Typo or deliberate?

[keterys]

Then the sustain action can never be taken. You cannot sustain when there's no effect to sustain.

You're sustaining your "Crown of Stars" effect. It lets you attack once per round. Anything else would _have_ to be stated in the power. For example, the blindness would have to state it lasts until the end of your next turn when sustained.

"Some effects do something, such as attack, when you sustain them. A power’s description indicates what happens when you sustain it or let it lapse. At the end of your turn, if you haven’t spent the required action to sustain the effect, the effect ends."

It's odd you're taking this stance on this one, when the rules are actually cut and dry. It's particularly odd since we already know the original warlock sustain powers are written badly.

 

[Gryph]

Then the sustain action can never be taken. You cannot sustain when there's no effect to sustain.

You may be right on the Blind duration, I am not sure; but, this quote is wrong. The sustain rule can specifiy an attack on sustain and doesn't have to have a condition.

Also the sustain isn't conditional and the blindness is, so would your ruling really be that if the target isn't bloodied and therefore not blind that the sustain minor line is invalidated? It's an awkwardly written power, but that doesn't seem likely.

 

[D'karr]

Deleted. The more I work through scenarios the less sure I am of the correct answer.

If you really want to be blinded, call/email CustServ.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's a poorly worded mess.

1) Clearly, it is the Cha vs Will attack that is the sustained part of the power since you only get the Blindness rider if the target you hit with the main, Cha vs Ref attack is bloodied. If not, then there is an additional condition on the sustain, namely, that you can only sustain the power if you successfully Blinded the foe you hit.

2) While doing Cha damage + Warlock attack damage is nothing to sneeze at, it is clearly worse than any Warlock At-Will. Which means that if the power works like CustServ says it does (sustain minor in order to make a standard action attack), there is no reason to sustain the power...

3) Unless the Blindness is ALSO sustained...but the power says the condition ends at the end of your next turn. And the Blindness, as noted before, is highly conditional.

 

[keterys]

Good luck explaining Radiant Pulse, otherwise, since that one doesn't have anything with a duration at all. Just extra attacks.

 

[MrMyth]

Blindness is the only effect of the power that sustain can key off of. If sustain does not extend the blindness, then sustain has no effect active that allows you to activate it. Sustain is a definition of duration, not merely a line in powers that lets you do cool things.

In this case, it is exactly that. What you are sustaining is simply the ability to keep sustaining it, and, thus, gain free attacks.

You have hit the problem with the power design - it doesn't actually list an effect to be sustained, which is typically what sustaining is for.

The intent of the power is pretty clear, reading the flavor text:
"Flaring points of star-bright light encircle your head. With each gesture, a painful point of blue-white light leaps away in a halo of choking smoke toward one foe."

Clearly what they are aiming for is the idea that, as long as you sustain the power, you retain your 'crown of stars' - and the act of sustaining it is what fires off the lights at your enemies.

As written, it... mostly works. Which is to say, there are 3 or 4 different ways to read it, none of them work perfectly well with the rules, and this interpretation is the one that both fits most smoothly and matches the description of the power.

The alternative interpretations:

1) The sustain effect prolongs the blindness. Except "A power’s description indicates what happens when you sustain it or let it lapse." Extending the blindness is never mentioned in the sustain effect, however. You would be adding a completely new ability to the power, one that is neither referenced within it nor implied by the description of the power.

2) The rules for sustaining refer to sustaining "an effect". The power produces no effect that is referenced in the sustain line, which means you can never take the sustain action. It might match a strict reading of the power, but also is pretty clearly against both the intent and the description of the power.

3) Or, we have the interpretation that cust-serv offered to the DM, which basically involves replacing what the power actually says with, "Effect: You acquire a Crown of Stars until the end of your next turn. As a standard action, Make a Charisma vs. Will attack against any target in range. On a hit, deal radiant damage equal to your Charisma modifier. Sustain Minor: The Crown of Stars persists until the end of your next turn." Which involves even more significant rewriting of the power and, from a power balance perspective, is pretty clearly a useless ability.

Which leaves us with the interpretation I've been arguing for: That all you are sustaining is the ability to, in effect, keep sustaining the power. That if they properly worded it, it would probably read something like, "Effect: You acquire a Crown of Stars until the end of your next turn. Sustain Minor: The Crown of Stars persists until the end of your next turn, and Make a Charisma vs. Will attack against any target in range. On a hit, deal radiant damage equal to your Charisma modifier."

That doesn't require any massive adjustments to the power itself, and seems to match the description and intent as well. And is also relatively easy to see why they omitted the additional text, not figuring the need to include an effect that has no actual benefit in and of itself, outside of the Sustain Minor attack.

 

[DracoSuave]

In this case, it is exactly that. What you are sustaining is simply the ability to keep sustaining it, and, thus, gain free attacks.

I must have missed that due to the fact it's not written anywhere in the power that it has this effect.

It has a blindness effect, however, the rules for sustain say they extend a power, this is the persistant effect of the power, so why would the power not sustain it?

Where is the exception that contradicts the general rule? The words 'Sustain minor' is all that is necessary to extend the blindness.

You have hit the problem with the power design - it doesn't actually list an effect to be sustained, which is typically what sustaining is for.

That was okay under PHB1-era templating, because the sustain rules explicitly state they extend the power's effects. In this case, blindness being the ONLY effect with a duration, it must be the effect that is sustained.

1) The sustain effect prolongs the blindness. Except "A power’s description indicates what happens when you sustain it or let it lapse." Extending the blindness is never mentioned in the sustain effect, however. You would be adding a completely new ability to the power, one that is neither referenced within it nor implied by the description of the power.

The rules for sustain itself state the power is sustained. What that is refering to is OTHER things that can happen when you sustain the power. This isn't the first power that's worked that way... before they cleaned it up, EVERY sustain power that had an additional effect did not say 'The effect persists' or whatever... that's inherently the rule of sustain itself.

2) The rules for sustaining refer to sustaining "an effect". The power produces no effect that is referenced in the sustain line, which means you can never take the sustain action. It might match a strict reading of the power, but also is pretty clearly against both the intent and the description of the power.

Templating at the time never required that either. There's a LOT of powers that sustain to do something without saying it persists: Flaming Sphere for example. This power isn't even unusual for its time.

3) Or, we have the interpretation that cust-serv offered to the DM, which basically involves replacing what the power actually says with, "Effect: You acquire a Crown of Stars until the end of your next turn. As a standard action, Make a Charisma vs. Will attack against any target in range. On a hit, deal radiant damage equal to your Charisma modifier. Sustain Minor: The Crown of Stars persists until the end of your next turn." Which involves even more significant rewriting of the power and, from a power balance perspective, is pretty clearly a useless ability.

Don't like this answer either, because it's some other power. It's not Crown of Stars.

The only interpretation that actually follows the rules, and the templating used at the time, is 1. It has an EOT effect, it has sustain, sustain can extend that effect by the rules themselves. You don't need to rewrite things the rules already allow you to do.

Which leaves us with the interpretation I've been arguing for: That all you are sustaining is the ability to, in effect, keep sustaining the power. That if they properly worded it, it would probably read something like, "Effect: You acquire a Crown of Stars until the end of your next turn. Sustain Minor: The Crown of Stars persists until the end of your next turn, and Make a Charisma vs. Will attack against any target in range. On a hit, deal radiant damage equal to your Charisma modifier."

That doesn't require any massive adjustments to the power itself, and seems to match the description and intent as well. And is also relatively easy to see why they omitted the additional text, not figuring the need to include an effect that has no actual benefit in and of itself, outside of the Sustain Minor attack.

Except that's reading too much into the power as well... that same flavor text can be read as having a blinding crown of light that continues to blind your original target while still attacking others while you maintain a 'flaring' aura.

Fact is, this involves inventing an effect for the power that isn't there. Blindness IS an effect of the power; the only one that's written there. Sustain, by the rules, extends the power, and that blindness IS the power once you pass the hit line.

I've yet to see a valid argument towards it NOT extending the blindness, to be honest.

 

[Ferghis]

I recommend you ask your DM to check with them again, since odds are high he will get a different answer. That one is 100% incorrect, and you could pretty conclusively prove this to be the case by comparing it with the wording on many other Sustain Minor powers.

Thoroughly agreed.

In the alternative, you can just call them and put them on speakerphone with the DM. Explain your situation and concerns, and ask them to go talk to the designers. I've done this a couple of times, and they've proven to be very reasonable in a give-and-take conversation. At least in my experience. Also, I was stunned that the customer service rep could just walk over and talk to the designers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've contacted them myself via email, having already sent my DM the substance of the question I sent them, and telling him I'll forward their response.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

MrMyth
In this case, it is exactly that. What you are sustaining is simply the ability to keep sustaining it, and, thus, gain free attacks.

I must have missed that due to the fact it's not written anywhere in the power that it has this effect.

How can you say that? It's the bulk of the "Sustain Minor" text that you make Cha vs Will attacks, dealing Cha damage.

It has a blindness effect, however, the rules for sustain say they extend a power, this is the persistant effect of the power, so why would the power not sustain it?

Because, more often than not, there will be no blindness to sustain.