PROPOSAL: Dragon Magazine 368

[elecgraystone]

WOW, you went to town on this. Let me pull out the article and take a look...

Staff fighting: The only issue I've seen with this is the question 'do both ends count as an implement?'. I say yes, stonegod says no. Proposal thread from the eberron 4e threads [ http://www.enworld.org/forum/living...staff-fighting-dr-368-great-staff-debate.html ]

Called Shot: Honestly, this is a needed boost to warlocks. They can stand a bump in damage vs other strikers. For Rangers it may be a bit much. It's still a bit of a trade off though, being the closest person when you are a ranged person. I think that it SHOULD be changed to a feat bonus so it doesn't stack with weapon focus and elemental damage boosts like raging storm.

Two-Weapon Ambush Seems fine.

Crushing Grab I'd say it DOES let you crush with whip , net AND the garrote.

Arena Specialist It doesn't let YOU shift, it lets your beast companion shift. Seems fine.

Binding Style Well, it never talks about hitting the target twice JUST hitting twice. I think all you'd have to add to it is you can immobilize the target 'of your flail attack'. Problem solved.

Catspaw Style Well, I agree. It's way to simple for the companion to get
advantage by flanking an enemy with it's master. Makes a great attack WAY better with little cost. Heck, you get a bird and who can't you flank?

Daring Performer Seems ok. A crit for a crit.

Exotic Fighting Style Honestly, this might make me think about taking Brash Assault. Normally I'm NOT a big fan of it.

Exotic Fighting Style Well, you know what I said about Brash Assault? Well Sure Strike is worse. There is almost never a reason to have or use this power when you can use Twin Strike. Now there would be a reason.

Exotic Fighting Style Make it 'a double weapon or two superior weapons'.

Grudge Style Sure Strike - See Exotic Fighting Style

Hunting Spider Style Dual Strike Specify that the re-roll must be taken of a target you can't see.

Starlight Duelist: Dual Strike = that works for me.

Flensing Weapon: "Considered bloodied (save ends)" Since it triggers both good and bad things, this should be fine.

Whip: Make the -2 an item 'bonus', so it isn't going to stack. The damage seems right mechanically. If you want thing to make logical sense, why does a bastard sword wielded in two hands do more than a great sword? You explain that one and I'll agree to lowering the whip damage.

Net: The net, as is, is equal to a martial weapon NOT a superior one. You want to drop it down to a simple weapon and STILL make people pay a feat for it?

 

[JoeNotCharles]

Staff fighting: The only issue I've seen with this is the question 'do both ends count as an implement?'. I say yes, stonegod says no. Proposal thread from the eberron 4e threads http://www.enworld.org/forum/living...staff-fighting-dr-368-great-staff-debate.html

I would say no - this is a mainly martial-focused article, and I don't think learning to fight hand-to-hand with a staff should give you a boost to spellcasting. On the other hand, I don't think it would be UNBALANCED if we say yes, as long as you need to take the Dual Implement feat too to use both ends. Needs to be clarified, definitely.

Called Shot: Honestly, this is a needed boost to warlocks. They can stand a bump in damage vs other strikers. For Rangers it may be a bit much. It's still a bit of a trade off though, being the closest person when you are a ranged person. I think that it SHOULD be changed to a feat bonus so it doesn't stack with weapon focus and elemental damage boosts like raging storm.

Kind of funny that a martial-focused article has such a great power for Warlocks. I agree about a feat bonus (as well as adding a balancing attack penalty).

Arena Specialist It doesn't let YOU shift, it lets your beast companion shift. Seems fine.

It still lets the attacker move in, attack, and move out in one move, as an at-will. Keeping your Beast Companion alive is important too. (The Rogue power From the Shadows does this, but it's an encounter power, not at-will.)

Binding Style Well, it never talks about hitting the target twice JUST hitting twice. I think all you'd have to add to it is you can immobilize the target 'of your flail attack'. Problem solved.

Nice fix, I like it.

Hunting Spider Style Dual Strike Specify that the re-roll must be taken of a target you can't see.

You mean a target that can't see you, right? I think that's already implied by the way it's phrased.

Whip: Make the -2 an item 'bonus', so it isn't going to stack. The damage seems right mechanically. If you want thing to make logical sense, why does a bastard sword wielded in two hands do more than a great sword? You explain that one and I'll agree to lowering the whip damage.

Only bonuses stack, though, penalties don't. (I see what you're saying, but I think making this penalty an exception is kind of weird.) Maybe just add "once per round" or "you can only apply the penalty from one whip per attack"
.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

Bump. I know there's a lot of stuff here, and I for one have no idea how to vote on a lot of it. Does anyone else want to?

 

[Darksteed]

Hi there. I know I'm new to this forum an all and really don't have any weight here in the least. Though I thought I'd point out that the Whip's -2 penalty is only against one target of the attackers choosing and not a -2 in general like Enfeebling Strike or a Defenders Mark. As well as in general bonus or penalties of the same name don't stack. On another note, if the whip did less then a d4 I don't think anyone would use it I have a bad enough problem picking it up with it dealing only a d4 nevermind a d2 lol. Just remember a Bullwhip can leave deeper gashes in a man then a dagger at times.

Just my two cents.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Darksteed]

Anyway of getting some votes on this topic? I wouldn't mind getting Whip Training sometime down the road, if it's allowed in that is. Though if I can't get it wouldn't mind knowing so I can plan something else altogether.

Thanks for your time.

 

[renau1g]

I think it's already approved as there was no proposal NOT to allow it under the new proposal system.