Warlock's Curse: Applied per enemy per round, or just per round?

[Zimri]

Can anyone send this to customer service? I don't have an account and would rather not make one.

The WP

I submitted this

Warlock's curse says

"Once per turn as a minor action, you can place a Warlock’s Curse on the enemy nearest to you that you can see. A cursed enemy is more vulnerable to your attacks. If you damage a cursed enemy, you deal extra damage. You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. You can deal this extra damage once per round.

A Warlock’s Curse remains in effect until the end of the encounter or until the cursed enemy drops to 0 hit points or fewer.

You can place a Warlock’s Curse on multiple targets over the course of an encounter; each curse requires the use of a minor action. You can’t place a Warlock’s Curse on a creature that is already affected by your or another character’s Warlock’s Curse. "

So if I have my curse on multiple targets AND can manage to damage more than one of the cursed targets in the same round how many times do I apply my curse damage

1) 1 time per cursed target that I damge per round
or
2) 1 time per round total regardless of how many cursed targets I hit

?

Not that I believe custserv is the be all and end all of answers but you asked and I thought it might be fun.

I also think Custserv Hates us enworlders that submit hard questions like this 8)

 

[Tale]

I would think it's per enemy per encounter. Here's why:

Sneak attack is triggered once per round but deals more damage.

The Warlock's curse allows you to mark multiple distinct enemies. Each curse is a distinct effect. Each effect is triggered once per round. Of course, I can see the other reading of it, due to 4e's lack of precise language like 3.x.

The difference in language there only goes to show that you can have multiple enemies cursed at a time, primarily for the Pact Boon. The fact that the Ranger only gets a single Quarry at a time would be distinctly in-line with only being able to apply Curse damage once per round. There's no reason they'd give that advantage to the Warlock over the Ranger, especially not without noting it.

 

[Nifft]

The difference in language there only goes to show that you can have multiple enemies cursed at a time, primarily for the Pact Boon. The fact that the Ranger only gets a single Quarry at a time would be distinctly in-line with only being able to apply Curse damage once per round. There's no reason they'd give that advantage to the Warlock over the Ranger, especially not without noting it.

The main Archery paragon path allows a Ranger to designate multiple Quarry targets.

Rangers can easily attack multiple targets with a single action.

Cheers, -- N

 

[TarionzCousin]

I vote for:

You make one damage roll per round, and that is the amount of damage to each of your enemies currently under your curse.

Share the love, people. Share it.

 

[Tale]

The main Archery paragon path allows a Ranger to designate multiple Quarry targets.

Rangers can easily attack multiple targets with a single action.

Cheers, -- N

Yes, but that's only a limited subset of the group and starts at level 10. It's not all of them as it would be with Warlocks starting at level 1.

 

[Nifft]

Yes, but that's only a limited subset of the group and starts at level 10. It's not all of them as it would be with Warlocks starting at level 1.

Absolutely true.

Rangers have many other advantages over Warlocks, though:
- Better At-Will attacks
- Better attack range
- Better melee options
- d8 extra damage instead of d6 (via feat)

IMHO Twin Strike + Longbow easily makes up the difference in expected damage, particularly since Warlocks don't have a multi-target At-Will.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I agree with Nifft, but unfortunately "it seems most fair" is not a valid defense for the RAW.

It is a valid reason to make a house rule, but I want to know what the RAW states first and then, perhaps, house rule as required.

Zimri - please let us know if you get an answer.

Thanks
Wis

 

[Cabral]

It is a valid reason to make a house rule, but I want to know what the RAW states first and then, perhaps, house rule as required.

Absolutely. My primary reason for be a literal as--rules lawyer, particularly when it comes to 3.x.

4e's relative language slackness may make it less frustrating for people in general, but it does make harder to discern RAW or RAI by carefully reading.

I won't too much into this rant, but one of the biggest short comings of 4e is the reduced levels of intellectual stimulation. The combat may have more chess-like tactical possibilities, but I think an RPG should provide Math, Linguistic and other "skill challenges".

 

[keterys]

My warlock asked this tonight, and I initially responded that it was just once per round no matter the enemies... then asked her to show me the text and ruled it was once per enemy per round.

I'm okay with warlocks getting that little boon, and there's certainly enough justification for the ruling at the moment.

 

[Incendax]

To some of us, it is very obvious that WotC intended for Warlocks to benefit from their curses on AOE damage. To others of us, the exact opposite is the obvious interpretation.

It's times like this that I wish Dragon put forth an article called "Read As Intended". Instead of Customer Service that actively contradicts themselves and the rules, the article would actually ask the real developer who wrote that section what he intended. Sure, it wouldn't be 'Official' errata, but it would definitely be an authoritative source for house-rulers.