Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5353947" data-attributes="member: 51942">The secondary attack is a bog-standard weapon-attack with all relevant modifiers.I find consistency in fluff very important; but that's not an issue here - it's easy to fix the fluff (which, if mechanics are really wonky, is not easy).Playing it any other way is rather pointless: this is a non-retrainable power; and by late paragon it's attack bonus would fall behind by up to +1(talent) +2(expertise) +3(proficiency) +5(enhancement) - which means it wont be hitting almost anything despite the +2 bonus pretty soon, and will miss even on a natural 20 (which is resolved as automatic non-critical hit).  Of course, damage will be similarly meaningless. The rules simply don't make sense if you interpret them as if lacking the weapon keyword.So, from a balance & intent perspective, common sense suggests this is resolved as usual, as a weapon attack that happens to deal less damage than usual.  Fluffing such an attack is trivial - you can call it a strike from a surprising angle, or a dirty trick that hits often but weakly - fitting for a pitfighter, or a strike with the flat of the blade or whatever - use fluff such as is common throughout the entire game - but at its heart it's just a plain weapon attack.And, obviously, from a rules perspective, this is a power with the Weapon keyword and the rules concerning these are crystal clear; all the obvious bonuses apply.  It's equally clear that the the damage die isn't a weapon die, so things like "brutal 1" etc. don't apply.It's a bit annoying that the fluff and the mechanics don't line up; but this is a pretty minor infraction of that sort; and the PHB was the first 4e rulebook of its kind after all: it's not surprising to find a few odd descriptions here and there, after all.</blockquote>

Verification