Does anybody else totally appreciate this? Because I definitely do. It's even got the updated Stealth rules. Good job, WotC!
I concur.
I was hoping I'd see something new and exciting in the ToC, but no luck. I suppose I'll have to wait until I see the feat list.
Does anybody else totally appreciate this? Because I definitely do. It's even got the updated Stealth rules. Good job, WotC!
Agree completely.
My favorite is "Targeting What You Can't See". This is a question that comes up every single session I've ever played. By the RAW, a Wizard can toss a Fireball into a zone of magical darkness and somehow instinctively target the square that lets him hit the maximum number of enemies. It's uncanny. I'm not daring to hope they will resolve this issue fully, but it would be nice to at least see it addressed.
Sure, there could be a picture, but they don't tend to put those in appendices.
Check out the two page gap between Keywords (219) and Extra Damage (221). We could get some serious fixit goodness in there.
Here's hoping they overrule the "Weapon Focus working with Implement keyword powers" thing...
Here's hoping they overrule the "Weapon Focus working with Implement keyword powers" thing...
That and the "I impose a -zillion penalty on my conditions, bye bye Orcus" thing.
If it ever gets overruled, it'll be as a note attached to an Implement Focus feat. However, I don't know if that feat would ever exist officially, as they would make the energy-focus feats obsolete.
If you don't like it, houserule it and move on. Don't insist that everyone conform to how you think the rules should be interpreted. That's only necessary if we're all in the same campaign.
However, this personal interpretation will likely face revision later this month when I have full access to the sorcerer's power list; as it is right now, all sorcerers could take Weapon Focus (light blades) or Weapon Focus (staff) and get +1 damage across the board. For that matter, according to the Character Builder and RAW, a sorcerer or wizard could take Weapon Focus (staff), Staff Fighting, and Two-Weapon Fighting to get +2 damage on every spell. In a similar design, a swordmage can get +2 damage on every spell with no loss of AC and an additional +1 Reflex for the price of three feats.
It's not exactly balanced, but right now I'm keeping the Weapon Focus rule for simplicity when it comes to swordmages (and paladins with holy avengers), while assuming that RAI does not allow the same for wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers; nor do I currently allow the use of the bonus from Two-Weapon Fighting to affect spells, though I might playtest it a bit to see how everything fits in my group (should my players be willing to be experimented on and have their toys taken away if I decide against it).
As for your comment about waving the sword around? Well, how do you expect a swordmage to cast a spell anyway? I'm actually imagining a swordmage's motions to be an armed version of the motions of element-bending from Avatar.
It seems likely that if they were going to overrule the Weapon Focus ruling, they'd have reversed it in errata already and it wouldn't be part of the Character Builder.
If it ever gets overruled, it'll be as a note attached to an Implement Focus feat. However, I don't know if that feat would ever exist officially, as they would make the energy-focus feats obsolete.
If you don't like it, houserule it and move on. Don't insist that everyone conform to how you think the rules should be interpreted. That's only necessary if we're all in the same campaign.
Bleuch - the problem is that I use the generator and there is currently no way to house-rule the damage calculation on the sheets to remove the feat bonus.
I think the way to do implement focus without making the elemental feats obsolete this is to make Implement focus a static +1 more akin to two-weapon fighting. This would mean that the element focus feats would be narrower but a bit more powerful since they scale with tier and the characters would be encouraged to stick to one type of implement.
Obviously, since weapon focus is a feat bonus and two-weapon fighting is untyped, this feat would still stack and would just compound the error if they don't underscore the distinction between weapon and implement feats.
In the case of a swordmage using Weapon Focus (heavy blades) to augment every attack power he has, it's easier to grant it than figure out which spells the bonus should apply on according to common sense.
Actually it's easier to figure out which Swordmage powers should get the benefit of Weapon Focus than you are making it out to be. Powers with the "Weapon" keyword benefit and powers without that keyword don't. Seems KISS enough to me.
If every PHB and DMG is going to collect the erratas and updates from the previous year I'm going to LUV (with the extra special V at the end kinda Luv) WOTC.
I don't think it is going to be all them, just the major ones that rewrite large sections of the rules.
I honestly expected a bunch of negatives posts with people kicking and screaming about paying for errata. So far, so good; though, the day is young.
I don't think it is going to be all them, just the major ones that rewrite large sections of the rules.
So? It's still pure liquid awesomesause that we haven't had some many, many game companies in ages.
So? It's still pure liquid awesomesause that we haven't had some many, many game companies in ages.
....Ummm sorry bad habit. I've made it my habit to correct every inaccuracy I see that I don't always think about whether it needs to be corrected. My apologies.:embarrass
Hear that? That is the sound of me re-organizing my houserules and figuring out if it's worth changing at this point. I have two swordmages in my current game, and I'll see what they would like to try at this time. Since they're still in heroic levels, they'd probably agree to using Pauln6's idea of a non-progressive untyped +1 bonus in the mold of Two-Weapon Fighting. It would change nothing at this point except adding different feats as possibilities in following levels. The wizard player would probably like this too.
As for "paying for errata" . . . why not? I hate marking up my books, and I don't like messing with printouts and trying to figure out if the rule I'm using is the current version or not. I found it a lot easier in 3.5e to have the Rules Compendium at the table because a quick glance would tell me if the current dispute was already in the rules or not. That book was very useful, even when I or another DM was making an on-the-spot houserule, because even if we were ignoring the specifics we could use it to judge how far to go without overbalancing a character's abilities.
Additionally, there are many, many DMs who say that if it's not in a book in front of them, it doesn't exist. I find it surprising how many of them are playing 4e, what with how many resources are digital these days. I find digital far more convenient, as have most of my players. At college, if someone popped their head into the classroom we were using, they usually assumed we were networked because most of us had our laptops out. (Note -- this is also part of why I have my own sheets. I have a digital version created in OpenOffice. My girlfriend is the only one using this version in her game, and she says her turns are twice as fast as the others'.)
Long story short . . . I see no problem with errata being included in published books. I've been wanting that for a while, and not as sidebars as often happened with 3.5e. Putting it in PH2 is great. Putting it in as an appendix, where you can easily turn to it at a moment's notice rather than having to search in the middle, is an order of magnitude better.
Long story short . . . I see no problem with errata being included in published books. I've been wanting that for a while, and not as sidebars as often happened with 3.5e. Putting it in PH2 is great. Putting it in as an appendix, where you can easily turn to it at a moment's notice rather than having to search in the middle, is an order of magnitude better.
I found myself nodding (in agreement, not boredom) as I read your post. I really like this approach, and hope it carries into future publications.
I'm also frequently surprised at how many DMs ban resources that aren't in their book, in their library. Hopefully, things like the Character Builder and the Compendium will push this approach toward extinction. I loved the idea that "everything is core" that was espoused from day one with 4E. It seems others either weren't as excited, or don't share my understanding of that approach.
Oh, well. I've gone way off topic, now. :embarrass Nice post.
I'm also frequently surprised at how many DMs ban resources that aren't in their book, in their library. Hopefully, things like the Character Builder and the Compendium will push this approach toward extinction.
Sorry, but it's a good rule to work from. Far too many players are apt to abuse rules variants and extensions from other sources. Take a trip back to the mid 90's when net-rules were the bane of many a gaming table. As a GM I banned anything not official and in a core book or houseruled by me so it would stop fights at the table and kept my sanity. WOTC is doing a fine job, but the Dragon stuff isn't perfect and isn't always balanced as they like. So, sure, I've eased up these days, but I'm still cautious.
That said, what I've noticed is that said DMs ignore EVERYTHING not published on dead trees, not just limited to rules. The idea that anything digital is suspect whereas everything in a book is balanced properly just doesn't hold up for me. Everything has to be evaluated on its own, because different combinations in different parties will produce different results. I let my players get exceptions on rules (like a warlock using staffs or letting a ranger have custom arcane powers) based on who they are, how they'll use them, and what they'll be facing. Almost none of my houserules are what I'd consider universally appropriate; most of them are valid only because I can toss in balancing issues custom-made for the situation. I'd have to do that even if I don't use unofficial material; heck, half the time it's to balance out a unique problem that only showed up because of the particular campaign with my particular group. The other half is just to make the game more fun for everyone involved. I have to disappoint a lot of players, so if I can find something that works I'm always happy to try it. My job as DM isn't to be an entertainer, but at the same time if someone's not being having fun it's often the DM's fault. If a player wants a Halo-type sticky-grenade and I can find a way to do it (slightly-bigger-yield alchemist's acid with save at -5 to get off and one round's delay), then I see no reason to say no unless there's a story reason. I wouldn't trust the grenades as a common thing, though.
(The other end of the spectrum, where I find problems with the RAW or even the RAI in particular situations, would take too long to set up to explain. Believe me when I say they're unique to a group of over-educated students of philosophy, theology, history, and classical languages, but each group has its quirks and a DM has to learn to identify them quickly and both steer away from problems as well as take advantage of strengths.)
D&D isn't one-size-fits-all. It's one-size-fits-most. Your mileage may vary, and if you can't adapt (or if you ignore the need to adapt) then you'll end up with problems, many in the form of rules lawyers.
Where we can we find the PHB 2 Table of Contents?
It's a download in the latest preview article.
I'll post a link shortly.
[edit]
It in this article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pr/20090302
Link: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/excerpts/excerpt_ph2_toc.pdf
I'm also frequently surprised at how many DMs ban resources that aren't in their book, in their library. Hopefully, things like the Character Builder and the Compendium will push this approach toward extinction.
Why are you surprised that DMs would want the games they run to do so according to what resources they actually have & can reference?
And no, the character builder & compendium shouldn't be any different in this approach. Because if the DM can't/doesn't choose to subscribe for whatever reason.....
Bel
Why are you surprised that DMs would want the games they run to do so according to what resources they actually have & can reference?
And no, the character builder & compendium shouldn't be any different in this approach. Because if the DM can't/doesn't choose to subscribe for whatever reason.....
If a player wants to have material from a source he owns and the DM doesn't, there shouldn't be any problem with the DM borrowing it to look over. The same is true with a DDI subscription; the only difference would be the ability to take said resource for the weekend.
If a player wants to have material from a source he owns and the DM doesn't, there shouldn't be any problem with the DM borrowing it to look over. The same is true with a DDI subscription; the only difference would be the ability to take said resource for the weekend.
Agreed. If a DM stomps on my PC before even giving it a chance, simply because it includes a class/feat/whatnot from a source he doesn't personally own, I'm not going to play in his game.
As a DM, it's your job to run a game that the players enjoy. It's not the players' job to force their PCs into a narrow field of choices for which the DM wishes to run his/her game.
I understand that unbalancing mechanics can/will ruin everyone's fun, but many DMs in these forums seem to take this paranoid approach to an extreme. While not wealthy, I budget very well, and often own more sourcebooks than anyone else in our circle of gamers. Why shouldn't I be able to use an official, published class for which I just spent money? Likewise, if a player has the Character Builder on his/her laptop, and brings said device to the game, the DM has the same access to the material that he'd have if a sourcebook were present. (As to DDi, I really hope it catches on with more gamers. I've found it to be well worth the money I spent. Honestly, I'm addicted to Character Builder like it's crack cocaine.)
Lastly, I generally don't play with DMs who try to adjudicate each published source as Core/Non-core. This may occassionally be necessary, but shouldn't be the norm, in my opinion. 4E's entire approach is to make everything core. This is why we're seeing overhauls in Campaign Settings, to force them into a mutual framework--at least to a great extent. (I point to the changed Cosmologies as an example). However one feels about the specific changes that have been made, I applaud the Developers' efforts to rid us of the Core/Non-core concept of published material.
I guess the final capstone to my entire argument/feeling is this: If someone has paid their hard-earned money for gaming material, they should be enabled, not thwarted, in their efforts to use it.
Check out the two page gap between Keywords (219) and Extra Damage (221). We could get some serious fixit goodness in there.
Sure, there could be a picture, but they don't tend to put those in appendices.
No pictures. :D
Here's hoping they overrule the "Weapon Focus working with Implement keyword powers" thing...
Nope.