Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Proposal Adventurers Vault
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lord Sessadore" data-source="post: 4608929" data-attributes="member: 57255"><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>More Problematic Items:</strong></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Double weapons as written.</li> </ul><p>[sblock=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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>and </em>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 <em>not</em> 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.[/sblock]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lord Sessadore, post: 4608929, member: 57255"] 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. [B]More Problematic Items:[/B] [LIST] [*] Double weapons as written. [/LIST] [sblock=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 [I]and [/I]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 [I]not[/I] 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.[/sblock] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Proposal Adventurers Vault
Top