Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fissionessence" data-source="post: 4764572" data-attributes="member: 63357">Well, this was my first look at War of the Burning Sky. This looks great (although I really don't have much use for it, but it's still an interesting read). It's a cool place, with a cool story, complete with myths and plenty of stuff for new characters/players to start with.Then I got to "Section Two: New Rules." Most (all?) of the mechanics are interesting and tied to the backgrounds and setting, and it's all very evocative and interesting. However, some of it is totally broken. In fact, some of it is so broken that it actually breaks 4E, causing it to no longer function. I read everything, stopping at the rituals, so there was probably more than this, but I'm just going to flip through the pages and write about what I remember noticing. Also, I'm going to try to leave out stuff that I feel is mostly my designer's opinion, focusing on things that I believe are strictly broken (balance-wise, or in terms of actually not working right).1) Warlock's curse of flesh power uses an Intelligence attack roll (instead of Charisma or Constitution). In addition, it has an attack roll line, but no Hit line! It has an Effect, but effects don't require an attack roll. Also, I noticed that other powers have a Damage line, so I thought maybe damage would go there and other stuff would go under Effect, but in 4E rules Effect doesn't require a hit, so I really just wasn't sure what this power was even trying to do. That said, curse of flesh really needs to do damage or be way underpowered.2) Wayfarer's step teleports an enemy or an ally? Or either? What about the burning sky? And why that weird range description (not only on this power)? "Range 10; Area burst 1" should be "Area burst 1 within 10 squares". I don't know why you'd feel the need to change that. Also, why the heck is it an area? It only targets one creature! So, it should just be "Ranged 10".3) The 'background' feats concept is overpowered. I don't have a problem with that, as it allows a DM to allow his players to be a little stronger and more tied to the setting. But, I figured it was worth mentioning.4) The Cavalry Errant feat is strictly better than Mounted Combat, which is obvious, as it actually includes that feat. Once again, I don't have a problem with this as it ties the character to the setting, except that you're also potentially giving this feat away for free. I was okay with breaking these rules a little, but this is pushing it.5) Moral Insight is a very cool feat mechanic. The 'identify alignment' usage should not require a healing surge. Balance-wise, it doesn't need it, plus I'm just not groking it at all. I don't know why this is there.6) Student of War is crazily sillily overpowered. At least make this a feat bonus.7) Vow of Healing and West Wind Style don't work. They break the game. The rules do not function while these powers exist. Channel divinity can be used once per encounter, regardless of which divinity power the character uses. Thus, a divinity power that that can be used twice per encounter, or a divinity daily power just doesn't work. These concepts hurt my mind. There is verbiage that could describe how these concepts could work, but as it stands, they don't.8) Can you really have these whip rules? I'm not sure how the GSL works with DDI content.9) Potion Bracer lets me use a free action to retrive a potion stored in it. I can then follow the normal rules to drink a potion as a minor action without provoking opportunity attacks. OR I could use the Potion Bracer's ability to drink directly from the bracer as a minor action, but provoking opportunity attacks. Question: Why would I ever choose the latter option, when the former only costs me an extra free action and I don't provoke?10) The Hat of Exceptional Intelligence has a level 10 version, a level 20 version, and a level 30 version. There are no mechanical differences in them aside from their costs.End. There were other things that I disagreed with from design perspectives, but not so strongly as what's above.~ fissionessence</blockquote>

Verification