rule question: dual-implement spellcaster

[renau1g]

Me? I was referring to sorcerers who MC rogue to pick up Daggermaster for no reason other than to get the improved crit range. I think SBC is a great feat and if a sorcerer has two daggers I see no problem with it working with DIS.

 

[Kalidrev]

LL, R1 is refering to a Sorcerer multiclassing as a rogue and taking the Daggermaster paragon path. In combination with Sorcerous Blade Channeling, and DIS, it is a potentially abusive combination.

Edit: Dangit! Got ninja'd by r1!

 

[stonegod]

Just out of curiosity (because I want to make sure that I understood properly), are you referring to the Sorcerous Blade Channeling feat, something else entirely, or SBC only when in combination with DIS?

As currently written (though there is spec that this may change), a sorcerer multiclassing into rogue and taking Daggermaster at paragon can get a critical hit on all their sorcerer powers on an 18-20. As daggers (even in the hands of rogues) do less damage than the average sorcerer implement power, this is generally considered unbalanced. However, it is currently RAW.

 

[renau1g]

So I guess my next thought is: so where does this go, really? I mean, we are all DMs and potential DMs on this board, but I guess r1's implication is that effectively, "the judges" are the DMs whose final say determines rule questions that are cross-adventure (like character building)?

My comment was just that if this was a proposal two judges have weighed in (although that's only 2 of all the judges so don't take that as representative of all the judges) and currently it'd be sitting with 2 No votes.

 

[evilbob]

Lol - well you can't fault this board for not being helpful.

r1: My question was more along the lines of: so do I create a proposal then, or is there some other mechanism for rule clarification questions?

 

[LadyLaw]

Ah, thank you. I haven't looked much into Rogues in general, let alone their Paragon Paths, so I didn't realize that was out there. I was a little confused when I thought it had something to do with SBC. Thanks for clearing it up for me, all of you.

 

[ryryguy]

If that's the case, then how should I best put this up for clarification? I would guess making a proposal, but it's really less of an "I suggest this" and more of a "I would like to have a consensus on how this works for everyone" kinda thing. Is that what a proposal is for, as well?

There isn't really a good mechanism in the community for dealing with this sort of issue. Or, the mechanism is that individual DMs, with input and rulings from their judges, end up deciding on a case-by-case basis. Whether this is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, but it certainly leaves lots of room for inconsistency. But it may just be that there is no "consensus on how this works for everyone" to be had on certain issues, and we have to live with it.

I suppose you could make a proposal along the lines of "Make interpretation X the officially binding one", but I kind of doubt you'd have much success. Whether or not individual judges agree with interpretation X, many of them have stated a preference for "let the DMs decide", so I'd expect a pretty uphill battle for the proposal.

Personally, I prefer to just stay away from controversial options like this rather than having to deal with having my character work differently under different DMs. I already trained out Firehawk for Hergunna when the judge's ruling essentially neutered the power. Maybe in a later adventure the DM and judge would make a more generous ruling, but I'd just as soon choose one of the other myriad options and not have to worry about it. It's not like there are a lack of other options, after all.

 

[evilbob]

I see your point, but at the end of the day that's pretty much the same as banning something; it's just voluntary. In fact, I have done exactly this for my own character at the moment, but truthfully I dislike self-censoring as a final solution. Not to mention that can't possibly solve everything.

I guess to me, certain rules / interpretations should definitely be left up to the individual DMs. But some are wide-ranging and impact a lot of DMs, so it would be more useful to have a sort of "official clarification" for the boards. I'm sure there are similar issues like this.

That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[ryryguy]

evilbob, I'm not saying you're wrong that it would be desirable, it's just that as a practical matter, it may not be possible to get consensus for an "official clarification" for a lot of these issues. Can you think of any ways how that could be achieved, not just for this case but for this general sort of situation?

The only thing I could think of is adopting a general guideline like "least restrictive reading" or "most restrictive reading", but even that wouldn't be clear cut all the time, and I doubt you could get consensus on such a guideline in the first place.

About the best you can hope for is that WotC will clarify it one way or the other.

 

[covaithe]

I have to admit, I find it slightly offensive to have my opinion on how this combination of feats works be called a cheesy exploit. That's your opinion, and that's ok, but honestly I feel like paying an extra feat to hold 1 weapon instead of 2 for the DIS benefit is hardly exploitative. Bloodclaw weapons were exploitative (pre-fix). This is not.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't retract my statement. If it helps, by "exploit" in this case I don't mean munchkin-like powergaming or trying to break the game with overpowered builds or anything like that. I mean using a loophole (WotC's perennial inability to write sensible rules for double weapons) to evade or subvert the clear intent of a rule (dual implement requires you to have two implements). I don't think Swordmage-with-double-sword is an overpowered concept; quite the opposite. I think it's a terrible concept, and I think the only way to make it even remotely viable is to deliberately misinterpret the intent of the rules. That's what I object to.

do I create a proposal then, or is there some other mechanism for rule clarification questions?

Historically, we've tried to avoid using proposals to clarify rules questions. I'm on record in various other threads as saying that we should leave these things up to individual DMs to interpret during their games. I still think that's the case here. WotC are so consistently sloppy and careless with the text of the content they create that if the judges had to issue official rulings on every unclear rule element, we'd never get to actually play the game.