[4e] IG's Herald of Discord [RECRUITING CLOSED]

[garyh]

What Oni said, on the charge issue. Every game I've played in has played it as written with no problems. As mentioned, you get to cover more distance with move+charge, but at the cost of using a basic attack instead of an at-will. Seems fair to me.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

In 3.5, the charge let you move twice your speed and attack at the end, in 4 it seems to do the same thing - and the fact that it limits you to a basic attack I think keeps it balanced, since at-wills are generally quite a bit better.

 

[industrygothica]

I did a bit of research on the wizards forums as well, and they seem to be of the same opinion. Apparently I'm just stuck in a 3e rut or something. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion... the charge stands as is.

 

[industrygothica]

Oni, your stats will be corrected in the next update.

How is the map? My monitor is a bit screwy, so I can't tell if it's too dark or not. Can you all make it out ok?

And you'll have to forgive my Gnollspeak, or Abyssal, in this case. I'm not much of a linguist...

 

[Oni]

It's all Greek to me.

Map looks good IMO.

 

[industrygothica]

Reveille-

You can’t place a Warlock’s Curse on a creature that is already affected by your or another character’s Warlock’s Curse.

Hyena 2 has already been cursed by Jarl, who's first in the initiative order. I don't think it'd be unreasonable to rule that you can curse the next closest, cursable (is that even a word?) enemy to you, if you want to choose another target. Otherwise you can keep the same target, just without the curse.

 

[Oni]

It's also worth noting, at least as far as I can tell, that to get extra curse damage requires only that you attack a cursed target, not that it be a target that you cursed (which is different than say a pact blade that specifies a target you cursed).

Without the advantage of IG's ruling, you would still have the option by RAW of saving your minor action til after you attacked, if you killed the target you could curse whichever was the next nearest.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Hyena 2 has already been cursed by Jarl, who's first in the initiative order. I don't think it'd be unreasonable to rule that you can curse the next closest, cursable (is that even a word?) enemy to you, if you want to choose another target. Otherwise you can keep the same target, just without the curse.

Alright, I'll go with Hyena 3.

 

[industrygothica]

It's also worth noting, at least as far as I can tell, that to get extra curse damage requires only that you attack a cursed target, not that it be a target that you cursed (which is different than say a pact blade that specifies a target you cursed).

Without the advantage of IG's ruling, you would still have the option by RAW of saving your minor action til after you attacked, if you killed the target you could curse whichever was the next nearest.

I think it is the spirit of the rules that that any benefits a warlock gets from a cursed enemy must come from his own curse and not that of another warlock.

 

[Oni]

I think it is the spirit of the rules that that any benefits a warlock gets from a cursed enemy must come from his own curse and not that of another warlock.

My guess is that as written it was intentional because they did not allow the same target to be cursed by more than one warlock. This is different from Hunters Quarry which can be overlapped but a ranger cannot benefit from another ranger's quarry, I'd say the mechanical difference has something to do with the Pactboons (though I cannot not see any game breaking effect from a creature activating more than one boon, guessing this is a fluff issue). If a warlock cannot benefit from another's curse, and a curse cannot be placed on a target that is already cursed, two warlocks lose out when it comes to focus fire, and fall behind what any other pair of strikers would be able to do. It creates a situation where one player is denying the other an extremely fundemental ability for their role (extra striker damage) on every single enemy fought. Consider how this might affect an encounter with a solo creature.

I would humbly suggest that if you wish to make it so that a warlock can benefit only from his own curses that simply allowing a target to be cursed by more than one warlock would be the simplest solution. Then each warlock would be able to function as if they were the lone warlock in the party gaining neither advantage or disadvantage in this situation. IMO this is probably how they should have done it in the first place and were I to run a game this is the ruling I would make.

That said, how ever you want to do it is fine with me. I'm not usually so rules oriented, but this is helping me to learn the new edition. If you find it annoying I'll keep my rules oppinions to myself.