D&D 4E D&D 4E Rageblood Armor Question

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I'm not going to go on with the pointless arguments about subtle and never-established questions about a dead system. The case of rages really doesn't MATTER because they are all of the form attack: something and effect: you enter the rage state. While raging XYZ. Nobody disagrees that these are simple power uses. OTOH when powers include granted attacks which may come some time later in a separate action there is NO CLARITY. If you insist on considering all these cases to be "not a power use" you still have to explain their action status, but I'm not going to continue to point out things that will simply be ignored.

As for the 'Compendium Formatting' its not a matter of it being some sort of 'official source' and the powers were changed, I am WELL aware of this! However, it does indicate what the intent was in many cases and its a good idea to take into consideration how powers were represented in different sources when you try to decide what the RAW is in ambiguous situations since certainly in those cases it is very useful to understand the RAI.

But like I said, this argument has raged on across many forums for years and never been completely put to rest. There isn't even necessarily one best consistent way to handle it, which is probably why nobody at WotC has decreed AFAIK a definitive universal ruling.

 

[DracoSuave]

If you insist on considering all these cases to be "not a power use" you still have to explain their action status

An action granted by the original power's original use.

It's not using a power, because there's no power being used. You're allowed to because the original power says you can as part of the effect. Specific beats general, yo.

The action doesn't have a title, doesn't need one, because it's an action specific only to the effect of that power

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

An action granted by the original power's original use.

It's not using a power, because there's no power being used. You're allowed to because the original power says you can as part of the effect. Specific beats general, yo.

The action doesn't have a title, doesn't need one, because it's an action specific only to the effect of that power

This is by far not always the case.

 

[DracoSuave]

This is by far not always the case.

In other cases, there's differences to contrast why they are different. I pointed out Warden abilities, and I pointed out powers that grant secondary attacks.

I'm trying to get a solid argument from you why Rageblood would act as the former and not the latter, even tho it is templated and written as the latter, and has never been errata'd otherwise. So far the only points you've made is that some powers have been retemplated [which may or may not apply to this power] and that this power doesn't do it all in one action [which isn't actually relevant to my argument] and that every action has to have some rule supporting being allowed to use it [which the power already does]

However, there is a difference between an attack, and a power. Attacks are effects, and powers are one means to cause effects. They are not the same thing in any iteration of the fourth edition rules, which is why your argument doesn't work that they should be. Now, it is true that most attacks are the effects of powers, but that's the same as saying that most power bonuses are the effects of powers. Does that mean that a power bonus that you use on consecutive rounds is consecutive using of a power? Of course not. That's rediculous.

Using a Power refers explicitly to the activation of a power. Subsequent effects of that power are not activating that power, but simply using existing effects of a power you've already used. The only exception to this is when that power grants you another power as its effect, and I urge you to look at Warden Dailies to see exactly what that means and how that works. They're usually written like "Effect: You can use the foo power until the end of the encounter [Full Power Description Including Keywords]" and not "Effect: You can use the following attack while under the effects of this power // Secondary Attack: Strength vs Ac...."

One difference: You spoke of keyword inheritance for attacks and effects of a power. Secondary powers do not inherit keywords, but rather have their own keywords that can be the same or different than the parent power.