If I also took "Implement Expertise" Would I gain the bonus on top of that? If not why?
I ask, as I'm using it as an implement to focus my Spell, however I am making a Melee attack with it, yet channelling the spell through it. As it appears this would also mean Spell Damage + Weapon Damage + Str + Intelligence + Dexterity (Chaos) + Weapon mod damage + Implement mod damage + Misc.
This seems like a bit much, but the RAW seem to allow for it. Let me know.
-RW
Edit: I could also read the feat as it simply adds "Melee" to the power for range, taking the dagger out of the equation entirely.
If I were to take "Sorcerous Blade Channelling" would I gain a proficiency bonus to my attack? If not, why?
It does not make it a weapon attack, but stays a impliment attack, so no
If I also took "Implement Expertise" Would I gain the bonus on top of that? If not why?
yes, if it is an impliment attack, and you have the feat for the impliment type used
I ask, as I'm using it as an implement to focus my Spell, however I am making a Melee attack with it, yet channelling the spell through it. As it appears this would also mean Spell Damage + Weapon Damage + Str + Intelligence + Dexterity (Chaos) + Weapon mod damage + Implement mod damage + Misc.
This seems like a bit much, but the RAW seem to allow for it. Let me know.
You just get the effects of the power, but can treat it as a melee attack, the daggers d4 and STR do not get included
If I were to take "Sorcerous Blade Channelling" would I gain a proficiency bonus to my attack? If not, why?
Definitely not. PH2 page 221 states that you get the proficiency bonus on attack rolls with powers that have the weapon keyword, and PH2 page 220 does not say you get the prof. bonus.
If I also took "Implement Expertise" Would I gain the bonus on top of that? If not why?
Yes. Implement expertise gives you an untyped bonus to attack rolls with implements. That's what it does.
I ask, as I'm using it as an implement to focus my Spell, however I am making a Melee attack with it, yet channelling the spell through it. As it appears this would also mean Spell Damage + Weapon Damage + Str + Intelligence + Dexterity (Chaos) + Weapon mod damage + Implement mod damage + Misc.
This seems like a bit much, but the RAW seem to allow for it. Let me know.
-RW
RAW does not allow it.
The sorcerous blade channeling feat only changes the range of the power, nothing else. Acid orb, for instance is Cha vs. Ref, and 1d10 + Cha + Dex for damage.
You do not get weapon mod damage, since it's an implement, not a weapon. Also, why would you add Int bonus to a sorcerer's power? Int has nothing to do with a sorcerer!
Don't read more into things than is there. Sorcererous blade channeling only changes the range. Hell, it doesn't even make the power a melee basic attack.
TBP
I think I was just thrown off while flipping through several pages at the same time, and misread while doing so.
Thanks.
-RW
Edit: I misspoke when saying "Intelligence". I meant "Charisma".
Sorcerous Blade Channelling
When you use a any ranged sorcerer attack power through a dagger, you can use the power as a melee attack.
Ok, how does one use it through a dagger and not make an attack with the dagger when Melee is concerned? The rules for Melee attacks leave it equally ambiguous, stating only that powers that say "Weapon" can use the weapon in attack. It uses the examples of Melee touch as well, but the bolded line implies it would not be a touch attack. The feat doesn't state one way or the other. It simply says it becomes Melee.
How then are should this be resolved? Does one assume Melee weapon, Melee touch, or is there another power that is somehow just "Melee" that I am missing. If so, how does "Just Melee" work.
Sorry, just trying to understand this. Personally, I'd like some errata to clarify it, as the interpretation could be made either way, at least for additional damage.
-RW
The feat says melee reach, meaning melee touch.
-RW
Edit: where does it say that Melee reach = Melee Touch? It states that the melee reach is that of your weapon, and gives the examples of a Dagger and a Halberd.
really melee just means the range of the power, not that you are whaping him one.
Also, melee touch is defined as your melee reach for who it can target. not RAW, but pretty obvious.
-RW
All the feat does is change it from Ranged to Melee.
Melee what though? There is only Weapon and Touch by my reading, and the feat doesn't specify. I think this soon becomes a RAI issue.
-RW
You are reading too much into it I think. It allows you to treat the range as if it was melee, therefore negating the opp. attack. That's all it does.
-RW
Melee what though? There is only Weapon and Touch by my reading, and the feat doesn't specify. I think this soon becomes a RAI issue.
-RW
Because when all of your spells add weapon proficiency (Whose sole existence is to attack Armor Class, which is ALWAYS higher than Reflex and Will, and USUALLY higher than Fort) you're a bit broken. Why did you think there were so few weapon attacks that targeted Non Armor Defenses?
They're Melee touch.
Because when all of your spells add weapon proficiency (Whose sole existence is to attack Armor Class, which is ALWAYS higher than Reflex and Will, and USUALLY higher than Fort) you're a bit broken. Why did you think there were so few weapon attacks that targeted Non Armor Defenses?
They're Melee touch.
I'm not really talking about Proficiency any more though. I'm talking about extra Damage. When a Swordmage attacks with a Melee Weapon attack using the weapon as an implement, they add the wepons damage. They don't however add the proficiency. Thus I am asking about a definitive answer to whether it is Melee Touch or Weapon.
As for adding proficiency bonus' to the spells, when you're a sorcerer with no armour, standing in the fray, that +3 won't mean much with minimal HP and a low AC.
-RW
Only abilities with the keyword Weapon get a proficiency bonus.
Only abilities with the keyword Implement get a implement bonus.
The ability would have to have the Weapon and Implement keywords to get the bonuses from both.
The damage of the ability is clearly stated in the power you're using. Nothing is added to or taken away from this feat.
[Edit] It's range is your Melee reach.
Simply saying "It's Melee reach" isn't an answer. Melee reach means I hit the opponent with something. That something could be my hand, or it could be the dagger. The feat IMPLIES dagger, but doesn't say one way or the other.
-RW
Sorry. Once again though, I am no longer asking about proficiency. I mean it might tie back into it if it was melee weapon, but that's neither her nor there now. I am simply trying to figure out if you attack with the dagger or not. It doesn't say one way or the other.
Simply saying "It's Melee reach" isn't an answer. Melee reach means I hit the opponent with something. That something could be my hand, or it could be the dagger. The feat IMPLIES dagger, but doesn't say one way or the other.
-RW
I guess I'm trying to figure out why it matters...
The feat says it has to be channeled through a dagger, but what does it matter if they are actually thrusting with the dagger? The rules work the same if they are or aren't.
I guess I'm trying to figure out why it matters...
The feat says it has to be channeled through a dagger, but what does it matter if they are actually thrusting with the dagger? The rules work the same if they are or aren't.
From a game standpoint for me, it doesn't matter. I could have the debate out with my group, or make a ruling as a DM. I was just asking for my curiosity, so that I might get a more official ruling.
The difference is in thrusting with a dagger does more damage, potentially with the bonus to attack, vs. reaching a hand out to touch the opponent. For me, it really means defining the worth and potency of the feat I suppose.
-RW
Maybe instead of just pointing with the dagger, he learns to fight more defensively with it. Finds new ways to accurately target a creature with it, with or without physically touching them.
LOL. I could just imagine a Sorcerer waylaying someone with the handle and casting Chaos Bolt through it. :P
From a game standpoint for me, it doesn't matter. I could have the debate out with my group, or make a ruling as a DM. I was just asking for my curiosity, so that I might get a more official ruling.
The difference is in thrusting with a dagger does more damage, potentially with the bonus to attack, vs. reaching a hand out to touch the opponent. For me, it really means defining the worth and potency of the feat I suppose.
-RW
Whether you thrust with your dagger or not is of no consequence as all the feat entitles you to is to change the range of the power to melee reach. You can view it as thrusting your dagger or merely employing your dagger to empower your hand and then touching your opponent. Either way, your power doesn't deal any extra damage or benefit from proficiency bonuses from the dagger. As it is, daggers are already sorcerer implements without the feat, and sorcerers receive no proficiency bonus or weapon damage on powers with the Implement keyword.
The same applies for swordmages using Implement powers, despite casting their spells through their blade.
There are no aditional rolls/attacks for the melee range, noting changes with attack itself. So, for the sake of fluff, id say it is unessesary to actualy hit someone with dagger for spell to work.
Think of it this way: casting ranged spell needs some focus. Atleast to aim it properly. Now Sorcerers bieng somewhat unacademic can, with little training in form of feat, learn to fling semiformed spells when situation doesot reuire much aiming. As in if enemy is in melee range. Resulted spell is malformed and largely unusable at range of even one square, but it gets the job done in close quarters. and the best thing is the Sor doesnot need to concentrate hard enough to loose track of enemy movements so they never give opening this way.
Simply saying "It's Melee reach" isn't an answer. Melee reach means I hit the opponent with something. That something could be my hand, or it could be the dagger. The feat IMPLIES dagger, but doesn't say one way or the other.
-RW
"Melee: reach" does not mean you "hit the opponent " with something. It is what the "weapon" keyword means.
"Melee : reach" does not define the way the power is delivered, but the range mechanics to apply to the attack.
In this case, your power is still an "implement" power, delivered through the dagger implement. What cahnges is that you can deliver it following the rules for "melee" range, rather than "ranged" - meaning you don't provoke Opportunity attacks.
The power is still an implement power, delivered through the dagger implement. The "weapon" aspects of the dagger (proficiency, weapon feats, etc) are not used, except its reach, explicitely asked for in the "melee:reach" range definition.
You are not effectively hitting the opponent with your implement, the feat just means you have trained to maintain your guard while you channel your magic through your dagger for a very short range attack.
The feat in question only changes the range of the power from ranged X to melee weapon (PH1 page 56).
All that the feat allows you to do is make ranged attacks against adjacent enemies without provoking opportunity attacks.
TBP
Whether you thrust with your dagger or not is of no consequence as all the feat entitles you to is to change the range of the power to melee reach. You can view it as thrusting your dagger or merely employing your dagger to empower your hand and then touching your opponent. Either way, your power doesn't deal any extra damage or benefit from proficiency bonuses from the dagger. As it is, daggers are already sorcerer implements without the feat, and sorcerers receive no proficiency bonus or weapon damage on powers with the Implement keyword.
The same applies for swordmages using Implement powers, despite casting their spells through their blade.
Yet they attack with their blade and do the weapons damage. They don't gain the proficiency while doing it, but I fail to see the difference.
-RW
Dude, "melee" is one of the four attack types in 4e, and all it means is "single target, right up next to you." It's not "stabbity stabbity", all it means for the sorcerer is "attack the guy right next to you and you don't get an OA." That is all it means. I don't see how this could be more simple.
It could be more simple with a straight rules clarified answer. The feat stipulates that the spell is channelled through the weapon. Thus the power and weapon are used whether ranged or Melee. Since it is impossible to make a Melee attack with anything less the contact, I was just curious as to whether or not an actual weapon attack was being made, or simple a touch attack. Since there doesn't seem to be any other type of Melee attack, I think the question is a valid one. :P
There may only be four attack types, but you've not mentioned which of the two Melee types it is. And that in 4e makes a big difference. ;)
There is nothing to get worked up over, it's a friendly question.
-RW
Red_Wizard, please read PH1 pages 54-59, HOW TO READ A POWER.
The feat in question only changes the range of the power from ranged X to melee weapon (PH1 page 56).
All that the feat allows you to do is make ranged attacks against adjacent enemies without provoking opportunity attacks.
TBP
I have read said page, though I will point out, that your argument here, actually sides with the weapon not only hitting, but getting its proficiency bonus to the attack. IF it becomes "Melee Weapon" as you state, then I'd get the damage from the weapon attacking, and should the "Weapon" line be added, the bonus as well. This to me sounds too good for one feat.
Personally, I read it simply to be like the Swordmages implement attacks, in that they don't get the proficiency, but they do add the weapons damage, as the power is channelled through it.
It's hard to say though, as I said before, there is only Melee Weapon, and Melee Touch from my reading.
-RW
"Melee: reach" does not mean you "hit the opponent " with something. It is what the "weapon" keyword means.
No, it means how far you can reach in melee. As per the rules regarding Melee attacks on page 56. If you can show me a power that says "Melee Reach" that might make more sense.
"Melee : reach" does not define the way the power is delivered, but the range mechanics to apply to the attack.
I agree, no contest here. But that doesn't seem to be a valid attack line. The lines read "Melee: Weapon" or "Melee: Touch". Both covered on the referenced page, and both making logical sense. Simply saying you reach something, doesn't tell me how you hit it.
In this case, your power is still an "implement" power, delivered through the dagger implement. What cahnges is that you can deliver it following the rules for "melee" range, rather than "ranged" - meaning you don't provoke Opportunity attacks.
So then the dagger either stabs your opponent, or touches it. Thus I am asking which.
The power is still an implement power, delivered through the dagger implement. The "weapon" aspects of the dagger (proficiency, weapon feats, etc) are not used, except its reach, explicitely asked for in the "melee:reach" range definition.
Show me the Melee range definition then please so we can clear this all up. Simply arguing that this is what it clearly is, doesn't make it fact without a page number. ;)
Honestly, that is all I have been looking for. Something to set it one way or the other. I'm not picking sides, or looking to prove my opinion, simply clarification with the core rules. I have no agenda, so people becoming impatient and snarky seems a little silly, to put it mildly. :P
You are not effectively hitting the opponent with your implement, the feat just means you have trained to maintain your guard while you channel your magic through your dagger for a very short range attack.
I'm sorry, but ranged, is ranged, is ranged. Melee has to touch. I don't need a feat to make a ranged attack without provoking an OA.
-RW
I don't have to stab you with the dagger, as long as it touches you, or your armor, the spell goes through it, into you. I can smack you with the flat end of the blade on the heel of your foot, and you'll explode the same as if I put it in your heart.
Melee Weapon in the sense that you quoted doesn't mean it adds the Weapon keyword. Weapon in this sense only applies to the range (or reach) of the Melee attack.
The first part is Ranged or Melee, which is a type of attack.
The second part is the range (for Ranged type attacks) or the reach (for Melee type attacks).
For example,
Melee 1 would let you make a Melee type attack up to 1 square away from you.
Melee 2 would let you make a Melee type attack up to 2 squares away from you.
Melee Weapon would let you make a Melee type attack up to the Reach of your weapon.
If your weapon is a dagger, it doesn't have the property Reach. So it uses the base reach of all weapons, 1.
But if the dagger were to be magically enchanted to give it the Reach property, then the dagger could strike an additional square away from where it normally could, or 2.
When it comes to the damage, you can only do the damage that the power states. You can add the enhancement bonus from the implement (in this case, the dagger) if the power has the Implement keyword.
I hope this helps.
Whether you thrust with your dagger or not is of no consequence as all the feat entitles you to is to change the range of the power to melee reach. You can view it as thrusting your dagger or merely employing your dagger to empower your hand and then touching your opponent. Either way, your power doesn't deal any extra damage or benefit from proficiency bonuses from the dagger. As it is, daggers are already sorcerer implements without the feat, and sorcerers receive no proficiency bonus or weapon damage on powers with the Implement keyword.
The same applies for swordmages using Implement powers, despite casting their spells through their blade.
First of all the feat doesnot give you any form of damage boost. All it gives is ability to avoid OP in melee range when fireing ranged powers (by converting them to melee).
There are no aditional rolls/attacks for the melee range, noting changes with attack itself. So, for the sake of fluff, id say it is unessesary to actualy hit someone with dagger for spell to work.
Think of it this way: casting ranged spell needs some focus. Atleast to aim it properly. Now Sorcerers bieng somewhat unacademic can, with little training in form of feat, learn to fling semiformed spells when situation doesot reuire much aiming. As in if enemy is in melee range. Resulted spell is malformed and largely unusable at range of even one square, but it gets the job done in close quarters. and the best thing is the Sor doesnot need to concentrate hard enough to loose track of enemy movements so they never give opening this way.
Ok, for lack of want to keep responding to opinion, I'll state this again. Show me the line that says "X Feat grants player Melee: Touch". The Feat does not do this, the book does not do this, the PHB does not do this, so this IS all opinion.
If the rules don't exist, just say so. It won't hurt my feelings. You can't be wrong here, and you can't prove me wrong. Since I don't have a position on the matter, beside perhaps Devils advocate, I don't need to debate. I'm simply looking for something to say in no uncertain words, what manner of Melee this grants.
So please, anyone and everyone, less opinion on what it "SHOULD" be. No examples of fluff, as if I needed it I'd do that myself. I'm not some blathering child looking for a DM ruling here, I figured I'd ask other gamers what they thought, and if a rule stated one way or the other definitively, what was going on.
Evidently, this might be impossible in all regards.
-RW
Sorry. Once again though, I am no longer asking about proficiency. I mean it might tie back into it if it was melee weapon, but that's neither her nor there now. I am simply trying to figure out if you attack with the dagger or not. It doesn't say one way or the other.
Simply saying "It's Melee reach" isn't an answer. Melee reach means I hit the opponent with something. That something could be my hand, or it could be the dagger. The feat IMPLIES dagger, but doesn't say one way or the other.
-RW
You are confusing a couple different elements:
Weapon vs Implement is a seperate issue from Melee vs Ranged.
You can make Melee Implement attacks. That is what the Sorcerer is doing in this case - using a dagger as an implement to channel a spell as a melee attack. He is not using it as a weapon, hence does not gain proficiency.
To think about this in more descriptive terms, since that seems to be what you are insisting upon: When a character is using a dagger as a Weapon, they are trying to stab the opponent with it. Slip it through their defenses, get past their armor, and strike somewhere vulnerable. When doing so, their skill and training with the weapon helps them attack, in the form of their Proficiency bonus.
When using a dagger as an Implement to channel an arcane spell, all they need to do is touch the opponent - hence why they are usually attacking Reflex or Fortitude or Will. They imbue their dagger with magic, tap an opponent's armor with it, and crackling energy surges through the foe. Sometimes the trick is poking at a central spot (hence Reflex to target more precisely), sometimes they can hit anywhere and the opponent can only resist with the power of their body (Fort) or their mind (Will).
In none of these cases, however, are they actually using the dagger as a pure weapon. If you were, the power or the feat would indicate it gains the Weapon keyword. Since it does not, it is being used as an Implement, and Proficiency cannot be applied.
If I were to take "Sorcerous Blade Channelling" would I gain a proficiency bonus to my attack? If not, why?
Usually no. You will only gain the weapon proficiency is the power has the keyword Weapon in it.
See PHB p55. Read Accessories at the bottom right of the page. It covers Implement and Weapon keywords.
Updates / Clarification to these keywords are on pages 220 / 221 in PHB2.
If I also took "Implement Expertise" Would I gain the bonus on top of that? If not why?
Usually yes. You will get the Implement Expertise bonus to an attack if it has the Implement keyword, and you are using an implement.
Same pages as above.
I ask, as I'm using it as an implement to focus my Spell, however I am making a Melee attack with it, yet channelling the spell through it. As it appears this would also mean Spell Damage + Weapon Damage + Str + Intelligence + Dexterity (Chaos) + Weapon mod damage + Implement mod damage + Misc.
I don't see how you came to this conclusion. I have seen no rules that support this.
This seems like a bit much, but the RAW seem to allow for it. Let me know.
I don't know what RAW mean. If you mean the rules, I don't know where it seems to allow this.
I'm not trying to be a douche. I think I am more confused as to what you're asking.
My question evolved into a "Melee: Weapon" vs "Melee: Touch" soon after.
-RW
Don't think of the melee range on the SBC feat as a melee attack, think of it more as the 3.5 melee touch attack.
I don't have to stab you with the dagger, as long as it touches you, or your armor, the spell goes through it, into you. I can smack you with the flat end of the blade on the heel of your foot, and you'll explode the same as if I put it in your heart.
I CAN think of it like this, but why SHOULD I? It's not a matter of me wrapping my head around the logic, I just want a RAW answer for why it is one way or the other.
-RW
I think there is a misunderstanding.
Melee Weapon in the sense that you quoted doesn't mean it adds the Weapon keyword. Weapon in this sense only applies to the range (or reach) of the Melee attack.
The first part is Ranged or Melee, which is a type of attack.
The second part is the range (for Ranged type attacks) or the reach (for Melee type attacks).
For example,
Melee 1 would let you make a Melee type attack up to 1 square away from you.
Melee 2 would let you make a Melee type attack up to 2 squares away from you.
Melee Weapon would let you make a Melee type attack up to the Reach of your weapon.
If your weapon is a dagger, it doesn't have the property Reach. So it uses the base reach of all weapons, 1.
But if the dagger were to be magically enchanted to give it the Reach property, then the dagger could strike an additional square away from where it normally could, or 2.
When it comes to the damage, you can only do the damage that the power states. You can add the enhancement bonus from the implement (in this case, the dagger) if the power has the Implement keyword.
I hope this helps.
That might be the case. But I'm still unsure what the Feat wants it to be. I'm not using it in game, so there is no rush on knowing, I was just curious as I've said before.
If it's Melee Weapon, in the way that you just hit from the range of the Weapon, why then would you not do the Weapons damage? Would it not be a touch if the weapon wasn't actually hitting?
I think I might just fire off an email to Wizards later and see what they say.
-RW
No Weapon keyword means you don't get proficiency bonuses, or other weapon-based bonuses. No [W] code in the power results means you don't add the weapon's damage die.
LIES
Show me a sword mage power with the implement keyword where they also get to add in weapon damage.
They have powers with the implement key word and they do the damage it says. Nothing else (except from feats)
Then they have powers with the weapon keyword.
The implement keyword doesnt get replaced with weapon keyword. This is where you are getting confused.
The only thing that is changing is Range. Nothing more nothing less.
I think I might just fire off an email to Wizards later and see what they say.
Lol, that's probably the best thing to do at this point.
Wait you are saying Swordmages get their weapon damage into things with the implement key word?
LIES
Show me a sword mage power with the implement keyword where they also get to add in weapon damage.
I figured someone would mention this in time. I mispoke, and meant more along the lines of they use their weapons for their powers. Sufficed to say, not important.
The implement keyword doesnt get replaced with weapon keyword. This is where you are getting confused.
The only thing that is changing is Range. Nothing more nothing less.
I wish people would stop saying this. I'm not confused on anything. I can't be confused, when I am not making an argument either way. I can't be confused, as no one has given any rules to contradict anyway.
-RW
I wish people would stop saying this. I'm not confused on anything. I can't be confused, when I am not making an argument either way. I can't be confused, as no one has given any rules to contradict anyway.
I did.
That might be the case. But I'm still unsure what the Feat wants it to be. I'm not using it in game, so there is no rush on knowing, I was just curious as I've said before.
If it's Melee Weapon, in the way that you just hit from the range of the Weapon, why then would you not do the Weapons damage? Would it not be a touch if the weapon wasn't actually hitting?
I think I might just fire off an email to Wizards later and see what they say.
-RW
Melee Touch refers to your characters natural reach. A medium character has a reach of 1.
Melee Weapon refers to the reach of your weapon. If you somehow had a dagger with "Reach", or a magic item enchantment that worked as a sorcerer implement on a weapon with reach, then you could use SBC with that range.
Yet they attack with their blade and do the weapons damage. They don't gain the proficiency while doing it, but I fail to see the difference.
-RW
The difference is that the power says you're not attacking with the weapon. You're attacking with magic, through the weapon.
I have read said page, though I will point out, that your argument here, actually sides with the weapon not only hitting, but getting its proficiency bonus to the attack. IF it becomes "Melee Weapon" as you state, then I'd get the damage from the weapon attacking, and should the "Weapon" line be added, the bonus as well. This to me sounds too good for one feat.
No, it doesn't. That's just the range of the power. The power still has the implement keyword, and does NOT have the weapon keyword. Please re-read the keywords. Both in PH1 and PH2. You'll note that you only apply prof. bonus with weapon keyword powers. ALL sorcerer powers are implement powers.
Personally, I read it simply to be like the Swordmages implement attacks, in that they don't get the proficiency, but they do add the weapons damage, as the power is channelled through it.
So show me where the power you are using says [W]. That's the only time you use the weapon's damage.
It's hard to say though, as I said before, there is only Melee Weapon, and Melee Touch from my reading.
-RW
Again, you're confusing range keyword with accessories keywords.
Is English your first language? If not, that may be where the confusion is coming from. Not all of the translations are done well.
TBP
Wait you are saying Swordmages get their weapon damage into things with the implement key word?
LIES
Show me a sword mage power with the implement keyword where they also get to add in weapon damage.
They have powers with the implement key word and they do the damage it says. Nothing else (except from feats)
Then they have powers with the weapon keyword.
The implement keyword doesnt get replaced with weapon keyword. This is where you are getting confused.
The only thing that is changing is Range. Nothing more nothing less.
Ask, and thy shall recieve:
- Corrosive rain, SM encounter 3
- Lingering lightning, SM daily 5
- Electrified lash, SM encounter 7
All the above powers have the implement keyword, but do [W] for damage.
TBP
Sorcerous Blade Channeling
Prerequisite: Sorcerer
Benefit: When you use any ranged sorcerer attack
power through a dagger, you can use the power as a
melee attack. If you do so, the power’s range equals
your melee reach.
This feat has 2 effects on a Ranged X sorcerer power,
first, it replaces ranged with melee.
then it replaces X with Y, where Y is your melee reach.
changing it to Melee Y which is equivalent for all intensive purposes to Melee Touch.
it is straight forward when you read the power, you can use it as a melee attack, as long as the target is within your melee reach. That is the one and only thing the feat does to the power.
It might have been simpler if they had worded the feat the same way they worded the one for the Ranged basic Attack powers from the shadar-Kai article.
Ok, for lack of want to keep responding to opinion, I'll state this again. Show me the line that says "X Feat grants player Melee: Touch". The Feat does not do this, the book does not do this, the PHB does not do this, so this IS all opinion.
From the PH2, page 189:
SORCEROUS BLADE CHANNELING
Prerequisite: Sorcerer
Benefit: When you use any ranged sorcerer attack power through a dagger, you can use the power as a melee attack. If you do so, the power’s range equals your melee reach.
The emphasized line is the one you're looking for. All the feat does is allow you to use ranged sorcerer attack powers as melee sorcerer attack powers, as long as the implement you're using is a dagger.
From the PH2, page 189:
SORCEROUS BLADE CHANNELING
Prerequisite: Sorcerer
Benefit: When you use any ranged sorcerer attack power through a dagger, you can use the power as a melee attack. If you do so, the power’s range equals your melee reach.
The emphasized line is the one you're looking for. All the feat does is allow you to use ranged sorcerer attack powers as melee sorcerer attack powers, as long as the implement you're using is a dagger.
The line you have put in bold is fine. It says that it is now Melee reach. However, when you look at Melee in the PHB, it only stipulates two types of melee. Melee Weapon, and Melee Touch. There is no Melee Reach. I understand fully what the reach is. The reach isn't in question. What is hitting the target it.
I am not saying that you don't have to be next to them. I am not saying you get proficiency, though you might. I am not arguing that the power doesn't go through the implement. I am not saying that the implement word is removed. What I was saying, is that with the second line stating that you channel the power THROUGH the dagger, when attacking Melee, this SHOULD imply that the attack is made with the dagger.
The feat IMPLIES that the dagger would be used, which COULD make it a Melee Weapon attack. I'm not saying it DOES. If it is NOT a Melee Weapon, then it IS a Melee touch. HOWEVER, it doesn't say which. And AS FAR AS I KNOW, there isn't another type of Melee.
SOOOOO, which one is it? That's all I'm asking. :P
-RW
The line you have put in bold is fine. It says that it is now Melee reach.
No, it says "the power's range is now your melee reach." (emphasis added)
If you're using a dagger, your melee reach is 1, unless you have some funky class or epic thing affecting you that extends your reach with a dagger.
The difference is that the power says you're not attacking with the weapon. You're attacking with magic, through the weapon.
How does one make a Melee attack through a weapon, without using the weapon? Logic dictates that you can't. It COULD be a touch, but it doesn't say either way.
No, it doesn't. That's just the range of the power. The power still has the implement keyword, and does NOT have the weapon keyword. Please re-read the keywords. Both in PH1 and PH2. You'll note that you only apply prof. bonus with weapon keyword powers. ALL sorcerer powers are implement powers.
And if you attacked with the Melee: Weapon option, you might add the proficiency. That said, I wasn't looking to add the proficiency. It would be nice, but not what I was asking any more. I was simply inquiring into HOW the attack was being made.
So show me where the power you are using says [W]. That's the only time you use the weapon's damage.
I can't, as the powers don't have the Weapon type. However, they MIGHT get it is the feat were to be interpreted in that manner. The feat is simply ambiguous as to how the attack is being made.
Again, you're confusing range keyword with accessories keywords.
Is English your first language? If not, that may be where the confusion is coming from. Not all of the translations are done well.
TBP
Again, not confusing anything. I have to pick a side to confuse the issue. I think the confusion is coming from some misunderstanding of my question. I am getting a lot of "You can't because.." without a source quoted, or "This happens because..." and it doesn't pertain to what I was asking.
As for English being my primary language, yes it is. Like I said, the feat is ambiguous enough, that confusion could happen, and questions do arise. I'm not asking how it SHOULD be interpreted. I was simply asking what, if any, of the rules clarified how it would be handled.
-RW
No, it says "the power's range is now your melee reach." (emphasis added)
If you're using a dagger, your melee reach is 1, unless you have some funky class or epic thing affecting you that extends your reach with a dagger.
Ok, and my Melee reach is 1.
Now how did I hit him? Was it a back hand? A sock with a bar of soap? A stone? A kick? A big black *****? A boomerang? A kitten? My dagger? A baby?
Clearly that isn't answered. Thus I want it to be.
-RW
Ok, and my Melee reach is 1.
Now how did I hit him? Was it a back hand? A sock with a bar of soap? A stone? A kick? A big black *****? A boomerang? A kitten? My dagger? A baby?
Clearly that isn't answered. Thus I want it to be.
It is clear. The attack is being delivered via your dagger.
The effect of that attack is defined by the power being used. The feat doesn't change that at all.
Ok, and my Melee reach is 1.
Now how did I hit him? Was it a back hand? A sock with a bar of soap? A stone? A kick? A big black *****? A boomerang? A kitten? My dagger? A baby?
Who cares? Flavor it however you want. My personal interpretation is that you're pointing your dagger at the target, saying "Abracawhoopsie!" and arcane goodness blasts out of the point of the dagger.
"Channeling the power through a dagger" means you're using the dagger as an implement. This feat lets you do that to an adjacent target without provoking an OA. The stuff about changing the range is there to prevent you from standing next to Goblin A, targeting Goblin B that's 5 squares away, and claiming that this feat prevents Goblin A from getting an OA. If you want the protection of the feat, you have to use it on the adjacent target.
Clearly that isn't answered. Thus I want it to be.
but is has been answered since the beginning. You are just ignoring the obvious answer.
you are hitting him with arcane forces, that are being channeled through and implement (the dagger). the same way you hit someone with a close attack through an implement.
So, you're in combat and throw a chaos bolt and get a guy real good. An ally marks the guy and moves to the rear to cull it his way. This thing being a dummy for the sake of argument charges past you to the guy that marked him. You take an OA and it's now directly between you and the tank. You're flanking. Now, instead of moving away, instead you stand your ground and shove your dagger into his back, but you never had any intention of using it as a dagger. Instead you Acid Orb the thing point blank. You didn't need proficiency to do this. Yes, you had a dagger in your hand, but it could've easily had been a staff, a wand, or whatever. But you had a dagger. Being that you typically don't use daggers for combat, you might not have even broken it's armor, but it was never your intent to begin with. You now have a point blank acid orb to channel from the dagger to your foe.
In all instances, minus the OA, you used that dagger as an implement, and never a weapon. Weapon proficiencies only work when use the weapon in question as a weapon. Mechanically speaking, when using a power that doesn't have the weapon keyword, if the power doesn't have the weapon keyword, then it doesn't matter what you're doing, there's no weapon proficiency. Just the same, if you're trying to cast a spell without an implement, that item isn't going to grant you any bonuses.
The feat just said, you went from ranged, to melee. Went from throwing your acid orb from afar, to planting it right in his back with no fear of backlash (OA) so long as you have a dagger. Melee Weapon, simply means reach of your weapon. That's it. It encompasses everything from the dinky dagger, to a Halberd, which has reach.
So by taking the feat, all your spells basically pick up the Melee and Ranged descriptors like some of the ranger powers, but at no point in time do they stop being spells.
As far as how did you hit him? The same way you hit everything! Charisma vs. some defense. How you explain that is up to you as long as you involve the dagger. You're reading too far into it. The dagger was just a requirement of the feat, nothing more. So be happy. You can make things explode at point blank and range with reckless abandon and never suffer an OA again.
Evidently something wasn't being made clear to many of you, and I'm sorry for that failure in communication. Though I will note that there is a reason I tend not to come to this section of the forums for answers in most cases. Many of the people here are rude, belittling, and self important.
Each and every time I have asked a simple question, it has been met with abstinent opposition, and in almost all cases there has never been an argument I am defending. In this case specifically, there has been quite a lot of speculation, opinion and guessing, but nothing concrete. The issue has been danced around, but the mark has generally been missed. If there isn't a set answer, then don't reply. How you THINK something works, is of little importance to me, if you can't do it politely, and don't wish to try an back up the argument with page references.
I think a friendly conversation isn't to much to ask for from most of you, but it obviously proves far more difficult than most can manage. I'll try to keep that in mind, and not make the mistake any further.
-RW
The feat allows you to make a melee attack instead of a ranged one with a ranged sorcerer attack, if you have a dagger. It defines the range of ths attack as your reach. This means instead of using the rules for a ranged attack (PHB1 270), you use the rules for a melee attack (PHB1 270). These rules cover the targeting of the attack, range/reach, and provoking of opportunity attacks. Nothing more. The feat does not change anything more about the power or its effects. Therefore, regardless of "implication", there is no mechanic for adding weapon damage to the attack.
Whether you actually stab with the dagger (and any resulting damage is subsumed into the power's damage), make a grazing touch, or just wave it threateningly as you channel the spell through it is purely a flavor consideration, to include as you narrate the attack, but has no mechanical effect on the attack's resolution.
1) what is the range of the attack, when what you can target it spelt out in the feat itself.
2) do I get to add weapon Proficiency and dammage
and
3)how am I attacking the target, Now I will give you the exact awnser to this question.
It is entirely fluff.
The entire argument is because you are requiring more then is actually required for the feat to work properly, there is not ambuquity in the feat in question. It states exactly what it does, and it does not do any more then what it states that it does. For it to do what you have suggested and allow weapon dammage and a proficiency bonus to the attack, the feat would have to give the power the weapon keyword, and it does not do so, so those bonuses do not get added.
The problem here seems ot be a mis-interpertaiton on how melee works by you, and your refusal to double check to make sure that your reading was right, when everyone is sayign your interpertation is wrong.
Also one thing I just noticed
And AS FAR AS I KNOW, there isn't another type of Melee.
Melee 1, defined in the PHB in the same section as Melee Weapon and Melee Touch (pg 56).
Maby people are not being the most friendly, but you not being the best yourself. From what I have read you are primarially looking for an awnser to these questions. (note: I am not going back through the whole thread, and am probabilly forgetting things, but this is what stands out to me)
I admit to being mildly frustrated towards the end, but I don't believe I spoke out in such a manner as to appear rude.
1) what is the range of the attack, when what you can target it spelt out in the feat itself.
Not true. The range was never in question. Not by myself anyway. The manner of Melee was in question. Melee is a header, which is broken down in to groups of Weapon and Touch. In the latter lay my question.
2) do I get to add weapon Proficiency and dammage
Adding weapon proficiency was the initial comment, and one that I think depending on the answer might still be relevant. However, the question became whether or not the daggers damage was added to the attack. And that is something that was not resolved. Opinion and speculation say no, however the feat does not specify one way or the other. Implication is all that is given.
3)how am I attacking the target, Now I will give you the exact awnser to this question.
It is entirely fluff.
The entire argument is because you are requiring more then is actually required for the feat to work properly, there is not ambuquity in the feat in question. It states exactly what it does, and it does not do any more then what it states that it does. For it to do what you have suggested and allow weapon dammage and a proficiency bonus to the attack, the feat would have to give the power the weapon keyword, and it does not do so, so those bonuses do not get added.
The problem here seems ot be a mis-interpertaiton on how melee works by you, and your refusal to double check to make sure that your reading was right, when everyone is sayign your interpertation is wrong.
My interpretation is no more wrong than yours, or anyone else's. So long as the interpretation relates to the piece, it virtually can not be wrong. This is debatable however, depending upon the level of implication within the piece itself. In this case, it does not concretely state which of the "melee" sub groups it is. It simply states it is a Melee attack.
I am not ignoring the other posters here, I have in fact read them all quite closely. I have opened the book several times through out to confirm, and have laid out the case to members of my group. They are as interested as I am to receive an answer, and each agree it has not been definitively given here.
No further double checking is required on my part, though sadly I think it is lacking on many others here. For what I am asking, not trying to have it do, the feat would have to be more clear in which of the Melee options it was geared towards.
So it is not just fluff, nor is it unimportant. People are each welcome to play how they interpret the passage, and I'll not say a word. As I have said, I don't really care WHAT the answer is, this is all for curiosity. I am not denying any position, nor taking sides. As I have said, devils advocate is my position.
The only reason I asked how physically they were hitting, is because that would further answer which of the Melee options were being used.
Also one thing I just noticed
Melee 1, defined in the PHB in the same section as Melee Weapon and Melee Touch (pg 56).
This is the kicker. I have considered that option from the very beginning. Despite the constant badgering of this lot, you are the first to make mention of it. It's really quite amusing.
This said, Melee one doesn't specify how the attack hits either. This is a whole separate can of worms entirely, as it leaves me curious as to how one can hit anything in melee without hitting it. :P
Sufficed to say, the feat does not say "You do Melee 1" now. It simply says "Melee attack". This is ambiguous, whether any of you like it or not. And I'm sorry, but "Melee Range" is not a valid answer. It is a distance for, but not a manner of, attack.
-RW
P.S. That final quote of mine was in regards to the mention of "Melee Range" in conjunction with the suggestion that one does not strike Melee, but is considered Melee.
Actually, the answer has been given, very clearly, and politely. To recap:
The feat allows you to make a melee attack instead of a ranged one with a ranged sorcerer attack, if you have a dagger. It defines the range of ths attack as your reach. This means instead of using the rules for a ranged attack (PHB1 270), you use the rules for a melee attack (PHB1 270). These rules cover the targeting of the attack, range/reach, and provoking of opportunity attacks. Nothing more. The feat does not change anything more about the power or its effects. Therefore, regardless of "implication", there is no mechanic for adding weapon damage to the attack.
Whether you actually stab with the dagger (and any resulting damage is subsumed into the power's damage), make a grazing touch, or just wave it threateningly as you channel the spell through it is purely a flavor consideration, to include as you narrate the attack, but has no mechanical effect on the attack's resolution.
Speculative, not factual. There is no rule ANYWHERE that I have been shown nor read that says "This feat grants a Melee Touch to your powers". I don't belittle others for guessing at the rules, so why are people getting so damn excitable over something that doesn't matter? :P
Honestly, I can argue the same point all of you are making. I agree with most of you from each POV. But I don't think any of you are any more or less correct on the matter than me taking the opposing side of saying it COULD be Melee Weapon. I agree it COULD be Melee Touch, but no one seems to be able to extend the same courtesy, on something they clearly can't answer definitively with 100% assuredness.
-RW
Speculative, not factual. There is no rule ANYWHERE that I have been shown nor read that says "This feat grants a Melee Touch to your powers". I don't belittle others for guessing at the rules, so why are people getting so damn excitable over something that doesn't matter? :P
Honestly, I can argue the same point all of you are making. I agree with most of you from each POV. But I don't think any of you are any more or less correct on the matter than me taking the opposing side of saying it COULD be Melee Weapon. I agree it COULD be Melee Touch, but no one seems to be able to extend the same courtesy, on something they clearly can't answer definitively with 100% assuredness.
I pointed out the rules that make it a melee attack, where melee attack is defined, where the range of that melee attack is defined, where that definition is, and how those definitions have zero impact on the attack's hit/miss/effect effects.
Kindly show me the rules that support it being anything other than what I described. Or where I pointed out isn't 100% clear.
Not true. The range was never in question. Not by myself anyway. The manner of Melee was in question. Melee is a header, which is broken down in to groups of Weapon and Touch. In the latter lay my question.
Except that "weapon" vs. "touch" refers only to the range of the attack. PH, page 56. That's why everyone is getting frustrated with you. You say that the range isn't an issue, then keep harping on something that describes the range.
The only reason I asked how physically they were hitting, is because that would further answer which of the Melee options were being used.
Which wouldn't matter.
This is the kicker. I have considered that option from the very beginning. Despite the constant badgering of this lot, you are the first to make mention of it. It's really quite amusing.
Actually, I brought it up as well, and you responded to it with silliness about "hitting with a baby" or something similar.
This said, Melee one doesn't specify how the attack hits either. This is a whole separate can of worms entirely, as it leaves me curious as to how one can hit anything in melee without hitting it. :P
By channeling arcane power through your dagger implement, just like you would be if you were using the same power against a target 10 squares away. Are you arguing that you should get dagger proficiency for those attacks too, since you're still using the dagger? This just lets you do it from 5 feet away without provoking an OA.
Sufficed to say, the feat does not say "You do Melee 1" now. It simply says "Melee attack". This is ambiguous, whether any of you like it or not. And I'm sorry, but "Melee Range" is not a valid answer. It is a distance for, but not a manner of, attack.
Yes. Exactly. It is a range. That's what the feat does. It lets you, when you wish, change the attack type and range of the power from "Ranged Whatever" to "Melee 1" (or "Melee weapon", or "Melee touch", or whatever you prefer, because it doesn't matter, you're getting the same range each time with a dagger). That's all it does. The reason we know that it's not adding the "Weapon" keyword, which would allow you to add the dagger proficiency to the attack, or adding [W] damage to the power, is that it doesn't say it's doing those things.
Yes. Exactly. It is a range. That's what the feat does. It lets you, when you wish, change the attack type and range of the power from "Ranged Whatever" to "Melee 1" (or "Melee weapon", or "Melee touch", or whatever you prefer, because it doesn't matter, you're getting the same range each time with a dagger). That's all it does. The reason we know that it's not adding the "Weapon" keyword, which would allow you to add the dagger proficiency to the attack, or adding [W] damage to the power, is that it doesn't say it's doing those things.
Well, to be precise, it changes it to "Melee reach". Reach is then defined to be 1, unless something else changes that. But that quibble aside (since it will probably be necessary here, not bagging on you, Morvannon), exactly.
Well, to be precise, it changes it to "Melee reach". Reach is then defined to be 1, unless something else changes that. But that quibble aside (since it will probably be necessary here, not bagging on you, Morvannon), exactly.
And to be more precise, it changes it to "your melee reach". Your melee reach is how far you can reach in melee, as defined by your size, your weapon, or whatever. For a Medium-sized PC with a dagger, your melee reach is 1.
/quibble ;)
Melee is a header, which is broken down in to groups of Weapon and Touch. In the latter lay my question.
No it is not broken down into groupings like this, weapon and touch are range variables nothing more. their purpose it to fill in information when it comes time to use the power, and you need to impliment its description through the game mechanics.
Adding weapon proficiency was the initial comment, and one that I think depending on the answer might still be relevant. However, the question became whether or not the daggers damage was added to the attack. And that is something that was not resolved. Opinion and speculation say no, however the feat does not specify one way or the other. Implication is all that is given.
It has been resolved, since the beginning. This is NOT opinion, and NOT speculation, it is Logic. In order for the weapons damage ot get added in by the feat, the feat has to say that it gets added in. THe only changes to how a power runs made by a feat are the ones that the feat says it makes. this one does not change the damage, it does not change the effects, it only changes the Attacvk Type and range of the power. that is all the feat references, and all that is is capiable of changing.
My interpretation is no more wrong than yours, or anyone else's. So long as the interpretation relates to the piece, it virtually can not be wrong. This is debatable however, depending upon the level of implication within the piece itself. In this case, it does not concretely state which of the "melee" sub groups it is. It simply states it is a Melee attack.
Thats because the melee subgroups only exist for power descriptors, and the feat operates at a different section of the rules, namely pg. 270 of the PHB, where a melee attack is actually defined. the groupings are mearly conventions for quicker reading of powers.
this does make your interpertation wrong, because you are requiring rules that are not in place, and ignoring the rules that govern the effects.
I am not ignoring the other posters here, I have in fact read them all quite closely. I have opened the book several times through out to confirm, and have laid out the case to members of my group. They are as interested as I am to receive an answer, and each agree it has not been definitively given here.
OK, I seem to be missing the posts by people who are not sure of the awnser to this question other then you. but I am only skimming, and every post I looked at other then yours was certain as to how it works.
This is the kicker. I have considered that option from the very beginning. Despite the constant badgering of this lot, you are the first to make mention of it. It's really quite amusing.
This said, Melee one doesn't specify how the attack hits either. This is a whole separate can of worms entirely, as it leaves me curious as to how one can hit anything in melee without hitting it. :P
Sufficed to say, the feat does not say "You do Melee 1" now. It simply says "Melee attack". This is ambiguous, whether any of you like it or not. And I'm sorry, but "Melee Range" is not a valid answer. It is a distance for, but not a manner of, attack.
Sorry, I accidesntally cut off to much with that quote, here was the full section I was refering to
If it is NOT a Melee Weapon, then it IS a Melee touch. HOWEVER, it doesn't say which. And AS FAR AS I KNOW, there isn't another type of Melee.
If you were including Melee 1 in in your consideration, why is it not mentioned here???
One more thing, from what I am reading, you seem to be under the impression that a melee attack has ot physically connect with the target, now the thing is, the rules for a melee attack in the combat chapter do not make this requirement (they just say it is the most common method of melee attack), so I have to ask, do you know where this section of the rules is to be found, as I do not, andf your whole interpertaition seems ot rely on it being there.
-RW
*Shrugs* We'll all know when wizards answers.
-RW
In other words, you have zero rules support for your suppositions, and cannot refute any of such that have been pointed out to you.
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not. It's just the answer to your question from the very beginning has been no. You can take Implement expertise and gain the bonus. You cannot take SBC and gain dagger proficiency with spells.
Think of it this way. You have a dagger. It's an implement for you. fine. You attack with a spell like you normally do, no dagger proficiency right? You take SBC, which now says you can make melee attacks with your spells. Typically any spell you cast, unless it has the Close descriptor is at range. You can now use it at melee range. They used melee because even some close powers (typically burst) can be used at range. Melee clarifies that it's point blank. Not to mention, it's also a fact that melee attacks don't provoke OA's.
So as I posted earlier. Think of the Ranger powers, and how some of them or marked Melee or Ranged. All your spells just got that with one feat. This is all you're getting out of the feat. Your reach is obviously that of the dagger. This is really all you need to know.
CS will hopefully say the same thing
Red_Wizard, I'd like your help with something. It's clear that you're a kindred spirit in this matter due to the similarities in our cases, so I'd greatly appreciate some support.
The problem concerns the Long Jumper feat in the PHB: It quite clearly states that it allows you to make any long jump as if you had a running start. In other words, it lets you jump really far without even moving a single square. Now, the trouble is that in our campaign I'm currently tied to a chair in the middle of the dungeon of the nefarious Doctor Von Vindawkleiner and need to jump halfway across the room without moving my legs, which are too short to reach the floor. Obviously I should be able to do this in a flash, because the feat clearly implies that I'm not actually moving when I make long jumps anymore.
Now for some reason the opinion of my group, friends, mother, taxi driver and chiropracter is that the feat doesn't allow someone to do this. They seem incredibly set on the matter, despite nothing in the rulebooks explicitly ruling out this possibility in bold lettering signed by the authors. The feat quite clearly states that the holder is able to make long jumps without moving, but all they can say is that it doesn't override any of the other rules for jumping! They just keep going on with "The feat only does what it says on the page" and "The burden of proof is on you", as if they somehow had any more rules backing than me on this issue!
Anyway, to cut a long story shorter, I know that you'll see the issue my way, since you've been selflessly campaigning against the blatant liberties of those who require everything spelled out in triplicate throughout this thread. If you could just write a short letter endorsing the fact that my claim is equally as good as theirs because neither is 100% explicitly stated in the rules it would be a great help. Thanks in advance.
In other words, you have zero rules support for your suppositions, and cannot refute any of such that have been pointed out to you.
As I said, I don't have a position on the matter. The fact that no one can see this is silly in and of itself.
And while I do appreciate satire, the fact that it is so drastically different IMO detracts from the humour. If I was arguing that the feat allowed me to fly, simply because it did not implicitly say I could not, then by all means have at me. But, by the interpretations, any of the three positions can be made.
As for not having any material to refute, or support my position, it no longer matters. For whatever reason, my question as usual, could not be answered in this community. Unfortunate, but no great loss to me. I have asked Wizards, and when they respond, I will let you all know.
-RW
As I said, I don't have a position on the matter. The fact that no one can see this is silly in and of itself.
And while I do appreciate satire, the fact that it is so drastically different IMO detracts from the humour. If I was arguing that the feat allowed me to fly, simply because it did not implicitly say I could not, then by all means have at me. But, by the interpretations, any of the three positions can be made.
As for not having any material to refute, or support my position, it no longer matters. For whatever reason, my question as usual, could not be answered in this community. Unfortunate, but no great loss to me. I have asked Wizards, and when they respond, I will let you all know.
-RW
It was answered. You didn't like that answer, but provide no support for the other answer beyond vague supposition and "implication".
It was answered. You didn't like that answer, but provide no support for the other answer beyond vague supposition and "implication".
Exactly.
The feat does EXACTLY what the feat says it does, and no more. It lets you use a ranged sorcerer power as a melee attack. It says nothing about giving you bonus damage, linking a dagger attack, or anything else.
You can use a ranged sorcerer power as a melee attack. That is all.
As I said, I don't have a position on the matter. The fact that no one can see this is silly in and of itself.
Actuially you DO HAVE A POSITION and it is WRONG.
your position is that the interaction of the feat and the rules are ambiguious, and can be taken multiple ways by the reasonable person.
The feat is very specific in what it does, and how it works. You are refusing to accept this, and your reasons for refusing to accept this are things that are NOT in the rules of the game.
The comunity has :
a) pointed out the relevent section of the rules that the feat interacts with.
b) explained exactly how the feat interacts in the game mechanics.
c) stated what would be required by the RULES OF THE GAME for your secondary interpertations (prof. bonus or weapon damage) to be valid.
and d) asked you to suply the rules you are using for your interpertation.
As for not having any material to refute, or support my position, it no longer matters. For whatever reason, my question as usual, could not be answered in this community.
Soley because you have been refusing to listen to us, everyone is agreeing on how the feat works, EXCEPT for you. you keep saying that the feet needs to work under a set of restrictions that are not actually coded into the game rules they way you are trying to use them, saying that the feat has to be one of 2 catagories, when it fits into neither. Forgetting the 3 basic rules of the game, which would alloy the feat to ignore that section even if they were hard rules and not just informative text.
Unfortunate, but no great loss to me. I have asked Wizards, and when they respond, I will let you all know.
It will be what we have been saying, unless you worded the questoin in such a way to mislead the responder.
It was answered. You didn't like that answer, but provide no support for the other answer beyond vague supposition and "implication".
I'd have to want an answer of a certain type, to dislike the answer I was given. :P
In my opinion, speculation, while supported, is still speculation. And while everyone here has made arguments one way or the other, I don't think any one has definitively answer the question.
I am not arguing that they don't make sense. Nor that there isn't anything to support the position. Just that there isn't, as of yet, a be all and end all answer.
If you are all happy with taking it one way, do so. I don't plan on using it, so I don't care. :P
I really think you are all getting worked up, and confused over nothing. If i wanted a certain answer, I'd never have come here asking. ;)
-RW
Actuially you DO HAVE A POSITION and it is WRONG.
Devils advocate, is not the same has having a position. It simply means playing against one side for the sake of argument.
Evidently, a concept lost on some here.
You can tell me all you want that I have a position, but it's not the case. :P
-RW
I'd have to want an answer of a certain type, to dislike the answer I was given. :P
In my opinion, speculation, while supported, is still speculation. And while everyone here has made arguments one way or the other, I don't think any one has definitively answer the question.
I am not arguing that they don't make sense. Nor that there isn't anything to support the position. Just that there isn't, as of yet, a be all and end all answer.
If you are all happy with taking it one way, do so. I don't plan on using it, so I don't care. :P
I really think you are all getting worked up, and confused over nothing. If i wanted a certain answer, I'd never have come here asking. ;)
How does the sequence of definitions I pointed out earlier not definitively answer the question? Where is the ambiguity?
How does the sequence of definitions I pointed out earlier not definitively answer the question? Where is the ambiguity?
Oh, but he's just sayin', don't ya know!
If you were including Melee 1 in in your consideration, why is it not mentioned here???
Because I was initially unsure if it went together with Melee weapon, and then upon reading it, it was left vague as to how the attack happened. I may read all the rules, but that doesn't mean I have to put forth every aspect of them should I opt to take the opposite bench in the debate.
After all, this made it 3 pages before someone noticed. :P
One more thing, from what I am reading, you seem to be under the impression that a melee attack has ot physically connect with the target, now the thing is, the rules for a melee attack in the combat chapter do not make this requirement (they just say it is the most common method of melee attack), so I have to ask, do you know where this section of the rules is to be found, as I do not, andf your whole interpertaition seems ot rely on it being there.
If one is not touching something, then they can't be touching it. If something is at any distance it is ranged. When two things come together, it is Melee. Logic states this. :P
That said, if you want to argue semantics, you could simply choose to point out that to things can never theoretically touch, as in order to go from point A to point B, one must first go half way. Thus you would have to move half way again, and again, and again, and never actually reach your destination. But then, wouldn't everything be Ranged, and thus Attacks of Opp for everyone? ;) :P
-RW
Because I was initially unsure if it went together with Melee weapon, and then upon reading it, it was left vague as to how the attack happened. I may read all the rules, but that doesn't mean I have to put forth every aspect of them should I opt to take the opposite bench in the debate.
After all, this made it 3 pages before someone noticed. :P
No, it made it three pages before people figured out that you were reading page 56 incorrectly, or at least pretending to, you devil's advocate you.
If one is not touching something, then they can't be touching it. If something is at any distance it is ranged. When two things come together, it is Melee. Logic states this. :P
The rules don't.
How does the sequence of definitions I pointed out earlier not definitively answer the question? Where is the ambiguity?
The ambiguity remains in the feat. You may think it has been all neatly wrapped up, but I disagree. Thus, no agreement can be reached, and I emailed CS.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. I don't NEED to convince you of anything, why is it that whenever I come here, I get talked down to, and a lynch mob forms to see I obey arbitrary rulings? :P
Honestly, you don't all know as much as you think you do about the game. Calm down.
-RW
Devils advocate, is not the same has having a position. It simply means playing against one side for the sake of argument.
Evidently, a concept lost on some here.
You can tell me all you want that I have a position, but it's not the case. :P
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.
Before you use a term to back up a claim and negate the claim of someone else. Make sure you know what that term actually means..........
To play devils advocate, as you are claiming you are, you MUST take a position.
Sorry, the concept is not lost on me, I just actually know what the concept means.
The ambiguity remains in the feat. You may think it has been all neatly wrapped up, but I disagree. Thus, no agreement can be reached, and I emailed CS.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. I don't NEED to convince you of anything, why is it that whenever I come here, I get talked down to, and a lynch mob forms to see I obey arbitrary rulings? :P
Honestly, you don't all know as much as you think you do about the game. Calm down.
What is the ambiguity in the feat? It says when you use a certain type of attack power (ranged sorcerer) through a dagger (a specific sorcerer implement), you can use that power as a melee attack (defined on PHB1 p270), and that the attack's range equals your melee reach (defined also on PHB1 p.270).
So what in there is ambiguous?
What is the ambiguity in the feat? It says when you use a certain type of attack power (ranged sorcerer) through a dagger (a specific sorcerer implement), you can use that power as a melee attack (defined on PHB1 p270), and that the attack's range equals your melee reach (defined also on PHB1 p.270).
So what in there is ambiguous?
Just drop it, everybody. He's being a hypocrite, a liar, and purposely and intentionally ignoring every rule in the book to support his absolutely untenable and nonsensical position.
Even of CS responds agreeing with us, he'll just say 'well, CS is wrong'.
The feat IS VERY clearcut and unambiguous. You can use a ranged power as a melee power instead. Period. It does NOTHING else.
The rules don't.
The word its self, in context with DnD, is synonymous with close quarter, hand to hand, weapon to weapon, or any variation thereof, for combat. Ranged is distant, such as archers, magic users and artillery.
DnD takes a very narrow view of the term Melee, thus outside of the rules, it can be argued that everything is Melee when an engagement happens. Both Aerial and Naval battles are considered to be Melee, yet I'd wager you'd be hard pressed to find any two men having it out in parachutes with knives. Equally so, I doubt the good naval officers, abandon ship, swimming madly toward one another to engage in fisticuffs amidst the waves.
So we are either talking within the rules, or beyond the rules. The rules have always made it a hand to hand of some form. Therefore, one must strike tangibly, with an extension of their body, to be considered melee. If this were not the case, Ranged would have no place in the rules.
Logic +1.
-RW
Because I was initially unsure if it went together with Melee weapon, and then upon reading it, it was left vague as to how the attack happened. I may read all the rules, but that doesn't mean I have to put forth every aspect of them should I opt to take the opposite bench in the debate.
After all, this made it 3 pages before someone noticed. :P
Point remains, you denied its existence, for further your own interpretations.
That said, if you want to argue semantics, you could simply choose to point out that to things can never theoretically touch, as in order to go from point A to point B, one must first go half way. Thus you would have to move half way again, and again, and again, and never actually reach your destination. But then, wouldn't everything be Ranged, and thus Attacks of Opp for everyone? ;) :P
Zeno's Paradox only really works when you look as position through time stamps, with time being an incremental process. It does not work in continuous time cases, which allows for all the intermediary states to blend together and become one fluid action.
Before you use a term to back up a claim and negate the claim of someone else. Make sure you know what that term actually means..........
To play devils advocate, as you are claiming you are, you MUST take a position.
Sorry, the concept is not lost on me, I just actually know what the concept means.
Evidently it is. One takes up a position to defend, but does not have to believe or support said position in any way. I don't agree any more or less with what I'm saying, than with what anyone else is saying.
I am simply saying "what if?" in effect, and being attacked for doing so. If you don't like this, tough. Grow a pair, and move along. No one asked any of you to stay in the thread. :P
If I'm wrong, and CS will tell me as such, then let it be so. At this point, you're all wasting your time. I on the other hand, have an abundance of it at the moment. :P
-RW
Just drop it, everybody. He's being a hypocrite,
Can't be a Hypocrite, as I'm not doing something I'm telling anyone else not to do. If I was say, forcing everyone to believe me, telling them that they should see that they could be wrong, all the while ignoring the possibility that I was wrong, you might be correct. ;)
a liar
What did I lie about?
and purposely and intentionally ignoring every rule in the book to support his absolutely untenable and nonsensical position.
Every rule huh? Well, what am I doing with this book in my hand then? *Looks down at PHB, glances towards garbage* I guess since the invisible person on the far side of the internet says so, it must be true.
Now, I believe the feat also allowed me to attack with a 10 billion bonus with the power, and do infinite damage to everything but me in a universal radius. Phew, glad we got that cleared up.
Even of CS responds agreeing with us, he'll just say 'well, CS is wrong'.
Since you were right before, you're probably right again. I figure I'll suddenly have a change of heart this weekend, take up the banner of this feat, and play it how I want. I mean, it was nice for me to come on line to ask all of you for your opinions, but I think ignoring the rules is much easier.
Besides, even though I could have simply taken this to my group, and bent them to my will, I figured that it would be much more productive to wander around this thread aimlessly, randomly lying and trying to convince you all of my jaded, unsupported position.
The feat IS VERY clearcut and unambiguous. You can use a ranged power as a melee power instead. Period. It does NOTHING else.
Are you sure you're not a divinier of some kind, because now this is just scary. Clearly, there is no ambiguity here. That is why one person had at the very least came forward curiously to ask it. I mean WOW, this is just so clear cut now that you mention it. How did I miss this before? *Slaps head*
Well thank you very much kind stranger for all your enlightening help. I do so hope that you can point me back from my wayward fantasy path again in the very near future.
-RW
The word its self, in context with DnD, is synonymous with close quarter, hand to hand, weapon to weapon, or any variation thereof, for combat. Ranged is distant, such as archers, magic users and artillery.
DnD takes a very narrow view of the term Melee, thus outside of the rules, it can be argued that everything is Melee when an engagement happens. Both Aerial and Naval battles are considered to be Melee, yet I'd wager you'd be hard pressed to find any two men having it out in parachutes with knives. Equally so, I doubt the good naval officers, abandon ship, swimming madly toward one another to engage in fisticuffs amidst the waves.
So we are either talking within the rules, or beyond the rules. The rules have always made it a hand to hand of some form. Therefore, one must strike tangibly, with an extension of their body, to be considered melee. If this were not the case, Ranged would have no place in the rules.
Logic +1.
-RW
Okay. I won't disagree with this. What most of the people here are saying, though, is that even if you are striking something (because it's a melee attack), that does not mean you are making a Melee Basic Attack or adding damage. There is absolutely no where in the rules that allows you to add weapon damage to a power (even if the power is a melee attack) unless the power references your weapon damage through the use of x[W], where x is a multiplier and [W] is the base damage of your weapon. The feat does not say: "add 1[W] to the damage of this power", therefore, you cannot.
Please show where the rules say: "If a power has the Melee range and does not deal [W] damage,add 1[W] to the damage."
See: Druid and Wizard. The Staff is an implement that counts as a Quarterstaff. Are you saying that if a Wizard or Druid power has the Melee range, they would add 1d6 to all of their damage rolls? The Wizard may not have any Melee range powers yet, but the Druid has many.
The word its self, in context with DnD, is synonymous with close quarter, hand to hand, weapon to weapon, or any variation thereof, for combat. Ranged is distant, such as archers, magic users and artillery.
The comment was that the need for a melee to involve a physical connection is not actually present in the rules of the game. You are placing it there artificially.
and your consequences for the difference are shall we say laughable.
Logic +1.
nope
I am simply saying "what if?" in effect, and being attacked for doing so.
No, you are being "attacked" as you put it, because you are not listening to everyone else who is posting, when we are explaining why your "what if"" does not actually work.
Also, you are intending your posts as a "what if?" question, that is a source for the confusion found in earlier posts by several individuals. as it is the wrong type of quesiton for what you are asking. the real type you should be asking is "why can it not be this way?".
I am simply saying "what if?" in effect, and being attacked for doing so. If you don't like this, tough. Grow a pair, and move along. No one asked any of you to stay in the thread. :P
If I'm wrong, and CS will tell me as such, then let it be so. At this point, you're all wasting your time. I on the other hand, have an abundance of it at the moment. :P
I never attacked you. I stated why it works the way it's commonly believed to work, provided rules support as requested, have asked for clarification and detail on where the ambiguity is, and you have consistently evaded these questions, all the while talking down to me, in the fashion you deride others for doing to you.
The word its self, in context with DnD, is synonymous with close quarter, hand to hand, weapon to weapon, or any variation thereof, for combat. Ranged is distant, such as archers, magic users and artillery.
DnD takes a very narrow view of the term Melee, thus outside of the rules, it can be argued that everything is Melee when an engagement happens. Both Aerial and Naval battles are considered to be Melee, yet I'd wager you'd be hard pressed to find any two men having it out in parachutes with knives. Equally so, I doubt the good naval officers, abandon ship, swimming madly toward one another to engage in fisticuffs amidst the waves.
So we are either talking within the rules, or beyond the rules. The rules have always made it a hand to hand of some form. Therefore, one must strike tangibly, with an extension of their body, to be considered melee. If this were not the case, Ranged would have no place in the rules.
Logic +1.
The rules of previous editions of D&D don't matter, as we are not playing them. The current edition defines the "melee" attack type on PHB1 270. Any thing outside of that scope is meaningless for purposes of the game rules. The only mechanical difference, in 4E, between a melee attack and a ranged one is that the latter provokes an opportunity attack. The attack type has no bearing on how any weapon or implement interacts with that power. That is the province of keywords and the hit/miss/effects/etc of the attack.
Therefore, an SBC-enabled sorcerer attack power made as a melee attack never adds any dagger damage, as the feat only changes the attack type and range parameters of the power, which themselves do not have any bearing on the attack's damage.
Okay. I won't disagree with this. What most of the people here are saying, though, is that even if you are striking something (because it's a melee attack), that does not mean you are making a Melee Basic Attack or adding damage. There is absolutely no where in the rules that allows you to add weapon damage to a power (even if the power is a melee attack) unless the power references your weapon damage through the use of x[W], where x is a multiplier and [W] is the base damage of your weapon. The feat does not say: "add 1[W] to the damage of this power", therefore, you cannot.
Show where the rules say: "If a power has the Melee range and does not deal [W] damage,add 1[W] to the damage."
See: Druid and Wizard. The Staff is an implement that counts as a Quarterstaff. Are you saying that if a Wizard or Druid power has the Melee range, they would add 1d6 to all of their damage rolls? The Wizard may not have any Melee range powers yet, but the Druid has many.
I appreciate the civility, thank you.
All I was saying, is that when the feat says "Melee", I was curious as to which of the Melee headers it went under.
Now I understand it would be silly for the feat to add "Weapon" to all of your powers, but "Weapon" is an option under Melee.
So, taking the options available, we have two to three arguably at our disposal. The first is Melee weapon. Now, in this scenario, Melee weapon adds the header of Weapon to the power, and allows the caster to add the damage of the weapon to the final damage roll. This to me seems too good for one feat, but with lack of clarification, isn't implicitly ruled out.
Next we have Melee Touch (I'll skip Melee 1 for a moment). In this more likely case, the caster either taps with hand or steal to deliver the spell, and thus no extra damage in conferred. This however again is not stipulated in the feat.
Lastly, and unfortunately leastly is Melee 1. This ambiguous little option leaves me asking the same question as the feat. In what way is this melee attack resolved? As far as I know, by the refined/ narrow position of the rules, the only way to attack is with weapon or touch. So what then does Melee 1 fall under? Anything that is not a weapon, and doesn't have physical contact, falls under something non melee.
Thus this whole mess was born. I granted ignored Melee 1, but as I said, it would have lead to the same question all over again.
-RW
I appreciate the civility, thank you.
All I was saying, is that when the feat says "Melee", I was curious as to which of the Melee headers it went under.
Now I understand it would be silly for the feat to add "Weapon" to all of your powers, but "Weapon" is an option under Melee.
And what has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, which you keep ignoring, is that those "options" only refer to the range of the attack, and nothing more. They define how far away you can hit something. The keywords define whether you add weapon proficiency to the attack or not. The damage expression defines whether the damage includes [W] or not. "Melee weapon" is a definition of the attack type AND RANGE. So are "melee touch" and "melee 1". This is the third time I've posted this now -- are you going to ignore it again?