Persistent Threat and Rain of Steel

[Black Knight Irios]

Hi there,

I have a question regarding Persistent Threat [PS] (D383) and a stance like Rain of Steel [RoS] (PHB).

The situation: Fighter dazed and RoS active. Takes no opportunity action. Any number of enemies adjacent.

PS gives you one OA per turn when you are dazed. RoS requires that you are able to make OAs (emphasis on attacks).

Question: Can I assume that as long as I keep my one OA from PS I can use RoS to its full potential?



--Thank you for your answers.

 

[Obryn]

Based on how both read, I would say yes. If you have persistent threat, you're able to make opportunity attacks while dazed. If you can make opportunity attacks, you're able to use Rain of Steel.

At least, I'd think so up until the point where you can't make opportunity attacks anymore - like after you make one in a round where you're dazed. Then, because you can't make opportunity attacks, RoS should hibernate until your turn rolls around again.

-O

 

[Flipguarder]

any interpretation that lowers the power level of my fighter who uses come and get it, action points, rain of steel is the right interpretation.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Based on how both read, I would say yes. If you have persistent threat, you're able to make opportunity attacks while dazed. If you can make opportunity attacks, you're able to use Rain of Steel.

At least, I'd think so up until the point where you can't make opportunity attacks anymore - like after you make one in a round where you're dazed. Then, because you can't make opportunity attacks, RoS should hibernate until your turn rolls around again.

-O

That is the interpretation that I decided upon so far, as well.

any interpretation that lowers the power level of my fighter who uses come and get it, action points, rain of steel is the right interpretation.

And this is getting us nowhere. May I ask you to add something with meaning to the discussion?


+++++EDIT+++++

And here is what CS answered regarding the question:

Unfortunately, there isn’t an official answer for the situation you describe. I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. Hopefully, we’ll see an update or FAQ entry covering it soon, but until then it’s up to the campaign’s Dungeon Master to decide. The DM is always the final arbiter on how they want their campaign to run. Have fun!

At least no stupid ruling.

 

[Flipguarder]

And this is getting us nowhere. May I ask you to add something with meaning to the discussion?

KK Mr. Grumpy pants, I agree with Obryn, they both read as though to allow that exact situation.

 

[Obryn]

I wouldn't get hung up on the pluralization of "attacks." I can't think of any place in D&D where a plural term doesn't include the singular case.

-O

 

[eamon]

As a DM, in terms of intent and mental model, presumably the requirement to be able to make OA's represents the "rain" of steel. So, the ability to make just one OA would seem insufficient to sustain the stance in that purely intuitive sense. As a compromise, how about letting the stance affect one target (PC's choice) rather than each target - mirroring the limited nature of the OA's granted?

If you want a mechanical answer, I'd say the stance works every turn of each round until you make the single OA for that round permitted by the feat - after all, you until you make the OA, you have the ability to make opportunity attacks as required, and after you've made the OA, you no longer do. In a sense, that's self-balancing too; a PC is rewarded for not taking OA's to let his stance remain stronger in the rest of the round (and a fighter's OA's are pretty nifty whereas the stance damage is fairly low). On the other hand, I don't think that literal reading is particularly simple or reasonable; but it's certainly not game-breaking anyhow.