4E Caster Attack

[continuumc]

There is something that's been bugging me lately, and I wanted to pose it on here incase i'm missing something.

In 4th ed, a fighter for instance..will make a melee (or ranged) attack and gain 1/2 his level, plus ability modifier, plus weapon enhancement, plus proficiency bonus to his/her attack. Let's say those come out to: 2, 4, 2, 3: for a total of plus 11 to his attack.

Now..a spellcaster, will cast a spell and get..half level bonus, ability modifier, and implement enhancement: so.. 2, 4, 2: for a total of: plus 8 to his attack.

11...vs 8? Somehow that doesn't seem quite fair in my mind - it suggests to me that i'm missing something..but for the life of me I cannot figure out what.

[ninja_penguin]

Reason being is that 99% of the time, the caster implements are targeting a non-AC defense. Usually, the non-AC defenses of a monster (and PC!) are lower then the AC defense.

[Arcane Copycat]

Following the general monster creation guidelines from the DMG, most enemies have an AC of level+14, and other defenses level+12 before being adjusted based on said monsters stats.

[continuumc]

While that is true, there are certain non-casting classes which have a fairly large amount of attacks targetting other defenses as well.

[Arcane Copycat]

While that is true, there are certain non-casting classes which have a fairly large amount of attacks targetting other defenses as well.

Rogue and Ranger, mostly. Classes designed to be highly accurate. So instead of giving them a whole bunch of Dex +2 attacks, they just changed the targeted defense.

[continuumc]

You could be right, we haven't really had any difficulties with casters being highly inaccurate, I was just working on a bard and noticed the different. So I started burrowing to make sure there was no implement "proficiency", and then went...well, that's odd.

[Arcane Copycat]

You could be right, we haven't really had any difficulties with casters being highly inaccurate, I was just working on a bard and noticed the different. So I started burrowing to make sure there was no implement "proficiency", and then went...well, that's odd.

Well I always saw magic user getting a bit ripped off for damage myself. I mean, any martial class can take a weapon focus feat for bonus damage, but wizards only get their bonuses to 2 elements, either restricting the attacks chosen, damage done by other elements, or blowing more feats to cover all the bases.

But yeah, I think the lack of proficiency just balances out wizards targeting fort/ref/will instead of the usually higher AC

[continuumc]

Well, I can see the damage: as a fair number of spells do tend to be bursts or blasts, but again: there are non-casters with plenty of those as well.

[ninja_penguin]

Also, in general; monsters (especially brutes) tend to have high fortitude defenses, and controllers have higher will. Although in general, targeting will defense is a solid bet; I think it's (on average) the lowest monster defense.

[continuumc]

Yeah, will tends to be the lowest except for caster-monsters.

[Kurald Galain]

You could be right, we haven't really had any difficulties with casters being highly inaccurate,

You know what else helps? Area attacks. My wizard may have a lower to-hit bonus than the party rogue, but he makes an average of three attacks simultaneously. So he will hit.

Well I always saw magic user getting a bit ripped off for damage myself. I mean, any martial class can take a weapon focus feat for bonus damage, but wizards only get their bonuses to 2 elements,

Those feats like Burning Poison and Explosive Frost (or whatever they're called) are indeed rather sub-par. However, by the current rules, you can use a dagger or staff as your arcane implement and take weapon focus for that. Also, there are numerous other damage boosts, such as the Staff of Ruin and various feats from Arcane Power.

[continuumc]

You can use a dagger as an implement, however, it does not necessarily say that taking weapon focus on a dagger increases your spells.

By implement description: it says you gain the implements enhancement bonus.

[Kurald Galain]

You can use a dagger as an implement, however, it does not necessarily say that taking weapon focus on a dagger increases your spells.

FAQ says you can. Although I agree it's a silly rule.

[Arcane Copycat]

Those feats like Burning Poison and Explosive Frost (or whatever they're called) are indeed rather sub-par. However, by the current rules, you can use a dagger or staff as your arcane implement and take weapon focus for that. Also, there are numerous other damage boosts, such as the Staff of Ruin and various feats from Arcane Power.

Or a sword. The idea of a wizard using a fullblade as an implement, although highly impractical, is still amusing

[continuumc]

Ah, I stand corrected.

[Burley]

The one thing that WotC did make clear about weapons as implements is that you do not gain the weapon's proficiency bonus to implement attacks. Ever.

You can take the feats from PHB2 and Arcane Power, like Implement Expertise and Dual Implement Mastery (something like that).

Also, you can use Weapon Expertise on Weapons-as-Implements. But, you can't use Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise at the same, because it's all feat bonuses.
Same thing for Weapon/Implement Focus.

Am I ninja'd? ~scroll~ I am!

Also, Arcane Copycat, with the advent of the Implement Proficiency feat, you can have a wizard wield an Executioner's Axe as an Implement. Or a Greatsword.
But, wait... I've confused myself. Could a Dwarven Druid take Implement Prof. (Axes) and Dwarven Weapon proficiency (which gives a bonus to damage, not weapon damage) and increace the damage of his implement powers?

[Kurald Galain]

Also, Arcane Copycat, with the advent of the Implement Proficiency feat, you can have a wizard wield an Executioner's Axe as an Implement.

I'm reasonably sure you can only pick weapons for your implement that already exist as an implement for some other arcane class.

[Burley]

Okay... Well, then, the axe is out. But, all Heavy and Light Blades are still in.

[Asbestos]

Although, really... is there any reason beyond 'the rules say so' that we shouldn't be able to use axes or flails as implements via a feat? Does this unbalance things somehow?

[Burley]

While it may not imbalance things, much of the things I say fall into the "The Rules don't say I can't, so I can" category. I don't want to just assume that I should be able to, just because it's not game breaking.
I don't break the rules to make sense. I follow the rules to the brink of insanity.

[Kurald Galain]

While it may not imbalance things, much of the things I say fall into the "The Rules don't say I can't, so I can" category.

Well, the core of 4E is firmly that unless the rules explicitly say that you can, you can't do it.

On the other hand, I don't really think it's possible to unbalance 4E in that fashion (heck, you could give everyone double feats, or double WBL, and it wouldn't unbalance things all that much, but that's because many of the feats and items are pretty lacklustre). There are only a handful of weapon powers that might be considered unbalancing on a caster (or more likely, might be considered unbalancing on anyone), and those tend to be sword- or staff-based anyway.

Cunning staff, stuff like that.

[Mando Knight]

Well, the core of 4E is firmly that unless the rules explicitly say that you can, you can't do it.

Huh. And here I thought that the 4E DMG was one where it specifically added in the "yes and" rule from improv...

[Kurald Galain]

Huh. And here I thought that the 4E DMG was one where it specifically added in the "yes and" rule from improv...

Yes, and that rule is only necessary because all the rest of the rulebooks clearly say "no you can't". But one paragraph in the infrequently-read DMG doesn't weigh up against all the other books.

[Mando Knight]

Yes, and that rule is only necessary because all the rest of the rulebooks clearly say "no you can't". But one paragraph in the infrequently-read DMG doesn't weigh up against all the other books.

I've never seen a "no, you can't" like that in any of the 4E books I've read. Is it in one of the not-character-options sections of the PHB2?

[NecroRebel]

Yes, and that rule is only necessary because all the rest of the rulebooks clearly say "no you can't". But one paragraph in the infrequently-read DMG doesn't weigh up against all the other books.

I'm with Mando on this one; it seems to me that it never says, anywhere, that if it isn't written you can't do it. Quite the contrary, all of the 4E materials seem to suggest that if it is written, you can do it, and if it's not written, ask your DM.

Also, it specifically suggests that DMs, when asked if they can do something, say "Yes" and decide on a ruling (the aforementioned "Yes, and..." suggestion)

[Kurald Galain]

I'm with Mando on this one; it seems to me that it never says, anywhere, that if it isn't written you can't do it.

Okay, simple example. I want to play a low-level chararacter that can become invisible at will, for extended periods of time. What do you think the average 4E DM would say to that?

[NPCMook]

Okay, simple example. I want to play a low-level chararacter that can become invisible at will, for extended periods of time. What do you think the average 4E DM would say to that?

Do you want an honest answer or a lie?

[Kurald Galain]

Do you want an honest answer or a lie?

:rolleyes:

[NPCMook]

:rolleyes:

What?

The honest Answer is yes, play a Fey Lock.

The Lie is No, no you can't do that.

[Kurald Galain]

The honest Answer is yes, play a Fey Lock.

The Lie is No, no you can't do that.

Heh. (1) that's not at will, since you have to succeed at an attack roll for it to work; (2) it's not for extended periods of time, since it lasts only one round; and most importantly (3) it's not invisibility either, since everyone can still see you except for that one target.

I ask if I can play a character with a certain ability, and you say "yes" but give me a character that does not in fact have that ability. This underlines my point that the 4E response to an original idea tends to be "say yes, but make a ruling that either doesn't actually do that, or has such a large chance of failure that it's pointless".