KKDragonLord
First Post
If i have dragon breath: Fire does the feat Draconic Spell caster give its bonus to hit when i use a power such as Thunder breath through a flaming weapon to make it fire typed?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Draconic Spellcaster and Flaming Sword
- Thread starter KKDragonLord
- Start date
Nifft
Penguin Herder
The short answer is: maybe. WotC needs to clear up the rules on weapons-as-implements.
The long answer is: CharOp seems to have reached consensus that it could technically work, but it's cheesy; then WotC issued a FAQ or something saying that it didn't work, but they didn't offer a rules-based justification as to why not.
The really long answer is: hidden in many, many debates on the WotC forums, which we can't access right now.
IMHO: don't do it, it's cheesy.
Cheers, -- N
The long answer is: CharOp seems to have reached consensus that it could technically work, but it's cheesy; then WotC issued a FAQ or something saying that it didn't work, but they didn't offer a rules-based justification as to why not.
The really long answer is: hidden in many, many debates on the WotC forums, which we can't access right now.
IMHO: don't do it, it's cheesy.
Cheers, -- N
KKDragonLord
First Post
hmmm, i'd use the rod but it doesn't fit well in my hybrid build, ill just avoid it for non fire powers.
Can anyone explain me clearly how Explosive Spellcasting works? The name sounds good but the description looks iffy, gives the impression that it only means that you can select a different target for a crit roll instead of what the adjective "explosive" would imply (which would be blowing them all up).
I wish the D&Di Compendium had the wiki property of the DDO compendium where you could check user comments for dubious entries.
Can anyone explain me clearly how Explosive Spellcasting works? The name sounds good but the description looks iffy, gives the impression that it only means that you can select a different target for a crit roll instead of what the adjective "explosive" would imply (which would be blowing them all up).
I wish the D&Di Compendium had the wiki property of the DDO compendium where you could check user comments for dubious entries.
Last edited:
It's worth noting that the FAQ doesn't say that, but some people interpret it that way since power's aren't mentioned specifically as being available to someone using a weapon as an implement. It's still pretty divided whenever it comes up on the WotC boards.
DracoSuave
First Post
They did over year ago. If a weapon can be used as an implement, modifiers from feats apply if they do not specifically state attacks by the weapon keyword. Powers on items that have keywords grant those Keywords to any powers the item power in question is used in conjunction with. Which means that if you use a power through a flaming weapon while using the weapon's at-will, you treat that power as tho it had the Fire keyword... because it -does-.
Also, At-Will, Encounter, and Daily are no longer keywords, for the above reason.
These -are- from the FAQ.
As for the weapons themselves, you can use any enhancement bonus, properties, critical hit, or powers not mentioning weapon attacks, but you cannot use their proficiency bonus, or powers mentioning weapon attacks.
No, they came to the consensus that doing it a different (segregated) way makes the Swordmage inaccessible to new players, in that a new player doesn't grok when he can apply his Weapon Focus to his light blade attacks, even tho 'light blade' is an implement, and the Swordmage is using it as a light blade.
And then they designed more classes that can take advantage of this non-segregated state, like the Sorcerer, and the Monk. To say that the developers don't like it is flat out ignoring their own PHB2 and PHB3 design work.
Do it. It's how things are designed these days.
So to answer the original question:
Yes, you get the bonus to attack rolls with any Arcane power that you use through any accessory that can change the damage it deals. A Fiery weapon transforms the powers used with it to have the Fire keyword, so Draconic Spellcasting will apply.
If you have fire breath, the only keywords Draconic Spellcasting cares about are Fire, and Arcane. If it has these, you're golden.
The only restriction on item powers is that of magic staffs, rods, wands, holy symbols, totems, and tomes. They specifically state you can only use them if you have the ability to use them with any of your powers. Weapons don't have that problem. Other than that, you can use an item power whenever it says you can.
CAVEAT: Obviously, using a weapon doesn't allow you to use a power that verbatim mentions 'weapon powers' with powers that do not have the weapon keyword. But that's a rule written directly into the power, and not a rule that powers have. By the same token, you can use a Thunderwave staff to knock enemies prone instead of pushing them, even if you're using it as a weapon.
And yes, you -can- use a Thunderwave staff as a weapon, it's in the damn rules, p 240.
Last edited:
Thundershield
First Post
I decided to house-rule the feat to a flat +1 untyped bonus to attack and damage, just like I have done with Hellfire Blood, Feyborn Charm, and Gnome Phantasmist. Gives the feats a feel of racial affinity without making them musts.
DracoSuave
First Post
If they're a flat bonus to attack, and untyped, they become a 'must have' feat. Those restrictions are there for a reason.
Thundershield
First Post
Well, sure they're "must have" feats if you're playing the right race/class combination, but far less so than in their original incarnation (apart from Hellfire Blood, of course). A flat +1 to attack and damage rolls with, say, fire spells is considerable more down to earth than a scaling +1 to +3 feat bonus (which stacks with Weapon Expertise)...
By making them an untyped bonus I mean to ensure the feat presents a racial affinity beyond what other feats can give. Otherwise racial facets and advantages are quickly overshadowed by (even more) generic feats. Going in the other direction would imply leaving the feat at its +1 per tier bonus and instead implement some circumstantial requirement beyond merely restricting it to a damage type or keyword.
Besides, it's just a suggested house-rule. It works for me - might work for him, too.
Last edited:
