Devil's advocate

[IanB]

No. It still averages out the same for 2[w], 3[w], 7[w] or what have you, in the usual case where raising the die type raises the maximum by two while leaving the minimum alone.

My concern actually comes out of that. If there were a problem there, this suggestion wouldn't fix it, precisely because on the average it works out the same as the actual rule.

But it doesn't average the same. The +1 for TWF is not multiplied by the number of dice. It is just a flat +1.

 

[Stridercal]

Exactly!

I'm still getting ahead of how the new game scales certain abilities...

 

[Walking Dad]

...
4) Doomsayer's Proclamation is overpowered. All you have to do is wield a wand that has a fear effect on it, and suddenly all of your (save ends) powers are affected. Have the wizard do so too, and he will worship you for that feature. (And yes, this has been verified, it is very clear on page 226)

Does that means that my tiefling warlord with a fire sword and the hellfire bood feat adds 1 to hit and damage on all powers using the weapon keyword???

 

[DClown]

No. It still averages out the same for 2[w], 3[w], 7[w] or what have you, in the usual case where raising the die type raises the maximum by two while leaving the minimum alone.

This is entirely incorrect. + # to damage comes at the end of the roll. X[w] only multiplies the dice you roll, not the additions due to feats, stats, or weapons properties such as versatile. You will never include static numbers inside the []'s, only dice.

 

[Morose]

Does that means that my tiefling warlord with a fire sword and the hellfire bood feat adds 1 to hit and damage on all powers using the weapon keyword???

Yes, indeed it does. Keywords from weapons/implements/powers/exploits all merge together as the rules currently stand.

 

[Morose]

I thought that archer rangers had a couple of really nice advantages over DW rangers.

They have one fewer stat to put they're points in which let's them have a higher primary attribute. DW rangers need str and dex while archery only need dex.

And of course they don't have to get in the creatures face and can do thier job safely behind the defenders.

Both true. However, a melee ranger can be just as effective in dealing damage with a bow as an archery ranger, but also gains a unique class ability. And hit points are hit points, so you could argue that the Defensive Mobility feat of archery is no more useful than Toughness, meaning (aside from the paragon choices) there is no compelling reason to go for an archery styled Ranger, even if you're planning on a bow for your main weapon.

Some type of movement based unique ability to mesh with the Defensive Mobility feat would be my inclination. Perhaps +1 movement when moving away from their nearest enemy? Seems appropo.

 

[DemonLord57]

Both true. However, a melee ranger can be just as effective in dealing damage with a bow as an archery ranger, but also gains a unique class ability. And hit points are hit points, so you could argue that the Defensive Mobility feat of archery is no more useful than Toughness, meaning (aside from the paragon choices) there is no compelling reason to go for an archery styled Ranger, even if you're planning on a bow for your main weapon.

Some type of movement based unique ability to mesh with the Defensive Mobility feat would be my inclination. Perhaps +1 movement when moving away from their nearest enemy? Seems appropo.

Exactly. And, hmm, basing it off of Defensive Mobility might work, but I was thinking of something having to do with the weapon in general. Maybe some sort of bonus for wielding a Longbow... in any case, I'd like it to follow the path of having something unique having to do with the weapon... not sure if there's an easy way to make it balanced, though.

Cool, cool

My only question is about the implement keywords you mentioned: why is something that big only mentioned in one sentence in the whole book?

One of the things i've seen in 4e so far is that certain passages should have been written in bold font+ type in order to understate the RAW. A couple other examples of this have already popped up on this forum, can't remember off the top me head, though...

Anyway, thanks for the negative feedback. IMO, the best way to make rules is to let people tear them to shreads. Anything that survives will be better for it!

That's a great attitude! And if you keep up with that attitude, I believe that that will be true. I think that if people get defensive and snappy about negative feedback, it ends up just being a mess, and what remains isn't necessarily what is good, only what the person refused to give up.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

Yes, indeed it does. Keywords from weapons/implements/powers/exploits all merge together as the rules currently stand.

The text that you cited does seem to point that way. What their example (Paladin with a flame sword) leads me to think was intended was that if they are comboing an item power (the at will flaming sword ability in the example) with a class power, then both keywords apply. I understand that the text can definitely be read to disagree with this, but logically and balance-wise, I think that could be what WotC intended.

Knowing the custserv responses and they're letter-of-the-law responses, I wouldn't be surprised if they disagreed too though...

 

[DemonLord57]

The text that you cited does seem to point that way. What their example (Paladin with a flame sword) leads me to think was intended was that if they are comboing an item power (the at will flaming sword ability in the example) with a class power, then both keywords apply. I understand that the text can definitely be read to disagree with this, but logically and balance-wise, I think that could be what WotC intended.

Knowing the custserv responses and they're letter-of-the-law responses, I wouldn't be surprised if they disagreed too though...

If the at-will ability of the flaming weapon were being used, then the damage would be entirely fire damage, not fire and radiant damage. Also, CS has already responded on this, and signed off on it as true. I think multiple times (multiple people asked at once).

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

If the at-will ability of the flaming weapon were being used, then the damage would be entirely fire damage, not fire and radiant damage. Also, CS has already responded on this, and signed off on it as true. I think multiple times (multiple people asked at once).

Well I think it could just as easily be half an half (all the damage dealt by the power is radiant, all the damage dealt by the weapon is fire, so they split it). Wouldn't this mean that a wizard wielding a fire staff would have all of his powers dealing half fire damage, and he could just take astral fire to deal extra damage on all of his spells? Or any other keyword related ability (I'm thinking the large group of feats, especially lasting frost+winter touched) for that matter.

Maybe that is what WotC intended and obviously thats what CS has responded. Do you know if anyone asked specifically about combos like the Doomsayer ability? It seems like forcing someone to roll twice for saves on sleep because your holding a wand with a fear spell on it and your buddy is a doomsayer should* make even a customer service rep think twice.

*Hopefully? My faith in them dwindles with each response I here about