|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 10:15AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Um, I hate to tell you this, but Weapon Enhancement Powers don't work when using said Weapon as an Implement. WotC Ruling. :S
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 10:20AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
Please read my initial post. If something new has been added, please direct me to that source.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 10:25AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Ahh, I missed that part. Yeah, see, R&D explained that things like the Pact Bow (which has a Power that adds your Proficiency Bonus to the next Arcane attack Roll) are simply exceptions to their Ruling, and I fully expect them to declare every other specific Weapon Implement to be the same. So I'm fairly sure that all those Weapon Enchantments made specifically for Implement use will work just fine, but Frost/Raidant/etc will still be denied.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 10:34AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
I understand you're argument and I've read what you said in another thread. I also read the counter arguments and agree with them more. I'm not really willing to argue this in depth, but this is a significant alteration to the statement made in the PHB, which belongs in the errata section of the site, not the FAQ, which is going to be altered anyway.
Also, you really can't just say that this ruling only applies to certain weapons because you feel like it. The weapon powers in the PHB2 have the exact same wording as in the PHB1, so this ruling would in fact invalidate a bunch of new material. This has been discussed previously, so I won't get into details here.
Finally, I wouldn't exactly call a PM from a random person from R&D 'official.' I don't mean to sound beligerent, but I also need to defend my standpoint. It's not a randomly founded opinion from some new guy; it's actually based on logic.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 10:39AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Also, you really can't just say that this ruling only applies to certain weapons because you feel like it. The weapon powers in the PHB2 have the exact same wording as in the PHB1, so this ruling would in fact invalidate a bunch of new material. This has been discussed previously, so I won't get into details here.
I didn't. WotC through CustServ did. And yes, they're full of it, exactly as they were with the Weapon Focus (Staff) argument.
Finally, I wouldn't exactly call a PM from a random person from R&D 'official.' I don't mean to sound beligerent, but I also need to defend my standpoint. It's not a randomly founded opinion from some new guy; it's actually based on logic.
It was through Customer Service, who said they had discussed it with R&D. If that's not enough, then nothing anyone can say will make a difference to you, because then you're not looking for a discussion, you just want to be right. ::shrug::
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 10:46AM
#26
|
|
|
The second assumption that I make is that a frost dagger works with Sorcerer powers.
This seems a really poor way to start out a general use guide.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 11:03AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
Crimson Lancer - The you I meant wasn't specifically you, it was any asserter. It doesn't matter who says what - it still needs to have logical grounds. The weapon focus (Staff) argument did have logical grounding in the printed material, while this does not.
As for your latter statement - R&D can certainly change my mind, but not in the manner that they have done so. If they add it to errata, then I will certainly abide by it. I have to parse through difficult texts on a daily basis, so I'm confident in my reading comprehension skills, and I can fairly reliably spot a contradiction when I see it.
I honestly don't care about being right - I have no personal connection to that combo. I didn't discover it. I'm just going to recommend it until either it's allowed or it's more obvious that the combo is disallowed.
Verisimilar - Your statement is pretty unhelpful. Please be more constructive with your comments in the future.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 11:13AM
#28
|
|
|
Dragonfrost - An at-will push. Decently controllery while still doing respectable damage. With bonuses to push distance and Spitting Cobra Stance, this at-will is incredible, especially for Dragon Mages, who get temp HP every shot, making them a pseudo battlerager. With Sorcerous Blade, makes for a decent defensive at-will as well
Emphasis mine.
Sorry, but I don't understand how. Nothing in the power's description mentions anything of the sort.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead.
- Hávamál
D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald
Captain Morality! (No point in not having fun with it. ;-))
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 11:15AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
Absolutely. Draconic Spellfury is a feat that states that when you use as Sorcerer At-Will power, you gain temp HP equaled to your Strength modifier. I'll edit the statement to make it more clear as to where that came from.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2009 - 11:20AM
#30
|
|
|
Sven_Stryker - Sorry, I hadn't seen that you had begun a handbook for sorcerers as well. I promise that I'm not trying to step on your toes or anything.
I don't mind at all. As has been mentioned, having more than one guide is good for getting multiple opinions. I believe we have several differing opinions on things already. =P I referenced you in my guide about Spitting Cobra Stance, so it's good that we can increase our knowledge from others' ideas, competitors or not. 
|
|
|
