Yes I see only getting your Pact Boon from your own curse as this is clear in the rules, but why is it that Warlocks are punished in a multi-warlock party? Its not like rangers or rogues get punished by having more than one in the party. Warlocks are underpowered as is compared to the other strikers.
So my question is. Is it legal for a judge to rule that a Warlock can't get his extra damage off another Warlock's curse? By RAW a Warlock should get his extra damage. Is it legal for a judge to go by his interpretation of RAI and completely ignore RAW?
Theziner
Frankly, warlocks are a problematic class. On the whole they are underpowered in terms of damage output. At the same time they have some unique rule mechanics that are not particularly clearly defined. Due to this, depending on build and rules interpretation they tend to swing wildly between underpowered and situationally broken. 90% of the time they are underperforming strikers and 10% of the time they are derailing the battle and killing the fun for the other players.
So when there is some question I've found that judges tend to go with the more restrictive interpretation. It isn't always fair to the warlock player but tends to prevent surprises at the table for the DM and other players.
A judge should not be blatantly altering a PC's class features.
Believe me, there are some serious language/grammer nerds that have parsed the Warlock's Curse rules ad naseum and it can be read both ways.
Is it legal for a judge to rule that a Warlock can't get his extra damage off another Warlock's curse?
Yes.
I think the right interpretation is that a warlock deals extra damage regardless of who cursed the target, but that's not the only valid interpretation.
Welcome to table variation and the absence of campaign DMs.
My suggestion would be that, in tables with more than one warlock, you ask the judge if he has any issue with your interpretation and have the discussion before the adventure starts. Personally, I'm more prone to considering questionable interpretations before combat than in the middle, so in general, if you're doing something that you're aware some DMs disagree as to the correct interpretation, I recommend not springing it on the DM in the middle of combat. (YMMV, as some advocate hiding such interpretations from the DM in hopes they don't notice, which I don't recommend.)
Besides the obvious grammar argument, the other point you might want to raise to a skeptical DM is that the designers recognized that "a marked enemy" refers to any marked target, and so errata'ed the Fighter's combat challenge to specify "an enemy marked by you", but when errata'ing the Warlock curse section at the same time, they left it as "a cursed enemy".
What is the likelihood that the source of your warlock's power is exactly the same as another warlock's? I'm not talking about the likelihood of you both having Star Pact (for example) -- I'm talking about what is the likelihood that both of your Star Pacts came from the exact same Far Realms entity, in which case why would you gain extra damage from powers granted by some other entity? And it makes even less sense if you both have different pacts.
I'm not trying to make a RAW argument (which I agree is still vague enough to go either way), but for you to actually think about how your characters came about their powers, and the fact that the PTB would likely not structure their magic such that their minions (i.e., you the warlock) could cooperate in such a way as the OP described...
90% of the time they are underperforming strikers and 10% of the time they are derailing the battle and killing the fun for the other players.
I agree with everything else in the quoted post except this. I'd set the numbers closer to 1 in 50 (98% and 2%) than 1 in 10 (90% and 10%) as cases where the warlock derails a battle or ruins a table because of fun killing.
I assume the fun killing thing is a reference to the two rod business, or possibly to Cursebite, because other than these two fringe cases warlocks are all suck, all the time, including my own level 5 warlock.
There's also a feat in Arcane Power that lets you get around it in no uncertain terms. Not only that, but you get CA too.
If you're talking about Accursed Coordination, yeah, that strongly implies that you cannot get curse damage on a creature cursed by another warlock. (Otherwise, why create a feat which allows multiple curses on one creature?)
What DM's hate is the capacity for one charactor to wipe out scores of minions at once.
It isn't just that. Its the fact they can do it guaranteed. If someone casts Fireball and rolls well, that's terrific! But to use something must of us consider broken, its just going to make things far too easy. The mods are easy enough as it is.
I don't see how you can argue both ways here. A cursed target is more vulnerable to your attacks. The judges that have ruled against using other people's curse did it out of what they thought RAI was not actually on what it said in the book.
Personally I feel that Warlocks are a more complicated and tactical class that the other strikers. People that don't understand the warlock powers tend to rule against them. They equate the curse to the ranger's quarry or even the fighter's mark.
Theziner
1: It isn't clear cut one way or the other.
2: One interpretation almost invariably leads to more fun and less frustration for the players at the table than the other.
Argument: I'm on the side of ANY curse works for ANY warlock. I use the fact that curses can't be turned off or over-written as supporting arguments (unlike a mark which can apply to whomever placed it last).
Anecdote: I was fortunate enough to play at a table DMed by Mearls at DDXP. There were two warlocks at the table (including mine) - when I went to deal extra damage to a target cursed by the other warlock, he questioned it.
When I argued the RAW, as well as my above reasoning he nodded, told me "Oh, I guess that makes sense - go ahead!" and for the rest of the game the curse ONLY mattered for who got the boon.
Lesson: Even R&D seems to be unclear on the issue, and can be persuaded one way or the other. Expect table variation (and expect me to keep arguing for any/any).
I use the fact that curses can't be turned off or over-written as supporting arguments (unlike a mark which can apply to whomever placed it last).
Of course as I saw someone mention (not sure if it was in this thread or on the Yahoo group) it would make the Accursed Coordination feat pointless:
You can place your Warlock's Curse on a creature that is already affected by another characters's Warlock's Curse. ...
Of course as I saw someone mention (not sure if it was in this thread or on the Yahoo group) it would make the Accursed Coordination feat pointless:
Nah.
It means the difference in who gets the pact boon when the target drops.
A feylock who "needs" a teleport to get out of a tight spot finds this an important distinction when the targets nearest him are already cursed. Accursed Coordination means it's one less thing he has to worry about.
A Dark Pact Warlock who's trying to save up a bunch of charges before going off to face the BBEG would want this as well - because it means the "other" warlock in the party isn't stealing "his" charges.
Hardly useless to those two.
But it would be useful to have this answered.
Gomez
I dunno. It seems to me moee logical that the curse works similar to hunter's quarry (taht is: you have to cure, not another), and it also fits lore better (your curse gives you benefits, not someone else).
But it would be useful to have this answered.
Multiple rangers can quarry a target - you're effectively saying that having multiple warlocks in a party is a vast detriment (even beyond any opinions you may have on how bad warlocks suck). More importantly, hunter's quarry has specific language restricting it to your quarry, while curse does not.
If you're talking about Accursed Coordination, yeah, that strongly implies that you cannot get curse damage on a creature cursed by another warlock. (Otherwise, why create a feat which allows multiple curses on one creature?)
It does nothing of the sort - Accursed Coordination gives you combat advantage if you can get a 2nd curse on and means that pact boon benefits are not "wasted" by another warlock. It doesn't have to do anything at all with curse damage to be worthwhile.
There's certainly some unclear ruling going on, but I've yet to sit at a table in which the DM had actually read the rules and errata and then decided it worked that way. They almost always go 'But Rangers work like...' then 'Oh. Huh'
Hardly useless to those two.
But it does mean the feat is more useful for all Warlocks.
I'd say if you want to avoid arguing and table variation (I personally see both sides have a valid argument. The fact that Mike Mearls didn't know of this interpretation crosses out the fact he was persuaded), take the feat.
Frankly I'm kind of fed up with being nerfed. I've had 3 items nerfed on my character. I've had judges rule that I needed to end up at least 3 squares away for my shadow walk to trigger ( i couldn't walk 3 squares back then walk two squares forward and get my concealment) on top of this curse bull. Is it so complicated that they can't open the book and read the Warlock entry? I'm frustrated about ambiguous rules and every other striker (which is 3/4 of most lfr groups) out damaging me. As an infernalock, the control side which is supposed to compensate for my damage is sadly lacking.
Don't get me wrong. I love my character. It is probably twice as fun as those boring archer rangers or two weapon fighters, but the warlock seems to get the shaft in more ways that one. It seems the symbolic Warlock Rod is actually the short end of the stick.
Theziner
Why should I be forced to take a feat when its situational at best for my character
You don't have to. If you prefer to take other feats and have DMs apply different rulings to your character, go for it. If you want to be able to have consistent rulings applied to your character then you're going to have to take the feat until such time as WotC makes it clear which ruling is the correct one.
Frankly I'm kind of fed up with being nerfed. I've had 3 items nerfed on my character. I've had judges rule that I needed to end up at least 3 squares away for my shadow walk to trigger ( i couldn't walk 3 squares back then walk two squares forward and get my concealment) on top of this curse bull. Is it so complicated that they can't open the book and read the Warlock entry?
If its such a problem for you, take a different class. Because your inpreterpation that you can walk away 3 squares and then walk back 2 and still have Shadow Walk, while technically correct, isn't how I would rule it.
If ever you had me as your DM I wouldn't let you do it (unless someone could show me a Wizards source saying that's how they intended for it to work). Such is life when you are in a living campaign. You could of course report me for not interpreting the rules as written but instead using common sense in applying rules. And I'd have no way to stop you. If WotC thought it important enough they could revoke my DMing privileges. Although frankly I'd prefer they say outright how its suppose to work.
As a player I am very careful when relying on anything that isn't black and white.
If its such a problem for you, take a different class. Because your inpreterpation that you can walk away 3 squares and then walk back 2 and still have Shadow Walk, while technically correct, isn't how I would rule it.
This you are 'interpreting' wrong, and RAW are actually clear, for once. The rule states you need to move three squares. It says nothing about needing to end three squares away from your starting position to benefit.
Imagine this setup: W--E W=Warlock - = empty space E = enemy. If the warlock moves two squares forward and one square back, would you take the opportunity attack? Of course you would. So you'd give the warlock the penalty of moving through that square, but not the benefit?
A more understandably debatable point is whether or not you can benefit from shadow walk if you teleport. I'd say yes, but I play a feylock, so I may be a little biased on that point. I can see the argument both ways, and would (grudgingly) accept if that ruling went against me.
This you are 'interpreting' wrong, and RAW are actually clear, for once. The rule states you need to move three squares. It says nothing about needing to end three squares away from your starting position to benefit.
What's the point to requiring the movement be 3 squares away from the originating square, if you're just going to let the person move back to the original square? I've never come across this interpretation before. Every time I've seen a Warlock they always assume they have to end their turn 3 squares away.
Imagine this setup: W--E W=Warlock - = empty space E = enemy. If the warlock moves two squares forward and one square back, would you take the opportunity attack? Of course you would. So you'd give the warlock the penalty of moving through that square, but not the benefit?
Are you saying Warlocks only have to move 3 squares in total? The feature clearly says
if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn
. So you're hypothetical of moving forward 2 squares and then back 1 square seems to be against the rules regardless.
[EDIT]: Looking on the forums I'll admit that everyone here seems to take it for granted that Shadow Walk activates after you've moved 3 squares away from the original square, so I'll let them walk back to their original square. But I won't be telling my local Warlocks about this.
So, back to multiple cursed targets...
The rules often don't forbid it.
I will, however, make it strongly known that I find it cheesetastic and if they wanna pull rules cheese then I as the judge will feel no guilt about doing the same back.
I don't alter the rules. Why would I when there's so many ways to mess with the players entirely within the rules?
:D
-karma
I have had players that pull the "drag the NPC back and forth through the damaging area" between the same two squares.
The rules often don't forbid it.
Well, that's the whole point of a damaging zone.
In SToS we have had a lot of fun with the Druid's Fire Seed doing that. Oh, you want to move out of the zone? Boom, pushed right back in! Now if it's 2 squares within the zone, then no, that wouldn't work since you have to move into the zone or start your turn there (typically, although i haven't seen a zone that didn't say that).
What's the point to requiring the movement be 3 squares away from the originating square, if you're just going to let the person move back to the original square?
Renewed Stealth check rolls, if the warlock was already in Stealth. Barring other powers/abilities, of course.
The warlock is still fun. Each pact and their powers bring awesome power concepts and boon concepts. They take terrific strategy to be successful, making them a complex tactical class that can be a fun challenge for an advanced player. And, they can be really strong, dealing some really strong dmg/effects in spikes.
But, as another wise poster said, it is best to clear the questionable stuff with the party and DM beforehand. Figure out if you will deal damage to a target cursed by another warlock. Figure out if everyone is cool with clearing minions. Figure out if some PCs want to be dealt damage with powers. If not, switch PCs. A good strategy is to keep your warlock in the same level band as another PC. Try to play the warlock, and if the table isn't friendly to warlocks, swap it out for the other PC.
The player behind a Warlock most definitely matters. More so than most classes, even if I can't explain why.
For Shadow Walk it says that if you move 3 squares away from your starting location you get concealment. Not that you need to end up 3 squares away from your starting location. I look at it like a trigger. Once you have moved those 3 squares then your concealment activates and you are free to move where you like including right back to your origin square. Judges that rule otherwise because they don't think the flavor of the class feature matches are morons. The books frankly say to reflavor your powers however you like. My character needs to build up steam and smoke and does this by moving (Warforged Steampunk Flavor).
I just can't stand how some judges can justify making the game less fun for players of Warlocks by stating RAI when they haven't talked to the designers or don't have psychic powers to read their minds.
The job of a judge is to make the game fun for all. Restricting one class from using all their abilities lessens the experience for those players. They don't bat an eye when the twf does 50-100 damage with Rain of Blows, but that 3.5 average damage from my d6 on a power that does less than 20 damage offends them. Just because they think the designers intended it to be doesn't make it right for them to DM enpower my character to be less fun. I think I will ask the next one if they think that the designers intended the Fighter to be the best striker in the game.
Theziner
For Shadow Walk it says that if you move 3 squares away from your starting location you get concealment. Not that you need to end up 3 squares away from your starting location. I look at it like a trigger. Once you have moved those 3 squares then your concealment activates and you are free to move where you like including right back to your origin square. Judges that rule otherwise because they don't think the flavor of the class feature matches are morons. The books frankly say to reflavor your powers however you like. My character needs to build up steam and smoke and does this by moving (Warforged Steampunk Flavor).
Build up all the steam you want; calling judges morons for ruling on something that is able to be interpreted in multiple ways will do you no favors down the road.
[INDENT]On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.[/INDENT]
You read the power as "if you move at least 3 squares" and "away from where you started your turn", while some judges read it as "if you move at least 3 squares away" and "from where you started your turn" -- both are valid interpretations.
I just can't stand how some judges can justify making the game less fun for players of Warlocks by stating RAI when they haven't talked to the designers or don't have psychic powers to read their minds.
Do you think local judges are trying to squeeze you out of RPGA because of some personality clash you may have? It sounds like you are being treated differently than other players.
Warlocks really just have a few points that aren't as clearly stated in the rules as players/DMs would like. I suggest as a player ask the DM before a mod starts how he handles x,y,and z rules questions about gray area warlocks powers/effects. If you don't like his mindset and how he will rule on it, play another character. If you aren't able to play another just take that into consideration with your tactics and strategy. Just because your warlock can't be the minion slayer of the world at every LFR DMs table doesn't mean your not able to do decent damage and your job as a striker. Warlocks are designed overlay as single target strikers for the most part, so being able to kill some minions with some 2 rod gear combo and a minor action is cool if it happens but not epic failure if it doesn't. It just means *gasp* that the other 3-5 players at the table need to also do stuff to effect the combat and contribute to the encounter and the fun of the module.
Thanks and always good gaming,
~Matt Butler
Champions of the Realms Event Organizer
Champions of the Realms Yahoo Group- Indianapolis, IN
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/championsoftherealms/
Champions of the Realms Warhorn Site
http://www.warhorn.org/ChampionsOfTheRealms/
I agree with everything else in the quoted post except this. I'd set the numbers closer to 1 in 50 (98% and 2%) than 1 in 10 (90% and 10%) as cases where the warlock derails a battle or ruins a table because of fun killing.
I assume the fun killing thing is a reference to the two rod business, or possibly to Cursebite, because other than these two fringe cases warlocks are all suck, all the time, including my own level 5 warlock.
Bah. Warlocks don't suck. WotC just set people up for dissappointment by labeling them strikers. They're really single target controllers--look at it that way and they can be quite effective. They just don't fill the same role in the party that a ranger does, that's all.
Build up all the steam you want; calling judges morons for ruling on something that is able to be interpreted in multiple ways will do you no favors down the road.
[INDENT]On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from
where you started your turn, you gain concealment
until the end of your next turn.[/INDENT]
You read the power as "if you move at least 3 squares" and "away from where you started your turn", while some judges read it as "if you move at least 3 squares away" and "from where you started your turn" -- both are valid interpretations.
Maybe I was a little harsh about calling them morons. I just can't see how it can be interpreted any other way. What you just quoted says exactly the same thing. Yes I moved 3 squares away from where I started. Shadow Walk happens immediately as you move 3 squares away. Is there any other power that triggers at end of movement or end of turn like your saying this does? Shadow Walk doesn't say you need to end up 3 squares away, it says "On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn."
Anyway I think I definitely will have to start every lfr session with how each judge will interpret some unclear points. Its annoying and tedious but until the designers get off their butts and clarify these specific points then the player of the Warlock will have to do these things.
Theziner
Otherwise, the class feature could read "On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn." (Having "away from where you started your turn" in the description does actually mean something.)
May I'm a moron or maybe I'm not. I really like the Shadow Walk class feature for Warlocks. I rule that you have to move 3 squares away from your starting location -- which means, IMO, actually be 3 squares away from your starting location.
Otherwise, the class feature could read "On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn." (Having "away from where you started your turn" in the description does actually mean something.)
Imagine this situation. My feylock walks out from cover to get his prime shot, ending his move action three squares away from where he started. He attacks a cursed foe and drops it, gaining a teleport, and wants to teleport back into cover. I think that's a good way to take advantage of my class features. Would you rule that if he teleported back anywhere into the three square radius of where he began his turn, the concealment would not apply?
What about if the guy dropped later in the round and I wanted to teleport?
I guess the question that needs answering is: do you have to actually end your turn three squares away from where you began it (in which case, why doesn't it phrase it that way), or does your movement have to take you through a point three squares away at some point?
The three square rule can still mean something if the latter is the case, as a warlock in a confined space may not be able to get it at all, or at least without provoking OAs. There is a difference between moving any three squares and moving three squares away from where you began and back again.
I guess the question that needs answering is: do you have to actually end your turn three squares away from where you began it (in which case, why doesn't it phrase it that way), or does your movement have to take you through a point three squares away at some point?
You only have to move 3 squares away from your starting position. That's what the rule says. It says nothing about having to end your movement 3 or more squares away. I don't understand how DMs are misreading this. It's about the only clear cut class rule the Warlock has. I won't bother re-quoting the text as a few others have already done so.
W--X--- If the warlock starts at W and moves to X (3 squares away)
---(W)--- He gains his Shadow Walk concealment. Now he likely has more than a 3 movement. So he could then go:
(W)--X--- back to his original square and still have his concealment since he moved 3 squares away (position X) from his starting position (which is now his ending position) Or:
---X--(W) he could continue on to end 6 squares away. (or could have moved in another direction, etc.)
You only have to move 3 squares away from your starting position. That's what the rule says. It says nothing about having to end your movement 3 or more squares away. I don't understand how DMs are misreading this. It's about the only clear cut class rule the Warlock has. I won't bother re-quoting the text as a few others have already done so.
That's how I see it.
I can see a judge ruling that you have to end up 3 squares away.
The warlock rules are very ambiguous on all sides, and can be interpreted in different ways depending on how you picture the power(s) to work.
You can't hope up and down in two adjacent squares and then claim you have moved 3.
Of course not. The rule clearly states that you have to move at least 3 squares away from your startign square. Movign back and forth wouldn't do it.
I can see a judge ruling that you have to end up 3 squares away.
I can't. i can't even fathom how a judge would read the rule that way. It is clear RAW. There is no ambiguity in the rule.
The warlock rules are very ambiguous on all sides, and can be interpreted in different ways depending on how you picture the power(s) to work.
I agree that many of the Warlock rules suck in how they are written. However, this one is actually very clear cut. A DM ruling on this based on how he thinks it should work is not following the RAW but rather making up his own rules.
I agree that many of the Warlock rules suck in how they are written. However, this one is actually very clear cut.
It's clear cut, but it's still written poorly--the basic problem is that there's no physical effect to enable DMs to visualize what's going on.
The reason is, of course, that warlocks can give whatever flavor they'd like to the mechanical effect, but still, for clarity's sake, an ability shouldn't grant effects which usually have a physical cause (like cover or concealment) without any physical manifestation.
Let's reword the power, with the only change being to add an explicit physical manifestation:
"On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn, a cloud of shadows erupts around you. You gain concealment from the cloud of shadows, and the cloud lasts until the end of your next turn."
Once you add an explicit physical manifestation, the interpretation becomes obvious: any actions you take after moving 3 squares away don't retroactively make the cloud go away, so it doesn't matter what you do or where you go, you still have the concealment until the end of your next turn.
I can't. i can't even fathom how a judge would read the rule that way. It is clear RAW. There is no ambiguity in the rule.
Well there's a whole heap of people in Australia you can't fathom. Because every time I've seen this feature used the player has ensured they've ended up 3 squares away at the end of their turn (sometimes changing their movement if they haven't).
Well there's a whole heap of people in Australia you can't fathom. Because every time I've seen this feature used the player has ensured they've ended up 3 squares away at the end of their turn (sometimes changing their movement if they haven't).
The RAW might be 'clear', but the RAI is also reasonably clear if you think along the lines of how a game designer thinks:
"I think it would be exciting to give an ability that forces warlocks to move from their starting point to another point and back again!"
or
"I think it would be exciting to give an ability that forces warlocks to keep moving about the battlefield each round!"
One sounds like a rules lawyer, the other one sounds like a game designer.
One sounds like a rules lawyer, the other one sounds like a game designer.
I agree which is why I won't be correcting players and telling them to reread their class feature. HOWEVER everyone on the forums assumes the "rules lawyer" interpretation, and there is absolutely nothing I can point to that lets me say they're wrong. And with several Errata issues since, you can make a persuasive argument that if my interpretation was correct, WotC would have clarified it by now (and they have issued Errata to clarify other points).
Having said that, I do dislike Warlocks in the hands of powergamers. I come from a background of playing an RPI Mud (that's an online roleplay intensive multiplayer text game). In that Mud doing something "because the code lets you" was frowned upon and you were considered a twink if you continuously did so. Also taking advantage of bugs in the code was grounds for banning. Instead it was expected players would notify the staff of the bug and then not abuse the bug.
In D&D its a completely different mindset. Powergamers and "rules lawyers" are not only allowed, but they're rewarded in that they have an easier time playing the game. We see it quite often with people complaining about how item X is broken. These people quite often have the broken item themselves and also take advantage of every broken build they can find. If they played the RPI Mud they would have been banned long ago.
That's not to say people should make suboptimal characters. It is a different mindset, but because of my background I'm having trouble adapting to the new style of playing. And so to answer the OP, that's why I dislike Warlocks. Because in the hands of power gamers and rules lawyers, they seem much easier to go against what I feel is the intended way of doing things. And for me auto-killing minions as a minor action, or gaining cover while effectively staying in the same square are not what the game was designed to allow. These are bugs that for whatever reason haven't been fixed.
I'll also say I do find it odd how often people complain about a particular build/power/item/etc. If you don't like it, don't take it. When that is proposed people inevitably talk about how their character won't be as effective or how the game will be harder. Does it really matter if the games harder? Concentrate more on the character and playing the character rather then worrying about whether or not your as effective.
Or don't. Do whatever makes you happy. For me worrying less about broken items and concentrating more on my character equals fun. If that means I always have to play low because my character is underpowered, so be it.
Just my 2 cents.
Well there's a whole heap of people in Australia you can't fathom. Because every time I've seen this feature used the player has ensured they've ended up 3 squares away at the end of their turn (sometimes changing their movement if they haven't).
Oh, no worries. I have a hard time fathoming Aussies on anything. ;) j/k
HOWEVER everyone on the forums assumes the "rules lawyer" interpretation, and there is absolutely nothing I can point to that lets me say they're wrong. And with several Errata issues since, you can make a persuasive argument that if my interpretation was correct, WotC would have clarified it by now (and they have issued Errata to clarify other points).
I'm going to preface the following by saying I'm not trying to flame you, only that I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you are arguing.
You are claiming it's a "rules lawyer" interpretation, but how is it rules lawyering when it states it right there in black and white? It seems you're trying to impose what you think it should be and then shouting "rules lawyer" when you can't have it interpreted that way. I could be horribly, horribly wrong on that.
But what is see is this:1) Rules says you have to move at least 3 squares from your starting position during your movement. No mention of where you have to end.
2) You think it should be end your movement at least 3 squares away.
3) Since it doesn't say that you are crying foul.
I just don't see how playing it by the rules is rules lawyering.
The RAW might be 'clear', but the RAI is also reasonably clear if you think along the lines of how a game designer thinks:
"I think it would be exciting to give an ability that forces warlocks to keep moving about the battlefield each round!"
If you believe that the 4e designers made decisions based on what they thought would be exciting, you're reading a much different rulebook than the one I'm using. I would be quite surprised to find that the designer of this ability cared much either way where warlocks ended up after moving the 3 squares.
I may of course be completely wrong, but it looks to me that the purpose of the ability appears to be simply an incentive for warlocks to successfully stay out of melee, and a way to bump up a warlock's sub-par AC. I would consider being able to move 3 squares as being primarily a proxy for "Is the warlock sufficiently out of melee range that they can move around freely without provoking opportunity attacks?"
If there's any excitement, I don't think it's intended to be about the warlock meandering aimlessly around the battlefield, it's in the next round, where there's a creature attacking him in melee, and he has to choose between moving and taking an opportunity attack, or losing that effective +2 AC for the next round.
That's the problem with RAI: it forces us to make assumptions about what actually was intended, which usually ends up saying more about your mindset than the designer's.
You are claiming it's a "rules lawyer" interpretation, but how is it rules lawyering when it states it right there in black and white?
Let me be clear - I'm not saying it is a rules lawyer interpretation. I'm saying the result of that interpretation suggests that the game designer thinks like a rules lawyer, not a designer who tries to make really cool stuff happen
The wording of the ability is only 'black and white' if you assume that the designer meant the word 'move' to mean what it typically means in common English as opposed to the more likely use of move to mean 'action where you move and end up' in a very unclear shorthand.
Two reasons why this is likely:
The writer of Warlock is unclear everywhere else. So why are we assuming that his moment of clarity is intentional?
The writer likes to come up with really cool ideas(even if poorly expressed) - look at all the awesome power names. In that context, bouncing from point A to point B to point A feels extremely arbitrary. Having the Warlock have to constantly end up in a new spot every round to gain a benefit feels cool and very similar to how skirmisher opponents in 4e work.
That's the problem with RAI: it forces us to make assumptions about what actually was intended, which usually ends up saying more about your mindset than the designer's.
Presuming a lack of intent by going strictly RAW is an assumption about what was actually intended. And while RAI might be wrong, assuming the designer had no intent in a rule is by definition wrong.
And there are people who have a great deal of knowledge and insight as to why designers might make a rule work the way it is intended to work. That some people do not have such insight does not mean other people can't generally figure out what was intended.
As an example, in the heavily debated topics at the end of 3.5 - every topic that I had posted on and that they had posted what their actual answer was, we had the same answer. The literalists were much, much, much less accurate...
Having said that, I do dislike Warlocks in the hands of powergamers.
What are we talking about here? Which powergamers? The powergamers that abuse moving 3 squares and then back to where they started? Yeah, that's some terrific abuse... the Battleragers have been complaining about that cheesy warlock.
Are we talking about minion killing for the cost of two low-level items? Yeah, the swordmages and the invokers and the wizards and the lightning item wielders are just brutally offended that someone else can get in on their game. Oh, and the DMG is outraged that someone is taking their mantra of minions being designed so they die easily literally. It was meant as a joke! And really, if we had a dollar for every time that killing minions off absolutely changed the balance of a combat we would have... well, ok, we would owe money back to the warlock player, but stil...
Ok, that's all in jest, but really, the only thing I know of that is remotely powergaming with warlocks is a melee lock before the pact blade nerf. A melee lock after that is still very strong, but generally no stronger than a Battlerager.
Are you seeing other powergame issues that I am not encountering? A quick review of the optimization boards for DPR, for controllers, for strikers... they don't seem to favor warlocks at all.
The general characterization of a warlock is a complex class that takes a lot of tactical knowledge to make work. They can be strong, and spike-prone, but generally will be way below the damage of any striker class (and laughable compared to a ranger). Their control aspects are decent, depending on damage sacrificed by not choosing stronger damage powers, but are not so incredibly different from a Bard (which is a leader).
I could be misunderstanding what you are writing, but what you wrote seems to me to capture why this thread exists. Here is a class that is suboptimal, but because it has such complexity, is usually misunderstood. Your warlock can be standing right next to an insanely damaging greatbow-wielding twin-striking Ranger, but the DM picks on you to have you expect how you can wield two rods, how your curse works, how you gained concealment, etc.
The warlock is spike-prone, and this often seems to communicate broken. However, when the damage is averaged out, it is far below other strikers. This is really clear when you watch a Darklock. The first time the Darklock finally succeeds in triggering their aura, the DM often decides to never attack the Darklock again. This is off on several levels. Rules-wise, the DM is choosing to nerf a class feature. Tactics-wise, the warlock has just spent their aura and is actually a very juicy target. Balance-wise, the DM is now unfairly punishing the rest of the party, not allowing the warlock to take damage and instead concentrating it on the rest of the party. No one wins.
Instead, I think the OP is saying that DMs should let warlocks play out the way they are intended and that in the end DMs will see that they are just fine. A bit weak, but an interesting tactical class that can have moments of power.
You are claiming it's a "rules lawyer" interpretation
I put rules lawyer in quotation marks to show I wasn't actually calling it that, simply using the same terminology as MwaO. I also then spent the rest of the paragraph defending the interpretation.
Are you seeing other powergame issues that I am not encountering? A quick review of the optimization boards for DPR, for controllers, for strikers... they don't seem to favor warlocks at all.
There is a big balance issue with warlocks.
Their powers all have the coolest names.
Your Delicious Weakness? Soul Flaying?
C'mon. No wonder they do less damage. You have to balance out the awesome with something!
Seriously though, I agree that Warlocks have a lot of class power that can be interpreted in various ways. But when I DM I tend to rule in favor of the players if such is the case. None of the 'unclear' rules surrounding warlock powers make them broken by any stretch of the imagination, even if you rule in favor of the warlock.
C'mon. No wonder they do less damage. You have to balance out the awesome with something!
Ironically, I think that's one of the issues with Warlock - when you look at GenCon '08, the problem was everyone wanted to play a Warlock because they seemed so cool.
So they're being a little bit careful with them...
Staying in the same place after you've been hit, or hit something, or made magical gestures and said your catch phrase, or erupted with magical fire, that means creatures know where you are and the concealment (however you fluff your Shadow Walk) can't do much about that. There are feats (for Gnomes ;)) and other powers that deal with that, as it's a little more powerful than Shadow Walk, and should be.
I see Shadow Walk as a - "Wait, where? The Warlock's over there now? How'd he get OHGODSNOITBURNS!"
Of course, opinions are like *******s - everyone's is different.
"Wait, where? The Warlock's over there now? How'd he get OHGODSNOITBURNS!"
Priceless.
I honestly don't think any of those things are the way it was intended to play, and if I was DMing for a home game I could (and do) say that "in my game" they have to work the way I am positive they were intended to work - with the Warlock ending up 3 squares or more from where he started ( ... by the way joe, I loved the reference to Steven King's use of the word "dim", that's exactly what I thought when I first read the power too.) and only dealing curse damage to creatures he personally had cursed.
But when I am DMing for an LFR event it's not really "my game" anymore, it's a game I am sharing with untold other DMs. I think it's a little unfair to the players in that kind of situation to have to deal with multiple DM interpretations and biases, and so all we have to go on is the exact writing and language of the rule. Maybe it is "rules-lawyerey" for lack of a better term, but it's what I think is in the best interest of sharing the campaign.
Do I -think- that a Warlock has to end up three squares from where it started? Yes, absolutely ... but I can't find anything in the written description to enforce that conclusion, so I can't find a way to justify it and let the 'lock end his move action wherever it wants as long as at some point it was three squares away.
Do I -think- the Warlock can deal extra damage to an enemy cursed by another Warlock? Absolutely not ... but I let them do that because even though it's not the intent of the power, the way it's written states only that the enemy has to be cursed - not by whom.
Do I -think- that a Warlock should be able to clear the board of any minions without even rolling for a minor action just because he has two legal magic items that produce a result that was never intended? **** no! ... but despite all of my wishes I can't find anything in any of the written rules to disallow it other than saying "I am the DM and I don't like that," and I think that is an unfair way to handle DMing for RPGA events.
Players in Living Campaigns are like the children of divorced parents. They could get punished for doing something at one parent's house that is perfectly acceptable behavior at the other parent's house, and as I said before - I really just feel that is unfair to the player.
Shadow Walk
On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn.
Interpretation 1: "If you move at least 3 squares ..." This allows for the interpretation that the warlock can move 3 squares from the starting point, gain concealment, then move back.
Interpretation 2: "If you move at least 3 squares away ..." Phrasing it this way only allows the warlock to end up 3 or more squares away from the starting point.
The difference in interpretation is where you put the in the sentence, before the word away, or after.
TO CUSTOMER SERVICE: WE NEED A RULING!!!
Also you forgot one more thing.
The interpretation of when concealment starts. Is it the moment you move 3 squares away...or at the end of your movement.
If its the moment you move 3 squares away..ok my char goes from point A to point B.
A--B
My char has just moved 3 spaces away from his starting position...concealment is now active so now I go from B to C.
AC-B
Your two interpretations arn't even being considered Astromath..everybody knows its 3 spaces away..the questionis when concealment starts.
Interpretation 2 allows the concealment to start the moment you finish moving.
Interpretation 1 allows the concealment to start the moment you are 3 spaces away from starting position.
Interpretation 2 allows the concealment to start the moment you finish moving.
I'm not following you here.
Once you have moved 3 squares away from your starting position you gain concealment. You don't need to complete the move action to gain the concealment, but can continue to move.
For example if you moved 5 squares away in a straight line, when do you think you should gain concealment?
If you move past an opponent when do you think they get to take the OA against you for doing it?
-James
Oh sure they can deal extra damage to an enemy..it is as intended.
I don't think so. The flavor text on warlock curses in Arcane Power implies that the curse is very personal, and thus only works for the warlock that caused it.
Gomez
I'm mostly kidding here, I don't hate them, and I think the cool names for their powers are pretty spiffy. I just think it's funny when some guy announces he's casting "Pigeon wings with fluffy popcorn on a field of daisies" and thinks any of us have the slightest idea what it's about to do. Warlocks seem to be a sort of club, if you have one you know what the powers do (maybe) if you don't have one, you know what eyebite and eldritch blast do.. not much else =P I have a hard enough time keeping powers with simple names straight in my head, let alone the goofy names.
Maybe because so many other Warlock rules are ambiguous everyoen is lookign for the catch in the concealment rules. I mean come on, it's the one clear rule in the class!
I think I'll go mumble to myself in the corner now...
This is why we need to ignore RAI, at least in a living campain. Because everybody sees RAI just slightly different. And because of that will make slight differences in ruling based on what we think RAI is.
In an official RPGA, gotta go by CCG rules? I'd say they work together period.
In a home game? Both warlocks make an arcane check (eh..DC 20 jus to make it somewhat challenging at low low levels) well before combat..at at most once a day. If the check ever succeeds as long as they adventure together...fight together, etc..they can use each others curse for damage. Then I'd figure out how long they need to be apart before they need to make the check again..but thats semantics.
In the end...I'm just saying we need to go with RAI. A curse is a curse is a curse..nothing says the enemy must be under the effects of a warlocks personal curse..just a curse.
This way we don't wind up screwing over a player who is doing the smart thing and trying to make sure they don't run into problems...by just doing the RAW. I hated that when I played LG....I had to just take the RAW options...and unquestionable things..in order to make sure some DM didn't ever gimp my char. I couldn't ever do the fun stuff I wanted to :P
OOp and almost forgot to Astromath. If that is what you ment then it was worded in a way that was sort of funny. When I read your two interpretations, I read them as 'move 3 squares..period..even if you just chacha back forth' and 'move 3 squares away from where you started'. This is why I made that comment.
This is why we need to ignore RAI, at least in a living campain. Because everybody sees RAI just slightly different. And because of that will make slight differences in ruling based on what we think RAI is.
The designers are not lawyers. They are not trying to make PCs do things that have no point or are aggravatingly complex, but rather are trying to create incentives. They are using English, which can have a host of meanings on different words - I've seen people ignore the common usage of the word 'from' when taking the rules literally. And most importantly, designers do have intent and it is often easy to see.
In order to try to ignore RAI, you have to assume all of the above is irrelevant. Which makes it in itself a form of RAI, and quite frankly, consistently the worst imo.
I don't think so. The flavor text on warlock curses in Arcane Power implies that the curse is very personal, and thus only works for the warlock that caused it.
because the highlighted signifies a mechanical effect, right?
The flavor text can say that the Warlock can only use his curse bonus on tuesdays when the sun is overhead at midnight(not a typo); that doesn't mean that IN GAME he can't take advantage of his extra curse damage.
I only hate warlocks as a GM because their powers are named things like "Bat Eyeballs of infernal doom from zeldibar prime that devour souls for brunch" and the power hits for 1d6+charisma and teleports the target con mod distance.
As a player of a warlock, I dearly appreciate my power names. It is often the only thing my PC does that truly impresses the table. That ranger might do 92 damage at level 10 while I do 18 and shift them 5, but my power sounded way more awesome!
I hope that some judges that read this cut the warlock player a little slack in their next play session. I hope they do their best to make it enjoyable for all their players, not just the ones playing rangers or twfighters. If this shed some light to the frustration we Warlocks have in RPGA then I think I did my job. Until WotC gets off their collective butts and does something there isn't a whole lot we can do other than hope against hope for a good and fair judge.
Theziner
because the highlighted signifies a mechanical effect, right?
No, but the highligted text give me an indication on what was ment in a rule that can be read, provided the given context, in various ways.
Gomez
I'll agree that with curse, it seems that the wording appears to intentionally be left open to allow a warlock to use the curse of another warlock. I believe that RAW very strongly supports this, and there is also a very strong case for RAI.
However, the ShadowStep interpretation seems to be on much shakier ground to me. I understand the perspective of the interpretation, but it relies on a questionable interpretation of the RAW (which I can see how one might interpret this way, but I don't agree it is the RAW). In addition, it seems to be a bit of a stretch to believe that it was intended that speed 6 Warlocks should be able to just use up their move action to do nothing but briefly move away 3 squares and then come back exactly where they started.
This is why we need to ignore RAI, at least in a living campain. Because everybody sees RAI just slightly different. And because of that will make slight differences in ruling based on what we think RAI is.
I have yet to meet anyone who plays a Warlock with speed 6 that thinks they stay in the same square and get concealment. So at least for certain regions, everyone agrees on a particular interpretation.
I have yet to meet anyone who plays a Warlock with speed 6 that thinks they stay in the same square and get concealment. So at least for certain regions, everyone agrees on a particular interpretation.
They're not staying in the same square.. they are moving 3 squares away from the square in which they started their turn. After they have done so then they have concealment until the end of their next turn.. even if they move back towards the square in which they started their turn.
I don't see what the problem with this is. They satisfy the condition they get the benefit. Done.
-James
I don't see what the problem with this is. They satisfy the condition they get the benefit. Done.
There isn't a problem. The issue that has arisen is that some people think it should work differently and that has morphed into it being seen as RAI.
The fact of the matter is, the rule states you only have to move 3 away from your starting position to gain concealment. There is nothing in it that says anything about where you have to end your movement. People enforcing such a rule are basically houseruling it.
If a Warlock player is playing it that way themselves, fine more power to them. However, anyone DMing should understand that is not how the rule is written and not an interpretation without adding something that isn't there.
The issue that has arisen is that some people think it should work differently and that has morphed into it being seen as RAI.
And when many players and DMs independently come to the same conclusion in a given area, that suggests to me the interpretation isn't some fringe quirk that a small few are trying to ram down the poor players of Warlocks.
Multiple people agreeing on the same thing != Judges hating on Warlocks.
Multiple people agreeing on the same thing != Judges hating on Warlocks.
I'm not saying they're hating Warlocks. That was the OP. However, even if a million people read it that way, they're still reading something into that just isn't there. There isn't anything in the rule that says anything about where you have to end your movement. So like I said, if people want to play their warlocks that way, go crazy. A DM is stepping out of bounds (in a Living Campaign, a home campaign would be a whole different story) if they try to tell a player they don't get their concealment if they don't end their movement 3 squares away. There's nothing in the rule to support it without making it up. It doesn't matter where you insert a pause or a breath or anything else. It states nothing about where you end your movement.
If a Warlock moves three squares away to a space next to an enemy, then continues his move on around the enemy. Does he have concealment when the enemy makes its OA? When does he gain his concealment? At the end of move? At the end of turn?
You see, there is only one condition in the power. The condition is that the warlock must move 3 squares away from his origin square. Is this condition met in the above example?
You are telling me that if a warlock meets the condition of moving 3 squares away but moves 3 squares back to his origin he doesn't get concealment? You either meet the condition in the power or you don't.
Unfortunately I have encountered people that rule on their perception of the RAI of both Shadow Walk and Warlocks Curse. Most people look at flavor text and say this is how its supposed to work and that's how it is. This is wrong. How do they know how its supposed to work? Unfortunately we have a lot of cases where flavor text doesn't match how the power or item works. Its just flavor. They tell you to reflavor it how you like. I suggest people follow the rules as written for LFR. Leave the house ruling to home games.
If we are following RAI I should be able to use eldritch strike on my warlock. After all, the Tiefling in the minis box uses it. Isn't that how its supposed to work? I can't use it. There isn't a rule to switch it out .... yet. Until we see errata or new rules I suggest all judges follow how its written and leave the RAI to the designers.
Theziner
Until we see errata or new rules I suggest all judges follow how its written and leave the RAI to the designers.
Which is what I will theoretically do in the event I ever come across someone who actually does think like most on the forums. Although if we follow your advice you'll see people ruling that rust monsters can rust all weapons and all armors. Because by RAW it isn't limited to metal only.
Of course we could try to RAI, but then everyone interprets it differently.
Of course we could try to RAI, but then everyone interprets it differently.
Aye, that is the problem with RAI.
If a Warlock moves three squares away to a space next to an enemy, then continues his move on around the enemy. Does he have concealment when the enemy makes its OA? When does he gain his concealment? At the end of move? At the end of turn?
He does not have concealment at the OA point.
At end of the move.
You see, there is only one condition in the power. The condition is that the warlock must move 3 squares away from his origin square.
Sure, but there are two different possible meanings of the word move there and just because you only see one of them as being right, doesn't mean you picked the right one.
That's the big problem with RAW without intent - you're still using intent to make determinations about possible meanings. Yet you don't think you are.
(edit: ah, and some reasonably clear rules basis for why the game use of move is correct...)
MOVEMENT EFFECTS
If a power notes the destination for your or an ally’s move (for example, “a space adjacent to the target”), the character allowed to move decides either to move to that destination or not. You can’t move partway. Similarly, if a power specifies where you force an enemy to move, you decide either to move the enemy there or not.
Note how they're using the word move there - they're not using it in the sense where merely reaching the target square is enough, they're referring to the end of the move...
Note how they're using the word move there - they're not using it in the sense where merely reaching the target square is enough, they're referring to the end of the move...
What you are quoting just means you have to meet the conditions stipulated by the power. Some powers require, for example, that the foes end up adjacent to you - you are pulling them to you. In that case, they must end adjacent. You can't use Come And Get It and only pull a foe towards you part of the way. The quoted text is not saying that conditions/rules only resolve themselves at the end of a move.
If the deal is you must move 3 to gain concealment, then upon moving 3 away from your starting spot, you are concealed. As the poster said, if you are moving 6 squares directly away from your initial square, you would gain concealment on an OA from leaving square 3. It doesn't matter if you are moving forward or back to your destination square. You have concealment at that point, and it shouldn't be undone by where you are headed.
Originally Posted by PHB 2 page 219
MOVEMENT EFFECTS
If a power notes the destination for your or an ally’s move (for example, “a space adjacent to the target”), the character allowed to move decides either to move to that destination or not. You can’t move partway. Similarly, if a power specifies where you force an enemy to move, you decide either to move the enemy there or not.
This has no bearing whatsoever for shadow walk. Shadow Walk isn't considered a power. It is a Class Feature.
Theziner
This has no bearing whatsoever for shadow walk. Shadow Walk isn't considered a power. It is a Class Feature.
Theziner
The point of the paragraph isn't that it refers to powers, the point is that they clearly use the word move to refer to a complete move which has an end point.
And there is the same usage in Shadow Walk.
Really, we could interpret that being a Class Feature is somehow different than a Power in this case, but this is LFR and people have previously stated that we have to play RAW.
SHADOW WALK
On your turn, if you move at least 3 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain concealment until the end of your next turn.
Is a "move" the entire move acti0n, or just the space covered b each "step" during the move?
If the feature refers to the entirety of a move action as a move, then the Warlock must end his move at least three spaces from where he started it in order to have moved at least three spaces. Nor does it say in there that you gain the concealment at the third space, but that you gain concealment after you have moved at least three spaces from where you started the turn. That can easily be interpreted that you gain concealment after your move is completed, not during the move. YMMV.
If you hit a cursed enemy with an attack, you deal extra damage.
Whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy.
Note the MAJOR difference in the wording of the two features. A Warlock can do Curse damage to any enemy marked by a curse. A Fighter can only use a Combat Challenge on an enemy marked by himself.
Also note that the wording of the Combat Challenge feature was specifically errated/updated to explicitly limit it to the Fighter's own mark, but that, at the same time, the wordingof the Warlock's Curse was not updated, so it is fairly clear that, as far as curse damage is concerned, a curse is a curse.
Only one enemy at a time can be marked as a Ranger's Quarry, but multiple Rangers could Quarry the same target without a problem. Warlocks can Curse multiple opponents, but only one Curse can be active on an opponent.
The extra damage from both features is identical (+1d6), but, with the misread version of Warlock's Curse, a party with multiple Warlocks would seriously gimp both the Strikers, especially when dealing with a Solo...
Is a "move" the entire move acti0n, or just the space covered b each "step" during the move?
If the feature refers to the entirety of a move action as a move, then the Warlock must end his move at least three spaces from where he started it in order to have moved at least three spaces. Nor does it say in there that you gain the concealment at the third space, but that you gain concealment after you have moved at least three spaces from where you started the turn. That can easily be interpreted that you gain concealment after your move is completed, not during the move. YMMV.
Oh, so you only provoke OAs at the end of the move action? You only trigger a Stinging Hex at the end of your move action? If you read "move" that way, you blow up all sorts of things.
The point of the paragraph isn't that it refers to powers, the point is that they clearly use the word move to refer to a complete move which has an end point.
So if a Warlock was subject to forced movement on their turn they would be able to gain shadow walk from it? Would it also count against their movement rate? Cost them a move action?
The passage you quoted did not deal with move actions, but rather with movement. It seems to deal with clarifying p285 of the PH to say if you have something that pulls to a specific square you cannot move them only part way (as you can when you can move them a set number of squares).
Shadow walk seems to imply non-forced movement imho. But we've differed in the past, and given 4e's lack of giving more than occasional one line fluff text (kinda like magic cards) it's hard to judge what Shadow Walk is supposed to represent.
I won't really go into how this would muddle issues on when you make an OA for someone moving past you, nor what order things occur in here if its not done on a square by square basis.
James
So if a Warlock was subject to forced movement on their turn they would be able to gain shadow walk from it? Would it also count against their movement rate? Cost them a move action?
Nope, for the warlock's power it says "on your turn".
So if a Warlock was subject to forced movement on their turn they would be able to gain shadow walk from it? Would it also count against their movement rate? Cost them a move action?
Nope, for the warlock's power it says "on your turn".
Emphasis mine.
Emphasis mine.
Ah, sorry, I totally misread the pronoun's usage (I thought you meant on the monster's turn). :raincloud Ok, then I do agree. If it is on your turn, due to something like an immediate action the monster gets, and that moves you 3, then it should work to provide concealment.
There is no reason why someone else causing you to move would reduce your speed or rob you of an action type unless their power stipulated that effect.
The power Spider Queen's Caress, Warlock Utility 6.
"Dark Pact: Your Shadow Walk grants concealment to you after you move 2 squares instead of 3."
Certainly seems to suggest this takes place after moving squares, not after ending your move.
First off I don't beleive that all Judge's hate Warlocks.
That being said I did play with a LFR GM who not only openly made fun of my Warlock and told me to roll a Ranger but also went out of his way to take him out for no real good reason (I was at the back of the hallway with every other player at the table in front of me and he went after me even though I could roll higher than an 8 on my d20).
Now that that's out of the way.
As a DM I can understand the hesitation about allowing three Warlocks to "seemingly" abuse.
However since they were clear with Ranger's Quarry power I deduce that since they haven't fixed it, it was intentionally designed that way.
In my opinion if it was a rules loop it would have been fixed by now. Warlocks compared to other Strikers seem to have a lack of damage output. If that helps them do it I see no issue with it.
Grimli, you do realize that you resurrected a two-year-old thread?
Yes. I've still seen it as an issue at the Cons I go to.
I haven't had a problem with multiple warlocks trying to draw Curse damage off each others' victims. Then again, I still am not very proficient at getting Curses out there, so there are a lot of enemies to go around. I also use the interpretation that I can only take damage from those who I personally Cursed.
I have found a way to avoid the Shadow Walk problem: don't try to walk in circles! When I move, I usually say something like this: "One, two, three - ding! Shadow Walk - four, five, six." Then I give the DM a moment to protest, if he thinks it needful. I did not have a problem when I walked around a U-shaped hedge and took my concealment despite being only 2 squares from where I started because I had to go the full 6 squares to get there.
One other point: I spent several years coaching in an Upward sports league, where the point is to give every kid encouragement, even if they had a bad day*, to increase the fun for everyone. I take the same mind-set to conventions. If the other players or the DM is having trouble because of me, I'M playing the game wrong. I also try to go around the table and create an opportunity for each player's character to shine.
* At the end of each game, the kids get a star to iron on their uniform; each color means something different (effort, defense, offense, teamwork, spirit, &c). I invented "the black-and-blue star" and awarded it to kids who got hurt during play, maybe needed a few minutes to recover, and got back on the field to play again. It made the kids feel better about the owie they had endured.
community.wizards.com/lfr/go/forum/viewb...