Scout: Dual Weapon Attack & Power Strike interaction

[DracoSuave]

That doesn't mean everything. Warpriest dailies also have the format: 'Pick one of the following powers of your choice'. Wizard powers have that format as well.

The rule still allows you to choose from other lists in those cases as well. That's why the rule exists.

The reason they aren't grouped together is... quite honestly... there's no point. The scout doesn't get much advantage from ranged attacks and the hunter doesn't get much advantage from melee attacks. The aspects that are not repeated are not really conducive to the other build's playstyle. That is sufficient to have them printed only for the builds that would like to have them, and is good formatting for new players.

However, if you have an unorthodox build and have a different idea of what you want to do outside their 'normal parameters' then go right ahead. You're no more disallowed from taking a scout's aspect on your hunter than you are taking a scout's utility on your hunter. All the lists have the same 'choose one of the following' wording.

What you cannot do is take the other build's wilderness knacks... those aren't powers and are not under the other sources rule. Moot point anyways, given that those knacks are verbatim repeats anyways.

 

[Nikosandros]

Does the level match? Yes.

Does the level match? No, because there is no level and something that doesn't exist can't possibly match.

Personally, I see either interpretation as possible.

 

[DracoSuave]

Does the level match? No, because there is no level and something that doesn't exist can't possibly match.

Personally, I see either interpretation as possible.

I don't know where you learned your math, but the null set equals the null set.

They can't possibly be different either.

 

[Nikosandros]

I don't know where you learned your math, but the null set equals the null set.

They can't possibly be different either.

I learned my Math while taking my degree in Physics, but it is completely ridiculous to even think that set theory applies to the rules of D&D. This is not a theorem we are analyzing but some rules for a RPG.

The rules are unclear, you feel certain that they are saying one thing, I was merely pointing out that another interpretation is possible. I never stated that the alternative was certain. The CB isn't a proof, but it shows that someone interpreted it the other way.

 

[DracoSuave]

My point was... how are they -not- exactly the same?

Now, if you had a rule that said that level was required, then yes, you might have a point.

Do you see where I'm going there?

 

[Nikosandros]

My point was... how are they -not- exactly the same?

Now, if you had a rule that said that level was required, then yes, you might have a point.

Do you see where I'm going there?

Draco, in case I didn't make myself clear, I TOTALLY see your point. Your interpretation is eminently reasonable, but I feel that the other one is not so unlikely. Yours is more literal and perhaps precise, but the rules are not usually written with that kind of logical rigor.

 

[Smurtis]

I never knew about the "pro-tip" draco has mentioned... initially, i would call shenanigans on doing such a thing...

I also have to say that; if one of the requirements is in fact "must match the level", that in itself indicates a level is required... and having no level listed, is no level at all... although it is the "same" it still has no level to meet the "same level" requirement to take such a power into another "class"...

But i'd have to really look into this whole new idea in detail... but in the mean time, i thought i'd shoot in my interpretation of what i've been reading just on this post.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

As someone who likes to play oddball builds and while away the hours just building weird characters for the fun of it, this was something I looked into quite a lot when HotF* came out.

My interpretation agrees with DracoSuave. I'd allow it as a DM. The CB often has a flawed implementation of the rules.

 

[Smurtis]

My point was... how are they -not- exactly the same?

Now, if you had a rule that said that level was required, then yes, you might have a point.

Do you see where I'm going there?

I took some time to examine this more closely and came to the same conclusion i recently posted...

"must be the same level" is stating clearly that the requirement keyword is for the power having a level... It doesnt matter that the powers are exactly the same, because that's not part of the requirements. The requirements dictates a level is required (and that they be the same level)... The absence of a level does not qualify as being a level or even a level 0... Therefore, i do not believe it would be a valid exploit...

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I just discovered another twist on the Character Builder angle.

The Aspects that CB lets you choose from at levels 1 and 7 are the ones listed under the Scout in HotFK. But the list at level 17 includes ALL of the Aspects. It's not retroactive -- you can't select a Hunter Aspect for levels 1 or 7 just because your character is level 17.

I also checked the Hunter, but it doesn't have the same quirk, although I noticed that for both classes, the level 17 selection page title is "Aspect of the Wild" rather than "Aspect of the Wild (Scout)" or "Aspect of the Wild (Hunter)" as it is at earlier levels. (I refer to the hyperlinked title on the page where you actually select which Aspect you want.)

I'm going to report the bug, of course, but I think it's pretty funny in the context of this thread.