|
As writen, would a player have to declare that he was using this feat everytime they wanted to cast a spell and is that the intention of the feat.
It seems kinda odd, more like a simon says kinda rule. "Oops, you didn't declare AAT, your going to have to pay the full cost of spell failure."
Yes, and several people have had a problem with it. because it requires an action, you have to declare at the start of each round that you are using it. It can be funny some times when people forget to use their feats, like the guy in my party who didn't declare his dodge right away and when he finally did it was against an enemy that ended up dead at the end of the round. However, usually these things are just frustrating.
As writen, would a player have to declare that he was using this feat everytime they wanted to cast a spell and is that the intention of the feat.
It seems kinda odd, more like a simon says kinda rule. "Oops, you didn't declare AAT, your going to have to pay the full cost of spell failure."
Maybe just have an understanding with your DM that the feat is your default feat, and will be used unless you specifically select another.
After all, if you're casting a spell, it pretty much goes without saying you want to reduce the chance of it failing.
|
I agree. When it comes down to things like that I get concerned. What I often see is people start making table cards that have have statements like I always declare x before y. That's not really streamlined play, its CYA play.
If you are going to build a Wizard/Fighter gish, you're going to have alot of repeditive talk at the table that just gets old. easily house rules away.
How many people like this as writen. If most feel it's a good idea I'll drop my objection.
I agree. When it comes down to things like that I get concerned. What I often see is people start making table cards that have have statements like I always declare x before y. That's not really streamlined play, its CYA play.
If you are going to build a Wizard/Fighter gish, you're going to have alot of repeditive talk at the table that just gets old. easily house rules away.
I actually agree with you.
Hell, sometimes I get sick of the Rogue checking for traps at every single door. I sometimes just say, "So long as you're in front at single every door as part of a standard formation, if the door is actually trapped I'll allow you a discovery check prior to anything happening." I do that on a case by case basis, because I get sick of the "I check for traps" every other minute.
Now imagining doing this with these two Arcane Armor feats before every fight?
It is CYA Play not streamlined play. I'm not into the Gotchya "You forgot to collect rent before the dice was rolled in Monopoly" stuff. If it's not re-written it's already house-ruled as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
I agree. When it comes down to things like that I get concerned. What I often see is people start making table cards that have have statements like I always declare x before y. That's not really streamlined play, its CYA play.
If you are going to build a Wizard/Fighter gish, you're going to have alot of repeditive talk at the table that just gets old. easily house rules away.
I actually agree with you.
Hell, sometimes I get sick of the Rogue checking for traps at every single door. I sometimes just say, "So long as you're in front at single every door as part of a standard formation, if the door is actually trapped I'll allow you a discovery check prior to anything happening." I do that on a case by case basis, because I get sick of the "I check for traps" every other minute.
Now imagining doing this with these two Arcane Armor feats before every fight?
It is CYA Play not streamlined play. I'm not into the Gotchya "You forgot to collect rent before the dice was rolled in Monopoly" stuff. If it's not re-written it's already house-ruled as far as I'm concerned.
Yea I get the same thing with my rogues too. Just wasn't sure if I was beating a dead horse.
Over all though I do like the feats and I would use them without the swift action requirement.
|
I think that it would be nice if it wasn't necessary to declare this every time, but I don't see something that could clear that up by being stated in the rules. This is a very powerful feat and it being a combat feat limits that power somewhat to keep it inline with most feats.
Most wizards aren't going to be focusing too much of their feat selection on combat feats, so it seems likely that for the most part the average player is just going to be able to tell the DM 'This is my only combat feat so it will be used each round' or even 'If I don't cast a spell I'm using dodge, otherwise this is up'.
As you pointed out though, gish characters are where this would be a bit more complicated because they will have a selection of combat feats to decide from. However, every round they are going to have to choose which feat to use anyway, and calling that out so I don't see announcing that you are going to drop your spell failure because you are casting is any different than saying you were using backswing since you happened to be swinging a sword that round.
The system seems to work pretty well in the little trials I have run of it. Would be nice to have it simplified somehow, but honestly its already considerably easier the the regular 3.5 system. Just to pluck several random feats as examples, instead of announcing at the beginning of your turn that you were going to be using your dodge bonus against this enemy and then that you were rapid shot-ing this one, now any character that has combat feats just chooses which combat feat they are going to be using for the round and it just works.
-Tarlane
|
|
For the rogues, something I mentioned on a different thread was that I started to treat trap finding in the same way that elves treat secret doors. You can actively search if you want, but if you pass within 5 feat of a trap I will make a secret roll to see if you notice it. Really speeds up gameplay, letting the party move forward without the constant searching.
/threadjack
-Tarlane
You make a good point Tarlane, particularly about keeping it in line with other Combat Feats, and the comparison to Dodge.
I'll think about it, and maybe get a chance to test it out. It's kinda hard playtesting a campaign (which is what I'm doing), because I don't always see some options in action.
|
|
I think that it would be nice if it wasn't necessary to declare this every time, but I don't see something that could clear that up by being stated in the rules. This is a very powerful feat and it being a combat feat limits that power somewhat to keep it inline with most feats.
Most wizards aren't going to be focusing too much of their feat selection on combat feats, so it seems likely that for the most part the average player is just going to be able to tell the DM 'This is my only combat feat so it will be used each round' or even 'If I don't cast a spell I'm using dodge, otherwise this is up'.
As you pointed out though, gish characters are where this would be a bit more complicated because they will have a selection of combat feats to decide from. However, every round they are going to have to choose which feat to use anyway, and calling that out so I don't see announcing that you are going to drop your spell failure because you are casting is any different than saying you were using backswing since you happened to be swinging a sword that round.
The system seems to work pretty well in the little trials I have run of it. Would be nice to have it simplified somehow, but honestly its already considerably easier the the regular 3.5 system. Just to pluck several random feats as examples, instead of announcing at the beginning of your turn that you were going to be using your dodge bonus against this enemy and then that you were rapid shot-ing this one, now any character that has combat feats just chooses which combat feat they are going to be using for the round and it just works.
-Tarlane
I can see your point too. Still it is something just gets under my skin. I guess I may need to let it slide.
As far as I can tell, so far it's not a big issue as there currently no other spell casting combat feats. It seems easy to assume that a character who has this feat and casting a spell would automatically be using this feat, since casting a spell is normally a standard action. The only times I see a player would really need to specifically declare this feat is when using a quickened spell or a spell from a splat book with a swift/immediate action casting time.
In other words, normally, it has no competition with other combat feats when used, so it could automatically be assumed to be declared.
What I'm going to do is treat the combat feats like stances from Bo9S (I know, not OGL stuff). It works very similarly. You can have one active at any time, and can switch between them as a free or swift action (haven't decided yet - I'll try it both ways).
|
|
I've seen this arguement come up time and time again. It basicly comes down to a style of play. But the way it is writen is that you have to take a swift action to activate the feat. So what the player is doing is making a declaration of using the feat.
This is a "Rule as Writen" issue that come up from time to time in messageboards like this. Obviously you can choose to run the rule however you like in your own game and that suits me just fine.
On the other hand I was looking for some thing offical on this because when I introduce this into a playtest and turn in a report I can comment on that.
I'm now resolved to take a neutral stance on this untill I see this play out. I want to be fair to both my players and the playtest.
I agree that this, like Dodge, is one of those feats that needs to be re-written for ease of play.
Oh yes, absolutely! This idea of having to announce the combat feat you're going to use was really bad (at least for me). Sure Dodge at first glance looks a bit better (+1 against every opponent instead of only one) but having to choose to use it... it's very strange and slows gameplay, and in the end it's worse because if you used any combat feat to attack you can't get the benefit from dodge.
They COULD at least have attack and defense feats separately, but I still prefer the old 3.x system in this. You can dodge better and that's it, you've trained better. You've learned to cast spells while wearing armor and.. well.. really doesn't make sense you having to announce it or even it not working... you know to do it. It's weird.
Again.. I hope they change it, even if it means powering down the feats a bit.