|
2 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2011 - 7:33AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2009
|
I have an email in to CS about this, but thought I'd see what people here thought as well.
The Astral Ascendent L11 feature is Radiant Curse:
Radiant Curse (11th level): Your Warlock’s Curse deals radiant damage. You can deal your Warlock’s Curse’s extra damage to a creature affected by your Warlock’s Curse when an ally hits that creature, but still only once per round.
With the recent changes to Warlock's Curse making it 1/turn, how does that affect this? The "but still only once per round" reads to me like it was tied to the original limitation. Here's the possibilities I see.
1. You can do this 1/turn, as the limitation on Warlock's Curse is now 1/turn instead of 1/round.
2. You can do this 1/round, because of the specific limitation. Standard Warlock's Curse usage remains unaffected.
3. You can do this 1/round/cursed creature, as the text reads "when an ally hits that creature, but still only once per round" (emphasis mine). Previous limitation of 1/round Warlock's Curse would have made it so that you could only do curse damage 1/round total anyways, so the wording wouldn't have mattered.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2011 - 7:47AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
I'd say #2.
The feature does say it works once per round, even though standard curse damage changed.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2011 - 8:03AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
"but still" refers to a previously-existing limitation. Without that limitation, that phrase becomes nonfunctional (and in need of further errata).
The "but still" phrase was required because if it said "You can deal your Warlock's Curse extra damage to a creature affected by your Warlock's Curse when an ally hits that creature" then it could be interpreted that the ally attacks would bypass the general Curse limitation.
Basically, this feature doesn't currently work properly with the update to Warlocks. There will not be a rock-solid answer, but I'd be hesitant to allow the ally-based trigger to be 1/turn from a balance standpoint. I'd say you get the ally trigger no more than 1/round.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2011 - 8:21AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2009
|
I'm not hoping for #1 personally, that's just be ridiculous in my opinion. I do like the idea of #3 though. It gives warlocks a little more striker capability (especially vestige warlocks), and the limit of 1/turn/creature stops it from being abused for single target focus fire/nova tactics.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2011 - 11:46AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
#2 Since it say once per round.
...but still only once per round is a limitation that applied back then to remind you that you'd still deal it at the frequency originally given for Warlock's Curse, but since it also reiterate the usage frequency despite the new Warlock's Curse usage limitation of 1/Turn, it's still usable only once per round as an explicit statement that i take as more revelant then still in the sentence.
So, even though you can normally deal Warlock's Curse once per turn, you can now deal your Warlock’s Curse’s extra damage to a creature affected by your Warlock’s Curse also when an ally hits that creature, but still only once per round.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2011 - 2:53PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2009
|
"But still only once a round" is important, but what about the entire sentence?
"You can deal your Warlock’s Curse’s extra damage to a creature affected by your Warlock’s Curse when an ally hits that creature, but still only once per round"
even if we take out the "but still only" to remove the portions about whether or not it is referring to the previous limitation, I read it as:
"You can deal your Warlock’s Curse’s extra damage to a creature affected by your Warlock’s Curse when an ally hits that creature, once per round"
The above doesn't read to me as limiting the application once per round, but limiting to when an ally hits a particular creature once per round. Previously, the limitation on Warlock's Curse damage being 1/round globally would have prevented the curse damage from triggering from multiple attacks, but with the limitation now being 1/turn, it would seem to me that you could trigger Radiant Curse multiple times in a round, though only 1/turn (in keeping with the change to warlock's curse), and only once on a particular cursed creature per round (maintaining the "when an ally hits that creature, but still only once per round). So no hitting multiple enemies following aoe attacks and no focus fire tactics, but possible to apply multiple times a round.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 07, 2011 - 3:43PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
The above doesn't read to me as limiting the application once per round, but limiting to when an ally hits a particular creature once per round.
Correct to me it reads like this as well, its only once per round when used in this fashion.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Nov 29, 2011 - 3:18PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2009
|
I have an email in to CS about this, but thought I'd see what people here thought as well.
The Astral Ascendent L11 feature is Radiant Curse:
Radiant Curse (11th level): Your Warlock’s Curse deals radiant damage. You can deal your Warlock’s Curse’s extra damage to a creature affected by your Warlock’s Curse when an ally hits that creature, but still only once per round.
With the recent changes to Warlock's Curse making it 1/turn, how does that affect this? The "but still only once per round" reads to me like it was tied to the original limitation. Here's the possibilities I see.
1. You can do this 1/turn, as the limitation on Warlock's Curse is now 1/turn instead of 1/round.
2. You can do this 1/round, because of the specific limitation. Standard Warlock's Curse usage remains unaffected.
3. You can do this 1/round/cursed creature, as the text reads "when an ally hits that creature, but still only once per round" (emphasis mine). Previous limitation of 1/round Warlock's Curse would have made it so that you could only do curse damage 1/round total anyways, so the wording wouldn't have mattered.
Thanks!
How did CS respond to your question?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Nov 29, 2011 - 4:27PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2009
|
"forwarded to Development for errata, no clear answer".
|
|
|
