Dance of Steel and Rain of Blows

A suggested reading of these two controversial powers:

The rules on power descriptions don't tell us how to interpret the "weapon" entries in the Fighter powers: all we have is the brief remark on p 77, that "The choice of weapon you make also provides benefits to certain fighter powers."

So we have to go by the text of the powers. On a quick read through, nearly all of the Weapon entries either adjust attack rolls or crit ranges, and appear indented after the Attack entry, or adjust damage and appear indented after the Hit entry, or modify a condition imposed by a hit and appear indented after the Hit entry, or modify an Effect and appear indented after the Effect entry.

Dance of Steel seems to be unusual in that the Weapon text is not modifying damage, nor an existing consequence of a hit, nor an existing Effect (that is, there is no "Effect" entry for it to appear under).

If we read the Weapon entry as being an effect that is not conditional on a hit, then we get a power that is different from, and (at least plausibly) better than Serpent Steel Strike. I don't think it makes the power overpowered (Sleep gives auto-slow vs multiple targets as a 1st level Daily).

Another power with a complicated Weapon entry is Rain of Blows, which some have read as overpowerd on the basis that it gives a secondary attack for each hit. If it is read in the same way as I am suggesting that Dance of Steel be read (namely, as an effect independent of a hit, but not qualifying an existing Effect entry) then it becomes non-overpowered.

So a consistent reading of the power text, which does not violate any of the rules as to how to read power texts, renders two otherwise-problematic powers non-problematic.

I therefore submit it to the world as the preferred reading.

pemerton said:

If we read the Weapon entry as being an effect that is not conditional on a hit, then we get a power that is different from, and (at least plausibly) better than Serpent Steel Strike. I don't think it makes the power overpowered (Sleep gives auto-slow vs multiple targets as a 1st level Daily).

Click to expand...

But you'd be incorrect.

The fact that it's an indented, sub-section of hit means that it occurs on a hit. Period. If it didn't, it would be listed as an effect.

Another power with a complicated Weapon entry is Rain of Blows, which some have read as overpowerd on the basis that it gives a secondary attack for each hit. If it is read in the same way as I am suggesting that Dance of Steel be read (namely, as an effect independent of a hit, but not qualifying an existing Effect entry) then it becomes non-overpowered.

Click to expand...

Also incorrect, for the same reason. Sorry.

When something happens independently of a hit, it's listed under a separate "effect" line. When something is indented as a sub-heading of hit, it happens on a hit, and only on a hit.

The section on how to read powers may not mention "weapon" specifically, but it's very clear on its divisions. Anything under "hit" happens on a hit; anything under "miss" happens on a miss; anything under "effect" happens regardless.

Then I'd submit that the error is not in the powers themselves, but in forgetting to put a little "Effect:" in front of them...

I can't speak to what the designers might have intended. But as written, both those powers gain their special weapon-based abilities only when they successfully hit.

Yup.. on an hit with an pole arm or heavy blade, you get something extra..

And the other one you get an extra attack if you use one of those weapons.. and that happens on an hit..

Mouseferatu said:

But you'd be incorrect.

The fact that it's an indented, sub-section of hit means that it occurs on a hit. Period. If it didn't, it would be listed as an effect.

<snip>

When something happens independently of a hit, it's listed under a separate "effect" line. When something is indented as a sub-heading of hit, it happens on a hit, and only on a hit.

Click to expand...

I'm hesitant to argue the point with you - but there is one difficulty for your suggested layout, namely, that it would have to look like this:


There is no precedent for a line that reads "Effect: None" - hence my remark that my reading is consistent with all the actual text and examples for the interpretation of power descriptions.

No, it wouldn't have to read like that. The "effect" line only appears if there's an effect that occurs independently of hit or miss. If there isn't one, the line doesn't appear.

If the weapon-based details occurred on an "effect," the line would read something akin to:

"Effect: If you're wielding a weapon of [type X], then [effect Y]." Simple, straightforward--and absent.

Anything that's indented under a section in a power description or stat block is part of the section under which it's indented. The "weapon" entry is indented under "hit"; it's part of the "hit" effect.

I agree with you MF, but I reckon (as I pointed out in the other thread) Pemerton is going to stick to his guns....after all you are only quasi-official WRT WotC!

It's not about me being official or not. It's about--and I mean no disrespect to Pemerton here--reading the powers as written.

The "weapon" section is clearly indented as a sub-section of the "hit" entry. And every power that has an effect that occurs on either a hit or a miss very clearly calls it out as such.

To suggest that the weapon entries were meant to stand alone when they...

A) are printed as sub-"hit" entries, and

B) are in no way, shape, or form indicated as being independent of hit or miss, either in the power descriptions or by the standard rules format

...strikes me as wishful thinking.

I certainly understand why Pemerton might think they should work that way, if he feels the powers aren't balanced as is. And while I disagree, I certainly wouldn't throw a fit if my DM houseruled them that way. But by the RAW, I'm afraid that's just not how they work.

Mouseferatu said:

"Effect: If you're wielding a weapon of [type X], then [effect Y]." Simple, straightforward--and absent.

Click to expand...

I agree it's absent. There is also no example of such a wording in the Fighter powers - the closest example is Iron Bulwark, which has "Effect: You gain a +1 power bonus (+2 if using a shield)".

And, conversely, the existing power could have been written like this if it wanted to make your reading definitive: "Hit: 2w + STR, and slowed if wielding ...." (note that this is not needed to avoid ambiguity for the other Weapon entries indented under Hit, because they all adjust damage, or other conditions, that are themselves specified under the Hit entry).

So I don't think it's wishful thinking - in my day job I'm a lawyer, and true constructions of legislation have been established on the basis of the sort of textual evidence I appealed to.

Having said that, I'm prepared to bow to your greater familiarity with both the rules text and the underlying design principles.

On the balance issue, for Rain of Blows I think it's probably much of a muchness: 2 secondary attacks each triggered by a hit is about the same as one secondary attack that's automatic, assuming a 50% chance to hit.

For Dance of Steel I still think my interpretation is one way of addressing its otherwise seemingly problematic relationship with Steel Serpent Strike. But if I read you correctly you are saying that the 3rd level exploits are balanced among themselves, and are not unbalanced by being weaker than a 1st level encounter exploit.

mach1.9pants said:

I agree with you MF, but I reckon (as I pointed out in the other thread) Pemerton is going to stick to his guns....after all you are only quasi-official

Click to expand...

I'm not wanting to be bloody-minded - just a little over-proud when it comes to the application of principles of interpretation! I do not think that the layout, when read without any knowledge of designer intentions other than what can be discerned from the layout, is as definitive as Mouseferatu is saying.

But if he is expressing a professional OR a playtester view about the balance of the powers on his interpretation, then I'm happy with that.