Warlock's Curse Update and Radiant Curse (Astral Ascendant)

[Shin Okada]

Now my playgroup (which I am not the DM) is creating PCs for the next 4e campaign and a player brought up this question.

The warlock's curse is updated and the frequency of the extra damage is changed from once per round to once per turn. Now the DDI Compendium says,

Effect: Once per turn as a minor action, you can place a Warlock’s Curse on the enemy nearest to you that you can see. A cursed enemy is more vulnerable to your attacks. If you hit a cursed enemy with an attack, you deal extra damage. You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.
A Warlock’s Curse remains in effect until the end of the encounter or until the cursed enemy drops to 0 hit points or fewer.
You can place a Warlock’s Curse on multiple targets over the course of an encounter; each curse requires the use of a minor action. You can’t place a Warlock’s Curse on a creature that is already affected by your or another character’s Warlock’s Curse.
As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.

And Astral Ascendant path fearture "Radiant Curse" says (also from the Compendium),

Radiant Curse (11th level): Your Warlock’s Curse deals radiant damage. You can deal your Warlock’s Curse’s extra damage to a creature affected by your Warlock’s Curse when an ally hits that creature, but still only once per round.

As 4e is "specific wins" rule, the frequency of extra damage may be still as per Radiant Curse text, once per round. On the other hand, we may say that as it say "still", that "only once per round" refers to the Warlock's Curse text, thus it should be overwritten by the update.

At this moment, our opinion is "it is up to the DM". How do you think?

Also, we are wondering if this feature become too strong if we take "once per turn". Potentially, all the PCs can add 2d6 (or more) extra radiant damage once per their turn. Also, the extra damage can be applied when the cursed opponent provoke an AoO and when some other opponent triggers a PC's attack power and the cursed opponent is included in the attack.

Opinions are welcomed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have little to add really. This is one of those cases where an errata has left dangling consequences. As you say, the DM is really the only possible arbitrator here.

As for the balance aspect... Well, 'once per turn' striker bonus damage (which all the bonus die style strikers were updated to get) DOES increase their effectiveness, some. It can be fairly significant for certain styles of say melee oriented ranger/rogue with some controllery/defenderish kind of stuff going on. This is particularly true considering it is SO easy to get SA for rogues nowadays (one feat will pretty close to guarantee you always get it unless you use unusual tactics). OTOH it isn't QUITE so easy with warlocks, so this feat, properly interpreted, could be a pretty reasonable powerup for them. Still, it doesn't increase their damage output beyond what they could theoretically achieve already, its more just making it easier. Frankly, rule of cool, let it stand! That's my opinion. It may turn some encounter or other into salad, but something probably will anyway, lol.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Moving striker damage boosts to per turn - or even per hit - was an Essentials era thing. Essentials was desperately trying to make 4e bad in a more familiar, faster-combat, Tier-1-mages, kind of way.

Post-Essentials strikers became less part of a dynamic party with synergy and tactical depth, and more just DPR-firehoses.

Anyway, makes little difference to the ruling, the errata just wasn't carried through to every corner of the rules, and the intent of the original is to be used as often as the baseline.