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

I'm still not seeing the 3-attacks reasoning...

If you read
Two attacks
Hit: ...
Secondary Attack: ...

as: Make 2 primary attacks. If (either | both) hit, make a secondary attack


Then, how would you indicate 4 attacks, 2 primary and 2 secondary, should take place? (ie: if the model used for rain of blows is supposed to indicate 3 attacks, 2 primary and one secondary, what would indicate 4 attacks, 2 primary and 2 secondary?)

morikal said:

I'm still not seeing the 3-attacks reasoning...

If you read
Two attacks
Hit: ...
Secondary Attack: ...

as: Make 2 primary attacks. If (either | both) hit, make a secondary attack


Then, how would you indicate 4 attacks, 2 primary and 2 secondary, should take place? (ie: if the model used for rain of blows is supposed to indicate 3 attacks, 2 primary and one secondary, what would indicate 4 attacks, 2 primary and 2 secondary?)

Click to expand...

Two attacks
First Attack: ...
Second Attack: ...

Kordeth said:

Two attacks
First Attack: ...

Hit: ...Make a secondary attack.
Secondary Attack: ...​

Second Attack: ...

Hit: ... Make a secondary attack.
Secondary Attack: ...​

Click to expand...

But no other power which has "Two attacks" in it breaks it out like that...
ie: Twin strike does not say
Two Attacks
First attack: Dex vs AC, 1[w] dmg
Second attack: Dex vs AC, 1[w] dmg

It just lists the attack. You repeat the body of the attack twice.

I guess what I don't see in the 3-attack argument is the way in which you are interpretting "secondary attack" to mean "secondary to both primary attacks" as opposed to "secondary to the attack"
By "secondary to the attack" I mean that the secondary attack is tied to the first one, and so if the first one repeats 2, 3, or 10 times, the secondary attack comes along with it...

morikal said:

But no other power which has "Two attacks" in it breaks it out like that...
ie: Twin strike does not say
Two Attacks
First attack: Dex vs AC, 1[w] dmg
Second attack: Dex vs AC, 1[w] dmg

It just lists the attack. You repeat the body of the attack twice.

I guess what I don't see in the 3-attack argument is the way in which you are interpretting "secondary attack" to mean "secondary to both primary attacks" as opposed to "secondary to the attack"
By "secondary to the attack" I mean that the secondary attack is tied to the first one, and so if the first one repeats 2, 3, or 10 times, the secondary attack comes along with it...

Click to expand...

You don't have to convince me, I agree that it's pretty clearly up to 4 attacks. I'm just saying that if it was meant to be three attacks, there are ways you could write a similar power to be explicitly up to 4 attacks.

Oh, and for the record, while there aren't many, there are a few powers that separate out attacks and hit results on a per-attack basis. Cruel cage of steel (ranger attack 19), for example, calls out Hit results for each of the three attacks separately.

morikal said:

I'm still not seeing the 3-attacks reasoning...

If you read
Two attacks
Hit: ...
Secondary Attack: ...

as: Make 2 primary attacks. If (either | both) hit, make a secondary attack


Then, how would you indicate 4 attacks, 2 primary and 2 secondary, should take place? (ie: if the model used for rain of blows is supposed to indicate 3 attacks, 2 primary and one secondary, what would indicate 4 attacks, 2 primary and 2 secondary?)

Click to expand...

Various ways.

Attack: Str vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1W +Str mod
Weapon: Blah blah, per attack, make a secondary attack

would be one, though some people might end up confused by it. WotC partly hampers themselves by refusing to take the additional ink/page space to use Primary Attack in place of Attack. The writers probably would have considered it needless parallelism anyway, even though it offers greater clarity.

Attack: Str vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1W +Str mod
Weapon: Blah
Secondary Target:
Secondary Attack:
Secondary Hit: 1W+Str mod per attack

might be more preferable. It would clearly indicate the potential for more than one secondary attack. It doesn't state explictly how many you get, but that is stated implictly, since the lines are indented under the primary attack, indicating they're triggered by those hitting and we know how many primary attacks there are.

morikal said:

I'm still not seeing the 3-attacks reasoning...

If you read
Two attacks
Hit: ...
Secondary Attack: ...

as: Make 2 primary attacks. If (either | both) hit, make a secondary attack...

Click to expand...

I can't find any support for this reading, though I know it's had its adherents.

The 3-attack ruling I find more compelling doesn't hinge the secondary attack off the results of the primary attacks at all. They read it as "Make two primary attacks. If you're wielding the correct weapon, make a secondary attack."

This reading comes by ignoring the indenting, or assuming it has no bearing on the interpretation of the power. Under this reading, the "Weapon:" block is a condition that modifies the power, rather than a condition that modifies the Hit entry.

So you read the power in sequence:
1. Make two attacks.
2. For each of those attacks that hits, deal damage.
3. If you satisfy the weapon requirement, make a secondary attack.

... for a total of two primary attacks, and a secondary attack that always occurs if the correct weapon is used.

However, once the indentation is taken into account, as WotC_Logan indicates it must be, we have, instead:
1. Make two attacks.
2. For each of those attacks that hits:
2a. Deal damage, and
2b. If you satisfy the weapon requirement, make a secondary attack.

... for a total of two primary attacks, and two secondary attacks that only occur if a primary attack is successful and the correct weapon is used.

The difference between these two readings is the matter of a little bit of whitespace, so I can easily see how either can be arrived at. The other readings - two attacks which includes the secondary attack, or three attacks where the secondary attack is dependent on at least one primary attack hitting - require one to modify, misread, or ignore the text...

-Hyp.

As the OP I'm a little puzzled that this fruitless debate is still raging on after one of the major designers/authors of almost all 4E books (Logan) came here and clarified this. I mean, it's a free country and all and we are all entitled to our opinions, but the Rain of Blows debate is officially OVER now. Sigh of relief. There is more interesting stuff to discuss than layout mistakes. Enjoy your 4 attacks, spear fighters of the world!

Fwiw, if you were looking at the power in the Compendium you would indeed be much more likely to come to the three attacks conclusion.

But yeah, instead of people asking what the rules are, they can instead just object to it being "broken" or whatever And that's something that's not likely to end any time soon.

the CS response

The CS has been giving a response that confuses even me but it has been consistent in the last 2 months. Which is the two attacks line is in error and should be deleted. which makes the rain of blows go from a no brainer to crap for any one but the guy with the right weapon types.

That wouldn't be a surprising result for me, though I'd rather it did 2W if they did it that way.