Does anyone else think this is a bug in CB?

[CovertOps]

@AbdulAlhazred:

My party composition for the fight in question was as follows(level 14):
Ranger: 422 37.1%
Fighter (Urgrosh): 225 19.8%
Bard: 156 13.7%
Rogue: 130 11.4%
Sorcerer: 101 8.9%
Warlord: 52 4.6%
Fighter(sword/board): 50 4.4%


With optimization I was able to take the Rogue from +9/+14 (Sly Flourish) to +15/+20 and a guaranteed way to get sneak attack damage in every round for 3d8 + 5 (Footpad's Friend for the +5) so this essentially makes it +20/+25. In addition a +2 to hit, +3 AC, +3 Reflex.

The Sorcerer I took from +18 to +26 with minor feat and item changes.

I do have a complaint about my Bard. He has this ability then when one of my creatures misses he can slide it 1 or 2 squares (can't recall) and the whole fight he kept moving the monsters OUT of their flanked position between the Rogue and someone else.

 

[DracoSuave]

You sir have missed the entire point of using the Inherent bonuses if you have to keep getting new magic weapon/armor/neck every 5 levels.

You don't have to.

OH NO AN OPTIONAL RULE DOESN'T MAKE EVERY FEAT IN THE GAME WORK PERFECTLY OFF OF IT.

Also, Character Builder + off hand anything = doesn't work, never has.

Dual implement isn't a required feat no matter what people might claim or say. Inherent bonuses are only granted once, and as it is the same game element, it cannot stack with itself.

Come to think of it, staff fighting won't allow staffs, as double weapons, to work with Dual Implement Spellcaster anymore, because of the 'same named game element rule.' Your Staff of Ruin's enhancement bonus cannot stack with your Staff of Ruin's enhancement bonus, because even tho dual implement creates an exception to how enhancement bonuses stack, it doesn't change the fact both bonuses are from a Staff of Ruin, and therefore cannot stack.

 

[CovertOps]

Come to think of it, staff fighting won't allow staffs, as double weapons, to work with Dual Implement Spellcaster anymore, because of the 'same named game element rule.' Your Staff of Ruin's enhancement bonus cannot stack with your Staff of Ruin's enhancement bonus, because even tho dual implement creates an exception to how enhancement bonuses stack, it doesn't change the fact both bonuses are from a Staff of Ruin, and therefore cannot stack.

First DIS does not create an exception to how enhancement bonuses stack. It grants you a untyped bonus equal to the enhancement bonus of the equipped off-hand item.

Second DIS is the "named game element" source of the bonus not the equipped item.

Third Staff Fighting is not required to equip a staff two handed. It is required if you are a Ranger and want to use twin-strike with it. It also as a bonus gives the staff the defensive property.

 

[DracoSuave]

First DIS does not create an exception to how enhancement bonuses stack. It grants you a untyped bonus equal to the enhancement bonus of the equipped off-hand item.

'When you use an arcane attack power and you are wielding a magic implement in each hand, you can add the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus to damage rolls.'

The feat doesn't say anything about that. It says you can add the other implements enhancement bonus to damage rolls, contradicting the rule on bonus stacking, and thusly, specific beating general, you can therefore add both enhancement bonuses.

It does NOT create another bonus type, nor does it even infer it. It blatantly says 'You add that other thing there.' There is no bonus laundering going on with DIS.

Second DIS is the "named game element" source of the bonus not the equipped item.

DIS seems to have wording other than what you claim.

Third Staff Fighting is not required to equip a staff two handed. It is required if you are a Ranger and want to use twin-strike with it. It also as a bonus gives the staff the defensive property.

The 'combo' was using a staff with Staff Fighting and DIS so that the staff acts as both the off-hand and the main hand. This would work because the staff would be wielded in the off-hand and in the main hand. Thusly, you're wielding implements in both hands... DIS doesn't actually require two implements.

However, let's say it's a staff of ruin. Staff of Ruin's enhancement bonus carries the same name as Staff of Ruin's enhancement bonus (because they are the same thing) and therefore cannot stack without an explicit exception to the same name rule. DIS only creates an exception to how adding multiple enhancement bonuses stack.

IAoP are not replaced every 5 levels like the 3 core Enhancement items are.

No, instead of +1 every 5 levels, it's +2 every 10 levels.

And as we know, the rate 1/5 is TOTALLY different than 2/10.



Seriously tho, if you're running the inherent bonus varient, and your players are trying to use magic bonuses to minmax, etc, might I entertain the notion that someone in this situation doesn't quite understand the entire point of what's going on there. 'We have this rule so you don't have to deal in magic bonuses.' 'Awesome, why doesn't it work with magic bonuses properly! I'm trying to minmax my magic bonuses!'

That's the point where you take the IAoP and the DIS from the players, and go 'Seriously guys, pay attention to what the hells going on in this damn game.'

 

[CovertOps]

'When you use an arcane attack power and you are wielding a magic implement in each hand, you can add the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus to damage rolls.'

The feat doesn't say anything about that. It says you can add the other implements enhancement bonus to damage rolls, contradicting the rule on bonus stacking, and thusly, specific beating general, you can therefore add both enhancement bonuses.

It does NOT create another bonus type, nor does it even infer it. It blatantly says 'You add that other thing there.' There is no bonus laundering going on with DIS.

'When you use an arcane attack power and you are wielding a magic implement in each hand, you can add [the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus] OR [quantity] to damage rolls.'

There is no explicit type given to the bonus therefore it is untyped and stacks with anything.

DIS seems to have wording other than what you claim.

See the above. DIS grants an untyped bonus, therefore DIS is the source of the bonus. The enhancement bonus is only used to determine the quantity of said bonus.

The 'combo' was using a staff with Staff Fighting and DIS so that the staff acts as both the off-hand and the main hand. This would work because the staff would be wielded in the off-hand and in the main hand. Thusly, you're wielding implements in both hands... DIS doesn't actually require two implements.

However, let's say it's a staff of ruin. Staff of Ruin's enhancement bonus carries the same name as Staff of Ruin's enhancement bonus (because they are the same thing) and therefore cannot stack without an explicit exception to the same name rule. DIS only creates an exception to how adding multiple enhancement bonuses stack.

You are probably right about needing Staff Fighting. Stupid CB lets you do it without. GAAAHHHH. As for the rest, your point rests on the "type" of bonus being granted. Since I have already proven that DIS is an untyped bonus this is all incorrect.

No, instead of +1 every 5 levels, it's +2 every 10 levels.

And as we know, the rate 1/5 is TOTALLY different than 2/10.

The games math expects you to have the "big three" every 5 levels. IAoP is not the "big three". They are only a min/maxers dream because they are the "best" item for that slot if you are a weapon user, but they are in no way "required". My position was never about the rate, but the expected math involved with "Inherent" which only addresses the "big three".

Seriously tho, if you're running the inherent bonus varient, and your players are trying to use magic bonuses to minmax, etc, might I entertain the notion that someone in this situation doesn't quite understand the entire point of what's going on there. 'We have this rule so you don't have to deal in magic bonuses.' 'Awesome, why doesn't it work with magic bonuses properly! I'm trying to minmax my magic bonuses!'

That's the point where you take the IAoP and the DIS from the players, and go 'Seriously guys, pay attention to what the hells going on in this damn game.'

I, the DM, am trying to help my players because I don't like 5 hour combats against level n encounters. As DM all I can do is suggest combinations of powers that "should" work together and in the process of looking for things that work I found one that reads like it should, but CB does not agree hence I believe it to be a "bug" rather than a mis-reading of the rules. If possible I prefer for my players to be able to generate their characters in CB without having to edit them manually after the fact.

If you care to disagree with my reading of DIS I'll be glad to debate it with you DS, but I think you're on slippery footing.

 

[Aegeri]

'When you use an arcane attack power and you are wielding a magic implement in each hand, you can add [the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus] OR [quantity] to damage rolls.'

There is no explicit type given to the bonus therefore it is untyped and stacks with anything.

You are constantly missing the point every time. The point is that you're using two NON-MAGICAL implements. DIS specifically states you need to be using two MAGICAL implements. If your two implements ARE NOT MAGICAL then DIS doesn't work.

Inherent bonuses DO NOT MAKE YOUR WEAPONS AND IMPLEMENTS MAGICAL.

For the last time, this is why it doesn't work.

 

[Oldtimer]

'When you use an arcane attack power and you are wielding a magic implement in each hand, you can add [the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus] OR [quantity] to damage rolls.'

There is no explicit type given to the bonus therefore it is untyped and stacks with anything.

So let's all change the wording of rules so that they better fit our opinions...

DracoSuave quoted the rules verbatim. I have no idea what you are quoting. Clearly the wording of DIS lets you add two enhancement bonuses in direct contradiction to the general rule of bonus stacking. The type given is very clearly enhancement bonus. Are you sure you are reading the same rules? Or are you just making things up as you go?

I suggest you re-read the feat in Arcane Power or the compendium.

 

[CovertOps]

So let's all change the wording of rules so that they better fit our opinions...

DracoSuave quoted the rules verbatim. I have no idea what you are quoting. Clearly the wording of DIS lets you add two enhancement bonuses in direct contradiction to the general rule of bonus stacking. The type given is very clearly enhancement bonus. Are you sure you are reading the same rules? Or are you just making things up as you go?

I suggest you re-read the feat in Arcane Power or the compendium.

I am highlighting the exact wording of the of the feat the same as Draco did. Words have meaning. In this case [the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus] has meaning....it means how much bonus do we get. If it somehow does NOT mean this then you get no bonus at all.

Assumption: You are wielding a +1 implement in your off hand.
This:

When you use an arcane attack power and you are wielding a magic implement in each hand, you can add [the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus] to damage rolls.

and this:

When you use an arcane attack power and you are wielding a magic implement in each hand, you can add [1] to damage rolls.

are the exact same thing.

If we can't agree on that then we have nothing further to discuss. Nothing less than that full phrase stipulates the exact amount of the bonus you get to add to damage.

the off-hand

off hand what?

the off-hand implement's

off hand implement's what?

the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus [ = 1]

Once you take that phrase out and replace it with it's numeric value you are left with untyped damage. This is not rocket science.

 

[Nifft]

Dual Implement Spellcaster isn't the only thing invalidated by using Inherent bonuses instead of the usual magic items.

I don't think it's a bug, but I do think it's a rather arbitrary thing, and I could see a GM ruling either way fairly.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kingreaper]

Once you take that phrase out and replace it with it's numeric value you are left with untyped damage. This is not rocket science.

No.

It doesn't say "an amount equal to the enhancement bonus".
It says "enhancement bonus"

An enhancement bonus is not a number, it is an enhancement bonus.

Do you disagree with this statement:
An enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus]
?

Otherwise, when an implement says that you add it's enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls: well, it doesn't say you add it's enhancement bonus as an enhancement bonus, so it must be an untyped bonus right?
Same with neck slot items clearly...