Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RedCliff" data-source="post: 352142" data-attributes="member: 5829">Re: Warrior of the Broken Wake comments...I don't really think so. The warrior has to give up all but one attack per round to maintain the hold, and is denied the possibility of a critical, so he loses a big potential to damage. I think it balances out. So saying a reversal becomes a disarm in this case works in my mind.Okay. I've heard a lot of people griping over the 50 points in a single hit means Fort save or die rule. Peronsonally, I don't have a problem with it, but I also haven't dealt with it in game yet. My party has just recently gotten members who wouldn't be killed by 50 points of damage outright anyway. So I speak purely from hypotheticals.However, thinking over my particular gaming group, I like your idea. I know a few of my players get really excited when they roll a threat. When they roll a second one on the confirmation roll, they get a tad disappointed that it doesn't mean anything. So adding this in as a bonus seems to be a good way of keeping the excitement high. I'll go with that.One thing though: how attached are you to making it an invoked power? I rather like the idea of it being an automatic thing. I have no mechanical reason to back that up, only an image. If this ability is invoked, it means the warrior must intentionally summon the power, making the blow extra hard. If it happens automatically, it means that theoretically every blow is this powerful, as every single strike is imbued with this power. Actually, I lied, I do have a mechanical reason. The odds of rolling a threat are poor. The odds of rolling two in a row are worse than doubly so (though some people I know can roll seven 1's in a row repeatedly, but I digress). If this is an invoked power, I fear it might quickly become useless. Since double threats are rare enough as it is, I don't think there's a play balance issue in letting it happen each and every time. But again, I haven't playtested this version, so I'm certainly open to feedback.</blockquote>

Verification