[proposal] Genasi Feat: Mindful Manifestor

[JoeNotCharles]

I'll have to disagree with less important. You have that 1st level Eladrin wizard with melee training and put him with 2 warlords. You now have a wizard that people can make make OA and the warlords can give free attacks to. That attack you count as 'less important' could be used quite a bit in a combat and add up to a vastly larger amount of damage. Those 2 warlords can let that wizard do more damage to a single boss creature than the wizards burning hands can. [2d8+8 vs. 2d6+4]

This isn't surprising - the wizard's main powers are optimized for doing less damage to a lot of foes at once.

The balance for basic attack powers is supposed to be that they're powerful enough to be worth using when they come up, but less powerful than the standard At-Wills. I haven't looked closely at the Genasi racial powers, but I'm under the impression that racial powers in general should be more in line with class Encounter powers.

But it's not the relative power that I'm arguing against. I'm saying that the basic attack is a fundamental part of combat, and so it's important that melee characters have access to a good one. I would have said that making sure Defenders have one is good enough (in fact, I'd probably have just made "basic attacks are made with Int" as a basic Swordmage class feature), but I guess Wizards decided with melee training to just let every class customize their basic attack in case you want to make a melee build.

With the genasi powers we're talking about, there's no similar reason to customize them. There are no other rules built on making Genasi racial attack powers, and no synchronicity between them and other class powers like the Warlord mentioned above.

 

[elecgraystone]

This isn't surprising - the wizard's main powers are optimized for doing less damage to a lot of foes at once.

And that's my point. Changing that wizards melee attack from a +2 hit 1d4-1 attack [8 strength with dagger] to a +7 1d8+4 attack [long sword 18 INT] is an awesome jump. From an attack that might not even kill a minion to a real at will power. Add to that the fact that lots of times the only thing the wizard is going to be able to hit is a single target [either smart non-clustering enimies, allies in the way and/or only 1 creature and that feat really does give an at will at least as useful as their burning hands in those encounters. Plus it's a big surprise when the bad guys try to stop the wizard from casting by boxing him into melee and he whips out a sword and starts going to town.

When looking at what new feats give you, it's best to look at the people that get the most from them. You were looking at it as giving a character that is already a melee an OA. I'm looking at it as giving a NON-melee character a new at will that gives them an effective melee power. It's a far more powerful feat when you use it a non-melee.

The balance for basic attack powers is supposed to be that they're powerful enough to be worth using when they come up, but less powerful than the standard At-Wills.

The problem with looking at it this way is that you are looking at it from a melee character perspective. For them, yes most times that basic attack is worse than their at wills. Not so for non-melee.

But it's not the relative power that I'm arguing against. I'm saying that the basic attack is a fundamental part of combat, and so it's important that melee characters have access to a good one. <snip> but I guess Wizards decided with melee training to just let every class customize their basic attack in case you want to make a melee build.

LOL Again you look at it wrong. It's another at will they can now use. It doesn't have to be any more about a melee build than thunderwave. It's another option for combat. Even if 90% of the time you're at range, it give you options when melee is forced on you.

Is wanting to be able to do something when you can't get out of melee a 'melee build' to you? it isn't for me.

With the genasi powers we're talking about, there's no similar reason to customize them. There are no other rules built on making Genasi racial attack powers, and no synchronicity between them and other class powers like the Warlord mentioned above.

So for you any new feat has a requirement that it have synchronicity with some other power or class? Even if you have NO warlord, melee training gives non-melee characters and effective, useful and in my eyes a non-inferior at will. The warlord is just the icing on the cake.

 

[elecgraystone]

Sorry for making a second post but I wanted this one to stand apart from my last. I just wanted to say I'm not trying to be difficult. I don't have an invested interest in this feat and I don't think I'd ever use it.

For me, I'm trying to figure out why you guys don't like it. JoeNotCharles said it's not the relative power and there is some clear precedent with other feats. I really can't wrap my brain around saying no on feel or synchronicity.

 

[Don Incognito]

Except that you're not really arguing, you're just attacking other people's arguments. Saying that someone else is wrong is not the same thing as proving yourself to be right.

But this thread is quickly turning vitriolic. This is the kind of thing that tears online communities apart. I think everything important that could have been said has already been said, and that we should just let the judges vote now.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

And that's my point. Changing that wizards melee attack from a +2 hit 1d4-1 attack [8 strength with dagger] to a +7 1d8+4 attack [long sword 18 INT] is an awesome jump.

If you're comparing an Eladrin wizard, it's really from +2 hit 1d8-1 attack, because they'd already be using a longsword.

But you're right - it is an awesome jump. I didn't realize how much. I'd vote against Melee Training if it came up to a vote - too much power creep.

So for you any new feat has a requirement that it have synchronicity with some other power or class? Even if you have NO warlord, melee training gives non-melee characters and effective, useful and in my eyes a non-inferior at will. The warlord is just the icing on the cake.

THIS particular feat, Mindful Manifestation, has clear parallels with Melee Training, so I was arguing that we should be looking at what role Melee Training is meant to play and use that to decide whether to allow Mindful Manifestation.

 

[elecgraystone]

If you're comparing an Eladrin wizard, it's really from +2 hit 1d8-1 attack, because they'd already be using a longsword.

But you're right - it is an awesome jump. I didn't realize how much. I'd vote against Melee Training if it came up to a vote - too much power creep.

LOL Quite right, I should have used a longsword. You see where I'm coming from, which is all I wanted. I assumed everyone was OK with Melee Training since Intelligent Blademaster has already been OK'd. Since you aren't then it explains why you were having issues with Mindful Manifestation.

Except that you're not really arguing, you're just attacking other people's arguments. Saying that someone else is wrong is not the same thing as proving yourself to be right.

Sorry is you felt that was the case. Debate IS about attacking the others arguments. If I hadn't, JoeNotCharles wouldn't see what an awesome boost Melee Training can give a character and I wouldn't understand why he was having such a problem with it. Also I was assuming that Melee training was fine since Intelligent Blademaster was OK'd. I didn't think I had to prove much there since they are so close.

But this thread is quickly turning vitriolic.

Again, that's why I posted my second message. It was never my intent to be vitriolic. I DO enjoy a good debate and I'll admit I can be quite stubborn if I think I'm right [and a bit sarcastic too ].

 

[Don Incognito]

After much deliberation, I have come to an opinion.

Wizards has decided that, with 4th Edition, a strong basic attack should be a feature of every class, regardless of role or power source. Some power sources (mostly Martial) get this ability for free. Others need to pay a feat tax in order to obtain it. But a strong basic attack is something that all classes should have.

Why? For one reason, it makes the Warlord better. Let's say that you have your heart set on playing a warlord. Unfortunately, the rest of the party consists of a Swordmage (defender), Invoker (controller), Artful Dodger Rogue (striker), and Feylock (striker). In a world without Melee training, the warlord's options are severely limited in this party. Sure, he can still heal and buff and all that fun stuff, but the granting of attacks (which, let's be honest, is the coolest part of being a warlord) is gimped.

Second, let's look at the druid. Without melee training, a druid is better than a wizard. Always. Why? Because the druid can basically do everything a wizard can do, only he isn't immediately screwed the moment something gets in his face. This is clearly unbalanced. To quote Ghostcrawler (I think my WoW is showing), think of a wobbly chair. One of the legs of said chair is slightly longer than the other three (i.e. druids are OP because they have strong close-combat attacks / basic melee attacks). There are two ways to fix this problem. The first is to cut the long leg shorter (nerf druids. Not a good option, because shapeshifing is the druid's shtick). Or, you could make the other three legs longer (give all classes access to strong basic attacks via a feat). In this case, Wizards thought it would be better to buff everyone else rather than nerf one class.

But all of this is a moot point.

Changing the attack stats of encounter attack powers is bad. M'kay?

 

[covaithe]

Thanks, guys, for keeping the tone friendly. You guys kick butt.

For me, I'm trying to figure out why you guys don't like it. JoeNotCharles said it's not the relative power and there is some clear precedent with other feats. I really can't wrap my brain around saying no on feel or synchronicity.

Yeah, I've been trying to figure it out too. I took an instant dislike to the feat when I first read it, but figuring out why has been difficult.

Some thoughts toward that end.

I'm not fond of the idea of using feats to get out of MAD. The 4e designers seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to encourage every character to have at least two or three good attributes -- and penalize them for dumping too many stats. I'm very hesitant to tinker with that balance. (Yes, this means I'm not thrilled about melee training. Though I wouldn't go so far as to disallow it; non-Str melee characters, e.g. avenger or melee bard, are up a creek without it.)

I was also very struck by something Dunamin said:

My main concern is probably that on its own the feat doesn't seem that bad, but its acceptance might set a precedent that basically says: "Customize Feats To Suit Your Personal Build".

The idea that approving this feat will set a precedent worries me much more than the feat itself.

 

[elecgraystone]

Why? For one reason, it makes the Warlord better.

But the same logic can be used for the Gensai. 'Why? For one reason, it makes the Gensai better'.

Second, let's look at the druid. Without melee training, a druid is better than a wizard. Always.

A druid has to spend a minor action to use melee and it blocks off the majority of his controller powers to do so. And even after the change, his OA and charges suck. That means the 'buff' of martial training went so far as to 'buff' even the druid! To fix the wobbly leg, you replaced ALL 4 legs with longer ones.

Changing the attack stats of encounter attack powers is bad. M'kay?

I understand you feel that way but I don't understand why.

Yeah, I've been trying to figure it out too. I took an instant dislike to the feat when I first read it, but figuring out why has been difficult.

Thanks for saying so.

The idea that approving this feat will set a precedent worries me much more than the feat itself.

Honestly, I don't get this. Every racial article adds feats to do just this. Don't like your cloud of darkness? Change it to webs of darkness. Don't like your dragon breath as a blast? Make it a burst. Don't like the damage type? Change that too.

The feats already ARE "Customize Feats To Suit Your Personal Build" aren't they? When people argued against allowing the hurl dragon breath feat, did people say it was because a dragonborn shouldn't be allowed to customize? Nope, They argued about it's balance.

After thinking about it, the only thing I'd change about the proposed feat would be to make it less specialized. Make it a generic racial feat. That way it's not a one trick pony. The place could get cluttered with feats if they are made too specific. Is that what you meant by feats for your personal build covaithe?

Versatile Racial Power
Requirement: Racial power with an attack stat
Benefit: You may use a different attack stat than is listed for your racial powers. You must pick the new stat when you pick up this feat and it can't be changed.

 

[fireinthedust]

After thinking about it, the only thing I'd change about the proposed feat would be to make it less specialized. Make it a generic racial feat. That way it's not a one trick pony. The place could get cluttered with feats if they are made too specific. Is that what you meant by feats for your personal build covaithe?

Versatile Racial Power
Requirement: Racial power with an attack stat
Benefit: You may use a different attack stat than is listed for your racial powers. You must pick the new stat when you pick up this feat and it can't be changed.

Could we change the wording to cover the stats in general? For Genasi they pick from the three physical stats, and I'd prefer they be off Int rather than S/D/C.

Racial Power(s) rather than racial power (singular).

"you may use a different stat for your racial powers"