|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 7:59PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Trevor is not one of the designers, as far as I know. He is one of the staff. Trevor is an awesome guy, but I don't know that he knows what was actually intended. Especially because Mike explicitly said they wanted it to work that way in one of his L&L articles.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 8:15PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Well, Mike actually said that HE wanted it to work that way in an LnL article. The last article where he mentioned it, Parry was actually something that wasn't going to use expertise dice at all, so it either didn't end up going that direction or those changes haven't been released yet.
At any rate, the actual text for Parry seems to imply that you might have a reason to not spend all your expertise dice (it specifically mentions the possibility that you use Parry but don't spend any dice). If expertise dice are actually supposed to recharge every turn there's no reason not to spend all of them when you Parry (since there's no circumstance where you can get a second reaction on the same turn).
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 8:26PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Well, I guess we will find out based on what changes they make in the next packet... but right now it is every turn.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 2:40AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2007
|
I think Trevor is clearly wrong because at the "start" of your turn doesn't work. In the last packet they refreshed at the end so you did not have to guess whether or not you might need to Parry. Instead you could alway parry and it would just count against your Deadly Strike (or rather its new nameless equivalant) damage next turn.
Start of turn is far worse design, since its hard to split your dice pool when you don't know if you'll need them or not.
I'm guessing the dice pool are supposed to be split, but Cyber-Dave is right that a strict litteral reading leaves no conlusion other than every turn, monster and yours.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 9:26AM
#25
|
|
|
The rules for when you get trained in a skill twice need to be included.
Not only that, but duplication of cantrips gained from a feat and class needs to be addressed as well.
And what about gaining new skills, I now need to spend a feat to learn basics of how to listen? Either need to do it like third whee skill points were just added or second non weapon proficiencies, every few levels you learn a skill, speed of sklills learned is based on class.
This last one is just a wish of mine. Right now you can use feats to add a dash of magic to a fighter/rogue but there aren't very many feats which you can use to add fighting ability to a wizard.
Why? Why should a wizard be able to heal people? Why should a fighter need to cast magic period? Take that stuff away. Leave magical healing to divine spell casting (and maybe bards when they show up). Leave arcane destruction to Wizards. Oh, and give us decent spell tables not the jokes they have now.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 11:18AM
#26
|
|
|
Magic missile is a little overpowered: the spell should note that cover stops a creature from being a valid target to this spell (so that creatures without a shield spell can try and defend themselves from it as well).
I agree Magic Missile is a little overpowered, but it seems within reason bounds now. Consider a Level-10 Wizard using a Spelllevel-5 slot. (Calculations assume about 75% of average damage when saving for half-damage about 50% of the time.)
• Magic Missile (hitting 100% of the time, no save): appoximately 9 damage per spell level versus one target.
• Fireball: approximately 4 damage per spell level versus about two or three targets.
• Cone of Cold: 4 damage per spell level versus about two-or-three targets.
Magic Missile seems extra powerful but not broken. Maybe its ok to ensure Wizards use it as a signature Wizard spell.
Even so, your idea of making any COVER negate the Magic Missile effect, is an interesting one. So, targets can hide behind cover to avoid the spell. It also adds an interesting strategic element when Wizards try to position themselves so no cover blocks between themselves and their targets. This helps prevent the autohit from becoming boring.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 11:58AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Magic missile is a little overpowered: the spell should note that cover stops a creature from being a valid target to this spell (so that creatures without a shield spell can try and defend themselves from it as well).
I agree Magic Missile is a little overpowered, but it seems within reason bounds now. Consider a Level-10 Wizard using a Spelllevel-5 slot. (Calculations assume about 75% of average damage when saving for half-damage about 50% of the time.)
• Magic Missile (hitting 100% of the time, no save): appoximately 9 damage per spell level versus one target.
• Fireball: approximately 4 damage per spell level versus about two or three targets.
• Cone of Cold: 4 damage per spell level versus about two-or-three targets.
Magic Missile seems extra powerful but not broken. Maybe its ok to ensure Wizards use it as a signature Wizard spell.
Even so, your idea of making any COVER negate the Magic Missile effect, is an interesting one. So, targets can hide behind cover to avoid the spell. It also adds an interesting strategic element when Wizards try to position themselves so no cover blocks between themselves and their targets. This helps prevent the autohit from becoming boring.
Right. It is a very slight nerf (as it does not change its damage), and it adds an intresting element to the game. How do you feel about non-magical shields working to negate the effect as well? I think it is fair to give martial characters a way to protect themselves from the spell alongside wizards...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 12:10PM
#28
|
|
|
How do you feel about non-magical shields working to negate the effect as well?
It depends on the description of the Shield spell.
The Shield spell doesnt actually create “shield” armor. Rather the spell creates “half cover”. So, the mundane cover that is at least half should negate Magic Missile. By contrast, carrying a shield would remain vulnerable to Magic Missile because there is no “cover”.
That said, in some editions of D&D certain oversized shields do offer “cover”, and these would negate Magic Missile too.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 12:30PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I would be happy with that...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 1:30PM
#30
|
|
|
I would be happy with that...
I would be happy with that too. Not only does the effectiveness cover keep the Magic Missile spell from becoming boring, but it works well as a “controller” spell.
Targets have a choice between hiding behind cover or eating the damage. Thus Magic Missile would influence the targets mobility at the scene of the combat, threatening them and restricting them to certain zones, while allowing allies freer mobility elsewhere.
The use of cover works well in theater-of-the-mind style too. Saying vaguely, “The target takes cover behind the pillar”, is easy to visualize without resorting to a gridded map.
|
|
|
