Sorcerous Blade Channelling

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Not that I disagree with you, but Character Builder is not a definitive rules source - its not uncommon for Character Builder to allow/disallow options incorrectly. So, it can be a guide to the correct interpretation, but it can at times be unclear whether what CB is doing is what the designers intended or a bug.

 

[lexoanvil]

Not that I disagree with you, but Character Builder is not a definitive rules source - its not uncommon for Character Builder to allow/disallow options incorrectly. So, it can be a guide to the correct interpretation, but it can at times be unclear whether what CB is doing is what the designers intended or a bug.

im well aware of this im using as a method to confirm what people have been saying for some time now. its not the final nail in the coffin its one of many nails people in this thread people have pointed out. and not adding the prof bonus to a power that gets one would be a fairly large bug to begin with. ill say it once more to clarify
-the feat Does not add the weapon keyword
-only powers with said key word get said prof bonus
-melee attacks are very different than than the weapon keyword

 

[abyssaldeath]

If you use a weapon power with a weapon you’re proficient with, you add the weapon’s proficiency bonus to the attack rolls of that power.

If you’re able to wield a magic weapon as an implement and use an implement power through it, you add the weapon’s enhancement bonus to the power’s attack rolls and damage rolls, but you do not use the weapon’s proficiency bonus.

Since Sorcerous Blade Channeling doesn't change the power into a weapon power you don't add proficiency bonus.

 

[DreamChaser]

also ran this build through the character builder you don't get the bonus.
myth busted.

yeah...i've made a character with this build...

the CB does not give the weapon bonus (for the obvious reason that there is nothing in anything written anywhere that even remotely implies or suggests that it should gain the weapon proficiency bonus).

it gives the dual implement bonus to damage...which again raises the question...if this is possible, because it's an implement power, how does the weapon proficiency bonus come in again? there are (to my knowledge) no powers that are both Weapon and Implement powers. One or the other.

The melee basic attack thing is harder. The CB isn't capable of determining this because it doesn't track what you actual basic attacks are very well. My sorcerer can't choose Acid Orb as his ranged basic attack on the ranged basic attack card. Only his dagger. So, this one appears to be up in the air.

DC

 

[Rothe_]

This feat is something that seems to bring up lots of "interpretation" about what it does.

It simply does not do anything it does not say it does.
- You don't get proficiency bonus since there is no weapon keyword
- You don't get melee basic attacks because there is no rule that would allow them (even with acid orb)

The benefits are in line with what you can expect from a heroic feat. To allow the other things makes this feat worth 2 feats and still makes it overpowered (particularly the prof bonus on implement attacks).

If it gave proficiency bonus to attack, I think there would be a discussion on errata/banning of the feat in many groups. As it is written, it is fine.

My sorcerer has the feat for two good reasons: Avoiding OA's and Flanking.

 

[Kzach]

Another query I have regarding this same feat is in regards to items and feats that increase melee damage.

The three primary ones in question are:

• Cull The Weak
• Blood Thirst
• Iron Armbands of Power

The Character Builder doesn't add the damage from these to any of my spells but it seems to me that they should be added. It adds Weapon Focus (light blade) so I don't see why it wouldn't add these.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Another query I have regarding this same feat is in regards to items and feats that increase melee damage.

The three primary ones in question are:

• Cull The Weak
• Blood Thirst
• Iron Armbands of Power

The Character Builder doesn't add the damage from these to any of my spells but it seems to me that they should be added. It adds Weapon Focus (light blade) so I don't see why it wouldn't add these.

The use of SBC is situational. You may choose to have your sorcerer ranged spells function as melee attacks. The listed bonuses only apply if you use SBC to make your spell a melee attack and are therefore not automatically calculated by CB. CB (AFAIK) defaults to the "assumption" that you are using your spells as ranged attacks (and therefore SBC and other related bonuses do not apply). AFAIK, there's no means currently to make CB calculate SBC bonuses for you.

 

[Kzach]

The use of SBC is situational. You may choose to have your sorcerer ranged spells function as melee attacks. The listed bonuses only apply if you use SBC to make your spell a melee attack and are therefore not automatically calculated by CB. CB (AFAIK) defaults to the "assumption" that you are using your spells as ranged attacks (and therefore SBC and other related bonuses do not apply). AFAIK, there's no means currently to make CB calculate SBC bonuses for you.

So you're sure they're added? If so, do you have any reference for it?

 

[Fanaelialae]

So you're sure they're added? If so, do you have any reference for it?

Emphasis mine.

SBC
"When you use any ranged sorcerer attack power through a dagger, you can use the power as a melee attack."

Iron Armbands of Power
"Gain a +6 item bonus to melee damage rolls."

etc.

I'm not aware of any FAQs or errata on the subject, but it seems like a pretty straight-forward interaction of the rules.

Using SBC allows you to use a sorcerer spell as a melee attack.
Melee attacks that deal damage have melee damage rolls (assuming the damage isn't a static number, such as Damage = Charisma modifier).
IAoP grants a bonus to melee damage rolls.
Therefore, attacks using SBC that deal (rolled) damage get the bonus from IAoP.

 

[Kzach]

I'm not aware of any FAQs or errata on the subject, but it seems like a pretty straight-forward interaction of the rules.

Yeah, I totally agree with what you said, I was just looking for clarification so it doesn't become an argument in groups I'm in