Reaving Rod and...

[Tellerve]

You're thinking in the right direction. Warlocks are far below Rangers and Rogues in damage, and they make up for it by getting more cool tricks. One of their cool tricks is using a magic item to bypass a tactical restriction ("must curse closest").

He's paying the same price that a Rogue would pay for a Frost Dagger. This is interesting, because a Frost Dagger, combined with Lasting Frost + Wintertouched, allows a Rogue to bypass several tactical restrictions -- it basically gives him free Combat Advantage next round if he hits a foe this round.

So yeah: it's powerful, it's cool, and that's okay.

Cheers, -- N

Again, I don't think your comparisons are anywhere near equal. For your rogue example the rogue would obviously be hitting (ie using an actual roll) on a bad guy. And for him to get that Combat Advantage it'd have to be a non-minion. But either way, he is rolling to attack, and so therefore has a chance to miss. The warlock on the other hand has no range limit, and doesn't have to roll, and can take down minions.

I can see that we aren't going to agree, and so I wonder if other people are more in your camp or mine, or just haven't noticed this yet. I wonder?

cheers,

Tellerve

 

[Nifft]

I can see that we aren't going to agree, and so I wonder if other people are more in your camp or mine, or just haven't noticed this yet. I wonder?

If your mind's made up, than discussing how the Rogue gets 3-4 times more benefit than the Warlock does won't sway you much, would it?

Does your camp consider the Warlock to be overpowered? If so, I think you won't have much company. But go make a poll if your position's popularity is important.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Felon]

Seems that a lot of this discussion revolves around semantics ("holding" versus "wielding", "placing" versus "transferring") and some personal perceptions about the game portrayed as truisms ("warlocks are compensated for low damage by being able to do more cool stuff"). Don't see how any of that's going to give us an interpretation that we can achieve consensus on.

 

[MarkB]

If your mind's made up, than discussing how the Rogue gets 3-4 times more benefit than the Warlock does won't sway you much, would it?

Does your camp consider the Warlock to be overpowered? If so, I think you won't have much company. But go make a poll if your position's popularity is important.

So wait, is your argument "warlocks are allowed to do this because the rules say so", or is it "warlocks should be allowed to do this, regardless of the rules, because they're just so pathetic"?

The latter argument may elicit some sympathy, but I don't think it would sway many DMs.

 

[Nifft]

So wait, is your argument "warlocks are allowed to do this because the rules say so", or is it "warlocks should be allowed to do this, regardless of the rules, because they're just so pathetic"?

I'll need to see what you mean by "this". If you're talking about the single-action sea-of-blood in the first post, then no: reasons given in my first post in the thread, which is #3.

If by "this" you mean "should a Rod of Corruption work at all", then my answer is yes, "this" should work.

If you meant something else, do tell what.

Cheers, -- N

 

[FadedC]

So, with the Rogue Weapon Talent, you can wield a shuriken in your left hand, and the bastard sword in your right becomes 1d12. Or if you wield a dagger instead, you get a +1 to any attack. You can also use any rogue power with said bastard sword, because you are wielding that dagger or shuriken.

Or, Armor Piercing Thrust (Fighter 3), if you have a dagger in your left hand and a bastard sword in your right, you can use this power's bonus with the bastard sword because you are wielding the dagger.

You make some interesting points regarding what happens if just holding a weapon means it's being wielded. On the flip side, wizards only get the beneift of their implement mastery if they are wielding the implement in question If wielding requires making an attack then this would mean a staff wizard would only get +1 to AC while making an attack, and could in fact never use his interrupt power. So it kind of doesn't make sense either way.

So if there's one thing we've learned here it's that wizards is not entirely consistant about their use of the term wield. This of course makes it even more of a gray area.

 

[Tellerve]

If your mind's made up, than discussing how the Rogue gets 3-4 times more benefit than the Warlock does won't sway you much, would it?

Does your camp consider the Warlock to be overpowered? If so, I think you won't have much company. But go make a poll if your position's popularity is important.

Cheers, -- N

I was probably too hasty with my mind's made up comment. I like to play devil's advocate to better see all the angles, and am hoping to have some other people's angles on this one.

I'd also like to know what the 3-4 times more benefit entails.

Maybe I'm making too big a deal of this, but insta-killing minions seems pretty good to me, and I guess not as much to you. But again, I am not seeing the 3-4 times benefit so when you let me know about those I might start realizing I'm wrong in my current viewpoint.

At the very least, I like the discourse

Tellerve

 

[MarkB]

I'll need to see what you mean by "this". If you're talking about the single-action sea-of-blood in the first post, then no: reasons given in my first post in the thread, which is #3.

If by "this" you mean "should a Rod of Corruption work at all", then my answer is yes, "this" should work.

If you meant something else, do tell what.

Cheers, -- N

I meant gaining the benefits of two rods at once. It just seemed as though you were presenting the warlock's poor performance as a justification for interpreting the rules more leniently when it came to them.

In retrospect, that may have been a misinterpretation. If so, I apologise.

 

[Nifft]

I was probably too hasty with my mind's made up comment. I like to play devil's advocate to better see all the angles, and am hoping to have some other people's angles on this one.

I'd also like to know what the 3-4 times more benefit entails.

Maybe I'm making too big a deal of this, but insta-killing minions seems pretty good to me, and I guess not as much to you. But again, I am not seeing the 3-4 times benefit so when you let me know about those I might start realizing I'm wrong in my current viewpoint.

Just looking at the Rogue in isolation:

Rogue, on target he hit last round:
+3d6 damage at 11th level due to Combat Advantage
+5 damage due to vulnerability
+2 to attack due to Combat Advantage; so +10% to total expected damage output
---> Expected extra damage: +15.5

Warlock, after spending a round setting up:
Curse spread 5 squares; +2d6 damage to anyone
---> Expected extra damage: +7

... however, that ignores the team play aspects of each item / combo. See, the smart Rogue isn't attacking just some random guy. He's attacking the guy who already got hit last round by the Ranger (who uses a Frost longbow), or the Wizard (who cast Icy Rays or whatever last round), or the Warlord with his Frost Longsword.

The Rogue's trick scales across the whole party, and the extra +5 damage and free combat advantage boost the output of the whole party by a lot.

The Warlock's trick helps only him, and even then, it doesn't help him to actually hit.

I meant gaining the benefits of two rods at once. It just seemed as though you were presenting the warlock's poor performance as a justification for interpreting the rules more leniently when it came to them.

In retrospect, that may have been a misinterpretation. If so, I apologise.

I think the two rods work together as written in post #3, and I think that they do not work together as described in post #1. My opinion of how the rules work is rules-based; my opinion of how non-broken the Warlock's specific tricks are is based on the Warlock's poor performance.

Your question is vague, so I'm not sure if I've answered it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Tellerve]

Just looking at the Rogue in isolation:

Rogue, on target he hit last round:
+3d6 damage at 11th level due to Combat Advantage
+5 damage due to vulnerability
+2 to attack due to Combat Advantage; so +10% to total expected damage output
---> Expected extra damage: +15.5

Warlock, after spending a round setting up:
Curse spread 5 squares; +2d6 damage to anyone
---> Expected extra damage: +7

... however, that ignores the team play aspects of each item / combo. See, the smart Rogue isn't attacking just some random guy. He's attacking the guy who already got hit last round by the Ranger (who uses a Frost longbow), or the Wizard (who cast Icy Rays or whatever last round), or the Warlord with his Frost Longsword.

The Rogue's trick scales across the whole party, and the extra +5 damage and free combat advantage boost the output of the whole party by a lot.

The Warlock's trick helps only him, and even then, it doesn't help him to actually hit.
Cheers, -- N

Ok, well I wasn't thinking this high of level, but nevertheless. I see what you mean, although the group is making itself revolve a bit around the rogue with all the frost weapons. Which brings up how much I don't like those feats btw.

In any case, my point is that the Warlock can pop minions with ease with this tactic, and I guess you've got a point in that sometimes he needs to be able to, to make up for a rogue that can have at people viciously. My main argument stands though, that I think it is cheesy and doesn't feel right. That has nothing to do with the power or lack thereof of the warlock. Certainly the warlock might not be as good a choice for striker as the rogue is but I don't know if insta-popin' minions is a good "fix". I know from what little I've run that minions, although they only have 1 hp, when you still have to hit them I was able to make them last and do damage.

Tellerve