Battle Standard of Healing and Healer's Brooch: overpowered healing?

[KarinsDad]

Seriously? "Me and my friends say you're wrong" That's you're argument?

Nope. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you are the only person making the claim, then you at least have to bring some rules evidence to the table to support it.

So far, you have merely brought a unique interpretation of a single word to the table without any rules evidence to support that interpretation.

Throw us a bone here. Give us some rule to work with.

I find it "made up" to assume that:

(1) automatic effects from zones constitute "using" the power that created the zone;

Except that every instance of power use we have in the game system are controlled by the user of that power. To claim that zones are controlled and used by the zone itself is a new concept that requires rules support.

Where are your rules for this? We are discussing this in a rules forum. You can disagree with most of the rest of us all you like, but to convince anyone that your interpretation is RAW requires rules support. You have yet to provide any. Just a specific interpretation of the word "use".

(2) an item power "enables" something in circumstances where at least one other event (an ally spending a healing surge) and possibly two or more (whatever it was that triggered the surge) have to happen first; and

How is this any different than any other zone power? If a class Utility power stated "the effect is a zone of difficult terrain" and the caster had an item or feat that stated "when you use a power that creates difficult terrain, that terrain adds an additional +1 movement to get through", are you claiming that the user of the power is not really using the power because it's a zone and that the zone is using the power and the item or feat does not add to the difficult terrain?

(3) a character can be said to "use" an item power if the item is no longer in the possession of the character.

Again, quote a rule. You'll find most people here more responsive to your interpretation if you could quote a rule that states that an item out of the possession of a character is no longer under control or in use by that character.

Ultimately now, you are falling back on the same sort of arguments that Keterys suggested I was using. "That can't be right. It's silly!" RAW is RAW, and I think it's fair to say that there have always been some clear examples of silly RAW that were nevertheless RAW.

But like I said, I doubt one of us can convince the other.

You can walk away thinking I'm silly. I can walk away knowing you disagree with me. And everyone else in the thread can form their own opinion.

I don't think you are silly. I do think that you are ignoring what you want to ignore in order to get the interpretation you want. For example:

When you use a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points, add the brooch’s enhancement bonus to the hit points gained.

...

Power (Encounter; Healing, Zone): Standard Action. When you plant the battle standard in your space or an adjacent square, it creates a zone of healing energy in a close burst 5. Whenever you or an ally spends a healing surge while in the zone, you and all allies in the zone regain 1 hit point.

Is the Battle Standard a power? yes
Does the Battle Standard enable you or an ally to regain hit points? yes
Is the user of the Battle Standard using it? yes

Sorry, but your unique claim that the user of the standard is not really using it seems pretty darn weak.

 

[Colmarr]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your value judgement on my position does not make it so.

If you are the only person making the claim, then you at least have to bring some rules evidence to the table to support it.

And what exactly is evidence of the meaning of the words "use" and "enable"? It's disingenuous to suggest that anything you've provided is evidence.

You're suggesting that because a PC used a power at some point, then they are continuously using it until it ceases to be in existence or operation, even where they are interracting with it it no way whatsoever.

If a class Utility power stated "the effect is a zone of difficult terrain" and the caster had an item or feat that stated "when you use a power that creates difficult terrain, that terrain adds an additional +1 movement to get through", are you claiming that the user of the power is not really using the power because it's a zone and that the zone is using the power and the item or feat does not add to the difficult terrain?

That's disingenous. The power is used when the zone is created. The zone is therefore "more difficult". End of story. The zone has no "cause" and no individual "effect". It's difficult terrain (of whatever difficulty) regardless of whether someone tries to move across it or not.

A better analogy would be a power that says "when you use a power that creates difficult terrain, the terrain makes a Int v Ref attack against any creature moving into it. Enemies hit by the attack take 1d6 + Int damage" and then suggesting that the attack gets your implement bonus to damage.

Again, quote a rule. You'll find most people here more responsive to your interpretation if you could quote a rule that states that an item out of the possession of a character is no longer under control or in use by that character.

Seriously? In reply to this, I can only quote from A Few Good Men:

Kaffee: Corporal would you open this book up to the part that says that where the mess hall is.

Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt Kaffee, that's not in the book either, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say the entire time you've been at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: Well, I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it wasn't in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: Thanks. No more questions.

Some things are just common sense.

But how about this? Ongoing damage is not affected by buffs or items. 5 ongoing damage is 5 ongoing damage. That's a pretty clear example of a rule that states that "fire and forget" powers are fire and forget.

On what basis do you suggest that a PC is "using" an item/power when the item/power is not in their posession and (whether by spending actions or otherwise) the only way they can interract with it is to turn it off?

If I put my car in drive, hop out and let it roll down the hill, am I using it at the point in time when it hits a tree?

Is the Battle Standard a power? yes
Does the Battle Standard enable you or an ally to regain hit points? yes
Is the user of the Battle Standard using it? yes

Let me rephrase your questions and my answers, so that we're clear:

Is the Battle Standard a power? yes
Does the Battle Standard enable you or an ally to regain hit points? Maybe, but lets assume for the sake of argument that the answer is yes
Is the person who planted the Battle Standard still using it at the time the standard triggers? No

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, are you saying that if the standard is planted by someone wearing a healer's brooch, it heals 2 hp, but if that person is subsequently killed or knocked unconscious, or takes the brooch off, then the standard on the other side of the battlefield is suddenly less effective?

But now I'm getting sucked into the very argument I said wasn't worth having. I'll let you have the last word(s) but I've got no more to say on the subject

 

[eamon]

The way I see it, activating the healing standard represents using a power. Similarly, casting Flaming sphere is using a power. Using a flaming sphere to attack is... using a power. These are active uses; you must be conscious and perform an action to do the,

On the other hand, using a flaming sphere to block a hallway isn't "using a power" in this context (other than at the moment you place the sphere there). If you think that any and all eventual consequences of a power are considered using a power in this context - well, where do you draw the line? I saved my friend over there with a healing power, and now he hit you - just as intended - am I "using a power to damage an enemy"? Considering indirect effects to be "using a power" is a can of worms.

Clearly, there mere fact that a Healing standard's power eventually, indirectly causes healing doesn't automatically mean that you're using a power at the moment that the healing happens to occur.

Sure, there are mitigating circumstances here - the healing standard's power is obviously intended to heal, so while indirect, the healing isn't merely incidental; and the healing is directly mentioned in the power, so cause and effect are more clear-cut.

But still, Colmarr's stance is hardly an "Extraordinary claim". It looks quite reasonable to me.

 

[keterys]

"If you wield a magic implement, you can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of implement powers you use through it"

So - does that mean that you guys aren't adding implement damage to the zone damage for Stinking Cloud, or the 'starting your turn next to' damage for Flaming Sphere?

Not that it would be bad if certain powers did work like that...

 

[KarinsDad]

Seriously? In reply to this, I can only quote from A Few Good Men:

In reply to this, I can only quote some rules. I looked up the word "use" and you are correct. It does effectively mean activate. I stand corrected.

You can use a power whenever you are able to take the action the power requires.

However, your interpretation is still incorrect.

In general, magic item powers follow the same rules as other powers (in that they have ranges, shapes, and so forth). See “How to Read a Power,” page 54, for details.

There is nothing special about an item unless the item states so or some other rules states so. So, let's look at these items:

When you plant the battle standard in your space or an adjacent square, it creates a zone of healing energy in a close burst 5. Whenever you or an ally spends a healing surge while in the zone, you and all allies in the zone regain 1 hit point.

Property: When you use a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points, add the brooch’s enhancement bonus to the hit points gained.

The brooch explicitly modifies the actual power of the battle standard when the battle standard power is used.

Is the battle standard a power that enables you or an ally to regain hit points? Yes. You said so yourself (begrudgingly).

Hence by definition, the bonus is added to ANY hit points gained. It bumps up the zone to 2 hit points WHEN the power is used. It changes the effect of the zone because the owner of the standard is USING the standard power as per the requirement of the brooch.

Is the Battle Standard a power? yes
Does the Battle Standard enable you or an ally to regain hit points? Maybe, but lets assume for the sake of argument that the answer is yes
Is the person who planted the Battle Standard still using it at the time the standard triggers? No

The answer to #3 is no and it doesn't matter. The brooch modifies the zone effect at the point in time that the power is used.

You can disagree with this (obviously), but it is no different than anything else and follows the same power rules.

A Wizard with the Furnace of Sand power modifies the power when he uses the power with his Astral Fire feat:

You gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls when you use a power that has the fire or the radiant keyword.

Note the word use.

The burst creates a zone of red-hot swirling sand that lasts until the end of your next turn. All creatures are blinded while they are within the zone, and the area is lightly obscured. Each creature that enters the zone takes 1d10 + your Intelligence modifier fire damage.

Is it your claim that since the zone does damage later on when a creature enters the square, the Wizard does not get his Astral Fire feat damage? Is it your claim that the feat only adds the damage during the split instant that the Wizard uses the power and not later on by the zone damage?

How about Wall of Fire? The Wizard doesn't modify the damage of Wall of Fire for when creatures start their turns next to the wall with his Astral Fire feat at the point in time that the power is used?

There is no difference here. For your interpretation to be correct, thousands of people are playing the game incorrectly (which is possible, but unlikely) when they use the Astral Fire feat to modify all damage rolls done by fire powers.

Or any other feat to increase damage with a power when the power does damage in the future. Or any other item to increase damage with a power when the power does damage in the future.


If you can find a rules difference between these examples here that I missed, please post it.

 

[Colmarr]

But now I'm getting sucked into the very argument I said wasn't worth having. I'll let you have the last word(s) but I've got no more to say on the subject

Damn rule stating you need to add text to make a valid post!

 

[Zinovia]

I won't argue that the combination is against RAW, because it seems futile to do so. However I find it distateful to combine an item power with another item in that way. It's *different* than a wizard creating a flaming sphere, because it's an item making the zone. You use the item power of the banner to make the zone. You are *not* using the item power when it heals someone. You may not be actively using your spell when it burns someone, but it's *your* spell, not an item. It's not the same thing.

So I am using my innate sense of "This feels wrong" to make a decision. Blame it on me being a woman. Meh.

 

[keterys]

So I am using my innate sense of "This feels wrong" to make a decision.

Which is totally a good thing to do! My only objection was with someone arguing it was RAW. I'm a big fan of running it however you want at the table, but also figuring out what's actually wrong with the rules and letting WotC know so they fix them and/or don't do it again.

The funny thing is that I actually had thought in the past about using two healing standards together, because two people showed up for LFR with them, so it made sense... and I joked about what happens if 5-6 people all showed up with 1. But I never ever considered one person carrying 20+ of them. That opened my eyes a bit.

 

[KarinsDad]

Which is totally a good thing to do! My only objection was with someone arguing it was RAW. I'm a big fan of running it however you want at the table, but also figuring out what's actually wrong with the rules and letting WotC know so they fix them and/or don't do it again.

Ditto.

 

[lucek]

Heal bot clerics are hardly ever game breaking. I had a LVL 2 Cleric that regularly healed over 30 points of damage with a singe healing word or healing strike(surge+wis+D6 for target and wis+str for me). No healing magic items either all feats and class features.

That and the fact the battle standard is a big target for smart enemies. If the best case scenario the battle standard is dishing out 10 HP/surge it becomes a target, changing the dynamics of the fight.