PHB1 Powers and Feats, as they'd be written today

[WalterKovacs]

If they were updating the PHB1 to line up with recent standards, I would hope they would have a nice "Implements as weapons" sections, that also included a section of staffs and dealt with it's "weapon as implement" issue. Part of that could include the weapon focus question as well. Maybe that will get addressed in PHB3 (with focused expertise and the monk dealing with weapon that doubles as an implement stuff, they can hopefully give specific unambiguous rule about what does or doesn't apply to the "other" keyworded types of powers (and then specific exceptions can be made with individual items or feats if need be).

EDIT: On the subject of multiclass feats -

Not exactly an "updated to PHB3" suggestion, although they have made more feats with multiple skill options in the X Power books, would be to slightly change the way the multiclass feats work. Instead of giving "Skill training + X", basically have it give a bonus feat of either skill training, or if you are already trained in that skill, you can get Skill Focus. Double dipping as a paladin/cleric means you have received extra training and know your religious stuff even better. The "bonus feats" would be like the Ritual casting you get for free for some classes, or the two multiclass feats you can get for the one epic bard feat.

 

[Garthanos]

Not exactly an "updated to PHB3" suggestion, although they have made more feats with multiple skill options in the X Power books, would be to slightly change the way the multiclass feats work. Instead of giving "Skill training + X", basically have it give a bonus feat of either skill training, or if you are already trained in that skill, you can get Skill Focus. Double dipping as a paladin/cleric means you have received extra training and know your religious stuff even better. The "bonus feats" would be like the Ritual casting you get for free for some classes, or the two multiclass feats you can get for the one epic bard feat.

The idea of having encouragements for focusing on your class or in this case mutliclasing with a similar class is pretty cool.

The idea of a "class focus feat" gives a more powerful feat similar to the multiclass feat and taking its notch but enhances things just in your class like adding another at-will.... or training a skill that is one of your class skills already etc.

 

[DracoSuave]

The idea of having encouragements for focusing on your class or in this case mutliclasing with a similar class is pretty cool.

The idea of a "class focus feat" gives a more powerful feat similar to the multiclass feat and taking its notch but enhances things just in your class like adding another at-will.... or training a skill that is one of your class skills already etc.

They kinda -do- have class focus feats. Those are buffs that work on class features you can't get through other means.

Like a buff to Lay on Hands, or one that requires having a particular class of Aegis.

 

[Garthanos]

They kinda -do- have class focus feats. Those are buffs that work on class features you can't get through other means.

Like a buff to Lay on Hands, or one that requires having a particular class of Aegis.

And they seem outclassed... pardon the pun ... by the multiclass feats (which admittedly have a slot) or maybe they dont (in some cases they definitely dont)....
I want excuses to have more at-wills and similar bits (especially situational ones) it sure seems odd sometimes the best way to train skills sometimes even ones in your own class seems to be ... umm multiclassing.

 

[Turtlejay]

The alternative, releasing new printings -without- errata, is even worse form.

And they do provide it for free. On their website. That all their books point to. In a printable form. That they update completely.

They do this in the most cost-effective manner possible that has the greatest ability to reach the most people.

The internet is -far- more ubiquitous



Well yeah, but not everyone is on the internet and has insider. Errata and updates, however, are attainable by everyone.

You say two things that are mildly contradictory there. Everyone is and is not on the internet it seems.

I have the current errata printed out already. . somewhere. It would be great if it was layed out in a more easy to use manner, in a nice looking official booklet or somesuch thing. I would be more likely to use it. So would a lot of people, including those folks that are not going to have the current errata printed out.

And as for the second point? Wizard's most vocal supporters and detractors are on the internet. The folks most likely to complain about such changes are also less likely to buy new books, since they would in most cases have access to it online, bought or stolen.

Jay

 

[DracoSuave]

You say two things that are mildly contradictory there. Everyone is and is not on the internet it seems.

That's not what I said. Not everyone is on the internet -AND- has insider.

That 'and' is what changes the entire meaning of that sentance.

Meaning that CB and Compendium are not the -best- ways to get out errata.

But neither are convention handouts--a very -small- proportion of D&D players even know what a convention is like never mind go to them regularly.

The Internet is still the largest and most ubiquitous way to get that information out there; it's also their number one marketting tool. It's also the most cost-effective.

Most effect. Cheapest cost. Why -would- they even consider another option?

 

[DracoSuave]

I have the current errata printed out already. . somewhere. It would be great if it was layed out in a more easy to use manner, in a nice looking official booklet or somesuch thing. I would be more likely to use it. So would a lot of people, including those folks that are not going to have the current errata printed out.

A 'nice official booklet' won't exactly be up-to-date either.

Seriously, you're expecting -way too much.- here. The cost of production alone would not be worth it while cheaper ways to reach greater customers exist. The booklet would only manage to reach a very small section of the populous that current methods can't: People who go to conventions and don't have the internet.

In exchange for that, you have -less- accurate and timely information.

And they -already- do this to some extent. Rules changes are in the PHB2, DMG2, and the MM2. Expect more such general updates in future products.

But regardless, the original point stands: It's not kosher to expect them -not- to correct things in future printings of the core material. It would, in fact, be -bad form- for them -not to.- It's not intended as a cash grab for previous customers, it's just good customer service for future customers, where you don't hand them products with known flaws.

 

[Destil]

A lot of folks won't care, since power rewrites will update the compendium, and the CB, and that is what will get used.

Jay

They need to give the compendium a once over and convert every power to a consistent wording. It's annoying and inconsistent that some powers list only the effects of a miss and others list the effects that aren't on miss (PHB1 vs PHB2). Standardizing things like "Grants a save" would be great, too...

Really they should have spared a few days of the rules guy's over in Magic R&D's time to explain and develop some proper templating technology for 4E powers. Hard to believe the state of things given that they've got over 10 years of experience with this sort of thing for Magic (way better than the early state of Magic, of course, but still far more inconsistent than I'd expect).

 

[DracoSuave]

Really they should have spared a few days of the rules guy's over in Magic R&D's time to explain and develop some proper templating technology for 4E powers. Hard to believe the state of things given that they've got over 10 years of experience with this sort of thing for Magic (way better than the early state of Magic, of course, but still far more inconsistent than I'd expect).

While I agree there's still a lot of room for improvement, this -is- an RPG, not a competitive strategy game... as RPGs go it -is- actually quite concise and rules-template-worky.

There -is- such a thing as -too much- of that, as it is not always a good thing for RPGs, compared to a trading card game.

 

[Turtlejay]

I feel like what I am saying is getting lost in my inability to communicate. My own fault, I admit.

The thread subject is rewriting powers and feats in the more consistent wording used in later books. In the fantasy land where WotC does such a thing, I would like them to:
- Update the compendium with the rewrites
- Publish the changes in a standalone form, preferably free

I am not talking about real world things, I am still in the what-if part of this discussion.

Jay