Hexhammer (ZE GOGGLES ZEY DO NOTHING)

[DracoSuave]

I can follow an argument that says "The property does nothing, because the Warlock is limited to dealing curse damage once per round!" But I don't agree that that's what the hammer does.

-Hyp.

Honestly, I -hope- that isn't what the hammer does, otherwise it's a waste of a property. Hense the pointing out that it is, currently as written, broken in the 'does not work' sort of way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The property does not dictate an exception, however. It simply states you're allowed to do the damage.

We have two instances:

1. Warlock's Curse, which states that you can deal curse damage when you hit a cursed creature, and that you can deal it once per round.

2. The hammer, which states that you can deal curse damage when you hit a cursed creature.

The class feature allows you to deal curse damage once per round. The hammer allows you to deal curse damage when you hit a creature.

-Hyp.

 

[Flazzy]

The point would appear to be that when you hit an opponent with the hammer as a weapon (not as an implement), you still add your curse damage.

Weapons other than a pact hammer do not allow you to do this, thus it is an added property.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The point would appear to be that when you hit an opponent with the hammer as a weapon (not as an implement), you still add your curse damage.

Weapons other than a pact hammer do not allow you to do this...

What makes you say that?

If my warlock hits a cursed opponent with a basic melee attack using a mace, he can deal extra damage. The requirement for Warlock's Curse is "If you hit a cursed enemy with an attack", not "If you hit a cursed enemy with a power that has the Implement keyword".

-Hyp.

 

[Herald of I]

The point would appear to be that when you hit an opponent with the hammer as a weapon (not as an implement), you still add your curse damage.

Weapons other than a pact hammer do not allow you to do this, thus it is an added property.

Not actually the case. The only requirement to add your curse damage is that you "hit an enemy with an attack." The means of said attack already doesn't matter, hence the controversy.

 

[Flazzy]

Aha, point taken.

 

[DracoSuave]

The thing is, Hyp, said curse damage is a part of the Warlock's Curse feature and not a separate entity. Thusly, if the Curse feature restricts the damage to once per turn, which it does, then unless otherwise stated, outside sources do not get around that.

However, if it is the case such limits do not apply, then the hammer would by the same logic get around the limit of once per attack as well, permitting the doubling of the curse damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The thing is, Hyp, said curse damage is a part of the Warlock's Curse feature and not a separate entity. Thusly, if the Curse feature restricts the damage to once per turn, which it does, then unless otherwise stated, outside sources do not get around that.

The Curse feature says you can deal it once per round. It's not a restriction; it's when the class feature allows you to apply it.

The hammer says you deal it when you strike a cursed enemy with the hammer. It gives an additional condition under which you can apply the damage.

Feature: When you hit a cursed enemy, once per round.
Hammer: When you hit a cursed enemy with the hammer.

However, if it is the case such limits do not apply, then the hammer would by the same logic get around the limit of once per attack as well, permitting the doubling of the curse damage.

Why? When you hit someone for the first time in a round, both the feature (when you hit an enemy, once per round) and the hammer (when you hit an enemy with the hammer) provide you with the condition under which you can apply your extra curse damage.

If you're flanking a prone opponent, you have combat advantage for two reasons, not double combat advantage. The warlock gets to apply his extra curse damage on that attack for two reasons, not double curse damage.

-Hyp.

 

[DracoSuave]

The Curse feature says you can deal it once per round. It's not a restriction; it's when the class feature allows you to apply it.

The class feature is explicit in stating you can apply the damage once per round.

...if you have dealt Warlock’s Curse damage since the start of your turn, you cannot deal it again until the start of your next turn.

The hammer says you deal it when you strike a cursed enemy with the hammer. It gives an additional condition under which you can apply the damage.

Feature: When you hit a cursed enemy, once per round.
Hammer: When you hit a cursed enemy with the hammer.

Why? When you hit someone for the first time in a round, both the feature (when you hit an enemy, once per round) and the hammer (when you hit an enemy with the hammer) provide you with the condition under which you can apply your extra curse damage.

The thing is tho, regardless of the presence of the condition or not, the text of the Warlock's Curse ability -explicitly- limits the application of that damage to once per round. It says, literally, you cannot deal that damage again. The limitation is not explicitly describing the number of times you're allowed to cash in the Warlock's Curse feature, it's -explicitly- limiting the number of times you can apply the curse damage per round. The extra damage from the pact hammer is Warlock's Curse damage, and therefore it is limited to once per round.

If you're flanking a prone opponent, you have combat advantage for two reasons, not double combat advantage. The warlock gets to apply his extra curse damage on that attack for two reasons, not double curse damage.

-Hyp.

Combat advantage is an on-off state. It is binary. You either have it, or you don't, same as conditions, however extra damage is not a binary quantity. It is cumulative and adds with other sources of damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It says, literally, you cannot deal that damage again.

No, it says, literally, that you can deal it once.

The hammer then comes along and says you deal it any time you hit with the hammer.

Combat advantage is an on-off state. It is binary. You either have it, or you don't, same as conditions, however extra damage is not a binary quantity. It is cumulative and adds with other sources of damage.

But this is one source.

-Hyp.