Revision Spotlight (6/17)

[Psion]

I can't believe that there's even a debate going on as to how such a terrible piece of rules could be okay.

Oh, I can beleive it... as should be evidenced in the fact that I was sort of okay with it at first and was more concerned with the implications of follow-on feats. But the more I got to think about it, the less I like it.

Further, I really can't say I like the philosophy behind it one little bit... which seems to be "make melee king." Melee is king enough; I like variety.

And the more different things I read, the more it seems to me that the fundamental problem with many of these changes are Andy Collins' philosophies regarding "what the game should be." Paladins who pack around their horses like pokemon in the name of "making everyone at their best in dungeons" also makes me blanche. And I fear to see how the druid spell list will change to support this philosophy.

 

[mmu1]

Tell me about it. I feel like I'm in Bizzarro World.

Wulf

Wanna start a club?

What bugs me most is Andy Collins' "explanation" of it, in terms of understanding of the game it's markedly inferior to what some of the better posters around here regularly come up with.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And the more different things I read, the more it seems to me that the fundamental problem with many of these changes are Andy Collins' philosophies regarding "what the game should be." Paladins who pack around their horses like pokemon in the name of "making everyone at their best in dungeons" also makes me blanche. And I fear to see how the druid spell list will change to support this philosophy.

You've hit on something I hadn't yet managed to suss out, let alone articulate. There's an overall tweaking (dare I say dumbing down?) of the rules based on the assumption that all D&D must take place in a dungeon and that everything must facilitate combat therein.

There are other subtle changes (square facings, tweaks to spell ranges) that belie this, as well... I look forward to more discussion when I'm no longer bound by the NDA.

Wulf

 

[NewJeffCT]

Tell me about it. I feel like I'm in Bizzarro World.


Wulf

I know, I cannot believe all the whining about the power of such a limited use feat. People act like there will be now be hordes of arrow dodging PCs out there and that DMs will be helpless against them.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I know, I cannot believe all the whining about the power of such a limited use feat. People act like there will be now be hordes of arrow dodging PCs out there and that DMs will be helpless against them.

So answer the question:

How about we "fix" Dodge the same way? Ignore one successful melee attack per round. Instant miss.

How about a feat that allows a character to ignore the first spell cast at him in any round?

Sound reasonable?

Sound reasonable for a 1st level character?

I mean, it's not as if you can't just gang up on him or swing your sword again or cast another spell.


Wulf

 

[coyote6]

You've hit on something I hadn't yet managed to suss out, let alone articulate. There's an overall tweaking (dare I say dumbing down?) of the rules

I wouldn't call it "dumbing down"; tweaking, yes, and tweaking for reasons or in directions I'm dubious about, yeah. I'll have to see the actual books before I'd think about calling it "dumbing down".

Of course, i don't mind the new Deflect Arrows feat, either.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Well, if there were a feat that a character could take at 1st level that would allow two melee attacks in a round, or would allow a wizard to cast two spells in a round, then allowing Dodge to automatically bypass one melee attack/spell per round might be consistent.

Ludicrous, maybe, but consistent.

I'm looking at Defelct Arrows v. Rapid Shot in the same light.

Is Deflect Arrows bad design? Probably. Is it game-breakingly bad? No.

We expect a pretty high standard from WOTC -- just think of all those d20 feats out there with equal (or worse) design that don't get this level of scrutiny.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

you mean like two wepaon style.

I can't give you the 2 spell thing until level 9(7 with cantrips) and the lame unimproved quicken spell.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

No, to be consistent it would have to apply to all weapon types (not just TWF -- TWFs would get 3 attacks) -- just like Rapid Shot applies to all ranged weapons (though normal crossbows have restrictions that prevent it from being used). The spell feat would have to allow two spells per round without changing spell levels.

Like I said, ludicrous -- but consistent with what Wulf is comparing it to.

 

[Delgar]

I think it's the feat pre-requisites and conditions that make it not so powerful.

Although it's campaign specific, in all the campaigns I've played (and reading your Wulf story hour, and Piratecat's story hour), missle combat is just not as prevalant as melee combat. The PC's tend to use missles more than the NPC's. I'm not saying this is always the case, just a general trend. Most Monsters from the monster manual don't have missle weapons.

Now you have to have improved unarmed strike and then you can take deflect arrows, and you also have to have 1 hand free. Then you can deflect 1 arrow per round.

A 1st level fighter could take both feats and fight with a longsword and keep his one hand free. Now he's safe from one missle attack a round, but he's going to do a lot less damage than a two-handed sword wielder and his armor class is probably going to be lower than the weapon and shield wielder. As he progresses in levels this effect will become even more noticable.

I can't see a lot of characters other than monks taking the feat. Wizards and sorcerers could but they can't really afford the feat wastage.

I see what your saying about the mechanics of it feeling wrong, but I just don't think that matters if it's not unbalanced or not all that powerful. Anyway that's just my thought looking at the big picture.

Delgar