Winning Races: Half-Elves

[Istar]

A feat that modifies an encounter power seems about right to me. Having it unintentionally be usable at will due to another feat is a bit too good. There are many other feats that affect second wind, channel divinity, fey step, elven accuracy etc that can only be used once per encounter. Besides, if we are talking about effortless dilettante how many times per encounter does a character typically charge or use a OA

Fine but dont tempt us with a cool feat and then turn it to crap upon compilation, do your editing and reviewing before publishing it, basically most of what the author wrote initially got knobbled to once and encounter so the whole thing looks like a complete ballsup, maybe he was trying to compete with the Punisher of the Goods debacle, at least we should be grateful this was remedied pretty much immediately.

 

[Obryn]

Fine but dont tempt us with a cool feat and then turn it to crap upon compilation, do your editing and reviewing before publishing it, basically most of what the author wrote initially got knobbled to once and encounter so the whole thing looks like a complete ballsup, maybe he was trying to compete with the Punisher of the Goods debacle, at least we should be grateful this was remedied pretty much immediately.

I agree that the editor dropped the ball on this one.

But given a choice between just letting it stay broken because the editor messed up, and fixing it before compilation so that it never even makes it to the character builder, I'll pick the latter.

-O

 

[Marshall]

Marshall, I think you're seeing the cup as half-empty, whereas I see it as Half-Elvish.

(OK, sorry, that was bad...)

On this, we are in full agreement.

I'm going to continue this because the discussion interests me, and you've actually making me think, but I don't think either of us are going to change each-other's minds... And that's cool, y'know. I just don't want to come off like I think you're wrong for thinking the way you do about Half-Elves. If they don't work for you and you'd really like them to, I agree that pretty much sucks. As a DM that's the sort of thing that I'd want to sit down and discuss a house-rule for.

Ditto, and if WotCs editors read this and fix(refix) the screw-ups, I'll be a happy camper.

Plenty of DMs have houseruled Expertise into their games, this is just a less general issue. Unless the other players object it's not out of bounds to handwave a feat that you don't really want to take, but feel you need to.

Where did this come from?!?

Do you have any specific examples of a case where you really want a particular at-will (or one of a particular type / set of at-wills) for a specific character concept and it's an undue burden to make that work?

Sure. My Half-Elf Sorcerer would love to take something other than Five Storms. Realistically, the only options available are Guiding Strike, Jinx Shot or Eldritch Strike. All are CHA/Weapon attacks, all would use a dagger, none is a better option than a third SOR at-will would be. All other powers are non prof. implement(do YOU want to be a non-Warlock stuck with a Pact Dagger?) or weak stat.
I'd love to take AD and pick up a WIZ power, but I already have Bardic Dilettante so I cant take it.(This is what I mean by taking away choices).
At least until WotC changes the implement rules so that proficient is actually 'proficient'.

I do personally look at Eldritch Strike as a kind of "default choice" for Dilettante. It works off of either of your racial abilities (so almost certainly a primary or at least secondary), doesn't require an implement, and neither being an Arcane attack or the push are half-bad. But there are always going to be other viable options. The real "pitfall" tends to be the same one that Humans can face: your normal at-wills can be so good that you really never end up using your third. (And, honestly, isn't that the kind of problem that's good to have?) Half-Elves at least have more varied choices, making it easier to grab something "different", even if you only end up using it once in a while. Eldritch Strike, frex, can be pretty damned nice for a ranged character who gets stuck in melee: take one hand off of your bow, minor action to draw a weapon (or use your bare hand at low levels, or use your staff, or etc.), Eldritch Strike to push the enemy out of OA range, and then run! If you aren't getting cornered by Lurkers and such all the time (or, specifically: more than once per encounter), you could probably even skip Versatile Master if you wanted to...

Uh huh, "best of a series of bad options".
Look at the new Monk at wills, free movement utility powers. At least until WotC catches on and rules that you only get the attack action.

The class-specific MC feats are one of the first things I grab in 4e, pretty much that or a racial superior weapon feat (Dwarven Weapon Training, Eladrin Soldier, etc.). An MC feat gets you another trained skill (and, IME, the party really wants 5 more trained skills), and another bonus - usually a pretty good one for a feat. And I can find all sorts of neat stuff to grab from MCing, even without any power-swapping. Feats, Paragon Paths... There's some nice options there.

Yes, the MC feats are the best feats in the game. Since they changed the rider on AD to a penalty now you are forced to take the one that aligns with your Dilettante choice, whether you want that class or not.

OK, I can agree that mixing implements is usually not a great idea. Part of what I've been trying to say is that just because not every option is great, that doesn't make Dilettante useless. And you can get around the issue in some cases (Arcane Implement Proficiency, Star of Corellon), so those still can be viable options. Yes, you have to be willing to take at least an MC feat to support an implement Dilettante power. Look at pretty much any class - there are going to be a number of powers that just don't work for a given build. Cleric, for instance: not every Cleric is going to pump Str and Wis, and that's going to limit the character's options. That doesn't make Cleric a bad class.

Bard gets to use Bard implements (ie: a wand) with Bard powers, and that's it. If he Dilettante's a Wizard power, he can't use an implement with it, unless he picks up a Wizard MC feat (which specifically lets him use Wizard implements, including a wand, with Wizard powers). Alternately he can take Arcane Implement Proficiency and pick any implement from any arcane class and use that for all of his arcane implement powers. MC feats make Dilettante implement powers work, that's why I say they're connected. Without them you're limited to weapon powers or AIP or Star of Corellon.

I think I see a fundamental misunderstanding of just how bad the implement rules are.
Take a Bard frex, He is proficient with a Wand as his only implement. He can use that Wand with any Bard/Bard prereq PP power, since the Bard Class is proficient with Wands. He can also use that Wand with any power he picks up thru MC/Dilettante/Other that also has Wand as a class prof implement.
Sounds pretty sensible, right? It falls apart quickly after this.
When you take an MC feat, you gain proficiency in that classes implements only for powers from that class! So, even if you take Wizard and gain 'proficiency' in Staff, Rod, Orb and Tome or Cleric and gain Holy Symbols, you cant use those implements for anything other than WIZ or CLR powers. You're SOL for all your Bard powers AND your Dilettante(Unless it matches the MC feat)

I'm making a Bard right now. I'm going Cunning, because I like turning the party into near-Goblins, so my Dex starts at 16 at 1st level.

??? You do realize that Cunning is INT based and almost exclusively implement?

I'm going mainly melee weapon powers (I have a bow-based build but the way the party seems to be shaping up I think the longsword is a better option). And I want a Divine MC at some point for flavor / paragon path. My short-list of Dilettante powers is: Ardent Strike, Virtuous Strike, Eldritch Strike, Intuitive Strike*, Furious Smash*, Luring Strike, Commander's Strike, Righteous Brand* Demoralizing Strike, and Ire Strike; I could also include: Pressing Strike*, Demon Dance*, Astral Seal*&, Dragon's Tail*&, Thorn Strike*, Eyebite&, Wolf Pack Tactics*, & Winged Horde&, but I think ten is plenty to choose from. Powers marked with a * would want Adept Dilettante, those with & would want some form of implement-correcting.

Bows go with the WIS build(Odd I know), Swords go with the CON build. I dont know of a DEX build.

The only power I really looked closely at but couldn't see making work was Mantle of the Infidel (Swordmage in the party), specifically because Invokers don't use Holy Symbols. If I was going Prescient I might go for it - but Acolyte of Divine Secrets can get it for me once per encounter, anyway. I could take Grasping Shards from the MC feat, but I don't want to load up on too many ranged powers for a mostly-melee character. Then I'd probably AIP into rods so I wouldn't have to juggle a wand.

Thats about the best you could hope for....

I don't understand this assertion. How does Adept Dilettante take any options away? Am I just misunderstanding your point here?

It fixes your MC options into place, while supposedly opening up your dilettante powers. As pointed out above, it only goes halfway to opening up powers so you end up worse off for taking it. Heck, it doesnt even have the limited implement rider to let you use class implements with class powers.
I call that eliminating options.

 

[Obryn]

It fixes your MC options into place, while supposedly opening up your dilettante powers. As pointed out above, it only goes halfway to opening up powers so you end up worse off for taking it. Heck, it doesnt even have the limited implement rider to let you use class implements with class powers.
I call that eliminating options.

No, it takes nothing away. If you don't want to MC into that class, you don't take the feat. Same as you did before the feat existed.

-O

 

[Marshall]

No, it takes nothing away. If you don't want to MC into that class, you don't take the feat. Same as you did before the feat existed.

-O

Which, in itself, is taking away the option of taking the feat. A feat that obviates itself is not a bright thing to do.
OTOH, just deleting the entire MC rider, or returning it to its pre-errata state would solve most of the issues with the feat. Then they need to fix implement prof.....

 

[kaomera]

Sure. My Half-Elf Sorcerer would love to take something other than Five Storms. Realistically, the only options available are Guiding Strike, Jinx Shot or Eldritch Strike. All are CHA/Weapon attacks, all would use a dagger, none is a better option than a third SOR at-will would be. All other powers are non prof. implement(do YOU want to be a non-Warlock stuck with a Pact Dagger?) or weak stat.
I'd love to take AD and pick up a WIZ power, but I already have Bardic Dilettante so I cant take it.(This is what I mean by taking away choices).

You could grab a songblade dagger as an off-hand implement and use any Bard implement power. You wouldn't get the dual implement bonus with your dilettante, of course. Or you could grab AIP and use whatever.

Already having Bardic Dilettante is an issue with 4e being a growing system, new stuff comes out and existing characters often can't take full advantage of it. You could retrain the bard MC for Adept Dilettante, if you wanted to. Or, actually, I guess you could grab that Wizard power you want and Combat Virtuoso (the Bard MC should qualify you for it) and let your Sorcerer damage bonus with arcane spells take care of the damage end of things. (I wasn't aware that you could use the implements you can wield from Sorcerer with Wizard spells, actually... Oops...)

At least until WotC changes the implement rules so that proficient is actually 'proficient'.

I've thought about this (and thought about it some more because of this thread). The problem is that implement proficiency isn't the same as weapon proficiency. Weapons fall into nice, neat groups, and except for ranged vs. melee their applicability is mostly pretty universal. Rogue powers are one exception - they pretty much all call out a specific set of weapons they can be used with. Implements are the reverse - you need to deal with both "proficiency" (ie: I can wield this implement) and "applicability" (ie: this weapon works with this power). You aren't supposed to be able to use a staff with a Bard power (by default) any more than you're supposed to be able to use a bastard sword with a Rogue power (by default).

Uh huh, "best of a series of bad options".
Look at the new Monk at wills, free movement utility powers. At least until WotC catches on and rules that you only get the attack action.

Yeah, I've looked at the Monk powers, and they're pretty sweet. But I just don't agree that dilettante amounts to nothing more than a series of bad options. Every choice you make has consequences - some of them are unforeseen or even unforeseeable. Choosing an MC or a Dilettante power have consequences - some of these consequences limit the utility of some of your other options. The two are linked by the rules; if you take an implement dilettante power you need the associated MC feat to be effective with it.

I think I see a fundamental misunderstanding of just how bad the implement rules are.
Take a Bard frex, He is proficient with a Wand as his only implement. He can use that Wand with any Bard/Bard prereq PP power, since the Bard Class is proficient with Wands. He can also use that Wand with any power he picks up thru MC/Dilettante/Other that also has Wand as a class prof implement.

OK, apparently I've gotten confused somewhere. I was convinced that you couldn't use implements with a class power with out the class feature or the line in the MC. Oops...

Sounds pretty sensible, right? It falls apart quickly after this.
When you take an MC feat, you gain proficiency in that classes implements only for powers from that class! So, even if you take Wizard and gain 'proficiency' in Staff, Rod, Orb and Tome or Cleric and gain Holy Symbols, you cant use those implements for anything other than WIZ or CLR powers. You're SOL for all your Bard powers AND your Dilettante(Unless it matches the MC feat)

Yeah, ok, so I'm actually better off that I thought. Sweet. I'll have to go have a second look at those Wizard powers.

??? You do realize that Cunning is INT based and almost exclusively implement?

The Dex thing is me misthinking, sorry. I meant Int. 16 Int...

And as far as Virtue of Cunning, the build listed in the PHB2 is Int & implement based, but the only thing Int does for the actual virtue is extend it's range, and with a base of 5 it covers a lot of ground as-is.. There's all of 7 Bard powers with a Cunning rider, and there's Intelligence riders on melee and ranged weapon attacks... I really don't see any need to tie any of the Virtues to a specific type of power.

It fixes your MC options into place, while supposedly opening up your dilettante powers. As pointed out above, it only goes halfway to opening up powers so you end up worse off for taking it. Heck, it doesnt even have the limited implement rider to let you use class implements with class powers.
I call that eliminating options.

OK, I've been replying on the assumption that you where talking pre-AD vs. post-AD; I think you're talking AD as originally published vs. compiled-issue AD. The original version didn't seem too broken to me, but it did seem really good for grabbing class-related feats without actually taking that class MC. The implement rider I think could possibly be added, it seems to be a standard feature of MC feats now. But the way implements work seems to be intended to restrict who can actually use which implements, and with no ability requirements this might trample on that a bit, I dunno...

Personally I don't look at anything in Dungeon / Dragon seriously until it's compiled. Before that it's little more than a preview, IMO. It's one of the problems with having to push out articles to the website every weekday... With the books I'm actually petty impressed with the errata, I'd rather the fix stuff than ignore it. But with the DDI I do sometimes kinda feel like they should have taken a bit more time before rushing stuff out. I'd like to see the magazines back in actual print, too, but that ain't happening either...

 

[Obryn]

Which, in itself, is taking away the option of taking the feat. A feat that obviates itself is not a bright thing to do.

No, no it's not. If you want to take the feat and limit yourself to multiclassing in your Dilettante power's class, you take the feat. If you don't, you don't.

Before the article, you had no way of using your Charisma, Constitution, or Wisdom for your Dilettante power unless it used those stats in the first place. After the article, you do, but it narrows your multiclassing options if you take it.

Zero options have been removed. A new option has been added. Take it or leave it. IMO, it's still a top-tier feat.

OTOH, just deleting the entire MC rider, or returning it to its pre-errata state would solve most of the issues with the feat. Then they need to fix implement prof.....

I simply don't see it that way. Beforehand, the feat opened up Windrise Ports cheese even to games which don't allow the background. Now, it closes that loophole.

-O

 

[mneme]

Just a point re implement-using half-elves. The Sehanie article today opens up another option: be a follower of Sehanie and take Moonbow Dedicate. Problem solved, and while you're at it you get cool chrome and a +1 per tier to damage for all your implement powers (except psionic/shadow, of course).