We're about to allow Melee Training in PHB2. Having a strong basic attack is not the same as having a strong at-will melee attack.
__________________ “The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!”
- Jack Kerouac Lorik Oh god, the temptation
We're about to allow Melee Training in PHB2. Having a strong basic attack is not the same as having a strong at-will melee attack.
Well as I stated in the first post, that class benefits much more than the ranged classes do from Reaper's touch and as I stated above it follows Covaithe's rationale for why the Reaper's Touch feat was not allowed. Homogeneous characters are not desired (thankfully) so this feat serves the same purpose for the swordmage
The reason is not power level or effectiveness it's the fact that it creates a feat tax (same as expertise, and same as Reaper's Touch).
If you want to talk about power levels My warlock has yet to be involved in a situation where he'd need his basic at-will, but my swordmage I play in RL has made extensive use of the INtelligent Blademaster feat.
I believe what Don's referring to (and feel free to correct me) is that Reaper's Touch allows you to use one of your ranged at wills with a range of melee touch, whereas melee training still only lets you use your regular melee weapons.
__________________ “The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!”
- Jack Kerouac Lorik Oh god, the temptation
I believe what Don's referring to (and feel free to correct me) is that Reaper's Touch allows you to use one of your ranged at wills with a range of melee touch, whereas melee training still only lets you use your regular melee weapons.
Yes, but in practice I'm still having a trouble drawing a distinction.
You can attack ref (in most cases) or attack AC with a prof. bonus.
You'll do about the same amount of damage (i.e. 2d4 MM vs 1d8 of a quarterstaff). (The only one with any kind of notably higher damage potential, also targets Fort, the worst NAD against the sort of things you'd normally find yourself in melee with in the first place).
Reaper's Touch means upkeeping less items (unless you're using a weapon as an implement and everyone's pretty much got that ability now)
Where as Melee Training means you don't have to pick specific at will to use it.
Seems like it's pretty much a wash to me. Is there a convincing argument that every invoker, sorcerer, warlock and wizard is going to pick up Reaper's Touch, but wouldn't give Melee Training the same consideration? I'm honestly at a loss as to how Reaper's Touch is ban-worthy, but Melee Training readily acceptable.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
You can find the reasoning behind Reaper's Touch vs Melee Training in the Dragon 372 proposal.
If I remember correctly, technically Intelligent Blademaster allows the swordmage to use INT with thrown weapons too.
I think the idea of banning this feat and/or melee training rediculous to the extreme. Non-strength defenders practically need this feat to do their job. Warlords really want this feat so they can work well with all the melee strikers. I know I wouldn't be playing a Swordmage in my RL group if this feat didn't exist, and a retroactive ban would screw over any existing Swordmages. Granted, as far as I know there's only one Swordmage around, but that's still enough for me to be as opposed to this proposal as a non-judge can be.
And not just because the one Swordmage is in the game I'm playing .
So, as a not-judge, I know my actual vote doesn't count- but as someone playing a swordmage (and having the feat in question), I would like to state that I'm not very keen on being retroactively nerfed. Certainly it doesn't look like the feat is such a smash hit that people are playing a swordmage just so they can use this feat, and that would be the point where I would think about a ban.
I'm not keen on it either path, but the rationale for the re-consideration is based on the same reasoning reaper's touch isn't allowed in.
Again THB you are further re-iterating my point that this feat is almost a must have for int-based defender types, therefore it becomes a requirement, therefore bland, therefore reducing the diversity of characters.
Also, reaper's touch isn't so great that one would jump at playing a wizard to have a mediocre at-will melee basic attack.
Again THB you are further re-iterating my point that this feat is almost a must have for int-based defender types, therefore it becomes a requirement, therefore bland, therefore reducing the diversity of characters.
Also, reaper's touch isn't so great that one would jump at playing a wizard to have a mediocre at-will melee basic attack.
I agree completely.
I still think this proposal in particular is silly. If you want Reaper's Touch, why not make your case in the Dragon 372 proposal? This is about whether Intelligent Blademaster should be banned, and I don't see why it should.
Since this thread is pretty clearly directed at me, I suppose I should take the time to answer it. Though, to be honest, I'm starting to feel like I'm throwing good time after bad, since I'm not convinced this proposal is serious.
Three points.
1. There are two reasons, separate reasons, why I don't like reaper's touch: one is that it reduces tactical complexity by making some classes more effective outside their role, and the other has to do with creating a "required" feat. Parallel reasoning, if you can call it that, only applies to the latter. Giving a strong basic melee attack to a defender doesn't exactly change the tactical situation.
2. I dislike "required" feats, like melee training, because they limit choice. However, some classes really are broken without them. Melee bards or clerics or avengers are in a worse position than swordmages here. I wouldn't mind so much if it were just that they were at a slight numerical disadvantage; I just hate the arbitrariness of the fact that, here's a character concept built to be effective in melee, but they have a bad basic attack for purely historical reasons (basic attack tied to strength). WotC have chosen to "fix" this with a feat again, rather than, say, providing alternate rules for calculating basic attacks in general, for their own reasons (which I suspect have more to do with not liking to admit that they got something wrong, rather than any design considerations). I dislike melee training, I don't think we can get rid of it without fixing WotC's blunder in some other way.
Obviously it's pointless to talk about the intelligent blademaster feat without also talking about melee training. I can't imagine any good reason why this proposal mentions one and not the other.
3. Because renau1g asked, I tried (several times) to explain my reasoning for why I voted the way I did on reaper's touch. Apparently, this proposal is the result. If this keeps happening, I'm going to stop explaining myself and just stick to yes or no, with no explanations.
I'm not thread jacking if the thread title is ignore...
ren don't feel too bad, Warlocks are getting the short end of the stick...
Cov don't feel bad at all, judges make judgement calls... (and people are going to disagree)
I doubt anyone is specifically targeting warlocks with these adjustments. (and if they are, maybe they have more warlock in them than they think...)
However, they are the only striker that is handicapped at melee range.
sorcerer has close burst/blast (or dagger channeling), in order to achieve a basic melee attack using an at-will
Ranger/rogue use melee weapons, and are often effective at range as well.
strikers are supposed to be effective at both ranges.
In fact the only person who shouldn't be able to take reaper's touch is the wizard. However what wizard (outside of human) would give up two controller at-wills and a feat in order to do striker damage on OA's that they will NEVER get...
Bullet Points:
*I respect the judges decisions (mostly because you explained it, and you DID think out your conclusion)
*I disagree with the judges decision on reapers touch (because I came to a different conclusion)
*Required feats can have a free fix in our world, should they? (Cov = Genius on this one...)
*Sour grapes taste bad, but make good wine (he he I can't be serious too long.
*I support both Renau1g and Covaithe
Out of Bullets
Can we use this space for up with a fix for WoTC Feat Taxes?
It seems there are several hidden ones, and everyone agrees they are needed yet suck. heck, we could even hand out 1 free feat at 1st level. Now you have space for your feat tax feat, and your actual feat.
Choose your feat tax feat from this list: (I haven't made a list)
.
, maybe they have more warlock in them than they think...)
I can't be serious too long. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
