Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="cdrcjsn" data-source="post: 4659291" data-attributes="member: 60486">The indentation argument is a little off as well.Yeah, some powers allow extra attacks contingent on hitting with the primary and this is shown by an indentation, but they almost always say so in the damage or hit line as well.There's also the fact that all  powers that have a weapon prerequisite description are also indented, so it can be read that the extra attack is merely contingent on the weapon wielded rather than on hitting.Yeah, a designer commented, but unless he's the guy who actually wrote the power, I'd take that with a grain of salt.  After listening to the podcasts, I realized that not all the designers are exactly on the same page with regards to the rules (for example, one allowed magic missile to be used for an OA when it clearly states basic melee attack, I think it was Mearls).There's also the power issue.  This one power would otherwise be more powerful than any other power up to epic levels if it's attack twice, followup with a secondary for each.I think it's more reasonable (and the way it's currently written, it can certainly be interpreted that way) that you attack twice against the same target.  If you meet the prereqs, then you get a third attack against the same or different target.  It's still a powerful ability, but nowhere as powerful as allowing four attacks.</blockquote>