What happens with reliable multi-target powers?

[Lucas Blackstone]

Before this came up here or on the other boards we were having a discussion about the very same situation. We all know the difference between RAW and RAI. No need to be silly about it.

I had already put something in the compiled errata post basically saying that the woring of reliable needed to be changed slightly from " When a reliable power misses ..." to " When a reliable power doesn't hit....".

It's a subtle change that makes everything okay.

 

[Liebot]

Doing double time on these boards and wotc, huh Lucas?

 

[Surgoshan]

It says "If you miss when using a reliable power". It doesn't say "while", which would make it clear that a single miss makes the power not expended. It says "when", which is ambiguous.

The point of ambiguity remains in the meaning of "miss". The intention is that "miss" refer to the power rather than to all the attacks made by the power. And there is, in the entire manual, a single reliable power that can target multiple creatures. Given that the vast majority of reliable powers target a single creature, it probably never occurred to them that they'd have to differentiate the power from its attacks.

I think it's rare that the fighter will be surrounded by 8 creatures, or even 4 large creatures, or three huge creatures (and a large). Two gargantuan creatures is fairly likely.

Still, it's likely that that one, single, only reliable burst power will only target a few creatures, and the possibility of missing all of them is more likely than missing 8 creatures, making reliability still valuable.

 

[Zurai]

It's certainly better but I wouldn't say it "makes everything OK". As mentioned by someone else earlier in the thread, 1 hit and 7 misses isn't much better than 8 misses. It is a better rule than what's written, though, and in lieu of errata that's how I rule it in my games.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Well, this very post is on both so I felt the need to reply here also since it was equally important.

 

[Ravingdork]

I posted this question over at the WotC forums. General concensus there is that, RAW you retain the power if you miss even a single target.

Most will also say that, that is not the RAI, however.

 

[Llamas Notsheep]

Yeah, I'm gonna chime in on the side of Zorai et al. RAW is most definitely such that any miss causes the power not to be used up. Each time you roll, you either hit or miss. Thus 1 miss out of 8 means there was a miss in the use of the power. You get the power back.

Need errata, for sure.

 

[Thasmodious]

While the intent is quite clear that it hit _at all_, the wording is also quite clear that if you miss _at all_, it is not expended.

It is not clear _at all_ that that is the wording. As I said, the exact wording states missing with the "power", not missing with an attack. If you hit someone with the power, clearly you didn't miss with the power. You are focusing on the word 'miss' too much, when the relevant word is 'power' not attack. The 'hit' section says "Every power that requires an attack roll includes a “Hit” entry, which explains what happens when an
attack roll succeeds..." If the Hit result is applied, the power has hit (regardless of how many opponents it hit or miss), therefore a reliable power would be expended.

RAW and the clear intention here are one and the same.

 

[Zurai]

the exact wording states missing with the "power", not missing with an attack.

No. There is no distinction in the rules between missing with a power vs missing with an attack. Missing with an attack is defined. Missing with a power is not even mentioned. Thus, the only rule for missing you can refer to in order to define the Reliable keyword is missing with an attack.

 

[Thasmodious]

No. There is no distinction in the rules between missing with a power vs missing with an attack. Missing with an attack is defined. Missing with a power is not even mentioned. Thus, the only rule for missing you can refer to in order to define the Reliable keyword is missing with an attack.

Not true at all. I already quoted the relevant portion of text. If you get to apply the Hit section of a power entry, then the power has clearly hit. If the Power has hit, it didn't miss, therefore, it is used.

Hitting with a power IS defined. If you hit, you didn't miss. If you think you did, then you must be encountering a language barrier.