|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 4:31AM
#1
|
|
|
I have a wizard/mutliclass warlock/student of Caipon that got hit by the errata to Caiphon's guidance. Looking over the CCG, I wasn't making much sense out of what my character's options were.
Here is what is affected:
Updated: Caiphon's Guidance only affects warlock powers and Student of Caiphon powers.
Here is what I'd possibly like to get rid of:
Item: Rod of Stolen Starlight +3 (found item) - Used to change some wizard poison or necrotic powers to radiant for the guidance boost.
Feat: Arcane Implement Proficiency (Rod)
It looks like, if I'm reading this correctly, I cannot retrain the feat until I gain a level. But I cannot figure out what my options are for the rod.
The rod functions as it always does, it simply no longer pairs with Caiphon's Guidance and as long as I have the Arcane Implement Proficiency, I can still use it. So am I able to do anything with it besides sell it for 20% of it's price? I just wasn't sure it actually fell under the Character rules options and magic items update rules.
WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (co-author)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 5:07AM
#2
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind, didn't see that this was LFR until after I posted.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 6:09AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
You are correct. You cannot swap out the feat until you level, however, the update doesn't become binding until 30 days after publication. So for 30 days from when the update was posted, you can use the feat as it was if you wish. This is so you don't feel hosed before leveling and swapping the feat.
As for your Rod... your Rod didn't change due to errata, so you can't trade it out. It's only possible to trade items or sell for 100% if they received a rules update.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 6:27AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I'd agree with Dragon9 - the rule reads:
"Character rules options and magic items: When an official rules update changes a class feature, feat, power, or paragon path in a way that would invalidate one or more of your magic items but the items themselves have not changed..."
your magic item is definitely not invalidated; it's still a +3 magic implement, it's just less useful than it used to be. it's not an "avengers wearing leather armor" situation - you still *can* use the rod.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 11:14AM
#5
|
|
|
I'd agree with Dragon9 - the rule reads:
"Character rules options and magic items: When an official rules update changes a class feature, feat, power, or paragon path in a way that would invalidate one or more of your magic items but the items themselves have not changed..."
your magic item is definitely not invalidated; it's still a +3 magic implement, it's just less useful than it used to be. it's not an "avengers wearing leather armor" situation - you still *can* use the rod.
Though if you think about it, neither was the avenger's leather armor.
The avenger paid a feat in order to use leather armor that worked in conjunction with their class feature. The class feature was updated, so that it no longer worked with the armor. They still had the feat and were thus proficient with the armor, so it didn't stop working for them.
I paid a feat in order to use a rod that worked in conjunction with my paragon path feature. That paragon path feature was updated so that it no longer worked with the rod.
So actually, I don't see how your argument holds.
WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (co-author)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 11:34AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
The avenger paid a feat in order to use leather armor that worked in conjunction with their class feature. The class feature was updated, so that it no longer worked with the armor. They still had the feat and were thus proficient with the armor, so it didn't stop working for them.
I paid a feat in order to use a rod that worked in conjunction with my paragon path feature. That paragon path feature was updated so that it no longer worked with the rod.
So actually, I don't see how your argument holds.
well, it's a bit different. the paragon path feature still totally works with the Rod, just not when *you* use the Rod. Some (read: Warlock) Students of Caiphon can still use the Caiphons Guidance Rod; *No* Avengers can wear Leather Armor of the Faith. Hell, you could argue that you can still gain the benefit when you use Dire Radiance 1/enc.
that said, you've made a decently compelling argument by mapping your situation directly onto the canonical situation the ruling is built on; others may chime in on this, but i'd say this is now squarely in a "do what thou LFR group wilt" situation (knowing that i am not at all an actual arbiter on this).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 12:12PM
#7
|
|
|
Well, the rod still helps any non-radiant warlock power to benefit from caiphon's guidance. It's just like avengers can't get a refund for their radiant fullblade just because they can't go SoC anymore
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 12:36PM
#8
|
|
|
Oh sure. But for me that will be all of zero powers as all my warlock power and paragon path powers will be radiant and/or fear powers, so the rod doesn't help me.
After talking about it here, that's what I personally believe the intent of the rule was. If you never would have taken item X had the errata for rule Y been in place at the time, then you should get the ability to swap that item for something else.
Since I never would have taken the rod of stolen starlight had it not helped me with my crits, I think I am covered by the rule.
WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (co-author)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 1:03PM
#9
|
|
|
And some people really claimed that calling these re-fund-options the start of a slippery slope was overacting
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 05, 2010 - 1:21PM
#10
|
|
|
I don't think it is an overreach. The idea is not to punish people who took something based on a set of assumptions and then had those assumptions changed on them.
I plan to keep the paragon path because I chose it for backstory reasons. I took the rod (and the feat) in order to make the PP feature work a little bit better for me. I just don't need the rod anymore, and would have never picked it if the current rules were in place at the time. I'd be much better off with another wand instead.
WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (co-author)
|
|
|
