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?
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 conventio
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.
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 t
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)
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
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
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!
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 someon
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.
The problem is the feat itself.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 g
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.
^ 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
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...
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.
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.
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.).
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
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.).
Actually, RBA Avenger powers don't work either for hybrids - the restriction is specifically melee Avenger powers only. I think there's a strong RAI argument that the one RBA Avenger power ought to work with it, but even then, that's just RAI.
Qualifying for a feat doesn't mean you get a benefit. An Eladrin who multiclasses into a Fey Pact Warlock can take Elusive Hexer as an example. That doesn't mean the feat has any benefit for such a character as they don't have a Warlock's Curse, just the more limited benefit of qualifying for the feat.
I'd be very surprised to hear of a Seeker|Avenger unaware of the table variation. You kind of have to go to a website which talks about it to find out about it and once you do that, you also find out about the table variation. So they should be expecting that possibility. Most builds that involve Distant Vengeance are actually reasonably effective without it - they're still a Seeker with an RBA and an Avenger with an oath target who is stacking damage based on being part of both classes(i.e. Primal Eye/Painful Oath) - they're just not as likely to be charge-optimized - but they're almost certainly an upgrade on a regular Seeker much of the time.
Actually, RBA Avenger powers don't work either for hybrids - the restriction is specifically melee Avenger powers only. I think there's a strong RAI argument that the one RBA Avenger power ought to work with it, but even then, that's just RAI.Qualify
Actually, RBA Avenger powers don't work either for hybrids - the restriction is specifically melee Avenger powers only.
Original Oath is also for melee powers only. So that's not a change, so I can't believe that's the intended result.
Exactly. Which is why I say it works despite other arguments.
The feat works with the standard Avenger because you are only limited to melee attacks, not Avenger melee attack powers. Hybrid Avenger is limited to Avenger melee attack powers, which excludes Melee Basic Attack unless they have Power of Skill to allow Overwhelming Strike as a melee basic.
Distant Vengence allows RBAs to be inlcuded in the text for your Oath. It does not limit you to Avenger Attack powers like the Hybrid Avenger's Oath.
Original Oath is also for melee powers only. So that's not a change, so I can't believe that's the intended result.[/quote]Exactly. Which is why I say it works despite other arguments.The feat works with the standard Avenger because you are only lim
Well, Rule of Three generally doesn't answer specific rules questions, so I sent them a gneral question with this specific example in the hopes they will clarify:
...
When it comes to the "specific beats general" rules criteria, how does one determine what is "more specific"?
For example, for over a year it has been a very debatable topic in organized play if a hybrid avenger can use the Distant Vengeance feat (which states that "you gain the benefit of your oath of enmity on all ranged basic attacks against your oath of enmity target.") with all ranged basic attacks, including Eldritch Blast, Avenging Light, Biting Swarm, etc.
Many argue that Distant Vengeance specifically overrides the requirements of a hybrid avenger oath, while others argue that the hybrid avenger oath is itself a specific exception to original avenger's oath, and as such is not over-ridden by Distant Vengeance. Even rulings from customer service have not satisfied the debate.
Could you PLEASE resolve this once and for all? How does one determine what is specific and what is general? What does one do if two specific elements conflict? .
...
Well, Rule of Three generally doesn't answer specific rules questions, so I sent them a gneral question with this specific example in the hopes they will clarify: ... When it comes to the "specific beats general" rules criteria, how does one dete
Unfortunately, the correct answer for "Rules of Three" to give is literally "ask your DM".
Ok, they should expand that a bit. Explain how D&D is not a board game, that the rules are deliberately vague, and that the epectation is that the DM is there to make rulings. How this ties into the item economy, how it ties into existing non-nerfed infinite loops, and so on. But at the end of the day, ask your DM.
Of course, that's not the answer we want here. *shrug*
Unfortunately, the correct answer for "Rules of Three" to give is literally "ask your DM".Ok, they should expand that a bit. Explain how D&D is not a board game, that the rules are deliberately vague, and that the epectation is that the DM is there t
Actually, RBA Avenger powers don't work either for hybrids - the restriction is specifically melee Avenger powers only.
Original Oath is also for melee powers only. So that's not a change, so I can't believe that's the intended result.
It is a change. Original Oath is: When you make a melee attack against the target and the target is the only enemy adjacent to you, you make two attack rolls and use either result.
Hybrid Oath: except that you can apply the effect only when you make a melee attack using an avenger power or an avenger paragon path power.
When is essentially if. Only is essentially if and only if.
-------
Personally, I'd allow the Avenger RBA to be used by a hybrid with Distant Vengeance as I don't think the phrasing for melee attacks was to limit against RBAs, but to make it absolutely clear that you couldn't normally use it on ranged Avenger powers. But that's not RAW, that's my guess to RAI.
Original Oath is also for melee powers only. So that's not a change, so I can't believe that's the intended result.[/quote]It is a change. Original Oath is:When you make a melee attack against the target and the target is the only enemy adjacent to
Well, Rule of Three generally doesn't answer specific rules questions, so I sent them a gneral question with this specific example in the hopes they will clarify:
...
When it comes to the "specific beats general" rules criteria, how does one determine what is "more specific"?
For example, for over a year it has been a very debatable topic in organized play if a hybrid avenger can use the Distant Vengeance feat (which states that "you gain the benefit of your oath of enmity on all ranged basic attacks against your oath of enmity target.") with all ranged basic attacks, including Eldritch Blast, Avenging Light, Biting Swarm, etc.
Many argue that Distant Vengeance specifically overrides the requirements of a hybrid avenger oath, while others argue that the hybrid avenger oath is itself a specific exception to original avenger's oath, and as such is not over-ridden by Distant Vengeance. Even rulings from customer service have not satisfied the debate.
Could you PLEASE resolve this once and for all? How does one determine what is specific and what is general? What does one do if two specific elements conflict? .
...
We're talking about the problem of asking CustServ bad questions...
What's the specific restriction of the hybrid oath...
We're talking about the problem of asking CustServ bad questions...What's the specific restriction of the hybrid oath...
Well, Rule of Three generally doesn't answer specific rules questions, so I sent them a gneral question with this specific example in the hopes they will clarify:
...
When it comes to the "specific beats general" rules criteria, how does one determine what is "more specific"?
For example, for over a year it has been a very debatable topic in organized play if a hybrid avenger can use the Distant Vengeance feat (which states that "you gain the benefit of your oath of enmity on all ranged basic attacks against your oath of enmity target.") with all ranged basic attacks, including Eldritch Blast, Avenging Light, Biting Swarm, etc.
Many argue that Distant Vengeance specifically overrides the requirements of a hybrid avenger oath, while others argue that the hybrid avenger oath is itself a specific exception to original avenger's oath, and as such is not over-ridden by Distant Vengeance. Even rulings from customer service have not satisfied the debate.
Could you PLEASE resolve this once and for all? How does one determine what is specific and what is general? What does one do if two specific elements conflict? .
...
We're talking about the problem of asking CustServ bad questions...
What's the specific restriction of the hybrid oath...
Right, because if I managed to ask CS a question that you didn't consider "bad", I'm sure the answer would stop the arguments?
I had to ask a question that had a chance f being addressed in Ro3. Asking for clarification about general vs. specific seems like something they'd cover, and hopefully they'll address the example too.
We're talking about the problem of asking CustServ bad questions...What's the specific restriction of the hybrid oath...[/quote]Right, because if I managed to ask CS a question that you didn't consider "bad", I'm sure the answer would stop the argume
We're talking about the problem of asking CustServ bad questions...
What's the specific restriction of the hybrid oath...
Right, because if I managed to ask CS a question that you didn't consider "bad", I'm sure the answer would stop the arguments?
It would make it at it least plausible that the problem was considered in its entirety. At the very least, the people who think it is illegal would have to grant you that you laid out all the facts and an answer opposite to what they would have expected was given.
It isn't all that difficult - give the short version of why one might think it legal, the short version of why it might be illegal, where the relevant rules are, and if possible, what the consequences of the decision might be. Do that and you not only get a good chance of getting an answer, but better odds of getting it kicked up to R&D.
Example: Distant Vengeance, the feat from Dragon 382, modifies Avenger's Oath of Enmity to work with Ranged Basic Attacks and allow two attack rolls. Hybrid Avenger's Oath from PHB3 specifically then limits the Oath of Enmity to only work with melee Avenger powers. As an example of the problem, a Seeker|Avenger hybrid could take the Seeker at-will Biting Swarm, a Ranged Basic Attack and Distant Vengeance. Does Distant Vengeance allow two attacks in that case or does the hybrid Oath mean it doesn't allow two attacks because Biting Swarm isn't an Avenger power?
As a followup, would Avenging Shackles, an at-will Avenger Ranged Basic Attack work with the hybrid Oath and Distant Vengeance - it is an Avenger power, but not a melee power?
Right, because if I managed to ask CS a question that you didn't consider "bad", I'm sure the answer would stop the arguments?[/quote]It would make it at it least plausible that the problem was considered in its entirety. At the very least, the peopl
This is pretty much a classic case of a situation where there is not a clear answer, and people can reasonably disagree without either being obviously wrong. It's simply a specific vs. general issue, and it all depends on which you consider to be more specific.
Personally, I wouldn't allow a hybrid to use Distant Vengeance that way, and I'd look a bit askance at a player trying to pull that without making sure the DM was fine with that idiosyncratic interpretation first.*
And, sure, it's entirely possible you can get some designer to agree with you, though you'd probably have to push them a bit to get from "Well, sure, your DM can read the combination that way if he wants to" to "You can use those two abilities together in that way, even if your DM doesn't want you to", as that's not a concept that R&D really seems to grasp.
While I can see the counter-argument, I find it rather weak. Distant Vengeance allows you to "gain the benefits of your oath of enmity on all ranged basic attacks..." If you are a hybrid, then your oath of enmity is specifically limited to avenger powers.
The contrary interpretation is problematic, because it allows PCs with restricted class features to take feats that modify the class feature, and claim that effectively removes the restriction.
For example: * Sneak of Shadows: Once per encounter, you can use the Sneak Attack class feature. * Flash of the Blade: If you are wielding a rapier and are the only creature adjacent to the target, you may use your Sneak Attack damage even if you do not have combat advantage.
By your reasoning, a non-rogue can take these two feats, and then potentially Sneak Attack multiple times an encounter, because the feat overrides any other limitations.
I think the best way to interpret multiple specific exceptions to a general rule is this: a specific exception modifies what it intended to modify. While that can lead to circular arguments in some cases, in this instance, when Distant Vengeance came out in December 2009 and PH3 was released in March 2010, it's difficult to argue that the former was intending to modify the latter.
At the same time, I think the intent is pretty solid that hybrid strikers only get their striker class features with powers of that class, so an exception needs to clearly be intending to overrule that design goal in order for me to buy an interpretation that allows that.
This is pretty much a classic case of a situation where there is not a clear answer, and people can reasonably disagree without either being obviously wrong. It's simply a specific vs. general issue, and it all depends on which you consider to be mo
We're talking about the problem of asking CustServ bad questions...
What's the specific restriction of the hybrid oath...
Right, because if I managed to ask CS a question that you didn't consider "bad", I'm sure the answer would stop the arguments?
It would make it at it least plausible that the problem was considered in its entirety. At the very least, the people who think it is illegal would have to grant you that you laid out all the facts and an answer opposite to what they would have expected was given.
It isn't all that difficult - give the short version of why one might think it legal, the short version of why it might be illegal, where the relevant rules are, and if possible, what the consequences of the decision might be. Do that and you not only get a good chance of getting an answer, but better odds of getting it kicked up to R&D.
Example: Distant Vengeance, the feat from Dragon 382, modifies Avenger's Oath of Enmity to work with Ranged Basic Attacks and allow two attack rolls. Hybrid Avenger's Oath from PHB3 specifically then limits the Oath of Enmity to only work with melee Avenger powers. As an example of the problem, a Seeker|Avenger hybrid could take the Seeker at-will Biting Swarm, a Ranged Basic Attack and Distant Vengeance. Does Distant Vengeance allow two attacks in that case or does the hybrid Oath mean it doesn't allow two attacks because Biting Swarm isn't an Avenger power?
As a followup, would Avenging Shackles, an at-will Avenger Ranged Basic Attack work with the hybrid Oath and Distant Vengeance - it is an Avenger power, but not a melee power?
But you are leaving information out as well. Here's a fixed version:
Does the Distant Vengeance feat allow a hybrid seeker/avenger to apply the benefit of their hybrid Oath of Enmity to ranged basic attacks? The Hybrid Avenger's Oath from PHB3 states: "You gain the avenger power oath of enmity. 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." Distant Vengeance, the feat from Dragon 382, states: "As long as you are within 10 squares of your oath of enmity target and no other enemies are adjacent to you, you gain the benefit of your oath of enmity on all ranged basic attacks against your oath of enmity target." As an example of the problem, a Seeker|Avenger hybrid could take the Seeker at-will Biting Swarm, a Ranged Basic Attack and Distant Vengeance. Does Distant Vengeance allow two attack rolls in that case, or does the hybrid Oath mean it doesn't allow two attack rolls, because Biting Swarm isn't an Avenger power?
As a followup, would Avenging Shackles, an at-will Avenger Ranged Basic Attack, work with the hybrid Oath and Distant Vengeance? It is an Avenger power, but not a melee power.
Is that an acceptable way of stating the question for you, MwaO?
Right, because if I managed to ask CS a question that you didn't consider "bad", I'm sure the answer would stop the arguments?[/quote]It would make it at it least plausible that the problem was considered in its entirety. At the very least, the peopl
We're talking about the problem of asking CustServ bad questions...
What's the specific restriction of the hybrid oath...
Right, because if I managed to ask CS a question that you didn't consider "bad", I'm sure the answer would stop the arguments?
It would make it at it least plausible that the problem was considered in its entirety. At the very least, the people who think it is illegal would have to grant you that you laid out all the facts and an answer opposite to what they would have expected was given.
It isn't all that difficult - give the short version of why one might think it legal, the short version of why it might be illegal, where the relevant rules are, and if possible, what the consequences of the decision might be. Do that and you not only get a good chance of getting an answer, but better odds of getting it kicked up to R&D.
Example: Distant Vengeance, the feat from Dragon 382, modifies Avenger's Oath of Enmity to work with Ranged Basic Attacks and allow two attack rolls. Hybrid Avenger's Oath from PHB3 specifically then limits the Oath of Enmity to only work with melee Avenger powers. As an example of the problem, a Seeker|Avenger hybrid could take the Seeker at-will Biting Swarm, a Ranged Basic Attack and Distant Vengeance. Does Distant Vengeance allow two attacks in that case or does the hybrid Oath mean it doesn't allow two attacks because Biting Swarm isn't an Avenger power?
As a followup, would Avenging Shackles, an at-will Avenger Ranged Basic Attack work with the hybrid Oath and Distant Vengeance - it is an Avenger power, but not a melee power?
But you are leaving information out as well. Here's a fixed version:
Does the Distant Vengeance feat allow a hybrid seeker/avenger to apply the benefit of their hybrid Oath of Enmity to ranged basic attacks? The Hybrid Avenger's Oath from PHB3 states: "You gain the avenger power oath of enmity. 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." Distant Vengeance, the feat from Dragon 382, states: "As long as you are within 10 squares of your oath of enmity target and no other enemies are adjacent to you, you gain the benefit of your oath of enmity on all ranged basic attacks against your oath of enmity target." As an example of the problem, a Seeker|Avenger hybrid could take the Seeker at-will Biting Swarm, a Ranged Basic Attack and Distant Vengeance. Does Distant Vengeance allow two attack rolls in that case, or does the hybrid Oath mean it doesn't allow two attack rolls, because Biting Swarm isn't an Avenger power?
As a followup, would Avenging Shackles, an at-will Avenger Ranged Basic Attack, work with the hybrid Oath and Distant Vengeance? It is an Avenger power, but not a melee power.
Is that an acceptable way of stating the question for you, MwaO?
I would include bgibbons observation about Sneak of Shadows/Flash of the Blade as part of the followup. That would seem to be a very similar situation. 1/encounter isn't much different from only Avenger powers. Just a matter of degree.
But otherwise, yes.
Right, because if I managed to ask CS a question that you didn't consider "bad", I'm sure the answer would stop the arguments?[/quote]It would make it at it least plausible that the problem was considered in its entirety. At the very least, the peopl
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.).
No need to apologize. Saying there's no rules for layering exceptions is a bit of a cop out. You don't need a page of rules of how to layer exceptions, it's just logic. Normally for the Hybrid Oath you must satisfy two conditions: 1) Must be an Avenger power, 2) must be melee. Distant Vengeance provides an exception to the must be melee so it becomes: 1) Must be an Avenger power, 2) must be melee or a RBA. A Seeker power that can be used as a RBA satisfies condition 2 but doesn't satisfy condition 1. As BGibbons pointed out, nothing has overridden the Avenger only clause.
The other argument I have seen in the past (been a while since I've seen this debate) is that it's an RBA and so it doesn't matter what class it's from as RPBAs are clas sindependent... which of course is true for the actual, as named, Ranged Basic Attack. Not for a class power that can be used as, it's still a power of that class.
No need to apologize. :) Saying there's no rules for layering exceptions is a bit of a cop out. You don't need a page of rules of how to layer exceptions, it's just logic. Normally for the Hybrid Oath you must satisfy two conditions: 1) Must be an Av
I have a avenger|seeker with distant vengance build in my .sig.
For what it's worth, CustServ answered that the combination works. Twice.
Since it's a legal rules source for LFR, you're good to go. Carry printouts of the rulings with you for extra insurance.
I have a avenger|seeker with distant vengance build in my .sig.For what it's worth, CustServ answered that the combination works. Twice.Since it's a legal rules source for LFR, you're good to go. Carry printouts of the rulings with you for extra insu
I have a avenger|seeker with distant vengance build in my .sig.
For what it's worth, CustServ answered that the combination works. Twice.
Since it's a legal rules source for LFR, you're good to go. Carry printouts of the rulings with you for extra insurance.
No, it isn't - it is a secondary rules source. You're encouraged(i.e. not required) to use them and you're also supposed to double-check them against a primary source.
If the primary source(D&D rules) says something CustServ said is illegal, then it is still illegal.
No, it isn't - it is a secondary rules source. You're encouraged(i.e. not required) to use them and you're also supposed to double-check them against a primary source.If the primary source(D&D rules) says something CustServ said is illegal, then it i
I have a avenger|seeker with distant vengance build in my .sig.
For what it's worth, CustServ answered that the combination works. Twice.
Since it's a legal rules source for LFR, you're good to go. Carry printouts of the rulings with you for extra insurance.
No, it isn't - it is a secondary rules source. You're encouraged(i.e. not required) to use them and you're also supposed to double-check them against a primary source.
If the primary source(D&D rules) says something CustServ said is illegal, then it is still illegal.
Sigh.
The following are considered official rules sources for RPGA play: • Printed rulebooks • Official D&D rules updates (available at www.dungeonsanddragons.com; click on “Products,” then “Updates” ) • D&D Rules Compendium (available through D&D Insider at www.dungeonsanddragons.com) • D&D Character Builder (available through D&D Insider at www.dungeonsanddragons.com) • Clarifications issued through the official Game Support team at Wizards of the Coast • RPGA Character Creation Guide (this document) • Updates posted on the official Wizards website (through D&D Insider or as news items)
No, it isn't - it is a secondary rules source. You're encouraged(i.e. not required) to use them and you're also supposed to double-check them against a primary source.If the primary source(D&D rules) says something CustServ said is illegal, then it i
No need to apologize. Saying there's no rules for layering exceptions is a bit of a cop out. You don't need a page of rules of how to layer exceptions, it's just logic.
That's not documented anywhere.
I'm avoiding the rules argument here, because this is not the place for a rules argument. But there is a coherent argument for (that yes, gives out Sneak Attack like candy in that example). And given that, and the power level, I'm comfortable allowing it.
Humorously enough, I wouldn't allow Mellored's Sir Robin stunt, even though I think the RAW case is strong there, because it's stupid. So apparently my criteria for what I allow is rather complex.
That's not documented anywhere.I'm avoiding the rules argument here, because this is not the place for a rules argument. But there is a coherent argument for (that yes, gives out Sneak Attack like candy in that example). And given that, and the pow
The following are considered official rules sources for RPGA play: [...] • Clarifications issued through the official Game Support team at Wizards of the Coast
Not directly relevant, but read the FAQ for Divine power (here). Specifically answer 4 about Holy Ardor. And then read the updated version of Holy Ardor in the compendium. Look for the words "Hit" in the text of Holy Ardor.
And my recollection is that the update happened before the FAQ answer, because I'm remembering an FAQ answer that said it didn't work.
Not directly relevant, but read the FAQ for Divine power (here). Specifically answer 4 about Holy Ardor. And then read the updated version of Holy Ardor in the compendium. Look for the words "Hit" in the text of Holy Ardor.And my recollection is t
I have a avenger|seeker with distant vengance build in my .sig.
For what it's worth, CustServ answered that the combination works. Twice.
Since it's a legal rules source for LFR, you're good to go. Carry printouts of the rulings with you for extra insurance.
No, it isn't - it is a secondary rules source. You're encouraged(i.e. not required) to use them and you're also supposed to double-check them against a primary source.
If the primary source(D&D rules) says something CustServ said is illegal, then it is still illegal.
Sigh.
The following are considered official rules sources for RPGA play: • Printed rulebooks • Official D&D rules updates (available at www.dungeonsanddragons.com; click on “Products,” then “Updates” ) • D&D Rules Compendium (available through D&D Insider at www.dungeonsanddragons.com) • D&D Character Builder (available through D&D Insider at www.dungeonsanddragons.com) • Clarifications issued through the official Game Support team at Wizards of the Coast • RPGA Character Creation Guide (this document) • Updates posted on the official Wizards website (through D&D Insider or as news items)
No, it isn't - it is a secondary rules source. You're encouraged(i.e. not required) to use them and you're also supposed to double-check them against a primary source.If the primary source(D&D rules) says something CustServ said is illegal, then it i
The Compendium is also a secondary source compared to published rules like Dragon Magazine which is a primary source.
The feat works as written and it is supported by a secondary source, CustServ.
The Compendium is also a secondary source compared to published rules like Dragon Magazine which is a primary source.The feat works as written and it is supported by a secondary source, CustServ.
I think the overall message to take away from this, is even if some DM's have allowed it in the past, don't act surprised when you get a DM that says no and gives you the options of either not using it or leaving the table. There's not much you can do except whine until you are escorted off the premises...
I think the overall message to take away from this, is even if some DM's have allowed it in the past, don't act surprised when you get a DM that says no and gives you the options of either not using it or leaving the table. There's not much you can d
I asked the question to CS again as MwaO stated, though I'm not sure what good it will do. I'm sure that even if every CS staff member unanimously agreed in writing (and you know, it is their job to analyze the rules, so you'd think there'd be some credibility given to them... when they aren't contradicting each other), there will still be people who insist that its not even DEBATABLE that it works that way, and everyone on CS is wrong, and I'm wrong, and Hibiki is wrong, and Shaka is wrong, but they are right, and that's what matters.
I asked the question to CS again as MwaO stated, though I'm not sure what good it will do. I'm sure that even if every CS staff member unanimously agreed in writing (and you know, it is their job to analyze the rules, so you'd think there'd be some c
Honestly, who is right does not really matter one bit in this situation untill the point is reached where it is spelled out in a way that no longer permits DM/Table variation.
Now we can of course rehash this debate a couple of times in the hope some new insight will form and a universal concensus is miraculously reached .... or we can (in some case grudgingly) accept the situation for what it is and cope? While we wait and hope for resolution of course, one way or ther other.
Honestly, who is right does not really matter one bit in this situation untill the point is reached where it is spelled out in a way that no longer permits DM/Table variation.Now we can of course rehash this debate a couple of times in the hope some
I think everyone is well aware that rules controversies are not new to D&D.
If you wish to play with a characters whose main trick relies on a rules interpretation that is disputed or unclear, my advice is this: Don't do it -- it's a gamble every time you play the character.
You might get lucky and get a DM who unquestioningly accepts your interpretation of the rules. But it's more likely that you'll just waste the other players' time explaining the relevant rules and waiting until the DM makes a decision. Regardless of the result, the other players are annoyed that they have to listen to a rules debate instead of playing the game. Not worth it, in my opinion.
I think everyone is well aware that rules controversies are not new to D&D.If you wish to play with a characters whose main trick relies on a rules interpretation that is disputed or unclear, my advice is this: Don't do it -- it's a gamble every time
Honestly, who is right does not really matter one bit in this situation untill the point is reached where it is spelled out in a way that no longer permits DM/Table variation.
Now we can of course rehash this debate a couple of times in the hope some new insight will form and a universal concensus is miraculously reached .... or we can (in some case grudgingly) accept the situation for what it is and cope? While we wait and hope for resolution of course, one way or ther other.
That was my original intention, I just wanted to see if there was still a dispute when I started the thread, and one person said it works, another said it doesn't and DM's in their area would laugh at you, and more and more felt compelled to state one of the following stances, no matter how many times it had already been said before in the thread:
It very "clearly" works
It works by RAW (but "obviously" not by RAI)
It is not very clear cut and it is understandable how DMs can reach either conclusion
It doesn't work by RAW, I think
It "clearly" doesn't work. All the CS who think this works are incompetent and/or were lead-on by players intent on "abusing" the system. All players who think this works have an "idiosyncratic" and "illogical" view of the rules who want nothing more than to use the SUPER () avenger/seeker combo to somehow break the system.
I would be happy for a consensus either for or against it. I would have been happier if this thread could have at least gone on without the implied insults and accusations.
That was my original intention, I just wanted to see if there was still a dispute when I started the thread, and one person said it works, another said it doesn't and DM's in their area would laugh at you, and more and more felt compelled to state on
D&D nerds and rules debates.. We just can't help ourselves. Luckily I am always right so I can afford not to partake .... well ok .. maybe not
To be fair, I've seen it a lot worse other places than in this discussion, and I wouldn't just narrow it to D&D nerds, or even just nerds.
In fact, I've seen many people in many social circles who are so desperate to be right, that when provided with evidence to the contrary, they simply get more biligerent and insulting, as if being proven wrong would shatter their whole little world.
I call it Schlessinger Syndrome.
To be fair, I've seen it a lot worse other places than in this discussion, and I wouldn't just narrow it to D&D nerds, or even just nerds. In fact, I've seen many people in many social circles who are so desperate to be right, that when provided with
It "clearly" doesn't work. All the CS who think this works are incompetent and/or were lead-on by players intent on "abusing" the system. All players who think this works have an "idiosyncratic" and "illogical" view of the rules who want nothing more than to use the SUPER () avenger/seeker combo to somehow break the system.
I would be happy for a consensus either for or against it. I would have been happier if this thread could have at least gone on without the implied insults and accusations.
There haven't been any implied insults or accusations from me...
The question to CS you originally showed us was done in a clearly misleading way by someone aware of the actual problem. Do I know for certain he did that deliberately? No. But it is most certainly misleading to give the wrong version of Oath of Enmity to CS, don't you think?
And when you ask questions improperly then post the results to the world(not CS's job, that's the job of R&D to tell the world how things work), you end up with players such as you who think they have reason to believe that CS answered the question.
And now you're taking it personally that we don't agree.
That's the reason it is abuse of the CS system - you end up in these kinds of situations because the original person badly asked a question and used the results in an unintended way. And now instead of blaming the original person, you're blaming us for not agreeing with CustServ when the CustServ person had no real reason to believe his response would be used in such a fashion.
As for clarity - it is clear to me that you don't need to worry about layering exceptions. All exceptions apply because we haven't been told otherwise and that's how exception-based systems work. Some people disagree. I'm not sure why, but until they explain otherwise, I can claim clarity.
There haven't been any implied insults or accusations from me...The question to CS you originally showed us was done in a clearly misleading way by someone aware of the actual problem. Do I know for certain he did that deliberately? No. But it is mos
And now instead of blaming the original person, you're blaming us for not agreeing with CustServ when the CustServ person had no real reason to believe his response would be used in such a fashion.
That s not what I'm doing at all. My annoyance is less about people disagreeing with the CS and more about people making comments and then pretending like they aren't trying to be offensive. If you call someone's question to CS abusive, just because they didn't word something exactly how you would have worded it, don't try and play it off as a neutral thing. You are stating that the person is purposely trying to do something that is either insulting, offensive, illegal, or unjust. That is the definition of abusive. It doesn't matter who the insult is directed at, it was unneccesary to bring into the conversation, and put a sour spin on the whole thread from the start.
And honestly, my comment was less directed at you and more at other comments in the thread that paint people who think that this could even possibly work as either dishonest or unreasonable.
That s not what I'm doing at all. My annoyance is less about people disagreeing with the CS and more about people making comments and then pretending like they aren't trying to be offensive. If you call someone's question to CS abusive, just because
And now instead of blaming the original person, you're blaming us for not agreeing with CustServ when the CustServ person had no real reason to believe his response would be used in such a fashion.
That s not what I'm doing at all. My annoyance is less about people disagreeing with the CS and more about people making comments and then pretending like they aren't trying to be offensive. If you call someone's question to CS abusive, just because they didn't word something exactly how you would have worded it, don't try and play it off as a neutral thing. You are stating that the person is purposely trying to do something that is either insulting, offensive, illegal, or unjust. That is the definition of abusive. It doesn't matter who the insult is directed at, it was unneccesary to bring into the conversation, and put a sour spin on the whole thread from the start.
No, the definition of abusive is: Characterized by wrong or improper use or action(Merriam-Webster). There's no need for purposeful. If I were to drive my car while drunk, I'm abusing my privilege to drive a car, regardless of whether or not I'm aware or not of how drunk I am or if I'm doing it on purpose or not.
I think the original question asked of CustServ and the use of that question more than qualifies as improper. It isn't just not the exact way I would have worded it. He(or she) gave misleading information that strongly implied that hybrid Oath's text was the regular Oath's text.
Now maybe he didn't do that deliberately. But if you want honest, good answers from a referee process, you have to give them correct information in the first place.
That s not what I'm doing at all. My annoyance is less about people disagreeing with the CS and more about people making comments and then pretending like they aren't trying to be offensive. If you call someone's question to CS abusive, just because
[Moderator]Play nice people. Besides, this is not the location to extensively rehash old debates about rule mechanics. The OP got his answer: it is still open to debate, and arguments for why has been provided.[/Moderator]
[Moderator]Play nice people. Besides, this is not the location to extensively rehash old debates about rule mechanics. The OP got his answer: it is still open to debate, and arguments for why has been provided.[/Moderator]
Really, if you want the effect of a distant vengeance avenger/seeker without the rules debates, make a half-elf Avenger with seeker dilettante and a few power swaps. Here's a sample skeleton build for 11th level: Spoiler:Show
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ====== level 11 Half-Elf, Avenger, Half-Elf Polymath Avenger's Censure: Censure of Pursuit Half elf Power Selection: Dilettante
FINAL ABILITY SCORES Str 11, Con 16, Dex 18, Int 9, Wis 22, Cha 11.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES Str 10, Con 13, Dex 15, Int 8, Wis 17, Cha 10.
ITEMS Vicious Greatbow +3, Magic Githweave Armor +3, Safewing Amulet +3 ====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
Half-Elf Polymath will let you pick up a ranger at-will that you can swap for the hunter's clever shot with the archery master feat at 16th so you can have a good mix of accuracy, control, and damage. The PP power lets you supe-up your seeker at-will. The 10th level feat is open to preference, a power swap, superior will, weapon focus maybe...12th level you will want primal eye to further stack damage, and of course picking up bracers of archer/perfect shot as they become available. Starts off a little weak due to the advanced creation item rules, but even by 12th level it can jump up. Alternately, if you aren't as concerned with your defenses, you can just by vanilla +2 neck or armor (or both) and use a slot on heroic tier bracers of archery.
So the function is pretty easily achievable while avoiding the rules debates. If you want to play it up from heroic then you will want serene archery until you hit 11th and can retrain it to versatile master, using the Gritty Sergeant or Noble Bred for War background benefits for longbow proficiency until you can afford the feat for greatbow and retrain your background benefit.
You could even make this functional as a non-half-elf relying on serene archery at-will, and then more agressively power swapping and taking a seeker PP like crimson hunter. Or if you really want a seeker at-will, you can PMC too, and in this particular combination it isn't so crippling (and you get to brag about actually having a character PMC).
Really, if you want the effect of a distant vengeance avenger/seeker without the rules debates, make a half-elf Avenger with seeker dilettante and a few power swaps. Here's a sample skeleton build for 11th level:Spoiler:
Show
====== Created Us
Honestly, who is right does not really matter one bit in this situation untill the point is reached where it is spelled out in a way that no longer permits DM/Table variation.
This. I would be happy to permit it at a table I ran if they actually clarified it. My main problem with CS in this instance is that their replies amount to "Yes it works" with no explanation of how it bypasses the Avenger-only restriction which is a glaring hole in debate on the subject that never gets a satisfactory explanation. Even in the quoted message in the Consolidated thread the OP, while you are correct that they did say "Hybrid Avenger Oath" they never mentioned in their questioning the Avenger-only restriction.
Truth be told, that is quite relevent. While it would be nice to think that they exhaustively pour through the books, have extensive knowledge of the rules and discuss with each other these questions posed to them, I highly doubt that happens due to the well documented variability of CS answers. I had in the past, as an experiment, sent more than one message on the same subject to CS including differing amounts of pertinent information on the subject. I got different answers depending on how much info they were given and also depending on how many questions I asked.
In this case, were I sending the question, I would make sure to mention the Avenger-only restriction, point out that I am using a seeker power that can be used as a RBA, ask if the combo worked, and if so what relevant rules allowed it to bypass the Avenger-only restriction.
But maybe I'm more thorough than most.
This. I would be happy to permit it at a table I ran if they actually clarified it. My main problem with CS in this instance is that their replies amount to "Yes it works" with no explanation of how it bypasses the Avenger-only restriction which is a
I repeat a point I made above. The current Divine Power FAQ has an answer in it that is factually wrong. There's no honest debate about the issue (Holy Ardor requires you hit, the FAQ says you don't have to). It's not a one-off answer. It's the FAQ. And they should know it's wrong, because I've told them.
I repeat a point I made above. The current Divine Power FAQ has an answer in it that is factually wrong. There's no honest debate about the issue (Holy Ardor requires you hit, the FAQ says you don't have to). It's not a one-off answer. It's the F
) avenger/seeker combo to somehow break the system.