eDragon: Starlock feats and powers

[Greyscott]

Read the article and loved it, but two quick questions came to mind -

(1) As several other people have raised, does Sacrifice to Caiphon imply that the encounter power must be one with multiple targets? Do we have any general consensus on this...

And -

(2) For the Crown of Stars daily, is your sustain minor usable against each and every target within range (i.e., all possible targets), or only one? I am sure it's clear as written, it's just after a couple of days reading the threads on Polearm Gamble, Shifting, etc., over at D&Di, I've come to the point where I don't even trust my face value readings of the powers!

Good adventuring -

 

[bganon]

Then thing about the retraining rules is, when a feat is under or overpowered no longer matters. If a feat is too good at any point in a character career, its too good period, because the character can easily swap it out later on.

Sure, I get that. Mainly I just meant that I'd be worried that nerfing it at heroic levels would make it utterly useless at paragon/epic. Really, I think the problem with it is that the cost (damage equal to the level of the power) doesn't really scale with the ability to pay (total # of hp). Making it cost a half a surge amount of hp or something seems a lot better to me, even though that doesn't always change the actual numbers by a huge amount.

Personally, Im not even concerned with the two-pact feat. The one that does concern me is the fire resistance one.

So why is the fire resistance feat a concern? Like I said, I'm not seeing the problem.

 

[doctorhook]

...

Personally, Im not even concerned with the two-pact feat. The one that does concern me is the fire resistance one.

Twofold Pact is broken; it's one extra At-Will for an extra feat, for which there is no precedent. It also shouldn't be restricted to Tieflings.

You're right about Bael Turath Born. It nearly doubles a Tiefling's fire resistance, which might not actually be that bad, but there's no precedent for this either. It definitely shouldn't be restricted to warlocks. (Just Tieflings.) Also, I find the name a little odd; it suggests a particular background, but the feat doesn't at all explain why Tieflings from Bael Turath should have so much more fire resistance, nor is the feat actually limited to Tieflings from Bael Turath.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Twofold Pact is broken; it's one extra At-Will for an extra feat, for which there is no precedent. It also shouldn't be restricted to Tieflings.

I agree with the tiefling bit, but if a wizard takes Second Implement they get another encounter power(which is really good!), so I don't think it's that beyond the pale, especially for a slightly underpowered class. I don't even think having your choice of 2 pact boons is particularly crazy, since the benefits are often situational.

 

[Goumindong]

While I'm not sure about the powers yet, I have solved the problem for the end of my main campaign by reading this article.

"Ihbar: A dark nebula between stars, Ihbar is slowly expanding and eating the light of neighboring constellations."

What happens if the main protagonist behind your Hero and Paragon tier adventures, the one you kill as you start Epic is revealed to be corrupted by something beyound understanding that is slowly eating the sky. How do you stop your sky becoming dark as Ihbar consumes all the stars when you know it is an active force trying to consume the universe?

I hope you mean Antagonist.

 

[Gloombunny]

I just dislike Twofold Pact because it's too thematically weird to be such a must-have feat. Having two pacts should be unusual, not what every tiefling warlock does. :/

 

[Vendark]

I just dislike Twofold Pact because it's too thematically weird to be such a must-have feat. Having two pacts should be unusual, not what every tiefling warlock does. :/

Shouldn't paragon-level characters be considered unusual by definition? Even if every single paragon-level tiefling warlock does in fact take the feat, you're talking about a very select group from a setting perspective.

 

[Ravingdork]

I agree with the tiefling bit, but if a wizard takes Second Implement they get another encounter power(which is really good!), so I don't think it's that beyond the pale, especially for a slightly underpowered class. I don't even think having your choice of 2 pact boons is particularly crazy, since the benefits are often situational.

If you are referring to a wizard picking up Wand Mastery it is worth noting that it only grants you the encoutner power as a DAILY, and that any warlock or wizard can get that without having to take the Second Implement feat.

 

[Ander00]

You seem to be talking about simply using a wand. Kunimatyu apparently means the additional arcane implement mastery ability that is gained from the feat (orb of imposition, staff of defense and wand of accuracy, all of which have effects that are usable once per encounter).

What I would've liked to see before tiefling warlocks getting two pacts was a way for a multiclass warlock to gain one. While in theory a tiefling multiclass warlock could get two pacts with this feat, he'd still be missing the curse to trigger their boons.


cheers

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Having read the article in more detail now, the low level powers and the Epic Destiny I like, the Feats I'm not allowing for the moment. I will see how they look in the final magazine before I change them or allow them into my games.

The Two-Fold Pact seems to be an attempt to duplicate (for Warlocks) the Second Implement feat, at which it fails miserably.

Second Implement gives a single encounter level power.
Two-Fold Pact gives 2 powers, one at encounter level and another at at-will level. Its not gaining 1 power its gaining 2 for 1 Feat. Shave off the At-Will power and leave the Pact Boon, and allow the Warlock to qualify for Paragon paths that need either Pact and its golden. The Tiefling requirement should be shaved off as well, we don't see Eladrin on Second Implement do we?

(Oh and yes I meant Antagonist...)