|
3 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2010 - 9:31PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2007
|
Eagle Eye goggles have become problematic with the advent of the Seeker. For the dirt cheap price of a level 12 item, a high paragon/low epic seeker will be able to get +2 to a significant portion of his encounters and dailies. Worse, this bonus makes non-basic attacks a sub-optimal choice for the Seeker, limiting his viable options. The problem gets even worse at mid-epic once the +3 version becomes available.
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2010 - 10:55PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Huh. Good observation.
Although it might also be argued that the real problem is that many Seeker powers have the special rider "You can use this power as a ranged basic attack." Better special rider text probably would have been "You can use this power in place of a ranged basic attack." I think that wording would prevent Eagle Eye Goggles from adding its bonus to those type of powers.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 16, 2010 - 8:00AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2007
|
But it also would prevent the feat Primal Eye from working. Seeker powers are obviously intended to be basic attacks; they must have simply forgotten about this item.
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 16, 2010 - 8:41PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
True. Although I suppose that feat could also be reworded. For example, "You add your Dexterity or Intelligence modifler to damage rolls when you make ranged basic attacks or powers that can be used in place of ranged basic attacks." Just an idea. Perhaps there is a better way to solve this problem. This is simply what occurs to me first. Edit: Because I think this is a reasonably important issue and involves Seekers, I've cross-posted this problem to the PHB3 errata forum.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 16, 2010 - 10:21PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
Question: If there is such a concept as a feat tax, why can't there be an item tax for RBA Seeker builds (There are a couple of other option. The RBA build is simply the most obvious)? What makes you so certain that this is an error?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 17, 2010 - 7:13AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
|
Question: If there is such a concept as a feat tax, why can't there be an item tax for RBA Seeker builds (There are a couple of other option. The RBA build is simply the most obvious)? What makes you so certain that this is an error?
The simple answer to that is the existence of non-RBA powers. If half the powers in any class got a +2 bonus to attack rolls with no other balancing mechanic, it's doubtful that many of the other powers would see much use. That's effectively the situation here. I might be able to see +1 (which is the situation for Headband of Intellect with telepaths), but not +2.
The Opal Ring of Remembrance has a fairly close analog for Int-based classes, but it only works at high-epic tier and it benefits all powers equally.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 17, 2010 - 2:10PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2006
|
Being able to use their powers as RBA is one of the few powerful things about seekers. I don't see a need to get rid of their item support. Without items like these, seekers would fall even farther behind other controllers.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 17, 2010 - 8:03PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
Question: If there is such a concept as a feat tax, why can't there be an item tax for RBA Seeker builds (There are a couple of other option. The RBA build is simply the most obvious)? What makes you so certain that this is an error?
The simple answer to that is the existence of non-RBA powers. If half the powers in any class got a +2 bonus to attack rolls with no other balancing mechanic, it's doubtful that many of the other powers would see much use. That's effectively the situation here. I might be able to see +1 (which is the situation for Headband of Intellect with telepaths), but not +2.
Yes, but the oppurtunity cost is not having other options for the slot, thus non-RBA builds won't use it, while RBA builds will use it anyways. Much like the Primal Eye feat.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 17, 2010 - 8:32PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2007
|
But the RBA build will, at epic, be getting +3 to hit and +8 to damage over the non-RBA build. Non-RBA's are marginally stronger on average in a vacuum, but not nearly enough to make up for the enormous statistical advantage.
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 17, 2010 - 8:50PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
But the RBA build will, at epic, be getting +3 to hit and +8 to damage over the non-RBA build. Non-RBA's are marginally stronger on average in a vacuum, but not nearly enough to make up for the enormous statistical advantage.
The other builds would be focused on keywords, additional effects, things like that. Frost abuse, thunder abuse, things like that. The RBA build is obvious, yes, and clearly rather good, but if it's better than the others completely, well... Where's the issue? Your position is that the Seeker sucks. You espouse it a lot. Based on that, it seems to me you should be drawing the conclusion that Primal Power 2 should UPGRADE the other build options, not that a viable build should be downgraded by an errata.
|
|
|
