I am co-DMing with another guy and we do not agree on a ruling. The situation in question is when using a 'Hungar of Hadar' Warlock Power. Basically, creatures in the zone get attacked and it puts up a zone of total concealment. The player frequently puts it up so that the monster is just inside the zone and a PC fighter is just outside the zone. The monster and fighter are adjacent. Everyone agrees that the monster in the zone gets total concealment against the fighter.
The player and other DM's opinion is that the monster also gets the -5 to hit for total conceament striking out of the zone at the fighter. (I think they are confusing the description from the flavor texts and saying the monster is effectively 'blind' since it is in "complete,impermeable darkness".) My opinion is that the monster is not affected by the concealment since it is on the edge of the zone fighting outward. I believe the monster can get line of sight from one of his forward corners into the opponent's corners out of the zone and not be affected by the zone.
Who is right?
Rule from PHB 273: "To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision."
Duncan & Dragons wrote: Who is right? You are. Good luck convincing them of it!
Reading a simular thread on stinking cloud or the like over at enworld, I believe someone said that the usual total concealment only applies if you are not directly adjacent to the creature.
the RAW for Concealment from 281,PHB.
Concealment, the creature is in a lightly obscured square or a heavily obscured square **but adjacent to you**
Total Concealment. You can't see the target. The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured sqaure and ***not adjacent to you***
At worst the fighter gets concealment from the monster. (presuming they are adjacent). But the language clearly states that the target being in a concealed square is what is important, not where the seer is. Both the line of sight rules work to find this out (as you use the most favorible squares, the ones on the edge of the effect that blocks line of sight and go outward from there) and the definition of concealment expressly says it (adjacent creature would have to be in a square of total concealment not beside it is what counts.
Logos wrote: Reading a simular thread on stinking cloud or the like over at enworld, I believe someone said that the usual total concealment only applies if you are not directly adjacent to the creature. The other DM still does not believe me. The spell says, "The burst creates a zone of darkness until end of your next turn, blocking line of sight." He believes the intent of the spell is that this specifc spell over-rules the general line of sight rules. Stinking Cloud says the same 'blocking line of sight' thing. I believe the intent is to still follow the line of sight rules. I also think the rule would have been written as 'all creatures in the area of affect are Blind' if that was the intent.
Part of my argument is how other rules work. When you are immediately adjacent to a wall corner, you can shot 'around' the corner. Similarly bursts (immediately adjacent to a corner), go around the wall corner unobstructed. Both work with the concept that the effect starts from a corner of the square. Same for this. I know common sense would say that the wall corner should obstruct the shot or burst since it starts in the 'center of the square'. But that is not how it was written or intented to work. It is the electron theory analogy, you are moving around and occupy the ENTIRE square. Therefore your effects can come from the very corner.
I believe the other DM is correct, here. Hunger of Hadar, and Stinking Cloud, form an area that blocks line of sight. Creatures within the effect cannot see and cannot be seen.
To go with your original quote on line of sight: "To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision."
They key is, a target inside the zone cannot draw a line that doesn't touch "an effect that blocks your vision" - since every line he draws, even from the edge of the zone, are touching that zone. Unless he physically moves out of the zone, and can draw a line starting at a point that does not touch the zone, he cannot see an enemy.
The rules quoted by Logos don't contradict this: "Total Concealment. You can't see the target. The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured sqaure and not adjacent to you."
Yes, the target is adjacent to the monster in your example - but then, that is only one of three conditions for total concealment. You can certainly have an adjacent enemy with total concealment - they just need to be invisible or totally obscured from you, which is the case in this example.
Now, yes, you could make an argument that the target could 'poke their head outside the zone' and briefly gain line of sight. But Rules as Written, I'm afraid to say the other DM is 100% in the right in this example - if within the zone of Hunger of Hadar or a similar effect, the monster is in an area that blocks line of sight, and as such, cannot gain line of sight to anything on the battlefield, and treats all enemies as having total concealment. (Note, however, that burst and blast attacks don't take penalties from concealment, so those can still be made without penalty, if he can figure out where to aim them.)
Duncan & Dragons wrote: Part of my argument is how other rules work. When you are immediately adjacent to a wall corner, you can shot 'around' the corner. Similarly bursts (immediately adjacent to a corner), go around the wall corner unobstructed. Both work with the concept that the effect starts from a corner of the square. Same for this. I know common sense would say that the wall corner should obstruct the shot or burst since it starts in the 'center of the square'. But that is not how it was written or intented to work. It is the electron theory analogy, you are moving around and occupy the ENTIRE square. Therefore your effects can come from the very corner. And actually, when next to a corner, the corner can still block line of sight. This is a rather confusing area, since the rules for cover say that cover isn't impeded by tracing along the edge of a wall - but the rules for line of sight say that it is. This isn't actually a contradiction - if all lines you trace to your enemy run adjacent to a wall, you cannot see them. However, if at least one line does not run adjacent to a wall, then you can see the enemy, and the lines that are adjacent to a wall don't count for cover. Complicated, but it works. And does support the fact that, for line of sight, tracing from a corner adjacent to a zone of darkness still results in line of sight being fully blocked.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: And actually, when next to a corner, the corner can still block line of sight. This is a rather confusing area, since the rules for cover say that cover isn't impeded by tracing along the edge of a wall - but the rules for line of sight say that it is. This isn't actually a contradiction - if all lines you trace to your enemy run adjacent to a wall, you cannot see them. However, if at least one line does not run adjacent to a wall, then you can see the enemy, and the lines that are adjacent to a wall don't count for cover. Complicated, but it works. And does support the fact that, for line of sight, tracing from a corner adjacent to a zone of darkness still results in line of sight being fully blocked. But this makes sense. This will usually occur if you are both around corners on either end of a wall (or fog). You can draw lines from your corner to two of his corners so he only has partial cover, but since line of sight is blocked to all his corners, you can not shot.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: I believe the other DM is correct, here. Hunger of Hadar, and Stinking Cloud, form an area that blocks line of sight. Creatures within the effect cannot see and cannot be seen.
To go with your original quote on line of sight: "To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision."
They key is, a target inside the zone cannot draw a line that doesn't touch "an effect that blocks your vision" - since every line he draws, even from the edge of the zone, are touching that zone. Unless he physically moves out of the zone, and can draw a line starting at a point that does not touch the zone, he cannot see an enemy.
The rules quoted by Logos don't contradict this: "Total Concealment. You can't see the target. The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured sqaure and not adjacent to you."
If this is the case, why do they say "and not adjacent to you". Very much like cover not being provided by running along the edge of the wall so you can fire down the wall. Likewise, "and not adjacent to you" allows you to fight out of the fog or darkness. Why ELSE say "and not adjacent to you"?
EDIT: But this would also cause problems the other way. Since you are adjacent, can you strike unimpeded into the darkness?
ALL of the concealment language is the same.
Is the Target in a X Obscured Square.
The Target is not in a Totally Obscured Square.
Is the Target adjacent to you,
The Target is Adjacent to you, the most concealed it would be, is concealed (-2).
The process doesn't even get to line of sight (which Hunger of Hadarr does block )until that point threw the use of 'or' statements. If you draw the line of sight lines to determine cover on the battlemat. This is what you get
XThe darknessX.|/_
The . arguably is in the darkness as is the |, how you would determine if something running alongside the darkness is actually in or not?im not sure how you block a point but hey whatever.
The /and the _ seem to be working just fine adjacent to the darkness. That's not total obscuration. This all changes if you want to measure from the center of each square (which is what the common sense interpretation would be I think)
If you want the fictional representation, maybe the monster sticks its head just out of the darkness. The rules are an abstraction, and clearly care about the target rather than attacker, althought line of sight comes in a close second.
If Hunger of Hadarr provides Total Obscuration, we should all be using the rules for hitting an invisible creature rather than the concealment rules. The Concealment rules are being used and if it was not for the fact that totally concealed creatures cannot be adjacent to each other, the creature would be totally concealed. That leaves regular concealment, as long as the attacker and the target are adjacent.
Logos
Duncan & Dragons wrote: Matthew Koelbl wrote: The rules quoted by Logos don't contradict this: "Total Concealment. You can't see the target. The target is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured sqaure and not adjacent to you." If this is the case, why do they say "and not adjacent to you". Very much like cover not being provided by running along the edge of the wall so you can fire down the wall. Likewise, "and not adjacent to you" allows you to fight out of the fog or darkness. Why ELSE say "and not adjacent to you"?
Read the quote - it lists three conditions:
1) The target is invisible.
2) The target is in a totally obscured square.
3) The target is in a heavily obscured square and not adjacent to you.
Condition three isn't relevant - Hunger of Hadar doesn't "heavily obscure" the area. It fully blocks line of sight - the equivalent of total obscurement. Thus, adjacency isn't an issue.
Logos wrote: The . arguably is in the darkness as is the |, how you would determine if something running alongside the darkness is actually in or not?im not sure how you block a point but hey whatever. If you are outside the squares in the darkness, you are outside the darkness. If you are inside the squares in the darkness, you are inside the darkness.
If you are directly next to the darkness, and attempted to draw line of sight from your square to anywhere else, each corner next to the darkness has line of sight blocked. Each corner that is not next to the darkness, does not have line of sight blocked - and thus you can see around the field without trouble.
If you are in the darkness, every corner of your square has line of sight blocked, and you cannot draw line of sight to anything.
Logos wrote: If Hunger of Hadarr provides Total Obscuration, we should all be using the rules for hitting an invisible creature rather than the concealment rules. The Concealment rules are being used and if it was not for the fact that totally concealed creatures cannot be adjacent to each other, the creature would be totally concealed. That leaves regular concealment, as long as the attacker and the target are adjacent. The rules for total concealment are the same as the rules for an invisible creature!
Now, yes, I'll admit that many of the rules on concealment discuss the target being obscured/concealed. But claiming this means you can see perfectly fine when specifically in a zone that blocks line of sight, as long as your enemy is in the open field... well, it seems rather absurd. Fortunately, the rules on line of sight clearly indicate it isn't correct, either. If you are looking for another quote, here are some from PHB page 281:
"Totally Obscured: Squares of darkness are totally obscured."
"If you’re fighting a creature you can’t see—when a creature is invisible, you’re blinded, or you’re fighting in darkness you can’t see through—you have to target a square rather than the creature."
And, once more, to return to the quote that is at the core of this argument, on PHB page 273: "To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision."
Every single corner of your square is touching the zone that blocks line of sight. That means there is no possible way to see any targets, unless the monster has at least one square outside of the zone. If every square of the monster is in the zone, if means every line they trace starts at a corner touching the zone, which means no line of sight.
Again, I can certainly see a DM ruling that a player or monster could poke their head out of the dark and make some attacks. I would probably hesitate to do so, since that would seem somewhat unfair against those using powers clearly intended to block line of sight - but you could certainly do so in your own game. But it is definitely against the Rules As Written to do so, and that should be kept in mind when making such a judgement call.
We are all wrong! New edition, same confusion.
From the ENWorld thread I got this quote from the CS folks at Wizards:"As per the normal concealment rules, a creature adjacent to another in the cloud has normal concealment (-2 to attacks). If there is at least once space between them, it is total concealment. Being on an edge space within the cloud is normal concealment from a creature outside the cloud (2 corners without blocked line of sight, again, as per the concealment rules.)"
I think this means that the start of the line of sight does not count as touching the effect. So looking out of the cloud has no effect on your line of sight (unless looking down the side of the cloud). Looking at an adjacent opponent in the cloud or someone outside the cloud looking at an adjacent opponent inside the cloud has only two corners obscured and therefore the target has normal concealment (-2 to attack). You only get total concealment if the effect breaks line of sight on all four corners such as when the target is a square away.
Now that it is explained it makes sense, but I don't think we would have stumbled upon this ourselves. We were looking for absolutes.
EDIT: Ultimately this also makes sense. If you are close to a guy, you can smack him. Far away, it is darn near impossible to see him.
Well, we know how reliable CS rulings are. ;) Anyway, his ruling is clearly not supported by the way the PHB handles concealment, but I can certainly see deciding that 'Hunger of Hadar' or other effects create zones of lesser concealment, if that makes more it easier to run than worrying about dealing with areas of complete darkness. But I think it is pretty hard to argue that characters can see within, out of, or through an effect which explicitly states that it 100% blocks line of sight.
Also! In case I am coming across too strong here, I'd also say that, especially in 4E, I am definitely of the opinion that it is much easier to simply adjudicate effects as desired, rather than worry about the exact breakdown of the concealment/cover/obscurement/line-of-sight/etc rules; or any other rules for that matter. Keeping the game moving is much more valuable than worrying about staying 100% RAW, so my argument here isn't an attempt to say, "You must do things this way, rar rar rar!" but simply my attempt to help with the original question (about how this works in the Rules as Written.)
I like the ruling. It explains the 'intent' of the rules. Maybe some wording on the various RAW's could be better. Actually, it DEFINITELY should be worded better now that I understand their intent on how concealment/line of signt works. It makes sense to me that people next to each other can 'see' each other but the cloud messes line of sight over any real distance. And it affects people inside and outside the cloud differently.
As to the game play, my group did let ourselves get bogged down. I wish I had just said, 'The middle ground is Partial Concealment, -2 to hit, Let's move on.' It would have been more correct than either my or the other DM's opinions.
Duncan & Dragons wrote: I like the ruling. It explains the 'intent' of the rules. Maybe some wording on the various RAW's could be better. Actually, it DEFINITELY should be worded better now that I understand their intent on how concealment/line of signt works. It makes sense to me that people next to each other can 'see' each other but the cloud messes line of sight over any real distance. And it affects people inside and outside the cloud differently.
As to the game play, my group did let ourselves get bogged down. I wish I had just said, 'The middle ground is Partial Concealment, -2 to hit, Let's move on.' It would have been more correct than either my or the other DM's opinions.
Well, I'll repeat again that the other DM's ruling was 100% correct by the book - "Blocks line of sight" doesn't mean "blocks line of sight from a distance, but you can actually see through from up close." The flavor text makes the intent clear, and the rules text completely supports it.
But I do think it is important to make rulings at the table and then move on from there. Admittedly, this has not been an issue very often in 4E - rulebooks rarely need to get opened at the table, and when they do, it tends to be a few specific areas. (Jumping/vertical movement and line of sight/effect/cover/concealment have been the big ones.) But most of the time, I suspect any issues that might arise from an incorrect but quick ruling will be relatively small - while the loss of 20 minutes debating the rules is a very tangible loss.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Every single corner of your square is touching the zone that blocks line of sight. That means there is no possible way to see any targets, unless the monster has at least one square outside of the zone. If every square of the monster is in the zone, if means every line they trace starts at a corner touching the zone, which means no line of sight. This is incorrect. The corners are not counted as touching the zone. I try to explain this below.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Well, I'll repeat again that the other DM's ruling was 100% correct by the book - "Blocks line of sight" doesn't mean "blocks line of sight from a distance, but you can actually see through from up close." The flavor text makes the intent clear, and the rules text completely supports it. The ruling was not correct. Not his fault as the rules are written to confuse but people are taking line of sight to literally. I was doing this also because in my mind you either had no concealment or total concealment with this effect. The CS quote shows what I did not consider; the possibility of partial concealment. The flavor text does not matter and is just for flavor.
Duncan & Dragons wrote: From the ENWorld thread I got this quote from the CS folks at Wizards:"As per the normal concealment rules, a creature adjacent to another in the cloud has normal concealment (-2 to attacks). If there is at least once space between them, it is total concealment. Being on an edge space within the cloud is normal concealment from a creature outside the cloud (2 corners without blocked line of sight, again, as per the concealment rules.)" It is the last sentence that explains it. The creature on the edge space within the cloud has concealment because he has 2 corners without line of sight. For this to be true, the 2 corners on the edge of the cloud must count as having line of sight. The rear corners are the 2 that have blocked line of sight. It also explains why the two creatures in the cloud only have partial concealment on each other. It is because their two shared corners do not count as having blocked line of sight. Again, the rear corners are the 2 that have blocked line of sight. Note the term is 'line', not 'point'. I think they want us to take that literally. (A blocked point is not a blocked line of sight. Kind of obvious in hindsight.)
I think the term 'blocked line of sight' is poor. It implies that you are blind or something. Maybe the term should be 'obscured line of sight'. If you have two 'obscured lines of sight', the target has concealment. If you have four 'obscured lines of sight', the target has total concealment. Walls, darkness, fog, and specific spells cause line of sight to be 'obscured'.
My comment on distance was just simplification. If you are adjacent, you have at most partial concealment. If you are one obscured square apart, you probably have total concealment.
Duncan & Dragons wrote:
This is incorrect. The corners are not counted as touching the zone.
...
I think the term 'blocked line of sight' is poor. It implies that you are blind or something. Maybe the term should be 'obscured line of sight'. If you have two 'obscured lines of sight', the target has concealment. If you have four 'obscured lines of sight', the target has total concealment. Walls, darkness, fog, and specific spells cause line of sight to be 'obscured'.
My comment on distance was just simplification. If you are adjacent, you have at most partial concealment. If you are one obscured square apart, you probably have total concealment.
I don't want to argue this too strongly, since the main goal here was simply to give advice on a rules issue, and you seem to have reached the conclusion you wanted to reach. But the things I think you should consider in what you have said above:
1) You say we should ignore the flavor text, and that is fine. But you then also say you feel their terminology in the actual rules text is poor - that they should have said "obscured line of sight" instead of "blocked line of sight". At that point, you are actively ignoring the direct rules text. It says "blocked line of sight" for a reason. Yes, it implies that you are blind - because it is creating an area of absolute darkness, that completely blocks line of sight. Regardless of the CS ruling, if you have to actively change the rules text, that should be an indication you aren't following the power as written. (Or as intended, since that is what the flavor text is useful for.) The flavor text says "complete, impermeable darkness." The rules text says it creates a "zone of darkness..., blocking line of sight." The PHB says that areas of darkness are "totally obscured". What about this implies that this only results in basic concealment, rather than total concealment?
2) You continue to mention the adjacency issue. However, as I mentioned earlier - adjacency only comes into play in areas that are "heavily obscured". It doesn't apply here - this is an area of darkness that blocks line of sight, creating total obscurement. "Lightly Obscured", "Heavily Obscured" and "Totally Obscured" all have different meanings, and you shouldn't apply the rules for one in place of another.
3) You also say the corners are not counted as touching the zone. Is there any reason to believe this? The diagram on PHB page 274 indicates otherwise - that touching a corner is enough for line of sight to be blocked. The corner you are starting from is touching the zone of darkness, and thus all lines drawn from it are blocked.
Just to illustrate the absurdity of 'corners not touching the zone', imagine the following scenario: Two zones of impenetrable darkness are created side by side. If the corners between the two don't count as being in either zone, a character could look straight down the middle and, by your interpretation, not have his line of sight fully blocked.
4) One final thing to consider - ignoring the rules themselves, what is the benefit to your interpretation? What does it bring to the table? It means that a player's ability - a daily power - ends up providing a significant benefit for a monster. (In that, while it damages that monster, it provides it with total concealment from attacks, while somehow applying a lesser penalty to its own attacks out of the darkness.)
Does it really hurt the game to simply have it and PCs on equal ground, with it both gaining total concealment while also suffering from being effectively blinded? And if this is a favorite player tactic, are you actually trying to prove your interpretation because you feel this is how it works, or because you want to reduce an effective tactic that has plagued your monsters?
If the situation was reverse, how would you feel about the scenario? If a PC walked into an area of absolute darkness that blocked line of sight, and proclaimed: "Ok, now enemies can't see me. But since I'm standing just inside the absolute darkness, I can see out with only some minor penalties, and use this to attack them with impunity." Would you let that slide, despite the absurdity of it?
---
You keep quoting the CS response, and if that is the interpretation you want to use, that is fine. But keep in mind that CS responses are very rarely actually accurate, and often you will get contradictory answers from different CS replies. They aren't the game designers, just gamers on staff who are interpreting the rules on their own, and often give incorrect answers. When they give answers directly contradicted by the books themselves (as in this case), I would recommend against using their answers over the rules themselves.
Anyway - all that said, it is your decision to make, in the end, and your call at the table you run. But I do encourage you to try and confirm whether you actually think it works this way, or are simply reading the rules in whatever way best supports how you want it to work.
All I'm realy saying is that, from everything I can see, the only way your interpretation is valid is if you ignore both the direct rules text of the power itself, as well as the PHB rules on line of sight and concealment. It might be that you see something I don't, and at this point it might be that neither of us will be able to convince the other of their point, and if that is the case I can back out of the discussion and leave it at that - but you asked for advice on the ruling, and everything I see indicates the other DM was 100% in the right.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Good and correct points...
I don't have too much add except to say everything you stated is absolutely correct based on how the rules are written.
As for that crazy CS answer, I don't know what to make of it. I know it deals with Stinking Cloud, but the effects are nearly the same as Hunger of Hadar. That means one of two things:
1) The power operates exactly the same and the cloud of vapors is so thick that it emulates darkness. I can see this.
2) The power is incorrectly detailed in the description. This is possible, I suppose.
So, that means CS is likely wrong about how they are interpreting it or there is some errata that has not yet been revealed. As you have said Matthew, that is not unusual. The guys and gals at CS are good but those answers are not necessarily offical.
Now, if the designers come back and say the CS way of doing things is how to adjudicate Stinking Cloud they would need to address how that applies to Hunger of Hadar. One is a cloud of vapors and the other is darkness.
And even if they do support the CS version of Stinking Cloud that would mean there would be a fundamental change in the power as it is written and Stinking Cloud would actually be an area of Heavily Obscured squares. Which would mean Line of Sight and Concealment would be be variable.
alleynbard wrote: And even if they do support the CS version of Stinking Cloud that would mean there would be a fundamental change in the power as it is written and Stinking Cloud would actually be an area of Heavily Obscured squares. Which would mean Line of Sight and Concealment would be be variable. I had a long response that got dumped. Basically it said they wrote ambiguous rules. I think the rules are bad not the power description. The power only says, "Blocks Line of Sight". Only the flaver text implies it is Total Obscured. I think they intended LoS and Concealment to be variable. But WotC CS could be wrong.
This is the thing I do not get. If they wanted these spells to create Total Obscurement, why would they not have said; "All creatures in the effect are treated as Blind. All creatures outside the area of effect treat creatures inside the area as Invisible. The area of effect Blocks Line of Sight." (This also helps with such things as OA and Flanking.) Why would they only say "Blocks Line of Sight" which begs you to try and use the Line of Sight rules (draw four imaginary lines, blah, blah, blah) which would create variable affects?
alleynbard wrote: And even if they do support the CS version of Stinking Cloud that would mean there would be a fundamental change in the power as it is written and Stinking Cloud would actually be an area of Heavily Obscured squares. Although I think the Line of Sight, Concealment and Obscuration are poorly written, I think you are right that the power should be re-written either way.
It should be something like 'creates a zone of darkness that causes Total Obscuration' (Blocks Line of Sight would be redundant and confusing as it is a lesser included affect of total obscuration) or something like: 'creates a zone of shadow that causes Heavy Obscuration and Blocks Line of Sight.' (Darkness could be considered as causing Total Obscuration)
EDIT: I know I am overly obsessed with this but the WotC CS ruling made things balanced in lot of ways. Without this ruling, Hunder of Hadar becomes the easily most powerful Warlock 5th Level Power. (Automatic area effect damage, secondary attack and the target get -5 to attacks!) Without this ruling, it also makes it more powerful than the 5th level Stinking Cloud for no good reason. It also removes impact on such things as Opportunity Attacks and Flanking which Total Darkness would cause. Without this ruling, I see Hungar of Hadar becoming the 3.0 version of Heal and Harm that will just be fixed later. They just used the wrong word 'darkness', instead of the right word 'shadow'.
Duncan & Dragons wrote: Although I think the Line of Sight, Concealment and Obscuration are poorly written, I think you are right that the power should be re-written either way.
It should be something like 'creates a zone of darkness that causes Total Obscuration' (Blocks Line of Sight would be redundant and confusing as it is a lesser included affect of total obscuration) or something like: 'creates a zone of shadow that causes Heavy Obscuration and Blocks Line of Sight.' (Darkness could be considered as causing Total Obscuration)
Ok, I think I see where the confusement is coming in - you don't seem to be reading "blocks line of sight" as the same thing as "total obscurement", which is what it is. (Blocks line of sight = line of sight is blocked, and thus total concealment is in place for anyone looking in, through or out of the cloud.) But that said, I certainly can get behind the idea that they should perhaps standardize the terminology here - though I think the text is very clear on how it works, clearly there is some confusion here for you, and fixing that would certainly not be a bad thing.
Duncan & Dragons wrote: EDIT: I know I am overly obsessed with this but the WotC CS ruling made things balanced in lot of ways. Without this ruling, Hunder of Hadar becomes the easily most powerful Warlock 5th Level Power. (Automatic area effect damage, secondary attack and the target get -5 to attacks!) Without this ruling, it also makes it more powerful than the 5th level Stinking Cloud for no good reason. It also removes impact on such things as Opportunity Attacks and Flanking which Total Darkness would cause. Except that total darkness is obviously the goal of the spell - and is by no means broken. Remember, the advantage of having total concealment against enemies in the cloud is balanced by the fact that those enemies also have total concealment against the PCs!
It does have the advantage of automatic damage - but that damage is delayed until the start of the enemy's turn, and lower than any other warlock daily power of that level (as they don't get Con or Charisma to damage.)
They do get the ability to sustain it for continual damage - if the opponent remains in the cloud. Which, unlike many similar powers (Tendrils of Thuban, Necrotic Web, etc) there is nothing to actually make them do so. They can simply walk out of the cloud - without even worrying about Opportunity Attacks due to the darkness.
Take away the total darkness and you remove a large part of the purpose and the power of the spell. I really don't understand how you can feel this is easily the most powerful warlock power at that level - maybe the players at the table are doing it wrong in some other fashion? (Trying to sustain it the round they cast it, for example?)
Same for your comment about Stinking Cloud which is, frankly, so far more powerful than Hunger of Hadar that they can't even really be compared. Stinking Cloud is: Larger, Longer Range, has both initial damage and immediate damage on their next turn (both of them substantial), and can easily be moved about the battlefield even when the enemy tries to get away. And, of course, it also blocks line of sight in the exact same fashion as Hunger of Hadar.
Hunger of Hadar is good if you have an immobilized enemy or two that you can trap in the effect for several rounds. Which is hard to set up, and very situational.
Duncan & Dragons wrote: Without this ruling, I see Hungar of Hadar becoming the 3.0 version of Heal and Harm that will just be fixed later. They just used the wrong word 'darkness', instead of the right word 'shadow'. I don't really think that is a good comparison. For one, Heal and Harm were incredibly unbalanced because of applying effects that ignored the normal numerical constraints of the system, while Hunger of Hadar is not just balanced with other powers at its level, but honestly on the weaker end of the spectrum. Secondly, they clearly intended to use the word darkness. Everything about the power indicates they wanted it to block line of sight (up to and including it outright stating so!) It is pretty clear no mistake was made, and unlikely any errata will be used to change how it works.
I am definitely wondering if your group is misusing the spell in a different fashion, since you truly seem to feel it is much more powerful than it actually is.
Here is how it works:
Round 1, Warlock's Turn: The Warlock uses Hunger of Hadar. A zone of total concealment is created on the field, in a 3x3 area. No damage is dealt to any enemy in the effect. The Warlock is not yet allowed to sustain the effect to make a secondary attack.
Round 1, Enemy's Turn: The enemy takes 2d10 necrotic damage automatically. The automatic part is nice, but the damage itself isn't that large* - especially since, as it didn't involve an attack roll, the Warlock can't apply curse damage.** The enemy now, likely, simply walks out of the cloud, and then attacks the PCs with no penalty. If you have them immobilized, prone, dazed, or similar, they might end up attacking from within the cloud, at a -5 penalty.
Round 2, Warlock's Turn: The Warlock sustains the effect as a minor action, potentially damaging enemy's in the cloud. This does mean the cloud will remain for another round, so all melee and ranged attacks against that enemy suffer the penalties for total concealment. The warlock can also use his standard action to attack someone.
Round 2, Enemy's Turn: The enemy takes 2d10 necrotic damage automatically. By now, almost any debuff effects are likely to have expired, so it likely leaves the cloud - if it doesn't, for some strange reason, this game continues.
All in all, the typical effect of this spell? 12 automatic damage to enemies in an Area Burst 1, and forcing them to move without feat of Opportunity Attacks. They will almost never stay in the zone long enough to take secondary damage or suffer a penalty to attack rolls - and even if they do, they are giving the PCs the same exact penalty against them. The zone doesn't force them to stay in it, doesn't even create difficult terrain, and once placed, can't be moved. It is a nice, reliable power, and the ability to herd enemies is useful - but all in all, it is far from the best power of that level, and requires very specific circumstances to be used to full effect.
(*Note that the 2d10 damage does gain bonuses from the warlock's implement, and from feats and other sources, but doesn't gain a bonus from the Warlock's stat modifiers. On average, it is likely to be around 12-13 damage at the levels Hunger of Hadar is used.)
(**See the errata for Warlock's Curse: "If you hit a cursed enemy with an attack, you deal extra damage." No attack roll, means you don't hit, means no curse damage.)
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Ok, I think I see where the confusement is coming in - you don't seem to be reading "blocks line of sight" as the same thing as "total obscurement", which is what it is. (Blocks line of sight = line of sight is blocked, and thus total concealment is in place for anyone looking in, through or out of the cloud.) But that said, I certainly can get behind the idea that they should perhaps standardize the terminology here - though I think the text is very clear on how it works, clearly there is some confusion here for you, and fixing that would certainly not be a bad thing. I think this is definitely the biggest disagreemnt. I think LoS is a tool to help determine concealment and cover. I think Line of Sight means pick our corner, draw four imaginary lines to your opponents for corners, blah, blah, then see if THE LINE touches and area that block LoS that ONE LINE is blocked. If two lines are blocked (-2 to hit). If four lines are blocked (-5 to hit). So darkness, fog, smoke, etc are identical and variable based on how many LoSs are blocked. I am curious whether the start and end of the line counted as touching. Even though this seems obvious, this has been debated and CS seems to think the end points don't count.
I fully expected the answers at the beginning of this to be one of the following:
1- Yes, the creature is Blind. LoS should not have been mentioned or
2- No, treat the darkness just like smoke etc. and use the LoS rules. Darkness has degrees just like previous editions.
I did not care which was right, but at least I would know what the designers were thinking. (At least as interpreted by CS.)
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Except that total darkness is obviously the goal of the spell - and is by no means broken. Remember, the advantage of having total concealment against enemies in the cloud is balanced by the fact that those enemies also have total concealment against the PCs!
It does have the advantage of automatic damage - but that damage is delayed until the start of...
I saw the purpose as causing damage. Possibly twice. He is a Striker after all. I interpret it as more powerfully so they decided to give the area a concealment affect that actually protected the target. The guy has a choice; gain the concealment (but he might suck down damage) or move away and thereby giving the Warlock a Controller effect.
This is why I think it is powerful. Maybe a better choice of words is, why wouldn't you pick this power? Let's just look at the first round. Your Warlock 5th level power choices are:
1- Hunger - A 99% chance of hitting an area with 2d20 (but you lose something for lack of curse, the delay does not really affect anything accept maybe OAs) or
2- Avernian - A chance of hitting an area with 2d20+Mod and 5 on going damage or
3- Crown or Curse - 100% chance of half damage to one target with chance of hitting that target for 2d6+Mod
I would always go for Option 1. And if I Blind the guys also, everyone should pick Option 1. I thought they wanted to get rid of 'choices' that always ended up the same. And this one seems like a no brainer to pick Hunger of Hadar no matter what your build. Ok, this ignores the Warlock's Curse damage, criticals and the actual hit probabilities, but it seems intuitive that you will do more damage with Hunger. Maybe that is part of my issue. Maybe these factors actually make the 'automatic' damage an even exchange for less overall damage.
You are right the HEAL analogy was exaggeration for dramatics. I ALWAYS exaggerate.
By the way, I still don't know when and how you get Total Obscurement unless we take the text literally to mean ANY type of darkness. The whole Light, Heavy and Total Obscurement seems to have been written and then not used anywhere. Everywhere else, it is concealment or complete concealment and obscurement seem to have disappeared. (I made a pun!)
Duncan & Dragons wrote: I think this is definitely the biggest disagreemnt. I think LoS is a tool to help determine concealment and cover. I think Line of Sight means pick our corner, draw four imaginary lines to your opponents for corners, blah, blah, then see if THE LINE touches and area that block LoS that ONE LINE is blocked. If two lines ar blocked (-2 to hit). If four lines blocked (-5 to hit). So darkness, fog, smoke, etc are identical and variable based on how many LoSs are blocked. I am curious whether the start and end of the line counted as touching. Even though this seems obvious, this has been debated and CS seems to think the end points don't count. Yeah, that is the right interpretation of Line of Sight. Basically, since the zone blocks line of sight, all lines that touch it have line of sight blocked. Any attack directed at a target entirely in the zone will have all four lines blocked; any attack directed to the opposite side of it will have all four lines blocked; and any attack directed out of the cloud by a creature entirely inside of it will have all four lines blocked. The confusion seems to be "whether the start and end of the line counted as touching" - and the answer is, they do, since otherwise you could have zones of absolute darkness side by side, with people able to see past without difficulty.
Duncan & Dragons wrote: I saw the purpose as causing damage. Possibly twice. He is a Striker after all. I interpret it as more powerfully so they decided to give the area a concealment affect that actually protected the target. The guy has a choice; gain the concealment (but he might suck down damage) or move away thereby giving the Warlock a Controller effect.
This is why I think it is powerful. Maybe a better choice of words is, why wouldn't you pick this power? Let's just look at the first round. Your Warlock 5th level power choices are:
1- Hunger - A 99% chance of hitting an area with 2d20 (but you lose something for lack of curse, the delay does not really affect anything accept maybe OAs) or
2- Avernian - A chance of hitting an area with 2d20+Mod and 5 on going damage or
3- Crown or Curse - 100% chance of half damage to one target with chance of hitting that target for 2d6+Mod
I would always go for Option 1. And if I Blind the guys also, everyone should pick Option 1. I thought they wanted to get rid of 'choices' that always ended up the same. And this one seems like a no brainer to pick Hunger of Hadar no matter what yuor build.
I think you are still very much overstimating how much effect it has. The damage doesn't compare to two of the other powers - and note the 'blindness' doesn't really exist; they can simply walk out of the zone before making their next attack. Let's compare:
Let's assume a Warlock with 18 in their primary stat, and a +1 Implement.
Hunger of Hadar: Automatic 2d10+1 damage = ~12 damage to targets in a Burst 1 area. Targets can take a move action on their next turn, with no penalties, to avoid any further damage or difficulties.
Avernian Eruption: 2d10+5 damage, plus automatic 5 ongoing damage in a Burst 1 area, plus 1d6 damage to cursed enemy. Let's assume a 50% chance to hit, which results in ~17 damage to all enemies, plus an extra ~1.75 damage to one enemy.
Curse of the Bloody Fangs: 2d10+1d6+5 damage to one target; Half damage on a miss. Let's assume a 40% chance to hit (since this is vs AC), which results in ~12 average damage. However, the sustain effect (which lasts until they save) will deal another 5 average damage to the target and all adjacent enemies.
Crown of Madness:: 3d6+5 damage to one target; half damage on a miss. Assuming a 50% chance to hit, we deal an average 10.75 damage - but, until they make a save, we can sustain the effect to damage their friends. Probably not much use, just like the secondary effect of Hunger of Hadar, since they can simply avoid being adjacent to friends.
So, in summary:
1) Avernian Eruption is simply the best damage, especialy for multiple targets.
2) Curse of the Bloody Fangs is around the same damage, but only to one target. Has minor movement control for ~1.8 rounds, since it encourages them to avoid being near allies until they save.
3) Hunger of Hadar has average damage to multiple enemies. Has minor movement control on multiple enemies for 1 round, since it encourages them to take a move action on the next round.
4) Crown of Madness has average damage to one target. Has minor movement control for ~1.8 rounds, since it encourages the target to avoid being near allies until they save.
So, I'd say there are several reasons why Hunger might not be the first pick. Namely, damage, which is often important to warlocks. Unavoidable effects - the enemy can avoid the Hunger being a problem through a single move action, while the others linger until they save (which gives them almost twice the effective duration.) Avernian also doesn't require any sustaining to keep going, which can be important to let Warlock's keep putting up their curse. They also provide different effects - Hunger of Hadar encourages enemies to vacate a single location, while Curse of the Bloody Fangs and Crown of Madness force opponents to stay away from each other, making them easier to isolate and overpower.
Now, I'm not saying it is a bad power. It does have a lot of tactical benefit, and is probably the choice of any Warlock leaning more towards Controller. But it definitely isn't the #1 choice regardless of build - I suspect that Avernian Eruption claims that title, and that plenty of builds will opt for some of the single-target powers, especially if they are charisma-based.
The long and short of it: If the opponent simply walks out of the cloud at the start of their turn, the total effect of the cloud will have been to deal 12 damage to the monster, and provide them with beneficial protection (total concealment) between the end of your turn and the start of theirs. They do not suffer any secondary attacks, nor are they forced to make any attacks while remaining blinded and in the cloud.
Now, if they stay in the cloud, then yes, Hunger of Hadar is pretty effective. A single extra round cranks up the damage quite a bit and means their turn was rather hindered. But the vast majority of the time, there won't be anything keeping them in the cloud, and the spell won't be all that effective. And the same goes for other powers - toss out some save penalty on Curse of the Bloody Fangs or Crown of Madness, and some effects to keep the enemies grouped together, and it will be a painful experience indeed!
Duncan & Dragons wrote:
By the way, I still don't know when and how you get Total Obscurement unless we take the text literally to mean ANY type of darkness. The whole Light, Heavy and Total Obscurement seems to have been written and then not used anywhere. Everywhere else, it is concealment or complete comcealment and obscuremtn seem to have disappeared. (I made a pun!)
I'm not sure what you mean by this - the concealment section seems pretty clear that squares filled with darkness are Totally Obscured, which results in Total Concealment. The rules for Line of Sight back this up, as does the "Targeting what you can't see" section at the bottom of the page. (PHB 281.) The power's own explicit blocking of line of sight backs this all up, and the flavor text indicates this was exactly how it was intended. I don't think anything else contradicts this or uses different terminology...
I mean, there is definite room for improvement, sure. But I don't think there is any outright contradiction.
Alright, I searched for every instance of Darkness, Line Of Sight and Blindness in the PHB and DMG. I am starting to think that you guys are right. Something similar to this is what I expected to see to support Total Obscurity for Hunger of Hadar:
DMG pg. 181 wrote: Cloud of Darkness (minor; encounter) Close burst 1; this power creates a zone of darkness that remains in place until the end of the shadowborn stalker’s next turn. The zone blocks line of sight for all creatures except the shadowborn stalker. Any creature entirely within the area (except the shadowborn stalker) is blinded. Here is why I think the WotC CS could be right (although errata better be pending);
1- Lack of light is generally described as darkness. If Darkness is a rules defined term, it should be capitalized and defined with the specific conditions of Blindness, Invisibility, and Blocked Line of Sight.
2- Obscuring Terrain in the DMG talks about LoS. If Totally Obscuring Terrain existed, they should have described it like the stalker's power as Blinding the creatures in the area. They created the conditions and terrain types to be used. If the creature is Blind, we should be told. Totally Obscuring Terrain should also give the creatures inside Invisibility. Else I could interpret the situation as being able to attack them as 'Partially Concealed' on the edge of the zone of darkness.
3- Line of Sight should not be mentioned unless they intend to use the Line of Sight rules. Otherwise, call it something else or be specific on how to use it. For example, 'creatures outside the zone have Broken Line of Sight.'
4 - No precedence. Everything else gives some type of concealment benefit. This is the only case of creating a zone of Darkness except the Shadowborn Stalker. If it is similar, it should have been described the same. (By the way, why no Zone of Darkness power or Zone of Shadow [Dim Light] power?)
5- No precedence. Everything else inflicts Blindness on a single target, not an area effect. Why so much hurt at only 5th level and never again at any other level?
Matthew Koelbl wrote: I think you are still very much overstimating how much effect it has. The damage doesn't compare to two of the other powers - and note the 'blindness' doesn't really exist; they can simply walk out of the zone before making their next attack. Let's compare:
Let's assume a Warlock with 18 in their primary stat, and a +1 Implement.
Hunger of Hadar: Automatic 2d10+1 damage = ~12 damage to targets in a Burst 1 area. Targets can take a move action on their next turn, with no penalties, to avoid any further damage or difficulties.
Avernian Eruption: 2d10+5 damage, plus automatic 5 ongoing damage in a Burst 1 area, plus 1d6 damage to cursed enemy. Let's assume a 50% chance to hit, which results in ~17 damage to all enemies, plus an extra ~1.75 damage to one enemy.
Curse of the Bloody Fangs: 2d10+1d6+5 damage to one target; Half damage on a miss. Let's assume a 40% chance to hit (since this is vs AC), which results in ~12 average damage. However, the sustain effect (which lasts until they save) will deal another 5 average damage to the target and all adjacent enemies.
Crown of Madness:: 3d6+5 damage to one target; half damage on a miss. Assuming a 50% chance to hit, we deal an average 10.75 damage - but, until they make a save, we can sustain the effect to damage their friends. Probably not much use, just like the secondary effect of Hunger of Hadar, since they can simply avoid being adjacent to friends.
I agree with most of your math. Shouldn't Avernian Eruption be ~24 damage times 50% making it ~12 average? I think it is the same average damage as Hunger of Hadar. EDIT: OK, Bloody Fangs maybe better.
Plus Hunger has some type of zone.
Plus Hunger is a Daily power that you probably save up for that big bad guy with the high defenses to automatically give damage unless he has an immediate reaction teleport or a buddy that can slide him.
Plus Hunger probably wastes the targets time or else you might hurt him again.
I don't see why someone would not take Hunger of Hadar unless their portfolio of powers has a weakness.
Final word (unless I am weak or you ask me a question). Either ruling could be correct. But they built definitions for this confusion not to happen. They messed up by not using their own definitions.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Ok, I think I see where the confusement is coming in - you don't seem to be reading "blocks line of sight" as the same thing as "total obscurement", which is what it is. (Blocks line of sight = line of sight is blocked, and thus total concealment is in place for anyone looking in, through or out of the cloud.) I'm not sure (all of) the authors intended "blocks line of sight" to mean "grants total concealment," as you claim.
Look at the text for wall of fog (page 162): "The fog grants concealment to creatures in its space and blocks line of sight." How can creatures in its space gain only normal (not total) concealment if the fog blocks line of sight, if "blocks line of sight" means what you say it does?
But compare wall of fog to acid storm (page 167): "The cloud blocks line of sight, providing total concealment to creatures inside it." On the one hand, this seems to imply that "blocks line of sight" equals "provides total concealment." But if so, why call out the total concealment? If "blocks line of sight" always "provides total concealment," it's completely redundant to say so again.
Furthermore, look at the pre-errata Stealth rules (page 188): "If a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you (no Perception check required)." That seems to indicate that any cover or concealment (not just total cover or concealment) "blocks line of sight."
Finally, look at the post-errata Stealth rules: "You can make a Stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy or if you’re outside the enemy’s line of sight." Again, if "no line of sight" equals "total concealment," why do the rules call out both "total concealment" and "outside the enemy's line of sight"?
If you ask me, the 4E designers never really figured out what the rules for concealment and line of sight were going to be. And that's why the answer from CS doesn't really make any sense, either.
So much for final words! At one point I thought they got rid of the concept of darkeness altogether. Darkness and fog were just for flavor text. I thought they decided it was too complex and they decided to go with Concealment, Total Concealment, Cover, and Total Cover. And Line of Sight and Line of Effect were the rules to make the calls. Then I found out about Obscurement and got confused. To summarize Vegepygmy, it seems the designers never brought it all together into a cohesive package. And Hunger of Hadar got stuck in between edits.
Vegepygmy wrote: If you ask me, the 4E designers never really figured out what the rules for concealment and line of sight were going to be. And that's why the answer from CS doesn't really make any sense, either. Yeah, there definitely appears to be some pretty severe lack of consistency here. It's a shame, because they seem to have a pretty good core in the rules for determining Line of Sight / Line of Effect and degrees of Cover and Concealment... but also seemed to have muddied up the waters in a couple areas, with unfortunate results.
Duncan & Dragons wrote: Here is why I think the WotC CS could be right (although errata better be pending);
1- Lack of light is generally described as darkness. If Darkness is a rules defined term, it should be capitalized and defined with the specific conditions of Blindness, Invisibility, and Blocked Line of Sight.
2- Obscuring Terrain in the DMG talks about LoS. If Totally Obscuring Terrain existed, they should have described it like the stalker's power as Blinding the creatures in the area. They created the conditions and terrain types to be used. If the creature is Blind, we should be told. Totally Obscuring Terrain should also give the creatures inside Invisibility. Else I could interpret the situation as being able to attack them as 'Partially Concealed' on the edge of the zone of darkness.
3- Line of Sight should not be mentioned unless they intend to use the Line of Sight rules. Otherwise, call it something else or be specific on how to use it. For example, 'creatures outside the zone have Broken Line of Sight.'
4 - No precedence. Everything else gives some type of concealment benefit. This is the only case of creating a zone of Darkness except the Shadowborn Stalker. If it is similar, it should have been described the same. (By the way, why no Zone of Darkness power or Zone of Shadow [Dim Light] power?)
5- No precedence. Everything else inflicts Blindness on a single target, not an area effect. Why so much hurt at only 5th level and never again at any other level?
I think all of those are a lot of hypotheticals about different ways they could word it - but as it stands, I don't see anything in the wording itself to imply it was intended to provide basic concealment. To address 1, 2, and 3, I think this was a case of them trying to keep the wording simple, rather than defining the ramifications beyond what is necessary (if an area completely conceals the creatures inside, and the rules say that concealed creatures are effectively blinded and invisible, does a power need to outright state that?) I think they were trusting in readers being able to follow from one to another - but based on some of the confusion here (and their own lack of consistency elsewhere), I wouldn't be surprised if they do go for the more thorough specifics in future similar powers.
As for 4 and 5, I don't really see those as valid arguments. Clearly a power that creates a zone of darkness is something reasonable within the rules - the fact they only had one such power in the PHB doesn't make it a mistake. Similarly, as we've already explained, this is by no means all that powerful - other effects that inflict Blindness on a single target will be guaranteed to penalize it for at least one round. In this case, every creature hit by this spell can completely ignore the blindness by leaving the area before attacking. There is nothing unreasonable about the power level here.
Duncan & Dragons wrote:
I agree with most of your math. Shouldn't Avernian Eruption be ~24 damage times 50% making it ~12 average? I think it is the same average damage as Hunger of Hadar. EDIT: OK, Bloody Fangs maybe better.
Just to break down the math on Avernian Eruption:
2d10+5 damage = 16 average damage. (Each 1d10 deals an average 5.5 damage, so 5.5 + 5.5 + 5 = 16.) With a 50% chance to hit, that translates to 8 average damage.
It also deals an automatic ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends). On average, this translates to 9 total damage: 5 guaranteed, plus 5 x 0.45 (the chance of them not saving in the first round), plus 5 x 0.45 x 0.45 (the chance of them not having saved in the first or second round), and so on... coming out to just over 9 average damage, assuming no positive or negative modifiers on the saves.
So, 8 + 9 = 17 average damage.
Additionally, the warlock does a d6 extra damage to a single cursed target if they hit. 1d6 = 3.5 average damage. With a 50% chance to hit, that translates to 1.75 average damage to one cursed target.
So total: 17 average damage, or 18.75 to one cursed target.
Duncan & Dragons wrote: Plus Hunger has some type of zone.
Plus Hunger is a Daily power that you probably save up for that big bad guy with the high defenses to automatically give damage unless he has an immediate reaction teleport or a buddy that can slide him.
Plus Hunger probably wastes the targets time or else you might hurt him again.
I don't see why someone would not take Hunger of Hadar unless their portfolio of powers has a weakness.
If you are saving up a daily power to make sure a big bad monsters takes... 12 damage, I suggest that is a poor use of a daily power.
It isn't a bad power. It is good for, as I've mentioned, tactical control of the field - drop it in a region, and you not only force enemies to take some damage and move away, but also discourage them from moving back there as long as you maintain the power, and can also use it to protect you from artillery on the other side, who suddenly have their line of sight cut short.
But that makes it rather situational, and even more so to use it to the full effect. If you can't see how a Warlock - a Striker - might instead want to choose a power that deals 50% more damage, then I'm not sure what to say. I can certainly see the reasons to take it, but can't begin to agree with the claim that it is the only power at that level worth taking!
Duncan & Dragons wrote: Final word (unless I am weak or you ask me a question). Either ruling could be correct. But they built definitions for this confusion not to happen. They messed up by not using their own definitions.
Yeah, I think we've said basically what needs to be said. I think we have a solid agreement that they could definitely have used more consistent wording for some of these powers. I think it hard to make a claim that it wasn't intended to create an area of total concealment... but given some of the inconsistencies among other similar powers, there is a definite confusion about how some of these powers should work. I don't think it should be a big issue at the game table, since absolute conformity to 'Rules as Written' isn't all that vital - and this thread has gone a decent way towards giving good ideas on how to resolve this and similar effects.
I suspect that WotC might have started to realize this, since some of the newer effects are more detailed in their wording - the Drow's racial zone of darkness ability is, I think, phrased similarly to the Shadowborn Stalker's power. So hopefully this won't be an issue for future powers, and we'll be able to let it fade away... into the dark. ;)
Matthew Koelbl wrote: But that makes it rather situational, and even more so to use it to the full effect. If you can't see how a Warlock - a Striker - might instead want to choose a power that deals 50% more damage, then I'm not sure what to say. I can certainly see the reasons to take it, but can't begin to agree with the claim that it is the only power at that level worth taking! Ooooh. Nice. I am used to seeing on going damage only if you hit. The Avernian Eruption's on going damage is automatic since it is listed as an effect. That does change the impact considerably. Much better than I thought.
This is much better. You have two 5th level Warlock powers to choose from; one does more damage, the other gives you the zone of darkness. Both, to a degree, give automatic damage.
Duncan & Dragons wrote: Matthew Koelbl wrote: But that makes it rather situational, and even more so to use it to the full effect. If you can't see how a Warlock - a Striker - might instead want to choose a power that deals 50% more damage, then I'm not sure what to say. I can certainly see the reasons to take it, but can't begin to agree with the claim that it is the only power at that level worth taking! Ooooh. Nice. I am used to seeing on going damage only if you hit. The Avernian Eruption's on going damage is automatic since it is listed as an effect. That does change the impact considerably. Much better than I thought.
This is much better. You have two 5th level Warlock powers to choose from; one does more damage, the other gives you the zone of darkness. Both, to a degree, give automatic damage. Yeah. Sadly, the two Fey pact powers for that level aren't all that impressive - both the 'sustain' effects are no longer available once the target saves, meaning there is a better than 50% shot of the monster shrugging them off before they get to activate even once. Of the two, I prefer Crown of Madness (since monster's often have awesome basic attacks, so a chance to turn them upon each other is pretty hot.) The more damaging one, Curse of the Bloody Fangs, is an implement attack versus AC, which is rather bleh.
But Avernian Eruption and Hunger of Hadar are pretty well-balanced against each other, and I can see a variety of reasons to go with one or the other, based on build, stats, and what other powers the warlock (and their party members) have available.
The Non-PHB Level 5 Warlock Dailies are also pretty cool.
Fury of Gibbeth is from the Dragon Magazine Star Pact article, and is an incredibly bizarre power - it is a single target Intelligence-based attack (with a bonus to compensate for being a secondary stat) that does high damage, and forces the target to make Acrobatics check each turn or they keep falling prone.
For the Dark Pact (from the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide) you have Forceful Assault (a single target, decent damage attack that dazes) and Twilight of the Soul (a single target, high damage attack that only works if you hit... but is, interestingly enough, Reliable.)
In general, I've been impressed with how well they have usually balanced powers so that characters need to make real choices when they gain new powers. There are occasionally a few that fall short (such as Curse of the Bloody Fangs), but I've found it very rare to see any so good that nothing else is worth taking.
Recent threads in 4th Edition
|
