ignore

[pathfinderq1]

So, as a not-judge, I know my actual vote doesn't count- but as someone playing a swordmage (and having the feat in question), I would like to state that I'm not very keen on being retroactively nerfed. Certainly it doesn't look like the feat is such a smash hit that people are playing a swordmage just so they can use this feat, and that would be the point where I would think about a ban.

 

[renau1g]

I'm not keen on it either path, but the rationale for the re-consideration is based on the same reasoning reaper's touch isn't allowed in.

Again THB you are further re-iterating my point that this feat is almost a must have for int-based defender types, therefore it becomes a requirement, therefore bland, therefore reducing the diversity of characters.

Also, reaper's touch isn't so great that one would jump at playing a wizard to have a mediocre at-will melee basic attack.

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Again THB you are further re-iterating my point that this feat is almost a must have for int-based defender types, therefore it becomes a requirement, therefore bland, therefore reducing the diversity of characters.

Also, reaper's touch isn't so great that one would jump at playing a wizard to have a mediocre at-will melee basic attack.

I agree completely.

I still think this proposal in particular is silly. If you want Reaper's Touch, why not make your case in the Dragon 372 proposal? This is about whether Intelligent Blademaster should be banned, and I don't see why it should.

 

[covaithe]

Since this thread is pretty clearly directed at me, I suppose I should take the time to answer it. Though, to be honest, I'm starting to feel like I'm throwing good time after bad, since I'm not convinced this proposal is serious.

Three points.

1. There are two reasons, separate reasons, why I don't like reaper's touch: one is that it reduces tactical complexity by making some classes more effective outside their role, and the other has to do with creating a "required" feat. Parallel reasoning, if you can call it that, only applies to the latter. Giving a strong basic melee attack to a defender doesn't exactly change the tactical situation.

2. I dislike "required" feats, like melee training, because they limit choice. However, some classes really are broken without them. Melee bards or clerics or avengers are in a worse position than swordmages here. I wouldn't mind so much if it were just that they were at a slight numerical disadvantage; I just hate the arbitrariness of the fact that, here's a character concept built to be effective in melee, but they have a bad basic attack for purely historical reasons (basic attack tied to strength). WotC have chosen to "fix" this with a feat again, rather than, say, providing alternate rules for calculating basic attacks in general, for their own reasons (which I suspect have more to do with not liking to admit that they got something wrong, rather than any design considerations). I dislike melee training, I don't think we can get rid of it without fixing WotC's blunder in some other way.

Obviously it's pointless to talk about the intelligent blademaster feat without also talking about melee training. I can't imagine any good reason why this proposal mentions one and not the other.

3. Because renau1g asked, I tried (several times) to explain my reasoning for why I voted the way I did on reaper's touch. Apparently, this proposal is the result. If this keeps happening, I'm going to stop explaining myself and just stick to yes or no, with no explanations.

 

[renau1g]

My apologies to Covaithe on this, it definitely came across as sour grapes (and most likely) seems what it was.

No excuse but yesterday I had a high fever and wasn't feeling great, I probably was being more of a jerk than normal (which I hope I'm not)

Anyways, I've removed this proposal.

 

[CaBaNa]

I'm not thread jacking if the thread title is ignore...

ren don't feel too bad, Warlocks are getting the short end of the stick...

Cov don't feel bad at all, judges make judgement calls... (and people are going to disagree)

I doubt anyone is specifically targeting warlocks with these adjustments. (and if they are, maybe they have more warlock in them than they think...)

However, they are the only striker that is handicapped at melee range.

sorcerer has close burst/blast (or dagger channeling), in order to achieve a basic melee attack using an at-will

Ranger/rogue use melee weapons, and are often effective at range as well.

strikers are supposed to be effective at both ranges.

In fact the only person who shouldn't be able to take reaper's touch is the wizard. However what wizard (outside of human) would give up two controller at-wills and a feat in order to do striker damage on OA's that they will NEVER get...

Bullet Points:

*I respect the judges decisions (mostly because you explained it, and you DID think out your conclusion)

*I disagree with the judges decision on reapers touch (because I came to a different conclusion)

*Required feats can have a free fix in our world, should they? (Cov = Genius on this one...)

*Sour grapes taste bad, but make good wine (he he I can't be serious too long.

*I support both Renau1g and Covaithe

Out of Bullets

Can we use this space for up with a fix for WoTC Feat Taxes?

It seems there are several hidden ones, and everyone agrees they are needed yet suck. heck, we could even hand out 1 free feat at 1st level. Now you have space for your feat tax feat, and your actual feat.

Choose your feat tax feat from this list: (I haven't made a list)

(typed but not read or edited.)