|
|
Post by kore on May 17, 2009 10:25:07 GMT -8
sorry May 23 is a special night. Birthday celebration weekend. Doesn't mean I won't be there... just saying be prepared.  That is to say, you might be a little surly? EditOkay, there are a few things I need to know before bringing my sorc. to the table: 1. Rolling up abilities - whilst looking at Phil's char. I noticed his base abilities weren't "points-system" based. I assumed, then, that we roll up our own. Is this correct? The way I remember doing that was rolling up six arrays of numbers and picking one. This is what I have: 10, 17, 17, 13 (edit), 13, 18. 2. Dual Implements - while loading out my char. I discovered that I could double up on staves with the Feat. By RAW it works (same with 2x orbs, tomes, etc.) but I looked into it online to be safe. Most suggestions say ask the DM because he/she may take issue with it. 3. Reapers Touch (Dragon Mag 372) - This is moot because I'm not using either of these powers. Heroic Tier
Prerequisite: Invoker, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard class
Benefit: You gain a benefit with any of the following attack powers you know.
Acid Orb (sorcerer): This power gains a range of Melee touch in addition to its normal range. You can use it as a melee basic attack.
Dragonfrost (sorcerer): This power gains a range of Melee touch in addition to its normal range. You can use it as a melee basic attack.May I use this Feat? |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Barros on Jul 20, 2009 17:51:06 GMT -8
This was posted around the time I had no internet at home so I must have just forgotten about it.
1) I think Kyle wrote up somewhere how we roll characters. You don't roll six arrays. Just six numbers, 4d6 per, reroll ones. There have always been many different ways to roll a character and you should generally ask the DM which they use before you do so. Scores like the ones you have should happen very rarely.
2) Adressing this in the first post to make a new house ruling.
3) This feat is fine. Spending a feat to prevent yourself from getting fucked over in a corner seems fair. Unless there is a robe you really really just have to have, I think you'd be better off buying shimmering armor and saving the feat for something else if you're that afraid of having monsters constantly on you.
|
|
|
|
Post by kore on Jul 20, 2009 19:24:26 GMT -8
You know, I haven't really read that post at all since I edited it. That new stat array does reflect the house standard.
And my mention of not using those powers, making the topic moot, isn't true either since I did, eventually go with Acid Orb.
Thanks for the answers.
Now that Weapon Focus, TWF, Staff Fighting, Daggermaster, and Jagged Daggers are out, I really have some re-tooling to do.
*pours some Johnnie Walker Blue Label*
|
|
|
|
Post by reiphil on Jul 20, 2009 20:46:23 GMT -8
Two weapon fighting i'll say is fine.
My question is about weapon focus. There really isn't anything like that that applies to arcane powers unless you count the silly ones that give bonus when you use lightning or cold powers, etc.
Currently, the character builder will push damage on arcane powers when you look at the break down of the power. So is there any thoughts on this? Would you be willing to allow a houseruled Implement Focus technique?
|
|
|
|
Post by kore on Jul 20, 2009 21:01:23 GMT -8
Two weapon fighting i'll say is fine. My question is about weapon focus. There really isn't anything like that that applies to arcane powers unless you count the silly ones that give bonus when you use lightning or cold powers, etc. Currently, the character builder will push damage on arcane powers when you look at the break down of the power. So is there any thoughts on this? Would you be willing to allow a houseruled Implement Focus technique? I'd appreciate something like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Barros on Jul 21, 2009 7:10:48 GMT -8
You don't need implement focus. Arcane casters have their own +damage feats without poaching the melee character ones. I don't think they are silly, and again I don't think we should be finding loopholes to make melee feats apply to casters when caster damage is doing just fine. The sorcerer is not neutered by this ruling. Not by a long shot. There are plenty of solid feats that are just as useful if not better.
And in your game Phil you can allow two weapon fighting. But in my game until I hear a logical reason why becoming a more proficient melee combatant makes your lightning bolts hit harder, it ain't gonna happen in my game. I very highly doubt the writers intended the feat to be meant for casters despite their lack of foresight when it came to the wording.
|
|
|
|
Post by reiphil on Jul 21, 2009 8:42:00 GMT -8
by saying two weapon fighting was fine, i meant i was agreeing with your ruling on it.
it hasn't become a problem in my game yet.
But i was just wondering about weapon focus since for weapon focus it sticks to all powers where as the Cold Fury or raging thunder whatever feats pigeonhole casters into their powers if they want extra damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthwizard on Jul 21, 2009 9:58:23 GMT -8
I've found that there are plenty of feat slots available to fill with 'superfluous' feats such as Cold Fury or Dark Fury. It's not like one is starved for feat slots. This means one need not be pigeonholed, because you can still grab the other feats (e.g., improved init, implement expertise, etc.) by lvl 8. I think the keyword specific feats such as cold fury are meant for specialization anyway. You're not going to pick cold fury if 4/5 powers deal necrotic damage instead of cold. Nope, then you're going to pick the dark fury feat. Furthermore, those feats usually apply to two keywords, not just one. Martial classes have similar keyword specific feats, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by reiphil on Jul 21, 2009 10:18:23 GMT -8
it's a waste of feats to get multiple feats to do +1 damage to cover your powers though when one feat for martial grants them a strict +1 to all their powers.
I'm not trying to go one way or the other, casters to way too much damage to begin with. Just trying to present an argument of why wouldn't weapon focus cover implement damage and if not then why not allow an implement focus to cover it?
I mean the reason why they did things such as Focused Expertise is because they don't want you to take multiple feats if you're using a weapon and implement.
|
|
|
|
Post by kore on Jul 21, 2009 10:45:06 GMT -8
This has all been a good wake-up call. I think I've spent too much time in the Character Optimization board over at WotC.
Anyhow, I've been perusing a lot of the arcane and other Feats and I figured I should mention them to get a ruling.
- The White Lotus series (Dragon 374) of Feats, a few of them look fun to play with. Want is your take on each?
- I know it's been stated that books are okay, but could we have a ruling on Dragonmarks? There are a couple that sound cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthwizard on Jul 21, 2009 11:05:29 GMT -8
it's a waste of feats to get multiple feats to do +1 damage to cover your powers though when one feat for martial grants them a strict +1 to all their powers. I'm not trying to go one way or the other, casters to way too much damage to begin with. Just trying to present an argument of why wouldn't weapon focus cover implement damage and if not then why not allow an implement focus to cover it? I mean the reason why they did things such as Focused Expertise is because they don't want you to take multiple feats if you're using a weapon and implement. These concerns may be addressed in future releases, such as PHB3, thus not requiring a housed ruled feat. "All human wisdom is summed up in two words: wait and hope." (Alexandre Dumas) |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Barros on Jul 21, 2009 12:30:16 GMT -8
Sorry Phil. Misunderstood.
Giving casters a universal +1 to damage, however. is much much stronger than to melee classes, due to the fact that they have a lot of AOEs. Especially when a blast/burst goes bigger than 1 that +1 really adds up big time. And like you said, caster damage is fine. There is absolutely no need to give them even more just to see how big a number you can reach.
The introduction of focused expertise is not a valid comparison. That is a feat that fixes a frustrating problem for implement users. Damage is not by any means a frustrating problem for implement users and therefore requires no fix.
And remember, if you are arguing RAW you win. I'm not arguing that. This is why I am house ruling it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Barros on Jul 21, 2009 15:04:40 GMT -8
You'll have to post any white lotus feats you want because I don't have DDI. White lotus Riposte and one other one I can't think of the name of offhand I have already said no to. I think mostly its just the Swordmage that breaks those two feats in half, but they are pretty strong. I have not once seen anyone argue that the Riposte and the other one I've forgotten are anything but ricockulous, particularly for swordmages.
From what I hear though, the others are not so bad, but just post which ones you want and I'll take a look.
No on Dragonmarks. This is not Eberron. Dragons are to be feared, but they aren't worshipped like they are in Eberron. Doubly so if you've ever faced one in 4th edition; they're kinda chumps now. In fact I'm surprised they aren't near extinction what with how they still have treasure hordes and yet are kinda simple to take down.
Character Op boards are great. You can learn a lot about character building and synergy there. However, you have to take everything with a grain of salt because the goal there is to push the rules as far as they can. RAW only.
|
|
|
|
Post by kore on Jul 21, 2009 21:16:42 GMT -8
You'll have to post any white lotus feats you want because I don't have DDI. White lotus Riposte and one other one I can't think of the name of offhand I have already said no to. I think mostly its just the Swordmage that breaks those two feats in half, but they are pretty strong. I have not once seen anyone argue that the Riposte and the other one I've forgotten are anything but ricockulous, particularly for swordmages. Well, White Lotus Riposte was one of the ones I'm interested in, is that off the table for only Swordmages or for everyone? The other one you're probably thinking of is White Lotus Master Riposte. I will PM you all the WL Feats so you can look them over. |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Barros on Jul 21, 2009 23:00:33 GMT -8
Yeah, just the ripostes are bad. The paragon one is just stupid. Did they even bother to playtest it? At wills should not be as good as encounter powers.  Stuff like that is why I'm suspicious of the Dragon magazine stuff. I think putting in seriously overpowered feats like that is a good way to attract people to buy a subscription. Not that DDI is a bad investment, just saying because they know Dragon isn't usually taken as seriously as the hardbacks they can get away with some silly stuff. Same thing was true during third when Dragon was still paper. On a side note, White Lotus Master Evasion is pretty sick. I know a lot of you focus on maxing out personal damage, but seriously? I think that feat plus AOE would be much more deadly if you have strong melee support than any +1 damage feat. Be a great way to duct tape medium and smaller creatures to your front line. |
|
