IMHO the Spellscarred powers aren't necessarily better or worse than a class power. What they lack is flavor related to what class you are. But since Spellscarred is its own thing, I wouldn't expect them to be. I would think it odd if I saw a Spellscarred power that gave me a bonus if I was a fighter wielding a hammer, etc.
I just received my three cards (and a letter unlocking the rest) in the mail. One of them allows someone to create a Spellscarred character if that is their wish. At first, I thought this would be a GREAT idea - one that would add all sorts of flavor and intrigue to a character as well as a little unique crunch. But the more I look at the powers available via multiclassing, the more it looks like the whole concepts is long on flavor but short on playability in that there's not a lot that worth giving up a class power for. This is unfortunate, but it seems to be the case to me. Can anyone (please) maker their case and prove me wrong?
Well considering that your statement contradicts itself. You want it to be flavorful and intriguing. Then you turn around and say its not power gamey enough for you. So which do you want the intriguing uniqueness of been Spellscarred or the power gameyness?
Valencia, my wizard, is spellscarred (I use an effect from a story award (
Show
LURU1-1 Blessed of Eaerlann
I will be taking Horrific Maw to use once per encounter with Sneak Attack. As I intend to use short swords and daggers, the 1D12 is not a great deal different from 2[W] damage, but it is highly amusing to suddenly lash out and take a bite out of an opponent... how will that be RP'd out I wonder
...Horrific Maw, for example, is fine as far as it goes, but a once per encounter power the deals 1d12 is not compelling enough to get me to swap, oh, say, Witchfire, for it.
It's on par with many other powers. It's equivalent to a 1[W] for some of the bigger weapons (and a 2[W] for smaller ones) and you get +2 to hit with it. But if it's not your cup of tea, wait to take a different encounter power with your Novice Power feat.
I will be taking Horrific Maw to use once per encounter with Sneak Attack. As I intend to use short swords and daggers, the 1D12 is not a great deal different from 2[W] damage, but it is highly amusing to suddenly lash out and take a bite out of an opponent... how will that be RP'd out I wonder
Probably by the DM rejecting your sneak attack damage...sneak attack only works with light blades, slings and crossbows...
I think the largest problem with Spellscarred is that it isn't exactly clear what their implement is.
It's a Multiclass feat, but it technically isn't it's own class. (i.e. you can't just be a Spellscarred liek you can be a Wizard or a fighter, as such there are no class features to the Spellscarred such as Implement use. Although I suppose you could consider the traits such as Flamespeed as "class features")
Maybe Arcane Power will shed some more light on the whole thing. At any rate, Happy New Year, everybody!
Just a note: you don't HAVE to multiclass to have a spellscar.
Yet to benefit rather than be disadvantaged by the spellscar you have to multi-class into it. That and the multi-class feat is sub-par compared to most other multi-class feats because it has no skill pick associated with it.
To actually benefit from the feat you have to start doing power swaps or go into the paragon class. Power swap feats are iffy as to being beneficial, because the powers you swap out for have to be better enough than your class powers to be worth spending a feat on them. The paragon class is also iffy because again your spending a feat to simply expand your options, and it also has to be better enough than your existing options to be worth spending a feat on.
Don't get me wrong, I like the fluff on spellscarred characters. Some of the feat options also might even be worth it for certain characters, but overall I didn't see anything that quite made it worth it for most characters to spend thier single multi-class feat on it.
That was debated before. as for implement powers, the consensus seemed to be that you just use the implement for your base class. i.e. if you are a Warlock with the Student of the Plague feat and you have a Spellscarred power with the Implement keyword, than you can use Rods and Wands with it.
That's a bad consensus. There are plenty of characters who likely should want to be able to use the implement-based spellscarred powers who do not currently use implements. That is undefined doesn't mean you rule against it.
That's a bad consensus. There are plenty of characters who likely should want to be able to use the implement-based spellscarred powers who do not currently use implements. That is undefined doesn't mean you rule against it.
The only thread I've seen with any answers on it is:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1108977
Which states that the matter is going to be in an update at some point.
That's a bad consensus. There are plenty of characters who likely should want to be able to use the implement-based spellscarred powers who do not currently use implements. That is undefined doesn't mean you rule against it.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But personally, until someone can show me where the Spellscarred "class" has an Implement class feature, I will rule in line with previous discussions that you use the implements of your main class. To use an implement you have to be of a class that uses said implement. Spellscarred isn't even an actual class. It has Weapon powers, do we need a listing of weapons a Spellscarred is proficient with? Or do you use the proficiencies of your main class?
Remember, you can use an Implement power without an implement. You just can't benefit from using an implement if you do not have a class feature that allows it.
Unfortunately it looks like WotC was, once again, giving the players too much credit.
Unfortunately it looks like WotC was, once again, giving the players too much credit.
I don't understand this line?
Each class that allows implements very clearly restricts thems as to what a character is allowed to use them on. Spellscarred is treated in every way as its own class, and since the multi-class feat grants no implements, like the other caster multi-class feats do, there is no way to use any implement on their powers (well there is a way, but only if you follow a specific god and have a speific magic item).
Allowing the use of implements on spellscarred powers in a LFR game will be problematic. While it might seem a reasonable argument you still can't rely on your house rule to be viewed favorably with every GM.
Also as mentioned, the non-implement users getting shorted on the ability to use implements is pretty crappy. No other multi-class feat allows you to take implement powers, but doesn't give you the ability to use the appropriate implements with them. Thus your house rule is one sided in allowing some classes to use implements on the powers and not allowing other classes to. You can't argue the whole weapon power bit here, because even a wizard can whip out a magic dagger and go stabby with his spellscarred melee powers on someones ass.
I don't understand this line?
lol... It's just me being snarky. :D Meaning: WotC should never assume players will be able to put 2 and 2 together.
Spellscarred is treated in every way as its own class, and since the multi-class feat grants no implements, like the other caster multi-class feats do, there is no way to use any implement on their powers (well there is a way, but only if you follow a specific god and have a speific magic item).
It isn't treated as it's own class. It's more of a weird combination of a template and a class without being either. It's a feat that grants your character a minor ability and the right to take the power swap feats to gain a power off a limited list of powers associated with being Spellscarred. It is not it's own class. It isn't even treated as a full class. It's a feat and a list of powers. I don't know many classes like that. They give a fluffy explanation of why it's a multiclass feat: "To master a spellscar, you need rigorous mental discipline and the courage to experiment with the energy of the Spellplague and wield it as a tool."
Allowing the use of implements on spellscarred powers in a LFR game will be problematic. While it might seem a reasonable argument you still can't rely on your house rule to be viewed favorably with every GM.
I would hardly call it a house rule. #1) Spellscarred is not a class and has no class features, including Implement. Is it more reasonable to say you can't actually use an implement you're proficient in with a Spellscarred Implement power? Is it overbalancing to say that a Spellscarred wizard can't use his orb on a Spellscarred Implement power? #2) Implement Keyword definition:
Implement: Many arcane spells are more effective when used in conjunction with an implement—a wizard’s staff, orb, or wand, or a warlock’s rod or wand. {Evan: of course there are and will be more classes that use implements, but this still applies to them} Many divine prayers use holy symbols as implements. To grant its benefit to a divine character, a holy symbol must represent the character’s patron deity or one of a group of deities the character serves. It’s not necessary to have an implement in order to use a power that has the implement keyword.
Is it more reasonable to assume that, in the absence of a Spellscarred Implement class feature (which again, it isn't a class in itself) that we should just go by the basic definition of using Implements? I can see some would argue that under Wizards/Paladins/Clerics/Warlocks that each Implement mastery says "when used in conjunction with a power or paragon path power" but you have to also remember that main rule is you are in one class and one class only, the exception to the rule is if you take the multiclass feat and the power swap feats. If you're a Cleric and have a Spellscar, is it reasonable to say you can't use any of the powers since they're all arcane? Or if you're a Fighter or some other Martial based class?
Also as mentioned, the non-implement users getting shorted on the ability to use implements is pretty crappy.
Spellscarred powers are divided into Implement and Weapon powers. Yes, a fighter can take an implement based power off the list, but why would they want to when the melee based powers would be better for them? You can do it, it's a suboptimal choice, but if thats your hook go for it.
{quote]No other multi-class feat allows you to take implement powers, but doesn't give you the ability to use the appropriate implements with them.
That's because they're actual classes. You making the assumption that Spellscarred is a class in its own right. It isn't.
Thus your house rule is one sided in allowing some classes to use implements on the powers and not allowing other classes to.
So what do you propose? In the absence of any class features for Spellscarred, should we start letting fighters run around with wands, rods, etc. even though they can't use them? I didn't design the Spellscarred you know, I'm going with what's there. If we want to take the position that without it's own Implement it's "broken" then we would also have to assume that Clerics, Paladins, Warlocks, Artificers, Druids, Invokers, Sorcerers (assumed that they will have Implements), Bards, etc., etc. will not be able to use them either since there's no way to know what Implement is viable for the powers. That means nearly 1/2 the powers are unusable.
You can't argue the whole weapon power bit here, because even a wizard can whip out a magic dagger and go stabby with his spellscarred melee powers on someones ass.
I can and i will. :D It's still just as suboptimal a choice for that wizard as it is for a fighter to take an Implement power. Is he going to have a magic dagger as high a level as his implement? Is his Str/Dex/Con going to be good enough to make up for it? Could he do it? Sure he can. Should he? Probably not. Can a fighter take an Implement based power? Sure. Should he? Probably not. Not everything has to be an optimal choice. Just because it isn't an optimal choice doesn't mean it has to magically be made optimal. People are simply assuming that the Spellscarred needs it's own implement when the powers have been designed to function in conjunction how your class already works.
Conversely, what about the Multiclass feats for "weapon styles." a la Bola Training, Whip Training, etc. from Dragon 368. Are we supposed to expect there should be some form of class features to go along with these as well? Or that they are their own class?
lol... It's just me being snarky. :D Meaning: WotC should never assume players will be able to put 2 and 2 together.
In this case there is no 2 and 2 to put together, no class or feat allows implements to be used for spellscarred powers, its as clear cut as that.
It isn't treated as it's own class. It's more of a weird combination of a template and a class without being either.
Yes and no, it is not its own class, but for purposes of how to mechanically apply the feats and powers it is treated as if it were a class.
Is it more reasonable to say you can't actually use an implement you're proficient in with a Spellscarred Implement power?No, its not more reasonable, but thats how it is written. What is truly needed is an offical FAQ or errata on the matter, which Wizards has promised, but not given yet.Spellscarred powers are divided into Implement and Weapon powers. Yes, a fighter can take an implement based power off the list, but why would they want to when the melee based powers would be better for them? You can do it, it's a suboptimal choice, but if thats your hook go for it.
Its not sub-optimal, it provides far greater versatility than the fighter would normally have. Many fighters would like to have one or two nice ranged powers to use while they close in or hold thier position, and a magic wand a plus or two behind your melee weapon really isn't that expensive to keep. As a player of an artificer I can attest that sometimes it is worth carrying both implements and weapons to fully take advantage of a class that offers powers mixed between the two.I can and i will. :D It's still just as suboptimal a choice for that wizard as it is for a fighter to take an Implement power. Is he going to have a magic dagger as high a level as his implement?
Its not as sub-optimal as you might think, staff wizards often have decent con and wand wizards often have decent dex, either one of them would be pretty decent at the spellscarred melee powers if they had at least an ok magic weapon. All swordmages and some warlocks on the other hand are going to have magic weapons that are as high level as thier implements (since they can be one and the same), and both can have high physical stats to make those the melee based spellscarred powers reasonable for them to take.
It isn't treated as it's own class. It's more of a weird combination of a template and a class without being either. It's a feat that grants your character a minor ability and the right to take the power swap feats to gain a power off a limited list of powers associated with being Spellscarred. It is not it's own class.
Then you can't use any implements with it. All the various implement powers specify that they are only for their class...
What's interesting is that this problem is not even unique to Spellscarred as far as PGtF goes - Swordmage has the exact same problem - can a Wizard/Swordmage use the implement-based powers of a Swordmage?
In this case there is no 2 and 2 to put together, no class or feat allows implements to be used for spellscarred powers, its as clear cut as that.
I disagree that it's clear cut.
I disagree that it's clear cut.
They're obviously intended to use some sort of implement. But all the class powers specifically state they're only granting it for their class powers. That's clear cut.
As an example a Warlock/Wizard can't use a Rod for their Wizard spells. And Spellscarred powers are not listed as being Warlock powers.
It may be a reasonable assumption that the intent was to let them use whatever implements they currently use. It is also a reasonable assumption that they could use a specific set of 2-3 that was left out or that they could use any arcane implement period.
Whatever it is, they didn't say. And they did the same thing in Swordmage for people who multiclass into it.
Now, I will agree that WotC really needs to make some sort of errata on Implements in general. I would liek to see them clear up the issue on whether you can only use your implements for your own classes powers and nothign else, or if youcan use them within the same power source (i.e. a Wizard/Warlock could use an Orb with Warlock powers since they're all arcane; an Invoker/Paladin could use a staff since it's all Divine, etc.). I will also agree that on the point I'm making in this post is me fishing for intent as what is written seems extremely contradictory to me. (although I'm not too concerned with it as I am not planning on multiclassing much with any of my characters, and certainly not with any of my Implement wielding characters... and I do feel somewhat dirty as i hate goign by RAI since it can be anything you want it to be)
Frankly, if I'm running a table and someone is a spellscarred implement user, whether it's actually DME or as intended, I see no reason to stifle the player by not allowing them to use their class implement with the Spellscarred power. If they're a melee type lass and take an implement power, I see it as their choice to take a power that isn't optimal for them when they had a better choice.
Likewise, while I will agree that as written, there seems to be a restriction on using Implements within your class' powers, I wouldn't bat an eye at a Warlock/wizard using his rod on a Wizard power. (If it were a Warlock/Cleric I'd probably say that he would need a Holy Symbol) Most likely very much within the realm of DME, but at the same time, it's not like it's providing an advantage to the player, it isn't overbalancing or overpowering, and to me, the whole thing is murky at best. Your mileage, obviously, varies. :D
Either they should have made the Ref, Fort, and Will on par with AC, and given implements a proficiency bonus...
Or they should have lowered AC a bit to the level of the other defenses and had no proficiency bonus for anything.
Having one attack/defense work one way and have a separate system for other attack/defense occurrences is just inelegant and adds a (small) level of complexity that wasn't needed.
-karma
Aesthetically that irks me somewhat.
Either they should have made the Ref, Fort, and Will on par with AC, and given implements a proficiency bonus...
Or they should have lowered AC a bit to the level of the other defenses and had no proficiency bonus for anything.
I think either of those act weirder mechanically. The 1st seems very inelegant - "Why do all implements give me a +3 to hit, when as a Wizard, I simply can't use a Rod."
And the 2nd means that it is much harder to differentiate between light and heavy armor. Plus having Plate giving a +8 and no armor +0 is classic D&D.
I actually think it works much better than the old save system.
Evan,
Implements are restricted to the class that they are from, when the class has a list of implements. Thus, even if you are a multiclass wizard/warlock, you can only use an orb for your wizard powers or a rod for your warlock powers. However, since wands are an implement for both, you could use one wand for both sets of powers.
Spellscarred are a little different however, as they do not have their own implements list. With their implement powers, you can use any implement you are proficient in from your main class.
Thanks, and Good Gaming!
So I concede the point on Implements being restricted to their own classes, but was right on the Spellscarred interpretation.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1112519
The card allows you to take the Spellscarred multiclass feat (which you are not normally allowed to take) and any other feat that has Spellscarred as a prerequisite. You can take it at anytime once you have the card, not just at character creation.
Larger Than Life would be more worth taking if it were an Encounter Power instead of a Daily. Or if it allowed you to increase the Close Burst of a power (making Sweeping Blade Close Burst 1 once per day would be awesome).
Right now, just using a Spellscarred card (without taking the Student of the Plague feat) means your PC has a -2 to all defenses against the spell plague and any spellscarred powers. For no benefit.
I hope that future modules will allow PCs to be exposed to the spell plague and that they will allow the PC to choose any of the three (or to introduce more SotP versions), since right now, the only one that is really worth a feat (and blocking other multiclass feats)--in my opinion--is Sight of the Unseen.
EDIT: It occurs to me now that Spellscarred powers go very well with the Rogue. Since the higher-level melee powers are all melee weapon but don't do weapon damage, you could use them with daggers to gain the +3 weapon proficiency bonus to attack, along with +1 for rogue weapon talent and even another +1 for the Nimble Blade feat while you have combat advantage. For example, Echoes of Valor would do 5d10 + Dex damage. It's a melee weapon attack so you would get all the attack bonuses from the dagger, and if you'd taken the Daggermaster Paragon Path, you would crit with that power on an 18-20. Or am I reading this wrong?
Accessories: These keywords identify items used with the power. If you have a proficiency bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls from your weapon or an enhancement bonus to your attack rolls and damage rolls from a magic weapon or an implement, you add that bonus when you use a power that has the associated keyword.
And yes, your rogue example is all correct as long as you're using a power with the Weapon keyword.
With so many non-evil drow suddenly running around the realms, that is a pretty good benefit although
Take a look at Cloud of Darkness again, its worded to create more effects than just darkness, darkvision won't work on it.
:D
-karma
Yeah, it would be more accurately called "Cloud of dense inky black smoke".
...that the person that cast it can remarkably see through. ^^
Cloud of Darkness is cool (my rogue uses it frequently), but it's even harder on physics than most magic is.
...that the person that cast it can remarkably see through. ^^
Cloud of Darkness is cool (my rogue uses it frequently), but it's even harder on physics than most magic is.
Well. . there's your problem right there.
Physics is magic's little puppet. ;)
First, the "Larger than Life" card is from Rewards set 3, which was provided to basically everyone in the RPGA in a PDF document, while the "Sight of the Unseen" card is a rare promo available at last year's Gencon. So, you will find no one willing to swap with you.
Second, the "sight of the unseen" card is, oddly enough, a creation card, so that you wouldn't be able to add it to your existing characters once you got it.
Sorry,
Brayden Glad
Larger than Life, though honestly a really minor ability and probably barely worth the feat (definately not when combined with the spellscar disadvantage) it still is the best in my opinion because it can let a character do something useful without putting themselves at risk once a day.
Its also cool in the "That's disgusting, but neat" way.
Spellplague is still a toy nothing all that powerful. You're down a feat, and down a RPGA card (Say, compared to the at-will reroll cards) and have really only neato blue flames to show for it.
That's a bad consensus. There are plenty of characters who likely should want to be able to use the implement-based spellscarred powers who do not currently use implements. That is undefined doesn't mean you rule against it.
OH SNAP!!
Spellscarred learn to focus the energy of the Spellplague through familiar tools. A spellscarred can use his or her class’s implements, as well as implements he or she can wield because of a feat, with spellscarred powers that have the implement keyword.
OH SNAP!!
I said they should define it and that people could only use implements belonging to their class...
Right now I'm 2 for 2 ;)
Maldanaan, I gotta give you some bad news
First, the "Larger than Life" card is from Rewards set 3, which was provided to basically everyone in the RPGA in a PDF document, while the "Sight of the Unseen" card is a rare promo available at last year's Gencon. So, you will find no one willing to swap with you.
Second, the "sight of the unseen" card is, oddly enough, a creation card, so that you wouldn't be able to add it to your existing characters once you got it.
Sorry,
Brayden Glad
Bah. Well, here's to hoping Arcane Power has some decent paragon paths in it and new options for Con-based warlocks.
I want to be able to take the Multiclass Into Spellscarred feat and, from that point on, add the Spellscarred power lists to my normal class lists, then pick the one I take at each level. Perhaps with a limit so I can't be more Spellscarred than anything else. I reason that you cannot retrain a spellscar; you either have it or you don't.
Given what the Spellplague is, its powers ought to echo old-Edition magic spells, or put a bonus on other Arcane abilities.
As mentioned before, I am hoping Arcane Power will have more cool options for Spellscars (and for Warlocks, too - my primary class).
I'm of the opinion that the larger than life is the best one of the three.
Not if you're a ranged character. My spellscarred drow bard (also rogue and warlocky) has had a ton of fun with the speed one. I use the campaign card that allows an extra 2 square shift in the middle of the run and voila, I can run 6+2+2+2 = 12 squares as a move action.
I've used it i quite a number of scenarios where "bad guy is holding the mcguffin / hostage / high ground". My general plan is "run past front row fighters, using the shift from the card, up to the big bad guy. As a minor put us in darkness. Then sneak attack him."
It may not be optimally good, but it is a lot of fun as my character spends most of the rest of the adventure hiding in the back doing strongly ranged stuff. But my main point is that being able to move very fast is quite a strong tactical advantage. Even the basic use of an extra square once an encounter is nice enough.
So for my ranged character, flamespeed is nicest. For any melee type, I gotta agree with larger than life.