On page 87 of the magazine, two feats are completely obsolete. I wish the writers/editors of articles involving feats and spells would make sure they weren't duplicating existing material in previous magazines or WotC D&D products.
SNEAK ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY: This feat is obsolete due to the fact that this feat, both in name and purpose, has already been establish in the Epic Level Handbook. The feat in that book, also known as Sneak Attack of Opportunity, allows for the same results. The only difference is the epic version doesn't limit it to just the 1st AoO of your turn. My suggestion is to call the epic feat "Improved Sneak Attack of Opportunity" and list the Dragon Magazine one as a prerequisite to it, or ignore the feat entirely. Also, the only good this feat brings is for those that want the ability but do not plan to play in epic level campaigns.
TWO-WEAPON ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY: This feat is ~completely~ obsolete! In the Miniature's Handbook there is a feat that already serves the exact purpose called Double Hit. So, pretty much, this feat truly has no purpose.
ADVICE: Please check other sources before submitting material to make sure you're not duplicating anything by accident.
Not everyone can afford to purchase all the supplements. Neither the ELH nor the Miniature's Handbook are core manuals (well, okay, the ELH is semi-core, as it's part of the SRD), and with just the number of WotC books published (not counting all the third-party supplements) there are bound to be a number of repeats.
Additionally, when a repeat shows up, you can assume that any changes supercede the originals. The Epic Level Handbook is 3.0 material - even with the 3.5 update booklet, it's not '3.5' enough, in my opinion. Also, the Miniature's Handbook was written half for the D&D Miniature's game, which only has a passing resemblance to D&D, rules-wise. It also contains some items in it which break the rules - for instance, the Belt of Magnificence, an item which grants a +6 enhancement bonus to ALL ability scores, for only 300,000 gp (I don't want to recalculate what it should cost right now, but I know that that price falls short of what it should be). There are people who, because of discrepancies like this, do not consider the Miniature's Handbook a proper D&D supplement.
TWO-WEAPON ATTACK OF OPPORTUNITY: This feat is ~completely~ obsolete! In the Miniature's Handbook there is a feat that already serves the exact purpose called Double Hit. So, pretty much, this feat truly has no purpose. isn't MHB a 3.0 book?
I know that the ELH is 3.0
your arguments seem to fall a little light in that regard...
besides... oh no, two feats that do the same thing, the horror... it is far better to just assume that all readers have acess to all of the sources.. oh wait that was sarcasm...
isn't MHB a 3.0 book?
It's 3.5 - with some mistakes. Not that I don't agree with you.
True, so then they should just place such feats in sidebars and state where the feat came from. They do it all the time in Dragon. They did it with Improved and Greater Combat Reflexes.
Also, Miniature's is 3.5 rules so it is updated. That still doesn't mean the feat in should be repeated under a different name and different prerequisites and statistics elsewhere. You'll just confuse the gaming community by being inconsistent.
------------------------------------------------------
PLAYER #1: "I have Double Hit from Miniature's Handbook. I brought it to show you, DM."
PLAYER #2: "Neat, what does it do? I never read that book."
#1: "Allows me to make an AoO with both weapons when fighting with two weapons."
#2: "I have a feat like that too but...it's not called that. It's Two-Weapon Attack of Opportunity. The DM let me use it from his Dragon magazine."
*The two compare the feats*
#1: "Ok, this is weird. My prerequisites were Combat Reflexes, Two-Weapon and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Yours only has Combat Reflexes and Two-Weapon Fighting. Not fair, yours has faster prerequisites."
#2: "Not fair for me you mean! My feat says I have to count both attacks as a use of an AoO, whereas yours says it counts only as 1 use!"
*Both turn to the DM, wanting him to make an official call on which feat has more priority now. He sighs and slaps his forehead as he wonders when inconsistencies like this will stop?*
------------------------------------------------------
So if you like inconsistencies, continue trying to debate your point because so far there's no sense to it yet.
I discovered some good use for Sneak Attack of Opportunity. Bad name, since it's been taken. I'll just call the one in the ELH "Epic Sneak Attack of Opportunity."
The use I have discovered was after reading the differences between the ELH feat and the #340 one. The ELH requires Sneak Attack +8d6 and the rogue ability opportunist. It also allows any AoO made to be a SA. This leaves it unavailable to Ninja, Assassins, and anything else that can't get Opportunist as a class ability.
However, the #340 has only Combat Reflexes and SA +3d6 as a prerequisite. Faster, yes, but the SA only counts for the ~1st~ AoO made for the turn as opposed to all AoO for the turn. So the epic properties of the ELH version has been kept. That's good. No inconsistencies there. Also, with opportunist not being a prerequisite, it's now open to anything with SA. Yet, at the same time, the Rogues can still shine with the ELH version by opting to wait for that feat and taking opportunist. Or opt to take the weaker version.
So, yeah, the only inconsistency is the name which isn't a big deal but it is when someone is trying to reference a feat and it's ridiculous to point out "ELH version" or "Issue #340 version" or whatever nonsense. They should just watch out for repeated feat names, then.
That still leaves Two-Weapon Attack of Opportunity as still useless. : P
Director of Games
|
Ahh, the Miniatures Handbook, bane of my existence.
There is a large body of work out there for us to go through and sometimes we will miss a feat or spell that is similar to one we are planning to print. In this case, they are very similar but not identical, so this is a DMs call, as to which one he wants to use. We probably would have made numerous changes to the feat had we noticed this, and will endeavor to check more thoroughly in the future.
As for the Epic Level Feat, copying a similar power from that book, at reduced strength, is fine. Few ever get a chance to use epic feats and the ability was cool enough to reproduce at a lower level of power.
Jason Bulmahn
Managing Editor of Dragon
The all-caps on this thread make me want to run around waving my hands in the air and shouting, "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!"
Ahh, the Miniatures Handbook, bane of my existence.
There is a large body of work out there for us to go through and sometimes we will miss a feat or spell that is similar to one we are planning to print. In this case, they are very similar but not identical, so this is a DMs call, as to which one he wants to use. We probably would have made numerous changes to the feat had we noticed this, and will endeavor to check more thoroughly in the future.
As for the Epic Level Feat, copying a similar power from that book, at reduced strength, is fine. Few ever get a chance to use epic feats and the ability was cool enough to reproduce at a lower level of power.
Jason Bulmahn
Managing Editor of Dragon
Which was I way I created my own personal index of feats. Granted it is not complete. I skipped over feats that didn't pertain to my Forgotten Realms campaign, like the Greyhawk Regional feats in one of the Dragon issues, but it's still a hefty file with a complete index, summary, and prerequisites from almost all WotC, Dragon/Dungeon sources.
But this is how I usually discover inconsistencies really fast, like the issue with Epic Combat Expertise in "Complete Warrior" and Allied Defense in the FR book "Shining South". Compare the two and you'll see the huge inconsistency with that one.
I don't mind, in fact I love, new feats. It's just you guys need to be ever more careful the bigger the list becomes, that's all. :)
Which was I way I created my own personal index of feats. Granted it is not complete. I skipped over feats that didn't pertain to my Forgotten Realms campaign, like the Greyhawk Regional feats in one of the Dragon issues, but it's still a hefty file with a complete index, summary, and prerequisites from almost all WotC, Dragon/Dungeon sources.
Wow :) You're far more on the ball then I'll ever be! There's just so many feats -and books for that matter- to keep track of. I can remember not too long ago someone asking about a feat, what issue it was in or something like that, and scratching my head while muttering "that name sounds familiar but I'm not sure why."
Turns out it came from one of my Class Acts articles...
I would last about half a nanosecond as an editor, the continuity stuff alone would leave me huddling under a desk shouting "every fighter has to take Power Attack".
What makes you think Jason wants to make his life easier?
:P
I wonder how many inconsistencies and duplicate powers with "slightly different" rules there were in 2nd edition?
Okay, sounds like Razz maybe got Dragon on a minor technical foul.
Does that bother me? No, s**# happens and the optional rules and writing in 3.5 is a lot tighter than it ever was in the 2nd edition days.
I would last about half a nanosecond as an editor, the continuity stuff alone would leave me huddling under a desk shouting "every fighter has to take Power Attack".
Well, the archers can take Point Blank Shot, too .... but yeah, I'm with you Hal. I too have had to be reminded of feats I've actually written -- boy, is that embarrassing.
I don't know if it's the case here, but in my freelancing I've been told, depending ont he occasion, to only assume the players have the core books, and to build on that base. Here, the complaint is that the feats were pulled from other sources that aren't core. Is it possible those instructions were in play here, that the author only extrapolated something from the core books, ignoring all that is out there?
To tell you the truth, if both versions of a similar feat are balanced, and have different requirements, and one is easier to qualify for but has a slighly less advantageous use, and the other one has a better application but more stringent requirements, why would you have to disallow one? Granted, once your players look them over they will likely choose one over the other, but really, this is actually a role playing oppourtunity. One could be the style of combat taught to warriors native to country X while the other is more like the style favored by country Y. As long as one isn't so much better that no one would ever take one over the other, I don't see a big problem.
Though I do understand the whole same name different feat issue, however. But I think adding Epic or Improved fixes that one pretty easily.
Razz,
As the author of the feats in question, I'll certainly take some blame on this. I definitely should have caught Sneak Attack of Opportunity as I own the ELH and the feat is also in the SRD. Unfortunately, I don't own or have access to the Miniatures Handbook, so that one may have been unavoidable on my end. I hope you still enjoyed the rest of the article!
Peace,
Galen