Mordenkainen's Sword. Am I reading this right?

[Intrope]

Kerbarian-

Actually, as I read it, it can only last two rounds. Thus the, "lasts until the end of your next round."

AKA Even if you sustain it, the spell doesn't last for another round. It just, "attacks again."

Nope:

✦ Sustained Durations: An effect that has a "sustain standard,” a “sustain move,” or a “sustain minor” duration lasts as long as you sustain it. Starting on the turn after you create an effect, you sustain the effect by taking the indicated action: a standard action, a move action, or a minor action. (You can sustain an effect once per turn.) Some effects do something, such as attack, when you sustain them. A power’s description indicates what happens when you sustain it or let it lapse. At the end of your turn, if you haven’t spent the required action to sustain the effect, the effect ends

Edit: Ninjae'd! Also, the "lasts until the end of your next round." is just redundant, since that is true of all Sustain effects. It's probably a deliberate redundancy though, as a way of making it clear what happens if you don't sustain it.

 

[Kisanji Arael]

"I don't know what to tell you except, 'you're reading it wrong.'"

Sometimes, that's all you have to say. Thanks, all.

EDIT: And yeah, Intrope, that's exactly what messed me up, since basically none of the other spells (Bigby's Hands, Flaming Sphere, etc) had that line.

 

[Belphanior]

EDIT: And yeah, Intrope, that's exactly what messed me up, since basically none of the other spells (Bigby's Hands, Flaming Sphere, etc) had that line.

None of them? The following sustainable wizard spells also have that line:
Stinking Cloud, (Greater) Invisibility, Wall of Fog, Wall of Fire, Arcane Gate, Bigby's Grasping Hands, (Mass) Fly, Cloudkill, Evard's Black Tentacles, Sudden Storm.

It's a little sloppy of WotC maybe to not be more strict in the way they formulate things.

 

[Celtavian]

How is that underpowered? You get one attack with your minor and can unleash something else with your standard.

 

[keterys]

It does seem like it could eat up both your minors and move actions on a target that is moving very much at all, unless the sword auto-follows its target which doesn't seem likely from the language. Hmm.

 

[Colmarr]

That was my interpretation.

The sword automatically follows its designated target. According to the wording of the power, it only takes a move action to move the sword to a new target. So long as you spend the minor, the sword automatically follows and attacks the original target (so long as there is an unoccupied square available).

Otherwise that 1d10+Int attack is costing you both a minor and move action (because the target will likely shift each round so that the sword is no longer adjacent.

Open to interpretation obviously, but that strikes me as the intention.

 

[666Sinner666]

That was my interpretation.

The sword automatically follows its designated target. According to the wording of the power, it only takes a move action to move the sword to a new target. So long as you spend the minor, the sword automatically follows and attacks the original target (so long as there is an unoccupied square available).

Otherwise that 1d10+Int attack is costing you both a minor and move action (because the target will likely shift each round so that the sword is no longer adjacent.

Open to interpretation obviously, but that strikes me as the intention.

It allows a creature to try and shift out of range of the spell, knowingly or not, since the sword must stay within 10 squares of the wizard. Although I believe there is a feat that extends a wizards spell range a few squares, maybe 5 or something like that.

 

[keterys]

The sword automatically follows its designated target.

While this may be the intention, I'm not sure it's how the spell is actually worded.

The spell is created in a unoccupied square within range and attacks a target adjacent to it. It bears no wording that it moves on its own.

So in theory a single shift every turn will allow a target to force the wizard to move it.

Heck, technically by the wording of the power you might not even be able to follow a target, since you move it to 'a new target'.

So long as you spend the minor, the sword automatically follows and attacks the original target (so long as there is an unoccupied square available).

No, the wording is that it repeats the attack - the unoccupied square available and follows are not part of the language. Nor is any language about what happens if the target moves out of range of the spell, which would be needed if it followed.

Otherwise that 1d10+Int attack is costing you both a minor and move action (because the target will likely shift each round so that the sword is no longer adjacent.

Correct.

Open to interpretation obviously, but that strikes me as the intention.

But not what is written. And the intention is cloudy - I'd very much like to know for sure, since this same question affects other spells of this type, like spiritual weapon.

 

[Mahali]

I've always considered following movement to be implied. Now though, I have to think "What if the target moves into an area where they are surrounded on all sides by allies/walls?"

 

[Plane Sailing]

How is that underpowered? You get one attack with your minor and can unleash something else with your standard.

One might argue it is underpowered compared to Spiritual Weapon, which does basically the same thing but at 4 levels(?) lower.