A friend of mine wishes to play a Vigilante in a game I'm running. We are both at odds on how the Mystic Bolt i used. The guide states, A mystic bolt deals 1d6 points of damage plus 1 for every 4 vigilante levels the warlock has.
Does that mean, 1d6 every level or 1d6+1 at 4th, 1d6+2 at 8th and so on?
Thank you for your time.
Thanks for the input
Is there a link to such info?
A mystic bolt deals 1d6 points of damage plus 1 for every 4 vigilante levels the warlock has.
I think they were pretty clear. It's 1d6 points of damage plus 1 for every 4. "1" being the thing being increased every 4 levels. if it were increase 1d6 it would have to say 1d6. So literally per RAW, +1 point of damage every 4 levels. everyone agrees it would be much cooler to increase by a 1d6 like kineticist, but alas.... weaksauce. :D
The player mentioned is convinced it goes up 1d6 every 4 levels. Rest of us read it it as is. plus 1 after the d6 goes up every 4 levels.
I would compare the text to sneak attack to see the difference. Can anyone in a computer quote that? I'm in my phone.
A mystic bolt deals 1d6 points of damage plus 1 for every 4 vigilante levels the warlock has.
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter.
I think that you are right. It's 1d6 on 1st level, 1d6+1 on 4th, 1d6+2 on 8th and so on.
If it were 1d6+1 on 4th level, 2d6+2 on 8th level and so on, then, first, it would deal no damage before lvl 4, and the wording would probably be "A mystic bolt deals 1d6+1 points of damage for every 4 vigilante levels the warlock has".
Compare with spells like cure light wounds and fireball.
It means 1d6 for levels 1-3, 1d6+1 for levels 4-7, 1d6+2 for levels 8-11, etc. As Adjoint said, the wording is similar to that for Cure Light Wounds. If they meant that it was adding dice it would be phrased more like this.
Energy Ray (Sp): As a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity, you can expend 1 point of mental focus to unleash a ray of pure energy as a ranged touch attack. This ray has a range of 30 feet. The ray deals an amount of energy damage equal to 1d6 points + 1d6 points for every 2 occultist levels you possess beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd level, 3d6 at 5th, and so on, to a maximum of 10d6 at 19th level). When you unleash an energy ray, you must decide what type of damage it deals (acid, cold, electricity, or fire).
Even if the wording was ambiguous, 1d6 per level would be so massively overpowered that it should be obvious that it couldn't be correct.
Every other member of our group as well as every reference I can find says it is 1D6, plus an extra 1 point of damage per 4 levels. I've not found any official statement clarifying the rule and the player refuses to believe he has misread it. Because of this, I need to find either a link to an official ruling by the developers on this, or else have a developer comment directly here about what is the proper interpretation of this slightly confusing wording.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wording isn't confusing.
You're not going to get an official FAQ, because it's not confusing.
You probably won't get a developer comment either, because they don't generally respond to rules questions, especially when you've had several forum members chip in with the same answer.
The only person misreading it is the player who wants this disappointing ability to be better.
If the player is not willing to accept a GM ruling on this one, they're being a bad player.
Of course, you're also free to houserule and tell the player that while they're reading it wrong you think that the damage should increase by d6 every 4 levels. Though I'm not entirely confident that wouldn't be over-adjusting... you might want to run a DPR calculation on the full attack.
You already have the official text, and it's pretty clear-cut, so you're probably not going to get any clarification. Best of luck, though.
Thanks all for your time and effort
Have them look up the guide to warlock
Point of reference: I am a player in the game in question.
The only person misreading it is the player who wants this disappointing ability to be better.
If the player is not willing to accept a GM ruling on this one, they're being a bad player.
It isn't being helped by a second group he plays with choosing to interpret the rules that way (no shock, they are a power gaming group) and who keep reinforcing his viewpoint rather than accepting logic. He's choosing to listen to the other DM, rather than simply ignoring this one.
I think a lot of people willfully misinterpret the Warlock Vigilante due to a number of misconceptions, such as:
- The Warlock Vigilante is an attempt to recreate the 3.5e Warlock Class, and is an apology for the Kineticist being "bad" and complicated.
- The point of the Warlock Vigilante archetype is the Mystic Bolts, because they have the most text devoted to them in the writeup of the archetype.
- The Vigilante should be competitive with every other class in every type of game via damage and accuracy. Just ignore the fact that the class is in a book titled "Ultimate Intrigue" and fully half their class features aren't about fighting.
All of the above are false.
Personally I like the warlock. I think the vigilante social talents are some of the best out of combat class features in the game and arguably over 65% of most games are spent out of combat. Great skills, great utility spell access (I would focus on things without DC's), and a fun little bolt for flavor, I definitely like the options. If you only care about combat power, then this is probably not the archetype for you.
If you really hate someone, invisibility + startling appearance + sense vitals will pretty much boil/freeze/dissolve/electrocute anything to death well enough (adding 3d6 sneak attack to the 6 attacks that can't miss is a lot of acid damage).
Well, not to derail the original question too much, but I don't think mystic bolts work with sense vitals. Below is from the FAQ, and while i think I was more confused after reading it, it does kind of suggest that it wouldn't work with anything that specifies manufactured weapon. Bolts count as light one handed, but the FAQ says it is not also assumed to be manufactured weapons.
In the same vein as abilities like Arcane Strike that affect a character’s weapons, abilities that say “with a weapon,” “with a melee weapon,” and “with a ranged weapon” almost never work with special abilities because such wording is almost always used as shorthand for “manufactured weapon,” “manufactured melee weapon,” and “manufactured ranged weapon.” The exception is abilities that deal damage when a creature touches or hits you in melee (for instance, the occultis’s energy ward focus power), which should also deal damage when a creature makes a melee touch attack against you but rarely call them out directly.
Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability.
This spell makes your eyes shine blood red and allows you to see the vital areas and weak points of creatures within 30 feet of you as a warm glow. This allows you to use any manufactured weapon to make sneak attacks, as the rogue ability of the same name, dealing an additional 1d6 points of damage; this additional damage increases by 1d6 for every 3 caster levels you possess beyond 3rd, to a maximum of +5d6 at 15th level. This additional damage stacks with other sources of precision damage.
I think this distinction was made to prevent blaster sorcerors from using it to sneak attack with their weapon-like spells.
Point of reference: I am a player in the game in question.
It isn't being helped by a second group he plays with choosing to interpret the rules that way (no shock, they are a power gaming group) and who keep reinforcing his viewpoint rather than accepting logic. He's choosing to listen to the other DM, rather than simply ignoring this one.The only person misreading it is the player who wants this disappointing ability to be better.
If the player is not willing to accept a GM ruling on this one, they're being a bad player.
I just thought I would let you know that your statements here are painting you in a bad light, and you might want to reconsider how you express yourself.
You're coming across as completely blaming others.
You're also in a thread where everyone agree about the interpretation except yourself, while you state that everyone in the other group (who doesn't agree with you) is a power gamer.
Except...power gamers would probably say it dealt more damage, not less. Wouldn't they, If they're proper power gamers?
|
|
Claxon, you've got it the wrong way around. leviathanapsu is "a player in the game in question," not the warlock player the OP is having difficulty with.
The "power gaming" group is a second group (not OP's and leviathanapsu's) that has apparently ruled that the warlock gets +d6 damage every 4 levels instead of +1. This has led the warlock player to believe that the ability actually works that way, and to expect that it will work that way in OP's and leviathanapsu's group.
This is unfortunate. It may be possible to show the warlock player this thread in order to at least convince them of how the rule is intended, but if they're used to playing the warlock with a damage buff they probably won't want to play one as written. Would they be interested in a different class?
Re: warlock balance
I think PossibleCabbage has correctly identified the reasons that many are disappointed with the warlock.
I think the real question is how the warlock stacks up against the other 6-level casters that have a lot of intrigue-related features - like the bard.
Bards get 6+Int skills, but aren't Int-based, which means they should be about on par with the 4+Int Warlock until higher levels when the Warlock has put some effort into boosting Int. The bard can also use Versatile Performance and Pageant of the Peacock to stretch out their skill ranks. Bards get better class skills, with all Knowledge skills and Perception while the Warlock gets only Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, and Nobility plus Ride and Swim. Bardic Knowledge and Lore Master also make bards very good at knowledge skills despite not being Int-based, and as a Cha-based class they have a leg up on Cha skills. The Warlock can compensate using Social Grace or the Intimidate bonus on Renown, but that makes them more specialized than the bard.
The warlock also gets some other neat talents like Mockingbird, Many Guises, or Tattoo Chamber - but the bard also gets Inspire Competence, Countersong, Distraction, Fascinate, Suggestion, and Mass Suggestion. Getting access to the variety of spells on the wizard's list is definitely a boon for the warlock. On the other hand, the bard gets early access to some nice spells like Heroism or Overwhelming Presence, and also gets exclusive access to things like Gallant Inspiration or Glibness. As a core class, the bard also gets a lot more support, with tons of archetypes for customization.
And of course the bard does just fine in combat, with Inspire Courage boosting the whole party's damage output.
It seems to me that the warlock could stand to have slightly better damage potential, which would bring it more in line with the very versatile and well balanced bard.
Claxon, you've got it the wrong way around. leviathanapsu is "a player in the game in question," not the warlock player the OP is having difficulty with.
Whoops.
I read that as "I am the player in question".
Claxon, you've got it the wrong way around. leviathanapsu is "a player in the game in question," not the warlock player the OP is having difficulty with.Whoops.
I read that as "I am the player in question".
It's all good. Sometimes it can be easy to miss a single word and get an entirely different meaning out of what you are seeing. No worries.
|
|
That FAQ references Arcane strike ... but doesn't the warlock get an arcane weapon like talent meant to improve his bolts?
Or does that talent have some extra special wording? Does that mean the normal straight up feat won't work?" Because mystic bolts are impermanent, a spell that targets a single weapon (like magic weapon) can’t affect it, nor can a mystic bolt be made with magic weapon special abilities. Abilities that affect all weapon attacks the warlock makes, such as the arcane striker warlock talent, function with mystic bolts." Hmm.. the second half says abilities and does not mention spells.. Otherwise I would say that the fact that the spell allows all weapon attacks would fall under that one.. Too bad.
Arcane Strike doesn't reference manufactured weapons. Sense Vitals does. Mystic bolts count as weapons for the purpose of Arcane Strike. They don't count as manufactured weapons for the purpose of Sense Vitals.
I actually feel that the warlock is a neat blasty class. It only really has one build path, but consider the following build:
Human warlock 5
feats and talents:
Level 1 : point Blank shot, precise shot
Level 2 : Arcane strike
Level 3 : Rapid shot, 1 touch attack
Level 4 : spells <(^.^)>
Level 5 : Two-weapon fighting
With an 18 in Dex and a +2 belt,
Your full attack routine looks like this:
Bab +3, dex +5, Pbs +1, TWF -2, Rapidshot -2
For a total of +5/+5/+5 1d6 + 4
All of this targets touch AC, which at level 5-22 is around 12. This gives you a DPR of 16.3.
For comparison, a Fighter with 20 strength, a +1 weapon and power attack is hitting for about +10 2d6+14 against AC 18. This gives you a DPR of 15.0.
Sure my example fighter has only used 1 out of 6 feats, but I can't be bothered to do full builds right now. My point is that the Warlock does reasonable damage, never misses and gets 6 level casting. The main problem the 'lock has is that his level one and two is pretty lame.
|
|
Resistance isn't the only issue with that comparison.
It is definitely an issue. Getting your second element at level 7 helps, but there's still a lot of creatures that have resistances to multiple elements. Most evil outsiders resist all but one element, and demons resist all of them. DR takes a smaller chunk of the fighter's damage, and there are more options built into the game to deal with it (a +3 weapon and an oil of Bless Weapon takes care of most of the DR you'll run into). YMMV on what you actually encounter a given campaign, but one campaign I'm currently in runs into a lot of outsiders.
Second issue though, using only 1 out of 6 feats seriously handicaps the fighter. Adding just Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (using half the fighter's feats) puts the fighter's routine at +11 (2d6+16) for a DPR of 16.1.
Third, warlock is super dependent on full attacking. That's a bit easier when you work at range but still, better hope you don't get staggered or need to take a move action.
Finally, comparing at level 5 favours the warlock. It's just gotten its main feats and its ability to make all of its attacks against touch AC, and damage increases from Mythic Bolt and Arcane Strike at levels 4 and 5. At 6th level, the warlock's routine is +6/+6/+6 (d6+4) for a minor increase in DPR to 16.8. But the fighter has gained an extra attack: +12/+7 (2d6+16). Against a new AC of 19, that's a DPR of 24.5.
I feel like even if you run into a situation where the thing you have to fight has resistances against all your elements, you still have martial weapon proficiencies and 6 level casting and that should be enough. I mean, if you take PBS, Precise Shot, and Rapid Shot all of those will also work with a bow and arrow.
Fighters have been carrying backup weapons for when their primary one doesn't work well for years now, so the Warlock Vigilante can use something other than Mystic Bolts when those don't work well.
It's all good. Sometimes it can be easy to miss a single word and get an entirely different meaning out of what you are seeing. No worries.Claxon, you've got it the wrong way around. leviathanapsu is "a player in the game in question," not the warlock player the OP is having difficulty with.Whoops.
I read that as "I am the player in question".
Yeah, sorry about that.
Resistance isn't the only issue with that comparison.
It is definitely an issue. Getting your second element at level 7 helps, but there's still a lot of creatures that have resistances to multiple elements. Most evil outsiders resist all but one element, and demons resist all of them. DR takes a smaller chunk of the fighter's damage, and there are more options built into the game to deal with it (a +3 weapon and an oil of Bless Weapon takes care of most of the DR you'll run into). YMMV on what you actually encounter a given campaign, but one campaign I'm currently in runs into a lot of outsiders.
Second issue though, using only 1 out of 6 feats seriously handicaps the fighter. Adding just Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (using half the fighter's feats) puts the fighter's routine at +11 (2d6+16) for a DPR of 16.1.
Third, warlock is super dependent on full attacking. That's a bit easier when you work at range but still, better hope you don't get staggered or need to take a move action.
Finally, comparing at level 5 favours the warlock. It's just gotten its main feats and its ability to make all of its attacks against touch AC, and damage increases from Mythic Bolt and Arcane Strike at levels 4 and 5. At 6th level, the warlock's routine is +6/+6/+6 (d6+4) for a minor increase in DPR to 16.8. But the fighter has gained an extra attack: +12/+7 (2d6+16). Against a new AC of 19, that's a DPR of 24.5.
I wasn't trying to say that the vigilante is better then the fighter. Just that he is acceptable. Level 6 is very much a power-spike for full BaB classes, and the warlock does not get his next spike until level 8 or 9 when he gets his first iterative attack and improved two-weapon fighting. Though he does get level 3 spells at level 7.