Flaming Weapon Stealth Errata?

[Kinneus]

For those of you saying... "If you want a fire-themed character, just pick all fire powers!", I have to say, sure, that works fine... if you're playing a wizard.

But what if you want to play a fire-themed Swordmage? How about a Bard? Or (God forbid) a fire-themed Artificer? Short answer: you kind of can't. Not without an old-style Flaming Weapon, at least.

I liked building my character around a particular element because I felt like it gave that character a particular style. At no point did it ever feel overpowered; just toss some enemies that are immune to his chosen element, and watch him cry. And that was fine with me! I got a lot of fun out of thinking, "Okay... how can Winged Horde be a fire spell? Oh, he summons a swarm of fire imps from the Nine Hells! Awesome!" It really, really sucks that this little joy of mine is apparently going to be shoved in a bag and tossed into the river.

 

[WalterKovacs]

2) Why is it okay for me to use a flame staff to make Scare or Stone Blood fire damage, but not Winged Horde or Freezing Burst? If they REALLY wanted to stop implement power energy-type changing, this is an odd way to do it (on top of only doing it for one energy).

Untyped damage starts off doing well untyped damage. It isn't going to trigger resistances or vulnerabilities (unless it's "all"). I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any, or at least very many, monsters with vulnerability untyped, or resistance untyped.

On the other hand, freezing burst deals cold damage. If you can switch back and forth between it being either fire or cold, you are more likely to be able to have the right power to hit a creatures vulnerability. Against a troll? Make it fire. Against a FLAMING troll? Wow, suddenly this cold comes in handy, so I'll just turn the fire off.

For those of you saying... "If you want a fire-themed character, just pick all fire powers!", I have to say, sure, that works fine... if you're playing a wizard.

But what if you want to play a fire-themed Swordmage? How about a Bard? Or (God forbid) a fire-themed Artificer? Short answer: you kind of can't. Not without an old-style Flaming Weapon, at least.

They do have some fire based attacks and some untyped damage attacks. True, the theme would now restrict their power choice.

I liked building my character around a particular element because I felt like it gave that character a particular style. At no point did it ever feel overpowered; just toss some enemies that are immune to his chosen element, and watch him cry. And that was fine with me!

Well sure. If you have a flaming weapon you cry ... until you turn it off and all your powers go back to their original damage type. And you are now fine against those fire immune creatures. So the "thematic" fire swordmage is able to just stop being fire based when it's convenient. And building around an element using a weapon ends up being what? Grab the feats to be able to use the weapon as an implement (if necessary), grab some feats to boost that element and ... grab any powers you want since you can just make them into that element if you want. If anything, it's better to pick powers that DON'T have that element since you can't turn "off" the fire on those powers.

I got a lot of fun out of thinking, "Okay... how can Winged Horde be a fire spell? Oh, he summons a swarm of fire imps from the Nine Hells! Awesome!" It really, really sucks that this little joy of mine is apparently going to be shoved in a bag and tossed into the river.

In "sanctioned" games where the DM plays it by the book yes. It's possible that a DM will basically allow it ... so long as the player's don't go to the extremes and abuse the power. It does suck that it eliminates fun reflavoring of powers, but there are lots of other tricks out there that aren't about flavor and fun.

EDIT:

Ultimately, for people with 'inherent' elemental attacks, they have two options (ditto with attacks that target different defenses):

They can specialize. If you focus on cold powers and targeting Fort, for example, feats that improve your cold powers and hurt your opponent's fort, etc ... will be more useful because they will apply more often. However, if you run into enemies with high fort or cold resistance ... you are going to be less effective.

OR, they can be versatile. They can have the whole spectrum of energy types and all three defenses as their options. They are less likely to get caught with their pants down against resistant enemies, and if an enemy has a vulnerability, they probably have a power that hits it. Similarly, if they can figure out the lowest defense, they'll be able to target it. However, any feats/items that boost specific types of powers would be less useful, since they would only apply to a few powers.

With a flaming/frost/radiant weapon you would have the ability to do both. At least with the flaming weapon's new wording, you can go with the first one... and you do have the benefit of turning it off against resistant enemies BUT you lose the big bonus from versatility (at least the "you probably have the right damage type they are vulnerable to" part) since your options are fire or untyped.

 

[Kinneus]

I got what you're saying, WalterKovacs, but two things:

1) Why just Flaming Weapon? The only explanation I can think of is they were worried about pyromancers (but then why not just change pyromancers?) or simply because they haven't gotten around to changing the other weapons like this yet. Not sure why... Frostcheese and Radiantcheese have long, long been the worst transgressors.

2) Your argument falls apart when you consider that most Martial characters can still use a Flaming Weapon with impunity. Which is just mind-boggling to me... fantasy fiction is full of 'fire wizards', but can anybody cite a 'fire warrior?' Fire rogue? Fire ranger? Well, in D&D, those are officially going to be more common than fire-mages.

Why is it overpowered when a Tiefling Warlock grabs a Flaming Blade and the Hellfire Blood feat, but when a Tiefling Ranger does it, it's perfectly A-OK?

You have an issue with using weapliments to change all your powers to a certain damage type. Okay, I understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I think we can agree to disagree. My question is: is this good errata? Is it fair and balanced and helpful to the game that Flaming Weapons (and only Flaming Weapons) now work to their full advantage exclusively in the hands of Martial characters?

I'm not convinced.

 

[Mengu]

1) Why just Flaming Weapon?

This is the crux of the issue. Lightning, Frost, Radiant works, but Flaming doesn't? That's kind of the proverbial middle finger to tiefling casters and others who like fire. You can abuse radiant and cold damage all day long but not fire. Doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe it was an experimental bit of rule they forgot to take out because they either ditched the idea or weren't ready to fully implement it yet.

 

[IanB]

This is the crux of the issue. Lightning, Frost, Radiant works, but Flaming doesn't? That's kind of the proverbial middle finger to tiefling casters and others who like fire. You can abuse radiant and cold damage all day long but not fire. Doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe it was an experimental bit of rule they forgot to take out because they either ditched the idea or weren't ready to fully implement it yet.

I think that was just the only one they happened to reprint in the DM Kit. I am assuming the change is coming for the rest of them as well.

 

[mudlock]

I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any, or at least very many, monsters with vulnerability untyped, or resistance untyped.

I believe there are some creatures that have resistance to "weapon damage", and I know that there is an item that gives it (belt of iron skin? Can't recall ATM).

 

[Mengu]

I believe there are some creatures that have resistance to "weapon damage", and I know that there is an item that gives it (belt of iron skin? Can't recall ATM).

Kind of... One off the top of my head is Gricks have resist 5 against attacks that target AC, which is typically weapon attacks. And yeah Ironskin Belt has a daily that gives resist 5 weapon until end of next turn, pretty pathetic item if you ask me...

I really don't care if they remove the conferring of elemental type from elemental weapons altogether. I'd much prefer to see a flaming weapon do extra d6 fire damage without conferring the fire type. Same with cold, lightning, etc. If you want to abuse cold vulnerability of lasting frost, by george, go pick some cold powers. If you want to slide stuff around with Mark of Storm, pick some lightning powers. It's pretty lame picking up a weapon of the right type and applying that bonus to every single attack you make. The stuff shouldn't be that easy.

What I don't want to see (which is what the current flaming weapon is doing), is make weapon wielders "better" at dealing elemental damage than implement wielders. That just seems horribly wrong.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I got what you're saying, WalterKovacs, but two things:

1) Why just Flaming Weapon? The only explanation I can think of is they were worried about pyromancers (but then why not just change pyromancers?) or simply because they haven't gotten around to changing the other weapons like this yet. Not sure why... Frostcheese and Radiantcheese have long, long been the worst transgressors.

Well, the DM Kit dropped in October, just a month after the pyromancer. I doubt the pyromancer was the reason for it. It's probably just a case of:

(a) flaming weapon is the most iconic type of magic weapon, so it goes into the DM Kit

(b) the last BIG update came in October, right before the DM kit dropped. Since then, they have been waiting until June for a "big" rules update. So, until then, only stuff they publish (i.e. either in book form or in an article like the Class Compendium stuff) gets updated ...

So, for NOW, it's just flaming weapons. June is when they would errata the rest unless it ended up in an article.

2) Your argument falls apart when you consider that most Martial characters can still use a Flaming Weapon with impunity. Which is just mind-boggling to me... fantasy fiction is full of 'fire wizards', but can anybody cite a 'fire warrior?' Fire rogue? Fire ranger? Well, in D&D, those are officially going to be more common than fire-mages.

A fire wizard can exist. They cast fire spells. Actual fire spells that do "firey" things, like causing people to catch on fire (ongoing damage), or surrounding them with a ring of fire, etc ... not fire damage that causes someone's joints to freeze up and slow/immobilize them, etc.

And a flaming weapon is just that. A weapon that is on fire. It's supposed to be someone swinging around a weapon that's on fire, not some kind of arcane conversion device that turns cold into fire. The entire point of a flaming weapon is for it to be a weapon that is on fire.

Flaming swords exist in fiction ... A Song of Ice and Fire (i.e. the series that is the basis of the new HBO show Game of Thrones) has a flaming sword in it (a real one ... it also has someone that sets mundane swords on fire, but that's different). It exists in mythology with angel's wielding flaming swords, etc. The idea of someone with a weapon that is on fire isn't something made up ... at the very least, it's been a D&D staple for a long time.

And, the ONLY thing stopping a fire mage is not wanting to actually take the fire powers ... which have thematic fire effects. A wizad with a flaming sword to cast spells through got to cast spells that did fire damage AND do very "not firey" secondary effect. At least with a flaming weapon attack from a fighter, it DOES do "weapony" effects. And if it was a weapon attack with an energy type (i.e. cold attack from a swordmage) it doesn't work.

Long story short ... you can't get cold rider effects with fire damage ... you CAN get untyped rider effects or fire rider effects. [Using a flaming weapon].

Why is it overpowered when a Tiefling Warlock grabs a Flaming Blade and the Hellfire Blood feat, but when a Tiefling Ranger does it, it's perfectly A-OK?

That's not the argument, necessarily.

The argument is not getting to have your cake and eat it to.

You can't grab a bunch of cold, radiant, and necrotic attacks, just in case you fight something that is vulnerable to those things, and just using fire when it's ok.

AND, regardless of balance reasons, it's a flaming weapon. When you hit with a weapon attack (which are TRADITIONALLY untyped damage) you are hitting them with something that is on fire, so it becomes flaming. The new wording makes it work closer to what it was intended to be ... a WEAPON that is on fire, not a magical focus for altering energy type of spells. Admitedly, it has some exceptions (the warlock can use it to get flaming eldritch blasts) but ultimately, it makes the flaming weapon a flaming weapon, not an implement that turns all your powers to fire. If they wanted that, they probably would have made an implement for it.

And fairness?

Rangers and fighters and rogues don't get energy damage normally. If they want it, they have to get a weapon, and they only have that one energy type. Spell casters get to pick from a few different energy types. They have the ability to mix and match, and thus be more likely to have the right energy type to use against enemy X ... the fighter with the flaming swords hopes for trolls, and if they get a red dragon, they just have to turn off the sword and shrug.

A specialist spellcaster (not counting stuff like pyromancer or sorceror) doesn't have the breadth of choice for powers as a "specialist" weapon wielder ... but that's becaue a spell caster also has the option to go generalist ... the weapon wielder just has the choice to not bother with energy damage at all. The spellcaster, however, often has some added benefit for doing so, likely involving a paragon path or feats or class features, etc that improve those abilities.

You have an issue with using weapliments to change all your powers to a certain damage type. Okay, I understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I think we can agree to disagree. My question is: is this good errata? Is it fair and balanced and helpful to the game that Flaming Weapons (and only Flaming Weapons) now work to their full advantage exclusively in the hands of Martial characters?

Is it ok for it to be only Flaming Weapons. No. It should be all or nothing. The ONLY reason it's exclusive to flaming weapons is that it was the one in the book (because flaming weapons are more iconic than the other energy types) and that book just happened to come out right before they decided to only do big errata twice a year.

Is it ok that a WEAPON is best used by martial characters ... well yes. That is what martial characters are about ... they aren't magical, their gear is. If I think "who would be using a flaming sword", I'd probably think fighter before wizard or warlock. Basically, adding typed damage to attacks gives the most benefit to those without much access to typed damage attacks. The fighter is a weaponmaster after all He should be best at using weapons.

 

[kaomera]

Hence, we have illogical things such as pyromancers that can burn fire elementals.

They're mages who specialize in controlling fire... Maybe they aren't burning them so much as tying the fire they're made of in knots? (At least metaphorically speaking.)

But what if you want to play a fire-themed Swordmage? How about a Bard? Or (God forbid) a fire-themed Artificer? Short answer: you kind of can't. Not without an old-style Flaming Weapon, at least.

That's one of the things you have to deal with when playing a class-based system. Those classes where not designed to have a fire theme. Not that it would be a bad thing if they where, and if we had an infinite amount of additional feats / powers / etc. I'd bet that they would (but think of the load times in the CB at that point...). I'm not saying that you shouldn't have support for the character you want to play, but given the limitations of realistic production schedules, etc. you can't 100% count on WotC supporting every concept. And the flaming weapon trick was never a great solution to this, IMO.

1) Why just Flaming Weapon?

One other possibility: there are only 6 weapon enchantments in the DM's Book. All are pretty much iconic in terms of D&D weapons, maybe they just felt that the flaming weapon was the most iconic of the elemental-type-adding weapons? So therefore it got reprinted, whereas the others did not. It still should have gotten into the list of essentials changes, I think likely someone at WotC either missed the weapons in the DM's book or else didn't notice that it was an actual change.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I believe there are some creatures that have resistance to "weapon damage", and I know that there is an item that gives it (belt of iron skin? Can't recall ATM).

True ... but turning untyped weapon damage to flaming weapon damage doesn't remove the weapon keyword... and thus it's still weapon damage. So cold -> fire gets around cold resist ... untyped -> fire doesn't get around weapon resist.

What I don't want to see (which is what the current flaming weapon is doing), is make weapon wielders "better" at dealing elemental damage than implement wielders. That just seems horribly wrong.

That is something I definitely agree with. They have done some stuff since the first book, with a lot of feats only modifying arcane/wizard/etc powers with those energy types instead of it being just any power with that energy type.

The same problem I have with elemental weapons being used by spell casters as energy conversion devices, I have with elemental weapon users using feats that at least seemed to have been intended to reward an implement user for specializing in an energy source. I just don't think the solution to "martial characters can just use any powers they want with an elemental weapon and get full benefits of specializing" is "well, than so should spell casters" because spell casters get extra specialization benefits through access to additional feats, paragon paths, etc ... and to then be able to specialize while simultaneously benefitting from all the bonuses that come in diversifying your energy types? In a "perfect" world, you would need to ACTUALLY specialize to get the benefit of specializing, instead of everyone just basing their theme on a single weapon and stuff that benefits from it.