Another Broken Combo: Seal of Binding and Divine Regeneration

[keterys]

The result of this will probably just be another 'Hmm, maybe solos should all turn stun into daze' like the Tarrasque thread at one point.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I don't think that is correct. For purposes of things like invisibility and sanctuary at least, a spell or effect counted as an attack as long as it targeted an enemy or included an enemy in its area. So there was no loophole silliness like having fireball count as "not an attack."

I think you might be right actually; I was thinking of precision attacks (ie, things that allowed sneak attack or favoured enemy damage). My mistake, I think.

In any case, Slashing Wake is not an attack power, and doesn't use attack rolls. It is not an attack, but some kind of "aura of teleporting death". As such, I believe that an Arcane Gate/Slashing Wake trick could add another 36 damage [the trick is you put the gate so it leads to the square right next to it, then the warlock continually moves through it, teleporting 6 (or 7 if Elf) times per round, doing his Int mod in damage every time].

 

[MrMyth]

In all honesty, I think the problem is less the combo and more... Divine Regeneration itself.

Regen 30, for an encounter, is pretty absurd. From what I can tell, with it active, a single level 30 character stands a solid chance at soloing the Tarrasque. I really have the feeling it was meant to be ability modifier instead of ability, but as it stands, it seems to be one of the (relatively small) handful of broken abilities that managed to sneak into 4th.

 

[Lore Raithbone]

In all honesty, I think the problem is less the combo and more... Divine Regeneration itself.

Regen 30, for an encounter, is pretty absurd. From what I can tell, with it active, a single level 30 character stands a solid chance at soloing the Tarrasque. I really have the feeling it was meant to be ability modifier instead of ability, but as it stands, it seems to be one of the (relatively small) handful of broken abilities that managed to sneak into 4th.

Regen 30 is pretty huge; I too think it was supposed to be ability modifier and this was a typo.

 

[Wotansman]

*snip*
You are correct to say that encountering Orcus (for example, any Solo will do) with assistants means that using this power you cannot kill him alone. But remember, you should still have your party with you; if they can hold off the enemy you should be okay. And you can always fly away invisibly, or teleport to the astral plane or something, and wait the fight out, all the while sustaining your deadly grasp on Orcus. (You can sustain a power even when not in sight of the target; for evidence, I submit the Invisibility power). *snip*

While I agree that the Invisibility has wording that would otherwise suggest that you can use sustains at any range; however, 4E is a exception based system. And so looking at the rules for "ranges [number]" entry on page 56 it says pretty clearly that for any power that has the "ranged [number]" keyword can only work within the specified number (this case being 10). And none of the sustain entries say anything about being able to use sustain in any way outside of how the "range [number]" works I would have to rule that you still have to be within the 10 indicated on use of the power, as there is also no language within the power saying you can use the sustain at farther than the range limit imposed by the power.

Older systems, yes you have a good argument, however since they have moved into an exception based system, I would go with how it's written, rather than trying to use other powers to qualify the use of one.

I also understand that my way of view is just as valid as yours since the Invisibility seems to be saying that the target must stay within range as an exception, and that would suggest that there is no need at a base level of sustain. However, I still would have to read verbiage outside of the power itself (for example within the ranged keyword or within the sustain descriptor) saying that it's "normal" to allow a sustain to break the normal power at range rules.

Short form, in one of my own games I wouldn't allow you to be farther than 10 away from your target (teleport to astral or otherwise) based on how I interpret the rules as written. Far from saying I'm anywhere near the final authority in anything other than the games I run.

My 2 copper

 

[MarkChevallier]

Short form, in one of my own games I wouldn't allow you to be farther than 10 away from your target (teleport to astral or otherwise) based on how I interpret the rules as written. Far from saying I'm anywhere near the final authority in anything other than the games I run.

Hey, it's your game: your decisions apply (and I can see your logic)! It's not really the point of my original post, but for what it's worth the rules seem ambiguous on this. It says for ranged [number] that it "can be used on a target within the indicated number of squares". The nub of any point of debate would dwell on if "used" included "sustained" (you don't need to target something to sustain a power, which would go against this view), or simply meant "activated". This is very much a side point, though.

I would say though that the nub of the problem is that a combination of two abilities (that are in no way in competition with each other or an unusual choice) allows you to lay a lockdown and death on any one target with *one* die roll. Save and die was meant to vanish from this edition - I think it's clear that the design intent of the Seal of Binding power was not to allow it back in. But unfortunately, it has, in combination with high-regen.

 

[Wotansman]

Seriously, I agree. It seems to be against the design of 4e, in that absolutely, I'm just responding, in part to add my 2 cents, and in part to perfect my 4e Jutsu/Kung Fu/ knowledge of the system. It's still pretty new to me, if not any others (leaked pdf's/ early arrivals/ etc.).

 

[MarkChevallier]

I've done some checking on the definition of "attack" in the PHB: p269 draws it up in quite some detail, specifying that it requires an attack roll on several occasions. This does mean that if a source of damage doesn't rely on an attack roll, that it doesn't count as an attack.

There are 3 basic positions:

1) As outlined above, a source of damage doesn't count as the effect of an attack unless it requires an attack roll at some point. This is RAW, I believe, based on p269.

[This would allow Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice, and numerous other sources to affect someone in a Seal of Binding.]

2) You could say that any source of damage that is derived from an Attack power (even if that power doesn't require an attack roll) counts as the effect of an attack. I don't believe the RAW ever define things this way, but it is a reasonable position to infer that it is what is intended.

[This would allow Slashing Wake, Aura damages, and probably one or two other things to affect someone in a Seal of Binding.]

3) Lastly, you could say that any source of damage, even if it is not based on attack power and does not require an attack roll, counts as the effect of an attack. This may well be the common sense position (barring counterintuitive examples), but is definitely not RAW. It is, however, certainly a reasonable decision for a work-a-day GM to make.

[This would allow nothing at all to affect someone in a Seal of Binding.]

Basically, if you view the RAW as taking anything other than position 3, then there are ways to stack damage on top of a Seal of Binding, making the inevitability of death more certain.

(I know it was only a secondary point, but I got bored... )

 

[chaotix42]

I would say that the four types of attacks - melee attack, ranged attack, close attack, and area attack - would not damage the creature affected by Seal of Binding. Slashing Wake would be fair game, but not Wall of Fire since it uses the Area keyword. An aura would be fair game too.

I could be convinced to rule in favor of any damage = an attack, if obnoxiously cheesy situations arose. : )

 

[AuraSeer]

I think you might be right actually; I was thinking of precision attacks (ie, things that allowed sneak attack or favoured enemy damage). My mistake, I think.

In any case, Slashing Wake is not an attack power, and doesn't use attack rolls. It is not an attack, but some kind of "aura of teleporting death".

It still inflicts direct damage on an enemy. Saying that somehow does not count as attacking the enemy is just silly.