debuffing defender

[Dimers]

I'm considering a revenant (shadar-kai) battlemind. As a class that has psionic augmentation, the battlemind can let the shadar-kai racial power teleport him farther and keep him insubstantial for an extra turn (Darkening Mind feat). He could learn to debuff and maneuver enemies quite a bit extra with each hit while insubstantial:

Dread of Sakkors feat lets him push the enemy 2 and slow them;
Drowning of Nhalloth lets him slide the enemy 1 and penalize their attacks by -2;
and Doom of Jiksidur would knock them prone.


Given that I'd be spending one feat to gain the racial power and one feat to augment it with power points, how many of these do you consider worth the cost for the battlemind's defender role? How many of them are worth it on general principles?

[NecroRebel]

Prior to level 7, I'd say the Drowning of Nhalloth is the best option of those. It lets you give a massive -4 to enemy attacks if you also mark the target, which should basically make them ignore everyone that isn't you even more than they normally would.

At level 7, you pick up Lightning Rush or Forceful Reversal and all of your power points go to augment that. Anything else that takes power points is not worthwhile. Start retraining those feats for others then.

[DragonBaneDM]

I know it's a bit past the level you're probably at, but I'm a huge fan of using a Githyanki Silver Sword and the Psychic Lock feat. Heck, since you're playing a Psionic class, the sword might not even be all that necessary!

That near constant -2 to attack rolls is quite fun!

[obryn]

Quick note re: Lightning Rush. If you have a second defender in the party, the tricks you can pull with it are obscene. Add in Shattered Time and ... well ... It's not pretty.

-O

[Alienist]

I know it's a bit past the level you're probably at, but I'm a huge fan of using a Githyanki Silver Sword and the Psychic Lock feat. Heck, since you're playing a Psionic class, the sword might not even be all that necessary!

That near constant -2 to attack rolls is quite fun!

I recommend you ignore the following nitpicks:

Psychic lock from the PHB: "...you hit with a power that has the psychic keyword..."

The Githyanki sword (p153 Manual of the Planes) has: "...All damage dealt by this weapon is psychic damage..."

It doesn't add the psychic keyword to other powers (as you say the battle-mind might not care, but the fighter and the paladin probably do) but rather adds/changes the type of the damage, which is technically not the same thing.

Secondly with emphasis on the 'hit' portion of psychic lock's text - something like cleave where you damage a second enemy wouldn't trigger the psychic lock (for much the same reason that cleave doesn't get to mark the second enemy: you don't 'hit' the second enemy but only 'damage' them instead)

[NecroRebel]

It doesn't add the psychic keyword to other powers (as you say the battle-mind might not care, but the fighter and the paladin probably do) but rather adds/changes the type of the damage, which is technically not the same thing.

You're wrong. If you add/remove damage types, you also add/remove the associated keywords. From Rules Compendium p.115:


Adding and Removing Damage Types: If a power gains or loses damage types, the power gains the keywords for any damage types that are added, and it loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed. The poison keyword, however, is removed from a power only if that power neither deals poison damage nor has any nondamaging effects.

Following that is an example of a character using a lightning power through a staff that turns it into fire damage and explicitly says that the power would have the Fire keyword but not the Lightning keyword for that use.

[Alienist]

You're wrong. If you add/remove damage types, you also add/remove the associated keywords. From Rules Compendium p.115:



Following that is an example of a character using a lightning power through a staff that turns it into fire damage and explicitly says that the power would have the Fire keyword but not the Lightning keyword for that use.

Good to know. Thanks for pointing that out!