Typo or deliberate?

[MrMyth]

Also, to directly respond to a few statements:

Awesome job, you've pointed out specific examples with specific exceptions to the general rule!

Don't exceptions to the general rule have to actually make it clear they are exceptions? All of the problematic powers I listed don't indicate any such thing. Are we supposed to assume they are exceptions because it would otherwise be problematic? Does any interpretation of the rules, which requires the players to blindly guess whether that rule should apply, really sound like a good idea? Especially when we have an alternate interpretation that requires no guess-work, and allows each power to operate precisely as written without a single problem?

Awesome In other news, powers that don't have listed effects don't have those effects. I'd like to believe you that the power -itself- has an invisible effect, but you simply haven't shown it.

The point is that it does not need to have an invisible effect. The only thing a power needs to be sustainable is to have a Sustain entry in the power. What happens when you sustain it? Whatever the Sustain entry tells you happens!

Look, here are the two rules you are arguing:

"A power can only be sustained if an effect exists that it can make persist."
"All effects created by a power are caused to persist when that power is sustained."

Neither of these rules actually exists. You have added in these additional assumptions, and built your entire argument on top of them, but it is shaky ground. Those rules are never given to us, the existence of them causes significant issues with numerous existing powers, and it is even outright contradicted by how many powers are explicitly designed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Update: CustServ says earlier ruling on blindness was in error- only works on a hit- and confimed it is not sustained; would only be so if the Sustain line mentioned the blindness.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

Wow, while Crown of Stars is unique and a bit confusing, I'm a bit surprised at the amount of back and forth it's caused this time around, but maybe that's because I've made so many assumptions about the power over the years I went over what I thought the correct interpretation was for Crown of Stars and then ran it past Jeremy Crawford down in R&D. He corrected some of my assumptions and now I'm ready to lay it all out.

So first things first - Jeremy pointed out to me that we will be updating the power in a future rules update. On to the clarifications!

The bit about being blinded if you miss with the power is definitely wrong - sorry that wasn't caught in that second answer. It's in the hit line, so you have to hit to blind the bloodied foe.

To answer the original question, the defense entries are correct. It's reflex for the primary, and will for the secondary. If you want to make a case for your DM to change it, I wish you the best of luck.

Now as to the sustained discussion. When you sustain a power, you do exactly what it says in the entry line for sustaining that power. Sustaining does not automatically sustain whatever effect the power may have caused, though almost every power with sustain does something to an effect of the power. In order for an effect's duration to be sustained, the sustain entry must specifically mention this.

In the case of Crown of Stars, sustaining (as a minor action) allows you to make a secondary attack. It does not maintain the blindness - it does exactly what the sustain entry states.

Now the next wonky part is whether or not you can sustain and make a secondary attack if you miss the target with the original attack. A power has to set the parameters for sustaining its effects, and crown of stars fails to do so. As I mentioned earlier, we will address this in a future rules update, but in the meantime, the intent is that the power can be sustained whether or not the attack hits.

For those of us having trouble understanding the power, it might be best to think of it as if it had an extra effect line that read "Effect: radiant starlight circles around your head." This way it makes sense that you're sustaining this effect, and using it to make an attack when you sustain.

 

[Gryph]

Wow, while Crown of Stars is unique and a bit confusing, I'm a bit surprised at the amount of back and forth it's caused this time around, but maybe that's because I've made so many assumptions about the power over the years I went over what I thought the correct interpretation was for Crown of Stars and then ran it past Jeremy Crawford down in R&D. He corrected some of my assumptions and now I'm ready to lay it all out.

So first things first - Jeremy pointed out to me that we will be updating the power in a future rules update. On to the clarifications!

The bit about being blinded if you miss with the power is definitely wrong - sorry that wasn't caught in that second answer. It's in the hit line, so you have to hit to blind the bloodied foe.

To answer the original question, the defense entries are correct. It's reflex for the primary, and will for the secondary. If you want to make a case for your DM to change it, I wish you the best of luck.

Now as to the sustained discussion. When you sustain a power, you do exactly what it says in the entry line for sustaining that power. Sustaining does not automatically sustain whatever effect the power may have caused, though almost every power with sustain does something to an effect of the power. In order for an effect's duration to be sustained, the sustain entry must specifically mention this.

In the case of Crown of Stars, sustaining (as a minor action) allows you to make a secondary attack. It does not maintain the blindness - it does exactly what the sustain entry states.

Now the next wonky part is whether or not you can sustain and make a secondary attack if you miss the target with the original attack. A power has to set the parameters for sustaining its effects, and crown of stars fails to do so. As I mentioned earlier, we will address this in a future rules update, but in the meantime, the intent is that the power can be sustained whether or not the attack hits.

For those of us having trouble understanding the power, it might be best to think of it as if it had an extra effect line that read "Effect: radiant starlight circles around your head." This way it makes sense that you're sustaining this effect, and using it to make an attack when you sustain.

Thanks, for the post Trevor.

If you think this one went back and forth and got contentious, maybe you should check out the thread on the Warden Utility, Bear's Endurance and the order of Immediate Interrupts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

the order of Immediate Interrupts.

Is that Rich Bulew's next comic strip?

 

[mneme]

Trevor, thanks for producing a useful clarification. It's worth nothing that there are a lot of effects that -should- say "the effect persists" and don't -- thus engendering this confusion. There are 421 powers that contain the word "sustain" (presumablly, most of these can be sustained, but since I'm using the Compendium it's possible that some of them just have "sustain" somewhere in the flavor text). There are 339 powers that contain the word "sustain" and "persists". Of the remainder, well, I'm not going to look at all of them tonight, but sorting alphabetically:

Ancestor's Drum: Possibly intends to have the effect repeat; not sure if it succeeds at this.
Bewitching Gaze: Intentionally doesn't persist
*Bigby's Icy Grasp: Erroneously doesn't persist the hands. Power doesn't techincially work as intended.
Burning the Plagued Bellows (deliberate)
Cast in Stone (deliberate)
Claravoyance (deliberate)
Crisis of Breath: Badly worded power. Works fine, though
Crown of Glory: Er, what? I think this is meant to read "you can repeat the power's effect" or "the effect persists".
Curse of the Dark Delerium (works fine).

So, ok, -most- powers without "persist" in the sustain line are fine, but it's still a good place to look for errors -- and things like Bigby's Icy Grasp can give the wrong impression.

 

[DracoSuave]

Wow, while Crown of Stars is unique and a bit confusing, I'm a bit surprised at the amount of back and forth it's caused this time around, but maybe that's because I've made so many assumptions about the power over the years I went over what I thought the correct interpretation was for Crown of Stars and then ran it past Jeremy Crawford down in R&D. He corrected some of my assumptions and now I'm ready to lay it all out.

As I noted in the XP...

'We're going to make it read as we want it to work so it's not going to cause confusion' is enough to convince me to rethink my position, and I do thank you for tossing your hat into the fray.

Applause gif, and all that. I am satisfied.