Corellon Warpriest domain - New Cleric at will (melee/ranged)

103 posts / 0 new
Last post

from the Neverwinter Campaign Guide FAQ


Q: What preview material is in the FAQ this time around?
A: This time around, we're previewing one of the at-will powers of the Corellon Warpriest domain (one of the four Forgotten Realms deity-based domains included in this guide):


Graceful Switch
People have talked about this in the cleric handbook.

It looks like bow clerics are going to have more options because of this domain, which I'm pretty excited about.
Wow, that's . . . amazingly underwhelming for something taking one of my two precious at-will slots. What's the goal of it? I don't see any leading, I don't see any control . . . is this just something that people who want this domain are going to have to grin and bear?

Force and radiant isn't bad, sure, but it's hardly worth your at-will slot unless you have a ludicrously specific combo in mind.

Now, if you could use this as a basic attack, then it would have a reason to exist, but . . . as written, what's the point?
Yeah, this power needs to be a basic attack.  Then it would be pretty cool.
Wow, that's . . . amazingly underwhelming for something taking one of my two precious at-will slots. What's the goal of it? I don't see any leading, I don't see any control . . . is this just something that people who want this domain are going to have to grin and bear?

Force and radiant isn't bad, sure, but it's hardly worth your at-will slot unless you have a ludicrously specific combo in mind.

Now, if you could use this as a basic attack, then it would have a reason to exist, but . . . as written, what's the point?


Maybe it'll have a point once you see the rest of the domain?  But I must admit that it's better to trounce based on little to no information.

THE SKY IS FALLING! 

It is worth noting the damage type, which is force and radiant, and thus, I believe resisted by no monsters currently.  But yeah, without seeing the rest of the domain, I'm reserving judgement on this as a power.  Suffice it to say, it sounds good, but not especially leadery.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Wow, that's . . . amazingly underwhelming for something taking one of my two precious at-will slots. What's the goal of it? I don't see any leading, I don't see any control . . . is this just something that people who want this domain are going to have to grin and bear?

Force and radiant isn't bad, sure, but it's hardly worth your at-will slot unless you have a ludicrously specific combo in mind.

Now, if you could use this as a basic attack, then it would have a reason to exist, but . . . as written, what's the point?


Maybe it'll have a point once you see the rest of the domain?  But I must admit that it's better to trounce based on little to no information.

THE SKY IS FALLING! 




I don't understand the point of a leader power that appears to be a basic attack with a weird damage type and a weapon swap, and that's the same as declaring the sky to be falling?

. . . Oh, right. Internet.


THE SKY IS FALLING! 




That domain's other at will would practicly have to be a radiant frost version of twin strike that can be used as a MBA to save that.  It's an at will that does nothing but damage.... on a leader class. And it's not even for one of the leader classes that actually might want to switch between ranged/melee weapons like artificers/warlords/bards.  

There's not a single situation where you wouldn't be better off just blowing your minor to switch weapons and then using an at-will that will actually do something. And if you're in a situation where you don't have a minor to waste, then you probably have more important things to be doing than throwing a pissant 1W+wis damage at a monster. 

I'd love to see more options for bow clerics (for instance a way to use a bow as an implement that's not a PP, a weapon enxhantment, or a feat that limits me to one god and then only shortbows!) but this isn't it.


THE SKY IS FALLING! 




There is nothing in that domain that would save that.  It's an at will that does nothing but damage.... on a leader class. And it's not even for one of the leader classes that actually might want to switch between ranged/melee weapons like artificers/warlords/bards.  

There's not a single situation where you wouldn't be better off just blowing your minor to switch weapons and then using an at-will that will actually do something. And if you're in a situation where you don't have a minor to waste, then you probably have more important things to be doing than throwing a pissant 1W+wis damage at a monster. 

I'd love to see more options for bow clerics (for instance a way to use a bow as an implement that's not a PP, a weapon enxhantment, or a feat that limits me to one god and then only shortbows!) but this isn't it.



An at-will that pushes, buffs your defenses (IIRC, could be wrong), slaps a vulnerability of about 15 to 20 points' worth, gives you THP, and god knows what else. Having two keywords is ridiculous and you should feel bad for whining about a power that has so much optimization potential as being impossible to redeem. Low System Mastery at work, bay-bee!
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Completely lacks leader-applicable crunch.

It is implied that roles are abstract blueprint references that guide design, yes? Or is it just us players who keeping harping on the concept of them and their implementation (or lack thereof)? 

Danny

Completely lacks leader-applicable crunch.

It is implied that roles are abstract blueprint references that guide design, yes? Or is it just us players who keeping harping on the concept of them and their implementation (or lack thereof)? 



Newsflash: They don't. Not like you think at least.

And seriously, if you don't think "target enemy takes 20 extra damage from attacks" is not leadery crunch, I don't know what to say to you. Never mind that the cleric himself roids to hell and back on top.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
I imagine most people won't be able to stack Corellon's Domain with Amaunator's Paragon Path, but I suppose it's technically RAW.
Completely lacks leader-applicable crunch.

It is implied that roles are abstract blueprint references that guide design, yes? Or is it just us players who keeping harping on the concept of them and their implementation (or lack thereof)? 



Newsflash: They don't. Not like you think at least.

And seriously, if you don't think "target enemy takes 20 extra damage from attacks" is not leadery crunch, I don't know what to say to you. Never mind that the cleric himself roids to hell and back on top.

What's with the snark?

We're discussing the Domain at-will listed at the beginning of this thread. ... What are you discussing?

Danny

Who said you were picking it up? Leave that to the Defender. Your job is to pick up a Radiant Boon and Solar Enemy, pump the vulnerability as high as it can go, then see if you can find a way to grant Cold Vulnerability and extra damage on top. Double vulnerability tapping? Yes please! Sooooooo much easy synergy with keywords.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Completely lacks leader-applicable crunch.

It is implied that roles are abstract blueprint references that guide design, yes? Or is it just us players who keeping harping on the concept of them and their implementation (or lack thereof)? 



Newsflash: They don't. Not like you think at least.

And seriously, if you don't think "target enemy takes 20 extra damage from attacks" is not leadery crunch, I don't know what to say to you. Never mind that the cleric himself roids to hell and back on top.

What's with the snark?

We're discussing the Domain at-will listed at the beginning of this thread. ... What are you discussing?




I'm loling at the people who are going "OMG TEH SUXXXXXXXXOORZZZZZ" without taking two seconds to think of all the juicy goods you can derive out of keywords, mostly. It doesn't matter that this power isn't Commander's Strike: it can be made to surpass it. That's leadery crunch for you. If you want to rag the designers, do the math and be absolutely, positively sure they made a useless, completely unleadery power. Otherwise, sit tight and keep your complaints quiet.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
You should not have to expend limited resources such as feats to get a power to operate at base level for it's role. Yes it can be optimized yes it wont be resisted but regardless of all this it still has zero leader capability out of the door. Once again a monkey on a typewriter has created something inappropriate.
Solid Sound isn't that exciting to me, but a Forceful Bow is fun to use.
You should not have to expend limited resources such as feats to get a power to operate at base level for it's role. Yes it can be optimized yes it wont be resisted but regardless of all this it still has zero leader capability out of the door. Once again a monkey on a typewriter has created something inappropriate.



You say base level. I say "100 extra HP nuked per turn, baseline". That's more than an extra attack, for reference. With multiattacks we're talking about 160, 180, or more. This is an exceedingly strong power if used correctly, and what its baseline is is irrelevant. Leaders aren't about big numbers right out of the box, they're about being force multipliers who utterly annihilate the opposition through their allies. Graceful Switch does this.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Completely lacks leader-applicable crunch.

It is implied that roles are abstract blueprint references that guide design, yes? Or is it just us players who keeping harping on the concept of them and their implementation (or lack thereof)? 



Newsflash: They don't. Not like you think at least.

And seriously, if you don't think "target enemy takes 20 extra damage from attacks" is not leadery crunch, I don't know what to say to you. Never mind that the cleric himself roids to hell and back on top.

What's with the snark?

We're discussing the Domain at-will listed at the beginning of this thread. ... What are you discussing?




I'm loling at the people who are going "OMG TEH SUXXXXXXXXOORZZZZZ" without taking two seconds to think of all the juicy goods you can derive out of keywords, mostly. It doesn't matter that this power isn't Commander's Strike: it can be made to surpass it. That's leadery crunch for you. If you want to rag the designers, do the math and be absolutely, positively sure they made a useless, completely unleadery power. Otherwise, sit tight and keep your complaints quiet.

You specifically quoted me; whereas I was making an honest and un-snarklined inquiry as to the true role of roles in design. -- I even took responsibility, as a member of "us players," for the possible misunderstanding of design principle and the resultant mechanics. -- That's a far cry from "OMG TEH SUXXXXXXXXORZZZ."

This power, explicitly, lacks leader-applicable crunch. The fact that you can add, bolster, reapply and otherwise optimize it; the power is an inelegant addition to the repertoire of a leader (as I understand leader's to function).

What you're attacking everyone for is akin to someone expecting a sandwich for lunch, but instead receiving a filthy swine out of the pen. When the hungry someone says "WTH!? I wanted a ham sandwich," you seem to imply that me saying "you can slaughter, butcher, prepare, cure, honey-glaze and make a sandwich out of it in fifty million ways fool, take two seconds to think of all the juicy goods you can derive out of this pig... hell, you can get bacon, sausage, etc, that can even surpass a sandwich!" is a plausible/respectable response. Add me then lolling in your face for your lack of breadth in comprehension and pointing a finger at you screaming "Lack of Lunch Mastery At Work BAY-BEE!" -- Unneeded, and out of context for the discussion at hand.

Danny

It's like claiming that twin strike is inadequate striker power because it requires a lot of damage bonuses to kill things...


It's like claiming that twin strike is inadequate striker power because it requires a lot of damage bonuses to kill things...


Err... I don't agree it correlates.

Danny

I wonder if some people understands what the leader role entails.  What some of you are extolling is good for a striker not so much for a leader. Any increase to another character's efficiency or effectiveness..... no, any damage or status effect relief or mitigation........ no, well guess what it fails as a leader power. Give it to an Avenger or a Paladin then we're playing in the right sand pit.
I wonder if some people understands what the leader role entails.  What some of you are extolling is good for a striker not so much for a leader. Any increase to another character's efficiency or effectiveness..... no, any damage or status effect relief or mitigation........ no, well guess what it fails as a leader power. GIVE IT TO AN aVENGER OR A pALADIN THEN WE ARE PLAYING IN THE RIGHT SAND PIT.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!

Danny


It's like claiming that twin strike is inadequate striker power because it requires a lot of damage bonuses to kill things...


Err... I don't agree it correlates.




Build a Twin Striking Ranger who takes Pathfinder, Farbond Spellblades, no Iron Armbands, no Weapon Focus, and on and on. He'll fail to meet basic striker DPR benchmarks, not even optimized ones. Same thing applies here.

As for your other post, it sounded like you were engaging in some of the classic nerdrage snark that these forums are famous for. If you weren't, my apologies - but considering the two out of the first four posters were a display of LSM and classic whinyness and I don't feel like hearing dumb complaints in a potentially fun opping topic, I decided to cut that out before the QQ train got going - and this required some harsh mockery of stupidity backed with some good old optimization examples to work. If you weren't trying to do the same thing as the first two posters, once again, I apologize that you got caught in the crossfire. I just don't want this topic to end up being a QQing ****thread, is all.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).

It's like claiming that twin strike is inadequate striker power because it requires a lot of damage bonuses to kill things...


Err... I don't agree it correlates.




Build a Twin Striking Ranger who takes Pathfinder, Farbond Spellblades, no Iron Armbands, no Weapon Focus, and on and on. He'll fail to meet basic striker DPR benchmarks, not even optimized ones. Same thing applies here.

As for your other post, it sounded like you were engaging in some of the classic nerdrage snark that these forums are famous for. If you weren't, my apologies - but considering the two first posts were a display of LSM and classic whinyness and I don't feel like hearing dumb complaints in a potentially fun opping topic, I decided to cut that out before the QQ train got going - and this required some harsh mockery of stupidity backed with some good old optimization examples to work. If you weren't trying to do the same thing as the first two posters, once again, I apologize that you got caught in the crossfire. I just don't want this topic to end up being a QQing ****thread, is all.

Apology accepted.

Danny

Comparing it to a Ranger who has slit his own throat option wise great work.

I wonder if some people understands what the leader role entails.  What some of you are extolling is good for a striker not so much for a leader. Any increase to another character's efficiency or effectiveness..... no, any damage or status effect relief or mitigation........ no, well guess what it fails as a leader power. GIVE IT TO AN aVENGER OR A pALADIN THEN WE ARE PLAYING IN THE RIGHT SAND PIT.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!



I'm curious what you guys define as a leader, given all this rage/uppercase abuse.
I think I have adequately defined what a leader's powers should be doing.
Build a Twin Striking Ranger who takes Pathfinder, Farbond Spellblades, no Iron Armbands, no Weapon Focus, and on and on. He'll fail to meet basic striker DPR benchmarks, not even optimized ones. Same thing applies here.

I don't agree that RPGBG's analogy applies.

What does a striker do? Lay on high damage. What does Twin Strike do? Affords high damage. Thusly, Twin Strike is a striker-applicable power. -- Everything else is optimization and/or discussion above and beyond the case in point.

What does a leader do? Increase party efficiency or effectiveness, and relief or mitigation. What does Graceful Switch do? Affords none of that. Thusly, the case of Twin Strike is not analogous.

Danny



You specifically quoted me; whereas I was making an honest and un-snarklined inquiry as to the true role of roles in design. -- I even took responsibility, as a member of "us players," for the possible misunderstanding of design principle and the resultant mechanics. -- That's a far cry from "OMG TEH SUXXXXXXXXORZZZ."

This power, explicitly, lacks leader-applicable crunch. The fact that you can add, bolster, reapply and otherwise optimize it; the power is an inelegant addition to the repertoire of a leader (as I understand leader's to function).

What you're attacking everyone for is akin to someone expecting a sandwich for lunch, but instead receiving a filthy swine out of the pen. When the hungry someone says "WTH!? I wanted a ham sandwich," you seem to imply that me saying "you can slaughter, butcher, prepare, cure, honey-glaze and make a sandwich out of it in fifty million ways fool, take two seconds to think of all the juicy goods you can derive out of this pig... hell, you can get bacon, sausage, etc, that can even surpass a sandwich!" is a plausible/respectable response. Add me then lolling in your face for your lack of breadth in comprehension and pointing a finger at you screaming "Lack of Lunch Mastery At Work BAY-BEE!" -- Unneeded, and out of context for the discussion at hand.




 This is not the first power that lacks a rider, effect, or whatever for its intended role out of the box. Look at Overwhelming Strike as an example; its among the best powers Avengers could get for the mere price of one feat.

 Moreover, your making an unfair comparison. It's more like you're knowingly ordering a pig and complaining it's not a sandwich.

I wonder if some people understands what the leader role entails.  What some of you are extolling is good for a striker not so much for a leader. Any increase to another character's efficiency or effectiveness..... no, any damage or status effect relief or mitigation........ no, well guess what it fails as a leader power. GIVE IT TO AN aVENGER OR A pALADIN THEN WE ARE PLAYING IN THE RIGHT SAND PIT.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!



I'm curious what you guys define as a leader, given all this rage/uppercase abuse.

LOL uppercase abuse...

Danny

Trying to get use to new keyboard.
Build a Twin Striking Ranger who takes Pathfinder, Farbond Spellblades, no Iron Armbands, no Weapon Focus, and on and on. He'll fail to meet basic striker DPR benchmarks, not even optimized ones. Same thing applies here.

I don't agree that RPGBG's analogy applies.

What does a striker do? Lay on high damage. What does Twin Strike do? Affords high damage. Thusly, Twin Strike is a striker-applicable power. -- Everything else is optimization and/or discussion above and beyond the case in point.

What does a leader do? Increase party efficiency or effectiveness, and relief or mitigation. What does Graceful Switch do? Affords none of that. Thusly, the case of Twin Strike is not analogous.




No, it increases party efficiency by a colossal amount.  Again, 20. Extra. Damage. This is an incredible amount of oomph to add to a hit. On top of that, it also provides utility: a Cleric using this power can maintank like a boss because he gains a billion THP and defensive boosts. This is more powerful than a good amount of their encounter powers, with proper optimization. Hell, it's better than most Warlord powers with proper optimization, and if you know how much of a Warlord nut I am (I'd argue I'm the guy who knows the most about them in the whole board, or if I'm not the second one) you can see that this is very high praise. It doesn't matter if you have to pour lots of resources into it to make it kick ass: once it gets going, the way it rips enemies to shreds is utterly fantastic. If the domain provides a boost to make usable in place of MBAs the Cleric just shot up to second best leader by a mile. I can explain why in detail if you like, even.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).


You specifically quoted me; whereas I was making an honest and un-snarklined inquiry as to the true role of roles in design. -- I even took responsibility, as a member of "us players," for the possible misunderstanding of design principle and the resultant mechanics. -- That's a far cry from "OMG TEH SUXXXXXXXXORZZZ."

This power, explicitly, lacks leader-applicable crunch. The fact that you can add, bolster, reapply and otherwise optimize it; the power is an inelegant addition to the repertoire of a leader (as I understand leader's to function).

What you're attacking everyone for is akin to someone expecting a sandwich for lunch, but instead receiving a filthy swine out of the pen. When the hungry someone says "WTH!? I wanted a ham sandwich," you seem to imply that me saying "you can slaughter, butcher, prepare, cure, honey-glaze and make a sandwich out of it in fifty million ways fool, take two seconds to think of all the juicy goods you can derive out of this pig... hell, you can get bacon, sausage, etc, that can even surpass a sandwich!" is a plausible/respectable response. Add me then lolling in your face for your lack of breadth in comprehension and pointing a finger at you screaming "Lack of Lunch Mastery At Work BAY-BEE!" -- Unneeded, and out of context for the discussion at hand.




 This is not the first power that lacks a rider, effect, or whatever for its intended role out of the box. Look at Overwhelming Strike as an example; its among the best powers Avengers could get for the mere price of one feat.

 Moreover, your making an unfair comparison. It's more like you're knowingly ordering a pig and complaining it's not a sandwich.

This is not the first power that lacks a rider, effect, or what-have-you; I agree. I did not make the statement that all powers must have one. All I said was that it lacked leader-applicable crunch. It was a point-blank statement; nothing implied, added or contesting.

I believe that my comparison is fair. The design moving forward has been explained to be more concise, employing a stronger understanding of the game, and I argue that such announcement implies a fair expectation of what is to come down the design pipeline. This power is less than lucid with regard to its role utility. I expected something, I didn't receive it, so I voiced my understanding and surprise.


Build a Twin Striking Ranger who takes Pathfinder, Farbond Spellblades, no Iron Armbands, no Weapon Focus, and on and on. He'll fail to meet basic striker DPR benchmarks, not even optimized ones. Same thing applies here.

I don't agree that RPGBG's analogy applies.

What does a striker do? Lay on high damage. What does Twin Strike do? Affords high damage. Thusly, Twin Strike is a striker-applicable power. -- Everything else is optimization and/or discussion above and beyond the case in point.

What does a leader do? Increase party efficiency or effectiveness, and relief or mitigation. What does Graceful Switch do? Affords none of that. Thusly, the case of Twin Strike is not analogous.




No, it increases party efficiency by a colossal amount.  Again, 20. Extra. Damage. This is an incredible amount of oomph to add to a hit. On top of that, it also provides utility: a Cleric using this power can maintank like a boss because he gains a billion THP and defensive boosts. This is more powerful than a good amount of their encounter powers, with proper optimization. Hell, it's better than most Warlord powers with proper optimization, and if you know how much of a Warlord nut I am (I'd argue I'm the guy who knows the most about them in the whole board, or if I'm not the second one) you can see that this is very high praise. It doesn't matter if you have to pour lots of resources into it to make it kick ass: once it gets going, the way it rips enemies to shreds is utterly fantastic. If the domain provides a boost to make usable in place of MBAs the Cleric just shot up to second best leader by a mile. I can explain why in detail if you like, even.

I agree that you are the master of Warlords.

Danny

I don't agree that it's reasonable to publish a power that can be feat-enhanced to give it leadery effects and then claim it's a leader power.  Plenty of players will look at and not know "oh, there are these 3 other feats I can take to make it awesome!"  Constrat with Twin Strike, where it is blindingly obvious what you should do to make it even more striker-y.
I don't agree that it's reasonable to publish a power that can be feat-enhanced to give it leadery effects and then claim it's a leader power.  Plenty of players will look at and not know "oh, there are these 3 other feats I can take to make it awesome!"  Constrat with Twin Strike, where it is blindingly obvious what you should do to make it even more striker-y.



So you disagree with publishing a power that looks irredeemable to newbies but is an optimizer's delight? Huh. I...honestly disagree with that. Newbie traps are bad - but expert bait is not bad as long as it's not gamebreaking. It's a nice way to show that, as a designer, you're aware about how your game has evolved, which I can't help but applaud.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
The power does have some nice qualities as dilletante feed - note the weapon swap doesn't care if you go from one melee to another. I'm sure a niche avenger or seeker build could make some use of it. It's not bad at all, imo, especially given the rest of the domain we haven't seen yet.
A Beginners Primer to CharOp. Archmage's Ascension - The Wizard's Handbook. Let the Hammer Fall: Dwarf Warpriest/Tactical Warpriest/Indomitable Champion, a Defending Leader. Requiem for Dissent: Cleric/Fighter/Paragon of Victory Melee Leader Ko te manu e kai i te miro, nona te ngahere. Ko te manu e kai i te matauranga e, nano te ao katoa. It's the proliferation of people who think the rules are more important than what the rules are meant to accomplish. - Dedekine
This is not the first power that lacks a rider, effect, or what-have-you; I agree. I did not make the statement that all powers must have one. All I said was that it lacked leader-applicable crunch. It was a point-blank statement; nothing implied, added or contesting.

I believe that my comparison is fair. The design moving forward has been explained to be more concise, employing a stronger understanding of the game, and I argue that such announcement implies a fair expectation of what is to come down the design pipeline. This power is less than lucid with regard to its role utility. I expected something, I didn't receive it, so I voiced my understanding and surprise.



 What the design team stated before isn't relevant here. You have the opportunity to see the power, the class and/or build/subclass it belongs to, and make an informed decision from there. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. No need to fix what ain't broken, especially when not looking at the whole package. Speaking of the designers...




So you disagree with publishing a power that looks irredeemable to newbies but is an optimizer's delight? Huh. I...honestly disagree with that. Newbie traps are bad - but expert bait is not bad as long as it's not gamebreaking. It's a nice way to show that, as a designer, you're aware about how your game has evolved, which I can't help but applaud.



 It is my hypothesis that this power was made workable by pure accident. Remember, these are the same designers that made Sentinels, Binders, and Vampires.

This is not the first power that lacks a rider, effect, or what-have-you; I agree. I did not make the statement that all powers must have one. All I said was that it lacked leader-applicable crunch. It was a point-blank statement; nothing implied, added or contesting.

I believe that my comparison is fair. The design moving forward has been explained to be more concise, employing a stronger understanding of the game, and I argue that such announcement implies a fair expectation of what is to come down the design pipeline. This power is less than lucid with regard to its role utility. I expected something, I didn't receive it, so I voiced my understanding and surprise.



 What the design team stated before isn't relevant here. You have the opportunity to see the power, the class and/or build/subclass it belongs to, and make an informed decision from there. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. No need to fix what ain't broken, especially when not looking at the whole package. Speaking of the designers...




So you disagree with publishing a power that looks irredeemable to newbies but is an optimizer's delight? Huh. I...honestly disagree with that. Newbie traps are bad - but expert bait is not bad as long as it's not gamebreaking. It's a nice way to show that, as a designer, you're aware about how your game has evolved, which I can't help but applaud.



 It is my hypothesis that this power was made workable by pure accident. Remember, these are the same designers that made Sentinels, Binders, and Vampires.




It's likely, but hey, a man can dream, can't he? :P
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
The power does have some nice qualities as dilletante feed - note the weapon swap doesn't care if you go from one melee to another. I'm sure a niche avenger or seeker build could make some use of it. It's not bad at all, imo, especially given the rest of the domain we haven't seen yet.

Dilletante feed, yes! Probably appropriate as some human kibble too. Especially useful for warlords, artificers and bards, as someone stated before.


This is not the first power that lacks a rider, effect, or what-have-you; I agree. I did not make the statement that all powers must have one. All I said was that it lacked leader-applicable crunch. It was a point-blank statement; nothing implied, added or contesting.

I believe that my comparison is fair. The design moving forward has been explained to be more concise, employing a stronger understanding of the game, and I argue that such announcement implies a fair expectation of what is to come down the design pipeline. This power is less than lucid with regard to its role utility. I expected something, I didn't receive it, so I voiced my understanding and surprise.



 What the design team stated before isn't relevant here. You have the opportunity to see the power, the class and/or build/subclass it belongs to, and make an informed decision from there. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. No need to fix what ain't broken, especially when not looking at the whole package. Speaking of the designers...

I've lost sight of your contention.

I seized the opportunity to see the power, made an informed decision, decided how I felt about it (the particulars of which I have yet to share), and asserted that it didn't have leader-applicable crunch specific to the role as I understand it. I have not proposed a solution, or referred to it as broken, I merely made an observation. What are you saying?

Danny

Yeah, I went overboard on that one. Though it's hard to for me to see why many are being skeptical.