Infernal Hexblade and Arcane Admixture

[stonegod]

Hexblade powers actually have both the weapon AND implement keywords - making them pretty unique as far as powers go. A Hexblades pact weapon is a heavy/light blade with a fixed damage die, but they also get the properties and benefits of their implement at the same time. The really confusing thing in the rules for them isn't DIS, it's if they can get light blade expertise through the use of a pact blade implement (which can be a light blade) on their heavy blade pact weapon. Nobody has been able to conclusively answer that one unfortunately.

Yup for the first. They are Weapon and Implement powers, and the weapon inherits the properties and powers of the implement.

As for Light Blade Expertise, I'd argue that it does not apply as that is a property of the feat, not the weapon. Light Blade is a Grouping, not a Property, and thus not inherited.

 

[stonegod]

That said, because the Hexblade's powers are weapon powers, you can just simply use a weapon with them.

All the Hexblade Weapon powers require the Hexblade weapon to function, not any weapon (it's in the power).

 

[BobTheNob]

I really have to point people up the thread before I begin. I did not originally submit this "Dual Weapon" approach and do not like at all. I examine it for my understanding of the rules as a DM.

I am contemplating a hexblade on change of campaign (when I can finally play!) but I would not do this.

1) Dual Implement Spellcaster does not allow you to use the properties of your off-hand to modify attacks made with your main-hand. Specifically, you're not actually attacking with your off-hand, and therefore powers it has that allow you to change the damage done with attacks it makes are pointless, because you're never making attacks with that off-hand accessory.

Never actually said that Dual Implement spell caster transfers properties. My understanding was that the transfer of properties was built into the hexblades summoned weapon. I dont have the book in front of me, is anyone able to confirm this for me?

Even so, I actually have a doubt in so far as a "elemental" weapons ability to change damage type is a power, and do the powers of the implement pass to the hexblade weapon?

2) Hexblade powers are weapon powers. Dual Implement Spellcaster works with Implement powers. Why this does not work out in your favor is an exercise for the student.

When Stonegod first suggested this approach I checked. Hexblade powers have both the implement AND weapon keyword. Strange huh?

So lets say you have Arcane implement proficiency : Heavy Blades. You have a "Flaming heavy Blade" in your offhand. You then summon your hexblade weapon. Now you have a Heavy blade in your primary hand, which has the same enhancement bonus as the implement you used to summon it.

You would never attack with your offhand weapon (you have no attacks that allow it), but technically you hold 2 implements and are using powers that have the implement keyword. So now we have one of those odd situations that pop up in rule growth...can the summoned weapon act as an implement in its own right? By my understanding, yes it can, but I am very eager to hear otherwise. I find this all a little cheesy and would be delighted for it to be debunked.

(Disclaimer : This is entirely academic. I would never play a character with this config. It is not what I envisaged and the find it all a little cheesy. Our group players characters...not eclectic rule collections and number combination's)

 

[stonegod]

I don't think its cheesy (actually fits a character concept I had with a hexblade in 3.5). It may not be what the designers intended by RAW, I agree.

Anyway, here's the related text from the compendium.

You can make weapon attacks with your pact weapon, using its proficiency bonus and the appropriate damage die. Your pact weapon shares your implement’s enhancement bonus, critical hit effect, properties, and powers. The weapon cannot be enchanted.

When you use a power associated with your pact weapon and the power has both the weapon and the implement keyword, you are considered to be wielding both your pact weapon and your implement for the purpose of feats and other game elements.

So:
- Properties, Powers, and Crit Effects transfer. Thus, a Flaming Drpw Long Knife transfers the Flaming power to the Hexblade Weapon/Implement powers
- Groups don't transfer (so no Light Blade Expertise on the Heavy Blade Hexblades)
- If I have Arcane Implement Prof (Heavy Blades) and wield said Flaming Drow Long Knife in the Off hand, I am wielding two implements. Dual Implement Spellcaster applies*.
- I am also wielding Two Weapons; Two Weapon Fighting applies.

* TWF always applies. The only nit is in the whether the last sentence in DIS precludes the use for Hexblade powers:

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.

Both of your implements must be usable with this power, and you must be capable of wielding both implements, to gain this benefit.

Are both usable with the power? The weapon is usable (and is in fact required to be used). This nit comes when you realize you cannot use the power with just the weapon; you have to have an implement in hand to summon the blade in the first place:

While you hold your implement in one hand, you can use a minor action to manifest your pact weapon in the other hand.

So, the power is not usable with the Blade by itself, but it is usable with the blade and the implement (and in fact, must be used that way). The feat does not say each has to be used individually.

I am comfortable in saying you can use DIS with a Hexblade. It doesn't beat out the damage of a Slayer, say (not at Heroic, anyway). In any case, you can still do the "Make my Hexblade Flaming/Frost/Lighting/whatever" trick w/o DIS.

 

[DracoSuave]

I am comfortable in saying you can use DIS with a Hexblade. It doesn't beat out the damage of a Slayer, say (not at Heroic, anyway). In any case, you can still do the "Make my Hexblade Flaming/Frost/Lighting/whatever" trick w/o DIS.

In that case, I would agree.

(damn me not having information in front of me)

 

[Destil]

Necrotic resistance and radiant vulnerability are way too pervasive in the core rules as written. That said just because something more common, statistically, doesn't mean it should be in an actual campaign. If you have a serious problem with this in game it would be better to just mention it to the DM than try and look for a mechanical work around.

 

[BobTheNob]

Necrotic resistance and radiant vulnerability are way too pervasive in the core rules as written. That said just because something more common, statistically, doesn't mean it should be in an actual campaign. If you have a serious problem with this in game it would be better to just mention it to the DM than try and look for a mechanical work around.

This would be far more ideal. I am still waiting for my copy of Monster vault (out of stock...expect delivery Jan 26! Unbelieveable) so has the situation changed at all?

The propensity of necrotic resist, fire resist and radiant vuln is really where the problem lies. Necrotic and Fire should NOT be inferior choices any more than any other damage source. Creature design seems to have favored fluff over mechanics, and whilst SOME creatures should have necrotic resist, taking an entire subset as iconic as undead and putting the resist across the board is alienating for classes(/powers) that do necrotic damage.

Damn straight, we shouldnt be looking for work arounds. The problem shouldnt exist in the first place.

But the problem does exist, so without house ruling, work arounds are required.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

As stated previously, it really depends on the campaign - in my campaign, the characters very rarely fight undead (maybe 6 encounters in 10 levels), so the vast majority of the time, monsters will not have necrotic resistance.

Same goes for fire resistance - I think they've faced 2 encounters with monsters resistant to fire - indeed, the one monster they've faced that was immune to lightning (shambling mound) was a much bigger issue - not only did it take no damage from a critical with an encounter power, but it was healed by it.

So, one can't simply look at the published monsters and say "necrotic resistance is the most common resistance, so necrotic damage is useless" - how useless it is really depends on what monsters are actually used in your campaign.

That said, I can understand it being frustrating when such encounters DO occur, especially if they occur frequently.

 

[Ryujin]

Necrotic resistance and radiant vulnerability are way too pervasive in the core rules as written. That said just because something more common, statistically, doesn't mean it should be in an actual campaign. If you have a serious problem with this in game it would be better to just mention it to the DM than try and look for a mechanical work around.

I wouldn't call them rules pervasive, but they're perhaps over-used in the presented adventure paths. Once my character acquired a Skull Mask, certain encounters became far less challenging for me. This was compounded by the fact that, as a Feylock, he was frequently ignored in combat as not being a serious threat, or as too hard to nail down because of multiple teleport powers.

Playing a Darklock, in such an adventure path, is close to useless. You really have to find a way to generate alternative damage types, or add additional damage keywords, as necrotic and poison damage just don't cut it.

 

[Destil]

I wouldn't call them rules pervasive, but they're perhaps over-used in the presented adventure paths. Once my character acquired a Skull Mask, certain encounters became far less challenging for me. This was compounded by the fact that, as a Feylock, he was frequently ignored in combat as not being a serious threat, or as too hard to nail down because of multiple teleport powers.

Playing a Darklock, in such an adventure path, is close to useless. You really have to find a way to generate alternative damage types, or add additional damage keywords, as necrotic and poison damage just don't cut it.

It's the classic argument of "X percent of monsters in the official books have resistance to Y" argument. I don't agree with it at all (or the related 'Fort is the worst defense to target'), but as a DM I go to effort to keep that sort of thing from being an issue in my campaign.

So, yeah. Bit of a problem with the books, something (somewhat) easily fixed by the DM. But huge problem in a module/path. I can see that.