Still more Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

[Draco_Argentum]

I wouldn't do that. Having the PC grade equipment change that much with level just promotes the item revolving door.

It would be a decent idea to give mooks mass produced kit with high essence costs. Metagame that'd stop PCs from looting every damn sword. In game you could say its easier to make high essence cost versions of stuff.

[Bigode]

It's not like the English adopted the Metric system either. I mean, that'd involve using something the French made, and changing with the times, all in the name of doing something sensible.

I actually meant "Why didn't those American fvckers adopt metric at least outta spite for the British?"

[Cynic]

It's not like the English adopted the Metric system either. I mean, that'd involve using something the French made, and changing with the times, all in the name of doing something sensible.

I actually meant "Why didn't those American fvckers adopt metric at least outta spite for the British?"

because, the americans and the british worked together a lot ever since the war of 1812 as far as i can tell.

That was the last major falling out.

And until then, while they did petty changes, the merchant class would have rebelled if you had told them to go change completely. The university system wasn't set up properly in the states to do it properly and by the time it was, well, we were butt-fecking the brits. :-D

to put it not so softly.

[fliprushman]

The new barbarian playtest is finally out.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20081006

And boy has wizards really turned away from the mechanics that they have imployed in the PHB. I don't know if that's a good thing or not but I can say that it's just a preview of things to come, WotC taking a big dump on their game. Welcome to Splatbooks being better than normal stuff again. The only mechanic/power for the barbarian I do like however is the charge ability it gets.

[Talisman]

Am I wrong, or is Recuperating Strike one of the best low-level powers there is? You do some damage + gain temporary hp...in a game of death by paper cuts, it looks entirely possible to avoid taking any real damage by spamming Recuperating Strike.

And isn't Raging Strike essentially a Daily-level power that a barb can use at-will while raging? 3[W] damage at 1st level, and it scales??

[RandomCasualty2]

And isn't Raging Strike essentially a Daily-level power that a barb can use at-will while raging? 3[W] damage at 1st level, and it scales??

The way I read it, it sounded like you had to expend one of your daily powers to use it. So it was sort of a shitty way to convert a daily.

[IdleHands]

Am I wrong, or is Recuperating Strike one of the best low-level powers there is? You do some damage + gain temporary hp...in a game of death by paper cuts, it looks entirely possible to avoid taking any real damage by spamming Recuperating Strike.

During the heroic tier, the only thing that makes Recuperating Strike better than the Paladin's Bolstering Strike is the fact that being in a rage gets you 5 more temp HP's per hit. Otherwise, you just swap out Cha for Str and Wis for Con. The thing that makes Recuperating Strike really stand out is how it improves at both paragon and epic, while Bolstering Strike only improves at epic.

And isn't Raging Strike essentially a Daily-level power that a barb can use at-will while raging? 3[W] damage at 1st level, and it scales??

RC has it right. This means you actually have to wait until 5th level to actually use Rage Strike (unless it's possible to regain use of the daily without leaving the rage before 5th). Rage Strike itself is there for barbs to use up their other dailies (rage powers) while keeping the effect of the first daily, while doing more damage than you would've by just using the daily itself. Plus, the Deadly Trickster epic destiny takes Rage Strike to new heights. Roll an 18-20 on your first rage power (daily), and it doesn't get expended. Then you have 3 uses of Rage Strike... and once those are used up, you use Epic Trick and get 3 more uses of Rage Strike, all the while enjoying the effects of the first daily. It's like a Conan wannabe's dream.

edit: It is Rage Strike isn't it...

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Rage strike is limited by the number of unused daily powers you have left. Thus, you can't even use it at 1st level because you only have one daily. And you wouldn't want to use it at that point if you could, because your 1st-level dailies do 3[W] damage plus a little effect until the end of the encounter. Now, from 5th level through the Paragon tier, the damage from the dailies doesn't scale much at all, so you might face situations where you can get in a killing blow in exchange for burning a daily. Overall, the mechanic strongly encourages barbarians to save all their dailies for the big battle at the end.

One bizarre thing I noticed: The intro says that barbarians can lean toward either defender or leader as a secondary role. However, a lot of their daily rage powers punish people for attacking the barb, thus encouraging them to attack somebody else. Again, WotC has no idea what kinds of powers fit the defender role.

[Talisman]

Whoops; I missed where it says you have to expend an unused rage power. Mea culpa. Still, it looks like it scales pretty nicely.

One bizarre thing I noticed: The intro says that barbarians can lean toward either defender or leader as a secondary role. However, a lot of their daily rage powers punish people for attacking the barb, thus encouraging them to attack somebody else. Again, WotC has no idea what kinds of powers fit the defender role.

You mean like...preventing baddies from attacking other people?
Heresy!

[Voss]

It took me a moment to realize this was a striker with a defender's hit points and an extra healing surge, and the powers do more damage because they don't have the funky striker mechanics for selecting a target and getting bonus damage from that. Definitely blurs the already fuzzy line between 'roles'.

However, the bonus damage seems to go away for the later encounter powers.

Otherwise its largely the same shit, except the character is essentially required to have a giant fucking hole where his Reflex defense should be. And AC, goddamn it.

Overall, it reminds me a of melee version of the infernal warlock. Damage and a stack of temp hp powers. Except with a shitty AC and reflex defense, which clearly boggles my fucking mind. Like the paladin, this class is largely gimped by its basic design.

Holy shit on the frenzied berserker's daily power though. Crazy-ass mutually assured destruction scenario!

Just as a note- under races they are showing off a couple that will show up in the PH2. Fucking goliaths, half-orcs and shifters. Hurrah for crazy race spam.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Whoops; I missed where it says you have to expend an unused rage power. Mea culpa. Still, it looks like it scales pretty nicely.

Yep. In fact, I have to revise my earlier assessment. From 5th level on, it scales better than most of your daily powers (damage wise) all the way through the epic tier. The major advantage of your dailies is the extra effects they give. Overall, the decision to burn the daily power is a nice tradeoff you have to think about (at least late in the combat), which is actually a good thing.

[Username17]

Yep. In fact, I have to revise my earlier assessment. From 5th level on, it scales better than most of your daily powers (damage wise) all the way through the epic tier. The major advantage of your dailies is the extra effects they give. Overall, the decision to burn the daily power is a nice tradeoff you have to think about (at least late in the combat), which is actually a good thing.

Completely disagree. Rages should be used once per combat at the beginning of combat. The very first Rage you get does 3W and adds your Con mod to all damage for every round of the combat. If you set fire to a 29th level Daily power for a Rage Strike, you'd do 9W, which equates to 6 extra d12s (or 39 bonus damage). Just having your 1st level Rage going would make you do an extra 9 damage a turn at that level. In a five round combat, hardly a strange thing at 29th level, using that 1st level Rage in its intended use provides substantially more damage than converting the most powerful Rage you know.

The ability to convert Rages into Rage Strikes is merely a way to allow you to use a Daily strike without turning off the ongoing benefit of your ongoing Rage. But the benefits of ongoing rage are so crazy awesome compared to the size of a Rage Strike that you're still way better off rationing yourself to one Daily popped per combat, at the beginning of combat, and then moving on with your life.

-Username17

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Just to chime in, the 4 item limit completely bones too many fighter-type characters. For instance, the 2 weapon fighter:
- melee weapon
- melee weapon
- ranged weapon
- armor

This character may not have a hat of disguise, a ring of feather falling, or a shield, and that makes us sad.

We are using a 10-item cap in our campaign, which is a bit high. However, it allows the fighter-types to have, on average:
2 melee weapons
2 armors
1 ranged weapon
1 Ring of Sustenance/Feather Falling/Warmth (for your 22 hour rock climbing day)
1-2 protective items (ring of protection)
2-3 other things (str-enhancing item, boots of running really fast, hat of disguise, etc.)

[Talisman]

Just to chime in, the 4 item limit completely bones too many fighter-type characters. For instance, the 2 weapon fighter:
- melee weapon
- melee weapon
- ranged weapon
- armor

I personally would only count items worn, not items held in the hand. Weapons, wands and staves (as well as single-uses) don't count. Of course, that's just MHO.

The above fighter has used one slot: armor.

[Gelare]

Just to chime in, the 4 item limit completely bones too many fighter-type characters. For instance, the 2 weapon fighter:
- melee weapon
- melee weapon
- ranged weapon
- armor

I personally would only count items worn, not items held in the hand. Weapons, wands and staves (as well as single-uses) don't count. Of course, that's just MHO.

The above fighter has used one slot: armor.

Personally, I'd say "weapon" is one slot. So if you're using a magic bow, that's one slot. If you're using one sword in each hand and one in your mouth, that's also one slot. If you're a class that doesn't normally use a weapon, congrats, you can use that slot for something else.

The above fighter has used two slots: weapon and armor.

[CatharzGodfoot]

If each item being used counts separately, you can balance a ring of protection (deflection bonus) to a dagger of parrying (deflection bonus). Otherwise there's an incentive for people to load up on as many weapons as they can carry, regardless of whether they 'use' them or not.

[Talisman]

If each item being used counts separately, you can balance a ring of protection (deflection bonus) to a dagger of parrying (deflection bonus). Otherwise there's an incentive for people to load up on as many weapons as they can carry, regardless of whether they 'use' them or not.

Except that the ring is always "on." Awake, asleep, eating, bathing, picking up cheap tiefling hookers...always active, always protecing you.

Whereas to use the dagger you have to (1) have it in hand, (2) wave it about menacingly, and (3) depending on the GM/rules, spend a feat or action or whatever.

If you try to tell my a dagger of parrying protects you while you're asleep I will laugh at you. Loudly.

[CatharzGodfoot]

If each item being used counts separately, you can balance a ring of protection (deflection bonus) to a dagger of parrying (deflection bonus). Otherwise there's an incentive for people to load up on as many weapons as they can carry, regardless of whether they 'use' them or not.

Except that the ring is always "on." Awake, asleep, eating, bathing, picking up cheap tiefling hookers...always active, always protecing you.

Whereas to use the dagger you have to (1) have it in hand, (2) wave it about menacingly, and (3) depending on the GM/rules, spend a feat or action or whatever.

If you try to tell my a dagger of parrying protects you while you're asleep I will laugh at you. Loudly.

Except nothing. When you're asleep and not 'using' the dagger, it doesn't count against the total of items that you're using. Maybe you're using a stone of alarm instead.

[Talisman]

If each item being used counts separately, you can balance a ring of protection (deflection bonus) to a dagger of parrying (deflection bonus). Otherwise there's an incentive for people to load up on as many weapons as they can carry, regardless of whether they 'use' them or not.

Except that the ring is always "on." Awake, asleep, eating, bathing, picking up cheap tiefling hookers...always active, always protecing you.

Whereas to use the dagger you have to (1) have it in hand, (2) wave it about menacingly, and (3) depending on the GM/rules, spend a feat or action or whatever.

If you try to tell my a dagger of parrying protects you while you're asleep I will laugh at you. Loudly.

Except nothing. When you're asleep and not 'using' the dagger, it doesn't count against the total of items that you're using. Maybe you're using a stone of alarm instead.

Horsefeathers.

You implied that a parrying dagger would be better than a ring of protection, assuming they both give the same bonus, because the dagger doesn't use a slot. Well, except for the fact that you have to have it in your hand to use it. Thus, it takes up a "hand slot," not a "magic item slot," and prevents you from carrying a shield, swinging a greatsword, or even holding a staff and casting a spell.

You also seemed to be implying that PCs would haul around a golf bag full of weapons for this same reason. Again, I point out that (unless you're playing a xill) the most weapons you can wield (and thereby benefit from) is two.

[CatharzGodfoot]

You implied that a parrying dagger would be better than a ring of protection, assuming they both give the same bonus, because the dagger doesn't use a slot. Well, except for the fact that you have to have it in your hand to use it. Thus, it takes up a "hand slot," not a "magic item slot," and prevents you from carrying a shield, swinging a greatsword, or even holding a staff and casting a spell.

You also seemed to be implying that PCs would haul around a golf bag full of weapons for this same reason. Again, I point out that (unless you're playing a xill) the most weapons you can wield (and thereby benefit from) is two.

Before we get into the other stuff, what do you see as the disadvantage to having only one type of item slot? What makes that inferior to having items you are holding in your hands right now count against a separate limit?


Now for the rest. If you're dealing with 'wielded weapons', two hands isn't the limit as long as armor spikes and bladed boots are a possibility. Gelare brings up the option of wielding a weapon in the mouth. You bring up the xill, which are apparently fine having double the item slots of any PHB race. Shields may or may not count depending on the scheme, whether you hold them or strap them to the arm, and whether they're being used as weapons.

I never said that separate 'hand slots' weren't workable. I simply stated that making all of your weapons count as a single "slot" encourages people to have magical armor spikes, bladed boots, and at least one weapon in hand regardless of whether they plan to use them.

You see a defending dagger as a liability. Unlike a ring of protection, you can draw it at the beginning of an encounter as a free action. If you're facing an evoker, you can instead draw a dagger of resistance as a free action. You can't switch out your rings nearly so easily.

[Talisman]

Before we get into the other stuff, what do you see as the disadvantage to having only one type of item slot? What makes that inferior to having items you are holding in your hands right now count against a separate limit?

I never said there was one.

Now for the rest. If you're dealing with 'wielded weapons', two hands isn't the limit as long as armor spikes and bladed boots are a possibility.

True. I think both are silly, both thematically and mechanically, but I'm not denying that they exist.

Gelare brings up the option of wielding a weapon in the mouth.

I'm going to give that the answer it deserves:

You bring up the xill, which are apparently fine having double the item slots of any PHB race.

Xill are monsters. Even if you allow them as PCs they come with a number of issues, such as being either massively powerful or crippled by LA, and looking like demons.

I never said that separate 'hand slots' weren't workable. I simply stated that making all of your weapons count as a single "slot" encourages people to have magical armor spikes, bladed boots, and at least one weapon in hand regardless of whether they plan to use them.

And making each weapon take up a slot encourages people to use two-handed weapons and discourages TWF and sword-and-board.

You see a defending dagger as a liability.

Never said that. I think a ring of protection is (and should be) better than a parrying dagger at providing constant protection. A parrying dagger could absolutely be a good and useful item depending on the character build, but I think it's unfair to compare the to and say "the ring takes up a slot; the dagger doesn't; therefore the dagger is better" without considering the other factors.

You can't switch out your rings nearly so easily.

Agreed, but you can switch them. If you're carrying around a golf bag of daggers, why not a chest of rings? Assuming you have any clue what you're up against, you can easily pick the rings that will be most effective.

[JonSetanta]

Personally, I'd say "weapon" is one slot. So if you're using a magic bow, that's one slot. If you're using one sword in each hand and one in your mouth, that's also one slot. If you're a class that doesn't normally use a weapon, congrats, you can use that slot for something else.

The above fighter has used two slots: weapon and armor.

I agree, but my reference to Chrono Trigger was just a reference.

To use such a limiting concept in an RPG would cause too many restrictions.

Universal slots would IMO be the best choice.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Before we get into the other stuff, what do you see as the disadvantage to having only one type of item slot? What makes that inferior to having items you are holding in your hands right now count against a separate limit?

I never said there was one.

Alright, so you're arguing for the sake of argument, rather than arguing because you see one of the proposals as superior. That's good to know.

And making each weapon take up a slot encourages people to use two-handed weapons and discourages TWF and sword-and-board.

That's completely untrue. There is no reason that, for two characters using exactly the same number of magic items, the one that's using two weapons sees less benefit than the one that's using one.

You see a defending dagger as a liability.

Never said that. I think a ring of protection is (and should be) better than a parrying dagger at providing constant protection. A parrying dagger could absolutely be a good and useful item depending on the character build, but I think it's unfair to compare the to and say "the ring takes up a slot; the dagger doesn't; therefore the dagger is better" without considering the other factors.

You can't switch out your rings nearly so easily.

Agreed, but you can switch them. If you're carrying around a golf bag of daggers, why not a chest of rings? Assuming you have any clue what you're up against, you can easily pick the rings that will be most effective.

My point was never that a dagger that grants a deflection bonus is superior to a ring that does the same. If that was the case, I should be advocating (like you) for a system that holds weapons to a separate standard. My point was that both ways of using an items have strengths and weaknesses, and in the end the items are of approximately equal utility.

You say that, with prior intelligence, you can gain exactly the same benefit from the ring bucket as the dagger bucket. Mostly true. However, you can't swap your rings around as free actions in combat. If you spend valuable combat actions fumbling with your rings, the dagger-wielder has already cut your throat.

[Talisman]

Before we get into the other stuff, what do you see as the disadvantage to having only one type of item slot? What makes that inferior to having items you are holding in your hands right now count against a separate limit?

I never said there was one.

Alright, so you're arguing for the sake of argument, rather than arguing because you see one of the proposals as superior. That's good to know.

I'm arguing because you implied that, if weapons are "slotless," a weapon that grants an AC bonus is better than a ring that does the same and I disagree with that statement. I think I've made it clear why, even if you don't agree.

My point was never that a dagger that grants a deflection bonus is superior to a ring that does the same. If that was the case, I should be advocating (like you) for a system that holds weapons to a separate standard. My point was that both ways of using an items have strengths and weaknesses, and in the end the items are of approximately equal utility.

I can agree with that, with the caveat that the utility of any given item depends heavily on the character employing it.

You say that, with prior intelligence, you can gain exactly the same benefit from the ring bucket as the dagger bucket. Mostly true. However, you can't swap your rings around as free actions in combat. If you spend valuable combat actions fumbling with your rings, the dagger-wielder has already cut your throat.

And the dagger-wielder takes a knife in the back at the local tavern, while the ring-wearer doesn't because his loss of flexibility is offset by reliability.

Daggers/weapons can be swapped quickly, but rings/amulets provide their benefits all the time.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Cool, so we're in violent agreement.