So, I have a hybrid Seeker|Avenger who uses the Distant Vengeance feat to apply OoE to his ranged basic seeker attacks. It hasn't been a problem with the friendly small LFR groups I play with, but I was thinking of taking the character to a convention and was curious if many LFR DMs still adamantly refuse to believe that this combo is legal. I know that the feat has been reworded to be "clearer" and there has been customer service rulings to support it, but I also know how LFR DMs can be.
What have your experiences been? Also, if I managed to get a Rule of Three on this, do you think some LFR DMs would still refuse it?
I suspect a Rule of Three would lock things in... and otherwise it'll be pretty scattershot. That said, a lot of DMs won't even notice or care, too.
I would certainly find no fault with any DM who either allowed it, nor denied it under the reasoning that it says avenger powers only as the hybrid restriction - so the combination might only allow avenger ranged basics to work.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
So, I have a hybrid Seeker|Avenger who uses the Distant Vengeance feat to apply OoE to his ranged basic seeker attacks. It hasn't been a problem with the friendly small LFR groups I play with, but I was thinking of taking the character to a convention and was curious if many LFR DMs still adamantly refuse to believe that this combo is legal. I know that the feat has been reworded to be "clearer" and there has been customer service rulings to support it, but I also know how LFR DMs can be.
That CustServ ruling is a classic example of CustServ abuse by the questioner. The questioner doesn't actually list the hybrid OoE, he lists the non-hybrid OoE. He doesn't even point out the problem area, so of course he gets the answer he'd like to see: Distant Vengeance: "You gain the benefit of your oath of enmity on all ranged basic attacks against your oath of enmity target."
Hybrid Oath: "The power functions as normal, except that you can apply the effect only when you make a melee attack using an avenger power or an avenger paragon path power."
Those are two specifics which can be applied to the same general option(Oath of Enmity) - you gain the benefit of your oath of enmity on all ranged basic attacks, but as ranged basic attacks are not melee avenger powers, the benefit is nothing. Which is what you get. Nothing. That you can qualify for a feat does not mean you must gain some kind of usable benefit...
Most of the DMs I've seen in my area would refuse it out of hand(and they seem to be versed on it when it comes up)
The questioner specifically says: "For a hybrid Avenger|Seeker does the Distant Vengeance feat allow the character to benefit oath of enmity (make two attack rolls) with Seeker powers that can be used as basic ranged attacks"? I think it is a bit of a stretch to call it "a classic example of CustServ abuse by the questioner."
Oh well, hopefully I can get Rule of Three to shine some reason on this. Then there can't be any more debate on this in LFR, one way or the other.
The questioner specifically says: "For a hybrid Avenger|Seeker does the Distant Vengeance feat allow the character to benefit oath of enmity (make two attack rolls) with Seeker powers that can be used as basic ranged attacks"? I think it is a bit of a stretch to call it "a classic example of CustServ abuse by the questioner."
No, that's classic abuse. The questioner does two specific things: He lists the actual oath of enmity, not the hybrid. That's misinformation at best. He doesn't list why someone might rule against it. Again, the questioner specifically knows why someone would rule against it(he participated in some of the debates on this), so again, that's misinformation at best.
There are a couple of reasons why the lack of information is a big problem, especially given CustServ: Perhaps he used the relevant information the first time, didn't get the answer he wanted, so he removed the information and got a different answer. And only posted the answer that he liked. This has happened before.
Perhaps the CustServ person took the questioner at face value - why would the Customer give incorrect information? If he didn't know the difference between Oath of Enmity and Hybrid Oath offhand, there's every possible reason that he could have trusted that Customer to give him correct information. And at that point, perhaps the point of confusion is that the Seeker power isn't an Avenger power - but the Oath in front of him doesn't say anything about only working with only Avenger powers, right? Again, stuff like this has happened before.
Any DM who trusts that response? I think I have a bridge I have to sell them. Comes with a free fireworks display if you buy right now!
Even non-hybrid Oath of Emnity states that the double roll is used only on melee attacks while adjacent to a creature. The feat allows RBAs to gain the benefit of the Oath.
If you go by RAW, a Hybrid Avenger|Seeker can gain the benefit of OoE with RBAs because of the feat.
RAI, the Hybrid OoE should only work with Avenger powers, just like you can only sneak attack with Rogue Powers or apply Warlock's curse with Warlock powers as hybrids.
I suspect a Rule of Three would lock things in... and otherwise it'll be pretty scattershot. That said, a lot of DMs won't even notice or care, too.
I would certainly find no fault with any DM who either allowed it, nor denied it under the reasoning that it says avenger powers only as the hybrid restriction - so the combination might only allow avenger ranged basics to work.
^ think we can take this as the thread conclusion? Unless you get a Rule of Three it will be a case of DM variation. I truly hope it works out.
Also "custserv abuse" may imply a little more calulation that was/is involved. But MwaO does illustrate a very common issue with Customer Service responses.; its not the question, but how you put the question.
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
It's not even just that - it's also down to who answers. I've seen the same question asked the same way get two different answers from two different custserv agents...
but I was thinking of taking the character to a convention and was curious if many LFR DMs still adamantly refuse to believe that this combo is legal.
Not sure, but it ISN'T legal by RAW. Specific rules of Hybrid OoE. Avenger powers only. Even if a seeker power can be used as a RBA it's still a seeker power. So yeah, an all too typical CustServ blunder partially prompted by the asker.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e?
1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Gah. Sorry MWaO and Dragon9. It's just not that clear cut.
There are two exceptions:
It works on RBAs.
Avenger powers only.
4e has no rules for how to layer exceptions. There are no clear rules here. The rules: they are not clear.
Now, my personal belief is that it doesn't work, because there is a composition that honors both exceptions. (only RBA Avenger powers). But if I'm the DM and someone shows up at an LFR table, I'm letting it go. Because it's not clear that it doesn't work, and "your key trick doesn't work" is a nasty bit of table variance. (Also, it's not that uber, so ... meh. We're not talking something that's even seriously bent.).
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
Unless you get a Rule of Three it will be a case of DM variation. I truly hope it works out. 
