Proposal: PH2 and SORCERER

[Lord Sessadore]

I just wanted to point out that I believe Storm of Blades as written is actually less problematic than Rain of Blows.

1. While the number of potential attacks is higher, in practice this it doesn't have the base probability of making as many attacks as RoB's, since one miss ends it.

2. Much harder to do cheesy recursion tricks with.

3. Barbarian multi-classing doesn't currently give access to such stupidly good PP's as the Pitfighter.

4. It's much more stat dependent than RoB's

5. It's actually belongs to a striker class, and that's what they're supposed to do.

That's not to say I don't think it's maybe too good, but if you're not going to nerf RoB's I wouldn't touch this one. The biggest problem with it, is a general problem with the Barbarian class IMO, that maybe it's better to multi-class in and cherrypick than it is to actually be a Barbarian.

Valid points, all.

As with all multiple attack powers, it only becomes problematic when you play the system - getting a big attack bonus (usually from your leader-type), high static damage bonus, etc... More problematic the higher level you go.

But yes, the fact that a single miss ends the power is a big balancing factor. It's not much more powerful than [that ranger power whose name evades me at the moment - there was a big fuss over it right after 4e was released]. Which, since the barb is a striker, doesn't bother me much. A big reason I'm not a big fan of RoB is because it's a fighter power, and fighters aren't strikers.

 

[Oni]

I have been half expecting there to be errata capping it at 5 attacks to bring it in line with Blade Cascade.

 

[Don Incognito]

Storm of Blades is not a problem until 13th level. We can cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

 

[KenHood]

Here's my two cents...

Stop nerfing!

Stop it!

Bad humans! Bad!

Shame on you!​

Cheese and rice, fellas! All the arguments against powers delve into a bunch of exceptions and conditions and whozamacallits that happen once in a blue moon. Why not just reward players when that happy conjunction of rare circumstance takes place? It won't hurt nothin'--just some imaginary bad-guys who had it coming.

If it's screwy, WOTC will straighten it out in time.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

If somebody starts abusing a power, I have no problem submitting, "Proposal: Make SlappyMcAdams stop being a jerk".

 

[Don Incognito]

^
This

Let's do this.

 

[covaithe]

So, can someone remind me what the current proposal on the table is? There seem to be three (okay, only the last two are getting discussed, but I'm counting the thread title as the first) areas of discussion:

1. Make the whole PHB2 legal, with the exceptions of...
2. What to do about expertise feats?
3. what to do about backgrounds?

After glancing through the backgrounds again, I'm happy enough with them as an alternative to our regional benefits. We might want to talk about beefing our regional benefits up to be competitive with a flat +2 skill bonus, but that's another discussion.

As far as expertise feats... Meh. That's a dilemma. As far as fixing the math goes, I think the best and fairest thing is a flat +1/2/3 to hit at levels 5/whatever/whatever, and disallowing the expertise feats. As far as flavor goes, I prefer a free expertise feat at level 5, in just one weapon/implement, but that really does seem to penalize certain classes. Leaving the expertise feats as they are in the PHB2 has the same problem. I suppose banning the feats altogether would be fair, too, but leaves the math error unsolved.

What's wrong with the idea of a flat +1 to hit at level 5, and increasing thereafter, other than that it lacks flavor? Are there any mechanical objections to it? At the moment, given a choice between fairness and flavor, I'm reluctantly leaning towards fairness.

 

[Atanatotatos]

About expertise, I don't really see nothing wrong with the flat bonus (aside from flavor. But honestly, there are so many ways to customize weapon/implement use that I don't really see that as a problem). Should a DM feel that the characters have an easier time than they should, he can always put them against higher-level monsters.

Regarding things that were mentioned to be too powerful, I remember Echoes of Thunder (feat) and Storm of Blades (barbarian power). Although, I'm pretty sure there would be more.

And backgrounds? From the (few) opinions I've read, it seems the majority likes them. I suppose our custom ones, but I suppose they can come in handy.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

What's wrong with the idea of a flat +1 to hit at level 5, and increasing thereafter, other than that it lacks flavor? Are there any mechanical objections to it? At the moment, given a choice between fairness and flavor, I'm reluctantly leaning towards fairness.

I've also come around to the idea of a flat bonus instead of a free feat. The only thing wrong with it is that if you ban Expertise feats totally, then players can't choose to use a feat slot at Level 1 in order to get Expertise early. I don't really like the idea of allowing people to take Expertise but it becomes useless and must be trained out of at Level 5, because that's such a huge special case compared to how any other feat works.

 

[Atanatotatos]

I would put some thought in allowing that (a feat that works like expertise, and you can take, but gets automatically retrained at 5th), simply because, as it's been said many times, it makes some weird, but interesting combinations more playable. And variety is a good thing, right?