This product is 56 pages long and free. Cover, credits, intro and ToC take up 4 pages. I counted 17 pages of adds many of them for other Rite... [Read More]
Evocative City Sites Lorn's Entrepot (Abandoned Warehouse) by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. This product is 47 pages long. Cover, Credits, two pages of... [Read More]
Feats 101 by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. I have not yet played using these feats my review is based on reading the feats and checking a few against... [Read More]
The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos is a 4e D&D product describing some of the different planes in the 4e Cosmology. The book is a typical hard bound book that Wizards of the Coast... [Read More]
Well it had to come, and personally I am a big fan of the Adventurer's Vault so I thought I would bite the bullet.
I suggest this is something we take out time over. I believe we should come up with a list of potentially problematic items, derived from our own limited experience and from various forum posts, etc., which we can persuse.
Personally I believe that some of the most problematic items are those that have effects which technically do not require the weapon to be used. For example Bloodclaw weapons at will power is simply used on an attack, not an attack with the weapon which I feel it should be rerequired. Personally even with that caveat I still regard Bloodclaw weapons as problematic and worthy of review.
__________________ Back after a long absence, and feeling rather sheepish.
Compare the following... Belt of Vim [p.164]Lvl 18 85,000 gpProperty: Level 18: +2 bonus to Fortitude defense. Girdle of the Dragon [p.165]Lvl 16 45,000 gp
Property: Gain a +2 bonus to Fortitude defense. Power (Daily): Standard Action. Make two attack rolls: Melee 1; Strength + 3 vs. AC; on a hit, the target takes
3d6 + Strength modifier damage. If both attacks hit the same target, the target is grabbed (until escape).Umm, I will take the the Girdle of the Dragon please...
Reckless Weapon Page 76
Double Weapons Page 9
__________________ Back after a long absence, and feeling rather sheepish.
Last edited by Halford; 2nd January 2009 at 06:46 PM..
I have a feeling that, due to the sheer number of items in the AV, listing the problematic ones would be better. Most of the items in the book I think are fine, but there are a few problematic ones. I didn't bring my copy with me over the holidays, so I can't really check up on any items I think might be problematic yet. However, there is one set of items that I can remember off the top of my head.
More Problematic Items:
Double weapons as written.
Reason and Suggestions
As written, they let Tempest fighters from Martial Power stand well ahead of the two 'normal' types of fighters, since they get their off-hand damage bonus with both sides of the weapon, which have larger damage dice than any other off-hand weapons, in addition to granting the defensive property. Granted, that's only a problem if tempests get approved, but it'll come up eventually. If we do allow double weapons, I think we need to rewrite/clarify them a bit.
My suggestion would be to explicitly apply the off-hand property to only one side of the weapon, and explicitly give each side of the weapon only one type (unless it should actually have two, though I don't think such a case exists yet). I don't see a need to specify which side has the defensive property though - it doesn't apply to any attacks, so it doesn't matter which end of the weapon is defensive, as long as you are wielding the weapon.
For example, the double sword. As written, one completely valid way to interpret the double sword (if you choose to ignore common sense) is that both sides of the weapon are off-hand and light blades and heavy blades. This is problematic especially for the rogue - it could allow a rogue to take Heavy Blade Opportunity and use it with his rogue at-wills (which you can't use a heavy blade with), which is something that until the double sword was strictly not possible, and I don't think it should be. In my suggested version, the main-hand side would be a heavy blade (and would not have the off-hand property), and the off-hand side would be a light blade with the off-hand property. The entire double sword would have the defensive property.
Since I'd imagine the accepted items ought to vastly outnumber the prohibited items, I think it'd be simpler to list the prohibited items.
True enough, although we need to careful not to let anything slip through the cracks. I suppose we have enough eyes for that.
Another thing to consider is to roll out the items in batches - for now we could consider, say, only items level 10 or lower - that should last us quite a while, yes?
I agree double weapons are problematic. Perhaps the easiest solution is to outlaw them, and have them be flavor only (so that a double weapon is simply one main hand weapon and one off hand weapon joined together).
True enough, although we need to careful not to let anything slip through the cracks. I suppose we have enough eyes for that.
Another thing to consider is to roll out the items in batches - for now we could consider, say, only items level 10 or lower - that should last us quite a while, yes?
The Level 1-10 batch idea is a good one, I think. It'll really let us focus on what'll be most pressing the soonest.
I also like, at a glance, Lord Sessadore's double weapon idea.
__________________ Gary Hoggatt - www.garyh.net "Such heroic nonsense..."
I agree double weapons are problematic. Perhaps the easiest solution is to outlaw them, and have them be flavor only (so that a double weapon is simply one main hand weapon and one off hand weapon joined together).
Yeah, this is basically what my suggestion boils down to - it's two weapons, each with unique properties, that are joined together. I also think even with my suggested adjustments they could be problematic - for example, if one side of a double axe has the off-hand property, it becomes the only off-hand weapon that does d10 damage (if I remember correctly).
Yeah, this is basically what my suggestion boils down to - it's two weapons, each with unique properties, that are joined together. I also think even with my suggested adjustments they could be problematic - for example, if one side of a double axe has the off-hand property, it becomes the only off-hand weapon that does d10 damage (if I remember correctly).
If it were "off hand" only to offset the oversized off hand weapon penalty that afflicts anyone who isn't a 2W ranger... other than that, it doesn't get the benefit of being an off-hand weapon.
__________________
Mini Stat
Cross- Male Tiefling Wizard 1 Passive Perception: 12, Passive Insight: 18 AC:15, Fort:12, Reflex:14, Will:14 -- Speed:6 Fire Resistance/5 HP:25/25, Bloodied:12, Surge Value:6, Surges left:5/8 Action Points: 1, Second Wind: not used Powers- Blood Hunt (+1 vs bloodied foes) Magic Missle Scorching Burst Ghost Sound Light Mage Hand Prestidigitation Burning Hands Infernal Wrath Flaming Sphere
If it were "off hand" only to offset the oversized off hand weapon penalty that afflicts anyone who isn't a 2W ranger... other than that, it doesn't get the benefit of being an off-hand weapon.
That could definitely be one solution. It really doesn't matter, as far as I can see, until and unless tempests are approved. For tempests, without double weapons, you need to use a smaller [W] weapon to get your bonus damage from Tempest Technique, so it doesn't make sense to me that they should be able to spend one feat to get both a defensive weapon and a larger [W] than any other off-hand weapon.
Anyway, giving them a sort of pseudo-off-hand property that merely lets you wield the double weapon, but doesn't provide the other benefits of an off-hand weapon seems fine to me.
I guess I know what I'll be reading for the next while.
Halford, could you perhaps edit your original post with a carefully worded proposal on what the actual rules change you're proposing is? Something like, "I propose that we adopt as approved content the level 10 and below items from AV, with the exception of the following items: blah, blah, blah" Someone has got to keep track of the list of problematic items in one place, or we'll never be able to vote sanely.
I was planning to maintain a list of problomatic items for discussion in the second post.
Personally I am not a big fan of the items of level 10 and lower approach as it will require a very picky selective reading and will simply put off thje problem - and for very few items at that all things considered.
I can see it being a large amount of information to digest, so maybe we could consider a section at a time? Holy Symbols for example, have not a single problematic item in their number imo.
Honesty I believe we would be better simply spending a month or so going over the book and getting it out of the way, if we have to take a few months thats fine to. I think the book is worth it, i know I badly want to start using it .
__________________ Back after a long absence, and feeling rather sheepish.
Yeah it's a great book.
I agree on the girdle of Dragons.
If it depended on me, I'd also ban double weapons. If one wants them for flavor, he can just take two weapons mechanically and describe the character and the actions as if it's a double weapon.
Regarding reckless and bloodclaw weapons, i'm sure you do have to wield them to use the power. I still think they can be quite problematic in the hands of a battlerager fighter...
Come join us in the Shifting Seas and Transitive Isles of Living 4th Edition, amazing adventures and great fun guaranteed!
Then to play community 4e in Eberron join us in LEB too! Give life to your characters and contribute to the living settings!
Please excuse my poor English. It is not my first language.
So I've just looked over the double weapons section. At the moment, it seems to me that the only trouble is a lack of clarity in a few bits of the RAW, which I think can be fairly easily cleared up with a little common sense.
The heavy blade / light blade confusion for the double sword is obviously a problem. Here's my take: no single weapon can be both a heavy blade and a light blade. A double weapon is effectively two weapons; either one can be heavy or light, but not both. You can have heavy blades at both ends, or light blades at both ends, or one of each, but you have to pick at item creation or purchase time. I imagine we could also allow the enchant item ritual to enact a permanent change, if you wanted, though that might be needlessly permissive.
Likewise, obviously only one end of the thing gets the offhand property, and you have to pick which. Duh.
Also, I think it's worth clarifying explicitly that you need to wield the thing in two hands to get any bonus from it at all. You can't have a battleaxe mainhand and a double axe offhand and claim the AC bonus as well as a d10 offhand attack. That's just ridiculous. Not that a double axe isn't completely ridiculous in the first place.
I'm not too concerned about having a d10 offhand weapon, because a) you have to take a feat to get it, and b) to get it, you have to limit yourself to d10 main hand. There's no way to get d12/d10 that I can see. d10/d10 has the same expected damage per pair of attacks as d12/d8, and is worse if you don't get to attack with both ends.
Gamers Online Now: 857
.
Linear Mode
