Acererak

Idran's page

Organized Play Member. 35 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I'd like to cancel my RPG subscription for now, since I won't need the Beginner Box. Thanks in advance!


Malachi Tarchannen wrote:
Croat-guy wrote:
Vision impairment does not effect the accuracy of area-of-affect spells. Blind players may select a square and reliably be able to cast that spell in that square.
Malachi Tarchannen wrote:


No, a blind caster cannot accurately cast a fireball...
DM_Blake wrote:


I disagree.

From your own quoted aiming rules, only the first one ("Target") requires you to see the target. You only need to designate an "Area" spell ("I designate a spot 30 feet directly in front of me" works just fine), you don't need to see to aim a "Ray" spell at all (it explicitly says so), and you don't need to see to aim an "Area" spell ("I select a point 30 feet directly in front of me" is good...

I think you missed my point. I was not arguing that a blind caster couldn't cast the spell at all, only that he couldn't cast it accurately. Area spells require you to select your point of origin. Perhaps the squirreliness of the rules allows for both your interpretation and mine; I'm resorting to commonsensicalness in my reasoning. That is, how does someone select a point he can't see? How does he say "I select a spot 30 feet directly in front of me" when he doesn't know what that spot is, or (more importantly) who's in it?

Again, I'm not saying he can't cast the spell at all; I'm only saying he doesn't know where "30 feet directly in front of me" is. So, for instance, a growl emminated from a dense fog, I say the caster could cast a fireball in that general distance and direction, but as he cannot see/select his point of origin, he cannot cast the spell with accuracy, and so he is liable to miss the point of origin.

That's all.

Mal

And that's why the targets of the spell in that situation get total concealment, and so you have a 50% miss chance.


DM_Blake wrote:

Look at the base dragon statistics. Each color dragon has a set of base statistics listed for that color. For example, the base statistics for a Red dragon says they gain Frightful Presence as a Juvenile (age category 4) but for a Black dragon they don't gain the ability until Adult (age category 6).

I, on the other claw, am born with it. FEAR ME! (well, at least fear me if you are within 300 feet of me).

Oh, so it does! Haha, my mistake. Thanks!


In the stat blocks for dragons, I notice the young dragons don't have frightful presence listed in the auras, only the adult and ancient ones do. But the general dragon rule description doesn't give the minimum age for frightful presence. What is the minimum age category for that?


Sakai wrote:
Can anyone tell the name of the monster on the illustration, and where to find the stats ? Thanks

While I can't help you for stats, I'm pretty sure that's going to be a "redemption" of the piercer, the stalactite monster from old editions of D&D. :D


I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this, but it looks like there's something weird going on with the layout in the Skills chapter in the beta. Some skill descriptions have normal case in their headers, while some have all uppercase, and I don't see any pattern or meaning behind the difference in the two. Even stranger, Heal has normal case in the skill name in the header, but then the parenthetical is uppercase.

It's a little thing, yeah, but I figured you'd want to know tiny layout problems like this as much as tiny rules problems that might pop up.


Frank Trollman wrote:


My suggestion is to play at lower level. High level play in D&D is actually quite mad, where player characters can literally transport themselves across the world and even to other realms of existence and wipe out entire cities with a wave of the hand. If you don't want to deal with the transdimensional magical economy that D&D implies, you'll want to play at levels 1-8. Because at level 9 every Cleric automatically knows planeshift and can literally go to the City of Brass and bargain as an equal with the residents who can create two and a half tons of silver as a standard action.

Heh. Unfortunately, even that's not an option for me. My setting of choice is Planescape, so even if I did stick to low levels, I still would have to keep in mind these consequences, and either rewrite pre-existing material so that they express themselves, or figure out why they don't. I mean, it doesn't make sense for, just to give an example, the Dao to have their millions of earth elemental slaves toiling away in the plane of Mineral if they can just find someone they can use their Limited Wish with and split the magicked-up proceeds.

Though I do have to acknowledge, some of the high-ups in Sigil were said to have enough resources to buy and sell multiple Prime worlds if they so desired.

But anyway, even at low levels, the players would in some way bump elbows with the elite classes, just by the setting's nature. Certainly not in combat, but in some way. So as it is, I'm going to have to figure out something to do.

Ah well. At least, if nothing else, that Mount Celestia trick wouldn't work there. Don't follow a path of morality, you're not getting above Lunia, no matter what fancy magic tricks you've got. Thank heavens for small favors, eh? :D

Anyway, thanks for posting this thread if nothing else. It's given me something to think about, at least.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

I'm with the OP, as I've said on another thread.

As an aside, re necromancy, the 20th level power seemed odd to me. If you can become undead, but not a lich, at 20th level, how come there are so many liches about? Yeah, I know you only need to be level 13, but even so can't you just wait and adventure a bit (I know I am being somewhat facetious, but i think there is nevertheless a minor game logic issue here).

The power and the immortality, I'd imagine. Keep in mind, you don't get a phylactery with Deathless. If someone manages to kill you, that's it, with no chance to come back. Plus you don't get all the lich-specific abilities.


Demon9ne wrote:
Bocklin wrote:

I like the direction taken to handle damage to objects, with the "broken" condition, etc.

But if the "Mending" spell is an orison or a cantrip, it can be cast at will. So why say that it repairs 1d4 points of damage? Given a couple of rounds, a cleric or wizard could repair any damaged item with this spell.

Is this by design? Or am I missing something?

Maybe it should say: "this spell can only be used once on an object until it has been fully repaired" or something to that effect

Read Make Whole - which is required if an item has reached 0hp.

Right, but he's talking about if an item is damaged but not yet at 0 hp.


That's a good point, I didn't think of that issue. That would be problematic if it was codified into the system.

There's just something that rubs me the wrong way about picturing wizards using something like Wish as the basis for an economy. It'd be nice if I could better describe why exactly I don't like the idea, because that might give me better ground to propose an alternative. But as it is, all I can say is I don't, and I'm not exactly sure why. I guess it's like it takes a little bit of the wonder out of magic, to reduce it to something so small. It doesn't feel...escapist enough, I suppose. It's not fantastic enough, which is funny considering I'm talking about mages regularly magicking up enchanted equipment out of nothing at all; hard to get more fantastic than that, and yet it still feels cold.

I do still acknowledge that yes, as is this issue still exists at high levels. But unfortunately even though I don't like Frank's solution and don't really want to play with it on either side of the screen, I can't think of a better answer either.


JRM wrote:
Idran wrote:
...Or have I been doing skills wrong for years? The way I've been doing it, a skill only counts as class in terms of points spent per rank if it's a class skill for the class you're leveling at the time. Is this wrong?
Nope, that's right according to the rules.

Okay, good, I was worried for a second.

Well then, with this in mind, is there any easy way to do that sort of skill point audit for a multiclassed character besides just keeping track of what points you spent under what class as you leveled up?


revshafer wrote:

This is one thing that I do not understand...why does a DM put up with this? If someone cast darkness and then said, "I'm reading a book"...I'd say, "That's ridiculous." I don't care how its written, because when something this silly happens I just wouldn't go with it.

It will be interesting to see the revamp, and I am looking forward to more spells!

Thanks,

Scott

Because while this is true, the rules should still be edited to remove such cases for clarity. In 99% of campaigns, it wouldn't be allowed, yes; it's the fact that the rules as written allow it, and thus they should be rewritten to make them fall in line with common sense.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Please remove the INT bonus to how many skills are known and increase the skills known for each class by 2.

This will fix a great deal of strangeness but there are two things in particular I'd like to point out as it fixing
1.) Assume you have a Barbarian with 10 int with the skills climb, jump, listen, and survival. Compare it to a Barbarian with 12 int who has picked up the additional skill ride. Why is the character better able to pick up skills which have nothing to do with int just because he has a higher int?

You know, this is a good point, and it's never occured to me before.

I know back in 2e, you got an Int-based bonus to the number of Proficiencies you got, but you were limited to taking Int- and Wis-based skills; at the time, the mental ones, essentially. Maybe a similar change could be made here, say that your Int bonus can only apply to Int-based skills?

Of course, then there's the problem of why Int gets that bonus and no other stat, so maybe it would make more sense to drop the Int bonus entirely.


Fake Healer wrote:
Paul Snell wrote:

Just discovered the clincher.. "Cannot use more than one combat feat in a round" pg34.

That balances it out pretty nicely in my mind with that limitation.
Solved.

That's been changed with the 4 page update to Alpha release.

No it hasn't. There's no feat chains anymore, but you're still limited to using one combat feat per round. That's why Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot were removed from the Combat Feat list.


Frank Trollman wrote:


And that's where the Turnip Economy, the Gold Economy, and the Wish Economy come in. If you establish right at the outset that equipment over the 15,000 GP limit is not purchasable by gold, then having characters do stupid gold accumulation tricks stops being problematic the moment that a character wants and needs equipment that is in a higher price bracket than that.

And we literally can't stop people from doing stupid gold accumulation tricks, because gold is a physical object that exists in the fantasy world in discrete locations. If people want to take on non-threatening tasks to get that physical gold and put it in santa sacks that is totally possible.

-Frank

I see your point here. But this puts me, and DMs like me I would assume, in a conundrum.

I want to play D&D. However, I don't want to play in a setting where wishing items into existence is so common as to be the basis for an economy, because that just doesn't seem fun to me. And I also don't see an alternate system, because the problem you bring up is a real one.

So, what are DMs and players that feel similarly to me supposed to do? And I'm saying now, "play a different system" isn't an option, because I don't want to play a different system, I want to play D&D.

So, what alternative solutions to the Wish economy exist at these high levels, Frank? All I can think of myself is either "don't play with players that want to do stupid gold accumulation tricks" or "just pretend that society is exactly the same, only it has magic that hasn't actually effected society at all ever", but neither of those deals with the actual issue. And I can't imagine that this is the only possible, workable, simple system that's ever been thought of for the issue.

I mean, I think this is why so many people are resisting it. Because the idea of wizards Wishing up magic items for trade just isn't fun to them; the various objections are just more detailed ways of expressing this opinion, or the specific form the opinion takes for them.

Edit: I think Geraint might be on to something - I missed his post before. What if the higher level items don't have an actual price at all? That is, they can't be easily bought? Go back to a pseudo-2e like system. These items have "prices" associated with them, but these values are solely for balancing purposes, there's no way to actually be assured of being able to purchase them...well, anywhere. That way, high level characters can't grind up gold from the low level quests or use other tricks to be able to get access to items much more powerful than they should otherwise have.

In fact, I realize now that this is basically what I've been doing, though not so strict. When a PC wants an item in my game, I consider if it's one that could reasonably be obtained in the general area they're at, and if so, I let them take it. But then again, I've never really DMed a 3.5 game that went that high of a level, so the issue of Wishes never really came up for me.

What about this, combined with simply striking the magic item conjuring from the Wish description?


Praetor Gradivus wrote:


The reason dismissal/banishment matters (and is not silly) is that a Tiefling might just find himself one day going to a plane other than his home plane and so he can be dissmissed/banished from that plane back to his/her home plane thus denying the party of a member (even if only temp.).
Secondly, the existing fluff on tiefling indicates the -2Cha is because others tend to be unsettled by them... ugly has nothing to do with it...

Finally, argumentum ad hominem (ie if the person believes it's that way, they must be silly/stupid/ignorant etc.) is fallacious and shouldn't be part of anyones post IMHO.

No, no, I'm not calling Frank silly. I'm saying the rule is silly. You're right about the extraplanar travel issue, yes. But all creatures gain the extraplanar subtype and are susceptible to banishment when off of their homeplane, not just Outsiders. So your human, halfling, elf, etc. party members could be banished back to the Prime just like the others.

But according to the rules excerpt from Players Guide to Faerun that Frank posted, even if they're from the Prime, they can be Banished from the Prime...to the Prime. How does that work? That is what I am saying is silly.

(The Clueless deal was me using some Planescape Cant as a lighthearted way of resolving the contradiction.)

As for the Tiefling Cha mod comment, that was a joke. Frank refered to them as one of the "ugly races" before, meaning an evil race. So I made a pun based on the term, and the fact that usually tieflings are shown as quite the opposite. As a second example, Annah from Planescape: Torment.


Big Jake wrote:
Samuel Weiss wrote:
According to the rules, and without taking major cross-class skill ranks, a farmer has trouble identifying what his cow is.

Just a thought... to me a farmer would be an NPC expert, not a commoner, and hence would have the knowlege skill as a class skill, and plenty of skill points to use.

The commoner would be hired help to feed the pigs, pick up the eggs, or whatnot, and wouldn't be expected to have ranks in any knowledge skill. Or possibly the husband of the farmer, who doesn't know anything about farming and would probably lose the farm outright if his wife died.

Either way, could we just put the argument over the hyperbole to rest and move the discussion onward and upward?

-Casey

The DMG specifically mentions farmer as an example of a Commoner, unfortunately for this case.


Andrew Betts wrote:


As a player and DM one thing that has brought me the most grief is making sure skills are right. I try to audit my own character sheets at least two to three times a month and while it's usually really quick sometimes you get accidental erasures and marks and you have to recheck numbers. When you are not sure exactly how many skill points you have at each level or if you took a cross-class skill here or there, it gets really cumbersome.

As a DM I look over my players sheets about once a month just to a) make sure I know their characters and b) do a traditional audit. With new players in the group that don't understand class and cross-class I sometimes have something like a third level fighter with six ranks in spot and listen and such and numbers don't always add up.

You know, I'd like to do this myself, since I'm sure I've made an arithmetic error here and there on some characters, but I've always run into trouble with multiclassing. How do you handle things there?

...Or have I been doing skills wrong for years? The way I've been doing it, a skill only counts as class in terms of points spent per rank if it's a class skill for the class you're leveling at the time. Is this wrong?


Frank Trollman wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Frank Trollman wrote:

It's also important to note that the Outsider-only affecting spells are actually a lot nastier at most levels than the Humanoid-only spells. Sure it sucks that people can hold person you rather than having to use hold monster, but having people dismiss or banishment you is no improvement.

-Frank

that only works on native outsiders off there native plane.It is nasty though

Actually, the rules are way harsher than that on Planetouched. The basic Forgotten Realms book goes into exquisite painful detail that Native Outsiders count as "extraplanar creatures" for the purposes of spells like banishment. The Player's Guide to Feyrun is even harsher, and has this chestnut:

Player's Guide to Feyrun, p. 191 wrote:
Planetouched are humanoids (not outsiders with the planetouched subtype. They are susceptible to spells and effects that specifically target both humanoids or outsiders. Charm person works against them, and so does banishment. This trait replaces the outsider entry in each planetouched description.

Being a Tiefling hurts. A lot.

-Frank

That's ridiculous. Where exactly are they banished to? Banishment says it's a more powerful version of dismissal, which means that all aspects of dismissal apply unless specifically contradicted in the description of banishment. Dismissal specifies that it sends its target back to its home plane, and banishment says nothing about where its targets end up, thus this aspect of dismissal still applies to banishment. A tiefling's home plane is most likely the Prime. So where does this Primeborn tiefling end up? That's an idiotic rule that can't even be applied ever, and if a rule can't be applied, it may as well not exist.

Personally, I'd chalk that up to Faerunians just being silly Clueless, wrong about yet another planar thing, much as how they're wrong about the Dark of their own cosmology. Green Fields indeed.

Also, on tieflings being an "ugly race": did you see their 3.0 MM picture? That alone's an argument against a Cha penalty, I'd say. :D


Taliesin Hoyle wrote:

Having something like that as canon is missing the point. You can homerule him in as a deity if you want to. That is a more fitting tribute, and it allows those of us who do not want real world stuff in our setting to keep our consistent mythos.

So do it yourself and don't inflict thinly veiled tribute gods on the rest of us. I like the deities of Golarion as is. More of them is not something I look forward to. The hundreds of indistinguishable gods of Toril and Oerth are appalling to me. Having a well developed and small pantheon that can get depth instead of breadth in their detail is a good thing.

Yeah, the Golarion deities are completely free of real-life influence. No real world stuff to be found here. Entirely free and clear, boy howdy.

(Note that I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just that it's silly to say there's no real world stuff in the Golarion pantheon.

And also expressing a bit of irritation at calling the Oerthian deities interchangeable. >:)


Set wrote:
All DMs are evil wrote:
The energy ray deals 1d4 points of damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess.

Since 1st edition, D&D writers have been awful about the 'every two caster levels' thing. Sometimes it means even-numbered levels, sometimes it means 'every two caster levels after the one where you get the spell' and ends up being odd-numbered levels.

So. Freaking. Annoying.

I wish they'd just write 'every odd-numbered level' or something.

If it's every two caster levels, no modifier, then it's every even caster level.

If it's every two caster levels after something, then it's two caster levels after it, then four, then six, etc.

Same pattern for any "every N levels/caster levels" ability.

I've never seen something that varied from this standard in 3.5 or Pathfinder, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the definitions WotC and Paizo have in their style guides. Do you have an example of a place where one of these isn't used in this manner?

TK342 wrote:
All DMs are evil wrote:

Very simple question, the evocation power (version 1.1)

The energy ray deals 1d4 points of damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess.

1) Is this 1d4+2 at 2nd level, 1d4+3 at 4th up to 1d4+11 at 20th.
OR
2) Is it 2d4+2 at 2nd level, 3d4+3 at 4th up to a very respectable 11d4+11 at 20th (ouch).

I am 99.9% sure it is the first option, but I wanted to clarify that every one else has the same interpretation as me, my limited grasp of written English makes me think there is some punctuation missing, or it requires an example for those on the lower end of the IQ scale such as my self.

actually, as written, it is 1d4 at 1st level, 1d4+1 at second level, 1d4+2 at 4th level, up to 1d4+10 at 20th level.

1d4 base, and add an additional point of damage for each 2 caster levels.

That is interesting. For some reason, Evocation sucks at at-will blasting compared to Conjuration? How does that make any sense?

Keep in mind, Conjuration is a damage-dealing school too, but mostly for actual, physical damage, like actually hitting someone with physical acid. Conjuration has only acid at 1d6, while Evocation has any energy at 1d4.

Still a bit tilted, and you're right that Evocation's ability should be more damage focused, perhaps. But it's not like Conjuration isn't a school of dealing damage in addition to summoning in its own right.


It says on page 62 (PDF page 63) of the Alpha that it's Fast. Near the bottom of the left column.


Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:


Actually they do, they have to choose 2 forbidden schools, but have the flexibility of using those spells if they REALLY need to, if they do, then they lose their specialist abilities for the day.

No, they only lose the bonus when they prepare spells from prohibited schools. They don't lose access to any of the level-based abilities.


TommyJ wrote:

My feeling is that no spell should cost xp or even rare/expensive components. If a spell is balanced out by these extra costs, the spell needs to be powered down, so that there is no need for the extra price.

The reasons for this is simple.
Players (in my experience) will never choose to cast a spell that cost xp. Never.
Players will never want a spell with expensive components, they will feel cheated.
Rate components that need to be chased down, belong in magical rituals - part of some storyline plot or something - not regular everday spells.

If it requires that sort of component then it's not meant to be a regular, everyday spell. Not every spell you can memorize should be.


Tenbones wrote:

Iterative Attacks - GET. RID. OF. THEM. They are a headache for new players. They are a whip for specialized players who dual-wield and have unarmed combat with a small gauntlet in one hand and a foot to kick with, and a kama in the other. The point is - just give players another attack at full bonus every +5 BAB. And bring back the 3/2 iteration.

BAB = +1 - +4: 1 attack per round
BAB = +5 - +9: 3/2 (two attacks on round one, one on round 2)
BAB = +10 - +14: 2 per round
BAB = +15 - +19: 3 per round
BAB = +20: 5/2

You know that 5/2 is less than 3 attacks per round, right? 5/2 is 3 one round and 2 the next, 5 every 2 rounds.


Locworks wrote:


It's very easy to take a new player and point to the various races in the LoTR movies to explain what a dwarf or a halfling look and may act like. More experienced players can handle celestials, lovecraftian creatures or monsters but these are not covered as well in literature and movies as *playable races* i.e. heroes and therefore harder to grasp than the stout dwarf or the lucky halfling.

There's something amusing about saying lovecraftian creatures aren't covered well in literature. :D


NSTR wrote:
Also I understand the way you feel when it comes to being a simulationist. I do not think the 3.5 system with skill ranks is good at that either. The character does not have to do anything in particular to get those ranks and where they place them. Player "Oh, I think I will take this skill now." GM: "Why? You have never thought about using it before and you never trained in game how to do that." See, unless you have GM house rules that you have to do some in game training to learn how to do something, which all players I know would shun, then it is a very similar problem to both systems.

You don't need a house rule. DMG, page 197 gives rules for requiring an instructor to learn a new feat or skill or improve an existing skill.


Asgetrion wrote:


Thanks, now I finally get it! :) I hope that Jason, Erik, Lisa and others read these threads -- like you, I'd surely like to see all classes get at least 4 skills at 1st level, but I think Bard and Ranger should still get 6 skills and Rogue 8 skills.

The problem with that is you'd have folks dropping into bard or rogue for one level just to get the extra skills, and then using the rest of their advancement as normal.

Personally, I like the idea of all classes getting 4+Int, or if nothing else, not having any class get more than 6+Int.


Fatespinner wrote:


Seriously, Weapon Groups were the best thing to come from Player's Option: Skills & Powers.

Fixed that for you. :D


With the new school-based class abilities, I really don't think this is an issue. Each wizard except the abjuration specialist has some sort of offensive ability they can use at will, meaning you no longer run into that problem of low-level mages being useless after expending their allotment of spells per day; even abjurers have a useful at-will combat ability at 1st level. And really, when are high-level mages ever going to run out of spells?

When would this problem come up anyway?


I'd agree with keeping Wish, but making it for spell-duplication only. That really seems to fit the flavor of Universalists truly being universal casters.


Charlie Brooks wrote:
Unless I'm misreading things, this Universal school power seems pretty potent at low levels. My elven wizard has a 13 Strength and an 18 Intelligence. At 1st level, he can either attack someone in melee with a +1 to hit and damage, or he can back off and concentrate to have a spectral hand wield said weapon, fighting with a +4 to hit and damage to anyone within 30 feet. Essentially, I can have fighting skill about equal with the group's warrior at 1st level. At higher levels, it's more beneficial to me to fight with the Hand of the Apprentice than it is to draw a dagger and throw it myself. While wizards are supposed to be better with magical than blades, it still strikes me as odd.

Concentrating is a standard action, right? So what makes this any different from the Evocation or Necromancy 1st level power? It's basically taking in one of the good ideas from 4e, making it so wizards aren't useless after they burn all their memorized spells.


Jeremy757 wrote:

I say dump the entire experience point system as it stands, it gets too caught up in the minutia: CR, EL, xp. Too many variables to mess with and juggle. I don't know many DMs that ever sat down to figure out how much xp his encounters were according to CR and EL. Every single DM I know or have gamed with ALWAYS hand waves the xp. They give out what they think is appropriate and move on.

I think the simplest way to do xp in a new edition would be to just give a single point for each player per session. Then give out extra points for completing story goals, completing story arcs, defeating a particularly difficult creature, good role playing, etc. For a total of 1 to 10 points per session. Then when you get 10 points you reach second level, 30 points: 3rd level, 60 points: 4th, 100: 5th, etc., or something along those lines.

That takes so much book keeping out of the rules its not even funny (not that many DMs did any of that book keeping anyway).

No offense, but how do you know that your set of DMs well-represents the game as a whole? I mean, maybe that's what every DM you've gamed with has done, but every DM I've gamed with actually has calculated the XP for it, including myself. That's including figuring out story awards etc. as well. So from my perspective, if I were to go just from personal experience, I'd say it's entirely the case that people do.


Kurt Wilson wrote:


Second, eliminate ALL multiple die damages. This is statistically corrupt. In First Edition, for instance, a long sword did d8, while a broadsword did 2d4. A long sword averaged 4.5 points of damage, while a broadsword averaged 5. Sounds pretty close, right..? Well, not really - a long sword was equally likely to score any number between 1 and 8, while a broadsword was 25% as likely to score a 2 (1-in-16) as a 5 (4-in-16). In fact, the broadsword was 62.5% likely to score a 4, 5 or 6. Just plain stupid. Most of that was cleared from 3.0, but a few have slipped in, especially with larger weapons. Get rid of it all.

That doesn't matter, though, because in the long run, it would have done about 5 per hit. After 50, 100, 500 swings, it would be fairly close to what it would have been if it was 5 per hit. The average is just that, the average, regardless of what the standard deviation or probability distribution of the actual results is; over the long haul, you get about the same result with a 2d4 per hit as you would if you got 5 with each hit.


It's an interesting feat idea, but me and a friend are having a debate about the intent of the feat. I say it's used when you're wielding two weapons already, given the prereqs and the name, but he says it's for using one weapon as two. Which is meant to be right?