Weapon Focus & Implements

[Griogre]

Thanks for all your thoughts. Having read all the responses and FAQ, I have to say I don't like the FAQ ruling. Mostly because I don't see why they did it.

1) I don't think it is *that* hard to look for a weapon keyword to tell whether get the bonus or not. Gee - some powers say Implement, some say weapon, maybe sometime there will be those that have both. I read that FAQ ruling and I get the sense CS was trying too hard to say "Yes!".

2) From what I can see the RAI, because of the existence of the elemental feats, you were not suppose to use weapon focus with implements. The FAQ ruling obsoletes the elemental feats for 1/3rd of the wizard build and anyone else with a implement which can be used as a weapon. I also suspect that implement choice was not suppose to be affected by can I use weapon focus. As a house rule I will probably ignore the FAQ, and further clarify Weapon Focus by saying it only works with powers with a Weapon keyword. I'm aware there are problems with the elemental feats, but "fixing" them via weapon focus seems a sub-optimal fix.

 

[Dan'L]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across here. A weapon user wouldn't take an elemental damage feat over Weapon Focus, and they are all feat bonuses, so they don't stack.

I'm going to second this. A lot of posters here seem to be overlooking this. If I have a fighter swinging a fire enchanted longsword, and I have both Weapon Focus: heavy blades and Astral Fire, I still only get +1 damage to the attack from the feats, because they both give typed bonuses. And since I may want to trade in that fire brand for a different sword as the game progresses, Weapon Focus is by far the better feat; astral fire is redundant for a weapon user and occupies a feat slot that could be better served with a different choice.

-Dan'L

 

[DracoSuave]

Thanks for all your thoughts. Having read all the responses and FAQ, I have to say I don't like the FAQ ruling. Mostly because I don't see why they did it.

1) I don't think it is *that* hard to look for a weapon keyword to tell whether get the bonus or not. Gee - some powers say Implement, some say weapon, maybe sometime there will be those that have both. I read that FAQ ruling and I get the sense CS was trying too hard to say "Yes!".

No, it is easy. For the most part and for most classes it doesn't make a major difference.

Then you make the Swordmage and the deluge of questions that class caused.
'This power says Implement, but what do I plug into the [W] listing on it?'
'This power says weapon, do I apply the weapon focus to the non-[W] damage?'
'Wait, I get a bonus to damage when I use the sword to create a blast of lightning, but I don't when I use the sword to throw at them lightsaber style?'

While it's 'simple', it's not intuitive that the same thing gives two different answers for every power that you deal. And when your Swordmage gets told that his sword doesn't help him for half his powers that -use- the sword -as a sword-, it makes no sense.

2) From what I can see the RAI, because of the existence of the elemental feats, you were not suppose to use weapon focus with implements. The FAQ ruling obsoletes the elemental feats for 1/3rd of the wizard build and anyone else with a implement which can be used as a weapon. I also suspect that implement choice was not suppose to be affected by can I use weapon focus. As a house rule I will probably ignore the FAQ, and further clarify Weapon Focus by saying it only works with powers with a Weapon keyword. I'm aware there are problems with the elemental feats, but "fixing" them via weapon focus seems a sub-optimal fix.

The problem tho is not Astral Fire, per se, so much as their weakness and their lack of ability to focus. No, it's the -other- elemental feats, Solid Sound, etc. It'd not be so bad if you -could- make a build around an elemental tree, where your wizard (For example) could take nothing but thunder and lightning powers, and all your feats synergized around them. But, they can't, that amount of selection does -not- exist. A weapon user, on the other hand, only needs to focus on his weapon, and if that weapon is elemental, he can then dabble into the implement-powers should he choose due to keyword inheritance from the item-at-wills.

The problem isn't Implement users dabbling into weapon-feats. It's -weapon users- dabbling in elemental feats with more capability than elemental users can.

Even then, I wouldn't mind seperating the two completely, except a weapon user has to give up -nothing- to get his feat, while an implement user has to toss attribute points in places he just doesn't want to, to get a feat that doesn't boost all his powers, even if he takes all the powers for every level. The closest to doing that is tiefling... but then that one gives a bonus to Fear as well as Fire, and a +1 to hit.

At least with weapon/implement blurring, an implement user can grab a weapon-as-implement with an elemental at-will, so he can make use of the feats that are supposedly intended for him in the same way as a weapon user.


For the record, it's not Weapon Focus that obsoleted Astral Fire. It's the attribute requirements.

 

[CapnZapp]

You know, DracoSuave, I've read your latest post twice and I still don't find it "easy". In fact, I still don't see how "blurring" helps.

I have a hard time isolating the various complaints directed at the current system, and obviously we need to know exactly what is considered to be wrong before we can discuss solutions.

I guess I'm not seeing what your end goals are, Draco. What state would you consider ideal? What final state are you aiming for?

Perhaps you could comment on how I'm seeing it. It would help me understand if we're seeing the same problems, the same solutions.



The Swordmage is supposed to transcend the gap between weapons and implements. Why do you not propose to place any "blurring" rules as a part of this specific class, rather than considering to keep the confusing state we're in now, where "blurring" works for everybody?

For the rest of the classes, either you're a weapons user and get use out of weapon focus (where the weapon's group, not its damage, is relevant).

Or you're an implement user and get use out of elemental damage feats (where the damage type, not the tool, is relevant).

Allowing a Fighter to benefit from extra fire damage for his Fire Longsword seems broken and confused. I'm okay with a Swordmage benefitting from this, but that should be allowed only because it's explicitly allowed by the Swordmage rules, not because of some general rules interpretation.

And then we can address the Elemental damage feats separately.

Assuming everything else is equal, we can address the fact that elemental damage feats can't be used as consistently as weapon focus feats in several ways:
1) adding more elemental powers
2) decreasing the cost of the feat
3) making the feat more powerful

Option 3) is the most dangerous one. We would rely on the dearth of usable powers as a balancing measure, which could go away at any moment. Besides, different spellcasters would have different situations.

So 3 and 2 are decidedly bad options. And 1 is something that really only WotC can do for us.

To me it seems it would be best to simply wait. Adding blurring would only make things complicated, and it would reduce one of the game's ways of adding different color to different classes.

(But I could be wrong - I'm not even sure I've understood the real problem here.)

 

[franzel]

You know, DracoSuave, I've read your latest post twice and I still don't find it "easy". In fact, I still don't see how "blurring" helps.

(But I could be wrong - I'm not even sure I've understood the real problem here.)

I don't know that I understand what you all think the problem is.

Is the problem that the elemental +damage feats suck compared to just about anything else? Yep. That's not a solvable problem on its own. They should just be removed and implement focus be put in their place. Period.

Trying to distinguish how implement wielders focus on adding numbers/effects to their attacks and how weapon wielders do it (this distinction of focus on tool versus focus on type) will just lead to confusion in general and specifically for classes like the swordmage or the bard or the cleric or the paladin or the avenger...

Reality is that all classes can add bonuses based on tool or based on type BUT there are many more ways to add bonuses based on weapon tools than there are based on implement tools. Hopefully this disparity will be rectified in Arcane Power and Divine Power.

That would have been the end of the story except that the designers (NOT CSRs) acknowledged that things get awkward when you are using a weapon as an implement. That's why they put in the FAQ answer in the first place about weapon focus adding when using a weapon as an implement. They also put restrictions on what you can use in a weapon when it is wielded as an implement, namely you don't have access to the weapon powers but you do have everything else.

The biggest problem with the weapon focus ruling is that it acted as a precedent for all other effects/powers/abilities that affect weapons but could also, in theory, affect implement powers when a weapon was being wielded as an implement.

Take the Sorcerer/multi-class rogue/Daggermaster for a moment.

The Daggermaster grants the ability to crit on an 18-20 when wielding daggers. It doesn't say anything about critting on an 18-20 only with weapon powers. Well, the sorcerer is clearly wielding daggers so the consensus is that you get the 18-20 crit range.

Let's say you're wielding two daggers. And you take two-weapon fighting. Do you get the +1 to damage when you cast a spell using the dagger as an implement? The feat only requires you to wield two melee weapons (which you are) and you are using your "main weapon" but you happen to be using it with an implement power. You wouldn't get the +1 to damage if the dagger were temporarily not a weapon because it is being used as an implement. Makes sense. But because of the weapon focus FAQ, we know that it must also be a weapon at that same time or else how would you get the bonus to damage from weapon focus? Therefore, you must also get the +1 to damage from TWF.

And these issues aren't new, btw. It's just they're coming up again because sorcerers can use weapons as implements out of the gate and when the swordmage was first published, R&D hadn't clarified these issues in the FAQ yet.

The real problem is that the word "weapon" is only a keyword when it is referring to the accessory of a power. It can also be used to refer to an item which is a weapon. Weapon Expertise neatly avoids the whole problem of weapons used as implements since it specifically says "with weapon powers." No confusion. No problem. What they need to do is go back and in every feat/power/item/etc. add "with a weapon power" for the effects that they only want to work for weapon attacks. And leave it alone if they don't mind it be using for both.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thanks Franzel - finally I think I understand the root cause of all the hubbub; that the game mixes "you get a bonus when using a weapon, the tool" and "you get a bonus when using a weapon power".

But do they really need to go through all powers and feats?

Can't you make a few rulings and guidelines in two layers; one general, and one class-specific?

I mean, I really hope that's a "yes" because if they really need to go through the lists of feats and powers, I fear we won't see the issue resolved until the next edition of the game...

 

[Wardo]

Thanks Franzel - finally I think I understand the root cause of all the hubbub; that the game mixes "you get a bonus when using a weapon, the tool" and "you get a bonus when using a weapon power".

But do they really need to go through all powers and feats?

Can't you make a few rulings and guidelines in two layers; one general, and one class-specific?

I mean, I really hope that's a "yes" because if they really need to go through the lists of feats and powers, I fear we won't see the issue resolved until the next edition of the game...

Well, if all you're waiting for is an official WotC ruling, then the issue is resolved. As Franzel suggested, if the feat or class feature references weapon without specifically calling out Weapon powers or the Weapon keyword, then you interpret the bonus as being for any use of the weapon (such as using it as an implement). Thus says the FAQ, thus says the Character Builder (which has been specifically altered to emulate this behavior).

Now, whether that's something you want happening in your game is up to you.

 

[franzel]

Thanks Franzel - finally I think I understand the root cause of all the hubbub; that the game mixes "you get a bonus when using a weapon, the tool" and "you get a bonus when using a weapon power".

But do they really need to go through all powers and feats?

Can't you make a few rulings and guidelines in two layers; one general, and one class-specific?

I mean, I really hope that's a "yes" because if they really need to go through the lists of feats and powers, I fear we won't see the issue resolved until the next edition of the game...

Obviously, they don't have to go through everything. In fact, they don't have to go through anything right now. As it stands, unless R&D decides that they don't like how the system is working, everything works for implements powers where a weapon is used as the implement, including things like TWF and Bloodiron, etc.

The only things excluded are weapon item powers (from the FAQ) and anything that mentions "weapon powers" like Weapon Expertise.

That's all fine. It just gets weird when you think about how certain effects work when using a weapon as an implement. Take High Crit, for example:

A high crit weapon deals more damage when you score a critical hit with it. A critical hit deals maximum weapon damage and an extra 1[W] at 1st–10th levels, an extra 2[W] at 11th–20th levels, and an extra 3[W] at 21st–30th levels. This extra damage is in addition to any critical damage the weapon supplies if it is a magic weapon.

The part about dealing max weapon damage strongly IMPLIES that it is only applied when using a weapon power, but it doesn't say that. So it technically adds when using an implement power and barring any other information it would just add 1, 2 or 3[W] damage to the crit damage of the implement power. I guess we just ignore the max weapon damage part of the description

It's not a huge problem. I think it just causes some common sense headaches.

 

[Ryujin]

Well this gives my less than optimized Feylock some hope. With a couple of feats I can increase both my hit and damage capabilities. Following the same logic it would appear that both Eladrin Soldier and Whetstones can provide a significant improvement in hit/damage. In fact I plugged Eladrin Soldier into Character Builder and it increased not only my melee damage, but my Eldrich Blast damage in the Basic Attacks section also.

If I'm right about Whetstones, and I would seem to be based on the mirrored language used, then it makes for a cheap 75gp per encounter boost to hit chances (something hard to come by in 4e).

*EDIT* I take that back. They're both enhancement bonuses and so wouldn't stack, aren't they? Got myself all excited over nothing.

 

[evilbob]

1) Wardo's avatar is made of win.

Indeed - he looks familiar to me, somehow...

On-topic, don't forget that Weapon Focus is +1/2/3, so that's really 3 points of damage per hit you're talking about. And yes, the FAQ ruling does make all those +1 element/condition feats pretty useless, especially since they can't stack. Sadly, those will likely go the way of the dodo pretty soon - possibly as early as three weeks from now with Arcane Power. And yes, it's completely unfair to wand/orb/totem wielders.

They tried to get away from "implement focus" but frankly they should have just included it. If they do include one in the future, hopefully it'll be a feat bonus to prevent extra stacking badness.