Community

Feb 28, 2012 -- 6:24AM, Mand12 wrote:

How, exactly, do you make an attack roll and not know the result?

You declare you are making the attack roll, then declare you are using the power before rolling any dice. Though the trigger language should be less vague.

I hope to clarify interpretation of Rules as written by demonstrating intent via the flavor text:

This is the flavor text for inevitable strike: "Elemental power flows through you, providing you with keen accuracy and sharper striking force."

This text seems to suggest it is both to increase accuracy and to increase damage. I don't see how you could interpret the intent differently.

Having to confirm an extra damage power is a maybe, but if you get a two chances to hit, the *strike* becomes *inevitable.* As Metaficitional suggested, why call it that, if that's not what the power does?

Here is the most relevant portion of flavor text for the theme as a whole:
"When you embrace elemental metal, you become an elemental creature. After some time, you acquire metallic characteristics and find new strength and durability when you need it. Drawing on your reserves increases metal's influence on you and helps you perform incredible physical stunts. You can call on this magic to help some of your strikes land true."

'Physical stunts' is almost certainly referring to the +1 bonus to athletics and endurance checks.
'Strength and Durability' would refer to the Lvl 5 feature, and the Lvl 2 and lvl 6 substituion Utilities
"Strikes land true" then could only be referring to Inevitable strike and/or the lvl 10 feature and/or lvl 10 substitution utility. I find it *extremely* unlikely that what would seem from the text to be a key trait of the Ironwrought is not anything to be had until lvl 10.

If it was only extra damage that you had to confirm in order to get (unlike most other extra damage, which you get automatically on hit), it seem more indicative of damage that was reflecting not precision attacks but more brutal and random ones. If the interpretation I've been going off of is correct, then this becomes in theme and effect something like a 3.5 critical hit.

I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated intent. Though someone will probably disagree with me, I honestly don't see how the intent could be interpreted differently.

At this point, until it gets errattad, I think it's more a matter of debate on two things: how do you interpret literal rules as written (which can go about 5 different ways) and whether you go with RAW or Rules as intended as a GM.

Feb 28, 2012 -- 3:46PM, Mand12 wrote:

Feb 28, 2012 -- 3:42PM, Sir_cirdan wrote:

Feb 28, 2012 -- 6:24AM, Mand12 wrote:

How, exactly, do you make an attack roll and not know the result?

You declare you are making the attack roll, then declare you are using the power before rolling any dice. Though the trigger language should be less vague.

That's...not what it says at all.  The trigger isn't vague, it says exactly what it is.  That you don't think that the trigger is what it should be does not mean that the trigger is vague.

"Trigger: You make a melee attack roll"

It's vague because it doesn't say whether you roll the two d20s listed in the effect ("Make the attack roll twice. If both attack rolls hit,
the target takes 1d8 extra damage.") A) at the same time, B) after you've seen what you rolled on the first roll, C) after the GM has declared a hit or a miss, or D) after you've rolled for damage on the attack. 4 possible interpretations...that I can think of...and I call more than one vague.

Only A makes sense to me given the effect. Especially when one considers the context (flavor text).

The wording of the whole thing is vague. As such, if you're trying to be literal, the interpretation that it means you get two attacks (with full damage each) and an extra d8 on top if both hit seems as valid as any other if we're simply ignoring intent. Reductio ad Absurdum.

Hi Bruno,

Thank you for emailing into Wizards of the Coast Game Support.

Ultimately, how this power works is going to be up to the DM. From our interpretation it can work one of two ways. 

1. You can decide to roll two dice after seeing the first result and effectively nullify the original roll.
2. You can decide to roll two dice and replace that single roll entirely before every rolling at all.

This is up to the Dungeon Master though on how it should work. He is the ultimate decider though so he can choose the way the player uses that power.

Nov 9, 2012 -- 8:45AM, erachima wrote:

The only reading of the power proposed in this thread or in several prior discussions I've had on the matter that satisfies the criteria of being 1. definitely resolvable AND 2. compatible with the text without implicit alteration is that Inevitable Strike is for all intents an Oath of Emnity-stackable version of Oath of Emnity.

The issue here seems to be about when does the trigger happen... I don't see how Inevitable Strike can compare to Oath of Emnity on that matter, since the first is a triggered action and the other isn't...
Also after reading the Oath of Emnity description I believe that it shouldn't stack (ie make 4 rolls) with Inevitable Strike...

Anyway on the campaign I'm DMing at the moment I'm going with the 2nd option that CS suggested: before rolling the attack the player decides if he's going to use the power and he rolls two d20's instead of one. He can't call the power on an attack that he already made the attack roll for...


Cheers,
Bruno

Nov 9, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

While it may not be intended, by a strick RAW you roll a second attack roll only to determine the possibility of dealing 1d8 extra damage since it doesn't say you can use either result like Dual Arrow, Divine Guidance or Borrowed Confidence do for exemple. (HoTEC 49)

Well according to the reply I got from CS you never roll a second die to determine the extra hit...
If the DM allows the player to use the power after rolling the attack, he has to discard that roll and make two new rolls.

Nov 9, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Plaguescarred wrote:

This also conflict with the multiattack roll conditions found in Oath of Enmity since RAW Inevitable Strike is not:

1) An effect lets you roll twice and use the higher result when making an attack roll

2) An effect forces you to roll twice and use the lower result when making an attack roll

3) An effect lets you reroll an attack roll


RAI thought its clear that Oath of Enmity would not work on Inevitable Strike, as the idea is to be able to use either result, which means it would be an effect letting you roll twice and use the higher result.

After reading again more carefully the oath of enmity I must agree with you to some extent but not fully...
If one goes with the interpretation mentioned above for the Inevitable Strike, then the player is making a reroll of the attack so I'd say condition 3 applies.

Condition 1 is also a bit dubious... Eventhough it doesn't say explicitily in Inevitable Strike effect that one takes the higher result, it's implicit that for determining wether the attack hits or not, one has to consider the higher roll (like you said for RAI), so couldn't one still argue that condition 1 applies even if taking the RAW approach? Or implicit conditions do not apply for RAW interpretations?

Anyway I totally agree that RAI definitely seem to indicate that Oath of Emnity should never apply to any situation that the player has to roll twice.