pawsplay's dealbreaker list

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
Fifth Element said:
No, it's not exactly the same in that you don't take the same set of feats or whatever to accomplish it. But it's functionally equivalent because you need to take certain feats/powers if you want to do it effectively, regardless of which specific feats/powers they might be.
But those feats preclude other multi-classing feats.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Njall

Explorer
pawsplay said:
*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.


Uh? I'm not sure what you mean here. An ability score of 8 still gives a -1 penalty. Look at the DDXP characters.
"No penalties" means "No racial penalties".
And, just in case you have a problem with the "no racial penalties to ability scores" thing, in a game where ability scores are used as prerequisites for feats, the fact that your ability score is not lower than average ( esp. if you're using point buy ) actually matters.
 
Last edited:

Teemu

Hero
I didn't read the whole thread, but there really aren't people who are going to say (with a serious face), "One reason why I don't want to play the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons make-believe world fantasy game is because the Monster Manual doesn't have frost giants." Right...?

Frost. Giants.

There are what, dozens and dozens of different critters in the book.

The lack of frost giants is a reason why you're going to pass a new edition of an RPG? What if your 3e MM was damaged and the page where frost giants are described was destroyed - you wouldn't abandon the game altogether, right?

I mean come on...! Frost giants. You got plenty of other giants!
 

Jim DelRosso

First Post
A couple thoughts on the two-weapon fighting issue:

First, I'd be willing to lay a few bucks on the notion that rogues, at least, will get "attack with two weapons at once" powers. It's in keeping with both their role and their archetype, and R&C included a nice pic of two dual-wielding rogues. (That latter bit is, of course, somewhat iffy... but I refuse to give up hope for my dual-kukri rogue. ;)) That being said, I don't think such powers will be necessary for all dual-wielders, though they likely will be if you want to gain benefits from using two weapons of the same type.

In fact, I'm really curious to see how viable a fighter who used a different kind of weapon in each hand would be. Many fighter powers are supposed to be tied to a specific weapon group, so a fighter using a battle ax and a short sword would be able to choose from a wider variety of powers, even if she couldn't attack with both in a round. The main problem would be the loss of AC from eschewing a shield, but if there's any kind of Two-Weapon Defense feat, that could be ameliorated.

With the action economy coning under such scrutiny in 4e's development, and undergoing such changes as a result, I'm not too surprised to see that TWF had been altered as well. I'm hopeful about the new system, and dual-wielders will be some of the first characters I try to make (particularly a Grey Mouser clone :)).
 


Nikosandros said:
But those feats preclude other multi-classing feats.
Yes, you mentioned that. But as said above:

heretic888 said:
To me, having a faux "general" option that is only successfully used by 1 or 2 classes +90% of the time and having that same option limited to those classes is pretty much the same thing.
 

Will said:
Frost giants? Wow.

I think I've seen frost giants... twice since I started playing in basic D&D?
I've not once seen (as a player) or used (as a DM) frost giants since I started playing in what, 1988? The lack of a particular monster as a dealbreaker is...interesting, I suppose.
 

Baen

First Post
I personally wouldn't feel incredibly bad if the only way to gain two weapon fighting was through ranger multiclass. TWF's philosophy has primarily revolved around sacrificing defense or power for more attacks. It seems that this time around, as mentioned further up in the thread, character design is a lot more of a concept then a class then a class followed by a concept. TWF is very much a striker ability, and a defender will likely have little or no use for it. Actually a fighter with their specialization in a single weapon will likely be less effective with them then otherwise. I guess the question is less about who can use TWF then what do people want to use it FOR. If you want a warrior that wanders around the battlefield slicing people up, your not really looking for a defender oriented fighter anyways.
 

Zil

Explorer
Teemu said:
I didn't read the whole thread, but there really aren't people who are going to say (with a serious face), "One reason why I don't want to play the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons make-believe world fantasy game is because the Monster Manual doesn't have frost giants." Right...?

Frost. Giants.

There are what, dozens and dozens of different critters in the book.

The lack of frost giants is a reason why you're going to pass a new edition of an RPG? What if your 3e MM was damaged and the page where frost giants are described was destroyed - you wouldn't abandon the game altogether, right?

I mean come on...! Frost giants. You got plenty of other giants!
True, it may seem like a strange reason to avoid an edition of the game, but on the other hand, it sure is a really strange thing to drop. When I think giants, the first thing I think of are frost giants and fire giants. After that, hill and stone giants. This goes back to the old "Against the Giants" series. They've always been there from 1E through to 3.5. Not having them in the main monster manual is just weird. It would be like not having a red dragon in the monster manual. And perhaps those decisions as to what is in and what is not are indicative of basic problems in the decision making processes at work. Why give us some kind of forgettable new monster with a sword for an arm and drop a classic monster that just screams D&D to the old timers. If one of the goals is to move old timers forward to the new edition, you'd think they would keep as many of the iconic trappings as they could in the game.
 

pawsplay

Adventurer
Baen said:
I personally wouldn't feel incredibly bad if the only way to gain two weapon fighting was through ranger multiclass.

Until Drizzt came along, two weapon fighting had nothing to do with rangers. Prior to him, a ranger would wield either the blade of Isuldur, some kind of quarterstaff, or a bow. I have a hard time picturing many samurai, many if not most historical fighters, some gladiators, and the majority of duelists during the heydey of the rapier as rangers or multiclass rangers.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top