Silliness

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
While overall I do like it, I am finding I have some quibbles, nitpicks and LOLs.

*Shift as a Feat?  Help me out here.
*CHARGE as a Feat?  What is the thinking here? 
*Dual Wielding requiring a Feat to use with non-light weapons: I REALLY wish RPGs would get over the phobia of 2WF.  Let use whatever whenever.  Just mitigate the effects.  With only 4 feats, they all need at least 2 abilities per, or else one good one. 
*I'm of the opinion combat maneuvers should be open to all, not hidden behind a feat. 
*Knowledge (Heraldry) merits a skill dice? You know all about flags.  Yayyy you!  Would make more sense to call it knowledge (nobility), that at least would potentially be useful.
*STAAHP with the WEAK FEATS, especially if we only have 4 evar.  These should be much more burly (like some actually are) if they are so few in number.

More as I find them.

What's the WTF for you all?

Moar Nitpicks:

1) HIRE A PROOFREADER:

"Low-­Light Vision: If there is no light within 30 feet of you, you treat dim light in that radius as normal light, and you treat darkness in that radius as dim light."

Wizards is a company ostensibly run by nerds.  Not one of you is an English nerd?  I slap my forehead.  Can't playtest a rule that gramatically eliminates its own ability to be used.  Solution: Add the word 'bright' after 'no'.  Duh. 


2) Skill Training for Races misses the point.

These races are supposed to be better at these skills, not just proficient.  Solution: Increase Skill die type by one size, in addition to training.


Agreed with pretty much all of these.

I'd say my major WTF with this packet is a general one. There are just so many places where I'm thinking "what in the Nine Hells is this supposed to mean?" Rules are worded vaguely, ambivalently, or entire phrases, or even paragraphs are omited. (word of power, anyone?)

Also in there would be True Names changing after being used to some effect and the ridiculous damage on fighters, especially when compared to clerics, but especially wizards.
Wasting your single level 9 spell slot to do at most 50 damage? More or less the same as a level 5 Magic Missile? Or spending months trying to find the True Name of just any bebilith (because, you know, you have a fly problem), finally finding it (hoping no one uses a spell effect on it with inclusion of its True Name, causing it to change) and immediately spending your single level 9 spell slot to cast Gate, only to see it wander away, or step through and bite your head off.



2) Skill Training for Races misses the point.

These races are supposed to be better at these skills, not just proficient.  Solution: Increase Skill die type by one size, in addition to training.



Untrue. It means that all elves are naturally good at listen and spot. This does not mean that a human who trains in said skills cannot be as good as an elf, he just isn't naturally gifted in it.

Now could they offer a bonus to elves that wish to take spot and listen on top of their natural prof? That might work. But I think the idea is to encourage wider skill selection instead of optimizing certain ones.
My two copper.
Untrue. It means that all elves are naturally good at listen and spot. This does not mean that a human who trains in said skills cannot be as good as an elf, he just isn't naturally gifted in it.

I dislike this, but at least it's consistent.  DDN humans are at least as good at everything than any nonhuman, they just don't get the extra little perks.  Your average elf is better at listening than your average human.  But a dedicated human is better at listening than a dedicated elf.

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

But I think the idea is to encourage wider skill selection instead of optimizing certain ones.


Butbutbut... No general optimising or minmaxing? Oh noes!




2) Skill Training for Races misses the point.

These races are supposed to be better at these skills, not just proficient.  Solution: Increase Skill die type by one size, in addition to training.



Untrue. It means that all elves are naturally good at listen and spot. This does not mean that a human who trains in said skills cannot be as good as an elf, he just isn't naturally gifted in it.



Not compared to previous editions.  A 3.5e/4e elf with their racial bonus was always better, even with skills/feats taken.  Without that, it changes the game world.  Either a proficient elf is better with spot than a trained human or they are not.  The theory I've always held to was that the elf had superior senses in the physical sense, the biology was different, resulting in a better bonus, and even better yet when trained to do it.  This rule changes the biology of the elf.  "Naturally good" was never the meaning of elf senses, at least at my tables.  The ears have points for a reason.  


Now could they offer a bonus to elves that wish to take spot and listen on top of their natural prof? That might work. But I think the idea is to encourage wider skill selection instead of optimizing certain ones.



Again, for my games, an elf with training should be better than a non-elf with training.  Just like they are more dexterous than average (or used to be until DDN Humans effectively gave all races a -1 to all but one stat, another degrading of the races).  Could be a bonus, could be a better die type, lots of ways to do it, but it should always matter that you took the race, otherwise you are losing one of the reasons to play the race.  In my book, an elf scout should be better at spot than a human one, hence their whole reputation.  I'm not interested in an elf that's just 'never untrained' with spot/listen.  I mean, it does save me needing to take those skills for my class elsewhere, so it's not that its not a perk.  I also get the idea that more skills makes each one more special, and unlike the last packet, this packet somehow makes that more true.  In dong so however, it has degraded the elf by a tick, and I'm not good with that.  Keen eyes see better than non-keen ones when trained.  Imagine a trained detective with 20/20 vs the one that needs glasses.  Elves just never needing glasses isn't enough of an elf.    

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong.  Reframed in a more abstract context, maybe its fine.  Doesn't feel right at the moment.  Amounts to a quibble overall, its not a deal breaker for me.  The fix is so easy in this system that if it mattered enough to me, it's built in.
I agree with Thraxxis, but this is part of the whole "Humans are the best at whatever they put their minds to" shtick, which needs to die in fire.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

I like the fact that they put Charge as a feat, since not everyone is adept at charging, and the charge by itself confers no bonus to hit or damage. Without the Charge feat you can still charge but it eats up both your Action and Move, the Charge feat gives you a move within a single action so you have that extra move available as well (although I think the move you gain within the charge is not splittable like the normal move).... so for example you could with a 30' speed, move 20' and then charge and then use the rest of your normal movement to get into position on the other side of the enemy if it's medium or smaller (thinking in grid terms)...

The Shift feat I don't really understand since you only provoke opportunity attacks for moving out of the reach of a creature not while within its reach, and they already have a disengage action implemented that allows you to move 10' out of a threatened area. (Unless I'm missing something regarding movement in melee range)
Two Weapon fighting in real life... you should try it sometime... if the weapon is light enough then you won't face too much trouble, but say for example that you're holding two katanas (they can be used one handed in real life with training), or two nunchaku, you need special training to use them effectively and not everyone will go for that... so how to translate that into game mechanics? Well, they've done so since they brought in feats in 3rd edition. Feats in my mind represent something you seek out to train yourself in... a wizard doesn't suddenly say "Hey, I killed a goblin and now I know how to maximise the damage of my spells." That knowledge comes with training and practice.

someone here doesn't like cooldowns... since 1st edition you could only cast a finite number of spells per day... and what happens when the developers of said game throw the players a bone in the form of recharging abilities? They complain like there's no tomorrow...

And on the naming of things, this is a work in progress, don't get attached to game terms since they will change in some form or another. 
Hiring a proofreader for a pre-release product is stupid. Especially when it will see revisions.
The Shift feat I don't really understand since you only provoke opportunity attacks for moving out of the reach of a creature not while within its reach, and they already have a disengage action implemented that allows you to move 10' out of a threatened area. (Unless I'm missing something regarding movement in melee range)



Disengage is an ACTION, meaning you can't attack on the same turn as you disengage.  Shift doesn't cause you to lose your attack.
Hiring a proofreader for a pre-release product is stupid. Especially when it will see revisions.



Not proofreading your document so that players are reading the actual rules for playtesting instead of editing mistakes, that's stupid. There have been at least three seperate problems people have complained about that have had answers tweeted, all editing mistakes not rule changes. It wastes more time than it saves.
Hiring a proofreader for a pre-release product is stupid. Especially when it will see revisions.



I thought we were the proof readers?

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I like the fact that they put Charge as a feat, since not everyone is adept at charging, and the charge by itself confers no bonus to hit or damage. Without the Charge feat you can still charge but it eats up both your Action and Move, the Charge feat gives you a move within a single action so you have that extra move available as well (although I think the move you gain within the charge is not splittable like the normal move).... so for example you could with a 30' speed, move 20' and then charge and then use the rest of your normal movement to get into position on the other side of the enemy if it's medium or smaller (thinking in grid terms)...



I understand what it does, but a charge attack has a point to it, and anyone can do one.  Saying that a move and attack is a charge when its just a move and attack means that it's not a charge.  So, while you can imagine your move and attack as a charge in imagination land, mechanically, it's a move and attack, not a charge.  It negates the point of the maneuver and you could just as easily call it a "super-flippy-leapy-boundy-flying elbow drop".  If I still have to spend my move and my action to make the attack, it's a move and attack.

In reality, anyone  can run headlong at a target.  At the end of that movement, they impact the target.  That's a charge attack.  It includes your movement.  Disallowing that aspect of physics and reality for all but those who take the feat, and waste a feat slot doing what anyone can in reality do (similar to a shift), is a bad simulation of reality. NOw, I take your point that a trainedwarrior should be better at it. so you should have an 'improved charge' type maneuver, like 3.5 did.  Hiding physics behidn a feat is a bad modeling, IMNSHO.

Not to mention the fact that all these mechanics were decently settled in 3.5, and reinventing them is a pointless endeavor. 

Come to it, I can't find even one satisfactory power, now I look through the packet more.  My initial interest in the packet is fading in light of so many borked maneuvers, feats, tricks, etc.  Dangnabbit.
thraxxiss, i simply ruled charging without the feat grants disadvantage (which is somewhat realistic if you try it untrained)
That's not bad, my tastes would lean towards granting advantage to people who take the 'improved charge' type feat.  There's a lot of easy fixes like that for the problems I see.

I find myself back in the 'I am not buying a game to fix it' camp after that thought tho.  It should be a rule I can live with on the page, since that's what most games will probably use.

Not the final form, I know.  I'm getting too in-depth about quibbles.  Embarassed

*I'm of the opinion combat maneuvers should be open to all, not hidden behind a feat. 



Combat maneuvers are NOT just something anyone can do. They require deication and training, in the same way that spellcasting does. I'm really tired of the idea that trained martial combatants are exactly like everyone else, just a tad more accurate. I'm tired of the idea that any Joe Average can pick up a sword and suddenly has the abilities of a trained combatant just because people don't understand that martial combat is not easy. Classes with real martial ability, such as the Fighter, should interact with the system in a way that non-martialy gifted classes simply can NOT. If anything, it is very GENEROUS of them to let you get a maneuver for a feat.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
While overall I do like it, I am finding I have some quibbles, nitpicks and LOLs.

*Shift as a Feat?  Help me out here.
*CHARGE as a Feat?  What is the thinking here? 
*Dual Wielding requiring a Feat to use with non-light weapons: I REALLY wish RPGs would get over the phobia of 2WF.  Let use whatever whenever.  Just mitigate the effects.  With only 4 feats, they all need at least 2 abilities per, or else one good one. 
*I'm of the opinion combat maneuvers should be open to all, not hidden behind a feat. 
*Knowledge (Heraldry) merits a skill dice? You know all about flags.  Yayyy you!  Would make more sense to call it knowledge (nobility), that at least would potentially be useful.
*STAAHP with the WEAK FEATS, especially if we only have 4 evar.  These should be much more burly (like some actually are) if they are so few in number.

More as I find them.

What's the WTF for you all?




Bump

While overall I do like it, I am finding I have some quibbles, nitpicks and LOLs.
*Shift as a Feat?  Help me out here. *CHARGE as a Feat?  What is the thinking here?  *Dual Wielding requiring a Feat to use with non-light weapons: I REALLY wish RPGs would get over the phobia of 2WF.  Let use whatever whenever.  Just mitigate the effects.  With only 4 feats, they all need at least 2 abilities per, or else one good one.  *I'm of the opinion combat maneuvers should be open to all, not hidden behind a feat.  *Knowledge (Heraldry) merits a skill dice? You know all about flags.  Yayyy you!  Would make more sense to call it knowledge (nobility), that at least would potentially be useful. *STAAHP with the WEAK FEATS, especially if we only have 4 evar.  These should be much more burly (like some actually are) if they are so few in number.
More as I find them.
What's the WTF for you all?

For the most part, I agree 100%. Dual Wielding IS a good feat though. You use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If you use two non-light weapons then there IS no light weapon or light weapon die, hence using the normal die + stat damage. If you're going to swing twice, you might as well deal your stat damage twice too.

 
Moar Nitpicks:

1) HIRE A PROOFREADER:

"Low-­Light Vision: If there is no light within 30 feet of you, you treat dim light in that radius as normal light, and you treat darkness in that radius as dim light."

Wizards is a company ostensibly run by nerds.  Not one of you is an English nerd?  I slap my forehead.  Can't playtest a rule that gramatically eliminates its own ability to be used.  Solution: Add the word 'bright' after 'no'.  Duh. 

Instead of bright, add source.


*Shift as a Feat?  Help me out here.



Being able to move out of melee range should cost someone an action. Being able to do so with only a move should require a feat. This stops people from using the "move back and then use a ranged weapon/spell" gimick which was awful in 3e/4e. Moreover, the fact that creatures must spend an action to move out of melee range without provoking an attack of opportunity actually gives fighters some quantity of "stickiness," which actually lets them defend their peers. I like the way the rules work MUCH more as is.  

*CHARGE as a Feat?  What is the thinking here?



While the name is a poor choice, the mechanics work well. Normally, if you want to charge you just use a move action to move up and then an attack action to attack. Being able to both move your speed and attack with a single action should either a) require a feat or b) impose some sort of penalties. Personally, I prefer option a. With option a, it is actually possible to try and run away from foes...



For the most part, I agree 100%. Dual Wielding IS a good feat though. You use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If you use two non-light weapons then there IS no light weapon or light weapon die, hence using the normal die + stat damage. If you're going to swing twice, you might as well deal your stat damage twice too.



I would say it probably should work the same way as when wielding two light weapons. This seems to be RAI, but not currently RAW. The no-bonus part needs clarifying to include dual wielded non-light weapons. The clarification could be part of the feat description, adding a sentence with "The secondary weapon (you choose), gets no benefit from bonuses to damage.".

Then again, if your interpretation is indeed RAI, this should also be clarified in the feat description with a "Both weapons benefit from normal bonuses to damage."


For the most part, I agree 100%. Dual Wielding IS a good feat though. You use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If you use two non-light weapons then there IS no light weapon or light weapon die, hence using the normal die + stat damage. If you're going to swing twice, you might as well deal your stat damage twice too.



I would say it probably should work the same way as when wielding two light weapons. This seems to be RAI, but not currently RAW. The no-bonus part needs clarifying to include dual wielded non-light weapons. The clarification could be part of the feat description, adding a sentence with "The secondary weapon (you choose), gets no benefit from bonuses to damage.".

Then again, if your interpretation is indeed RAI, this should also be clarified in the feat description with a "Both weapons benefit from normal bonuses to damage."


A clairification would be nice. If it is meant to still drop damage off the second weapon, then the feat really is a bad feat. The very slight damage boost you'd get with the feat is laughable if that's all you get.


For the most part, I agree 100%. Dual Wielding IS a good feat though. You use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If you use two non-light weapons then there IS no light weapon or light weapon die, hence using the normal die + stat damage. If you're going to swing twice, you might as well deal your stat damage twice too.



I would say it probably should work the same way as when wielding two light weapons. This seems to be RAI, but not currently RAW. The no-bonus part needs clarifying to include dual wielded non-light weapons. The clarification could be part of the feat description, adding a sentence with "The secondary weapon (you choose), gets no benefit from bonuses to damage.".

Then again, if your interpretation is indeed RAI, this should also be clarified in the feat description with a "Both weapons benefit from normal bonuses to damage."


A clairification would be nice. If it is meant to still drop damage off the second weapon, then the feat really is a bad feat. The very slight damage boost you'd get with the feat is laughable if that's all you get.




its not just a slight damage boost. it also has extra potential f you bring in magic items.

"oh wow, i have two magical long swords. good thing i took the feat so i can use them both at once"

its not just a slight damage boost. it also has extra potential f you bring in magic items.

"oh wow, i have two magical long swords. good thing i took the feat so i can use them both at once"

Well, you can wield two weapons without the feat, so this doesn't do anything except buff the weapon die of your second weapon. The difference between "oh wow, i have two magical long swords." and "oh wow, i have a magical long sword and a magic short sword." is about 1 point of damage. Not something very exciting.


its not just a slight damage boost. it also has extra potential f you bring in magic items.

"oh wow, i have two magical long swords. good thing i took the feat so i can use them both at once"

Well, you can wield two weapons without the feat, so this doesn't do anything except buff the weapon die of your second weapon. The difference between "oh wow, i have two magical long swords." and "oh wow, i have a magical long sword and a magic short sword." is about 1 point of damage. Not something very exciting.



this only works on the assumption that YOU decide what items you get.


what if your DM decides to give no magic light weapons? then what?

its not just a slight damage boost. it also has extra potential f you bring in magic items.

"oh wow, i have two magical long swords. good thing i took the feat so i can use them both at once"

Well, you can wield two weapons without the feat, so this doesn't do anything except buff the weapon die of your second weapon. The difference between "oh wow, i have two magical long swords." and "oh wow, i have a magical long sword and a magic short sword." is about 1 point of damage. Not something very exciting.



this only works on the assumption that YOU decide what items you get.


what if your DM decides to give no magic light weapons? then what?

If the ONLY reason to take the feat is that the DM MIGHT drop an extra non-light weapon, It still doesn't seem worth it.

I'll put a question to you. What if your DM decides to give you no magic non-light weapons and you dual fighting? Then what? You've got a feat you can't use. You have to assume that your DM's actions either way and one way doesn't require a feat. 


its not just a slight damage boost. it also has extra potential f you bring in magic items.

"oh wow, i have two magical long swords. good thing i took the feat so i can use them both at once"

Well, you can wield two weapons without the feat, so this doesn't do anything except buff the weapon die of your second weapon. The difference between "oh wow, i have two magical long swords." and "oh wow, i have a magical long sword and a magic short sword." is about 1 point of damage. Not something very exciting.



this only works on the assumption that YOU decide what items you get.


what if your DM decides to give no magic light weapons? then what?

If the ONLY reason to take the feat is that the DM MIGHT drop an extra non-light weapon, It still doesn't seem worth it.

I'll put a question to you. What if your DM decides to give you no magic non-light weapons and you dual fighting? Then what? You've got a feat you can't use. You have to assume that your DM's actions either way and one way doesn't require a feat. 



thats not the only reason to take it, i was just saying there is more than just the slight damage boost.

honestly i would take it just to run around with two broadswords :P

its not just a slight damage boost. it also has extra potential f you bring in magic items.

"oh wow, i have two magical long swords. good thing i took the feat so i can use them both at once"

Well, you can wield two weapons without the feat, so this doesn't do anything except buff the weapon die of your second weapon. The difference between "oh wow, i have two magical long swords." and "oh wow, i have a magical long sword and a magic short sword." is about 1 point of damage. Not something very exciting.



this only works on the assumption that YOU decide what items you get.


what if your DM decides to give no magic light weapons? then what?

If the ONLY reason to take the feat is that the DM MIGHT drop an extra non-light weapon, It still doesn't seem worth it.

I'll put a question to you. What if your DM decides to give you no magic non-light weapons and you dual fighting? Then what? You've got a feat you can't use. You have to assume that your DM's actions either way and one way doesn't require a feat. 



thats not the only reason to take it, i was just saying there is more than just the slight damage boost.

honestly i would take it just to run around with two broadswords :P



My main objection to the Dual Wielding feat pertains to the fact that it is used as a prerequisite to the other TWF feats.  If I am building a character who prefers to wield a light weapon in his offhand, or who prefers to wield light weapons in both hands (e.g. a halfling with two shortswords), then I am forced to take this feat in order to gain access to the other feats in the TWF chain, even though I get absolutely no benefit from it.