Proposal: Dragon 372

[JoeNotCharles]

I'm starting to feel a bit uncomfortable about Reaper's Touch. Call me old fashioned, but I kind of like the idea that ranged casters are in a bit of trouble when they get into melee range. Take that away, and it feels like the tactical complexity of the game has been reduced, somehow.

Yes, I know that even without this, some ranged casters are pretty tough toe-to-toe, but this widens it quite a bit.

That's why I like it being Shadar-Kai only - I don't want it to be the standard, but it's a nice option for one race to give them some different flavour.

 

[Tinwe]

Well, except a warlock with Reaper's Touch only needs one magic weapon to be effective (rod/wand), while the warlock with the mace needs two, because the mace isn't an implement. Oh course, the weapon warlock could get a Pact Rapier instead of a mace, which is also pretty cool.

Not sure if you were just replying to elec, who is talking about maces for some reason, or the broader issue of melee casters, but...

Pact Hammer
Property: If you are a dwarf, this hammer functions as a warlock implement for you (but do not apply the weapon’s proficiency bonus to attack rolls for warlock powers).

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Not sure if you were just replying to elec, who is talking about maces for some reason, or the broader issue of melee casters, but...

Well, yes, and Eladrin have a sword version of that too. I was talking about what what you can do if you aren't of the proper race to use a good melee weapon as an implement.

 

[elecgraystone]

I'm starting to feel a bit uncomfortable about Reaper's Touch. Call me old fashioned, but I kind of like the idea that ranged casters are in a bit of trouble when they get into melee range.

Or they could always take close attacks [Thunderwave,
Burning Spray] to be effective in melee range. Or take a power like
Storm Walk that allows you to shift THEN use ranged. Right out of the box the 'ranged' casters aren't inefective in melee range. Reaper's touch would just make them more effective.

 

[Atanatotatos]

It is NOT the same. These are basic attacks. Meaning you can use them for OA, charges, warlords' extra attacks, and what else. Thats the whole point. Meaning that, say, an infernal warlock with the expenditure of ONE feat becomes an excellent melee AND ranged striker.

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Can we just make it Shadar-Kai only? That makes it a very good feat with a very restrictive requirement, which seems fair. All the non-Shadar-Kai/dwarves/eladrin will just have to be a bit cleverer when they get into melee.

 

[elecgraystone]

I never claimed they were the same Atanatotatos. I was disputing covaithe's contention that ranged casters were in 'a bit of trouble' in melee. That WAS the reason given for covaithe being uncomfortable with the feat, NOT the fact that it was a basic attack. Apples and oranges Atanatotatos.

We could restrict it TwoHeadsBarking, but all it does is save 1 feat and make the attack non-weapon. As such there are pro's and con's to taking this or the melee training route. An infernal warlock would be better off with a bloodclaw weapon attack vs a eldrich blast.

And just to point out Atanatotatos, 'an infernal warlock with the expenditure of ONE feat becomes an excellent melee AND ranged striker' with melee training NOW. And you don't need an extra magic item if you have a pact blade. So using your own example it's 1 feat vs 1 feat...

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Well, we do have to remember that melee training is part of the PHB2, and is therefore not yet approved. But I'm pretty sure it'll pass.

 

[Atanatotatos]

No point to this discussion, really.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

No point to this discussion, really.

What do you mean by that, exactly?