Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 5536931" data-attributes="member: 63763">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.  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].  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.   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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> He should be best at using weapons.</blockquote>

Verification