Can one of the lead designers of D&D please stand up and clarify "Rain of Blows"?

aurance · Jan 30, 2009

WotC_Logan said:
I think the confusion might come in because the Compendium doesn't indent the power correctly. Every line after the first "Hit" line is indented, making it subordinate to the Hit. Hence, the customer service answer is correct.

You make a primary attack. If it hits and you meet the requirements, you make the secondary attack.

Make your second primary attack. If it hits and you meet the requirements, make the secondary attack.

So, yeah. 2–4 attacks.

Don't you think that's incredibly powerful for a 3rd level encounter power?

ki11erDM · Jan 30, 2009

aurance said:
Don't you think that's incredibly powerful for a 3rd level encounter power?

well the question asked has nothing to do with how powerful it is... just what the intent was.

i personally dont think the multi attack powers are not that great... but thats me.

LittleFuzzy · Jan 30, 2009

WotC_Logan said:
I think the confusion might come in because the Compendium doesn't indent the power correctly.

Perhaps. Or possibly because AFAIK it is the only non-area power with multiple primary attacks in the PHB which does not include some variety of "per attack" statement on either the Attack or Hit lines.

Mirtek · Jan 30, 2009

WotC_Logan said:
Hence, the customer service answer is correct.

You make a primary attack. If it hits and you meet the requirements, you make the secondary attack.

Make your second primary attack. If it hits and you meet the requirements, make the secondary attack.

So, yeah. 2–4 attacks.

Cust Serv said you make a single attack, if this hits you make a second attacks and that's it. The "two attacks" part was already taking the possible second attack into accounts. So 1-2 attacks.

-> Yes, that's one of the many different Cust Serv answers

Plane Sailing · Jan 30, 2009

Mirtek said:
Cust Serv said you make a single attack, if this hits you make a second attacks and that's it. The "two attacks" part was already taking the possible second attack into accounts. So 1-2 attacks.

-> Yes, that's one of the many different Cust Serv answers

?? I'm wondering what the aim of your statement is here?? The purpose of the thread was to ask one of the designers to come and clarify "Rain of Blows". A designer has stepped in and clarified it.

Pretty much end of story as far as this thread goes...

Orcus Porkus · Jan 30, 2009

there have been other answers from customer service that it's 4 attacks. It's pointless to recite them.
The debate is over for me. And if double weapons are broken, it's not the problem of Rain of Blows.

jamesmanhattan · Jan 30, 2009

Sweeping blow still beats Rain of Blows in terms of average damage. All it takes is for 3 monsters to be adjacent. You will do more damage with sweeping blow than rain of blows and have the added advantage of marking all of them.

The only arguments remaining are: killing one guy quicker is better than spreading your damage around and how often will you get the chance to stand adjacent to three enemies.

If you assume both have a 1d10 flail. If you have 18 STR you get a +2 to hit with sweeping blow, the two bonus attacks for rain of blows are at a significantly reduced chance of hitting because they are a conditional probability. All it takes is three attacks at that increased chance of hitting and your avg damage is higher than all of rain of blows.

Mirtek · Jan 30, 2009

Plane Sailing said:
?? I'm wondering what the aim of your statement is here??

WotC_Logan seems to believe that the reason for the confusion comes from a bad formating in the compendium and then says "CustServ is right". Yet there isn't any CustServ answers quoted in this thread and CutServ has also given one answer for basically every possible interpetation which is the true reason for all the confusion.

Plane Sailing said:
The purpose of the thread was to ask one of the designers to come and clarify "Rain of Blows". A designer has stepped in and clarified it.

Pretty much end of story as far as this thread goes...

Yet what the designers originally intended doesn't need to match what they (accidently) put into the book (like with the versatile property of some 1h weapons)

morikal said:
Interpretation 1 (2 attacks possible: 1 primary and 1 secondary):
If the power were redone to NOT have "two attacks," listed in the Attack line, wouldn't this be the outcome (ie: are people who argue for this interpretation saying that unlike many other powers with secondary attacks, the writers decided to add "two attacks" to the attack line?) I have not seen arguments for this case (and don't have time to go searching right now, but if someone has a link to one, I'll read it). BUT, any such argument, to have merit to me, would need to address the fact that the "two attacks" heading is superfluous (ie: they would need to explain why its there, even though it seemingly doesn't do anything...)

I agree with so in so far that I would have never thought about such an interpretation (and I don't think anyone else would) that's why the CustServ answers stating that this interpretation isn't just possible but actually how RoB is supposed to work came as such an surprise.

You want to know who thought that up? It was Andrew

morikal · Jan 30, 2009

Mirtek said:
WotC_Logan seems to believe that the reason for the confusion comes from a bad formating in the compendium and then says "CustServ is right". Yet there isn't any CustServ answers quoted in this thread and CutServ has also given one answer for basically every possible interpetation which is the true reason for all the confusion.

Yet what the designers originally intended doesn't need to match what they (accidently) put into the book (like with the versatile property of some 1h weapons)

huh? (I haven't read about the issue with versatile, what is it?)

Kordeth · Jan 30, 2009

morikal said:
huh? (I haven't read about the issue with versatile, what is it?)

The question of whether a versatile weapon used in two hands counts as a two-handed weapon (because it's being wielded in two hands) or a one-handed weapon (because it's still part of the one-handed weapon group). The language in the PHB is never entirely clear and sometimes suggests one interpretation, and other times the other.