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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Well, learn that it matters.

Many powers explicitly note in the Hit description: "Make a secondary attack". But not all do, and I think using the indentations is pretty elegant. But maybe they should find a better trick to describe it. (Maybe not when to make a secondary attack on the Hit, Effect or Miss line, depending on what triggers them)

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

More damage then the 29 Daily with or without Divine Miracle? Rereading the ability teaches me that this question is nonsensical. I still don't get how you get more damage out of it then with a 29 Daily, though that might depend on the daily.

 

[Runestar]

So it seems that the designers should learn to follow their own rules when it comes to wording powers...

See the ruckus and confusion which stems from a simple formatting error...

 

[C_M2008]

I've always seen it as:

Make two primary attacks, if both hit make a secondary attack.

That would seem less overpowered than the potential 4 attack version.

In any event that's how it'll continue to be used in our games.

 

[keterys]

I still don't get how you get more damage out of it then with a 29 Daily, though that might depend on the daily.

It looks like Catastrophic Flurry in Martial Power is actually barely better, assuming fairly normal hit chances - if your chance to hit is very high, Rain of Blows might be better than it.

But, in general, 7W + bonuses is just less than, say, 3*(1W+bonuses) unless your bonuses are astoundingly low. You should be at least +20 in bonuses, though.

 

[morikal]

I've always seen it as:

Make two primary attacks, if both hit make a secondary attack.

That would seem less overpowered than the potential 4 attack version.

In any event that's how it'll continue to be used in our games.

While that is fine for a house rule, I must point out that such an interpretation is not supported by the text...

See my earlier post in this thread.

EDIT: My apologies if I offended anyone by saying "that is fine for a house rule". I will review the rules of polite behavior.
(I was going off of "this way seems less overpowered, so that is how I will use it in my game", which I interpreted as "here is how I house ruled it". Again, sorry if that came off as snarky).

 

[Plane Sailing]

While that is fine for a house rule, I must point out that such an interpretation is not supported by the text...

See my earlier post in this thread.

It is not permitted in polite debate in the Rules forum to use the dismissive 'that is fine for a house rule' card. It is rude and unnecessary. Please review the Rules about polite behaviour here.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

While that is fine for a house rule, I must point out that such an interpretation is not supported by the text...

Actually, up until the clarification from Logan indicating exactly what the power was supposed to do, I read the power the same way C_M did, and I still think the RAW text can be read that way. For me, the key was that the power lacked any sort of "per attack" statement, something you see in all the other powers which provide for multiple, non-area, non-secondary attacks *and yes, I'm aware rain of blows has secondary attacks, but it also has multiple primary attacks*

 

[Talon378]

Actually, up until the clarification from Logan indicating exactly what the power was supposed to do, I read the power the same way C_M did, and I still think the RAW text can be read that way. For me, the key was that the power lacked any sort of "per attack" statement, something you see in all the other powers which provide for multiple, non-area, non-secondary attacks *and yes, I'm aware rain of blows has secondary attacks, but it also has multiple primary attacks*

I actually addressed this question to the Sage Advice folks on WOTC's website. Their reply to me was that the power works like this:

You roll two attack rolls and use the better for the one attack. Then, if you are weilding the proper weapon, you repeat it for a second strike.


In my opinion, this is a ridiculous ruling, and it is rulings and arguments like this that caused me to stop playing Magic in the first place. I was playing the power such that you got two attacks, and then if you had the proper weapon you got a third attack but from the reply that I got from Wizards, this is apparantly not the way that they wish it to be used.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I actually addressed this question to the Sage Advice folks on WOTC's website. Their reply to me was that the power works like this:

You roll two attack rolls and use the better for the one attack. Then, if you are weilding the proper weapon, you repeat it for a second strike.


In my opinion, this is a ridiculous ruling, and it is rulings and arguments like this that caused me to stop playing Magic in the first place. I was playing the power such that you got two attacks, and then if you had the proper weapon you got a third attack but from the reply that I got from Wizards, this is apparantly not the way that they wish it to be used.

So you get at best two attacks (one primary and one secondary, the latter weapon dependent) but each one has a "reroll" build in?

Why didn't they update the power if that was their idea of how it should work?

 

[abyssaldeath]

I actually addressed this question to the Sage Advice folks on WOTC's website. Their reply to me was that the power works like this:

You roll two attack rolls and use the better for the one attack. Then, if you are weilding the proper weapon, you repeat it for a second strike.


In my opinion, this is a ridiculous ruling, and it is rulings and arguments like this that caused me to stop playing Magic in the first place. I was playing the power such that you got two attacks, and then if you had the proper weapon you got a third attack but from the reply that I got from Wizards, this is apparantly not the way that they wish it to be used.

That's the way I've always read it. I think it fits the power level of all the 3rd level Fighter powers.