The Viscount
2016-04-11, 12:46 AM
Dragon Magic is one of my favorite book, and introduces new things for almost every type of magic. It of course also introduces Dragonfire Adept, as much its own class as it is a revision of warlock(breath weapon damage even lines up with EB damage) which answers the request many had after reading warlock of making breath effects completely separate from invocations (though at the cost of less invocations). One of the tweaks it has is that it has poor BA instead of average (not that it needs it). The class is a little weird; it's not presented at the front like most base classes, and in breath effects at the front it says that you can't stack multiple, though two effects in the book, cloud and shape, say that you can with them. It's a simple specific trumping general, but a bit weird for them to not just mention at first. It seems like we've got a bit of odd editing going on.
Now we get to the question. Presented in Dragon Magic is Eldritch Glaive, which the playground of course knows about. In the example for it, they mention a 12th level warlock being able to make a full attack with 2 attacks at +6 and +1. This would be true if warlock had poor BA like the Dragonfire Adept, but it has average so it's not. So, either the author of this sample didn't bother to check warlock BA and assumed it was the same as dragonfire adept, which is very clearly heavily based on warlock, or the author of dragonfire adept messed up when making the table and gave the dragonfire adept poor BA, assuming that warlock also had it. One seems more plausible to me than the other, but I'd love the playground's opinion. So, in short: who messed up?
Now we get to the question. Presented in Dragon Magic is Eldritch Glaive, which the playground of course knows about. In the example for it, they mention a 12th level warlock being able to make a full attack with 2 attacks at +6 and +1. This would be true if warlock had poor BA like the Dragonfire Adept, but it has average so it's not. So, either the author of this sample didn't bother to check warlock BA and assumed it was the same as dragonfire adept, which is very clearly heavily based on warlock, or the author of dragonfire adept messed up when making the table and gave the dragonfire adept poor BA, assuming that warlock also had it. One seems more plausible to me than the other, but I'd love the playground's opinion. So, in short: who messed up?