Okay, the primary reason I decided to write this thing is that as of now writing this post the current Basic Rules for Players PDF file is seriously screwed up. Absurdly large size (a ridiculous 46.1MB or higher depending on OS), Table of Contents feature blasted, et cetera. Hope the staff realize this quickly, for they never seem to catch on my twitter posts.
Other than that, it might be a good opportunity to compile some wishes for future updates for the basic rules files. For example, isn't anyone bothered by the fact that the simple plus shields are missing from the magic item list? Or any worries that all "[insert_wizard_name_proper_noun_here]'s [insert_spell_name_here]" spells in the list might hinder a potential OGL-ish whatever SRD making process from being a simple copypaste from this document? Well, apparently those two are my biggest concerns about regarding the basic rules as of now (besides, Mordenkainen's Sword, while badass and iconic, is tearfully useless and overshadowed tactically as of now).
The printer-friendly version, BasicRules_Playerv3.4_PF.pdf is 2.76 MB. The previous version (V0.2) was 2.73 MB. The chapters are bookmarked, the same as before.
Okay, the new version is 30kB bigger.
The free PDF, together with the free PDF supplements for the published adventures, actually give you about 60% of the spells in the PHB. Personally, I think that's more than generous.
My main gripe is: Trident, it should obviously be 1d8, versatile (which I "house-ruled", instantly).
Did you remove the thrown property? Or is it now the mechanically best one-handed martial weapon choice in your games?
LordCorwin wrote:
Why ever use a longsword, battleaxe or warhammer if a trident is now the same but better because it can also be thrown?
WotC considers piercing to be a stronger damage type than bludgeoning and slashing, so piercing weapons are doing a bit less damage on average.
I'd rather consider Spear to be too strong.
LordCorwin wrote:
Not throwing it but having the option to, to me is greater than not being able to throw it but someday wishing you could.
Do you find there is a benefit to dealing piercing damage coming into play very often in your games? I have not. But YMMV, one supposes.
LordCorwin wrote:
I'm really not sure what you are trying to get at with the question. So I've been unable to answer it. What is the point of *any* weapon on the list? To hurt stuff I suppose. Tridents do that, right?
LordCorwin wrote:
Who's ever heard of net and spear?
Brock_Landers wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
You question is not answerable unless we can do so with other similar questions. What is the purpose of the light hammer when the hand axe is clearly superior in every way? Why have darts when daggers are clearly superior in every way? What is even the purpose of the morningstar at all? They are all weapons. They hurt things when you hit them with them. Maybe you are asking more of the system than its granularity is designed to provide.
Oh how about this. Here is a benefit of the trident over the spear. As a martial weapon there is a chance someone taking it from you to use against you will not be proficient. Where as with a spear being simple that chance is far less likely.
LordCorwin wrote:
You are starting to making it difficult to take you seriously. The purpose of the trident is to have a weapon that is very much like a spear but that is a bit harder to wield because it has a heavy, three pronged head.
Now for the question *you've* repeatedly avoided that I shall ask again. If you make the change suggested, look at the Equipment chapter and tell me what would be the point of a longsword, warhammer or battleaxe?
LordCorwin wrote:
"What is the point of the Trident?"
To be able to make an aesthetically correct Retarius character.
Tridents should be better than a spear under water. That's where any errata should be. In the meantime, there are some iconic magical tridents. Limiting who can wield those is reason enough for me. Anyone who can't handle that is probably an Aquaman hater and therefore does not have a valid opinion.
pauln6 wrote:
The trident has no point.
The trident has three points.
There. The universe just imploded because of a paradox.
It doesn't account for the OP's extra 43MB in the PDF file size, though.
'Cause mermen, Mecha, 'CAUSE MERMEN!!
. . .
Sorry, that should be "merfolk" now.
MechaPilot wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
There are some games where they have a bunch of weapons all have the exact same mechanics, so the player simply chooses for flavour.
Apparently mixing this concept with a table that has some optimisation potential included absolutely fries some peoples brains. Everything must be part of an optimisation matrix!!!!!
At some point you expect the person to deny tridents ever existed in real life, because otherwise 'what is the point of the trident!?!1!'
Ive removed content from this thread that violates the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
A 'fair' trident fix is make it 1d8 piercing, verstile 1d10, can't be thrown. If the current version bothers you, I'd suggest using that. If you feel the need to do that though, you'll probably also want to make the war pick, morningstar, and flail versatile too. (But don't get carried away and make the greataxe 2d6, some people like 1d12 better.)
Huh, interesting. Maybe this thread title should've been "Of Tridents" or something similar from the beginning... 