Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JDillard" data-source="post: 4344271" data-attributes="member: 67649">Ok. I'm having trouble with pg 226 as well, but I have a feeling I know what was intended. You've got two different kinds of keywords. Damage keywords and Power keywords. So, take this: Example AttackEncounter, Divine, Radiant, WeaponTarget: 1 creatureAttack: St vs ACHit: 1w + strength modifier psychic damage Here's how this would work: This power would benefit from the Astral Fire feat (give +1 dmg to fire and radiant powers, radiant is in the "power keywords" box). It would not benefit from the Dark Fury feat (give +1 dmg to psychic and necrotic powers). Even though the damage is psychic, the feat affects powers keywords, not damage keywords. Conversely, This power would do extra damage to creatures with Psychic Vulnerability. The damage keyword is psychic. It would not do extra damage to creatures with Radiant Vulnerability. It's not doing radiant damage, just psychic damage. So far this is all supported by the book, and WotC cust-service and so forth. Take a look at the discussion about illusion spells and psychic damage based on the Dragon magazine article. They were pretty adamant that just because psychic damage was dealt, doesn't mean the power also has to have psychic in the keywords. So, next. Suppose you were using this power with a Flaming Sword: You use the minor at-will to turn on the flaming damage. Here's where it gets sticky, and people might disagree, but I'm pretty sure I know how it should be. It still would not benefit from the Astral Fire feat. It would do the extra damage to a Fire Vulnerable creature. Pg 226 has that one sentence written in a way that suggests: When you use a weapon with a power, you add that weapon's keywords to that power's keywords.  I do not think that's what they meant, based off of the example they give directly after their statement: "if a Paladin uses a flaming sword to attack with a power that does radiant damage, the power deals both radiant damage and fire damage." It says a sentence that talks about power keywords, then uses an example that discusses damage keywords. I'm thinking the prior sentence is the confusing one, and the damage bit is fine. I think the sentence before the example is *not* referring to Power keywords, it's referring to damage keywords. This is also pretty well supported by common sense. Otherwise you end up with the weird situation like allowing someone to cast a Ray of Frost with the Fire keyword, simply because he's using a wand of scorching blast to cast it. That seems... patently odd.</blockquote>

Verification