Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tessarael" data-source="post: 1517129" data-attributes="member: 12909">Spell Focus +2 DC was the way it worked in 3E D&D. What happened was that a number of feats (e.g. Greater Spell Focus - another +2 DC in Tome and Blood) and prestige class features came out that gave further bonuses to save DC. To limit this, they changed the feats to what you see now in 3.5E D&D PHB. So I'm just suggesting going back to 3E and getting rid of the extra feat - and it worked on in 3E, before all the additional stacking save DC increases.My DM and I designed this so it worked almost exactly the same as fighting with a two-handed weapon. It reduces Rogues sneak attacking with two weapons to the same as if they only had one weapon. (Why should two weapons for Rogues be better with than for a high DEX Fighter?) I think it's actually less complicated that the 3E and 3.5E two weapon rules: add +2 damage if you're wielding two weapons to whichever weapon you choose as primary (you can switch to take advantage of DR penetration materials for example). [Two-Handed weapons are still better in some respects - harder to disarm, can hold one-handed while spellcasting with somatic components (don't need to sheath), slightly higher damage.]Maybe my DM and I just need to write a clearer explanation. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Here's my issue with the current system: monsters have Improved Grapple, so other combatants will need Close Quarters Fighting. You get feats and counter feats, and feats get progressively less useful. These non-standard attacks (grapple, sunder, trip, etc.) have benefits beyond a normal attack. To reduce their benefit, you take an attack of opportunity, and any damage from this penalizes your change to grapple/sunder/trip/disarm etc. I want the "standard ruling" to still allow someone to initiate a grapple after they've been hit by the attack of opportunity. Dammit, I got close and got hurt, let me try at least. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Otherwise you force grapplers to take Improved Grapple, and the whole problem begins.Attacks of opportunity seem to me to work ok as a balancing mechanic. Combatants will need to take Combat Reflexes and have some DEX bonus to being able to get multiple attacks of opportunity (e.g. I'll spend my BAB +15/+10/+5, 3 attacks, trying to grapple you.)Well, I like the fact it helps you avoid being flanked. What don't you like about that? I also think Fighters et al., should be able to avoid flanking just as a Rogue does, at the price of a couple of feats. (Similarly, maybe Rogues should be able to take Weapon Specialization.)There was a 3E to 3.5E change in the rules regards running. In 3.5E D&D, if you run, and don't have the Run feat, you lose your DEX bonus to AC. I think that's silly.Moreover, I'd like +10' movement to be a feat - and this is better than the Run feat, once everyone gets DEX bonus to AC when running. Barbarians get +10' move bonus (untyped) at 1st level. Monks get it every 3 levels (3rd, 6th, etc.). I wouldn't give Monks 6 bonus feats in lieu of +60' movement at 18th level - I'd either give them the movement increase as a class feature, or give them say 3 feats in exchange for this (more versatility).Hope that helps explain where I'm coming from ...</blockquote>

Verification