Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 4538142" data-attributes="member: 18549">I'm of two minds on this one.First, balance!&nbsp; yay!Second, isn't the problem here exactly what we had been promised wouldn't happen in 4th edition: something comes out that has a synergy with existing rules that breaks stuff?&nbsp; The Oversized ability was in the MM, with the strong implication (behind the &quot;carefully consider&quot; language) that it was to be used for player characters...because if you're making a monster, don't you decide its damage using the rules on page 185 of the DMG?&nbsp; That observation seems to make the question of the size of a minotaur's axe a flavour question rather than a mechanics question, and makes the Oversized ability apply only to characters that don't get their damage figured for them based on their level and role...i.e. Player Characters.Now, given that the Oversized ability was in the core books from day 1, it comes as something of a surprise to me that the very first splatbook to be released contains something (the Brutal property) that breaks this ability.&nbsp; This seems to me to be a problem with the design of Brutal, rather than a problem with Oversized, given that it comes in a later book than Oversized.&nbsp; Now, perhaps Oversized is broken on its own merits (it's essentially +1 to weapon damage rolls), but that's another question entirely.I get the impression that &quot;no oversized weapons for PCs&quot; is something of a hasty patch applied in retrospect after they noticed that they had broken something so early in this edition.&nbsp; And so I don't like it as a position.&nbsp; A better position would be &quot;we ought to very carefully make sure we don't break anything every time we release a new book.&quot;&nbsp; At the time, having released 1 new book, they had a 100% rate of failure with respect to that position.&nbsp; Not that I don't like the book, and it's really a minor issue; it's just that I look at this sort of thing and wonder whether it's the beginning of a trend.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lonely Tylenol, post: 4538142, member: 18549"] I'm of two minds on this one. First, balance! yay! Second, isn't the problem here exactly what we had been promised wouldn't happen in 4th edition: something comes out that has a synergy with existing rules that breaks stuff? The Oversized ability was in the MM, with the strong implication (behind the "carefully consider" language) that it was to be used for player characters...because if you're making a monster, don't you decide its damage using the rules on page 185 of the DMG? That observation seems to make the question of the size of a minotaur's axe a flavour question rather than a mechanics question, and makes the Oversized ability apply only to characters that don't get their damage figured for them based on their level and role...i.e. Player Characters. Now, given that the Oversized ability was in the core books from day 1, it comes as something of a surprise to me that the very first splatbook to be released contains something (the Brutal property) that breaks this ability. This seems to me to be a problem with the design of Brutal, rather than a problem with Oversized, given that it comes in a later book than Oversized. Now, perhaps Oversized is broken on its own merits (it's essentially +1 to weapon damage rolls), but that's another question entirely. I get the impression that "no oversized weapons for PCs" is something of a hasty patch applied in retrospect after they noticed that they had broken something so early in this edition. And so I don't like it as a position. A better position would be "we ought to very carefully make sure we don't break anything every time we release a new book." At the time, having released 1 new book, they had a 100% rate of failure with respect to that position. Not that I don't like the book, and it's really a minor issue; it's just that I look at this sort of thing and wonder whether it's the beginning of a trend. [/QUOTE]

Verification