Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 5044501" data-attributes="member: 5890">Your new keyword rules are just plain wierd. They mean that flaming attacks from flaming weapons don't have the fire keyword, which will lead to odd rule interaction. Why don't you simply ban or modify the feats that are causing problems?(ie - lasting frost and wintertouched). The other elemental feats are pretty balanced, and the idea of taking feats to boost your elementally enhanced weapon is not much different from taking weapon focus really.... just looked, and you HAVE fixed those feats. I really don't understand why you felt the need to do both of these things.A lot of the powers that you tag as "low key" powers that are in need of an upgrade by treating them as a basic attack aren't nearly as bad as you make them sound. Deft strike, for instance, is a potent weapon in a rogue's arsenal.I'm not quite sure why you've decided that divine classes should have +1 to all NADs.Why make reaper's strike a basic attack and not careful attack? Careful attack as a basic attack would be great for a fighter, and makes it contribute to his role as a defender.Your changes mean that the kensai PP is significantly weaker for non-fighters. Given how generic the PP is, this is a bad thing in my eyes.You've done the same thing for the pitfighter PP (although bizarrely it's still good for paladins...). Again, the concept is pretty generic and restricting it to fighters only seems silly.Your change to lay on hands appears to allow its use in every encounter PLUS an extra time whenever you spend an action point. Given that the ability is powered by surges, that may not be too powerful, but I'd personally remove the action point bit.Your change to archer fighting style increases the tedium of playing the ranged ranger, because you no longer need to move around to get the correct quarry. I don't quite understand why you think rangers need advantages with a crossbow.Your change to twin strike still leaves it as numerically superior to sure(or whatever) strike.Your changes to artful dodger are insane. I'd suggest using just the first line, letting the bonus apply to all defenses against OAs.If you run the numbers for dagger precision, then it comes out balanced at 18-20 against other PHB options. It's only when you bring non-rogues from later books in that it runs out of control. I do approve of your banning of implement users, but I think the other problems should be solved by errataing the future powers instead of crippling an otherwise balanced PP.Your change to warlock defenses doesn't really help skewed defenses. Warlocks can potentially have any two of the three NADs high.Personally I never thought that the PHB wizard at-wills were the ones in need of errata. So take it as read that I don't like any of your changes there and would prefer later books to be cut back.</blockquote>

Verification