Tanky sorcerer ???

69 posts / 0 new
Last post
hi i am posting to see if i can get some help making my sorcerer more tanky as the party im in im basicaly the frontline. 

we have

1x warlock
1x melee healing focus cleric
1x rogue
1x wizard
1x dragon sorcerer  

my current build is as follows  

dragonborn , dragon magic sorcerer(build before i knew what other people were playing) level 4

hp:44
ac:19


str18
con14
dex 11
int 11
wis 10
cha 18


feats 
improved implement profecincy 
leather armour profency 
toughness 



spells 

at-will

acid orb
burning spray

encounter

explosive pyre
ice dragons teath

utility 

dragonflame mantle

daliy

dragonfang bolt

any help as to mc or retraining to make my self tankyer would be greatly apreicated 
 
Ask your DM if you can hybrid Fighter or Barbarian. Either will help.

Take the Born Under a Bad Sign background to increase your HP.
Flame Spiral. Getting to do your damage twice to any adjacent targets will really help out. I'd change improved implement into Staff Expertise as that means you won't provoke. Pick up a Rhythm Blade Dagger +1 to bump up your AC/Reflex. Change Acid Orb into Blazing Starfall.

As Alcestis noted, hybriding would likely help a lot, giving you both increased toughness and the ability to stand in the front lines. Hybriding Fighter would let you take the Hybrid Talent feat for the ability to wear Hide+Heavy Shield instead of spending a feat for Leather Armor...
Rhythm Blade only works if you already have a Shield bonus, which he doesn't.

Oh, pick up a Bloodfury weapon. Activate the encounter power on it first turn of every fight. Dragonborn Sorcs get +2 to AC till end of encounter the first time they are bloodied. Will also, conveniently, give you increased accuracy since Dragonborn get +1 to hit while bloodied.

Lightning Breath as your daily 1 will give you a once per day reason not to hit you for a whole encounter, Flame Spiral should just be taken always as your Encounter 3.

The question is how much flexibility you have here. Even staying as a pure Sorc, your stats should be re-allocated. If you hybrid, that is even more true.
well im specing to my gm to se what he will let me do but worst case il have to try and do somthing through retraining  best case i can hybrid 
Rhythm Blade only works if you already have a Shield bonus, which he doesn't.


A Shielding Blade fixes that.

Rhythm Blade only works if you already have a Shield bonus, which he doesn't.

Oh, pick up a Bloodfury weapon. Activate the encounter power on it first turn of every fight. Dragonborn Sorcs get +2 to AC till end of encounter the first time they are bloodied. Will also, conveniently, give you increased accuracy since Dragonborn get +1 to hit while bloodied.

Lightning Breath as your daily 1 will give you a once per day reason not to hit you for a whole encounter, Flame Spiral should just be taken always as your Encounter 3.

The question is how much flexibility you have here. Even staying as a pure Sorc, your stats should be re-allocated. If you hybrid, that is even more true.

Is there a FAQ that supports that you have to have a shield bonus >0 in order to get the +1 to AC and Ref from the Rhythm Blade?
 
FAQs cover things that are ambigious in the rules. This isn't. You are granted bonuses by various game elements. You do not have a "bonus of zero." You'd need a rule that actually said that, for it to be true. Since no such rule exists, any attempt to justify Rhtyhm Blade working without a pre-existing Shield Bonus immediately runs afoul of the Munchkin Fallacy and is therefore invalid.
(In other words it is subjective matter of opinion that cannot be resolved here.  People will fight about it forever.  Just keep using it like you have been and don't tell Alcestis.)
(In other words it is subjective matter of opinion that cannot be resolved here.  People will fight about it forever.  Just keep using it like you have been and don't tell Alcestis.)

The only people who think it is subjective are people who don't mind being Munchkins and ignoring the rules. Which, last I checked, isn't something done in this forum without people being called out on it. ^.^ Perhaps you should review exactly how 4e is designed and what the Munchkin Fallacy is.
Or use a shielding blade as suggested and move on.
In short, your answer is "No, there is not, but my opinion is blah... blah... blah..."  BTW, +1 to AC and Ref is hardly a qualifier for Munchkin, and it is ridiculous of you to say so considering all that passes as OK on these forums.
In short, your answer is "No, there is not, but my opinion is blah... blah... blah..."  BTW, +1 to AC and Ref is hardly a qualifier for Munchkin, and it is ridiculous of you to say so considering all that passes as OK on these forums.

I'll just quickly comment on this before Alcestis feels the need to stomp you...

Munchkin and overpowered are not at all the same thing. Using the Rhythm Blade without a shield bonus would not be at all overpowered, I think we'll all agree. But just because it's "reasonable" in that sense, does not make it correct by RAW.

Here is the obligatory link to the Munchkin Fallacy.
Yakuza or Guardian themes (Yakuza is better overall if you want to be sticky)
Obviously get rid of Acid Orb for Ensorcelled Blade and hold a Lightning Dagger (Choose Lightning as your damage type for Dragon Breath and Dragon Magic)

With the Rebreather build, you can fairly reliably mark creatures every turn with Dragons Breath, but it takes some time to get rolling. Regardless, dropping your Int to 8 and your Con to 13 will let you have a Dex 12 (so you will have a 13 in Paragon for DiS) and a Wis of 13 so you can take the Battle Awareness (Fighter Multiclass) feat giving you an encounter punishment, Ancient Soul makes your Dragon Breath count as an Arcane power and you can potentially recharge it (see below) which will dramatically improve your overall effectiveness And then Draconic Spellcaster for your 3rd feat so you increase your accuracy and damage on all powers.

Eventually you'll want to take Unarmored Agility, Daunting Breath (so you mark with Dragon Breath), and Nusemnee's Atonement (so you can recharge Dragon Breath by targeting allies and damaging yourself slightly via Ancient Soul)

This is a good resource on the Dragon Breath build, you'll want to be a little bit more defensive though, I don't have the link, but there was also a thread about absurdly high defenses on a Dragon Sorc. community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Hybrid Barbarian/Sorc...Hybrid Talent Barb armored agility increases your AC and Ref, while giving you hide armor. While in Hide armor, you add your Str to your AC. 18 AC @ level 1 (4 Str + 3 hide + 1 class + 10 base). Your weapon of choice for now will be a Staff. Staffs double as quarterstaff (1d8 dmg), and you can use your arcane powers through it. If you keep Acid Orb, thats 11-18 damage a hit, no back stab, smite, or quarry needed. 

If there was a way to make some "heavy armors" considered "light armors" then you could, in theory have 24 AC @ level one, but at present, i know not how to do this.

Level 2 you take hafted defense another +1 AC and Ref. That makes you 20AC @ level 2, (4 Str + 3 hide + 1 class + 1 level + 1 feat + 10 base) no plate armor or heavy sheilds involved. Recuperating Strike gives you temp hit points when you hit, and the Sorc attacks of your choice will deal +8 damage. 

Level Staff Expert feat is great, it gives you reach, no oppertunity for casting in a threatened square, and +1 attack rolls to both melee and arcane attacks. At some point you will probably want a Staff of Ruin (level 2) or a Staff of the Serpent (level 7). Staff of ruin gives you extra damage, and Staff of Serpent gives your melee attacks +1D6 poison damage.

If a Staff weapon just isnt your thing, you can take Arcane Impliment prof: Heavy Blades (light blades are for Pixies), which lets you cast through your Heavy Blade. @ level 2 you will have 19 AC, as you will not have the shield bonus of Hafted Defense feat, and you don't have light shield proff. You could retrain hafted defense, for another defensive feat. However, if you want to go that route, Blackguard/Sorc is a better option, which would make you a Sorc in plate mail, who uses magic through a sword by level 2.

Born under a bad sign will = more hp, always a good thing

But do you really want to? Barb/sorc is not a "defender", you can not really protect your allies. You protect yourself. If offense is the best defense, then you will want to take some different feats to improve your attack rolls, and damage potential. If you take Barbarian Armored Agility, you will NOT qualify for dragon magic. Barb/Sorc can fill in a lot of gaps that a "normal" party has, and honestly, its hard not to get caught up in the shear brute force of it all. Barb/Sorc (and to an extent, Black/Sorc) can wear a lot of hats, and more then many other chars, is dependant on the items they get. Moves like "Suddan Scales" and "Silver Pheonix Rage" give you some staying power, but if all your other allies are dead, you are likely to follow.

If all else fails, Swordmage or Warden. 
A shielding blade as the main weapon for a striker is kind of terrible, in my opinion. Especially when said striker is giving up STAFF EXPERTISE (as a "tanky" caster) as well as an offensive enchantment of any kind. If you really want to just offhand the shielding blade.

Also, you seem to be on the right path with powers such as Dragonflame Mantle. Adding Sudden Scales (level six utility?) and Adamantine Echo (daily power of some level) will help. Dragon Sorcs have lots of built in ways to boost their defenses.

Note that if you do hybrid fighter, you WILL have, no doubt, better "all the time" AC and feel much tankier, especially in total hit points. However, you will NOT be able to be a dragon sorcerer. You will be a strength sorcerer. This means that dragon sorc riders will be far less potent. And a Dragon Sorcerer has enough built in, class native powers that can give you several instances of ridiculous AC once your power lists start expanding that hybridding might not be necessary.
Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA
If you take staff fighting, you get to use the staff as a double weapon even if you only take single attacks with it and when it is a double weapon, it gains the defensive property so that is another untyped +1 AC.
hey thanks for al the input lots of help and after speaking with my gm I can hybrid and shuffle everything around. I would probably and am going to lookin to hybrid paladin or fighter maybe even sword Mage but that may stretch out my stats abit .

the arcane implement proficiency heavy blade is gona be usefull. (which book is it in arcane power I assume)

I'm also gona try and get my gm to let me take the sorcererous chaneling feat and have it apply to heavy blades or get quick draw so I can chanel stuff through my blade. Thanks for the input
Munchkin and overpowered are not at all the same thing. Using the Rhythm Blade without a shield bonus would not be at all overpowered, I think we'll all agree. But just because it's "reasonable" in that sense, does not make it correct by RAW.

Here is the obligatory link to the Munchkin Fallacy.


Alcestis and I have a difference of opinion on what is RAW.  If he could prove his assertion on Rhythm Blade, I would listen.  Since he cannot, what he thinks is meaningless.

You cannot add +1 to a N/A value, this is incontrovertible.

What you are claiming is that PCs have a constant innate Shield Bonus of +0 and thus can increase it with Rhythm Blades.
This is wrong because 4e is an exception based system, things only exist/happen/are done if something says so, and they occur exactly as the rules say they do.
There is nothing that says, or even insinuates, that any Creature has a Shield Bonus innately.

Burden of Proof Fallacy is part of the Munckin Fallacy, and it is specifically what you are committing here.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
"Out of all the times you committed a hate crime, how many of your victims survived?"

If a number is undefined, you can't just default it to zero.
@ Zathris -- Burden of proof falls equally on both parties.  That being said, I agree, you cannot add +1 to a N/A value.  Because of the wording of the property of the weapon, this may or may not be the case here.  That is why I asked if there was a clarification on the issue.  There has not, so, as Scatterbrained pointed out, this is a subjective matter of opinion that cannot be resolved here.
 
bump to Zathis' rebreather build.
@ Zathris -- Burden of proof falls equally on both parties.  That being said, I agree, you cannot add +1 to a N/A value.  Because of the wording of the property of the weapon, this may or may not be the case here.  That is why I asked if there was a clarification on the issue.  There has not, so, as Scatterbrained pointed out, this is a subjective matter of opinion that cannot be resolved here.
 


The burden of proof is quite simple. If PC's had an innate shield bonus then all other shield bonuses would increase it. Wielding a shield does not increase this bonus it in fact "gives you a shield bounus to your AC and REF. The rhythm blade enchant increases this bonus and does not "give you a bonus".


For all the very sound reasons already given, Rhythm Blade cannot keep getting used as a suggestion to increase your defense when you have a free offhand unless said character already has a shield bonus.

Also, the Rhythm Blade doesn't even get its usual upside of getting to stay at +1 enchantment level forever. Dual Implement Spellcaster destroys that idea.
For the same reason, Staff Fighting is an iffy option because you need 13 wisdom while dual implement spellcaster requires 13 dexterity. Waiting till epic for it on a sorcerer (who hardly has good feats to take up space until then) would be awful. You COULD wait until paragon to get both, but I dont know if double weapons count for that feat. Do they?  
Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA
@ Zathris -- Burden of proof falls equally on both parties.

Nope. As a facet of 4e's design structure, the burden of proof always rests entirely with the person making the positive assertion about the rules. You have no proof, so you have no argument, and are therefore wrong. That you don't understand why you're wrong doesn't alter the fact that you are. The fact that you can even think RAW is an "opinion" shows a real shortcoming in your understanding, actually.

@Thebringer: Yes, dual weapons count for DIS. And yeah, it isn't really an option till paragon, because you need to go 12 wis/12 dex and rely on the level 11 bump.


The burden of proof is quite simple. If PC's had an innate shield bonus then all other shield bonuses would increase it. Wielding a shield does not increase this bonus it in fact "gives you a shield bounus to your AC and REF. The rhythm blade enchant increases this bonus and does not "give you a bonus".


Look, I understand your opinion on this.  I am not even saying it's wrong.  What I am saying is that until there is clarification from an FAQ or errata, there is going to be subjective interpretation of the RAW about this property.




I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.


You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct


Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

Look, I understand your opinion on this.  I am not even saying it's wrong.  What I am saying is that until there is clarification from an FAQ or errata, there is going to be subjective interpretation of the RAW about this property

No, you don't understand, because you think it is an opinion. It isn't. Your counter-argument, that people will argue about it, is null. People argue about things all the time that are crystal clear in the rules. Out of ignorance or a simply unwillingness to accept the rules as they are. The existence of debate does not indication there isn't a right answer, which there is.

You fundamentally don't understand how exception based design works. You are making an assertion about the rules, that a shield bonus of zero exists for all PCs, always. You need to be able to prove that assertion for your argument to have merit and you can't. I am saying that you don't have a bonus unless a game element says you do. The rules only do what they say. Since you are making an assertion about what the rules say and I am not, the burden of proof rests entirely on you. That is part of the logical structure of exception based design.
Look, I understand your opinion on this.  I am not even saying it's wrong.  What I am saying is that until there is clarification from an FAQ or errata, there is going to be subjective interpretation of the RAW about this property

No, you don't understand, because you think it is an opinion. It isn't. Your counter-argument, that people will argue about it, is null. People argue about things all the time that are crystal clear in the rules. Out of ignorance or a simply unwillingness to accept the rules as they are. The existence of debate does not indication there isn't a right answer, which there is.

You fundamentally don't understand how exception based design works. You are making an assertion about the rules, that a shield bonus of zero exists for all PCs, always. You need to be able to prove that assertion for your argument to have merit and you can't. I am saying that you don't have a bonus unless a game element says you do. The rules only do what they say. Since you are making an assertion about what the rules say and I am not, the burden of proof rests entirely on you. That is part of the logical structure of exception based design.

You are wrong again.

I do not think the RAW is opinion.  I think that there is going to be more than one opinion about the RAW, because the RAW can be ambiguous sometimes.  It is not Gospel. Why do you think that they even have a FAQ to begin with?  I don't know, could it be that the written rules, aka the RAW, are not always clear?

Remember, I did not make the assertion about what the rules say.  YOU did.  I asked YOU to prove it, and YOU were the one who could not.

If you can prove it, please do.  Until then, all you can offer is YOUR OPINION.

So, I say again, I understand your opinion on this.  I am not even saying it's wrong.  What I am saying is that until there is clarification from an FAQ or errata, there is going to be subjective interpretation of the RAW about this property.

Why is that so hard for you to get through your head?  
Look, I understand your opinion on this.  I am not even saying it's wrong.  What I am saying is that until there is clarification from an FAQ or errata, there is going to be subjective interpretation of the RAW about this property

No, you don't understand, because you think it is an opinion. It isn't. Your counter-argument, that people will argue about it, is null. People argue about things all the time that are crystal clear in the rules. Out of ignorance or a simply unwillingness to accept the rules as they are. The existence of debate does not indication there isn't a right answer, which there is.

You fundamentally don't understand how exception based design works. You are making an assertion about the rules, that a shield bonus of zero exists for all PCs, always. You need to be able to prove that assertion for your argument to have merit and you can't. I am saying that you don't have a bonus unless a game element says you do. The rules only do what they say. Since you are making an assertion about what the rules say and I am not, the burden of proof rests entirely on you. That is part of the logical structure of exception based design.

You are wrong again.

I do not think the RAW is opinion.  I think that there is going to be more than one opinion about the RAW, because the RAW can be ambiguous sometimes.  It is not Gospel. Why do you think that they even have a FAQ to begin with?  I don't know, could it be that the written rules, aka the RAW, are not always clear?

Remember, I did not make the assertion about what the rules say.  YOU did.  I asked YOU to prove it, and YOU were the one who could not.

If you can prove it, please do.  Until then, all you can offer is YOUR OPINION.

So, I say again, I understand your opinion on this.  I am not even saying it's wrong.  What I am saying is that until there is clarification from an FAQ or errata, there is going to be subjective interpretation of the RAW about this property.

Why is that so hard for you to get through your head?  


I'm pretty sure no FAQ or errata are forth coming due to the fact that none are needed. The only errata needed in this case is your understanding of the way this rule works. Something along the lines of BCL needs to be FAQ'ed not how shield bonuses work.
How could you interpretate it differently? It increases your shield bonus. If you do not have a shield bonus (from a game element that gives you one), there is nothing to increase.

EDIT: thatwastotallyninja made a good point that no one seemed to comment on: "If a number is undefined, you can't just default it to zero."
Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA
If you can prove it, please do.  Until then, all you can offer is YOUR OPINION.


Proof:
1) To "increase" something, it must have a defined starting point.
2) Absent a shield bonus from a particular effect, your shield bonus has no defined starting point.
-> Absent a shield bonus from a particular effect, your shield bonus cannot "increase."

Are we all satisfied?
You are wrong again.

I do not think the RAW is opinion.  I think that there is going to be more than one opinion about the RAW, because the RAW can be ambiguous sometimes.  It is not Gospel. Why do you think that they even have a FAQ to begin with?  I don't know, could it be that the written rules, aka the RAW, are not always clear?

Remember, I did not make the assertion about what the rules say.  YOU did.  I asked YOU to prove it, and YOU were the one who could not.

If you can prove it, please do.  Until then, all you can offer is YOUR OPINION.

So, I say again, I understand your opinion on this.  I am not even saying it's wrong.  What I am saying is that until there is clarification from an FAQ or errata, there is going to be subjective interpretation of the RAW about this property.

Why is that so hard for you to get through your head?  

Again, multiple opinions about RAW doesn't change the fact that there is a single, real, RAW answer in most cases. I can in fact list nearly every case where there is not an actual RAW answer, because I know the rules. I am in fact single-handedly responsible for three FAQs, because I pointed out to the developers that an actual ambiguity existed. But, again, FAQs only apply in cases where the rules are unclear, not where there is unsubstantiated debate. They don't bother when the rules are clear but people are arguing, there'd be an infinite number of FAQs because people never tire of being wrong.

You don't understand, because you think it is an opinion. It isn't. It isn't hard for me to understand you're wrong, or why. You don't know how exception based design works. The failing here isn't that you're ignorant, it that you don't want to be educated so you can see why you're wrong because you personally dislike the person (me) who is pointing it out. Which is kind of sad, honestly, but /shrug.
How could you interpretate it differently? It increases your shield bonus. If you do not have a shield bonus (from a game element that gives you one), there is nothing to increase.

EDIT: thatwastotallyninja made a good point that no one seemed to comment on: "If a number is undefined, you can't just default it to zero."



Even though I normally agree with thatwastotallyninja, I disagree with the set up to his situation.  Here is a scenario that I think is more appropriate to the current situation.

Man #1 Says, "How many monsters has this guy killed?"

Man #2 Says, "Could be zero, could be a hundred, we don't know."

Man #1 Says, "Well, if he takes this Rhythm Blade and we see him kill something with it, well that would be an "increase of 1" no matter how many monsters he killed before, right?"

Man #2 Says, "I guess so."

Again, I am not saying this is the case with The Rhythm Blade shield bonus, but I could see how this could logically be interpreted this way.
 
Putting silly and nonsensical metaphors aside for a second, Andrakin, can you tell me where it's in the rules that all characters have a default shield bonus to AC and Ref of zero? Or to any defense, for that matter? Because if you can't, you're committing the Munchkin Fallacy.
How could you interpretate it differently? It increases your shield bonus. If you do not have a shield bonus (from a game element that gives you one), there is nothing to increase.

EDIT: thatwastotallyninja made a good point that no one seemed to comment on: "If a number is undefined, you can't just default it to zero."



Even though I normally agree with thatwastotallyninja, I disagree with the set up to his situation.  Here is a scenario that I think is more appropriate to the current situation.

Man #1 Says, "How many monsters has this guy killed?"

Man #2 Says, "Could be zero, could be a hundred, we don't know."

Man #1 Says, "Well, if he takes this Rhythm Blade and we see him kill something with it, well that would be an "increase of 1" no matter how many monsters he killed before, right?"

Man #2 Says, "I guess so."

Again, I am not saying this is the case with The Rhythm Blade shield bonus, but I could see how this could logically be interpreted this way.
 


Not that there is any logic here in your above statement, but, NO. Man #2 logically states, " No he just killed 1 monster, whats this got to do with manufacturing a shield bonus from nothing".
Killing a monster does not have the prerequisit of "have already killed a monster"
INCREASING your shield bonus has the prerequisit of "has a shield bonus"
A character without a shield bonus cannot have a shield bonus of +0 because they, well, don't have a shield bonus.  
Heya everyone, here are my homebrew threads: (yes there is only one right now, but there are more to come!) And Let There Be Fish-Men: KUO-TOA
Putting silly and nonsensical metaphors aside for a second, Andrakin, can you tell me where it's in the rules that all characters have a default shield bonus to AC and Ref of zero? Or to any defense, for that matter? Because if you can't, you're committing the Munchkin Fallacy.



No, I am not committing the Munchkin Fallacy and the metaphor is a good one.  It shows that you do not need a defined number to know that if you add 1 to x, x is increased by 1.

Also, remember, I am not the one who asserted anything except that people are going to have a different opinion on the RAW of the Rhythm Blade based on how it is written.  Alcestis was the one who made the assertion about Rhythm Blade.  The one you should be asking for proof is him/her.

(content removed)

(EDIT: Let's keep the personal attacks down, shall we? Check the Code of Conduct.

No, I am not committing the Munchkin Fallacy

Yes, you are. The fact that you can't tell you are is really all the proof anyone needs that you don't understand the logic of your position.