4e: Elven Accuracy

[Grynning]

Some of those maths were a bit specious. Elven Accuracy is often used to set off an "infinite reroll" chain, which I really don't think is correct, even under RAW.

I haven't been over to the "other" D&D forum in a while, but I've been flipping through my 4th ed. PhB and I'm curious as to how this ability seems to be getting abused so much. It seems fairly straightforward as a "One attack re-roll per encounter" ability.

I also remember the pre-errata Cascade of Blades abuse Orcus slayer build hinged pretty heavily on having multiple re-rolls, but I can't remember how it was done, could someone link it and perhaps provide a little explanation?

[NecroRebel]

The main abuse of Elven Accuracy is only possible at level 30 if you take the Demigod epic destiny. The destiny's level 30 power allows you to recharge an encounter power whenever you run out, and nothing stops you from choosing Elven Accuracy.

In essence, you make an attack, and if it is not to your liking, you use Elven Accuracy to reroll it when Elven Accuracy is your only remaining encounter power. Then, if the reroll is not to your liking, you use the freshly-recovered Elven Accuracy to reroll the reroll. You can keep rerolling the rerolls until you get an attack you do like.

If you combined this with Blade Cascade, you would literally never miss an attack in the Cascade since you could just reroll until you get a natural 20, so pre-errata you'd get an infinite number of attacks as long as you have an adjacent enemy to hit.

Note that this doesn't work anymore, as Blade Cascade has been errata'ed so that it cannot strike more than 5 times.

Some people say that Elven Accuracy doesn't work that way because of the "you must use the second roll, even if it's higher" clause, but unfortunately this misses something important, namely that the reroll is an attack roll. Thus, you can reroll the reroll and must use the reroll's reroll even if it's lower. The other interpretation is of course a reasonable houserule, but not how it works by RAW.

[The New Bruceski]

Some people say that Elven Accuracy doesn't work that way because of the "you must use the second roll, even if it's higher" clause, but unfortunately this misses something important, namely that the reroll is an attack roll. Thus, you can reroll the reroll and must use the reroll's reroll even if it's lower. The other interpretation is of course a reasonable houserule, but not how it works by RAW.

The other places it breoke down are 1) the timing of when the demigod power kicks in, it doesn't say if it's a reaction or an interrupt, and 2) Elven Accuracy is a Free Action, the number of which are usable per turn is unspecified but can be limited by the DM.

#2 is probably strongest, but there's argument over whether it's kosher to point that out. Does it count as Rule Zero if the RAW invoke it? (PHB 267)

[Starbuck_II]

But you can't even use Demi-Gods power unless you use every single Encounter power!.

It says "When you have expended your last remaining encounter power, you regain the use of one encounter power of your choice."

So the chances of using the strategy are very, very small and finite. After all, how are you not taking 5 minutes rest or even extended rests?

[Saph]

Even without the abuse, it's still a hellaciously powerful ability. Getting an extra chance to make sure your Daily or big-hit encounter power lands on target is very very nice.

- Saph

[NecroRebel]

The other places it breoke down are 1) the timing of when the demigod power kicks in, it doesn't say if it's a reaction or an interrupt, and 2) Elven Accuracy is a Free Action, the number of which are usable per turn is unspecified but can be limited by the DM.

#2 is probably strongest, but there's argument over whether it's kosher to point that out. Does it count as Rule Zero if the RAW invoke it? (PHB 267)

The demigod power does specify when it kicks in. It kicks in "when you have expended your last remaining encounter power." As with most features, it is not an action to use.

Limiting numbers of free actions works to limit it, though. It does technically count as violating RAW if you cite Rule Zero for it, but the reasoning is confusing at best, incomprehensible at worse. Basically, it's saying "as written it works perfectly, but as written it might not." Get it? Neither do I :smallconfused:


But you can't even use Demi-Gods power unless you use every single Encounter power!.

It says "When you have expended your last remaining encounter power, you regain the use of one encounter power of your choice."

So the chances of using the strategy are very, very small and finite. After all, how are you not taking 5 minutes rest or even extended rests?

Theoretical optimizers waste all their other encounter powers on rocks and trees and orangutangs before they attempt the trick, and if they have more than 5 minutes between encounters they take a standard action to do something random, like bull rushing the party dwarf, which interrupts the short rest and prevents the recovery of your encounter powers.

Besides, you have an absolute cap of... I believe 14 encounter powers, and that's including a racial power, feat power, a paragon path power, and 7 utility powers, which altogether would only take a few rounds to burn up if you had the right ones. Hardly impossible to do if you're trying :smallsmile:

[Yakk]

The thing is, not only does every single god damn reroll power say "you must use the 2nd roll" -- it says it explicitly -- it also makes sense that rerolling a reroll causes problems.

In essence, it is a bad theoretical optimization, because it uses weasel-logic to avoid an explicit instruction that when you use a reroll power, you must use the 2nd roll.

[NecroRebel]

The thing is, not only does every single god damn reroll power say "you must use the 2nd roll" -- it says it explicitly -- it also makes sense that rerolling a reroll causes problems.

In essence, it is a bad theoretical optimization, because it uses weasel-logic to avoid an explicit instruction that when you use a reroll power, you must use the 2nd roll.

Again, though, the problem with that logic is that the reroll is an attack roll. The power explicitly states that you can reroll an attack roll, and must use the second roll. Therefore, if you use the power to reroll a reroll, you must use the reroll's reroll, with at least the same level of priority as the roll's reroll.

It's sort of like this:
Make roll, call it #1.
Use Elven Accuracy.
#1 no longer exists; it doesn't matter anymore.
Make reroll, call it #2.
Use Elven Accuracy.
#2 no longer exists; it doesn't matter anymore.
Make reroll, call it #3.
Assuming you don't use Elven Accuracy again, you use #3, because it trumps #2, which trumps #1.

You are correct in that explicitly says "you must use the second roll," but the problem is which second roll you're using, and if you're using the first second roll, why are you ignoring the explicit text of Elven Accuracy that says that you must use the second second roll?

[KillianHawkeye]

Again, though, the problem with that logic is that the reroll is an attack roll. The power explicitly states that you can reroll an attack roll, and must use the second roll. Therefore, if you use the power to reroll a reroll, you must use the reroll's reroll, with at least the same level of priority as the roll's reroll.

It's sort of like this:
Make roll, call it #1.
Use Elven Accuracy.
#1 no longer exists; it doesn't matter anymore.
Make reroll, call it #2.
Use Elven Accuracy.
#2 no longer exists; it doesn't matter anymore.
Make reroll, call it #3.
Assuming you don't use Elven Accuracy again, you use #3, because it trumps #2, which trumps #1.

You are correct in that explicitly says "you must use the second roll," but the problem is which second roll you're using, and if you're using the first second roll, why are you ignoring the explicit text of Elven Accuracy that says that you must use the second second roll?

I think he's saying that the text of Elven Accuracy forbids you from multiple rerolls by the fact that you must use the 2nd roll. (Not the 3rd or 4th or Nth one.)

I dunno, it kinda makes sense to me.

[NecroRebel]

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think that grammatically he's incorrect. Rerolling the reroll, as I said before, gives you a new second roll. There is no third or fourth or nth roll, only more second rolls. There is no reason, none at all, to say that the first use of the power trumps all the rest, particularly when you aren't referencing the first roll anymore, but rather are rerolling the attack roll that the first use of Elven Accuracy gives you.

I attempted to head off this line of discussion in my first post in the thread, actually, but apparently I failed :smallannoyed: Regardless, I can't really give any reasons for this interpretation other than what I already have, so if someone isn't convinced by that the first time repeating it won't.

[Wikkin]

The text in the book doesn't say the second roll is an attack roll. It's a reroll of an attack roll. Just a number to replace what was rolled on the attack roll, but itself not an attack roll.

That's how I read it. Seems logical.

~Wik

[SadisticFishing]

"Second attack roll". If you roll more attack rolls, they're not the second anymore. He's absolutely right, by pure silly brute logic, and that's the way it should be read.

I also believe that Demigod should be encounter ATTACK power. Like, as in, that's what they meant, same as Dilettante, and Bonus At-Will. They just forgot to make it clear.

[KillianHawkeye]

I also believe that Demigod should be encounter ATTACK power. Like, as in, that's what they meant, same as Dilettante, and Bonus At-Will. They just forgot to make it clear.

I agree that this was probably their intent. Perhaps they will clarify in the future? We can only hope. At least I think we can agree that their are a couple different ways of interpretting the powers involved, and that for the moment it's the DM's job to keep things from getting out of hand.

[HOO]

I can't remember where (and have nolink to it) but I've read that you can not re-roll a reroll. Ever. Could have been CustServ.. something I read over at EnWorld 4E rules board...
Not certain...

[Kompera]

In addition to the "Must use the second roll" terminology, the combination of abilities which allows for Elven Accuracy to be regained doesn't take into consideration that you can't regain something which hasn't been expended. Elven Accuracy isn't done doing its thing until you've accepted that second roll and applied it. So it isn't gone at the point where this supposed (and pre-errata) exploit needs it to be gone in order to get it back and re-apply it.

[Starbuck_II]

In addition to the "Must use the second roll" terminology, the combination of abilities which allows for Elven Accuracy to be regained doesn't take into consideration that you can't regain something which hasn't been expended. Elven Accuracy isn't done doing its thing until you've accepted that second roll and applied it. So it isn't gone at the point where this supposed (and pre-errata) exploit needs it to be gone in order to get it back and re-apply it.

True, but that means you can use it next round: which is fine so all is good.

[TwystidMynd]

In addition to the "Must use the second roll" terminology, the combination of abilities which allows for Elven Accuracy to be regained doesn't take into consideration that you can't regain something which hasn't been expended. Elven Accuracy isn't done doing its thing until you've accepted that second roll and applied it. So it isn't gone at the point where this supposed (and pre-errata) exploit needs it to be gone in order to get it back and re-apply it.
The Mystery of the Infinite Rerolls is solved!

[TheOOB]

The infinite reroll mechanic requires you to follow one specific logical path, even though there are several others that would explicitly disallow it(most of which mentioned above). The power does force you to take the second roll(and it is a reasonable interpretation, heck to more reasonable one, to assume that using it multiple times counts as a third+ roll), and you would have to assume that the power is refreshed before it is done being used, which is a pretty large assumption.

Any DM is within the right to disallow the infinite reroll by RAW, and looking at RAI and sheer game balance they are probably right to do so. Even without this getting elven accuracy on every attack roll is still amazingly powerful(and acceptable for a level 30 character, everyone gets a blatantly overpowered ability at level 30).

[mangosta71]

In addition to the "Must use the second roll" terminology, the combination of abilities which allows for Elven Accuracy to be regained doesn't take into consideration that you can't regain something which hasn't been expended. Elven Accuracy isn't done doing its thing until you've accepted that second roll and applied it. So it isn't gone at the point where this supposed (and pre-errata) exploit needs it to be gone in order to get it back and re-apply it.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. It seems that the argument in favor of the tactic is: "You apply the second roll. You regain Elven Accuracy. You decide you don't like the roll, so you immediately use it again." As the original roll was applied before the player decided whether or not he liked it, how is it different on the re-roll?

If we can get confirmation on the "a re-roll cannot be re-rolled" thing, that would solve it once and for all. Until then, I have to assume that it's a valid (if cheap) tactic.

[TwystidMynd]

I think the argument is that the "infinite reroll" logic works like this:

Elven Accuracy, for reference:

Encounter
Free Action Personal
Effect: Reroll an attack roll. Use the second roll, even if it’s lower.


1) Declare POWER.
2) Roll ATTACK ROLL.
3) If ATTACK ROLL is low, then use ELVEN ACCURACY. Else Go To 7.
4) Reroll ATTACK ROLL as NEW ROLL.
5) Let NEW ROLL be ATTACK ROLL.
6) Go To 3.
7) Use ATTACK ROLL for POWER.
8) Compare ATTACK ROLL to MONSTER DEFENSE
9) **complete attack algorithm**

The assumption here is that ELVEN ACCURACY is "spent" after 4, and can then be recharged at 4 using the Demigod ability.

However, the non-infinite argument says that the ELVEN ACCURACY isn't "spent" until after ATTACK ROLL is Used: at step 7. At that point, there's no roll to reroll, the ATTACK ROLL value is already defined and being used for the attack.

Of course, the algorithm I posted could be argued; it's by no means the algorithm. But I believe it is an algorithm that can be constructed using RAW, which is sufficient to show that no DM must allow the infinite re-roll. Some might choose to allow it. Some might not.

Sorry if I used a bit too much formal logic... I know that makes my post less readable than otherwise, but I'm just in that frame of mind at the moment.

[Sebastrd]

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think that grammatically he's incorrect.

And we understand what you're trying to say, but we think you're incorrect. You're interpretation is different, and that's fine if you or your DM wants to allow it. Just understand that your interpretation is not ironclad and indisputable.

[Yakk]

I'm relatively fine with an infinite sequence of rerolls (other than the "infinite free action" problem), but you still use the 2nd attack roll.

It is simple. It is what the power explicitly says (after all, why the hell would you reroll an attack roll that hit?). Using that interpretation also removes infinite damage cascades (Paladin 'reroll damage' power lets you do infinite damage with a vorpal weapon), and pretty much every reroll says "you must use the 2nd roll".

I read it as it says -- you must use the 2nd roll. Period. You have no other choice. Other reroll powers are, well, useless, because you have to use the 2nd roll.

It can also be written as "you can only use one reroll power on a given roll", but once again legalistic powergamers could say "the reroll is a new roll, I'm using it on the reroll not the original roll!"

When there is already explicit text that instructs the game player how to avoid the situation, weaseling around it and saying "hey look, infinite damage! So long as you interpret that explicit text that bans the infinite damage combo to be nigh-meaningless, that is" -- that's not a good theoretical optimization.

Any system of rules can be interpreted in such a way that the text is meaningless. If someone writing rules included an explicit clause to deal with your interpretation, saying you aren't allowed to do it, warping the explicit instructions of "you aren't allowed to do that" to meaninglessness is not kosher.

And the infinite damage combo I mentioned above is just evidence that the rule shouldn't be interpreted to being meaningless (use the 2nd roll), not evidence that the rules have a problem.

[hamishspence]

I was thinking of it as you must use the second roll: and rerolling it is not using it. but same principle.

[mangosta71]

One could argue that a rule that is ambiguous enough to have multiple valid interpretations is a bad rule. Especially when elsewhere in the rules it says explicitly that any ability that has an effect that goes against the normal rule trumps. In this case, "must use the second roll" can be trumped by the ability to re-roll again unless the rules state explicitly that re-rolls cannot be re-rolled.

[Artanis]

One could argue that a rule that is ambiguous enough to have multiple valid interpretations is a bad rule. Especially when elsewhere in the rules it says explicitly that any ability that has an effect that goes against the normal rule trumps. In this case, "must use the second roll" can be trumped by the ability to re-roll again unless the rules state explicitly that re-rolls cannot be re-rolled.
But in that case, wouldn't the "must use second roll" also trump the one that lets you keep rolling?

[TwystidMynd]

One could argue that a rule that is ambiguous enough to have multiple valid interpretations is a bad rule.
I think that would be a very valid argument. A perfect rule covers all cases without exceptions. A good rule deals with exceptional cases. A bad rule fails to cover all scenarios.


Especially when elsewhere in the rules it says explicitly that any ability that has an effect that goes against the normal rule trumps. In this case, "must use the second roll" can be trumped by the ability to re-roll again unless the rules state explicitly that re-rolls cannot be re-rolled.
This, however, isn't as valid. The "rule" you're referring to is the generic "rule" of "when in doubt, specific trumps general." This really only opens up a new argument: which is more specific? Your specific interpretation of a reroll, the specific wording of which roll to use, the specific wording of the Elven Accuracy Power, the specific wording of the Demigod ability, or some other specifically-stated thing?

[Yakk]

One could argue that a rule that is ambiguous enough to have multiple valid interpretations is a bad rule. Especially when elsewhere in the rules it says explicitly that any ability that has an effect that goes against the normal rule trumps. In this case, "must use the second roll" can be trumped by the ability to re-roll again unless the rules state explicitly that re-rolls cannot be re-rolled.

All rules have multiple "valid" interpretations if you stretch "valid" enough. Depending on how anal you are, you end up with increasingly legalese descriptions of what is allowed and what isn't.

To give you an idea, there are attempts to create legal systems, using highly paid professionals, and they always end up saying "at some point, you need to go to a judge to determine what was actually meant".

Sure, you can patch up specific instances that pop up -- but that adds cruft to the rules, because having 5 additional sentences that deal specifically with a given method of bypassing the other options gets annoying really fast when they are all over the place.

We have the power that says "you must use the 2nd roll". We have people who have found serious, infinite-damage exploits if you are allowed to not use the 2nd roll, and instead reroll it using some mechanism. This isn't brain surgery. Just take the "you must use the 2nd roll" to mean "you must use the 2nd roll", as in "no, you cannot use a trick to not use the 2nd roll. I'm telling you that you must use the 2nd roll. Really, not the 3rd roll, not the 4th roll, not the 1st roll -- the 2nd roll."

If there wasn't a trivial infinite-damage combination from interpreting it to allow chains of rerolls, that chain of rerolls interpretation would be more reasonable. However, given the fact that there are infinite-damage combos that rely on the use of infinite rerolls of a single roll...

[mangosta71]

This, however, isn't as valid. The "rule" you're referring to is the generic "rule" of "when in doubt, specific trumps general." This really only opens up a new argument: which is more specific? Your specific interpretation of a reroll, the specific wording of which roll to use, the specific wording of the Elven Accuracy Power, the specific wording of the Demigod ability, or some other specifically-stated thing?

Exactly. This is the ambiguous wording that leads to confusion. We have people using the exact same words to justify opposite arguments. A better rule would be written so that the intended effect is clear.


We have the power that says "you must use the 2nd roll". We have people who have found serious, infinite-damage exploits if you are allowed to not use the 2nd roll, and instead reroll it using some mechanism. This isn't brain surgery. Just take the "you must use the 2nd roll" to mean "you must use the 2nd roll", as in "no, you cannot use a trick to not use the 2nd roll. I'm telling you that you must use the 2nd roll. Really, not the 3rd roll, not the 4th roll, not the 1st roll -- the 2nd roll."

Without the rules explicitly stating '"no, you cannot use a trick to not use the 2nd roll"', we have people arguing about which roll is the second. Which is what this whole thread is all about. I agree that it's a cheap trick, and (like many such cheap tricks that made it into 3.x) should not be allowed, but the rules aren't clear in saying that it isn't.

[hamishspence]

If you say that the keyword is Use: as in: You must Use the second roll, and rerolling is not using it, then it might fit.

[Artanis]

Without the rules explicitly stating '"no, you cannot use a trick to not use the 2nd roll"', we have people arguing about which roll is the second. Which is what this whole thread is all about. I agree that it's a cheap trick, and (like many such cheap tricks that made it into 3.x) should not be allowed, but the rules aren't clear in saying that it isn't.
Not explicitly banning something doesn't necessarily mean it's allowed. This is especially true in a case like this where there's a ton of vague legalese and the ability in question is completely broken.

[TheOOB]

I think we've established that there are valid logical interpretations both ways, and that either way can be RAW.

So basically the point we're at is that the players who actually try to use this technique are trying to get a specific interpretation of the rules in over the others even though it obvious breaks RAI and game balance. Any DM who allows this combo is essentially breaking their game, sure allowing the combo is RAW, but then again, so is disallowing it. Fact is, you can basically assume this combo is banned in any game, any DM should be smart enough to shut it down before it happens.

Really though, just send a question down to customer service, if enough people send questions it will appear in either the FAQ or errata (my guess is the FAQ, the RAW currently implies that the combo is not allowed, it's a pretty narrow interpretation of the rules on a few points to make it work).

[KillianHawkeye]

Without the rules explicitly stating '"no, you cannot use a trick to not use the 2nd roll"', we have people arguing about which roll is the second. Which is what this whole thread is all about. I agree that it's a cheap trick, and (like many such cheap tricks that made it into 3.x) should not be allowed, but the rules aren't clear in saying that it isn't.

The problem is that this uses the same logic that led to the movie Air Bud. It's like saying "If a dog can play basketball, then I can have infinite rerolls."

[Starbuck_II]

The problem is that this uses the same logic that led to the movie Air Bud. It's like saying "If a dog can play basketball, then I can have infinite rerolls."

That would be the Air Bud Clause: If it doesn't say we can't; then why can't it be that way!

Usually that wins lawsuits, but not always.

[KillianHawkeye]

I know. My point was that it was a ridiculous movie and using that logic to support your gamebreaking ability is equally ridiculous.

[Jayabalard]

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think that grammatically he's incorrect. Rerolling the reroll, as I said before, gives you a new second roll.Not so... by that logic, re-rolling a roll would give you a new first roll.


I think we've established that there are valid logical interpretations both ways, and that either way can be RAW.IMNSHO: if there are valid interpretations either way, then neither can be RAW.

[TwystidMynd]

IMNSHO: if there are valid interpretations either way, then neither can be RAW.
I have no clue what that acronym means, but I can respond to the rest of your post.

Do you mean to claim that any statement in a rulebook which has multiple interpretations cannot be RAW? Thereby implying that there is no RAW for "Elven Accuracy" and can only be ruled upon by arbitrary rulings of the DM who must guess the RAI?

[Charity]

I think that is what he's implying... but I'm sure he'll let you know
acronym
In
My
Not
So
Humble
Opinion

Often IM(NS)HO