Scout: Dual Weapon Attack & Power Strike interaction

[Nikosandros]

When HotFK first came out there was some discussion about the interaction of those two powers for a scout.

By RAW it would appear that a scout can't use both at the same time, since a character can't take more than one free action to use an attack power per turn. This, however, appears strange, since DWA is the basic "striker feature" for a scout and a slayer, for example, isn't denied the dex bonus to damage when using Power Strike.

Has this ever been officially (or semi-officially) clarified? If not, how do you rule about it in your games?

 

[Prestidigitalis]

The two powers use the same trigger, and the damage from Power Strike is much lower, so the only reasons you would ever use Power Strike are:

1. To take advantage of an add-on effect: Serpent's Blade or Eagle's Axe.

2. Because you have already used Dual Weapon Attack once that round, and can't use it again, e.g. on an action point, granted attack, or OA.

That's marginal enough that it's hard to believe it was intentional. I'd allow use of both on the same attack.

 

[Blue]

Power strike isn't an attack ... wait, it is. Dang.

It adds to an existing attack, so my belief is that it isn't considered a free action attack. But you're right, it is classified according to the compendium as an attack, and you only get one per round by the rules.

I'd let it ride, allowing both in the same turn because I feel that's the intent. But by reading the rules you're right and you can only use one.

 

[BobTheNob]

This whole issue is a real bugbear of mine (meaning something that irritates me...not the big goblin).

Point 1 : Every striker has a "damage component". Its what primarily defines them a striker. Rogues/Theives get surprise attack, rangers (PHB) get quarry, Slayers/Hexblades/Sorcerors get secondary stat...the list goes on. The Scouts "Damage Component" is his Dual weapon attack

Point 2 : Every striker has encounter powers. There is a great variance between pre-essentials and essentials, but they all get something called an encounter power, which is a "cut above" the at-will

Point 3 : The "Striker Damage Component" from point 1 and the "Encounter power" from point 2 can always be put together in a single standard action (or other) attack....except if you are a scout!!!

The scout has a rule quick where he cant combine his damage component with encountee power. While RAW endorses this, it is a real kick in the pants for a class that (IMHO) is already struggling for viability.
1. The striker component (Dual attack) is (IMHO) kinda naf if you dont invest heavily into increasing base damage (meaning you have to put your feats into it to get decent damage out, something the other essentials classes are not obligated to do)
2. The scout is the only essentials striker with no way of applying his damage component to a ranged attack (yet is a ranger...the one choice I thought they would have built it into)
3. They cant stack damage component with encounter power.

I dont know about the rest of you DM's out there, but I would have no problem what-so-ever with allowing a Scout to use Power Strike and Dual weapon attack together. The class needs something lest it be the class no-one will ever play.

 

[Ferdil]

Wait a minute, people.

You do really believe that you should do as written, always? For me, it is quite obvious that this flaw in the rules was not meant by the developers, and was a mistake on their part. Just get on with it. Make an exception. And it's not a house rule. It's just interpreting the rules, not literally, but by intent.

Anyway, I do not really understand why Power Strike is an attack power. It should be an utility power.

 

[BobTheNob]

Wait a minute, people.

You do really believe that you should do as written, always? For me, it is quite obvious that this flaw in the rules was not meant by the developers, and was a mistake on their part. Just get on with it. Make an exception. And it's not a house rule. It's just interpreting the rules, not literally, but by intent.

Anyway, I do not really understand why Power Strike is an attack power. It should be an utility power.

Exactly, totally, couldnt agree more. It seems perfectly obvious to me that intent here is that power strike and dual weapon attack can combine even if by RAW they cant. It is entirely possible this is just an oversight in terms of class design.

What I havent heard is, in terms of intention and game balance, why they shouldnt?

 

[kaomera]

You do really believe that you should do as written, always?

Nope, and I don't think that's what anyone has suggested. I do think you should at least try to understand the rules as written before you change them.

Anyway, I do not really understand why Power Strike is an attack power. It should be an utility power.

By my reading the errata to limit free-action attack powers was intended to limit unreasonable numbers of extra attacks. Since power attack is simply pumping up the damage of an attack (and possibly adding riders, etc. due to other abilities) I don't think it should conflict with Dual Weapon Attack. I think that they simply missed this particular rules interaction. However, I think that it would probably be better to make DWA the utility and leave Power Strike as an attack. That way a Scout could get their striker damage feature applied to an extra basic attack granted by a Leader, but not use their encounter power... Anyway, that seems more reasonable to me.

 

[BobTheNob]

Nope, and I don't think that's what anyone has suggested. I do think you should at least try to understand the rules as written before you change them.

Agreed. There has been previous threads on this where I argued the Scout should be able to combine PS & DWA and got argued out because of others RAW interpretation. I remember giving up because so many believed that RAW said no and RAW was the intention (intention = no combining encounter power with striker component? Ridiculous!)

Thanks for your alternate RAW interpretation, it allows for what I think the intention is.

Either way, as DM, I would allow it for the sake of making the scout as viable as other striker options.

 

[Mapache]

Wait a minute, people.

You do really believe that you should do as written, always? For me, it is quite obvious that this flaw in the rules was not meant by the developers, and was a mistake on their part. Just get on with it. Make an exception. And it's not a house rule. It's just interpreting the rules, not literally, but by intent.

Anyway, I do not really understand why Power Strike is an attack power. It should be an utility power.

It's obvious to everyone that this was not intended by the developers, and that's the problem. Rules, at least for something as simple as adding damage to an attack, should be perfectly unambiguous and able to be played exactly as written. The problem comes from the fact that, as written, they don't work. That we need to apply judgement calls and overrule this means we can't trust the rules to work as written. We shouldn't have to do that. Once we need to make one ruling, everything becomes subject to interpretation. People start coming up with different fixes to problems, or start defining things they don't like as problems, and we cease to be able to talk about a coherent body of objective rules. Everyone should be able to house rule things because they want the game to work differently, but no one should have to house rule things for the game to work in the first place. That the same company manages to keep the insanely complicated rules of Magic and its 12,000+ cards completely unambiguous and working smoothly only makes this sort of stupid oversight all the more galling.

 

[BobTheNob]

That the same company manages to keep the insanely complicated rules of Magic and its 12,000+ cards completely unambiguous and working smoothly only makes this sort of stupid oversight all the more galling.

To be honest, I have had very little to complain about with the essentials line. This is one issue in what is what I otherwise consider a stellar set of publications.

To call it "galling" is a smidge heavy. I would have just called it human error.