Here we go again: Rogues, Frost Weapon, and the Wintertouched Feat

[BobTheNob]

To me, a small combination of feats(which have usefulness beond just their synergy) + an item = (effictively) permanent CA for a class that is meant to be challenged to pull CA out of every situation is a OP.

Drawing out CA is the "skill" involved in playing a rogue well. All this does is succeeed in removing that. They no longer have to maneavour, they no longer have to focus on powers that can aid them in drawing CA, they no longer have to think...they are just given CA on a silver platter.

Dont get me wrong, its surprise damage that defines the rogue class and I am overjoyed whenever our rogue can do something to justify it. But thats the entire point : He had to do something to earn it.

To me, things like this are just death knells to keeping the game interesting. Its like playing Marios Carts, but the computer does the stearing for you and you always win...Whats the point of even playing?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

To me, a small combination of feats(which have usefulness beond just their synergy) + an item = (effictively) permanent CA for a class that is meant to be challenged to pull CA out of every situation is a OP.

Which usefulness beyond their synergy?
I'm not sure if your read my posts and even looked up the weapon enchants.
I get the feeling that you already made your decision and hoped to get more people who would be on your side.

Drawing out CA is the "skill" involved in playing a rogue well. All this does is succeeed in removing that. They no longer have to maneavour, they no longer have to focus on powers that can aid them in drawing CA, they no longer have to think...they are just given CA on a silver platter.

Where is the problem the player decided to pick an easy way to get what he wants. It is not the best way, he might be dealing more damage if he was thinking more about how to play a rogue and had spent his resources on two different feats and another weapon.

You talk like the ROG will just walk right through your dungeon killing everything in its way alone. If the rogue sets out alone he'll get beaten up and the work day for your grp will be shorter thanks to someone burning right through his healing surges. And note if the rogue does not set up flanks one of his allies is probably missing the flanking bonus.

Dont get me wrong, its surprise damage that defines the rogue class and I am overjoyed whenever our rogue can do something to justify it. But thats the entire point : He had to do something to earn it.

Why must a ROG at all costs work hard to get something out of his class. A Tempest Fighter could deal more damage with an at-will attack by just standing in front of the opponent and rolling a dice twice. And he is not even a striker.

To me, things like this are just death knells to keeping the game interesting. Its like playing Marios Carts, but the computer does the stearing for you and you always win...Whats the point of even playing?

Because we all tried to show you frost weapon + lasting frost + wintertouched =|= auto win. And it is not even the best choice ATM for a rogue weapon.

 

[BobTheNob]

All points well taken.

Except...

A rogues surprise damage is higher than other strikers. So yes, I believe they have to work for it harder than other strikers would. If you dont follow that philosophy, you contribute to making other striker classes reundant.

As for pattern observation I have played more RPG's than you can throw a stick at. More than 20 years of this as a hobby we have played them all and there is a pattern to when the game ends. Its when there is nothing left to achieve, and its always when the players have figured out the loop holes and invalidated the challenge. Every time we have ended a game we have been playing (2nd edition, 3rd edition, 3.5, shadowrun, sla industries, rolemaster...we have played em all!) it has been this reason. This is why "rule scams" scare the out of me. Because they end games.

I wont comment any more on whether this is a broken scenario. Frankly, I am willing to accept global consensus and review my position.

 

[Saeviomagy]

All points well taken.
A rogues surprise damage is higher than other strikers. So yes, I believe they have to work for it harder than other strikers would. If you dont follow that philosophy, you contribute to making other striker classes reundant.

In the past 5 combats, my rogue has not made a single attack without combat advantage. I don't have access to wintertouched or the like, nor any other power that flat-out grants CA. I flank, I hit prone targets, I hit surprised targets. I don't waste rounds setting up CA and doing nothing else either.

Incidentally, you should perhaps run the numbers before you decide that strategy X will make a class or classes redundant. A ranger utilizing this combo does more damage than a rogue doing so (primarily because he will typically hit multiple times in a round and gain +5 damage on each hit).

In my book, it's the extra +5 damage per attack that is the problem, not the combat advantage, and it's a problem no matter who takes it (even it's intended audience, magic users with frost spells). The CA is a bigger problem when given to a spellcaster also (because normally he wouldn't get CA, while a striker can usually get it with ease).

 

[BobTheNob]

In the past 5 combats, my rogue has not made a single attack without combat advantage.

Incidentally, you should perhaps run the numbers before you decide that strategy X will make a class or classes redundant. A ranger utilizing this combo does more damage than a rogue doing so (primarily because he will typically hit multiple times in a round and gain +5 damage on each hit).

In my book, it's the extra +5 damage per attack that is the problem, not the combat advantage, and it's a problem no matter who takes it (even it's intended audience, magic users with frost spells). The CA is a bigger problem when given to a spellcaster also (because normally he wouldn't get CA, while a striker can usually get it with ease).

My original response, and the entire point Im trying to make in responding to this thread (which is the bit you *didnt* quote), is that as GM's when we find scenarios that unnaturally (by our perception) put characters ahead of the curve or in some way remove the element of challenge, we have to be willing to respond with house rule and ajustments.

The very fact that you said "this is worse" for rangers just verifies this. Fine, its more of a problem with rangers. Then as a DM react how you see fit (btw, thanks for pointing that out, I will take under advisement).

If we staticly sit back and say "the rules said X so I will do X" even when we think its wrong would make us useless in our roles and keepers of the game. The DM is more than a rule enforcer, hes a policy maker, and frankly, given lack of bias, hes it the only one who can.

 

[Bumamgar]

As has been said elsewhere, Rogues were balanced based on the assumption that they'd have CA every attack and be able to do their Sneak Damage once per round, every round. The designers intended this, and as others have posted, it's fairly easy to gain CA even without this combo.

I play a rogue in a party with three strikers (Bow Ranger, StarLock and my Artful Dodger Dagger Rogue) and the ranger consistently out-damages me. My Rogue beats out the StarLock, but there are plenty of times when my Vicious Fullblade wielding Fighter outdamages everyone

My Rogue nearly always has CA without resorting to this combo, and I don't intend on ever building a character with this combo, as there are plenty of better feat options which grant greater benefits to the class. That said, I don't think it is broken in any way, and fully expect to see other elements covered with similar feats in splat books.

Frankly, a Rogue without CA is going to be extremely sub-par on the damage meter. If your party members aren't using team tactics and power synergies to ensure that the Rogue has CA every round, resorting to this build to be able to self-CA reliably is a good plan. However, the party that works as a team and uses the wide range of CA granting powers and tactics to ensure that everyone is attacking with CA as often is possible will do much better than one where each character is only 'self optimised' without playing to party synergies and group tactics.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

My original response, and the entire point Im trying to make in responding to this thread (which is the bit you *didnt* quote), is that as GM's when we find scenarios that unnaturally (by our perception) put characters ahead of the curve or in some way remove the element of challenge, we have to be willing to respond with house rule and ajustments.

The very fact that you said "this is worse" for rangers just verifies this. Fine, its more of a problem with rangers. Then as a DM react how you see fit (btw, thanks for pointing that out, I will take under advisement).

If we staticly sit back and say "the rules said X so I will do X" even when we think its wrong would make us useless in our roles and keepers of the game. The DM is more than a rule enforcer, hes a policy maker, and frankly, given lack of bias, hes it the only one who can.

DMs should/could check the rules and every item, feat, class, PP and so on and see wether they are broken or not. To be honest I don't do that (for all things I mentioned). I read posts on D&D boards and if something catches my attention it might be good or poor or maybe broken. But I will read what other people have to say and I will listen to good arguments, like dpr comparisons, or I just do some mathematics on my own.
We are still talking about frost weapons, although I pointed out some other weapon enchants that deal even more damage. I haven't had a single reply on those. They deal by far more damage like +18 (bloodclaw) on a hit, compared to +5 and you are still worrying about those frost weapons.

If you are so worried about that combo breaking your game just say that those two feats require the arcane power source, the result will be that your ROG/RNG has to spent three feats to get the combo.

As has been said elsewhere, Rogues were balanced based on the assumption that they'd have CA every attack and be able to do their Sneak Damage once per round, every round. The designers intended this, and as others have posted, it's fairly easy to gain CA even without this combo.

I play a rogue in a party with three strikers (Bow Ranger, StarLock and my Artful Dodger Dagger Rogue) and the ranger consistently out-damages me. My Rogue beats out the StarLock, but there are plenty of times when my Vicious Fullblade wielding Fighter outdamages everyone

My Rogue nearly always has CA without resorting to this combo, and I don't intend on ever building a character with this combo, as there are plenty of better feat options which grant greater benefits to the class. That said, I don't think it is broken in any way, and fully expect to see other elements covered with similar feats in splat books.

Frankly, a Rogue without CA is going to be extremely sub-par on the damage meter. If your party members aren't using team tactics and power synergies to ensure that the Rogue has CA every round, resorting to this build to be able to self-CA reliably is a good plan. However, the party that works as a team and uses the wide range of CA granting powers and tactics to ensure that everyone is attacking with CA as often is possible will do much better than one where each character is only 'self optimised' without playing to party synergies and group tactics.

You sir, made an awesome post!

 

[FadedC]

The problem with these feats and weapon combination isn't so bad if it's only the rogue who uses them. But it does become an issue when every one else in the party realizes they need to start using frost weapons/spells and pick up the wintertouched feat as well (and maybe have one or two more people with lasting frost to ensure it's always up). Getting +2 to hit and +5 damage on all your attacks and spells is a little too good to not use a frost weapon.

 

[Anguirus]

A rogues surprise damage is higher than other strikers

Because his base damage die is lower than all other strikers. We are talking d4/d6 vs. d8/d10/d12 here.

But it does become an issue when every one else in the party realizes they need to start using frost weapons/spells and pick up the wintertouched feat as well (and maybe have one or two more people with lasting frost to ensure it's always up). Getting +2 to hit and +5 damage on all your attacks and spells is a little too good to not use a frost weapon.

Considering that everyone spending two feats and using a frost weapon in order to get this is almost certainly suboptimal, if a group wants to do this for thematic reasons more power to them.

 

[FadedC]

Because his base damage die is lower than all other strikers. We are talking d4/d6 vs. d8/d10/d12 here.



Considering that everyone spending two feats and using a frost weapon in order to get this is almost certainly suboptimal, if a group wants to do this for thematic reasons more power to them.

Well first off everyone only needs to spend 1 feat, you just need a few with lasting frost. Secondly I'm not sure spending 2 feats for +2 to hit and +5 to damage is suboptimal. It certainly gives you way more then any other 2 feats would.