Ok then, if you're sticking with RAW, how would you interpret the Power to function?
Terribly.
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).
You're leaving me with no choice but to assume that the lack of proper editing on WotC's end is more important than a functional power. Without that "Weapon" keyword in all the specified places, the power does nothing....is this really what players accept? Are the bulk of players really that anal to accept a power that does nothing RAW, but could only work in a RAI fashion?
I'm asking a legitimate question here, and so far I've had 2 different players openly dodge it. I'm not trying to twist a Power that's easily interpreted into something much more powerful like some players do, I'm just saying to use some common sense.
Not sure how this works at offical events since I've never seen it come up, I feel like this is one of those cases where if you talk to your DM and explain the interpretations, its 95% likely that he'll let you use the version with the weapon keyword. Yes, the standard charop party line is "well, that's wrong, and he's wrong", being that we only care about RAW. But practically speaking, it should at least be recognized that the wrong answer tends to be implemented with far greater regularity and probability than the right answer most of time.
-------------
On a different note, I'm considering throwing my hat in the ring for the maintenance of the Rogue Handbook, but I'd like to check the party line on this:
0. Do I have enough street cred to pull this off, or should I just lurk moar?
1. On advising how to play a Ruthless Ruffian (first line of advice: don't), how advisable is it to throw the traditionally accepted MAD stat distribution out the window and simply go a pure Str/Dex build? Screw hammer rhythm (how about just optimizing not to miss instead?), and give up any semblence of even trying for mastery, and just start thwacking people with your Singing Stick for Str+Dex mod damage all the time, every time. Reasonable advice? Blasphemy?
Also questions: The feat Disheartening Ambush allows you to ditch a d6 of sneak attack to add Rattling. Does that retroactive addition of Rattling let you add +Str to damage if you're a RR? Does that add the keyword to the entire power, such that if you're using a multi-attacker like Shocking Twister, you now get +Str to each damage line? And if so, does that make it a GOLD feat for Ruthless Ruffians?
You're leaving me with no choice but to assume that the lack of proper editing on WotC's end is more important than a functional power. Without that "Weapon" keyword in all the specified places, the power does nothing....is this really what players accept? Are the bulk of players really that anal to accept a power that does nothing RAW, but could only work in a RAI fashion?
I'm asking a legitimate question here, and so far I've had 2 different players openly dodge it. I'm not trying to twist a Power that's easily interpreted into something much more powerful like some players do, I'm just saying to use some common sense.
If you can convince your DM to houserule it to have the Weapon keyword, have fun. It's not really overpowered that way and probably should have been written with that keyword to begin with.
However, this forum does not deal in the inifinite possibilities that houserules provide. Furthermore, many players participate in the LFR and Encounters programs, which explicitly ban houserules of that sort. It would be a disservice to those players if powers were rated and recommendations made based on how we think powers should work, rather than on how they do.
Not sure how this works at offical events since I've never seen it come up, I feel like this is one of those cases where if you talk to your DM and explain the interpretations, its 95% likely that he'll let you use the version with the weapon keyword. Yes, the standard charop party line is "well, that's wrong, and he's wrong", being that we only care about RAW. But practically speaking, it should at least be recognized that the wrong answer tends to be implemented with far greater regularity and probability than the right answer most of time.
-------------
On a different note, I'm considering throwing my hat in the ring for the maintenance of the Rogue Handbook, but I'd like to check the party line on this:
0. Do I have enough street cred to pull this off, or should I just lurk moar?
1. On advising how to play a Ruthless Ruffian (first line of advice: don't), how advisable is it to throw the traditionally accepted MAD stat distribution out the window and simply go a pure Str/Dex build? Screw hammer rhythm (how about just optimizing not to miss instead?), and give up any semblence of even trying for mastery, and just start thwacking people with your Singing Stick for Str+Dex mod damage all the time, every time. Reasonable advice? Blasphemy?
Also questions: The feat Disheartening Ambush allows you to ditch a d6 of sneak attack to add Rattling. Does that retroactive addition of Rattling let you add +Str to damage if you're a RR? Does that add the keyword to the entire power, such that if you're using a multi-attacker like Shocking Twister, you now get +Str to each damage line? And if so, does that make it a GOLD feat for Ruthless Ruffians?
0) Anyone with Eyes on Target and Blue Flame to his credit has enough know-how to tackle a handbook, regardless of street cred. Don't sweat that.
1) Pretty much. It's foolish to run with CON on a Rogue. Best to just ditch the mastery and focus on trolling with the other weapon feats at your disposal.
2) Not quite sure. The application of Disheartening Ambush happens after the damage roll, which makes it tricky - is there an extra step of adding modifiers after the damage roll? I believe that'd clear it, but you'll have to ask someone with more rules-savvy.
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).
You're leaving me with no choice but to assume that the lack of proper editing on WotC's end is more important than a functional power. Without that "Weapon" keyword in all the specified places, the power does nothing....is this really what players accept? Are the bulk of players really that anal to accept a power that does nothing RAW, but could only work in a RAI fashion?
I'm asking a legitimate question here, and so far I've had 2 different players openly dodge it. I'm not trying to twist a Power that's easily interpreted into something much more powerful like some players do, I'm just saying to use some common sense.
If you can convince your DM to houserule it to have the Weapon keyword, have fun. It's not really overpowered that way and probably should have been written with that keyword to begin with.
However, this forum does not deal in the inifinite possibilities that houserules provide. Furthermore, many players participate in the LFR and Encounters programs, which explicitly ban houserules of that sort. It would be a disservice to those players if powers were rated and recommendations made based on how we think powers should work, rather than on how they do.
And again, no one is telling me what they think this power does under RAW. Are we supposed to assume that its an unarmed attack because of that missing keyword? Why is RAI just fine for use in other situations but not here, where its blatantly obvious? I'm fine with explicit bans on houserules for Powers that could be interpreted different ways when WotC says "No, THIS is exactly how it works," but for this one particular Power, there is no other way that I can see it to be taken.
You're leaving me with no choice but to assume that the lack of proper editing on WotC's end is more important than a functional power. Without that "Weapon" keyword in all the specified places, the power does nothing....is this really what players accept? Are the bulk of players really that anal to accept a power that does nothing RAW, but could only work in a RAI fashion?
I'm asking a legitimate question here, and so far I've had 2 different players openly dodge it. I'm not trying to twist a Power that's easily interpreted into something much more powerful like some players do, I'm just saying to use some common sense.
If you can convince your DM to houserule it to have the Weapon keyword, have fun. It's not really overpowered that way and probably should have been written with that keyword to begin with.
However, this forum does not deal in the inifinite possibilities that houserules provide. Furthermore, many players participate in the LFR and Encounters programs, which explicitly ban houserules of that sort. It would be a disservice to those players if powers were rated and recommendations made based on how we think powers should work, rather than on how they do.
And again, no one is telling me what they think this power does under RAW. Are we supposed to assume that its an unarmed attack because of that missing keyword? Why is RAI just fine for use in other situations but not here, where its blatantly obvious? I'm fine with explicit bans on houserules for Powers that could be interpreted different ways when WotC says "No, THIS is exactly how it works," but for this one particular Power, there is no other way that I can see it to be taken.
Yes, we are supposed to do it. You don't get it because you haven't lurked enough, but the Compendium and CB have been wrong before. Grossly wrong. For instance, you ever noticed that triggering the Elemental Pact's Pact Boon is a freakin' immediate action? 'Cause according to the CB, it totally is, mang! So, either Duelist's Prowess is fix'd, but Elemental Pact is retardedly broken, going against the book, or Duelist's Prowess is broken because the writer was a complete flippin' hack. I dunno about you, but the more sensible reading here seems to me that Duelist's Prowess is unintentionally trash. What aboutcha?
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).
You forgot to mention that the elemental warlock can NEVER trigger their own Elemental Pact Boon because it is considered an immediate action and therefore it cannot happen on their own turn. Therefore, there is a point at which it is better for the party that the elemental warlock stops attacking a target for fear that they kill the target and therefore would set off the curse without being able to trigger the pact boon.
Every other warlock can trigger their own pact boon without issue but the elemental warlock needs to have someone else do it to get full effect. Imagine if rogues needed to have everyone else set up their sneak attack damage.
EDIT: As others are so fond of saying, the character builder is not a rules source.
And again, no one is telling me what they think this power does under RAW. Are we supposed to assume that its an unarmed attack because of that missing keyword? Why is RAI just fine for use in other situations but not here, where its blatantly obvious? I'm fine with explicit bans on houserules for Powers that could be interpreted different ways when WotC says "No, THIS is exactly how it works," but for this one particular Power, there is no other way that I can see it to be taken.
An unarmed attack is a specific thing, i.e. weapon attack that uses a weapon from the unarmed weapon group. The way this power works as written is that you follow the steps outlined in the Rules Compendium/PHB for making an attack, just like every other attack in the game. You simply do not add any benefits from your weapon when you make the attack. Don't be daft, it's not the only power that lacks either the Weapon or Implement keyword (the majority of racial attack powers, the majority of theme and PP powers from Heroes of the Elemental Chaos, all alchemical item attack powers, etc.). It works just fine as written, it's just bad because it doesn't include a scaling attack bonus or damage.
As for the Elemental Pact Warlock, it deserves clarification that the Pact Boon is only listed as an immediate action in the Character Builder, as Armisael said. In the actual book, which is the only relevant rules source unless and until official errata is published for HotEC, the Elemental Pact Boon does not require any action to use and thus works just fine.
So while clicking through the CharacterBuilder again, I noticed that Revenant Half-Elf is an even better choice for the "Lyrandar Wind-Rider" build, as it allows Mark of Storm (as I count as a Half-Elf), but also has Dex/Con, instead of Con/Wis, like Half-Elves have. Allowing a better stat array. Anything else CharOp can improve in this character?
ITEMS Hand crossbow Leather Armor x1 Adventurer's Kit Crossbow Bolts Grappling Hook Bottle of Wine Pitcher of Ale Travel Papers Dagger Short sword x1 ====== End ======
The "Son of Alagondar"-Theme was re-fluffed so it fits into Eberron. Combat Style should involve a one-handed weapon (I was aiming for Rapier later) and a hand-crossbow in the other hand (with Two-fisted shooter) Items were going to be:
Lightning Rapier
Lightning Hand Crossbow
Eberron Shard of Lightning
Shadowdance Leather Armor (to be able to shoot the hand crossbow in melee for two-fisted shooter)
