Search Posts
I think this is a good idea. Whether it should be used for fighters only or for any class is a good question, but it would benefit fighters most nonetheless since they are the most likely to pick numerous feats including some weapon (group) specific feats. Sky
I don't like these proposed changes on races: +2 to WIS for half-orcs? WTF? Is that the orc blood in them that makes them thusly wise? This makes no sense and screams META to me (i.e. trying to get clerics and paladins to be half-orcs). No more -2 CHA for half-orcs? "PLEASE BECOME CLERICS" (or paladins). Cut it out, please. Why not leave the -2 INT and -2 CHA and give the half-orc +2 CON? Makes more sense to me anyway. +2 to WIS for dwarves? Where does that come from? Since when have the dwarves come through as wise race? Together: META! Race weapon proficiencies: not very fond of this idea either. With every race being proficient with martial and/or exotic weapons, the weapon proficiencies are now much less interesting. EVERYONE in the world (!!) can now wield martial or exotic weapons, as long as they're of the basic classes. The gnome is presumably a frail race (optional HP rule) but gets +2 to CON?? The elf looks like a brute but gets -2 to CON? As an aside, i like the +2 to one ability for humans and half-elves.
I don't like having to use a combat feat in the round preceding the use of another combat feat (e.g. power attack before cleave). At all. First off, power attack has been nerfed enough as it is. Secondly, and more generally, spring attack is not so powerful that you need to dodge then use mobility to be able to launch a spring attack on the third round. This feat chain becomes almost useless as the number of times i'll want to use spring attack will be very low. Also, using mobility means that you need to subject yourself to an AoO. So to spring attack, you must voluntarily first subject yourself to an AoO?! Makes no sense to me. Finally, please try to keep the new rules simple. This requires keeping tabs on who uses what. Think about the poor DM that has several fighters or rogues to manage, in addition to keeping track of what his PCs do. I am strongly against this rule. Sky
Well, um... i agree with everything in there. Just sayin' :) Sky
I see the purpose of the new rule, but have the implications of such a POWERFUL ability been considered? In effect, it will be similar to Mass Cure Light Wounds in addition to damaging undead AND making them flee! So you take the old turn undead ability, and add a fifth level spell on it for curing and another say second level spell on it for damage. And you get that three times per day or more, as of first level! Turn undead would become the ultimate ability... Evil clerics would have a reason to be feared... I'd suggest that the turn undead deals damage to undead and keeps them at bay, but not fleeing. Fleeing is a bummer anyway, you have to run through the corridors to reach the stupid fleeing undead, or wait until they fall on you in another inappropriate time. Rulewise, damage as per the actual alpha version, and on their turn the undead that failed their save need to remain at least 30 feet from the cleric (i.e. move away if they're closer), unless they get attacked by the cleric. Then, the cleric could trade his turn attemps for cure spells, a bit like spontaneous casting is now. Perhaps cure one ally of an amount equal to the turn ability damage (or whatever, it doesn't matter), but not a mass cure! Inversely for negative energy, you could mass heal undead (and perhaps control them), you could also keep them at bay; or trade one rebuke attempt to deal damage to one opponent as per an inflict wounds spell (touch attack, single opponent). Sky |
