cause harm to themselves', it would be stated in the power with language such as:

Hypnotism: The target uses a free action to make a melee basic attack against a creature of your choice (but not itself), with a +4 power bonus to the attack roll.


Who are these Cust Serv people, anyway?   Geez. 

I have always run it as everyone is saying, allowing a creature to harm itself, all while expecting that WotC would disagree. It goes against the spirit of D&D across various editions to have charmed/compelled/etc. creatures to harm themselves. Sure, there were a few cases where it was possible, but overall it seems to be seen as something that should be rare.

I personally think it is more fun and fine balance-wise to allow self-targeting in these cases, but I won't be surprised if designers feel otherwise.

Ugh, CS.

Yes, you can make a target of Hypnotism attack itself.  Or, indeed, jump (slide) off a cliff, though it does get a saving throw.  Unless its MBA specifically targets enemies, it can hit itself.

Yes, this is not how hypnosis works IRL.  D&D is not real life.

Question: (John Lent)09/22/2011 01:47 PM
Can a Thri-kreen (or revenant thri-kreen) HOLD a weapon or implement in its lower claws? I know it cannot WIELD a weapon or implement, but there are some things you can do just by holding something there - for example, some weapons and implements shed light in 20 squares just by virtue of being held there.

Answer:
In the rules as written, Thri-Kreen cannot hold weapons, shields, or implements in their middle limbs at all. However, we encourage Dungeon Master's to try out variations of the rules.
Tifa
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast

At our LFR table, a player presented us with this bizarre conundrum.

He's playing a Drow, and he took both the Instinctive Darkness and Shadowslip Feats.  This resulted in the following exchange:

1) his character is targeted by a Melee 4 attack.  He's currently three squares away.
2) Instinctive Darkness has his cloud of darkness racial power trigger as an immediate reaction to being targeted by the melee attack.
3) Shadowslip allows him to shift 2 squares as a free action whenever he uses cloud of darkness.  The player presents the argument that this is a triggered free action.  As a result, it functions similarly to an immediate reaction to the use of cloud of darkness.  He then shifts out of reach of the attack.

A lot of debate occured over whether or not this worked, and Customer Service replied with the following:

The rules on pg. 196 of the Rules Compendium state that:   "An immediate reaction waits for its trigger to finish, not necessarily for the action that contains the trigger to finish."

This means the Immediate Reaction version of the Cloud ofDarkness resolves after the "being targeted by an attack" trigger, but before an attack roll is made.

The Shadowslip free action will also resolve before the attack is actually rolled. And if that 2 square shift moves the Drow out of the range of the attack, then the attack roll cannot be made and the attack is wasted.

 

Adjacency bettwen creatures and squares...

Question Show
Response Show

Question: 

The ranger power "throw and stab" let's you make a ranged attack at one target, move your speed, then make a basic attack against another target.

Heavy Blade Opp (HBO) lets you use an at-will power in place of an opp attack so long as you are wielding a heavy blade.

Two Weapon Flurry let's you make an opportunity attack at -5 to hit when you hit with your main weapon on an opportunity attack.

Seven Fates Archer lets you make ranged attacks instead of melee attacks when you make opportunity attacks.

So if I am a Ranger-Seeker Seven Fates archer, with the aforementioned feats and powers, wielding two drow long knives (thrown offhand heavy blades - lets call them A and B for reference), and an enemy provokes from me, can I:

Activate HBO to let me use Throw and Stab.

1. Throw my offhand Drow Long Kinfe B at the creature that provoked.
2. Move my speed to another target and then attack him with a melee basic attack with Drow Long Knife A.
3. On a hit with Drow Long Knife A, trigger Two Weapon Flurry to take a second opportunity attack (at -5 to hit).
4. For the second opportunity attack, again use Heavy Blade Opportunity to replace the melee basic with Throw and Stab. 
5. Repeat that cycle until I miss with the melee basic.

********************

Answer:

"It does appear that as written, this will works. I am going to escalate this along to our be reviewed by our Dungeons and Dragons development team. Do note that you will want to verify this with your Dungeon Master In all cases he does have final say since it is his campaign world you are playing in."

Side note: I play Living Forgotten Realms where the rules as written trump DM fiat.   
Second side note: I believe that if you are a half-elf versatile master with Magic Missile as your dilettante power and arcane implement proficiency heavy blade, this combo automatically kills every creature in Range 20 (since you need only make a "successful opp attack" and you can substitute a ranged basic attack for a melee basic granted as an opp attack - ie for the "stab").  Anticipating the argument that you cant use Seven Fates Archer that way, let's further assume you take an epic destiny that makes you a ShadarKai for feat purposes and you the Reaper's Touch feat that lets you use magic missile as a melee basic.   As soon as any enemy provokes an opp attack, they all die.

That doesn't work RAW because Two-Weapon Flurry can't trigger with Throw and Stab since when you're making a successful ranged opportunity attack with your primary weapon, you're not holding a melee weapon in each hand anymore and also beecause Throw and Stab's effect is not an opportunity attack, but a melee basic attack and thus cannot trigger Two-Weapon Flurry on latter attack.


Throw and Stab's Effect: You move up to your speed and make a melee basic attack against a creature other than the target.   

Two-Weapon Flurry: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, if you make a successful opportunity attack with your primary weapon, you can also make an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target (but with a –5 penalty to the attack roll).
  

Does reapers touch + magic missile count as a "successful oppertunity attack"?

Not if ''successful attack'' refers to a hit since Magic Missile doesn't hit anymore.

Feb 1, 2012 -- 12:53PM, Plaguescarred wrote:

That doesn't work RAW because Two-Weapon Flurry can't trigger with Throw and Stab since when you're making a successful ranged opportunity attack with your primary weapon, you're not holding a melee weapon in each hand anymore and also beecause Throw and Stab's effect is not an opportunity attack, but a melee basic attack and thus cannot trigger Two-Weapon Flurry on latter attack.


Throw and Stab's Effect: You move up to your speed and make a melee basic attack against a creature other than the target.   

Two-Weapon Flurry: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, if you make a successful opportunity attack with your primary weapon, you can also make an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target (but with a –5 penalty to the attack roll).
  

While on the one hand, I agree with you that CS often says things that make no sense, I do not think this is one of those time.  Heavy Blade Opportunity let's you replace the melee basic attack you make with an at-will attack.  If you look at the precise wording of Opportunity Attack in the compendium, and simply replace the words melee basic attack with at-will attack it says:  An opportunity attack is a melee basic at-will attack.  So the ENTIRE at-will attack is an opportunity attack (including it's effects).  Its odd that part of the effect is another attack instead of a prone or a slide, but it is still part of the "opportunity attack"

Feb 1, 2012 -- 11:28AM, JohnnyBlaise wrote:

Question: 

The ranger power "throw and stab" let's you make a ranged attack at one target, move your speed, then make a basic attack against another target.

Heavy Blade Opp (HBO) lets you use an at-will power in place of an opp attack so long as you are wielding a heavy blade.

Two Weapon Flurry let's you make an opportunity attack at -5 to hit when you hit with your main weapon on an opportunity attack.

Seven Fates Archer lets you make ranged attacks instead of melee attacks when you make opportunity attacks.

So if I am a Ranger-Seeker Seven Fates archer, with the aforementioned feats and powers, wielding two drow long knives (thrown offhand heavy blades - lets call them A and B for reference), and an enemy provokes from me, can I:

Activate HBO to let me use Throw and Stab.

1. Throw my offhand Drow Long Kinfe B at the creature that provoked.
2. Move my speed to another target and then attack him with a melee basic attack with Drow Long Knife A.
3. On a hit with Drow Long Knife A, trigger Two Weapon Flurry to take a second opportunity attack (at -5 to hit).
4. For the second opportunity attack, again use Heavy Blade Opportunity to replace the melee basic with Throw and Stab. 
5. Repeat that cycle until I miss with the melee basic.

********************

Answer:

"It does appear that as written, this will works. I am going to escalate this along to our be reviewed by our Dungeons and Dragons development team. Do note that you will want to verify this with your Dungeon Master In all cases he does have final say since it is his campaign world you are playing in."

Side note: I play Living Forgotten Realms where the rules as written trump DM fiat.   
Second side note: I believe that if you are a half-elf versatile master with Magic Missile as your dilettante power and arcane implement proficiency heavy blade, this combo automatically kills every creature in Range 20 (since you need only make a "successful opp attack" and you can substitute a ranged basic attack for a melee basic granted as an opp attack - ie for the "stab").  Anticipating the argument that you cant use Seven Fates Archer that way, let's further assume you take an epic destiny that makes you a ShadarKai for feat purposes and you the Reaper's Touch feat that lets you use magic missile as a melee basic.   As soon as any enemy provokes an opp attack, they all die.

I would have to agree with the logic that once you are using throw and stab, you are no longer wielding two weapons and cannot activate two weapon flurry.

However, even if someone were to rule that you could activate two weapon flurry, I don't believe you could activate it again.

The attack granted by two weapon flurry stipulates that it must be made with the off-hand weapon at a -5 penalty. This stipulation is for the entire attack granted by two-weapon flurry.

Two-Weapon Flurry
Epic Tier
Prerequisite: 21st level, Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, if you make a successful opportunity attack with your primary weapon, you can also make an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target (but with a –5 penalty to the attack roll).

Thus, even if you use Throw and Stab with the attack granted by Two Weapon Flurry, you are restricted from using your primary weapon since it specifically only grants you an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon. Since your off-hand weapon is not your primary weapon, two-weapon flurry cannot reactivate itself. Whether the attack granted by the Effect line is part of the opportunity attacks success or not, it would either:

A: Be a granted second attack, a melee basic attack against a different target, and being no longer part of the opportunity attack cannot activate Two Weapon Flurry.

or

B: Be part of the opportunity attack, and restricted to the off-hand weapon with a -5 penalty and must be made against the target and a different target at the same time. Rules implode at this point...

Easy way to fix it all would just be to have two weapon flurries granted attack be, "as a free action," since it's wording breaks the restriction of one OA per turn and opens the door to wacky scenarios such as this one.

Edit: for coherency

Two-Weapon Flurry
Epic Tier
Prerequisite: 21st level, Dex 19, Two-Weapon Fighting
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, if you make a successful opportunity attack with your primary weapon, you can also make an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target (but with a –5 penalty to the attack roll).

Thus, even if you use Throw and Stab with the attack granted by Two Weapon Flurry, you are restricted from using your primary weapon since it specifically only grants you an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon. Since your off-hand weapon is not your primary weapon, two-weapon flurry cannot reactivate itself.

Question:  Is Throw and Stab an attack POWER with your offhand weapon?   Answer: Yes it is (it specifically requires you to use your offhand weapon).

Question: Does it include the original target of the melee basic (stab1)?  Answer: Yes it does. 

Therefore the secondary attack includes the correct target and is with your offhand weapon. 

I think its more clear if you have a "burst" at-will and dual implement spellcaster.  You are technically using both your main hand implement and offhand implement when you use DIS and you are also targetting more than just the first "target," but I dont think anyone would say, gosh you can't use a burst, or gosh you can't get the bonus from your offhand implement. 

Admittedly, the rules implode at this point. 

Feb 3, 2012 -- 5:47AM, JohnnyBlaise wrote:

Question:  Is Throw and Stab an attack POWER with your offhand weapon?   Answer: Yes it is (it specifically requires you to use your offhand weapon).

No it doesn't require this anywhere in the power. It is likely to be the first attack you'll do as most Thrown are Offhand weapons though, but not necessarly. A Ranger with 2 Thrown weapons could use his main hand weapon first for exemple. For Powers specifically refering to main hand and off-hand, see Twin Strike.

Also, the Effect allow for an Melee Basic Attack against a different target than the one that provoked an Opportunity Attack (the sole target of Throw and Stab), and even though Heavy Blade Opportunity let you use Throw and Stab in place of a Melee Basic Attack when making Opportunity Attacks, the free attack it generate afterward is not Throw and Stab anymore, nor does it still constitude an Opportuntiy Attack.

Finally, Throw and Stab has no Secondary Attacks. For Powers specifically refering to Secondary Attack, see Sudden Strike. 

Throw and Stab  Spoiler: Show

Feb 3, 2012 -- 6:34AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

Feb 3, 2012 -- 5:47AM, JohnnyBlaise wrote:

Question:  Is Throw and Stab an attack POWER with your offhand weapon?   Answer: Yes it is (it specifically requires you to use your offhand weapon).

No it doesn't require this anywhere in the power. It is likely to be the first attack you'll do as most Thrown are Offhand weapons though, but not necessarly. A Ranger with 2 Thrown weapons could use his main hand weapon first for exemple. For Powers specifically refering to main hand and off-hand, see Twin Strike.

Also, the Effect allow for an Melee Basic Attack against a different target than the one that provoked an Opportunity Attack, and even though Heavy Blade Opportunity let you use Throw and Stab to make an Opportunity Attack, the free attack it generate afterward is not Throw and Stabb anymore, nor does it still constitude an Opportuntiy Attack.

Throw and Stab  Spoiler: Show

Throw and Stab         Ranger Attack 1
You fling a weapon at one foe and then charge another enemy.
At-Will        Martial, Weapon
Standard Action      Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding both a thrown weapon and a melee weapon.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (thrown weapon)
Hit: 1[W] damage.
Level 21: 2[W] damage.
Effect: You move up to your speed and make a melee basic attack against a creature other than the target.

 

I was inartful in my use of words.  The text is "wielding both a thrown weapon AND a melee weapon", so you are by requirement, wielding two weapons.  In order to weild a weapon you must be capable of making an attack with it; in order to make an attack with the weapon in your offhand, it must have the off hand property.  Therefore, in order to use Throw and Stab, one of the two weapons you have must be an off-hand weapon.  So the Throw & Stab power is an attack (power) with (read as including) your offhand weapon.  The entire attack power you use to replace the melee basic is the Opportunity Attack (power).  That includes the effects of that power.  I admit, it is odd that the effect is, "make an attack", but you would probably agree that if the effect were, "push the target 1 square" and you had a feat that said, "when you make an opportunity attack you can push the target an additional square" you would let the target be pushed 2 squares.  I would not argue that the "effect" is it's own seperate opportunity attack (allowing you to use HBO again), but it is PART of the opportunity attack power you made with HBO.  

I admit, the problem comes in with the really bizarre wording "successful."  Is it successful if the effect succeeds, but the attack misses?  I don't know.  Sloppy wording WotC.  They do that a lot - "if you make a roll you dislike" comes to mind.