Community

He's at least wrong on the narrow point of RC only ever talking about range in the context of targets...

That glossary entry strongly suggests I can do the following without violating 4e semantics:

"What is the range of that attack?"
"Well, on the monster stat block it says Melee 1, so I guess the range is 1 square.  That seems to be 'the maximum distance the effect can reach'."
"OK, is there a creature within range of the target?"
"Yes.  He has an adjacent buddy, which is a creature and within 1 square."
"Oh, also, I suppose he's a creature himself, and he's within 1 square of himself, so... this seems a little silly, but he's also a 'creature within range of the target'."

So (bringing this back to the original question) I think it's correct to say that the antecedent can never be satisfied, but it doesn't matter very much because you end up with the same result - if the original attack's target was enemies only then it just whiffs.

Apr 15, 2013 -- 12:04PM, zelink551 wrote:

It's ok. Despite being right Alcestis is going on Sherman's March through the CharOp pages these days.

I don't think you intended that to be flattering, but considering Sherman's March was a succesful campaign that destroyed the south's psychological ability to continue waging war it is actually quite a compliment. I only hope I do so well at destroying the ability of people who are wrong to continue to argue.

@AtG: Effect, in that context, "result of a game element's use." Now if you are obeying the rules, that means you have to pick a target in the context of using a power. No target? No result. And again you have to ask the question "Range to what?".

And in making that flattering, you showed why its not flattering. Good job. Your singular perspective on history is emblematic of your singular view of CharOp. But its ok. We both get paid to DM

Apr 15, 2013 -- 1:16PM, Alcestis wrote:

@AtG: Effect, in that context, "result of a game element's use." Now if you are obeying the rules, that means you have to pick a target in the context of using a power. No target? No result. And again you have to ask the question "Range to what?".

It doesn't say "maximum distance an effect can reach in a specific context".  It just says maximum.  The maximum distance (the effect of) Magic Missile can reach is 20 squares.  The maximum distance (the effect of) a Melee 2 attack can reach is 2 squares.  This is a straightforward, literal reading of the text with the additional advantage of being precisely how a normal person would answer "what is the range of this power?".

Well, we all agree that a power cannot be used against an invalid target.  The question is whether a creature can still count as within the range of a power if said creature cannot be targeted by it.  I don't see anything in the rules as written that presupposes, entails, or even suggests "no".  I'd still like to see a rules source citation that definitively states, presupposes, entails, or even suggests that any creature who cannot be targeted by a power (e.g., because the creature is an enemy, and the power targets only allies) thereby is not in that power's range.

If anything, the rules suggest the opposite, as witness the definition of "range" in the Rules Compendium.  Another bit of evidence is the way the rules for choosing targets are stated on the bottom of page 105 of the Rules Compendium:

• The target must meet the power's target definition.
• The target must be within the range or area of effect of the power.

If being an invalid target thereby also excluded you from being in the range of the power, then those two bullet points would be redundant; the second one alone would suffice to rule out creatures who didn't meet the power's target definition.  I acknowledge this isn't definitive, but absent further evidence I'm satisfied that a creature who cannot be a valid target of a power can still be in that power's range.

Apr 15, 2013 -- 1:35PM, zelink551 wrote:

And in making that flattering, you showed why its not flattering. Good job. Your singular perspective on history is emblematic of your singular view of CharOp. But its ok. We both get paid to DM

No, still flattering. He adopted a scorched earth policy and won. War is like that. I have a number of issues with the Civil War in general, but you cannot argue that his campaign was not succesful on every point, because it accomplished everything it set out to do.

@AtG: Words mean things. Effect has a definition in 4e. Two, technically. So yes, it does say that.

Christ. Again. The target has to be in range. It says it right there, in the very thing you quoted.

The words don't support you.  Let's actually look at them again.

The relevant clause of Dimensional Vortex:

"If no creatures are within range of the target, the attack is expended."

The definition of range:

"The maximum distance that an effect can reach."

The definition of effect:

"The result of a game element’s use."

So doing some substitution, we get the following:

"If no creatures are within (the maximum distance that (the result of the attack's use) can reach), the attack is expended."

Let's presuppose the attack is Melee 2, targets enemies only, for illustrative purposes.  What is the maximum distance that the result of the attack's use can reach?  Out of all of the results of the attack's use, at least one reaches 2 squares, and none reach farther than 2 squares.  Therefore 2 squares is the maximum distance that the result of the attack's use can reach.

Is a creature within 2 squares?  Yes. 

Again, no, no targets are within 2 squares. Targeting is part of the result of using a power. Fail again.

Apr 15, 2013 -- 2:28PM, Alcestis wrote:

The target has to be in range. It says it right there, in the very thing you quoted.

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say: if being an invalid target meant that you're thereby not in range, then the first bullet point would be otiose.

Including the word 'target' in the second bullet point in no way presupposes, entails, or even suggests that invalid targets thereby cannot be in the range of the power.  The second bullet point of the Rules Compendium quote says that the target must be in range in order to use the power, but we all agree on that.  What's at issue is whether a creature can still count as in range of a power even if you can't use that power on it.

Here's a(nother) straightforward way to see that a creature can be in range of a power without being targetable.  Suppose creature C uses power P with range 1 melee that targets enemies.

1. Range = (by definition) the maximum distance that an effect (aka the result of a game element's use) can reach.  (Rules Compendium glossary)
2. Therefore, the range of P = 1 (or maybe "melee 1").  [applying 1 to the supposition]
3. C is within 1 of itself.  [by other irrelevant definitions]
4. Therefore, C is within range of P.  [by substitution of identity from 2 to 3]

Now, I grant that one way you can think about how to determine some power's range is to choose hypothetical yet legal targets and ask whether the power would still affect this hypothetical yet legal target if it was, say, 6 squares away rather than 5.  If no, then the range is at most 5.  But once you've used hypothetical legal targets in this way, you have determined the range, and that range is a number (as stated in the Rules Compendium): something like 5 (or maybe "close burst 5", doesn't matter).  You can, in effect, jettison the reference to targets in stating the range ("5", or "close burst 5"), even though you used hypothetical legal targets in determining it.

Then, it's as straightforward a matter to determine whether some creature is within range of a power as it is to determine whether the creature is within 5 (or "close burst 5") of the power's wielder.  Since the range of the power is, by definition, identical to 5 (or "close burst 5"), determining the latter determines the former.

Again, the argument form simply substitutes identities (into an extensional context, for the persnickety).  The form of the argument is:

1. A = B.
2. X is B.
3. Therefore, X is A.

A = range of a power
B = a number of squares
X = a creature being within.

EDIT: AtG and I are making the same argument.

@Alcestis

Again, no, no targets are within 2 squares. Targeting is part of the result of using a power. Fail again.

There are two problems with that.  The first, somewhat trivial objection is that you can target a square.

The second is that nothing in the definition of range is contingent on circumstances.  It's just the maximum.  Not "maximum given your current location and the locations of nearby creatures".

Note that your idea of range being contingent on circumstances leads to circular calculations.  For example, referring again to the RC on choosing targets:

• The target must meet the power's target definition.
• The target must be within the range or area of effect of the power.

It would be impossible to calculate the range because we have to know the range to determine what the possible (situational) results of using the power were.  I must be able to ask "is this target within the range of the power", and I can only do that if I have a specific number for the range that doesn't depend on the location of that target.

Apr 15, 2013 -- 2:47PM, Alcestis wrote:

Again, no, no targets are within 2 squares. Targeting is part of the result of using a power. Fail again.

But this is exactly why the third sentence of the hit line in Dimensional Vortex is weird.  It says creatures, not targetable creatures.  There are always creatures within 1 of themselves even if none of them are targetable.

I understand what you're trying to say. Which puts me one up on you, since you keep refering back to definitions you don't understand. The result of using a power involves targeting, effect is the result of a game elements use. So you're just wrong.

Trying to use logic to argue your point won't make you less wrong, because you aren't using 4e's definitions or 4e's logic. It just leads you further into the wrong.

Apr 15, 2013 -- 3:05PM, CUBPHILDND wrote:

Apr 15, 2013 -- 2:47PM, Alcestis wrote:

Again, no, no targets are within 2 squares. Targeting is part of the result of using a power. Fail again.

But this is exactly why the third sentence of the hit line in Dimensional Vortex is weird.  It says creatures, not targetable creatures.  There are always creatures within 1 of themselves even if none of them are targetable.

Again, doesn't need to specificy targetable. It is refering to a power, powers already have rules dealing with that. Honestly.

This is probably the most pointless discussion I have read on these entire boards and I read the alignment threads in the 'What's a DM to do?' forum...

Apr 15, 2013 -- 3:07PM, Alcestis wrote:

I understand what you're trying to say. Which puts me one up on you, since you keep refering back to definitions you don't understand. The result of using a power involves targeting, effect is the result of a game elements use. So you're just wrong.

Trying to use logic to argue your point won't make you less wrong, because you aren't using 4e's definitions or 4e's logic. It just leads you further into the wrong.

Again, no rules element (maybe besides Dimensional Vortex?) presupposes, entails, or even suggests that if a creature is not targetable by a power, then it is for that reason not in the power's range as well.  And there are at least two rules that suggest otherwise, including the 4E definition of 'range' and the bullet points on page 105 of the Rules Compendium.

The argument uses only substitution of identicals ("if range = 5 then within 5 entails within range").  If we can't do that, then we're really screwed.  It would mean that, for example, the following inference is invalid:

1. My power's damage is 1[W] + Strength modifier.
2. My Strength modifier = 5.
3. Therefore, my power's damage = 1[W] + 5.

Alcestis is trying to argue that the power's range is redefined from moment to moment based on that actual opportunities the creature has to make attacks. This is silly, wrong, makes the targeting rules stop working, contrary to the obvious interpretation of lines such as "Ranged 20", and completely unnecessary, but at least it's almost internally consistent (the circularity it creates in the targeting rules means that it isn't quite internally consistent unless a power's range is always undefined).

Repeating the same wrong argument is not going to somehow magically make it valid. Nothing is in range because you do not have a target.

Apr 15, 2013 -- 5:15PM, Alcestis wrote:

Repeating the same wrong argument is not going to somehow magically make it valid.

And so we are all wondering why you keep doing it.

Nothing is in range because you do not have a target.

Yes, except the only support for this you've provides is "well, they only ever mention range in context of a specific target, so it must not exist at all outside that context".  And then we gave you direct RC quotes that falsified it.  And then you tried to pretend that the definition of range in the RC only works in context of a specific target (contradicting the direct and obvious reading).

And then you've refused to address any of the massive circularity problems implied by your made-up definition of range.

So, which of these beliefs are you willing to cop to?

1. The statement "magic missile has range 20" is false.
2. If I am alone with an enemy creature 5 squares away, the range of Magic Missile is 5.
3. If I am alone, the range of Magic Missile is 0.
4. If I am with my party and there are no enemies nearby, the range of Hypnotism is undefined.

And then answer this: when you choose targets per the RC and reach the following step, how do you actually decide whether it is satisfied?

The target must be within the range or area of effect of the power.

How do you do that calculation?  I'm really curious.

How about we get back on track with this handbook... So Lightning Clash E1 is rated red in this handbook ans should be rated Blue at least!

Discuss. 

Apr 15, 2013 -- 7:57PM, Veleria wrote:

How about we get back on track with this handbook... So Lightning Clash E1 is rated red in this handbook ans should be rated Blue at least!

Discuss. 

Yeah blue. Probably sky blue for secondary strikers or hybrid strikers. It bugs me that a level 1 double tap is rated red even if that's not your role. With Malec-Keth and some elemental shenanigans you can escalate thunder or trigger cold vulnerabilities or whatever other elemental shenanigans you have. It's not Rain of Blows, but it's an easy access double tap.

I think this handbook is rated for defending only.

Magic Missle having a range of 20 doesn't mean anything is in range of it, if you have no legal targets. Range to what? Targets. No targets. Nothing is in range. Christ. None of the above and if your thoughts on the matter are so bizarre and irrational I can understand why you're having trouble understanding this pretty basic concept.

It isn't a made up definition. It is what the rules say.

A range is a distance.  It is literally defined as a distance.  The wording of the relevant clause of DV is "if no creatures are within range [A DISTANCE] of the target".  We do not need the RC to know what it means for X to be within a specific distance of Y (modulo 4e's non-Euclidean topology).

After reading this damned argument the whole way through. I've come to the conculsion that both of you are goddamned idiots.

Dimensional Vortex works as such

Enemy has a melee 2 attack that targets 1 creature in range

Teleports a enemy away. Power is selected, and checks range. Enemy then checks for all valid targets within that range (all creatures within 2 squares of the enemy), and selects the targets. Because of this, he can make an attack against himself, even if he's teleported away from any other creatures. In this event, the last line of DV does not matter.

Another example.

Enemy 2 has a melee attack that targets 1 enemy in range 

-This one parses weird, but still works.

Teleports enemy away from. Power is selected, checks range. Enemy checks for all valid targets within that range (All enemies within melee 2), and selects the targets (1 enemy). However, because it is target 1 enemy, it automatically excludes itself, as it is not it's own enemy. If there are no other of your enemies in range, then the last line kicks in. Because there are no valid targets, and the creature cannot hit itself, it no longer counts as a creature for the effects of it's power, and the attack is expended.

Could it be worded better? By all means yes,  but saying there are no valid targets within range of the target would cause just as many nightmares as others, so they had to make due.


So guess what. You're both wrong and right on some points. A power always has a range, just like a gun in the middle of space has a range, even if there are no targets. That being said, for the aspect of the game, a 'creature' only exists for the purposes of an attack if it is a valid target. If it is not a valid target, it is not considered a 'creature' for the aspect of that spell.

Apr 15, 2013 -- 10:37PM, Koshinuke wrote:

I think this handbook is rated for defending only.

A double tap that can attack a secondary creature up to 5 squares away helps a defender engage and aid focus fire if they like. I would have suggested Sky blue if it was striker based but since it is a defender book I thought Blue was appropriate. Rain of Blows is in a defender book but the utility and damage of 3 attacks rates it high on it's own merit. If you can bloody a target with a power you are doing your job a s adefender and helping clear the board.

An assault swordmage who just double tapped his mark makes it less appealing for the enemy to risk an extra attack by engaging an ally. 

Apr 15, 2013 -- 7:57PM, Veleria wrote:

How about we get back on track with this handbook... So Lightning Clash E1 is rated red in this handbook ans should be rated Blue at least!

Discuss. 

Agree, especially since most of the other E1 powers are really meh.

Apr 16, 2013 -- 1:08AM, Vecarith wrote:

After reading this damned argument the whole way through. I've come to the conculsion that both of you are goddamned idiots.

Dimensional Vortex works as such

Enemy has a melee 2 attack that targets 1 creature in range

Teleports a enemy away. Power is selected, and checks range. Enemy then checks for all valid targets within that range (all creatures within 2 squares of the enemy), and selects the targets. Because of this, he can make an attack against himself, even if he's teleported away from any other creatures. In this event, the last line of DV does not matter.

Another example.

Enemy 2 has a melee attack that targets 1 enemy in range 

-This one parses weird, but still works.

Teleports enemy away from. Power is selected, checks range. Enemy checks for all valid targets within that range (All enemies within melee 2), and selects the targets (1 enemy). However, because it is target 1 enemy, it automatically excludes itself, as it is not it's own enemy. If there are no other of your enemies in range, then the last line kicks in. Because there are no valid targets, and the creature cannot hit itself, it no longer counts as a creature for the effects of it's power, and the attack is expended.

Could it be worded better? By all means yes,  but saying there are no valid targets within range of the target would cause just as many nightmares as others, so they had to make due.


So guess what. You're both wrong and right on some points. A power always has a range, just like a gun in the middle of space has a range, even if there are no targets. That being said, for the aspect of the game, a 'creature' only exists for the purposes of an attack if it is a valid target. If it is not a valid target, it is not considered a 'creature' for the aspect of that spell.

Correct, with the exception that if the power was targetting one enemy, it would retarget based on ITS enemies, not your enemies.  You'd have to teleport it then to a position where none of your allies were in range, or you're then only changing its targetting.

Yes, the latter line of this power will almost never come into play, because powers which target the monster's enemies aren't that common, and(IIRC) tend not to be viable targets for DV, as it works on melee and ranged, not on bursts/blasts (though I could be misremembering)

I can see it as blue or black. But frankly, its pure damage. "engaging" the target is meaningless for a Swordmage, and SM damage at level 1 is generally not great. I don't like rating powers based on the competition. Its a decent power, but not that great in isolation.

And this comes from someone who hugged that power close for...17 levels. 

Apr 16, 2013 -- 1:08AM, Vecarith wrote:

After reading this damned argument the whole way through. I've come to the conculsion that both of you are goddamned idiots.

Dimensional Vortex works as such

We all agree how Dimensional Vortex works.  The questions is purely over whether the final clause "if no creatures are within range of the target, the attack is expended" actually ever operates (given that the target is a creature within range of itself).  Given that the attack is expended to no result anyway if it has no valid targets within range, whether the clause is invoked doesn't actually matter for game outcomes.

Apr 16, 2013 -- 1:08AM, Vecarith wrote:

After reading this damned argument the whole way through. I've come to the conculsion that both of you are goddamned idiots.

Dimensional Vortex works as such

Enemy has a melee 2 attack that targets 1 creature in range

Teleports a enemy away. Power is selected, and checks range. Enemy then checks for all valid targets within that range (all creatures within 2 squares of the enemy), and selects the targets. Because of this, he can make an attack against himself, even if he's teleported away from any other creatures. In this event, the last line of DV does not matter.

Another example.

Enemy 2 has a melee attack that targets 1 enemy in range 

-This one parses weird, but still works.

Teleports enemy away from. Power is selected, checks range. Enemy checks for all valid targets within that range (All enemies within melee 2), and selects the targets (1 enemy). However, because it is target 1 enemy, it automatically excludes itself, as it is not it's own enemy. If there are no other of your enemies in range, then the last line kicks in. Because there are no valid targets, and the creature cannot hit itself, it no longer counts as a creature for the effects of it's power, and the attack is expended.

Could it be worded better? By all means yes,  but saying there are no valid targets within range of the target would cause just as many nightmares as others, so they had to make due.


So guess what. You're both wrong and right on some points. A power always has a range, just like a gun in the middle of space has a range, even if there are no targets. That being said, for the aspect of the game, a 'creature' only exists for the purposes of an attack if it is a valid target. If it is not a valid target, it is not considered a 'creature' for the aspect of that spell.

Um, that is what I've been saying this whole time. So.... I don't think you read the argument carefully enough. Glad we agree.

Time to get a room guys and label it ETV.

Apr 16, 2013 -- 12:06PM, Veleria wrote:

Time to get a room guys and label it ETV.

You might want to actually read things before you respond to them. There is no mechanical difference being discussed, it works the same way under either interpretation.

Apr 16, 2013 -- 7:56AM, zelink551 wrote:

I can see it as blue or black. But frankly, its pure damage. "engaging" the target is meaningless for a Swordmage, and SM damage at level 1 is generally not great. I don't like rating powers based on the competition. Its a decent power, but not that great in isolation.

And this comes from someone who hugged that power close for...17 levels. 

Basically, yeah. Lightning Clash doesn't help you Defend, if you're building a Striker, you're build a Hybrid.

Sword of Sigils and Foesnare are both highly relevant for Defending Purposes.

Sword of Sigils is my go-to for lvl 1.  It gives me a multi-mark multi-punish option, which is the kind of feature I value in a would-be primary defender.  How valuable it may be to others depends on what it is they hope for their swordmage to achieve, and what other options they may have to achieve it.

Is there some merit in taking the Battle Cleric's Lore option for a swordmage (either hybrid or MC) and stacking swordmage warding with scale and battle clerics lore for off the charts AC or it is simply not worth it such focus on the AC department?

May 10, 2013 -- 12:21AM, RPGBG wrote:

Is there some merit in taking the Battle Cleric's Lore option for a swordmage (either hybrid or MC) and stacking swordmage warding with scale and battle clerics lore for off the charts AC or it is simply not worth it such focus on the AC department?

Amazing AC is already trivial for a Swordmage to get in fact I doubt Scale is even an upgrade, Wis 15 isn't really the off-stat of choice (I guess Wandering SMs will have it), and MC Cleric really isn't providing anything beyond that initial feat

Scale is actually a downgrade if you factor in Elven Chain Shirt, or even just taking a feat for Hide, assuming 20 starting Int. Light armor > heavy armor if you want high AC.

You can stay in light armor and still get the +2 shield bonus I suppose. Doesn't feel like a strong contender though. 

May 10, 2013 -- 4:26AM, Keithric wrote:

You can stay in light armor and still get the +2 shield bonus I suppose. Doesn't feel like a strong contender though. 

Does the +2 Shield bonus stack with the Swordmage Warding?

Is swordmage warding a shield bonus?

No, but that's clearly an oversight.

Uh, no.  They even designed the bonus so that it automatically adjusts itself in the presence of a shield.

Well were there any other ways to get a shield bonuses at the time?

It doesn't matter; the entire point of typed bonuses is forward-compatibility.

May 10, 2013 -- 9:16AM, AtG wrote:

Uh, no.  They even designed the bonus so that it automatically adjusts itself in the presence of a shield.

This, though they should've just made it +3 shield always.

But then Swordmages could wield fullblades and they would be too good because they would do too much damage.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

I'm assuming that was sarcasm on AtG's part.

I noticed. Still rolling my eyes though.

May 10, 2013 -- 12:31PM, Fardiz wrote:

Well were there any other ways to get a shield bonuses at the time?

Devout protector expertise, shielding enchantment among others.

Devout protector expertise is much more recent that swordmages as a class. Shielding Weapon is drag391, so I'm not sure about the dates.

Ah, I read it "at this time" not "at the time". Lol.

I was positive there was a feat combo of some sort that let swordmages throw their swords and not suck entirely, but I can't find it.  We keep running into ranged/flying enemies, which makes our Swordmage a Sad Panda.

Intelligent Blademaster + Farbond Spellbade.

Or a Blade of the Eldritch Knight.

May 18, 2013 -- 8:19PM, RuinsFate wrote:

Intelligent Blademaster + Farbond Spellbade.

Or a Blade of the Eldritch Knight.

That still makes it an improvised weapon though, doesn't it?

No. Farbond gives it a thrown range and use, and BoEK allows effectively ranged attacks.

May 18, 2013 -- 8:48PM, RuinsFate wrote:

No. Farbond gives it a thrown range and use, and BoEK allows effectively ranged attacks.

Oh, farbond is an item too.  darn.  Well, thanks for your help.

It can also be done without using an item enchant with a Drow Long Knife, or just good old fashioned daggers.

Your face is a good old fashioned dagger.

I do have a pretty intense stare when irritated...

DEATH STARE COMMENCE.

Or should I say dagger stare? 

May 18, 2013 -- 8:48PM, RuinsFate wrote:

No. Farbond gives it a thrown range and use, and BoEK allows effectively ranged attacks.

BoEK gives your standard action attacks (that part is important) with the BoEK Reach 5.  This is *not* the same as Range 5.

May 18, 2013 -- 10:30PM, Undrhil wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 8:48PM, RuinsFate wrote:

No. Farbond gives it a thrown range and use, and BoEK allows effectively ranged attacks.

BoEK gives your standard action attacks (that part is important) with the BoEK Reach 5.  This is *not* the same as Range 5.

Thus the word "effectively"

May 18, 2013 -- 10:42PM, Zathris wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 10:30PM, Undrhil wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 8:48PM, RuinsFate wrote:

No. Farbond gives it a thrown range and use, and BoEK allows effectively ranged attacks.

BoEK gives your standard action attacks (that part is important) with the BoEK Reach 5.  This is *not* the same as Range 5.

Thus the word "effectively"

But the wording matters.  If someone doesn't know the difference and they make their attack using a BoEK and just say "OK, I'm making this at Range 5" they are going to get an OA against them.  Or they will be less effective at their role since they will be trying to move around so as to not provoke an OA.  Whereas, someone going in knowing that it's Reach 5 can just explain to the DM what's what and go on with being effective.

May 18, 2013 -- 10:45PM, Undrhil wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 10:42PM, Zathris wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 10:30PM, Undrhil wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 8:48PM, RuinsFate wrote:

No. Farbond gives it a thrown range and use, and BoEK allows effectively ranged attacks.

BoEK gives your standard action attacks (that part is important) with the BoEK Reach 5.  This is *not* the same as Range 5.

Thus the word "effectively"

But the wording matters.  If someone doesn't know the difference and they make their attack using a BoEK and just say "OK, I'm making this at Range 5" they are going to get an OA against them.  Or they will be less effective at their role since they will be trying to move around so as to not provoke an OA.  Whereas, someone going in knowing that it's Reach 5 can just explain to the DM what's what and go on with being effective.

Yes, it matters if someone takes RF saying "effectively ranged attacks" to mean "actual ranged attacks" takes the item and uses it without EVER READING IT ... While that's entirely plausible, we're not responsible for people being f-tards.

If I were to say "Warlock|SMs are effectively Controllers" I would seriously hope no one would make a post saying that they're "actually Striker|Defenders which is *not* the same as being a Controller" just because they won't qualify for Speaker of Hestavar or the other Controller role feats.

ie. stop being a pedant.

Really? I understand semantics over rules, but this is just BS semantics. RF worded it fine. This is ****-ing silly.

Due to how Intelligent Blademaster is worded, my DM ruled that it doesn't work with ranged attacks with Farbond sword. Are there any other options till I get BoEK (we're midheroic now)? Considering that my Str AND Dex are crap, throwing daggers are not going to hit anything either. Lightning lure actually saves the day, even Range 3 helps, but I'm searching for something else

May 18, 2013 -- 11:45PM, hirou wrote:

Due to how Intelligent Blademaster is worded, my DM ruled that it doesn't work with ranged attacks with Farbond sword. Are there any other options till I get BoEK (we're midheroic now)? Considering that my Str AND Dex are crap, throwing daggers are not going to hit anything either. Lightning lure actually saves the day, even Range 3 helps, but I'm searching for something else

If anything, your DM should question using it with a light thrown weapon (which uses your DEX for ranged basic attacks.)  

Have your DM ask him/herself the following questions:

1) Is this Farbond Spellblade a heavy thrown weapon.  (Hint: the answer is YES.)
2) Is this Farbond spellblade enchantment on a melee weapon?  (Hint: the answer is more than likely YES.)
3) Is the player making a basic attack with a melee weapon?  (Hint: the answer is YES.)

If your DM finds a way to say NO to any of these, then the feat doesn't work.  Otherwise, it does.  Simple enough.  However, the DM is free to houserule it however he or she sees fit.

May 18, 2013 -- 11:53PM, Undrhil wrote:

3) Is the player making a basic attack with a melee weapon?  (Hint: the answer is YES.)

If your DM finds a way to say NO to any of these, then the feat doesn't work.  Otherwise, it does.  Simple enough.  However, the DM is free to houserule it however he or she sees fit.

The problem is with the third point. I wasn't able to find a clarification on this in the rulebooks, but from the point of logic and common sense a weapon may not be considered a 'melee' when it's thrown. Is shuriken a ranged weapon? If so, then 'thrown sword' should be too, however it is used at other times.

EDIT: third, not second point

If flyers bother you, try the Windlord theme (especially the U10) and the encounter powers that teleport enemies adjacent to you or other enemies.

May 19, 2013 -- 12:25AM, hirou wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 11:53PM, Undrhil wrote:

3) Is the player making a basic attack with a melee weapon?  (Hint: the answer is YES.)

If your DM finds a way to say NO to any of these, then the feat doesn't work.  Otherwise, it does.  Simple enough.  However, the DM is free to houserule it however he or she sees fit.

The problem is with the third point. I wasn't able to find a clarification on this in the rulebooks, but from the point of logic and common sense a weapon may not be considered a 'melee' when it's thrown. Is shuriken a ranged weapon? If so, then 'thrown sword' should be too, however it is used at other times.

EDIT: third, not second point

Actually, yes.  Shuriken are ranged weapons; they cannot be used as melee weapons.  A dagger is a melee weapon, whether it's being swung as a sword or thrown like a shuriken.  The fact that you can make a ranged attack with it doesn't change it to a ranged weapon.  Yes.  You can put ranged enchantments on a dagger.  This is because you can use it with ranged attacks.  It is still classified as a melee weapon.

To a degree, logic and common sense should be thrown out when dealing with 4th edition rules. 

May 19, 2013 -- 12:41AM, svendj wrote:

If flyers bother you, try the Windlord theme (especially the U10) and the encounter powers that teleport enemies adjacent to you or other enemies.

The best I've got now is Falcon's mark (nicknamed Falcon's punch for obvious reasons), which I mainly cast as range 10 for move+standard with a help of my falcon familiar (very appropriate), and Ensnaring mark. DM also generally allows to attack mid-air after a high jump (for the rule of cool if nothing else), which saved us at least once so far.

May 19, 2013 -- 2:10AM, Undrhil wrote:

Yes.  You can put ranged enchantments on a dagger.  This is because you can use it with ranged attacks.  It is still classified as a melee weapon.

 Wait, really?! I never though about this...

May 19, 2013 -- 2:10AM, Undrhil wrote:

To a degree, logic and common sense should be thrown out when dealing with 4th edition rules. 

Well, you got me here. Your last point still stands - DM is free to houserule this if he wants to, whatever RAW says. Anyway, my initial question was about any other options that I have, besides Farbond sword. I'll stick with IB regardless, as DM is already wary of my OA now and I like that

If you can manage to get them Aegis'ed before they fly away Fettering Aegis(E7) and Binding Aegis(D1) have worked well against skirmishers for me.  Though my swordmage is of the ensnaring variety.  Yes, I know, terrible idea, but I picked it before I understood the rules well enough and the GM is not allowing a change.  Alternatively if they are not that high up in the air: Lightning Clash(secondary), which can serve as a double tap in normal combats.

It is a somewhat humorous image of using Binding Aegis on a flying creature, they save, you teleport 10 adjacent to them (in the air) and if you hit them with your free at-will you prone them.  Then land on them.  Especially if they had some sort of condition shedding (say, solo artillery) at the start of their turn and you used Booming Blade.  And you had Catstep Boots, so they are prone on the ground marked with you standing right next to them.  With Lasting Frost, a frost blade, and White Lotus Riposte.  This may or may not have happened.  

Sure there are better level 1 dailies but when you really need someone to sit still...

May 19, 2013 -- 5:12AM, Firebug2006 wrote:

If you can manage to get them Aegis'ed before they fly away Fettering Aegis(E7) and Binding Aegis(D1) have worked well against skirmishers for me.  Though my swordmage is of the ensnaring variety.  Yes, I know, terrible idea, but I picked it before I understood the rules well enough and the GM is not allowing a change.  Alternatively if they are not that high up in the air: Lightning Clash(secondary), which can serve as a double tap in normal combats.

I am ensnaring swordmage as well =) DM does allow to 'retrain' it, but I'm not sure if I want to, enemies tend to respect my mark anyway.
Which level is Lightning Clash and from which book? I can't find it. If you mean Lightning Lure (at-will), then I already have it and it's already proved its usefullness 

Lightning Clash level 1 encounter from the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (where the swordmage class is first introduced).  Standard 1w+int to the primary target, but it gets a secondary attack: 1 creature within 5 squares of the primary target.  The Primary target is always within 5 squares of itself.  Note: all of the other powers of this type (primary + secondary) specifically call out that  the secondary has to be "One creature other than the primary target".

If the DM always respects your marks the Aegis of Ensnarement doesn't fall that much behind the others. If you don't have it, I would suggest White Lotus Riposte from Dragon Magazine 374.  Basically if someone you hit with an at-will attacks you, it takes your Int mod in damage again.

I used Lightning Lure once in the heroic tier and ended up retraining it to Luring Strike in paragon.

May 19, 2013 -- 7:05AM, Firebug2006 wrote:

Lightning Clash level 1 encounter from the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (where the swordmage class is first introduced).  Standard 1w+int to the primary target, but it gets a secondary attack: 1 creature within 5 squares of the primary target.  The Primary target is always within 5 squares of itself.  Note: all of the other powers of this type (primary + secondary) specifically call out that  the secondary has to be "One creature other than the primary target".

If the DM always respects your marks the Aegis of Ensnarement doesn't fall that much behind the others. If you don't have it, I would suggest White Lotus Riposte from Dragon Magazine 374.  Basically if someone you hit with an at-will attacks you, it takes your Int mod in damage again.  

Oops, somehow missed that, I didn't notice that it can be used as 'ranged' when I was building the character, my bad. Maybe I passed on it because I don't like 'just damage' powers.
I'll have WLR by next session, we'll see if this makes DM forgo attacking me.

Still worth retraining out of Ensnare just so you can get a better PP, feats, and riders.

May 18, 2013 -- 11:45PM, hirou wrote:

Due to how Intelligent Blademaster is worded, my DM ruled that it doesn't work with ranged attacks with Farbond sword.

Your DM is wrong.  Period.

May 19, 2013 -- 12:25AM, hirou wrote:

The problem is with the third point. I wasn't able to find a clarification on this in the rulebooks, but from the point of logic and common sense a weapon may not be considered a 'melee' when it's thrown.

No, that is not "logic and common sense".  A melee weapon doesn't stop being a melee weapon until a game element says it does.

May 20, 2013 -- 7:09AM, AtG wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 11:45PM, hirou wrote:

Due to how Intelligent Blademaster is worded, my DM ruled that it doesn't work with ranged attacks with Farbond sword.

Your DM is wrong.  Period.

IMHO, 'DM is always right' rule actually works reasonably well, when applied to reasonable DM, and I count ours as such. We have a couple of other homerules, and I never actually liked 'lightsaber throw' style, so I'm ok with this. If you read again my original post, I was asking about totally different thing.

May 20, 2013 -- 10:17AM, hirou wrote:

May 20, 2013 -- 7:09AM, AtG wrote:

May 18, 2013 -- 11:45PM, hirou wrote:

Due to how Intelligent Blademaster is worded, my DM ruled that it doesn't work with ranged attacks with Farbond sword.

Your DM is wrong.  Period.

IMHO, 'DM is always right' rule actually works reasonably well, when applied to reasonable DM, and I count ours as such. We have a couple of other homerules, and I never actually liked 'lightsaber throw' style, so I'm ok with this. If you read again my original post, I was asking about totally different thing.

I'm pretty sure the Farbond sword + intelligent blademaster was intentially supposed to work. Why stick a throwing option on a sword built for the class if two of the builds can't make effective use it and the other only if you bother to focus on strength (which even as an assault swordmage, you don't need too).

And, to be honest, it's not game breaking or even powerful to give a swordmage reliable range. Just means if your fighting a flying enemy and your party doesn't have a way to bring it down, you won't be stuck with aid-another or readied actions, every other scenario a Swormage can pretty well just 'port over to wear he wants to go with the right powers.

The entire idea behind the need for IB/Melee Training is faulty logic to begin with. Swordmages are fully competent at attacking and hitting enemies with a sword in melee combat (Just like Rogues, Battleminds, and the other non-Str based melee weapon classes) and the only class that's expected to throw their non-thrown weapon and actually expect to hit (ok, barbarians can throw anything). So they're utter masters of using bladed weapons, even compared to Weaponmasters ... except when trying to make Basic Attacks?

IB is basically "I'm spending a valuable resource to be equal to a Fighter when making Basic Attacks, except on OAs and Mark Punishment, then the Fighter is still better at them"

But then we get heavy blade opportunity and be just as good as the fighter at OAs!  Except we don't have the stats for it.  And spent more feats.  And are probably using a light blade anyway.  

May 20, 2013 -- 3:40PM, Zathris wrote:

The entire idea behind the need for IB/Melee Training is faulty logic to begin with. Swordmages are fully competent at attacking and hitting enemies with a sword in melee combat (Just like Rogues, Battleminds, and the other non-Str based melee weapon classes) and the only class that's expected to throw their non-thrown weapon and actually expect to hit (ok, barbarians can throw anything). So they're utter masters of using bladed weapons, even compared to Weaponmasters ... except when trying to make Basic Attacks?

IB is basically "I'm spending a valuable resource to be equal to a Fighter when making Basic Attacks, except on OAs and Mark Punishment, then the Fighter is still better at them"

So... IB should be a class feature rather than a feat, and/or SMs should have a MBA replacement at-will?

May 20, 2013 -- 6:22PM, Celerian01 wrote:

So... IB should be a class feature rather than a feat

Bingo.

May 20, 2013 -- 6:37PM, erachima wrote:

May 20, 2013 -- 6:22PM, Celerian01 wrote:

So... IB should be a class feature rather than a feat

Bingo.

hey the did fix that when they released the Bladesinger.

*takes cover*

Had they made the Bladesinger a swordmage subclass, you might have a point.

IB/Melee Training are defintely melee class feat taxes to some degree

May 20, 2013 -- 4:06PM, Firebug2006 wrote:

But then we get heavy blade opportunity and be just as good as the fighter at OAs!  Except we don't have the stats for it.  And spent more feats.  And are probably using a light blade anyway.  

Sarcasm aside, HBO doesn't make anyone as good as Fighters at OAs, you'd basically need to combine the level 5 features from two different Themes (Yakuza and Melee-Magthere Champion) to mimick it, or burn a minimum of 2 feats and 2 items, which the Fighter could also be spending on augmenting their OA (erachima has a Fighter adding 3 stats to the attack roll for OAs)

True, but only two of those stats are ever going to be above +2, so it's essentially the same as having two stats to it.

May 20, 2013 -- 8:30PM, erachima wrote:

True, but only two of those stats are ever going to be above +2, so it's essentially the same as having two stats to it.

What, you didn't roll 3 17s when you created your character? :D

How do add something else besides Cha and Wis?

May 20, 2013 -- 9:13PM, zelink551 wrote:

How do add something else besides Cha and Wis?

Strength!

In other news... I strongly recommend getting stats for Superior will by low-mid Paragon.  I just spent the whole fight stunned(SE).  Leader wasn't at that session.

May 21, 2013 -- 2:37AM, Firebug2006 wrote:

In other news... I strongly recommend getting stats for Superior will by low-mid Paragon.  I just spent the whole fight stunned(SE).  Leader wasn't at that session.

Or just get a Circlet of Arkhosia if you're at that point. Head slot usually isn't that competitive.

May 21, 2013 -- 2:37AM, Firebug2006 wrote:

In other news... I strongly recommend getting stats for Superior will by low-mid Paragon.  I just spent the whole fight stunned(SE).  Leader wasn't at that session.

Not being able to easily buy SupWill is one of the lesser-discussed but serious drawbacks of the INT/CON hybrid.

Alrighty, I've got a question about the at-will "Booming Blade".
the effect triggers when "The Target starts it's turn adjaycent too you and moves away"

is that only specific too using a move action to move? or are we talking shifts, flying, teleports, etc? so long as they've moved away?

Every sort of willing or forced movement triggers it. 

May 23, 2013 -- 3:18PM, pinkisthenewred wrote:

Every sort of willing or forced movement triggers it. 

wouldn't forced movement be somewhat tricky to pull off though? wouldn't it have to occur on the targets turn?

Difficult, but not impossible. There are quite a few zones and other control effects (Bards have a few) that slide enemies or force them to move on their turn, and then there's always readied actions.

Praetor Legatus being the most notable one.