Dance of Steel and Rain of Blows

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I kind of expect an errata on this one sooner or later. It's silly as is.

 

[butwait]

Compare Anvil of Doom (FA13E), where the weapon entry under hit says "rather than", or Talons of the Roc (FA13E), where the weapon entry under hit says "also" when modifying the hit's effect, with Cage of Chains, (FA23E), where no reference is made to the hit. Skullcrusher (FA23E) grants a new condition, but also explicitly mentions the damage roll.

This is a little muddied by Chains of Sorrow or Silverstep (both FA13E), where the weapon line follows the same form as the preceding hit or effect line, but replacing a static number with the dex modifier. It seems that the intent is dex mod instead of the usual effect. Every power other than RoB or DoS makes reference to an extant part of the hit or effect, via explicit mention of the damage roll, a repeat of the phrasing found in the hit line, or an "also" or "rather than". All of the words support pemerton.

On indenting: Cruel Reaper (FA27E) has a secondary attack as part of an effect, and has secondary attack indented below effect. Kensei's Weaponsoul Dance (KA20D) has secondary and tertiary attacks as a result of effects, and these are not indented. My conclusion? The guy who did the kensei didn't do the fighter. The indentation seems to support MF, but it is also inconsistent even within the Fighter section.

I'm thus in favor of RoB and DoS weapon effects taking place even without a hit.

 

[Zurai]

No, it wouldn't have to read like that. The "effect" line only appears if there's an effect that occurs independently of hit or miss. If there isn't one, the line doesn't appear.

If the weapon-based details occurred on an "effect," the line would read something akin to:

"Effect: If you're wielding a weapon of [type X], then [effect Y]." Simple, straightforward--and absent.

No. Weapon: is always its own header, regardless of what type of bonus you get for wielding that weapon. It would, indeed, need to be "Effect: None" to be internally consistent.

Not that internal consistency seems to have been a design goal of the Classes section of the PHB.

 

[pemerton]

Butwait, thanks for the support - though I think I've now been persuaded by Mouseferatu.

There is another thread on this issue over here.

Btw, do you take Cage of Chains to be conditional on the hit to get the restraint, or not?