Proposal: Make Strength of Valor useable

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Strength of Valor is a bard feat from the PHB2 that works as follows:

When you grant an ally the temp hp from your Virtue of Valor, that ally gains +2 to the next damage roll they make before the end of your next turn.

Ok, fine, except Virtue of Valor grants temp hp as a result of your ally bloodying/killing an enemy. Which means it most likely will happen during their turn, after their attack. So here's how it's usually going to work in practice:

Ally's turn: Ally uses their standard action to bloody an enemy, bard gives temp hp and +2 damage. Ally's turn ends.
Bard's turn: Bard does stuff. Bard's turn ends, +2 damage from Strength of Valor goes away.
Ally's turn: Whoops! No more bonus damage. What a good use of a feat.

It is possible to actually use the +2 damage, with action points, multi-attack powers, AoEs, immediate reactions/interrupts, etc. But I can't believe this is how the power is supposed to work. So I propose that it be changed from "the end of your next turn" to "the end of your ally's next turn".

In case anyone's curious, we have a proposed bard who has this feat, and I rather not include in my feedback "this feat sucks and you should change it".

[ukingsken]

Well I haven't submitted Verrigath yet (I assume you mean my Tiefling Bard). And to be honest I must have entirely glossed that over, because I thought it was until the end of my next turn.

[Boddynock]

I think the key to this feat is that the ally gains a +2 to damage on an attack "before the end of your next turn".

Consider two scenarios: the first, that the ally acts before the bard in the round; the second, that the ally acts after the bard.

In scenario 1, the ally bloodies an enemy, and the bard, as a free action, invokes Virtue of Valor (and Strength of Valor). Later in the round, the bard takes his turn in the initiative. He has begun his next turn.

Assuming that the ally doesn't delay (does that happen in 4e?), it means that the ally acts again before the bard, and therefore can take advantage of the bonuses.

In the second scenario, the bard acts before his ally. The ally then (on her turn in the initiative order) bloodies an opponent, and the bard, as a free action, invokes the goodies. In the following round, the bard once agains acts before the ally, thus beginning his next turn. Then the ally gets to act again, before the end of the bard's next turn

So it works wherever the bard is in the initiative order.

Edit: On re-reading the OP, I see that I'm assuming that, as in 3.x, a turn lasts until just before the initiative point in the following round. If that's not the case in 4e then, yes, this feat is a complete waste of time!

[JoeNotCharles]

Yeah, "turn" in 4E means "the time slot you have to act". It begins at your place in the initiative and ends an instant before the next person's place in the initiative. Not like you're describing at all.

[covaithe]

In 3.5e, a free action was something that explicitly could only happen on your turn. A barbarian couldn't rage in response to taking damage on someone else's turn, to take a standard example; he waited until his turn. In 4e, they've been really sloppy with free actions that way. They happen all the time under a variety of strange triggers, often (but not always) on other people's turns. I wish they'd used a different term; it's confused me more than once.

I think THB has the right of it; the feat as written is likely to be useless. I'm happy with the proposed fix, too.

[Dunamin]

It does seem as if the feat is intended to work as TwoHeadsBarking suggests, and not as it is actually written.

I can't find anything under WotC updates, but does someone know if this question has already been adressed in a Sage advice or Customer Service mail? (not that those are necessarily trustworthy)

[JoeNotCharles]

Can't find anything. Seems pretty clear to me that they just worded it the same way a lot of Warlord and Cleric powers are worded, without noticing that unlike those powers this usually doesn' t trigger on your turn. So YES.

[Ozymandias79]

Yes!

[garyh]

Yes.

[JoeNotCharles]

Ok, this has passed, so I'll update the charter.