Look Ma- Rules Updates!

[Mapache]

Also, RE: all the "swordmages got hosed" comments. The swordmage's job is to defend, not dole out damage. So when the swordmage is at level 30 and dealing 3 less points of damage than he used to be able to (presumably with only some of his powers), why should you care?

Yes, this change is unfortunate for them, but I think folks are getting a bit more upset about this than is warranted.

Just because you're not a Striker doesn't mean you're not supposed to deal damage. *Everyone* is supposed to deal damage; Strikers are just supposed to deal *more* of it. Assault Swordmages in particular rely upon the threat of damage for enforcing their mark, so reducing their damage does, in fact, hurt their ability to defend.

The real problem is that some classes are getting hurt by how the rules are structured and not for valid reasons. Why do swordmages need two take two Focus feats? Because they were doing too much damage? No, because they were written so that some of their attacks have a Weapon keyword and some of them have an Implement keyword. Does using multiple keywords provide any benefit to counteract the feat tax? No. Could the feats have been written so that it didn't hurt classes that are designed as weapliment users without overpowering staves relative to other implements? Yes, "Focus: Choose a weapon or implement you can wield. You get a +1/2/3 feat bonus to damage rolls with the chosen weapon or implement." Or, hell, just drop all the pretenses and go with "Focus: You get a +1/2/3 feat bonus to damage rolls."

 

[Obryn]

Just because you're not a Striker doesn't mean you're not supposed to deal damage. *Everyone* is supposed to deal damage; Strikers are just supposed to deal *more* of it. Assault Swordmages in particular rely upon the threat of damage for enforcing their mark, so reducing their damage does, in fact, hurt their ability to defend.

Agreed 100%. There may be more important concerns than damage, but universal damage bonuses are a high priority no matter what.

The real problem is that some classes are getting hurt by how the rules are structured and not for valid reasons. Why do swordmages need two take two Focus feats? Because they were doing too much damage? No, because they were written so that some of their attacks have a Weapon keyword and some of them have an Implement keyword. Does using multiple keywords provide any benefit to counteract the feat tax? No. Could the feats have been written so that it didn't hurt classes that are designed as weapliment users without overpowering staves relative to other implements? Yes, "Focus: Choose a weapon or implement you can wield. You get a +1/2/3 feat bonus to damage rolls with the chosen weapon or implement." Or, hell, just drop all the pretenses and go with "Focus: You get a +1/2/3 feat bonus to damage rolls."

I am really hoping this is fixed in HotFK. There's a Hexblade, so I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.

Otherwise, at least a fix is easily implemented in my home-game. Just add a house-ruled additional feat, and voila!

-O

 

[tyrlaan]

Just because you're not a Striker doesn't mean you're not supposed to deal damage. *Everyone* is supposed to deal damage; Strikers are just supposed to deal *more* of it. Assault Swordmages in particular rely upon the threat of damage for enforcing their mark, so reducing their damage does, in fact, hurt their ability to defend.

I didn't say the swordmage shouldn't deal damage. I said the swordmage isn't hosed when he deals 3 points less damage in epic. Even if you're an assault swordmage, I'm having trouble thinking that an enemy's decision to ignore/not ignore your mark can be swayed because you deal 3 less points of damage. At epic tier. Really, what percentage of a monster's hp is 3?

And that all doesn't even take into account that the assault swordmage is using an MBA to punish foes, which likely means you take weapon focus so the MBA deals the 3 extra points of damage (if you think it's that critical), but your implement powers don't - taking the wind out of the sails of the argument that the assault swordmage's ability to defend is weakened.

 

[BobTheNob]

Or, hell, just drop all the pretenses and go with "Focus: You get a +1/2/3 feat bonus to damage rolls."

Damn Straight. The damage bonus is linked to weapon type, weapon users swap type how often? Dont know about other peoples game, but my experience is NEVER! Hence, weapon users get the bonus all the time.

The entire idea of even linking this to weapon group is just hangover from 3.X (2.0) where weapon groups dictated the bonus. Why Not bonus by source? Or a bit more specific and Bonus by Class? Why did they even have to make it "type of thing held"?

 

[Mapache]

And that all doesn't even take into account that the assault swordmage is using an MBA to punish foes, which likely means you take weapon focus so the MBA deals the 3 extra points of damage (if you think it's that critical), but your implement powers don't - taking the wind out of the sails of the argument that the assault swordmage's ability to defend is weakened.

Correct, the Assault Swordmage should take Weapon Focus. However, they then only get that damage on half their powers. Why? Are Swordmages so dangerous that they need to be charged another feat to get that damage bonus on their powers that happen to say Implement, while, say, poor old Fighters are so underpowered and low-damage that they need to get damage on all their powers for a single feat? What rationale is there for weakening classes that are designed around using multiple keywords? None—it's bad design to tie mechanical bonuses that should be per-character to random keywords that make them per-character for nearly all characters except for a handful that aren't getting any benefits from being different.

 

[keterys]

An epic basic attack probably does on the order of 2d10+8 (stat) + 6 (enh) + 6 (item) basic, or about 31 damage. So the 3 difference is about a 10% difference in the threat of your punishment / opportunity mechanic.

Certainly not a huge difference, but... much like the weapon/iimplement split expertises that lead to Versatile Expertise, it doesn't seem like intended design either.

 

[Artoomis]

For those who care...

My 17th level monk, as a result of these changes, ended up with -1 damage, -1 AC, +1 REF, +2 WILL/FORT.

I dropped two-weapon fighting (+1 damage that no longer applied), two-weapon defense (+1 REF/AC, but not worth taking a feat with virtually zero effect) and paragon defense (+1 to NADs) and picked up the three NAD defensive feats (+3 to NADS).

Just one example of the effects of these changes.

 

[renau1g]

And Assassins, and Warlocks I think. And aren't Avengers affected?

MY assassin now cries even harder as he looks longingly at the ranger and rogue and barbarian for kicking ass and taking names while his meager damage output is put even lower. WTF WotC? You really got to kick a guy while he's down don't you. It's not bad enough that the other strikers far outpace the poor assassin, or that you don't support the DDI exclusive class with any articles, but now you take away damage on his powers? Grrr.... my assassin shrouds himself and after 4 rounds can attack himself ...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Take a staff/spear and hafted defense if you want armor back...

 

[BobTheNob]

I cant help but think it would be good to have a feat "Attack Focus(<class>)" and that you get a damage bonus to all attacks from that class (weapon or implement). Then have it use the same bonus (feat?) as Weapon focus (so they dont stack) and let the players decide which one the prefer.

Weapon focus if you want to multiclass and focus on a particular weapon, Attack Focus if you arent interested in multiclassing and just want a damage bonus for what your class does