Warlock's Curse

[Ryujin]

One of the more stupid ways for a warlock to gain CA...

I can certainly agree with that, given things like Shadow Warlock Armor. Our DM gave up on our campaign just as I was about to hit 21st and acquired that armor, to go with my Rod of Corruption and Shadowfell Longsword.

 

[DracoSuave]

Imagine that, the FAQ is wrong!

I wonder how many people realize that custhelp.com isn't actually WoTC?

Outsourcing and all that.

 

[Oldtimer]

No, not quite. You can't take things that much out of context. The context of the rules quote is YOUR curse, not any curse. Heck, you might as well not even require the Warlock's curse. Why not simply allow, "I curse every enemy in the world." Hey, suddenly I can consider everyone cursed.

No, the context is not YOUR curse, it's actually any Warlock's curse. That has been supported both by the FAQ and by CustServ answer.

 

[Cor_Malek]

Though there is a feat called "Accursed Coordination" that gives a benefit (combat advantage) if two Warlocks have cursed the same opponent.

Heh, that'd be particularly useless feat, since:

You can’t place a Warlock’s Curse on a creature that is already affected by your or another character’s Warlock’s Curse.

PHB I, p. 131.

 

[Samir]

Imagine that, the FAQ is wrong!

The FAQ is about as RAW as it gets. Whether you think RAW is wrong is a different issue.

 

[Ryujin]

Heh, that'd be particularly useless feat, since:

PHB I, p. 131.

Rule #2: Specific Beats General

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Heh, that'd be particularly useless feat, since:


PHB I, p. 131.

You should have read the feat as well it specifically allows to curse the target even if it is already cursed.
I wanted to write the same statement you did but I thought, better reread the feat before I post something wrong.

 

[MrMyth]

Heh, that'd be particularly useless feat, since:

PHB I, p. 131.

The feat specifically lets you place your curse on an already cursed target. Note also that two warlocks being able to curse the same enemy also means they both get pact boons triggering when it dies, so it isn't just about the damage and the CA.

As it is, I think the FAQ ruling is rather silly, but hardly breaks the game, and does toss warlocks a bone. Multiple rogues can sneak attack a dude, no reason mechanically to not let multiple warlocks benefit from their striker damage boost.

 

[Samir]

As it is, I think the FAQ ruling is rather silly, but hardly breaks the game, and does toss warlocks a bone. Multiple rogues can sneak attack a dude, no reason mechanically to not let multiple warlocks benefit from their striker damage boost.

I think it's perfectly fair, especially since multiple Rangers can quarry the same target and multiple Avengers can Oath the same target.

Discouraging strikers to focus fire seems counterintuitive.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The FAQ is about as RAW as it gets. Whether you think RAW is wrong is a different issue.

The FAQ is official, but not RAW. So I never said the RAW were wrong, but I'd have no problem saying so if I thought so. The same goes with the actual books. In fact, the release of errata proves they're sometimes wrong!

Wait a minute, what the hell was your point again?