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

[Caliban]

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.

Killing one guy is almost always better than doing moderate damage to 3+ guys (even if you are marking them).

You are eliminating a source of damage.

This is especially true when that "one guy" is an elite,solo, or a controller (with good control powers). Even if you don't kill it, that's a significant chunk of damage. (I've seen a single rain of blows do 100+ points of damage, more often it averages 50-70 damage.)

And with Rain of Blows, you have the option of attacking 2-4 different targets or just one target. Sweeping blow doesn't give you that option.

 

[Akaiku]

Tempest fighters with an urgosh do well with that attack as well, d12 and all. Plus, 15 dex is the prereq for armor spec in heavy armors, so the stat isn't wasted.

 

[Oni]

And with Rain of Blows, you have the option of attacking 2-4 different targets or just one target. Sweeping blow doesn't give you that option.

Just a point of clarity, you have the option of attacking 1-3 targets, the initial two attacks must both be again one target.

However you have brought up an interesting question in my mind. As near as I can tell targets are selected before damage is dealt. Since rain of blows initially only targets one creature that's not much of an issue unless both hit and you gain the two more attacks resultant of the first two. By my reading you have to decide who you are targeting before you do anything else, meaning if you chose to direct all your attacks at one creature and the first is enough to kill it the next is simply lost and cannot be redirected at a new target.

 

[Kordeth]

Just a point of clarity, you have the option of attacking 1-3 targets, the initial two attacks must both be again one target.

This is correct. The target for rain of blows'[/quote] primary attacks is "one creature."

However you have brought up an interesting question in my mind. As near as I can tell targets are selected before damage is dealt.

Not entirely true. Declaring the target of an attack is part of the attack itself. In the case of rain of blows, as you said, it doesn't matter because both have to be against the same target, so if the first attack invalidates the second somehow, the second attack is lost. In the case of, say, twin strike, where you can attack one or two targets, you declare your target before each attack roll. You can attack kobold A, then after that attack is resolved decide who you want to attack with your second strike.

Since rain of blows initially only targets one creature that's not much of an issue unless both hit and you gain the two more attacks resultant of the first two. By my reading you have to decide who you are targeting before you do anything else, meaning if you chose to direct all your attacks at one creature and the first is enough to kill it the next is simply lost and cannot be redirected at a new target.

Incorrect. First of all, you don't have to hit with both primary attacks to get the extra attacks. Each attack that hits triggers a secondary attack. Second of all, the secondary attacks list "the same or a different creature" as the target, so you can choose a different target for the secondary attack. In other words, even if your first primary attack kills the target, you still get one secondary attack against any other target in range.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

Ah the indentation is the key. Perhaps the importance of the indent should have been made a bit more clear in the book. If it was there, I did not see it.

Actually, I think I know where another problem is: Page 57 of the PHB, the little blurb on attacks doesn't go into enough detail about how to use powers that have "two attacks"

 

[Oni]

Not entirely true. Declaring the target of an attack is part of the attack itself. In the case of rain of blows, as you said, it doesn't matter because both have to be against the same target, so if the first attack invalidates the second somehow, the second attack is lost. In the case of, say, twin strike, where you can attack one or two targets, you declare your target before each attack roll. You can attack kobold A, then after that attack is resolved decide who you want to attack with your second strike.

I think all your targets need to be declared up front. See page 269 PHB. Choose your attack (read attack power), choose your targets, then make attack rolls and so an and so forth.

For a more indepth discussion see here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...e-attacks-immediate-reactions-conditions.html

Incorrect. First of all, you don't have to hit with both primary attacks to get the extra attacks. Each attack that hits triggers a secondary attack. Second of all, the secondary attacks list "the same or a different creature" as the target, so you can choose a different target for the secondary attack. In other words, even if your first primary attack kills the target, you still get one secondary attack against any other target in range.

You do however have to hit with both primary attacks in order to have two secondary attacks. Since they're both secondary I believe they would both be resolved simultaneously as per resolving attacks on pg. 269 PHB so choose targets, then roll to hit, meaning that if you chose to use both of your secondary attacks on the same target, and the first one does enough damage to kill it the second one is essentially wated, as hits are resolved at the same time, then damage is resolved at the same time. Meaning you can't retarget if one attack would have been sufficient.

 

[Prism]

Yet there isn't any CustServ answers quoted in this thread

Logan is refering to this one http://www.enworld.org/forum/4646283-post12.html

 

[Kordeth]

I think all your targets need to be declared up front. See page 269 PHB. Choose your attack (read attack power), choose your targets, then make attack rolls and so an and so forth.

An attack and an attack power are not necessarily the same thing. Rain of blows is an attack power that allows you to make multiple attacks. If it were a single attack with multiple targets (e.g. a hypothetical close blast 3 attack power that targets "three enemies in blast"), then you'd be correct. In this case, though, the secondary attack is a new attack, and therefore as part of Step 5 for the primary attack, you loop back up to Step 2 and start the process again for the secondary attack (Step 1 has already been determined).

You do however have to hit with both primary attacks in order to have two secondary attacks.

Right, I was just making sure you were aware that if you hit with one primary attack, you still get one secondary attack.

Since they're both secondary I believe they would both be resolved simultaneously as per resolving attacks on pg. 269 PHB so choose targets, then roll to hit, meaning that if you chose to use both of your secondary attacks on the same target, and the first one does enough damage to kill it the second one is essentially wated, as hits are resolved at the same time, then damage is resolved at the same time. Meaning you can't retarget if one attack would have been sufficient.

You've got the sequence a little bit messed up here. The secondary attacks are additional effects of the primary attacks, and so each one is resolved after the successful primary attack that triggered it. The book is, admittedly, somewhat vague on the order of operations for a power that allows multiple attacks (as opposed to a single attack against multiple targets), so I suppose a case could be made that the primary attacks are simultaneous, but even in that case you'd see the results of the primary attack before deciding the target of the secondary attack. IMHO, though, since 4E doesn't really have a concept of actions occuring simultaneously, you're supposed to fully resolve one attack before the second attack, including all secondary attacks. Meaning the only way you could screw yourself out of attacks with rain of blows would be to kill the primary target with your first secondary attack.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

The clarification is quite nice, but I'd like to note that *indentation* should not be crucial to understanding a power. Indentation is helpful and should be correct, but you should be able to understand a power by the text alone.

"Weapon" properties are indented all the time, but it is quite unclear whether they are indented because they are subordinate to the "Hit" effect, or whether because "weapon" properties are indented simply because they are "weapon" properties. OK, I suppose it's clear now than Logan answered the question, but it was certainly not clear beforehand. So, with all due respect, I don't think the confusion was because the Compendium used different formatting. I think the confusion came from using an ambiguous bit of typesetting to indicate a substantive part of the rule.

-KS

 

[keterys]

That's okay, even with a WotC designer chiming in I'm still dubious. There's just something wrong about a level 3 encounter power that you not only keep until level 30 but potentially use Divine Miracle on and deals more damage than your 29 Daily

The confusion for me was never the Compendium formatting, but the math.