Viriato's page

Any chances of martials - especially fighters - getting a book in the vein of Arcane Anthology? Something that would expand upon the absolutely fantastic Weapon Master's Handbook and Unchained's Stamina rules? Things like:

- More weapon and armor tricks
- More advanced weapon and armor training
- More alternatives for bravery (say, apply its bonus to a skill or touch AC)
- Stamina and combat tricks for feats that have yet to be covered (such as, strangely enough, those that come up in the WMH, which only explored Inner Sea feats in that regard)
- Weapon, armor or perhaps even magic item-specific stamina combat tricks
- More high-end feats like the PHBII's Weapon Supremacy
- Options that expand upon the use of Stamina, such as using it for saves or damage. Perhaps even associated with...
- Bonus-feat-replacing class features that aren't tied to archetypes

This thread isn't about the martial/caster disparity, or evening the field, but only about providing more options, which is never a bad thing. That being said, no spells, please. Ultimate Combat's 42(!) pages still rankle to this day.

After deciding to use Unchained's Active Spellcasting rules in my next campaign, namely the Spell Attack Roll (instead of monsters making saves, players roll against a "DC" of 11 + the monster's save bonus). I thought I might as well err on the player dice agency side, and am thinking of adapting 3.5's Defense Roll as well, in which, instead of monsters rolling against my players' static AC, players would roll with their applicable armor bonuses (with the benefit of also being able to use, say, Action Points) against a DC of 11 + the enemy's applicable attack bonuses.

This seems like it'd work well enough in low- to mid-levels, but I'm unsure about late game. What do you guys think? I know it'll entail a lot of rolling, but some of my players tend to lose focus when it's not their turn and enemies make full attacks against them, so I think it'll be well received by them.

Also, it got me thinking: Since the base '10' in DCs and AC is assumed to be a 'Take 10' of sorts, and the average d20 die roll is an 11, why isn't the base an 11, as rightly applied in the Spell Attack Roll rules? Why shouldn't AC be 11 + X? Preference for round numbers?

Hi all,

Just going back into the game after a prolonged absence, so please do bear with me if I'm missing something glaringly obvious. The trait's description states:

"Whenever you make an attack that reduces a foe to 0 hit points or fewer or you confirm a critical hit, your attack deals 1 additional point of damage."

The critical part I understand, and the trait would be fine just with that, IMO, but whatever is the point of dealing an additional point of damage when reducing a foe to 0 or fewer hit points? Is it for GMs who actually bother tracking foes' negative hit points, or just to make sure that your foe never gets staggered? Seems like a quizzical, extremely situational addendum to me. Why not, say, deal +1 damage on your *next* attack after downing a foe?

Reasonably certain that this has been discussed before in some fashion, but I can't for the life of me find it. Could someone please summarize what role each of the new core classes fills? I seem to recall a designer saying they were there to fill missing roles that the *core* core classes had left vacant, but other than the Summoner and, to a point, the Alchemist, I can't see which exactly.

Why is dazzle even an option, when blind is as easily accomplished, mechanics-wise? Is dazzle just an option for players with stingy DMs who might actively make an effort to deprive their characters of any means in their surroundings with which to blind their enemies?