I just want to share a quick rant. Maybe someone can make me feel better about this PP after hearing my complaint:
I've been trying to find some way to make this PP class optimal with an elf. I was hoping that it would work well with the assassin class, as the assassin class is a dex based class. Nope. Plenty of fear/psychic/illusion powers, but almost none of them have properties that would benefit from the Phiarlan Phantasmist PP features. Most of the illusion powers already make you invisible. Almost none of the higher level fear/psychic based powers have an ongoing effect. The class is really only good for people playing illusionist wizards. Only problem, illusionist wizards are a int/cha based class. They gain no real benefits from any of the elfs racial powers. Playing one as an elf is an incredibly unoptimal choice. So really, this PP, designed for elves, is a terrible choice for elves. Having such a cool PP go to compleat waste is really frustrating. Honestly, its a better PP for gnomes found in other settings than it is for the elves of Eberron. This REALLY bothers me.
Even more frustrating is that the fluff of the Night Stalker assassin build makes it fit perfectly with the Phiarlan Phantasmist, but mechanically the two do not mesh at all!
This reminds me of how human clerics will be able to out-heal any halfling ever, mark or no mark.
I guess it just comes with the territory of the dragonmarks not being tied to race anymore. The Phiarlan Phantasmist isn't "designed for elves". It's designed for the Mark of Shadow, which anyone can have, mechanically.
That is all fine and dandy for none Eberron games, but Eberron content should be designed for Eberron games first and foremost. That particular paragon path should have been designed to be optimal for elves, not gnomes.
What is most annoying is that with one added keyword, that class would be great for elves. If it just had the "shadow" keyword added to both its 11th and 16th level powers, it would be fine, and would thematically work. I also don't think it would be overpowered. Gah! Why can't it have that keyword!?
Just houserule it and add the keyword. No wizo employee will come to your house and knock you out for doing so.
Rekko ;)
When I DM Eberron, I will do that. Right now, however, I am (at least for the next 6-12+ months) a player. Which is good. I haven't had a chance to play in years, and I love playing. But this means that if my current PC dies, and I want to try playing an Assassin Phiarlan Phantasmist as a Phiarlan spy, I need to try and convince my DM to add house rules. I hate having to do that. Ah well. I suppose I can always play an assassin, multiclass rogue, mastery spy.
In the game I run, I had a player (had because he just moved across country, so the character is now dead) who played a Phiarlan Elf Illusionist wizard - and when we reached paragon tier the PP was perfect for him... except that the pre-req feat - the Mark of Shadow is almost completely useless to an Illusionist Wizard. It was quite the dilemma, but the death of the character upon his 7th level rendered it moot, in my game at least.
In the game I run, I had a player (had because he just moved across country, so the character is now dead) who played a Phiarlan Elf Illusionist wizard - and when we reached paragon tier the PP was perfect for him... except that the pre-req feat - the Mark of Shadow is almost completely useless to an Illusionist Wizard. It was quite the dilemma, but the death of the character upon his 7th level rendered it moot, in my game at least.
I don't know. If an illusionist takes the stealth skill, the mark of shadow can be useful to that player. He can use stealth to make himself less of a target before/after casting spells. And yea, that PP is perfect for an illusionist. Its just weird that they would cater the capabilities of that PP so perfectly to a class that the elf is not really good at. I mean, I don't mind it being really good for an illusionist, but you would think it might be decent for an assassin as well. Though, I guess hindsight is 20/20. At the time it was written, the assassin didn't exist yet.
I'm going to agree with Madfox. The elf can be/is a great race for wizard. If your DM truly loves Eberron, houseruling the Khorvairian (especially Phiarlan/Thuranni) elf's ability bonus from WIS to CHA just makes so much more sense. And even if your DM isn't ok with that, you can still optimize your elf for INT/CHA. Just because you get a racial bonus to a stat doesnt mean you need to make that one of your primary ones, keep it as a dump and use the extra points to boost up your Illusion abilities.
I can't say that I agree. 4e isn't as bad as 3e for penalizing characters for playing certain classes, but choosing a race for a class that doesn't get a single stat bonus that is useful to the class really doesn't seem like a good idea. If you have both your racial stat bonuses as dump stats, you are really loosing out. Personally, I don't think I would ever play a race/class combination in which I don't get a +2 to at least one stat that is important to me.
And I don't think Phiarlan elves should receive a +2 to Cha instead of Wis. Perception and Intuition are incredibly important to a house of spies.
Boy, the elf wizard is perfectly fine. You don't need the bonus. Its good, but it's not Necessary. The class is good.
Boy, the elf wizard is perfectly fine. You don't need the bonus. Its good, but it's not Necessary. The class is good.
Where you using "boy," in an attempt to be condescending? Or am I misreading the tone of your post? I am assuming that I misread the tone of your post... but the use of that particular adverb (assuming you intended that word to be an adverb that modified your clause) is throwing me off. I'm not really sure how to understand the intent of that word. Were you trying to say something along the lines of "Boy!", indicating surprise, perhaps? I honestly can't figure out what the tone you were trying to get across is...
In any case, I certainly agree that the bonus in 4e is much smaller than the combination of bonuses/penalties were in 3e. And, I am glad that the elves did get a PP that benefits the illusionist class (as it fits their theme). I would just have appreciated it if the class also gave a benefit to a class, of a similar theme, that fits a little better with the elf mechanically. I really think they should have had the shadow keyword present in the class powers of that PP. It would have made the class good for both illusionists (for players willing to play at that mechanical disadvantage, however minor you may subjectively feel that disadvantage to be), and assassins (who elves are much better at being, mechanically speaking). If you don't agree, perhaps we will have to agree to disagree, because I certainly do disagree with you.
I agree with you in retaliating on the "boy". I read it condescendingly too, and even though I'm on the other side of the discussion I found that uncalled for.
I won't disagree that the PP would be much more awesome with some shadow keywording. Isn't that the main source of the problem and original post? You have a DM that doesn't like to houserule, right?
I find that horribly lame. I think the whole setting of Eberron plays so much more smoothly and the experience ends up being so much more fun when DMs are willing to help make the PCs actual action heroes and heroines.
I find that horribly lame. I think the whole setting of Eberron plays so much more smoothly and the experience ends up being so much more fun when DMs are willing to help make the PCs actual action heroes and heroines.
That is usually true for any RPG regardless of setting ;) (The exception might be horror campaigns, where survival is all that matters.)
I agree with you in retaliating on the "boy". I read it condescendingly too, and even though I'm on the other side of the discussion I found that uncalled for.
I won't disagree that the PP would be much more awesome with some shadow keywording. Isn't that the main source of the problem and original post? You have a DM that doesn't like to houserule, right?
I find that horribly lame. I think the whole setting of Eberron plays so much more smoothly and the experience ends up being so much more fun when DMs are willing to help make the PCs actual action heroes and heroines.
I actually haven't even broached the subject with my DM. I'm playing a Talenta Halfling right now. My DM is pretty amazing. He would probably say yes. But I feel guilty whenever I ask the DM for a houserule to bend the game to my advantage... even if the advantage is relatively minor (being able to play a concept I like). I tend to just look for RAW ways to do things. For example, if I ever do play this character concept, I will probably simply go assassin, multiclass rogue, PP into Master Spy.
And I haven't really retaliated on "the boy thing"... yet. I figured I would give him the benefit of the doubt. 
The "Boy" thing came off as a "gee whiz" deal to me.
I say just take the feat and do not worry about optimal stuff. My Halfling sorc from Ghallanda has taken the Mark just for the RPing perks of it. Plus there are many perks at having a Mark to beging with that are not mechanical just can be just as powerful in social situations. The DM might give you more storytime or give you some extra good stuff just because you chose an "suboptimal" feat.
I actually haven't even broached the subject with my DM. I'm playing a Talenta Halfling right now. My DM is pretty amazing. He would probably say yes. But I feel guilty whenever I ask the DM for a houserule to bend the game to my advantage... even if the advantage is relatively minor (being able to play a concept I like).
Generally speaking, it's easier to ask the GM to change things than it is to ask developers to do so, so if you really want to play that concept, just suck it up and ask.
As for the PP, I view it as being designed to bolster and encourage a somewhat weak combination that nonetheless is an important option - though by default the illusionist wizard is not optimal as a sneak-thief or spy (though it's certainly got talents in that direction), elves have an advantage in that regard because even if they dump Dex or Wis, they can't actually have a penalty to the skills necessary for Phiarlan's business.
The "Boy" thing came off as a "gee whiz" deal to me.
I say just take the feat and do not worry about optimal stuff. My Halfling sorc from Ghallanda has taken the Mark just for the RPing perks of it. Plus there are many perks at having a Mark to beging with that are not mechanical just can be just as powerful in social situations. The DM might give you more storytime or give you some extra good stuff just because you chose an "suboptimal" feat.
I think that if the boy was intended to be a "gee whiz" thing, then grammatically it should have had an exclamation mark in front of it instead of a comma. But, maybe that is what he meant!
Anyways, we are talking about a sub-optimal paragon path, not a sub-optimal feat. :P
I actually haven't even broached the subject with my DM. I'm playing a Talenta Halfling right now. My DM is pretty amazing. He would probably say yes. But I feel guilty whenever I ask the DM for a houserule to bend the game to my advantage... even if the advantage is relatively minor (being able to play a concept I like).Generally speaking, it's easier to ask the GM to change things than it is to ask developers to do so, so if you really want to play that concept, just suck it up and ask.
As for the PP, I view it as being designed to bolster and encourage a somewhat weak combination that nonetheless is an important option - though by default the illusionist wizard is not optimal as a sneak-thief or spy (though it's certainly got talents in that direction), elves have an advantage in that regard because even if they dump Dex or Wis, they can't actually have a penalty to the skills necessary for Phiarlan's business.
It is, genearlly speaking, easier tog et the GM to change things. Doesn't mean I can't give my input to the developers! I've seen errata come about that pushed the game in directions I had spoken about on the boards before.
The GM here, we've house-ruled a couple things so, generally, I'm pretty easy going about it. However, I'll admit that I am lost as to the details of the issue (not being familiar with the PP is it a paragon path?).
My initial question would be, just how "unoptimal" are we talking about here? There's certainly no law that all characters have to be optimized -- in fact, there should be a law against it 
In general, I think the main issue with house-ruling it for a replacement character would be that it would be a tweak that the other Players did not have available to them. I'm completely behind the players getting what they want to make the character they want, but has to be all players (or there agreement they don't mind).
Huh. Well. I guess the subject just got broached with my GM. And yes, this is about paragon paths.
Anyways, when I say sub-optimal, I mean sub-optimal in the sense that if you play a nightstalker assassin, and take the phiarlan phantasmist paragon path, despite the fact that their fluff aligns perfectly (using shadows, an illusion, to evoke fear) the assassin will get (virtually) zero use out of 2 of the 3 paragon path "class features" granted (the primary reason to take paragon paths). Only the ability to turn invisible when you spend an action point to take an extra action will be of any use.
While the nightstalker gets plenty of of charm/fear based powers, very few of them are save ends, and by paragon tier (when you take the path) none of them are. In epic tier there is a single daily power with that mechanic. That means that the -2 penalty on enemies checks with save-ends mechanics is virtually useless, applying to only 2 out of 10 powers (including both the paragon path granted powers and class granted powers). If it was applicable to shadow as well as the listed keywords it wouldn't be a whole lot better, but at least it would apply to one or two more powers. Not a great benefit, but its something.
The assassin gets a few illusion based powers, but almost all of them seem to gain the keyword because they make you invisible. Thus, gaining concealment from doing so is sort of pointless... they already give you total concealment. And while there would be a couple of powers that have the illusion keyword, and thus give you a +1 bonus to hit with your next attack, gaining that as your only benefit, and only with a couple powers, for a 16th level PP power, really isn't worth it.
As an illusionist you will end up with about half your powers benefiting from the -2 to saves level 11 power. As an illusionist every single one of your powers will grant you concealment and a +1 to hit with your next power used (netting you a +1 to hit every round, except for the first). But, as an illusionist, and an elf, both your key stats end up being dump stats. No need for dex when your primary is int. No use for wis when your secondary is cha. So, you get totally shafted on that.
Which doesn't make the elf illusionist totally unplayable, but its not appealing to me. Its too much of a penalty for me to personally be willing to play that concept. And, the assassin (which is what really intrests me) gains way too little benefit from the phiarlan phantasmist to even consider taking it, despite the fact that the nightstalkers fluff aligns perfectly with that paragon path.
At least, thats my take. Not that it really matters for our game Wily. I've got Mabu. Unless Mabu dies, which I personally think is highly unlikely, this wouldn't even come up in our games. Probably would not have come up anyway. I think I would have just gone with master spy in order to avoid the conversation period. I don't like asking for to many house rules to be introduced. You already granted me a house rule feat with this character. I wasn't even considering asking you to houserule the shadow keyword into that PP. Multiclassing rogue and taking the Master Spy paragon path is close enough to my backup character concept that I figured it would be easier to just do that, and build a totally RAW legal character.
But the fact that the shadow keyword isn't already present in the house of shadow PPs seems very strange (although it doesn't really effect the thuranni one at all. That one is still an amazing paragon path for an assassin classed elf :P).
The Prescient Bard, with its focus on Wisdom, makes a Bard/Phiarlan Pantamist more optimal. If you absolutely have to have that +1 bonus to a primary stat.
The precient bard suffers from the same problem as the assassin: too few powers that make use of the Phiarlan Phantasmists paragon features. It had a bunch of dailies with a (save ends) effect, and a psychic keyword, so its level 11 power will get use. But the bard has no illusion powers with which to make any real use of the level 16 paragon feature. Completely wasting a PP feature is even worse than not gaining a +2 to at least one primary stat...
I Nope. Plenty of fear/psychic/illusion powers, but almost none of them have properties that would benefit from the Phiarlan Phantasmist PP features. Most of the illusion powers already make you invisible. Almost none of the higher level fear/psychic based powers have an ongoing effect. The class is really only good for people playing illusionist wizards. Only problem, illusionist wizards are a int/cha based class. They gain no real benefits from any of the elfs racial powers. Playing one as an elf is an incredibly unoptimal choice. So really, this PP, designed for elves, is a terrible choice for elves. H
Bolded for emphasis. This is where I'll disagree with you 
. The PP supports "charm, fear, illusion or psychic powers" and Int or Cha classes. This is hardly an illusionist monopoly. The warlock class has plenty of such effects. The same thing applies to the Bard, perhaps to a greater degree. The Preserver Invoker that focuses on psychic aspects is a surprising candidate. And why not a wand wizard?
Still, your best choice would probably be the Wild Magic based Sorceror. Fear and Psychic powers are not uncommon for this class, while Dexterity is incredibly useful there. It's probably your best bet. Sorceror FTW!
I Nope. Plenty of fear/psychic/illusion powers, but almost none of them have properties that would benefit from the Phiarlan Phantasmist PP features. Most of the illusion powers already make you invisible. Almost none of the higher level fear/psychic based powers have an ongoing effect. The class is really only good for people playing illusionist wizards. Only problem, illusionist wizards are a int/cha based class. They gain no real benefits from any of the elfs racial powers. Playing one as an elf is an incredibly unoptimal choice. So really, this PP, designed for elves, is a terrible choice for elves. H
Bolded for emphasis. This is where I'll disagree with you . The PP supports "charm, fear, illusion or psychic powers" and Int or Cha classes. This is hardly an illusionist monopoly. The warlock class has plenty of such effects. The same thing applies to the Bard, perhaps to a greater degree. The Preserver Invoker that focuses on psychic aspects is a surprising candidate. And why not a wand wizard?
Still, your best choice would probably be the Wild Magic based Sorceror. Fear and Psychic powers are not uncommon for this class, while Dexterity is incredibly useful there. It's probably your best bet. Sorceror FTW!
You might have been right, if not for the fact that the level 16 paragon path feature granted by this paragon path ONLY works with powers that have the illusion keyword. I already checked the bard. The bard would make a terrible phiarlan phantasmist because of this. I am willing to bet that if I check the sorceror I will find out the same thing...
Oh, I had missed that. Still, I'm not going to throw away the PP because of a single feature.After all, aren't you going to use Disturbing Vision in every encounter?
Oh, I had missed that. Still, I'm not going to throw away the PP because of a single feature.After all, aren't you going to use Disturbing Vision in every encounter?
Yea, I'm sorry, I personally consider that to be a really silly argument. The level 16 paragon path feature is the most powerful ability granted by a PP. Its the creme de creme of what a PP offers. To choose a PP in which that level 16 path feature is utterly worthless to you is like... well... shooting yourself in the foot. There is no good reason for it. If you can make zero use out of the level 16 PP feature granted, you have chosen the wrong PP, and made a mistake with your character build.
Also, between the choice of having a level 11 PP feature which can only be used with one power per encounter, and the choice to have a level 11 PP feature which can be used with 4 powers per encounter, and you should probably take the build in which you can use the power 4 times per encounter.
I'm not seeing a reason to ever take that paragon path with anything but an illusionist as of yet. And I don't see a very good reason to be an illusionist as an elf.
If they had made the level 16 power for that PP a little more open ended, making the PP a good choice for both bards, illusionists, sorcerers and something like assassins, then I would not have a complaint. The problem is they didn't. Its only good for illusionists. Anyone else taking that PP is doing so at their own detriment.
I just went to look at Assassin + Phantasmist, and I can't see why it's not a good choice. The Assassin has plenty of Illusion powers, and while many of them do supercede the benefit of concealment, that means that instead of just gaining a minor boost to defenses and a +1 bonus to certain attack rolls, you're getting a massive boost to defenses and a +3 bonus to certain attack rolls. That seems more than good enough to me.
I just went to look at Assassin + Phantasmist, and I can't see why it's not a good choice. The Assassin has plenty of Illusion powers, and while many of them do supercede the benefit of concealment, that means that instead of just gaining a minor boost to defenses and a +1 bonus to certain attack rolls, you're getting a massive boost to defenses and a +3 bonus to certain attack rolls. That seems more than good enough to me.
1) Because unlike the illusionist, you can have all 10 of his powers be an illusion keyword power, an assassin can only have something like 4 illusion powers (and I actually think that is an overestimate. I would have to look at endgame powers again, but I am pretty sure an assassin ends up with something like 1-2 illusion powers at most). A +1 to hit with powers after the use of 2 of an assassin powers is not worth a level 16 paragon feature. Not when we can compare that with the illusionist, who gets that +1 (and concealment, which the assassin doesn't get) with EVERY SINGLE POWER the illusionist has, including his at-wills.
2) And because the level 11 power, with its -2 to save ends (to powers with certain keywords), is still only useful to a single epic level assassin power, and zero paragon level assassin powers.
I've gone over the powers fairly carefully. Assassin + Phantasmist is not a good choice. It looks like it should be a good choice. Then, when you examine the actual powers you end up with, you notice that both the level 11 and level 16 features are virtually wasted. An assassin will get to use those abilities on 1 or 2 powers (out of 10), with those powers being daily powers (more often then not). An illusionist will get to use the level 16 feature on every single power it ever uses, and its level 11 feature on at least 4 powers or so. I would have to go over the powers again to double check the exact numbers (which I don't have the time for right now), but my numbers in this post should be fairly close.
Its just not an optimal coupling. The only real optimal coupling for a phantasmist is the illusionist, to be honest. If the level 16 feature were a little more open, this would not be the case. Like, if it worked after someone used either illusion or shadow powers. Or illusion or fear powers. Or something like that. But the fact that the level 16 feature only works on illusion keyword powers really makes the phantasmist a 1 trick pony. Which would be ok, if it was a wizard paragon path. But its not. Its an elf paragon path for characters with the mark of shadow. I just think it should be a little more open.
Of course, thats a subjective argument. If you think its ok that its an elf/illusionist specific PP, then the PP is fine. But, in that case, I think it should have actually been elf specific. Because, right now, without the elf specific requirement, despite the fact that this PP is designed for elves from a point of view of fluff, it mechanically works better for gnomes. That bothers me. Either it should mechanically be relegated to an elf only class, or as it is not mechanically relegated to elves only, or it should mechanically work best for the group that its fluff was written for. That is just how I see things.
There are more applicable assassin powers for both features than you seem to think, and even 50% of the character's allotment (75% or even 100% is possible, at least with attack powers, for at least half of paragon tier) is an acceptable ratio, when you consider that the assassin gets more numerical benefit out of most of the 16th-applicable powers (effective +5 to all defenses and +3 to attack rolls) than the illusionist does (effective +2 to all defenses and +1 to attack rolls, or sometimes +3 if the power grants combat advantage). And that's not counting any multiclassing that might happen. As for the level 11 feature, since I don't recall any encounter powers for either assassin or wizard having any 'save ends' riders, three is the upper limit for both through most of paragon tier - and there's more than enough in either to satisfy the numbers.
As for it being elf-only - canonically, the only way you can be a Phiarlan phantasmist (barring special GM dispensation) is to be a Phiarlan elf. The House is not likely to teach their trade secrets to anyone else, especially a gnome...
There are more applicable assassin powers for both features than you seem to think, and even 50% of the character's allotment (75% or even 100% is possible, at least with attack powers, for at least half of paragon tier) is an acceptable ratio, when you consider that the assassin gets more numerical benefit out of most of the 16th-applicable powers (effective +5 to all defenses and +3 to attack rolls) than the illusionist does (effective +2 to all defenses and +1 to attack rolls, or sometimes +3 if the power grants combat advantage). And that's not counting any multiclassing that might happen. As for the level 11 feature, since I don't recall any encounter powers for either assassin or wizard having any 'save ends' riders, three is the upper limit for both through most of paragon tier - and there's more than enough in either to satisfy the numbers.
As for it being elf-only - canonically, the only way you can be a Phiarlan phantasmist (barring special GM dispensation) is to be a Phiarlan elf. The House is not likely to teach their trade secrets to anyone else, especially a gnome...
I'm sorry, but I am going to call you on this, because its bologna. Proove it. I've gone over all of the paragon/epic powers at great length. You are wrong. Empirically. I challenge you to prove otherwise. I want you to show me how you can choose 50% of your powers, choosing powers only from paragon and epic levels, which have the save ends keyword and one of the keywords used by the phiarlan phantasmist. I want you to show me how you can choose 50% of your powers with the illusion keyword. Please, put your money where your claims are. Because, I have looked over the power lists, and your claims are bologna. You are going to end up with 1 save ends power (a daily, and its level 29), and 2-3 illusion powers (I am pretty sure its 2, but it might be 3. Its been about a week since I went over the power lists in detail.). Ok, so, go one. Prove your claims!
Barring you proving me wrong with an empirical example (in which case I will have to eat my own words, won't I), I am claiming you are empirically wrong.
And your final point is a house rule. The fluff says its a phiarlan phantasmist. But the fluff of 4e and the mechanics are divorced. Nothing in the mechanics of that PP states that you must be an elf, or a member of house phiarlan, to take that PP. One is totally free to re-write the fluff for that PP, and take its mechanical benefits with a gnome. A DM is certainly free to house rule that a player may not. I would probably make that house rule at my table. But the game does not come with that assumption built in out of the box. If it did, the paragon path would have the "must be a member of house phiarlan" or "must be an elf" requirement built into the paragon path.
Prove it.
Read on.
I want you to show me how you can choose 50% of your powers with the illusion keyword.
Encounter powers: Smothering shadow (1), Army of Night (3), Dark Step Ambush (13), Shadow Fire (17). That's four powers, plus the Phantasmist level 11, making it possible to have 100% of your encounter powers be Illusion at paragon, and at least 50% of them be illusion at epic, and still have some room for choice.
Daily powers: Obscuring Shadow (9), Phantom Assault (19). That's 50% of your dailies.
Utility powers: Sheltering Dark (6), Assassin's Defense (16), Thief of Names (16), Fortress of Shadow (22). That's four powers, which is more than half of 7.
Grand total: At the start of Epic tier, you can easily get 50% of your powers to be Illusions without multiclassing.
You are going to end up with 1 save ends power (a daily, and its level 29)
The vast majority of 'save ends' powers I've seen in this game are dailies, and bear in mind that you don't have to replace powers if the ones you've got are still doing you well enough - and the effects on the heroic tier powers are pretty good, certainly good enough to want to keep Obscuring Shadow at least in my arsenal (as it doesn't do substantially less base damage than the level 29 power in any case).
Barring you proving me wrong with an empirical example (in which case I will have to eat my own words, won't I), I am claiming you are empirically wrong.
Here's your example.
Madras d'Phiarlan, elf Assassin/Phiarlan Phantasmist/Perfect Slayer 22
Str 10, Con 17, Dex 28, Int 12, Wis 15, Cha 22
Shadow Acrobat background
Skills: Acrobatics +27, Bluff +22, Perception +23, Stealth +28, Streetwise +17, Thievery +28
Feats: Cull the Weak, Dark Fury, Elven Precision, Epic Resurgence, Evasion, Fleet-footed, Mark of Shadow, Prime Slayer, Skill Focus (Stealth), Skill Focus (Perception), Skill Focus (Thievery), Sneak of Shadows, Untraceable, Wild Elf Luck.
Powers (Powers marked with * work with Mind Fire, those marked with ^ work with Phase-Mist Shroud): Inescapable Blade, Leaping Shade, Assassin's Defense^, Cloak of Shades, Dark Step Ambush^, Death's Doorstep, Disturbing Visions ^, Echoing Threat, Fortress of Shadow^, Obscuring Shadow*^, Phantasmist Stalker*, Phantom Assault^, Seeker of Shadow, Shadow Fire^, Sheltering Dark^, Taunting Decoy.
Out of sixteen powers, eight of them (50%) work with the level 16 ability, and of the four daily powers (the ones that can be legitimately counted for 'save ends' abilities), two of them (50%) work with the level 11 ability. I have no way of telling how well the character would actually play (and I chose the feats pretty much on the basis of 'that looks cool/appropriate'), but it seems to me to cover all the bases and be canonically appropriate.
---
And now that I've wasted an hour of my Saturday afternoon looking that up, I'm going to go watch more Airbender...
Prove it.First apologize for being rude - I'm merely stating my own findings, and for you to take that tone like that is quite uncalled for.
And then, read on.
I want you to show me how you can choose 50% of your powers with the illusion keyword.Encounter powers: Smothering shadow (1), Army of Night (3), Dark Step Ambush (13), Shadow Fire (17). That's four powers, plus the Phantasmist level 11, making it possible to have 100% of your encounter powers be Illusion at paragon, and at least 50% of them be illusion at epic, and still have some room for choice.
Daily powers: Obscuring Shadow (9), Phantom Assault (19). That's 50% of your dailies.
Utility powers: Sheltering Dark (6), Assassin's Defense (16), Thief of Names (16), Fortress of Shadow (22). That's four powers, which is more than half of 7.
Grand total: At the start of Epic tier, you can easily get 50% of your powers to be Illusions without multiclassing.
You are going to end up with 1 save ends power (a daily, and its level 29)The vast majority of 'save ends' powers I've seen in this game are dailies, and bear in mind that you don't have to replace powers if the ones you've got are still doing you well enough - and the effects on the heroic tier powers are pretty good, certainly good enough to want to keep Obscuring Shadow at least in my arsenal (as it doesn't do substantially more base damage than the level 29 power in any case).
Barring you proving me wrong with an empirical example (in which case I will have to eat my own words, won't I), I am claiming you are empirically wrong.Here's your example.
Madras d'Phiarlan, elf Assassin/Phiarlan Phantasmist/Perfect Slayer 22
Str 10, Con 17, Dex 28, Int 12, Wis 15, Cha 22
Shadow Acrobat background
Skills: Acrobatics +27, Bluff +22, Perception +23, Stealth +28, Streetwise +17, Thievery +28
Feats: Cull the Weak, Dark Fury, Elven Precision, Epic Resurgence, Evasion, Fleet-footed, Mark of Shadow, Prime Slayer, Skill Focus (Stealth), Skill Focus (Perception), Skill Focus (Thievery), Sneak of Shadows, Untraceable, Wild Elf Luck.
Powers (Powers marked with * work with Mind Fire, those marked with ^ work with Phase-Mist Shroud): Inescapable Blade, Leaping Shade, Assassin's Defense^, Cloak of Shades, Dark Step Ambush^, Death's Doorstep, Disturbing Visions ^, Echoing Threat, Fortress of Shadow^, Obscuring Shadow*^, Phantasmist Stalker*, Phantom Assault^, Seeker of Shadow, Shadow Fire^, Sheltering Dark^, Taunting Decoy.Out of sixteen powers, eight of them (50%) work with the level 16 ability, and of the four daily powers (the ones that can be legitimately counted for 'save ends' abilities), two of them (50%) work with the level 11 ability. I have no way of telling how well the character would actually play (and I chose the feats pretty much on the basis of 'that looks cool/appropriate'), but it seems to me to cover all the bases and be canonically appropriate.
---
And now that I've wasted an hour of my Saturday afternoon looking that up, I'm going to go watch more Airbender...
First, I am sorry you read my post as being rude. I certainly didn't intend for it to read that way. I can see how it might have been read that way (as some of the sentences are short, and so might be read as fairly curt), but that was not my intent. I just wanted you to back up the claim with proof, because your claims were contrary to my own findings.
Now that that is out of the way, in regard to smothering shadow, army of night, and (to a lesser extent) obscuring shadow, I specifically mentioned that I was taking only paragon and epic tier powers into account. Choosing to keep a heroic tier power is usually (not always) a trap. I don't consider the choice to keep a level 1 or level 3 power to actually be a viable choice. I really don't consider keeping a level 9 daily to be a good choice either. Phantam assault does everything that obscuring shadows does, but with 1 more [w] of damage, and no saving throw allowed. You just become invisible any time you hit your opponent with a shadow keyword power, which for an assassin means all of your powers. Which, in fact, is even better than just having that target not be able to see you.
However, that being said, your build seems to all around be nice. I don't really like the fact that it had to keep some of its heroic tier powers. I think that is a mistake, and a trap. I, overall, concede the point, and eat my own words. But, the thing is, if you don't fall into the trap of keeping those heroic tier powers, you still won't have more than one save-ends power. But whatever. You can get a second one at level 29 I guess...
Enjoy Airbender!
I was under the impression that the level 16 issue was of greater concern to you in any case, and keeping a level 9 power that is almost as good as one 20 levels higher doesn't seem like that much of a trap to me.
And the next time you decide to call someone on their facts, especially in forthright terms that compare their research to lunch meat, doublecheck to see whether they said in the post that they'd just checked them . It's generally a good indicator, and will save both parties a lot of bother.
I was under the impression that the level 16 issue was of greater concern to you in any case, and keeping a level 9 power that is almost as good as one 20 levels higher doesn't seem like that much of a trap to me.
And the next time you decide to call someone on their facts, especially in forthright terms that compare their research to lunch meat, doublecheck to see whether they said in the post that they'd just checked them . It's generally a good indicator, and will save both parties a lot of bother.
Keeping the level 9 power instead of phantam assault is a trap. Phantam assault does everything that the 9th level power does, but better. Therefore, you actually can not have 50% of your powers make any use of the -2 to save ends mechanic. You also can't have 50% of your powers make use of the 16th level power, because to do so, as none of the at-will powers have the right keywords, you would actually need more than 50% of your encounter/daily powers to have the right keyword (illusion), and even in your example they don't. I had double checked my facts. I knew you were going to be unable to provide proof that you could build a character with at least 50% of your powers having the right keywords.
I conceded the point not because I felt you had successfully given me an example of the possibility of having a character with 50% of their powers working in tandem with the phiarlan phantasmist, but because a couple factors in your example changed my paradigm. One, you accounted for utility powers, which I forgot to do. This gives an assassin quite a bit more use out of their level 16 phantasmist feature. Second, while I felt that you overreached in a couple areas, thus overstating your case as to the assassins ability to play to the level 11 phantamist feature, your example was still strong enough that I felt that I should admit that my position was not as strong as I had originally believed. I don't think your position is as strong as you believe it is either, but I didn't feel like arguing that with you. It is semantic. Overall, I felt that you had a stronger position than I did. Until your last post, I just didn't feel that the need to outline the fact that I think you are wrong on a number of semantic issues, because it felt childish to me. As I think you are right in your overall argument, even if some of your semantic issues are faulty, I figured it would be more tactful to simply concede rhetorical defeat.
I do not, however, regret telling you that you were wrong. I do not regret telling you that your argument was lunch-meat. Telling someone that you think their argument is bogus, using any colloquialism, should not result in offense. I am fully within my right to hold your opinions in any regards I choose to, so long as I do not insult or put YOU down. Putting down your position, telling you that I think your position is bologna, is not the same thing as insulting you, or telling you that you are bologna. I considered your opinion to be bologna until you backed it up with evidence, and changed my paradigm. Your opinion, your statements, are not essentially correct just because you state them. Unless you back a statement up with evidence, it is valueless. I thank you for backing your statement up with evidence. But, until you did so, I was of the opinion that it was bologna. I don't regret telling you as much. Any "bother" I might have saved by not telling you as much, in my personal opinion, is "bother" that should not have been saved.
However, since we are calling people on matters of social grace, I have a suggestion for you. Generally speaking, you are not going to find a lot of people on the internet willing to say "I am wrong." I just told you, over the internet no less, "I am wrong." I didn't even resort to trying to defend my semantic points. I decided that as my overarching argument was wrong I should simply have the good tact to admit as much. Telling someone that in the future they should not bother telling you that your opinion is wrong, because in this instance you were correct, and in the future the person could simply save a lot of bother by just accepting your words as gospel (without evidence being provided) seems to me to both be foolish, and an example bad tact. On one hand, if you don't provide evidence to back up your claims, people have no reason to believe that your statements are anything but lunch meat. Really, a lot of "bother" could have just been saved by you providing the evidence in the first place, without need of someone to ask you for it. Second of all, its sort of the rhetorical equivalent of punching someone in a boxing match after you have already won the fight. I told you, you were right, I was wrong. I even had the good grace to provide you an apology, as you took offense to the way I originally told you that you were wrong, and I never intended for you to take offense. By trying to push things further, you are sort of overstepping your bounds. Not in any manner serious enough to require an apology. Its a minor thing. But there it is. This is how I view your last post...
I'll nod in agreement to this. Now, instead of it being important to avoid the stat penalty, it's important to choose races with the proper stat bonuses, the 'optimal' races now being the ones that benefit from both stats (which is why Eladrin gripe about having Dex/Int, as an overlapping stat boost).
Incidently, the Thuranni PP is much better.
The Thurrani one might be overpowered... 5 ongoing damage against a foe who grants you combat advantage in paragon tier, and 10 in epic tier? That is pretty much as powerful as a sneak attack wholesale... I really think that the class probably should of granted 2/5 ongoing damage instead of 5/10 ongoing damage. Or maybe the ability should grant the creature a +2 bonus to its saves to end the ongoing damage from the class power. Or something. I mean, right now, you automatically deal 1.5 damage less than the average damage of 2d6, with a 45% chance of adding that damage again each round, in paragon tier. In epic tier it becomes 3 points of damage less than the average of 4d6, with a 45% chance of adding that damage again each round. Even with ongoing damage not stacking with itself, that is a HUGE damage boost! But I might be missing something in regards to that PPs balance...