PDA

View Full Version : 4e- Arcane Power Creep (or Not?)



Asbestos
2009-04-04, 11:44 AM
Now, normally, I'm not one to get all uppity about power creep. So far in 4e the only thing that's made me blink are the Expertise feats from the PHB2, but as others have pointed out, they represent a sort of stealth patch for the discrepancy between the scaling of monster AC and PC to-hit. Anyway, here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20090403) is a list of some of the feats (and a brief description of them) found in Arcane Power.

Some of the ones that have me looking sideways at this...

Arcane Fury
Elven Arcane Precision
Nimble Spellcaster
Predatory Magic
Enlarge Spell
Eladrin Sword

AgentPaper
2009-04-04, 11:46 AM
Another thing WotC apparently admitted to was that wizards are slightly less powerful than all of the other classes. It could very well be that this is an attempt to rectify that.

Asbestos
2009-04-04, 11:53 AM
Another thing WotC apparently admitted to was that wizards are slightly less powerful than all of the other classes. It could very well be that this is an attempt to rectify that.

That may be well and good for Enlarge Spell, but many of the others are for 'arcane classes' and not just Wizards.

RTGoodman
2009-04-04, 11:58 AM
Eh, I don't think it's that much creep - most of these seem like things that could have been in the PHB anyway and wouldn't have caused much of a stir.

Arcane Fury, Elven Arcane Precision, and Nimble Spellcaster are all just race-class combo feats like we see a lot of in Martial Power. I don't think they'll be too gamebreaking, but provide some extra options for certain combinations. I will tell you, though, that I find some of the combinations silly - the one for Shifter Wizards. I mean, yeah, there probably have been some, but it's such an unusual combination I don't know why you'd make a specific feat for it.

Eladrin Sword is the same kind of race-class combo thing, and it actually fixes what I think was bad execution in the first PHB - namely, that the only way to make a gish was to be a Wizard of the Spiral Tower, and that meant waiting until Paragon tier anyway. This just gives another option that's surely not gonna be gamebreaking, especially with the prerequisites.

Now, Enlarge Spell is a little different. I don't think it's power creep, but it's definitely an increase in versatility... with a cost. It's what 3.x Metamagic should have been, without all the stupid ways to reduce metamagic costs. I'm all for it.


EDIT: Now, Draconic Spellcaster is just a little ridiculous. You know how easy it is to get a BUNCH of energy types on your breath weapon? Pretty easy. And now you get another +1 attack to all powers with that same (or rather, THOSE SAME) keyword(s). The Tiamat-worshiping Dragonborn Dragon Sorcerer with several resistances and Energy Admixtured breath is gonna LOVE that.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-04, 12:07 PM
Eh, I don't think it's that much creep - most of these seem like things that could have been in the PHB anyway and wouldn't have caused much of a stir.
Well, a lot of things depend on if those feats work at-will, or once per encounter, or once per day. Or perhaps they only work on encounter powers, or only on at-will powers.

Enlarge Spell can be obvious power creep, or just nice, depending on thigns like that. Likewise, does EAP require you to reroll all of them, or only the ones you don't like? Are wizards seriously worried about opportunity attacks?

Eladrin Sword is just adding to the confusion, until WOTC finally clears up what the big deal is with using implements as weapons, and vice versa.

I don't think any of this is as big a deal as the PHB2 expertise feats. Even draconic spellcaster is much weaker than those.

Asbestos
2009-04-04, 12:32 PM
Enlarge Spell can be obvious power creep, or just nice, depending on thigns like that.

If it can be used with any burst/blast whenever you want then its definitely power creep IMO. I mean, -2 to damage? Whoopdeedoo, I'm putting status effects on that much more of an area and it makes Sleep even more ridiculous.

Oslecamo
2009-04-04, 12:50 PM
Now, normally, I'm not one to get all uppity about power creep. So far in 4e the only thing that's made me blink are the Expertise feats from the PHB2, but as others have pointed out, they represent a sort of stealth patch for the discrepancy between the scaling of monster AC and PC to-hit.

Another stealth patch is that feats will become more and more precious as new feats come out.

Sure, in the PHB you don't have many worthile feats, but with each new book you get some more feats that allow for more focused builds. And most of them don't seem to have any kind of anti-stacking measures.

So when you'll notice it there'll be again a significat power gap between the player who cherry-picks several feats to specialize in something really good and the player who tought it would be fun to learn an extra skill here and some extra HP there.

Sleep for example is just geting better and better with the new splats. We could already make it disable the enemy forever and ever. Now it seems like we can unleash it upon even more enemies!

Asbestos
2009-04-04, 12:55 PM
Sleep for example is just geting better and better with the new splats. We could already make it disable the enemy forever and ever. Now it seems like we can unleash it upon even more enemies!

See, I've never seen Sleep working like that, but that's a discussion for another thread.

There are some anti-stacking measures in that many feats say "feat bonus"

TheOOB
2009-04-04, 02:11 PM
Please please please wait for the book with the full feat descriptions to come out before you start talking about how broken they are.

We all know that text trumps tables, and the that the table description is usually just generally summary while the feat text may have other mitigating factors.

Though to be fair, I am not opposed to feats getting a little more powerful.

Sebastian
2009-04-04, 02:25 PM
Eladrin Sword is just adding to the confusion, until WOTC finally clears up what the big deal is with using implements as weapons, and vice versa.


The only big deal I can think of is that if you multiclass and have powers that use both a weapon and an implement then either you get a +x weapon and a +x implement (expensive) or use some of that powers with a lower +hit/damage. I don't know if it is such a big deal or not, but then I don't really understand 4th edition

on a related note, arcane fire, you hit someone with fire and he get vulnerability to cold? I know that it is magic and that 4e is not supposed to even just attempt to make sense anymore but WTF!?!?

Reverent-One
2009-04-04, 02:49 PM
Also, on the Enlarge Spell feat, since most wizard spells hit all creatures, you risk hitting even more of your allies.

Asbestos
2009-04-04, 03:45 PM
on a related note, arcane fire, you hit someone with fire and he get vulnerability to cold?

Maybe they get all imbued with fire or something (temporarily gaining the fire subtype, were this an older edition) ... this would make more sense if more fire monsters had a vulnerability to cold in 4e.


TheOOB is correct, I did jump the gun with this thread... but still... I'm going to be looking over Arcane Power very critically. Though, the promise of ranged weapon powers for Bards seems pretty cool (mentioned via DDI)

Grynning
2009-04-04, 04:15 PM
Dual Implement Spellcaster Dex 13, any arcane class Add off-hand implement enhancement to damage rolls

I lol'ed a little, made me think of this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/05/19/).

Nu
2009-04-04, 04:58 PM
I lol'ed a little, made me think of this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/05/19/).

I was thinking more of this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/podcast_papvp2_3.jpg).

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-04, 07:21 PM
If it can be used with any burst/blast whenever you want then its definitely power creep IMO. I mean, -2 to damage? Whoopdeedoo, I'm putting status effects on that much more of an area and it makes Sleep even more ridiculous.

That is certainly an issue. Perhaps the full text will say "cannot be used on effects that deal no damage."

Anyhoo, they don't seem out of line for splatbook feats. I do hope that those bonuses to-hit are getting typed, or we could see a ridiculous accuracy explosion which would be almost as bad as the save penalty stacks.

Oh! The Deva Feat "Remembered Wizardry" can be stacked with "Expanded Spellbook" and give you basically access to the entire PHB set of Daily Powers. Sure there'll be a lot more powers out there with AP, but that is an unprecedented amount of flexibility for a 4E class. OTOH, has anyone actually used Expanded Spellbook in a meaningful fashion? Heck, the Wizards I play with have plum forgotten they have alternate choices for Dailies :smalltongue:

NPCMook
2009-04-04, 08:02 PM
That is certainly an issue. Perhaps the full text will say "cannot be used on effects that deal no damage."

Anyhoo, they don't seem out of line for splatbook feats. I do hope that those bonuses to-hit are getting typed, or we could see a ridiculous accuracy explosion which would be almost as bad as the save penalty stacks.

Oh! The Deva Feat "Remembered Wizardry" can be stacked with "Expanded Spellbook" and give you basically access to the entire PHB set of Daily Powers. Sure there'll be a lot more powers out there with AP, but that is an unprecedented amount of flexibility for a 4E class. OTOH, has anyone actually used Expanded Spellbook in a meaningful fashion? Heck, the Wizards I play with have plum forgotten they have alternate choices for Dailies :smalltongue:

Mnemonic Staff, just a +1 Mnemonic Staff, makes Expanded Spellbook worth it.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-04, 08:04 PM
Mnemonic Staff, just a +1 Mnemonic Staff, makes Expanded Spellbook worth it.

Ho, a splatbook item!

What does it do?

NecroRebel
2009-04-04, 08:07 PM
:smalleek: It lets you swap a power you have prepared for one in your spellbook of equal or lower level as a minor-action daily power.

Of course, a +1 Mnemonic Staff is almost completely worthless, as the power also specifies that the swapped power needs to be below the level of the staff, but it does mean that you can become prepared for different enemies much more easily.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-04, 08:13 PM
:smalleek: It lets you swap a power you have prepared for one in your spellbook of equal or lower level as a minor-action daily power.

Of course, a +1 Mnemonic Staff is almost completely worthless, as the power also specifies that the swapped power needs to be below the level of the staff, but it does mean that you can become prepared for different enemies much more easily.

Very useful indeed, and not nearly as OP as I imagined.

I really need to get AV.

Ninetail
2009-04-05, 01:00 AM
on a related note, arcane fire, you hit someone with fire and he get vulnerability to cold? I know that it is magic and that 4e is not supposed to even just attempt to make sense anymore but WTF!?!?

Heh... actually, it's not necessarily magic at all. It's physics.

What happens when you superheat something, and then supercool it?

(Although I like the "imbued with fire" explanation better. More fantastic.)

Kurald Galain
2009-04-05, 04:15 AM
OTOH, has anyone actually used Expanded Spellbook in a meaningful fashion?
It may be worth it if your DM tells you ahead of time what the adventure is going to be like. But overall, you have no way of knowing that - and aside from that, by design 4E has no spells that are more useful in one kind of region than another (e.g. in older editions Entangle would only work if there were plants around).

So you can't say "I'll prepare flaming sphere because we're going to be visiting a glacier", because flaming sphere isn't any more or less effective on a glacier than it would be on a volcano. You can say "I'll prepare flaming sphere because we're going to be facing a lot of minions", but your character has no way of knowing that in advance.


Mnemonic Staff, just a +1 Mnemonic Staff, makes Expanded Spellbook worth it.
Unfortunately, it's still not worth it, because the Mnemo staff works only once per day and doesn't work on spells higher than the staff. It's one of those things that sounds cool but really doesn't do much. The Mnemo staff does make getting certain rarely-used utility spells worthwhile (e.g. Dispel Magic) but so far there's not more than one of those per level.

BobVosh
2009-04-05, 06:30 AM
Heh... actually, it's not necessarily magic at all. It's physics.

What happens when you superheat something, and then supercool it?

(Although I like the "imbued with fire" explanation better. More fantastic.)

Glad I'm not the first one to mention this...I mean...physics? Sounds like magics to me with a bizarre prefix.

When is this coming out? (at work, can't go to wizards site)

Myrmex
2009-04-05, 01:48 PM
I will tell you, though, that I find some of the combinations silly - the one for Shifter Wizards. I mean, yeah, there probably have been some, but it's such an unusual combination I don't know why you'd make a specific feat for it.

Some of us, sometimes, want to play something other than an elven wizard. In older editions, the best wizards were always elven, since the only racial material printed for wizards was for elven wizards.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-05, 04:07 PM
Some of us, sometimes, want to play something other than an elven wizard. In older editions, the best wizards were always elven, since the only racial material printed for wizards was for elven wizards.

Really? What edition was that, then?

It's not possible in 1E, it's not the case in 2E or 3E, it's only true in 3.5 if you count grey elves which have a high element of cheese in them. And the original pre-splatbook best wizard in 4E was... an elf!

Myrmex
2009-04-05, 04:26 PM
Really? What edition was that, then?

It's not possible in 1E, it's not the case in 2E or 3E, it's only true in 3.5 if you count grey elves which have a high element of cheese in them. And the original pre-splatbook best wizard in 4E was... an elf!

From 3.5:
An old gray elf generalist wizard with racial sub levels and the faerie mysteries feat is pretty damn spectacular, especially at lower levels.

Warforged have to burn a feat in order to be a wizard, anything with an int penalty is going to make a notably worse wizard. The poor half-orc gets nothing for being an arcane caster. Besides gnomes, are there any races that get much support for being a wizard?

In 2e, an elf was a good choice for a wizard, since his long lifespan meant you could use spells that shortened it with much greater frequency than a human wizard.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-05, 04:40 PM
From 3.5:
An old gray elf generalist wizard with racial sub levels and the faerie mysteries feat is pretty damn spectacular, especially at lower levels.
Wow. I just said "it's only true in 3.5 if you count grey elves" and what do you do? You list grey elves as the only example you can think of. They're not core, they're in an obscure book, and the only reason you hear so often about them on forums is because they're more than a little cheesy (and FMI is even cheesier). Not a good example, at all.



Warforged have to burn a feat in order to be a wizard,
So? You can still play a good warforged wizard.


anything with an int penalty is going to make a notably worse wizard.
Not noticeable at low levels. Besides, how many races can you name that have an int penalty?


In 2e, an elf was a good choice for a wizard,
Sure, but being a decent choice is a far cry from "the best wizards were always elven". Hyperbole much?

The best wizards were never elven. Elminster? Human. Mordenkainen? Human. Raistlin? Guess what, human again. The Simbul? Oooh, let me guess. Okay, let's try another tack. Ged (Sparrowhawk)? Human. Pug/Milamber? Human again. Macros the Black? Ooh, also human. Circe? Vanyel Demonsbane? Tim the Enchanter? Belgarath and Polgara? Spotted any elves yet?

Myrmex
2009-04-05, 04:57 PM
Wow. I just said "it's only true in 3.5 if you count grey elves" and what do you do? You list grey elves as the only example you can think of. They're not core, they're in an obscure book, and the only reason you hear so often about them on forums is because they're more than a little cheesy (and FMI is even cheesier). Not a good example, at all.

MM1 isn't that obscure.


So? You can still play a good warforged wizard.

I didn't say that. ANY wizard you play can be pretty good, as it's a wizard. But we're comparing one wizard to another.


Not noticeable at low levels. Besides, how many races can you name that have an int penalty?

Actually, it's a huge deal at low levels. An extra second level spell at 3rd level is like a 50% power increase. Going from DC 19 to DC 20 on your saves is an enormous boost, since now the monsters are pretty much at the mercy of a d20 roll.


Sure, but being a decent choice is a far cry from "the best wizards were always elven". Hyperbole much?

Wait, what?
If I have two choices, both are good, describing one as better than the other isn't hyperbole, if one choice is actually better than the other. Thanks to the int boost from gray elves and their racial sub level, they are typically a superior choice to any other race.


The best wizards were never elven. Elminster? Human. Mordenkainen? Human. Raistlin? Guess what, human again. The Simbul? Oooh, let me guess. Okay, let's try another tack. Ged (Sparrowhawk)? Human. Pug/Milamber? Human again. Macros the Black? Ooh, also human. Circe? Vanyel Demonsbane? Tim the Enchanter? Belgarath and Polgara? Spotted any elves yet?

In what, the fluff? Sure, I could write "Krumba-mumba the Ork was the best wizard ever," and he would be. But under the current D&D ruleset, you'd be hard pressed to make an orc build that wouldn't be inferior to a gnome or kobold build. Have you seen Elminster's official build? It's like rogue1/cleric1/bard1/wizard 22 or something. He was a great mage, sure, but he would be a better mage if he was wizard 25 and elven. He could have done all the things he did, but more and better.

If you are playing to make a powerful generalist wizard, there is simply no reason not to have a gray elf generalist with the substitution levels. Sure, you could play a human, but it would be slightly inferior. Publishing material that lets me play decent builds outside of stock human/gnome/elf wizards is good, since if I'm in a party this is at all optimized, I won't get stuck playing a race-class combo that isn't so great because I put character concept ahead of power gaming. Now I can do both with better efficiency.

Starbuck_II
2009-04-05, 05:21 PM
MM1 isn't that obscure.


Likely he confused Grey Elf with Sun Elf. Both get a Int bonus.

RTGoodman
2009-04-05, 09:43 PM
Some of us, sometimes, want to play something other than an elven wizard. In older editions, the best wizards were always elven, since the only racial material printed for wizards was for elven wizards.

I understand that, I just don't understand why Shifters in particular get a special feat relating to being Wizards. Fluff-wise a Shifter Wizard doesn't particularly make much sense, or at least enough to warrant a Wizard-specific feat before, say, a Dwarf one or a something.

Asbestos
2009-04-05, 10:15 PM
I understand that, I just don't understand why Shifters in particular get a special feat relating to being Wizards. Fluff-wise a Shifter Wizard doesn't particularly make much sense, or at least enough to warrant a Wizard-specific feat before, say, a Dwarf one or a something.

They don't have a wizard specific feat. The two shifter feats are "any arcane class" Shifters make pretty decent Sorcs (both sorts) and Razorclaw shifters can make decent Wizards. I pointed out the "Predatory Magic" feat because, once the shifter becomes bloodied and activates their racial power, they become flipping untouchable. They can shift as a free action (I'm assuming 1/round) in addition to gaining that +1 to AC and Reflex and +2 to speed until the end of the encounter.

TheOOB
2009-04-05, 10:22 PM
They don't have a wizard specific feat. The two shifter feats are "any arcane class" Shifters make pretty decent Sorcs (both sorts) and Razorclaw shifters can make decent Wizards. I pointed out the "Predatory Magic" feat because, once the shifter becomes bloodied and activates their racial power, they become flipping untouchable. They can shift as a free action (I'm assuming 1/round) in addition to gaining that +1 to AC and Reflex and +2 to speed until the end of the encounter.

Except, you know, you don't know how the feat will work beings the book isn't out yet.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-06, 12:50 AM
MM1 isn't that obscure.
It is for PC races.


I didn't say that. ANY wizard you play can be pretty good, as it's a wizard. But we're comparing one wizard to another.
You said that the best wizards in any edition (other than 4E) were elven. So far you've only mentioned 3.5E with the grey elf. That's a far cry less.


Going from DC 19 to DC 20 on your saves is an enormous boost
No, it is a 5% boost, and thus irrelevant exactly 95% of the time. Did you notice how several wizard builds don't use effects that grant saving throws?


Thanks to the int boost from gray elves and their racial sub level, they are typically a superior choice to any other race.
Again, only grey elf. You forget the added benefit of e.g. a human's bonus feat.


But under the current D&D ruleset,
Yeah, 3.5's grey elves would be the previous ruleset.



If you are playing to make a powerful generalist wizard, there is simply no reason not to have a gray elf generalist with the substitution levels. Sure, you could play a human, but it would be slightly inferior. Publishing material that lets me play decent builds outside of stock human/gnome/elf wizards is good,
Ah, here you're contradicting yourself. In the first sentence, you say you want the best build, and in the last sentence you say you want a decent build. There's a huge difference there.

There will always be a "best" build according to the charop boards. Yes, that applies to wizards in 4E as well; I believe the current best build is in fact an eladrin (i.e. a flavor of elf). But many other builds are playable as they were in previous editions. So far you're just saying that in 3.5 you only wanted to play the cheesed-out best optimized build, and in 4E you suddenly don't care about optimization any more, you just want to know which combinations are vaguely playable (which turns out to be most of them, in both editions).

Myrmex
2009-04-06, 02:40 AM
It is for PC races.

Not really. A gray render I would consider exotic. Not a freakin' flavor of elf.


You said that the best wizards in any edition (other than 4E) were elven. So far you've only mentioned 3.5E with the grey elf. That's a far cry less.

Elf in 2.0. Gray Elf in 3.5. Eladrin in 4.0. Happy?


No, it is a 5% boost, and thus irrelevant exactly 95% of the time. Did you notice how several wizard builds don't use effects that grant saving throws?

And that 5% boost, combined with 4 other 5% boosts, ends up being a 25% boost. Squeezing every last drop out of your saves is how you get your save-or-dies to be mostly dies. Did you also miss the part where you get 200% more second level spells?


Again, only grey elf. You forget the added benefit of e.g. a human's bonus feat.

It's a relatively minor benefit, given how weak feats can be. What is the human going to take that would make him superior to the elf?


Ah, here you're contradicting yourself. In the first sentence, you say you want the best build, and in the last sentence you say you want a decent build. There's a huge difference there.

If at most levels, the gray elf didn't come with 2 extra spells in the highest slot, it wouldn't be such a big deal. I tend to play mostly in the level 3 to 13 range, so the superiority of elves to other races is especially striking, since wizards, and most arcane casters in general, get SO MUCH out of their main casting stat.


There will always be a "best" build according to the charop boards. Yes, that applies to wizards in 4E as well; I believe the current best build is in fact an eladrin (i.e. a flavor of elf). But many other builds are playable as they were in previous editions. So far you're just saying that in 3.5 you only wanted to play the cheesed-out best optimized build, and in 4E you suddenly don't care about optimization any more, you just want to know which combinations are vaguely playable (which turns out to be most of them, in both editions).

Of course, I just like the playing field to be leveled a little bit. Playing a half-orc with a starting int of 14 isn't very spectacular. The +2 str doesn't really make up for it. Compare that to the gray elf with 18 int. And a bunch of weapon feats that increase damage die and a dex bonus, so they might actually hit something with that bow. And an extra spell slot of the highest level.

Burley
2009-04-06, 06:53 AM
The only big deal I can think of is that if you multiclass and have powers that use both a weapon and an implement then either you get a +x weapon and a +x implement (expensive) or use some of that powers with a lower +hit/damage. I don't know if it is such a big deal or not, but then I don't really understand 4th edition

on a related note, arcane fire, you hit someone with fire and he get vulnerability to cold? I know that it is magic and that 4e is not supposed to even just attempt to make sense anymore but WTF!?!?

It becomes a big deal when Sorcerors are suddenly (maybe) able to sneak attack with their spells. Sorcerors wield daggers (fulfilling the sneak attack prerequisites) as implements, and with the petty cost of a feat, can use all of their ranged attacks as melee attacks (allowing them to flank). That isn't really fair... y'know?

JackMage666
2009-04-06, 10:23 AM
It becomes a big deal when Sorcerors are suddenly (maybe) able to sneak attack with their spells. Sorcerors wield daggers (fulfilling the sneak attack prerequisites) as implements, and with the petty cost of a feat, can use all of their ranged attacks as melee attacks (allowing them to flank). That isn't really fair... y'know?

But, if a Sorcerer takes the Sneak of Shadows multiclass feat, it means he can sneak attack 1/encounter. That's a small boost to damage, once an encounter. Not really overpowered. Even if you go the opposite route, and be a Rogue multiclassing to Sorcerer, you need to be taking more feats to get Sorcerer powers. Overall, the XdX damage a Sorcerer gets is not much more powerful than you could get with a weapon.

It's really not that overpowered.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-06, 11:23 AM
Elf in 2.0.


I don't know if I can agree - sure, elves had lots of years to burn, but so did gnomes, and gnomes managed to avoid the Constitution penalty which made passing the requisite System Shock checks all the more difficult. On top of which, gnomes got an intelligence boost.

But really, humans were the best wizards. No level limits? Yes, please.

Hzurr
2009-04-06, 11:36 AM
*pokes head in* Why the <bleep> are y'all discussing 3.5E and 2E elf wizards in a topic on 4E splatbook feats? :smallannoyed:

-On topic-
While these feats are good, I don't see them as anything significantly game breaking, or even things that will cause as much discussion as ______ expertise. But as was mentioned earlier, until it's actually released, it's tough to say for certain.

Colmarr
2009-04-06, 05:34 PM
Sorcerors wield daggers (fulfilling the sneak attack prerequisites) as implements, and with the petty cost of a feat, can use all of their ranged attacks as melee attacks (allowing them to flank)

But this isn't actually new. A ranged attacker has been able to flank since 4e was released. They just need to stand adjacent to their target and potentially take an OA.

I suspect that all this feat does is remove the OA. No biggie.

TheEmerged
2009-04-06, 08:04 PM
Twist the Arcane Fabric
Eladrin, any arcane class
Fey step an ally out of your power’s area of effect.

Depending on the specifics of how that works, I suspect our party's Eladrin Wizard is going to have to re-order the heroic tier feats...

Burley
2009-04-07, 06:47 AM
Yes, Colmarr the feat does remove the OA from all spells. There is no reason for a sorceror to dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge with the feat, because they can stand right next to you, use Chaos Bolt, and still potentially piggyback damage around the battle field.

I have a response for Jack, as well. I know that sneak attack once per encounter isn't that big of a deal. But, if we read that wielding a dagger as an implement=/=wielding a dagger as a weapon, but does =wielding a dagger, then a halfling sorceror can multiclass into rogue, via sneak of shadows, then the PC can paragon into the Dagger Master paragon path. With all the dagger oriented abilities, it becomes a little over powered. Daggers deal relatively small amounts of damage, so a larger than usual critical threat range isn't so game breaking. But, when I'm throwing d10 and d12 spells around with an 18-20 threat range, I'm risking a lot of damage out there.