D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Gamers Online Now: 975
157 members and 818 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 05:04 PM.
This product is 56 pages long and free. Cover, credits, intro and ToC take up 4 pages. I counted 17 pages of adds many of them for other Rite... [Read More]
Evocative City Sites Lorn's Entrepot (Abandoned Warehouse) by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. This product is 47 pages long. Cover, Credits, two pages of... [Read More]
Feats 101 by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. I have not yet played using these feats my review is based on reading the feats and checking a few against... [Read More]
The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos is a 4e D&D product describing some of the different planes in the 4e Cosmology. The book is a typical hard bound book that Wizards of the Coast... [Read More]
and all their kind are just Weapon focus for spells, but with added suck.
For instance
Why should spellcasters have to spend attributes in non primary stats to get a damage bonus when melee characters don't?
And why should they then only get that bonus to some of their spells?
Is weapon focus (implement) really a bad idea? I can't see how it would be unbalanced to give casters +1/2/3 damage with a single feat.
I think that would then be more powerful than a weapon focus feat, since weapon focus applies only to a specific weapon group, but "implement" would mean anything that has the implement keyword (whereas weapon focus needs the weapon keyword, and for you to be using the right weapon group)
I think the way they have it now is balanced just right.
I'm sorry if that was confusing. I didn't mean to imply all implement, but rather as a placeholder for any individual implement type. So it would be weapon focus (rod) and so forth.
and all their kind are just Weapon focus for spells, but with added suck.
For instance
Why should spellcasters have to spend attributes in non primary stats to get a damage bonus when melee characters don't?
And why should they then only get that bonus to some of their spells?
Is weapon focus (implement) really a bad idea? I can't see how it would be unbalanced to give casters +1/2/3 damage with a single feat.
My guess would be the DF,AF etc feats are set up that way due to more aoe amongst caster classes. You would get more of a bonus out of hitting 3 people over hitting one.
It's probably the same reason all caster implements have much lower critical bonuses though.
and all their kind are just Weapon focus for spells, but with added suck.
For instance
Why should spellcasters have to spend attributes in non primary stats to get a damage bonus when melee characters don't?
And why should they then only get that bonus to some of their spells?
Is weapon focus (implement) really a bad idea? I can't see how it would be unbalanced to give casters +1/2/3 damage with a single feat.
Are you truely worried about game balance or you feel wizards are being shorted? so if you do not like the feat choices maybe you should play a defender character.
The spell damage feats suck for two reasons: weapon using characters, if they're smart, pick powers for one weapon, and they generally use that weapon all the time. If they grab Weapon Focus, that bonus applies pretty much all the time. On the other hand, smart wizards/warlocks like powers that do a wide variety of damage types, picking the powers with the best effects of the level, and to avoid getting shut down by a monster's specific resistance (another thing melee characters don't really have to worry much about...I mean, Gricks?). So their bonus damage feats don't apply on nearly as many attacks.
The second reason the spell damage feats suck is that they require an odd mix of ability scores, a requirement that Weapon Focus doesn't have. I mean, Astral Fire requires Charisma, Dark Fury needs Wisdom?
Feats for spellcasters in general just kind of suck compared to all the benefits their melee/archery counterparts get.
__________________ The Most Badass Line Ever: Do you know what the world would be like if I killed every single person I didn't like?
I agree that the spell damage feats are generally not worth getting. Astral Fire is might be worth it for a cleric, and Dark Fury might be worth it for a warlock, but none are worth the trouble for a wizard.
I think the "right" way to fix the problem, though, is to remove the spell damage feat prerequisites, not to create a new implement-feat. That would change them from "never get" to "almost always get", but since the fighter types always take Weapon Focus, I think that would work out fine, balance-wise.
I agree that the spell damage feats are generally not worth getting. Astral Fire is might be worth it for a cleric, and Dark Fury might be worth it for a warlock, but none are worth the trouble for a wizard.
I think the "right" way to fix the problem, though, is to remove the spell damage feat prerequisites, not to create a new implement-feat. That would change them from "never get" to "almost always get", but since the fighter types always take Weapon Focus, I think that would work out fine, balance-wise.
Well it would be better than the current alternative. You can still spend up to 4 feats to match the benefit of the one a martial class has to pick up. I think Implement mastery would be a perfectly decent feat though, if you restricted it damage bonus to single target spells or just non-blast spells.
While I don't necessarily think an Implement Focus feat is such a bad idea, here's a counterargument: Wizards, "blaster" clerics, and ranged warlocks already have an advantage because (if the rest of the party is doing its job) they can afford to focus on their prime stat more. I think you see a lot more Int 20 Wizards and Cha 20 feylocks than Str 20 Fighters or Dex 20 Rogues.
Another point: once you get into paragon/epic it seems like things switch to where the desirable melee feats have annoying prereqs (the various weapon masteries and armor specializations), whereas there are some HOT caster feats with no prereq at all (arcane mastery, spell accuracy, twofold curse, second implement, etc...). I don't really think casters are getting gimped.
Fighter-types need to spend a feat on their ranged weapon, and a feat on their melee weapon, if they want to cover the types of weapons they are likely to use in an adventure. Spellcasters generally can use only one type, a ranged type of spell.
Fighter-types need to spend feats on their armor, and sometimes need to qualify for those feats using abilities they do not normally need. For example, if a fighter-type wants shield specialization they need a Dex of 15, if they want the pole-arm feat they need a wisdom of 15, if a Ranger wants hide specialization (which is likely) they need a Con of 15 (which is not normally that high a stat if the Ranger is an archer), heavy blade opportunity requires Dex 15, etc..
Overall, I do not it's imbalanced, and I disagree with the characterization that Fighters don't need as many feats to accomplish the same kinds of goals as spell casters, or that spell casters are forced to increase abilities in a way that fighter-types are not. Both need plenty of feats, and both have plenty of feats that use an atypical ability as an entry requirement.
and all their kind are just Weapon focus for spells, but with added suck.
For instance
Why should spellcasters have to spend attributes in non primary stats to get a damage bonus when melee characters don't?
And why should they then only get that bonus to some of their spells?
Is weapon focus (implement) really a bad idea? I can't see how it would be unbalanced to give casters +1/2/3 damage with a single feat.
I thought long and hard about these feats. Like most of you, I want my characters to be good at what they do, and that happened to be magic at the time.
I thought to myself, why not just max int? This way I will get more to hit as well as to damage. Surely this would be better than a feat that is limited to at most two energy types.
Scaling. Look at the bottom of the feat. These feats are much better at later tiers.
I have no grip with the feats Aside from the burning blizzard uses a primary stat, while some of the others dont.
Its not game balance that I worry about. Honestly I think that in the name of balance a lot of the game has been beaten into homogeneity. But that's not the point. My problem is that the feats require a tremendous resource drain in both feats and ability score points that martial characters don't have to deal with, All just to get a +damage effect.
And by added suck I mean that both weapon focus and the spell feats have the effect of adding +1/2/3 damage to attacks, But the spell feats only effect some attacks and have prereqs. Thus they are the weapon focus feats with extra cost or "added suck".
So you think the game's been "beaten into homogeneity" but in one of the spots where casters are different from weapon-users you want to force some kind of feat-by-feat equivalence?
Casters are Different. Added damage is hard, but they can easily get other feats to do stuff no weapon-user ever can.
So you think the game's been "beaten into homogeneity" but in one of the spots where casters are different from weapon-users you want to force some kind of feat-by-feat equivalence?
Casters are Different. Added damage is hard, but they can easily get other feats to do stuff no weapon-user ever can.
Added damage being rare would be fine. But added damage costing as much as it does for conditional bonuses borders on being a trap.
And no, I don't think that giving casters a true weapon focus feat for their implements fixes the sameness of a lot of their powers and feats. That issue goes too deep into the structure of the game for me to resolve with a feat change. I'm not even saying I was going to change the feat in any games I play.
All I wanted to know was if there was a compelling reason why it would be broken to have wizards not have to spend ability scores and multiple feats to get what is the same feat melee characters get in a single feat without restriction. So far I haven't seen one.
This game does a lot of things right, and a few things wrong. And a few of the things it does right aren't obvious. I wanted to know if this was one of those.
Gamers Online Now: 975
Linear Mode
