Proposal Adventurers Vault

Lord Sessadore · Feb 5, 2009

EvolutionKB said:
Assuming MP is approved what about the ranger multiclass feat two bladed warrior. It gives you skill training in a ranger skill, the ability to wield a non-off-hand weapon in your off-hand, and then the ability to take paragon fighter classes. Is a double weapon still too strong?

I agree with Ata. Reason being that double weapons as written carry the off-hand tag, which means that tempests get bonus damage with them. While two-bladed warrior can give the same damage dice as a double weapon, the tempest gives up his bonus damage to do so, since neither weapon will be off-hand.

Whether it's enough of a tradeoff is another question entirely, but I don't think that two-bladed warrior balances double weapons in any way.

Dunamin · Feb 12, 2009

Let’s get the proposal going somewhere, shall we? I get the impression that it’s difficult coming to a resolution because of the immense number of items that are to be considered. However, I recall a few options suggested for how we handle such a massive number of options in a single proposal.

1. As is: The whole book except for problematic items gets approved or rejected.
2. Heroic tier items except for problematic items get approved or rejected.
3. Individual items are proposed for approval when someone intends to use them. That is, when a DM wants to use one for treasure or a PC wants to buy one or enchant an item as such.

I’m leaning towards Joe’s option 3, if only because it offhand seems more manageable. So if a PC plans to buy an item they propose it formally here, judges vote, and the result is added to an increasingly expanded list. If a DM wants to keep an upcoming piece of treasure secret from the players, perhaps we can resolve those proposals through emails with the judges, then add the item to the list when the item has been found in-game.

covaithe · Feb 12, 2009

Thanks for kicking this thread, D.

But... ugh. Couldn't we just approve the whole thing now (except for double weapons, which there seems to be a consensus shouldn't go in as is), and then if we find anything broken later, we can just exclude that with specific proposals?

Atanatotatos · Feb 12, 2009

I agree with covaithe, but let's take the erratas in account at least.

Ozymandias79 · Feb 12, 2009

I agree with Covaithe and Atanatotatos

renau1g · Feb 12, 2009

I'll agree, except for Brutal weapons combined with oversized weapon wielders (see minotaur proposal thread for more discussion on that topic).

Atanatotatos · Feb 12, 2009

Yeah we definitely need to address the matter of the Oversized racial feature...

Lord Sessadore · Feb 12, 2009

I agree for the most part. It is a pile of items to look over and compare, so I think unless we do things this way it might never get done, and a proposal to disallow one or two items at a time should go through pretty fast.

A question: would it break anyone's heart if double weapons just didn't exist in L4W? I'm tempted to just say "Get two weapons and be happy. If you want to say they're glued together, go for it."

On Brutal weapons, I was thinking of proposing an alternate damage dice progression for them that takes brutal into account, which would be statistically comparable to the progression for normal weapons. Good idea?

garyh · Feb 12, 2009

I agree with covaithe, Atanotatos, Ozymandias, renau1g, and Lord Sessadore.

I for one wouldn't mind not including double-weapons in L4W.

covaithe · Feb 12, 2009

Inspired by so much agreement, I make the following proposal: That we adopt the Adventurers Vault as an approved source, with the following exceptions:

Double weapons are not approved, pending further review, and
Brute weapons cannot be Oversized.

I don't feel the need to mention errata specifically; I think our policy of auto-approving errata covers this.

As this is my proposal, I can't vote on it.