Does a Con warlock's Painful Transference need fixing? How?

[GreyICE]

How do you think it should work ?

Its clear to me that Painful Transference is intended to be that, painful. Taking minimal to no damage to end an effect on you that a save can end because you have no Charisma modifier is not that painful.

That's exactly what I mean.

I think a version where you can end any number of effects, at the cost of potentially huge damage is a lot more of a cost/benefit thing.

The damage for one effect ended is just a tad meh.

 

[Plaguescarred]

How do you think it should work ?

 

[Ferghis]

Maybe if you want to fix it make it a Daily (unsure of what it is now), let it end any number of conditions a save can end, and have it do 3 damage for each condition ended, or 6 to the warlock (scale to 6/12 in epic tier).

This is a fix that would be more balanced in my eyes. I tend to shy away from daily utility powers, generally, so I don't favor it. But this would preserve the "painful" spirit of the utility.

My only criticism, and it is a mild one, is that changing it from encounter to daily is a big change to one of the main characteristics of the power.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I agree it would be more balanced, and would be equally taxing for both CON and CHA Warlocks.

 

[S'mon]

How do you think it should work ?

Allies in 5 squares take 2 damage; if there are none, you take 5 damage.

 

[nogray]

Philosophically speaking ...

Just a philosophical point, but if people are interested in tweaking this power, which has a different cost based on the PCs ability scores (so Constitution-based warlocks pay less or nothing compared to Charisma-based warlocks), are people also interested in changing powers that have differing benefits based on ability scores?

For example, consider the monk's Purifying Meditation, which allows a save "...with a bonus equal to [the character's] Wisdom modifier." That is quite different for a centered breath monk (Dex/Wis) vs. a stone fist monk (Dex/Str). One gets what amounts to an almost-automatic save, while the other (most likely) just gets a save with no bonus. Other examples might include the sorcerer's at-will Lightning Strike, which is much better for a Dex-secondary sorcerer than a Str-secondary sorcerer.

I'm not sure which side I would fall on. The warlock in the campaign I DM didn't pick that utility (and is Charisma-based, anyway). I'm just wondering if the idea is that all powers should be balanced, regardless of which attribute(s) they refer to, or not. If people aren't interested in balancing all of these powers that have different riders based on ability scores, then why is this one different? Is it because it is a cost instead of a benefit? Just food for thought, I suppose.

 

[aurance]

Just a philosophical point, but if people are interested in tweaking this power, which has a different cost based on the PCs ability scores (so Constitution-based warlocks pay less or nothing compared to Charisma-based warlocks), are people also interested in changing powers that have differing benefits based on ability scores?

For example, consider the monk's Purifying Meditation, which allows a save "...with a bonus equal to [the character's] Wisdom modifier." That is quite different for a centered breath monk (Dex/Wis) vs. a stone fist monk (Dex/Str). One gets what amounts to an almost-automatic save, while the other (most likely) just gets a save with no bonus. Other examples might include the sorcerer's at-will Lightning Strike, which is much better for a Dex-secondary sorcerer than a Str-secondary sorcerer.

I'm not sure which side I would fall on. The warlock in the campaign I DM didn't pick that utility (and is Charisma-based, anyway). I'm just wondering if the idea is that all powers should be balanced, regardless of which attribute(s) they refer to, or not. If people aren't interested in balancing all of these powers that have different riders based on ability scores, then why is this one different? Is it because it is a cost instead of a benefit? Just food for thought, I suppose.

This one is different because we're guessing that the design intent of the power, based on the flavor text, wasn't to be a build specific thing, whereas the other examples you posted are. Of course, we don't really know for sure. If indeed it was originally designed that Con warlocks would take no damage, there would be nothing wrong with that either. So no, specific ability score mods for powers has nothing to do with drawback vs. benefit per se.

 

[Mengu]

I'd replace "Charisma modifier" with "5 damage". So allies take 5 damage, or you take 10 damage. Either way, it's good to get rid of a dominate or stun, and most allies would be willing to pay that cost. If you're dominated, you'll be dealing a heck of a lot more than 5 damage to an ally, and are losing a turn. Best part of it, since it's a no action, you can use it as soon as you get the effect, which keeps your immediates available. I think it's a pretty solid power.

 

[Ferghis]

If people aren't interested in balancing all of these powers that have different riders based on ability scores, then why is this one different? Is it because it is a cost instead of a benefit?

My rule of thumb is that all powers should be a mechanically viable (meaning interesting) choice for at least one build of the class they belong to. As aurance notes, this, and the other powers you mention, certainly pass that test.

The problem with this power is that it's feel (or flavor, in a broad sense), don't match up with the build it is viable for, as your player might have noted. So, the question is (a) whether this is a problem that needs fixing, and if it does, (b) how?