All three powers here are errata'd or mid playtest so that they actually work. As written, they do not.
Hit/Effect: Do nonpersistant effect
Sustain blah: Do nonpersistant effect (save ends) is nonsense on so many levels... those powers are written broken.
The Compendium does not offer me any errata for these powers. Where have you seen this errata?
Radiant Pulse has no errata for it. Curse of the Dark Delirium remains unchanged after its Class Compendium article. Same goes for Doom of Delban.
You are correct that many of the powers that involved a Sustainable action you could take until the target Saved were pretty wonky. All of those received errata. None of them are the ones I have referenced, here.
They are only 'broken' by your interpretation of the rules. And, as show, we have an alternate interpretation, one which more closely adheres to what the rules say, matches the intent and description of these powers, and is more consistent with how the majority of powers work in the book.
It has to be. You cannot have the argument that the power persists without having the effect of that power persist. That blindness is an effect of the power. For it NOT to persist requires a specific exception, if the power is extended.
And the rules reference given in that section points explicitly to effects. Blindness is an effect of the power. Why are you only using half the rules?
Look, I've provided quotes. Please provide them as well, rather than just stating it is in there, so I can know exactly what you are referencing. I see nothing on page 59 that indicates that sustaining a power causes any effects of that power to persist.
In any case, what does page 59 say? "
The “Sustain” entry tells you if a power has an effect that occurs when you take the action to sustain it".
In this case, the term effect is clearly
NOT referring to any condition, zone or conjuration created by the power. Instead, it is referring to what occurs when the power is sustained.
Once more - nothing on page 59, at any point, indicates that any "effects", or conditions, or zones, or conjurations, in any way automatically persist when a power is sustained. All we are told is that sustaining a power causes the
power itself to remain active, and that the specifics of what that means will be referenced
in the Sustain entry itself.
On page 278, we
do have rules that referring to sustaining the effects of a power. However, not that this applies, specifically, to "a
n effect that has a “sustain standard,” a “sustain move,” or a “sustain minor” duration".
How do we know if something has such a duration? Because the Sustain entry itself will reference that effect. Assuming that
every single effect created by a sustainable power is automatically tied into the sustain entry... I admit, the rules could cetainly be clearer. But you are offering an interpretation that is neither explicitly stated in the rules, nor does it mesh well with how many powers work, so I'm inclined to dismiss it in favor of an interpretation that adheres more closely to the text, and fits more smoothly with the majority of powers.
However, the rules themselves mention that the effect persists. You do not need to write 'The effect persists' when the rules already tell you to do so. Mentioning redundancies does not disprove the rule, which you yourself have quoted and are choosing to ignore.
On page 59, I see
nothing that indicates "The effect persists". Instead, I see rules that state that the Sustain entry will tell us what happens when it is sustained, and we are given some examples that involve effects persisting, and some examples that involve other events occuring.
As worded, this means that sustaining powers can cause effects to persist, but only when it explicitly says they do so. And, in the case where it does so, that means those effects have a Sustainable Duration, and thus are subject to the rules on page 278.
None of which have persistant effects, and all of which are undergoing the process of having them make sense.
Curse of the Dark Delirium, in the Warlock playtest, underwent no changes. Nor did Doom of Delban. Other problematic sustain powers
did. That seems more like proof that they work just fine, and that the rules do not require sustainable powers to be 'tied' to any sort of persistable effect.
How do you 'Sustain Minor: do damage (save ends)'? What does that even mean?
It meant (originally), that until the target saves, you can spend a minor action to sustain the power and deal damage to them. It was absolutely a sloppy and ugly way to write a power, which is why
all of those powers have been fixed.
None of the three powers I referenced, however, in any way works like that, so I'm not sure why you keep making an issue of it.
Which will extend the power's effect, as in the section on durations. The blindness is the power's effect. Therefore it is sustained. Is the blindness NOT the power's effect? If not, what is it an effect of?
In the section on durations, it details the rules for Effects with a Duration of Sustainable. The Blindness does not have such a duration. It has a duration of until the end of your next turn, and since it is not mention in the Sustain entry, it is not a sustainable duration, and thus not governed by the rules on page 278.
It is, yes, created by that power. But you are basically inserting a line into the rules that says, "All effects created by sustainable powers automatically have a sustainable duration."
The rules don't say that. Instead, they say, "Some powers are sustainable, and here are rules for that" and "Some effects are sustainable, and here are rules for that", and "In the sustain entry, we will tell you what sustaining that power actually means, and what effects of the power (if any) it sustains."
In most of those cases, the power in question doesn't do anything with a sustain action other than persist the effect. Placeholder text does not mean 'ignore the rules for sustaining' in other cases.
Again, where is the specific exception that lets you ignore the rule?
We are ignoring a rule that
you have invented, not one actually in the rulebook itself.
Furthermore, in the vast majority of errata made to many of these powers, an effort was made to
explicitly include that 'placeholder text' even alongside
other elements specificed in the sustain entry.
The rules tell us that that text is not "placeholder text". It tells us that that line is
what tells us how the power works. You can't simply assume that it should exist for all such powers, even if they don't include it in there. That assumption both defies the text of the rules themselves, as well as the standard format used by the vast majority of sustainable powers.
The same ruleset also tells you to extend the power's effect. Why are you only doing half of what the rules tell you to do?
If one rule says to do A, and another rule says to do B, and A and B are not contradictory, then you do A AND B.
Again, just to make my case clear here: I do not believe the rules "tell you to extend the power's effect". They tell us to
only extend the effects of powers
that are explicitly defined as sustainable within the power itself.
Nowhere does it state that all effects created by a sustainable power are automatically tied to the sustainability, and automatically persist when it is sustained.
On page 278, where it says, explicitly, that sustaining a power causes its effects to persist. Conditions, zones, and conjurations are the effects of a power that creates conditions, zones, and/or conjurations, ergo, they persist.
It says, explicitly, that sustaining a power causes
any effects with a sustainable duration to persist. You still have not pointed to any location where it states that all effects of a sustainable power are automatically sustainable.
Probably, and that's to be expected. Lots of sustain powers got errata'd for a very good reason.
So your argument is that your interpretation, which results in a vast number of powers being broken - including a great many recent and/or already-errata'd powers, is more likely than the alternate interpretation, of which we have found all of... three broken powers, 2 of which have other issues going on, all out of the PHB?
(Actually, scratch that. I finally checked the Arcanist Playtest, rather than just the Compendium, and it does indeed fix Flaming Sphere and Bigby's Icy Grasp).
Again, the effort with errata is clear - make sure the Sustain entry explicitly says what is sustained and for how long.
You've fixated on conditions, zones, or conjurations as if they have specific rules that divorce them from being the effects of their power, or are special unique snowflakes in this regard.
The onus is on you to prove this point.
I've tried to avoid using the term 'effect' because it is a defined game-mechanical term involving what occurs for a power regardless of hit or miss, which is clearly not what it is being used to mean on page 278. I am references 'Conditions, Zones and Conjurations' because they are typically what is created by a power and what typically are made to persist via Sustain lines.
My point, regardless, stands. We are told that the Sustain entry will tell us what happens when a power is sustained. Nowhere do the rules state that any "effects" (whether conditions, zones, conjurations or whatever) are automatically made into persistent effects simply by virtue of being created by that power.
The presence of 'Sustain X' makes an effect a sustainable effect. There's no mythical 'sustainable non-effects' which is what you're trying to introduce into the game.
Ok, let's take a look at sustainable powers, and find some which feature effects that are clearly
not intended to be made sustainable even though the power itself
is. And let's start with powers from the most recent books, to make it clear this isn't some issue with early design not being properly figured out in the PHB.
[sblock]Heroes of Shadow:
Ravenous Shadows (Paladin 25) creates a Wall of Shadows that immobilizes enemies with an attack when it appears. The Sustain line says the wall persists and you can repeat the attack. Yet, by your interpretation, whether the repeated attack hits or misses, anyone initially immobilized by the power has
it sustained as well anyway, correct?
Heroes of the Feywild
Cast in Stone (Druid 25) petrifies an enemy until the end of your next turn. If the target is still petrified, you can sustain the power as a standard action to repeat the attack against him. By your interpretation, regardless of whether you hit or miss, he will remain petrified. Yet that is clearly not the intent of the power - the intent is clearly to only keep him petrified on a hit, as otherwise there would be no reason to involve an attack roll! (And, for that matter, the power would be rather overpowered).
Choking Shadow (Wizard 17) creates a shadow conjuration that attack an enemy, immobilizing it on a hit. Sustaining it lets the shadow repeat the attack. Yet, again, by your logic, anyone initially immobilized by the shadow, regardless of whether future attacks hit or miss, will have the immobilization persist whenever you sustain the power.
Dark Sun
Caustic Rain (Shaman 25) creates a zone that the sustain effect can persist. It also starts with a large burst attack that can reduce an enemy's defenses and inflict ongoing 15 acid damage (save ends both). How does that save ends effect - an effect clearly created by the power - interact with the sustaining of the power? Does it renew it if they have saved already? Does it mean that if you don't sustain it, the effect goes away regardless of whether they have saved? Or what?
Other powers in the book with the exact same issue:
Magma Fissures (Smoking Crown Initiate 20),
Rain Serpent Elemental (Rain Bringer 20),
Indomitable Presence (Battlemind 19),
Volcanic Circle (Shaman 15),
Shrieking Wind Spirits (Shaman 5).
Dust Storm Binding (Shaman 1) is even better. If it hits, the enemy is blinded (save ends). On a miss, they take a -2 penalty to attacks until the end of your next turn. In addition, it creates a zone, which a sustain minor effect causes to persist. By your logic, however, sustaining it also causes that penalty on attacks, inflicted on a miss, to persist as well, correct?
Primal Power
Yet more Save Ends/Sustain interaction in
Spiritblood Vines (Shaman 29),
Whirling Firestorm (Druid 29),
Earth Maw (Druid 29),
Creeping Brambles (Warden 19),
Clutching Mire (Druid 5).
Peacemaker's Lodge (Shaman 25) creates a zone that persists due to sustain. It also dazes on its initial attack, until the end of your next turn - or, by your interpretation, for as long as the caster chooses to sustain the power. Same with
Creeping Doom (Druid 25),
Psionic Power
Save Ends/Sustain issues again with
Ravenous Singularity (Psion 29),
Far Realm's Embrace (Psion 25),
Mind Rend (Arden 19),
Inflicted Mindscape (Psion 5) and
Invitation to Defeat (Arden 5).
PHB3
More Save Ends/Sustain issues in
Blistering Aversion (Ardent 25),
Vengeance Shroud (Rathmal 20),
Perfect Prison (Psionic Binder 20),
Rending Vines (Seeker 19),
Crisis of Breath (Psion 19),
Nature's Vengeance (Seeker 9),
Agony Field (Ardent 9),
Ensnaring Shot (Seeker 5)
Temporal Acceleration (Arden 19) has the same thing. On a hit, the target is slowed and can't shift (save ends). On a miss, the duration is instead until the end of your next turn. Also, it creates a zone you can sustain. By your interpretation, the sustain also makes the initial condition persist as well. If we assume that you can't persist a save ends effect after they save, that means the effect on a miss is much more potent, since you can keep it up indefinitely![/sblock]
So, even if you can come up with a way to resolve the (save ends)/sustain interaction (and I can't see any way to do so by your interpretation that doesn't involve ignoring large portions of the rules on page 278), we also have several powers who become incredibly potent when the initial conditions can be sustained indefinitely.
Along with 2-3 powers, in the most recent books, that (like Curse of Dark Delirium, the power you believe is 'undergoing revision) involve a sustain clearly aimed at giving a
chance to renew the original effect, which would make no sense if those effects persisted
automatically.
Really? Cause the rule says the existance of the line itself is your clue.
Do you have a quote on that? Cause I've got the following: "
The “Sustain” entry tells you if a power has an effect that occurs when you take the action to sustain it." "A power’s description indicates what happens when you sustain it or let it lapse."
Where in the rules,
explicitly, does it say that a power having a Sustain entry means
all effects of that power are automatically tied to that Sustain entry?
It is certainly possible, and such a cause would have an explicit exception written into it. It would mention the specific effect to be sustained as that which was to be sustained.
However, this is not one of those cases: No exception is printed, so you must execute the applicable rules.
We have two examples in the Sustain entry and three powers in the PHB which feature that ability to Sustain a power without any effect itself persisting. Two of those powers have passed through the Class Compendium review process
without being changed.
So, why do those powers not feature "an explicit exception" written into them?
