PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Elemental Enchantments on Implement Powers



Aron Times
2009-11-25, 09:54 PM
Okay, as of today, Wizards has confirmed that elemental enchantments can convert the damage of implement powers. Basically, a sorcerer can use a Flaming Dagger to deal Fire damage with all of his spells. A swordmage can use a Githyanki Silver Bastard Sword to deal Psychic damage for all his spells.

Discuss.

Edit: Sorcerer Essentials (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drcact/20091123)

sofawall
2009-11-25, 09:55 PM
This is hilarious.

Gralamin
2009-11-25, 09:58 PM
Okay, as of today, Wizards has confirmed that elemental enchantments can convert the damage of implement powers. Basically, a sorcerer can use a Flaming Dagger to deal Fire damage with all of his spells. A swordmage can use a Githyanki Silver Bastard Sword to deal Psychic damage for all his spells.

Discuss.

Can I get a source for this?

Aron Times
2009-11-25, 10:00 PM
Ask and you shall receive (see first post).

Gralamin
2009-11-25, 10:02 PM
Ask and you shall receive (see first post).

Ah. Well, I'll trust the Essentials article if they never change that bit. Which they might. The quality in those articles is quite lacking.

Xallace
2009-11-25, 10:07 PM
The quality in those articles is quite lacking.

Much to my surprise, something they appear to realize as of this one. Check the little "powergaming" blurb at the bottom there.

mikeejimbo
2009-11-25, 10:09 PM
Essentially it's just a particular (and possibly not even wrong) reading of the elemental magic properties of such weapons, I think.

Gralamin
2009-11-25, 10:09 PM
Much to my surprise, something they appear to realize as of this one. Check the little "powergaming" blurb at the bottom there.

Yeah, that is a good thing at least. I'm half tempted to write up and submit something myself.

Shadow_Elf
2009-11-25, 10:11 PM
There is a glaring typo in this article, where the druid is described as a striker in the same sentence as the wizard and invoker are talked about as controllers. I thought that was silly, but otherwise the article was not-too-bad.

Gralamin
2009-11-25, 10:11 PM
There is a glaring typo in this article, where the druid is described as a striker in the same sentence as the wizard and invoker are talked about as controllers. I thought that was silly, but otherwise the article was not-too-bad.

I don't know. That would explain why in the seeker article they imagine a party of primal characters Druid is mysteriously left out :smalltongue:

Master_Rahl22
2009-11-25, 10:28 PM
... and I'm going to get a Frost dagger for my Dragonborn Sorcerer as soon as possible. Draconic Spellcaster + Cold Breath + Wintercheeze + Lasting Cheeze + Frost Dagger apparently now = permanent +3 to +5 bonus to hit.

Drager
2009-11-25, 10:34 PM
Parties interested in what spawned that little powergaming mention may want to check out the following thread on the WotC boards:

Essentials Articles (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21790137/The_Essentials_articles_are_atrocious)

mikeejimbo
2009-11-25, 10:52 PM
... and I'm going to get a Frost dagger for my Dragonborn Sorcerer as soon as possible. Draconic Spellcaster + Cold Breath + Wintercheeze + Lasting Cheeze + Frost Dagger apparently now = permanent +3 to +5 bonus to hit.

How does that work?

The Frost Dagger doesn't give the power the Cold keyword, just changes damage to cold.

Sir Homeslice
2009-11-25, 10:56 PM
How does that work?

The Frost Dagger doesn't give the power the Cold keyword, just changes damage to cold.

And gives the cold keyword. It does. It's totally legal.

Also, hooray all radiant/frostcheese party!

mikeejimbo
2009-11-25, 11:01 PM
And gives the cold keyword. It does. It's totally legal.

Also, hooray all radiant/frostcheese party!

I'm missing something then... I just checked the compendium and it says this:


Power (At-Will Cold): Free Action. All damage dealt by this weapon is cold damage. Another free action returns the damage to normal

It doesn't say that the power used through the weapon gains the Cold keyword. The power to change the damage type is Cold, but does that mean the power used through the weapon also gets the Cold keyword?

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-25, 11:02 PM
I am amused by the powergaming sidebar, I really am. Bless their hearts. :smallbiggrin:

Break
2009-11-25, 11:03 PM
I'm missing something then... I just checked the compendium and it says this:



It doesn't say that the power used through the weapon gains the Cold keyword. The power to change the damage type is Cold, but does that mean the power used through the weapon also gets the Cold keyword?

Page 55 of the PHB, on keywords. A power deals damage of a certain type, and thus has that type's keyword, even according to the PHB. The damage type is changed, thus any powers you use the weapon with gain the cold keyword. It works.

mikeejimbo
2009-11-25, 11:09 PM
Page 55 of the PHB, on keywords. A power deals damage of a certain type, and thus has that type's keyword, even according to the PHB. The damage type is changed, thus any powers you use the weapon with gain the cold keyword. It works.

It doesn't say that. The closest thing I can find says that "if a power allows you choose the damage type, the power then has that keyword for feats, resistances, and any other information that applies." But the power you're using through the dagger isn't one that lets you choose the damage type. The damage type is in this case decided by the weapon, which depends on which "mode" it's in.

Gralamin
2009-11-25, 11:23 PM
It doesn't say that. The closest thing I can find says that "if a power allows you choose the damage type, the power then has that keyword for feats, resistances, and any other information that applies." But the power you're using through the dagger isn't one that lets you choose the damage type. The damage type is in this case decided by the weapon, which depends on which "mode" it's in.

Uhh no. Page 226.


When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power, the keyword of the item's power and the other power all apply. For instance, if a paladin uses a flaming sword to attack with a power that deals radiant damage, the power deals both fire and radiant damage.

mikeejimbo
2009-11-25, 11:25 PM
Uhh no. Page 226.

Oh. There it is. Then it does work.

Carry on with your cheese then! :smallbiggrin:

erikun
2009-11-25, 11:37 PM
Yeah, the rogue wintercheese has been established as RAW for awhile. It looks like now sorcerer wintercheese joins it.

And the poor Warlock is left out in the cold. :smallsigh:

Edea
2009-11-25, 11:41 PM
Yeah, the rogue wintercheese has been established as RAW for awhile. It looks like now sorcerer wintercheese joins it.

And the poor Warlock is left out in the cold. :smallsigh:

Take Arcane Implement Proficiency (light/heavy blades), for use with Eldritch Strike (and now, of course, this stuff). All arcane classes are in on this for sure, along with assassin and monk.

sofawall
2009-11-25, 11:52 PM
And the poor Warlock is left out in the cold. :smallsigh:

Or rather, he wishes he was.

Thajocoth
2009-11-25, 11:54 PM
Multiclass Assassin. Take the feat that lets your powers ignore poison resistance and immunity. Take a Mordant Weapon to make all damage Acid and Poison.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-26, 04:39 AM
Well, it would be pretty weird and confusing if a damaging power could have the "foo" keyword and not deal "foo" damage (or conversely, deal "bar" damage without having the "bar" keyword).

By a strict reading of the PHB (the page 226 quote above), yes, this has always worked; but I believe that people argued against it on grounds of cheese, and that custserv said in the past that it didn't work (or worked only for weapons, not for implements).

Why is this cheesy? Well, suppose I'm a wizard and wield a Wand of Eyebite as my primary implement. The wand has the "psychic" keyword, so now all my spells benefit from Psychic Lock. Or, better yet, I use a Wand of Thunderwave. Now all my spells benefit from Resounding Thunder, which is like Enlarge Spell without the drawback, and stacks with it. I'm pretty sure that's not RAI, but I wonder how long it'll take WOTC to clarify this.

Hal
2009-11-26, 09:15 AM
And gives the cold keyword. It does. It's totally legal.

Also, hooray all radiant/frostcheese party!

What's the trick with radiant powers? Inquiring minds (and my cleric) want to know!

Drager
2009-11-26, 09:18 AM
It has been clarified by WotC (and when I next stumble across the link I'll add it) that dealing damage of a certain type does NOT add that keyword, and similarly having a keyword does NOT mean that the power deals damage of that type.

I'd also point out that I think this is stupid and house rule it to work as makes sense in my games, but WotC think differently.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-26, 09:39 AM
What's the trick with radiant powers?

For one, it's the most common vulnerability in the game.

Shadow_Elf
2009-11-26, 12:06 PM
Well, it would be pretty weird and confusing if a damaging power could have the "foo" keyword and not deal "foo" damage (or conversely, deal "bar" damage without having the "bar" keyword).

By a strict reading of the PHB (the page 226 quote above), yes, this has always worked; but I believe that people argued against it on grounds of cheese, and that custserv said in the past that it didn't work (or worked only for weapons, not for implements).

Why is this cheesy? Well, suppose I'm a wizard and wield a Wand of Eyebite as my primary implement. The wand has the "psychic" keyword, so now all my spells benefit from Psychic Lock. Or, better yet, I use a Wand of Thunderwave. Now all my spells benefit from Resounding Thunder, which is like Enlarge Spell without the drawback, and stacks with it. I'm pretty sure that's not RAI, but I wonder how long it'll take WOTC to clarify this.

No, I think you misinterpret those wands. Wand of Eyebite only has the psychic keyword in the power - the power is a standard action and lets you use eyebite. There is no way it lets you apply psychic to every power - there is no possible interpretation that says that, anywhere.

However, using a Githyanki Longsword or Mindiron Shurikens as implements for a wizard would add the psychic keyword to all your powers, if you so chose.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-26, 12:14 PM
No, I think you misinterpret those wands. Wand of Eyebite only has the psychic keyword in the power

From the PHB, "When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power, the keyword of the item's power and the other power all apply." To my knowledge, this has not been errata'ed.

I use a magic item (the wand) as part of a class power (e.g. thunderwave) and therefore the keyword of the item's power (psychic) and the other power (thunder, arcane, implement) all apply. So I end up with a psychic thunderwave.

Shadow_Elf
2009-11-26, 12:23 PM
From the PHB, "When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power, the keyword of the item's power and the other power all apply." To my knowledge, this has not been errata'ed.

I use a magic item (the wand) as part of a class power (e.g. thunderwave) and therefore the keyword of the item's power (psychic) and the other power (thunder, arcane, implement) all apply. So I end up with a psychic thunderwave.

I see. That is a very literal interpretation. I read that as "When you use a magic item [power] as part of a racial power or a class power, the keyword of the item's power and the other power all apply." That is the only interpretation that makes sense - the other interpretation completely invalidates more than a dozen items, and makes no sense to boot.

Aron Times
2009-11-26, 12:25 PM
{Scrubbed}

Yakk
2009-11-26, 12:57 PM
Tightrope readings of rules is part of CharOp for some people.

The Glyphstone
2009-11-26, 01:12 PM
For those of us who don't shell out for DDI, what is in the 'powergaming' sidebar?

Kurald Galain
2009-11-26, 01:19 PM
Please note that in my earlier post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7385543&postcount=25) I point out that this reading is cheesy and not RAI.

Yakk
2009-11-26, 02:06 PM
For those of us who don't shell out for DDI, what is in the 'powergaming' sidebar?
To paraphrase...

Essentials isn't about powergaming. If you are really keen to powergame, check out the wizards character optimisation board. They will tell you how to eek every last ounce of power out of D&D 4e rules better than the essentials articles do.

Aron Times
2009-11-26, 02:07 PM
Please note that in my earlier post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7385543&postcount=25) I point out that this reading is cheesy and not RAI.
Then why continue to argue for it?

Despite using more consistent jargon than previous editions, D&D 4e still isn't written in legalese. It is not important to spell out everything that is or isn't allowed because some things are implied in the rules and players and DMs are assumed to use common sense.

Common sense isn't exactly common, but you perpetuate this dubious interpretation by arguing for it. Even in CharOp, using dubious rules interpretations to justify a build is greatly frowned upon. In fact, doing so was codified into a fallacy in the old 3.5 CharOp board - the Munchkin Fallacy, I believe.