Multible Misty Step - All at once...

[Iron Sky]

Personally I thought it was pretty cool, the DM just didn't like it much...

And yes, they were bunched up, marching down a fairly narrow tunnel from both sides, en-masse. Our warlock usually got 2-3 per teleport, leaving him enough teleports after wiping out the enemy on one side to teleport over to the other side and kill most of them too.

As for the Checkers, yeah, it was kinda. I actually figured out where to strategically place the teleports for maximum effectiveness, while the warlock kept track of how many boons were coming in/going out.

Me: "Ok, so those two died, you have two teleports, teleporting here will put you next to 3 of them, then the second teleport kills them and puts you next to these three, so, teleport here and here, uses up two teleports, but kills 5."

Him: "Ok, I had to use the rod of contagion on two of those in order to spread my curse to all of the rest on that side, that means I have... 1 teleport left..."

Me: "Ok, teleporting out from here kills 3 more..."

Etc...

Most of the time it was just a tiny bit more auto-damage (it was before the warlock teleport 1 at-will power was out too), but that instance was enough to cause minions to be house-ruled in our game.

 

[Mircoles]

It can get crazy if you've managed to curse a large number of minions and then the wizards turn comes up. Whooo!

 

[hvg3akaek]

Our warlock usually got 2-3 per teleport, leaving him enough teleports after wiping out the enemy on one side to teleport over to the other side and kill most of them too.

I like the idea of it, and play a TP-focused warlock myself, but would not 'save up' TPs.

"Effect: You can immediately teleport 3 squares as a free action."

I think the example shows why a reading of Immediately to be "right then" (and thus, only one per lot of kills), not "store away for later use" would be appropriate.

 

[Colmarr]

I think there's enough laxity in the RAW here for a DM to rule it however they want.

Am I right in remembering that Misty step or the warlock's curse class feature says "when" or something equivalent?

If so, it's open to say that that word creates a specific point in time at which the teleports must be taken. It follows from that that even if you have 5 teleports available, they all start in and end in exactly the same spot. There's no "chain" possible.

 

[Samir]

I like the idea of it, and play a TP-focused warlock myself, but would not 'save up' TPs.

"Effect: You can immediately teleport 3 squares as a free action."

I think the example shows why a reading of Immediately to be "right then" (and thus, only one per lot of kills), not "store away for later use" would be appropriate.

So when a monster marked by a Fighter makes a ranged attack (provoking an OA) against an ally (triggering Combat Challenge, an immediate interrupt) does the Fighter have to choose which attack he takes, because either attack has to happen "right then?"

When something triggers multiple actions, you resolve each of those actions. Nullifying all but one trigger because the triggered actions are supposed to happen simultaneously causes more problems than it fixes.

 

[keterys]

But, it still remains a valid option for DMs who want to prevent the tactic, because they're free actions and free actions are entirely in the purview of the DM to limit.

I'm not suggesting a DM do that, but it is technically a valid option.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So when a monster marked by a Fighter makes a ranged attack (provoking an OA) against an ally (triggering Combat Challenge, an immediate interrupt) does the Fighter have to choose which attack he takes, because either attack has to happen "right then?"

When something triggers multiple actions, you resolve each of those actions. Nullifying all but one trigger because the triggered actions are supposed to happen simultaneously causes more problems than it fixes.

I don't think your example is entirely fair. The warlock in this case was getting say 3 teleports, using one, taking other (admittedly free) actions, THEN using more of the 'pending' teleports. That is a bit different than a fighter taking an OA and then a CS II immediately afterwards while the same trigger condition is still true.

In any case the Rod of Curse Spamming has obviously been nerfed to not work with minions for pretty much this very sort of reason.

I think sounds pretty cool though. I'd have been pretty happy with that if I was the DM. I like to see players go crazy and do insane stuff.

 

[hvg3akaek]

I think sounds pretty cool though. I'd have been pretty happy with that if I was the DM. I like to see players go crazy and do insane stuff.

Indeed, and if he were using one jump after each blast, I would think it much more reasonable. But saving them up is like an infernal warlock getting two lots of THP, having one be used up, then letting the other trigger...

 

[Iron Sky]

Indeed, and if he were using one jump after each blast, I would think it much more reasonable. But saving them up is like an infernal warlock getting two lots of THP, having one be used up, then letting the other trigger...

What about a star warlock getting multiple bonuses to hit from one attack. For example, say there's 4 regular cursed monsters near death that all get hit by the same blast. If a star pact warlock gets +1 to per dead monster and a dark warlock gets 1 more "charge" to their darkspiral, why shouldn't the fey warlock get multiple teleports? Fey is often considered one of the weakest pacts already - last I checked Char-op anyway, which has admittedly been a while...

IMO, Boons are supposed to give warlocks a reward for each cursed creature that dies, regardless of whether the creatures die in the same combat, round, or action. It doesn't make sense to me to "punish" the warlock for some other player nuking a pile of bloodied baddies with an AoE daily rather than killing them one at a time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What about a star warlock getting multiple bonuses to hit from one attack. For example, say there's 4 regular cursed monsters near death that all get hit by the same blast. If a star pact warlock gets +1 to per dead monster and a dark warlock gets 1 more "charge" to their darkspiral, why shouldn't the fey warlock get multiple teleports? Fey is often considered one of the weakest pacts already - last I checked Char-op anyway, which has admittedly been a while...

IMO, Boons are supposed to give warlocks a reward for each cursed creature that dies, regardless of whether the creatures die in the same combat, round, or action. It doesn't make sense to me to "punish" the warlock for some other player nuking a pile of bloodied baddies with an AoE daily rather than killing them one at a time.

I don't have a problem with a feylock getting multiple teleports. I only have a problem with them being able to "store them up". Looking at the PHB pact boons the Infernal Pact gets THP that are non-stackable and so has no benefit from multiple enemies killed at once either. The Star Pact gets a +1 per enemy on the next die roll, which may or may not be useful at all though it certainly is better depending on number of enemies. Fey Pact clearly says you teleport "instantly". That means multiple teleports is not an unreasonable interpretation but teleport, attack, teleport, attack, etc is clearly not what they meant. Seems Fey Pact is sort of inbetween infernal and star in that respect.

Charops only devalues the feylock because they don't know how to rate anything except damage per round and haven't found some loophole to use to get some kind of awesome damage out of Fey Pact. In play they are quite effective and fun. They are just a controller much more than a true striker. Fey is also kind of odd in that pact boon really isn't stunningly handy. Teleport 3 is OK, but the class is a ranged attacking striker and you would really hope that teleporting is not something they desperately need to do all the time. It can free up a move action now and then or get you out of trouble, etc but its just not up front pushing their main function.