Search results

The idea sounds promising. I'm a devil's advocate kind of guy, though, so these are the pitfalls that would have to be avoided. 1) It can't turn into the Weapon/Implement enhancement bonus required thing of 4E. Avoiding that is already a design goal of next. So it would have to mean that you...

But as has been pointed out before, that does not account for the stacking power of +2 to damage spells, +1 to damage feat/class feature, which will exist. Having two attacks with no limitations on adding the damage of both of them together against a single target is what caused the problems in...

I have to disagree with the "3 pillars equal" stance. As part of game design it is definitely a good way to go. But as a part of character mechanics supporting narrative it is a huge failure. If you look at fiction (and at real life, for that matter) there are people who are good at many things...

Each style should definitely have it's own niche. None should be just better. The question is, should one of them REQUIRE a specialty to use. From my (admittedly limited) experience, wielding two smaller weapons simultaneously is more difficult than wielding one. Also, requiring a specialty...

I have one main issue with this. In real life, if I have equal training with someone, have the same arm length, am wielding the same weapon(or am unarmed), etc. BUT am stronger and faster, I WILL be able to land more hits. That may be splitting hairs and asking for too much "realism", but it...

There are so many good ideas here that my head is gonna kersplode. I think the key is distilling these ideas into a single ruleset that can be applied in multiple situations. It's easy to come up with an example that works for your rules system. It's hard to write a ruleset that someone else can...

So upon further thought I have an idea that may satisfy both camps. Firstly, if two –weapon fighting can be used by anyone it must be balanced against Heavy Weapons and Sword and Board. If it requires a specialty, then it need only be balanced against either of those combat styles with their own...

Stormonu's example at the end of last page is awesome. I do see a few problems though. 1) You need EXCELLENT advice in the rules for what to do if they don't succeed at the check. It could go multiple ways, and I could DM it, but the advice needs to be there and be high enough quality that even...

I agree with the majority of what you said. (But not all, I've got to be contrary:p). My example class would be the magi. It would be split by having a character focus on casting spells with either intelligence, wisdom, charisma, or constitution. So.... Methodology (names could all use some...

I'm assuming that the majority of two-weapon warriors will be using some sort of expertise system like the rogue and fighter. Thus they will be adding in half their experitise dice to damage as well, which makes it much more believable that they will kill a minion / finish off a weakened enemy...

I edited in a clarification on what the differences between this and the previous packet's version are in the original post. Chris, you said the math has been done. Would you point me to the thread where that was done? It would be greatly appreciated. Also, would the easier stackability of...

The reason the other version was sub par was because you had to spend a specialty on it. This one is open to everyone by default, and the specialty improves it. This version is definitely based upon that one, but solves issues with deadly strike and allows a character to wield a longsword and...

Myself, I would like the cleric to be more similar to the previous packet. Every cleric has channel divinity at 1st level. Channel divinity can be used for turning undead or healing by default. Certain domains/deities (I'm okay with either) may and probably will modify these abilities and add...

Actually, the retraining rules are in the specialties section of the current playtest packet already.

EDIT 11/1: Here is the most recent and promising version for those new to the thread. The idea has changed quite a lot. http://www.enworld.org/forum/6040441-post53.html END EDIT I don't like the current two-weapon fighting rules. The last playtest packet seemed to be heading in the right...

Yeah, that seems to be the general idea. I love the maneuver concept myself. I hope if they are going to do it for multiple classes, that they do more than just give them different maneuver lists though. Also, I wish they would tweak the fighter some. Like so 1st level-1d4 Expertise, Fighting...

Isn't it a little early for this? Noone has even gotten a chance to use the most recent packet yet. And reading over for the first time versus mulling on it and rereading or actually using it are very different things. Obviously, you have a right to do what you want, but it seems like this just...

I think the idea has merit, but I have a few issues. Personally I think the difference between accuracy of 1st level novice warrior with a rusty sword and completely average 10 strength versus the 20th level Hercules with the Sword of Awesome Power (TM) should be more than just 35%. Not 70% or...

I've only glanced through the new beastiary and I have an issue. The whole giving monsters abilities that aren't standard thing. Cool, I get that some of a given group of monsters are special, and this is the kind of special the design default fluff is supporting. No problems there. the problem...

I agree with teataine.