Radiant One ED - un-errataed?

[Ryujin]

Seems to me that, when I was playing my Fey/Darklock, the Radiant One epic destiny had been subject to errata, to make it Warlock only. Now, when I look at both CB and Compendium (which likely use the same data source now), it's back to the original "21st Level" requirement.

Any insight on this? I've got an Archer Ranger cold cheese user who wants to use it and, as I've been going by the book as to what can be used, I don't have a leg to stand on in barring it. If he gets it, then I doubt that the average solo could stand for more than a couple of rounds against his cold/fire/radiance.

 

[Spatula]

What's so compelling about that ED? +Int mod damage to tagets granting combat advantage doesn't seem so incredible, especially for a ranger.

 

[Ryujin]

Well I dislike adding damage, just for the sake of adding damage, and I would like there to be some sort of connection between the character and the ED.

 

[bganon]

Well, the abusability is that it's extra damage "any time you deal damage with CA". Not just added to damage rolls, not just once a turn, but every time.

However, this is generally abused by dedicated warlock builds or weird battlemind/morninglords who are exploiting radiant vulnerability and multiattacks. For an archer Ranger using coldcheese, I'm not seeing how it really adds quite as much. Radiant One appears in a few Charop DPS builds, but I don't think any of them are Rangers (they generally have better EDs available, honestly).

So if the main concern is trying to keep damage output sane, then this ED on a ranger is probably not the main thing you should be worried about (good luck trying to rein in an archer with coldcheese, though). That said, IMO it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to require a player to explain how the ED makes sense for the character, or to develop some kind of story requirement before they can take the ED.

 

[Ryujin]

Well having the cold cheese Ranger and sold cheese Thief get dropped into a room full of resist cold 20 and 30 elementals certainly reined in the damage a bit.

 

[chitzk0i]

If he gets it, then I doubt that the average solo could stand for more than a couple of rounds against his cold/fire/radiance.

You are the DM. As the referee and storyteller, you can say that this choice would push the character optimization too far and detract from the game. Politely explain your reasons and work with the player to find an ED that's more a flavor match.

Well having the cold cheese Ranger and sold cheese Thief get dropped into a room full of resist cold 20 and 30 elementals certainly reined in the damage a bit.

It's not practical to just add resist cold to every enemy in the rest of the campaign, though. If the big bad could custom-design troops to confront the party, their distinctive trick could work against them, but you'd still want to let them cut loose and get use out of it from time to time.

 

[Ryujin]

You are the DM. As the referee and storyteller, you can say that this choice would push the character optimization too far and detract from the game. Politely explain your reasons and work with the player to find an ED that's more a flavor match.

Of course but I was hoping for a game-based, rather than a story-based reason.

It's not practical to just add resist cold to every enemy in the rest of the campaign, though. If the big bad could custom-design troops to confront the party, their distinctive trick could work against them, but you'd still want to let them cut loose and get use out of it from time to time.

I have no intention to do that. There are, however, a great number of demons and elementals in their future. Variable resistance will get quite the workout.

 

[Riastlin]

Well I dislike adding damage, just for the sake of adding damage, and I would like there to be some sort of connection between the character and the ED.

IMHO, the extra damage here probably won't be all that big of an issue. That being said though, I totally hear you with regard to having a connection between the character and the ED. While I have no problem with players who prefer to play mechanics over story/roleplay/etc. it does kind of irk me at times. As an example, I have a player in my current campaign that is considering taking one of the FR Chosen ED's. No matter that throughout 16 levels of play his character has never once mentioned her deity. I realize that extreme devotion to one's deity is not per se a requirement for the Chosen EDs but still you'd like to think the character at least acknowledges said deity at some point during their career.

As others have said though, I agree with the principle that its perfectly fine for the DM to request an in-game connection/explanation for the mechanical choices made by a character (particularly ones as big as ED and PP).

 

[Ryujin]

IMHO, the extra damage here probably won't be all that big of an issue. That being said though, I totally hear you with regard to having a connection between the character and the ED. While I have no problem with players who prefer to play mechanics over story/roleplay/etc. it does kind of irk me at times. As an example, I have a player in my current campaign that is considering taking one of the FR Chosen ED's. No matter that throughout 16 levels of play his character has never once mentioned her deity. I realize that extreme devotion to one's deity is not per se a requirement for the Chosen EDs but still you'd like to think the character at least acknowledges said deity at some point during their career.

As others have said though, I agree with the principle that its perfectly fine for the DM to request an in-game connection/explanation for the mechanical choices made by a character (particularly ones as big as ED and PP).

Fortunately, in this case, the player has finally relented and decided to take the Guardian of the Void ED. Since he's a follower of The Raven Queen, and the party will be elevated to Epic while actually in The Shadowfell, this makes a lot more sense thematically. I might even have a little cameo appearance, by Herself, when they actually hit 21st.

What I haven't told them, as a group, is that their characters won't be able to attain their 'immortality' if they don't take a ED that is in keeping with their character concept, up until this point, or the style with which they've played the character. This is only a story based slap-down, but I'm considering some mechanical effects too as they move through Epic. The less you are 'yourself', the harder things become. For example if the Avenger, who has been styling himself as "The Hand of Kord" since 1st level doesn't take something in keeping with that, Kord won't be pleased.

Of course none of this does anything to answer my original question, regarding the Radiant One ED and how it's been opened up to all 21st level characters again

 

[keterys]

Seems to me that, when I was playing my Fey/Darklock, the Radiant One epic destiny had been subject to errata, to make it Warlock only. Now, when I look at both CB and Compendium (which likely use the same data source now), it's back to the original "21st Level" requirement.

You might be thinking of the Student of Caiphon paragon path, which was errata-ed to be more restricted to warlock abilities rather than being a goto for anyone who did radiant damage.