User talk:Spazalicious Chaos/The Book of Frenzied Warfare (3.5e Sourcebook)/FIGHT!
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Little Oversight[edit]
You should patch Heavy Assault, as it stand there will be a lot of flying skeleton. Perhaps you could use Strength instead of constitution? Or allow a creature without con score to use HD instead? --Leziad 02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Str sounds good. Thanks!--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
How to Make Combat Interesting[edit]
Use Tome of Battle. See the fourth post here for an example on how this works. This variant sucks for the following reasons: it slows combat way down. Armor does nothing now what with how much damage characters of a decent level do. It shafts characters with medium BAB hardcore. And those are only from skimming it. --Ghostwheel 06:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have read your post, and I have read ToB, and I have a set opinion on the subject: spell-based combat is dumb. And that is what ToB is, though the spells are called "manuevers" so that I can't just pwn everyone with a wand of dispelling. It slows down combat way more than this would because in ToB, every attack is a spell, meaning you have to pick up the book with all the spells in it to know how the spell works.
- I don't feel too bad about the mid-BAB guys since many of them either don't need the help anyway (Rogue level is higher than Fighter for a reason), or were never designed for combat in the first place (I'm lookin' at you, Bards!) Once I finish fleshing out the manuevers section and the feats section, hopefully it will be more appealing.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You obviously have no idea what bards can do. And straight out of the box, without bonus feat cheese or UMD or rings of blink, rogues suck just as much (if not worse than) fighters.
- Also, actually read the link I posted instead of fluttering over it. It addresses the "ToB is/is not spells" issue. If you'd read it, you'd understand and/or know. So do so. --Ghostwheel 18:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I read that part as well, to which I cry bullshit! It is a spells system, defining "spell" as "a learned capapbility that breaks the laws of physics and/or pre-existing game mechanics." They are called manuevers, but that is just wordplay to make the consumer not feel ripped off, which they are. D&D just needs to pick one spell system and stick to it already. That is all I have to say on the subject.
- In the mean time, keep in mind this is a work in progress that is being fine tuned as we speak. Half of this is original material, but some uses pre-existing and well balanced mechanics from other systems. The Defense system is an example of the latter (True 20), while the Surprise Defense is an example of the former. As it goes on, more and more will be original material. If you have ideas, I will gladly take you as a contributor, especially as I get into the manuevers. Idea behind them- Defense and Attack is it. While Bluff should still be a part of Fient, that is farthest from Attack rolls targeting Defense as I want to get. Also, I want each manuever to be a substitution for an attack, not standard or move actions.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 18:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tome of Battle shouldn't make someone feel ripped off. What is does more often in my experience is make people grateful that Wizards finally recognized and admitted (through ToB) that combat based on standard action options actually works better than normal full attacks do. If anything, the continuation of this trend shows that they are sticking to something, and something that works better than just about any alternative. And let's be frank; looking up what a maneuver does should not always be necessary; the player should know exactly what all of their maneuvers do, or else they look like an idiot for playing a class that they don't actually know how to play. And any DM is equally at fault for allowing a system that they don't undersand with reasonable thoroughness into a game. So most of your complaints aren't particularly well-founded if you assume that the person playing D&D is at least somewhat intelligent. - TG Cid 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, you listed all the traits that mark one as a competent spell caster as well. So, if you use special effect and don't know what it does exactly, you are making a bad choice. And if you are running a game and you allow a special effect to take place without understanding the reprecussions, you are a bad GM. Now I see how manuevers are so different! (facepalm)--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tome of Battle shouldn't make someone feel ripped off. What is does more often in my experience is make people grateful that Wizards finally recognized and admitted (through ToB) that combat based on standard action options actually works better than normal full attacks do. If anything, the continuation of this trend shows that they are sticking to something, and something that works better than just about any alternative. And let's be frank; looking up what a maneuver does should not always be necessary; the player should know exactly what all of their maneuvers do, or else they look like an idiot for playing a class that they don't actually know how to play. And any DM is equally at fault for allowing a system that they don't undersand with reasonable thoroughness into a game. So most of your complaints aren't particularly well-founded if you assume that the person playing D&D is at least somewhat intelligent. - TG Cid 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I never, ever claimed that they were supposed to be different. EVER. In fact, my post was to point how markedly they were similar, and to show that it was obviously fucking intentional because it actually works. Don't misinterpret shit; it makes you look dumb. - TG Cid 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- They are spells in the same way that any suitably expressive manner of giving a choice of abilities will look like spells. The fact that most are extraordinary, do not provoke AoO, are usually adding to another action, have a pre-req system, doesn't let you do everything under the sun, and rarely scale to level makes it stand out considerably from the spellcasting system. The only mechanics they share are levels and arbitrary effects, the former of which is what makes a class feel like DnD to me and the latter of which is necessary for the former to be possible. There are games where you need not have these. DnD isn't it.
- If you are going to make a bunch of 3 page 'sourcebooks' that change DnD fundamentally, you should probably merge them together and have a specific design intent. You have to especially explain why you make each decision using logic and proper spelling. Avoid adding cognitive overhead for the sake of adding realism. And do try to think of which builds get changed by your rules, which builds become possible, how things can be exploited, will characters die more often (the trend in gaming has been to make characters of all types not die easily--this is probably more important in DnD due to the medium), will monsters die more often, how much work does the DM and players have to do to incorporate the changes. And write out your goals specifically. Write out every single goal you have, and why you have it. And it would be best if it was written where all could see it, since then people could comment on it. --Havvy 23:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect, not a single one of my sourcebooks have anything to do with one another. The closest relation this sourcebook has to any of the others is The Book of Grievous Injury (3.5e Sourcebook), but looking back on that work and the other material I have created, the BGI is a mistake, has been improved upon and simplfied as an idea by myself and others, and it would not grieve me to see it die. And that is the closest relation. I would debate that the majority of my creations are scattered on oppisite ends of the gaming spectrum- Pirates should never be allowed on the World of Varanost, Special Attack (3.5e Alternate Class Feature) flies in the face of the core belief behind Wounds and Armor Reconsidered (3.5e Variant Rule), and so on. I have well heeded the very first peice of advice I ever recieved upon joining this wiki, and thus I will produce material as the ideas come and let them be adopted by any who care, GNS be damned!--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you are going to make a bunch of 3 page 'sourcebooks' that change DnD fundamentally, you should probably merge them together and have a specific design intent. You have to especially explain why you make each decision using logic and proper spelling. Avoid adding cognitive overhead for the sake of adding realism. And do try to think of which builds get changed by your rules, which builds become possible, how things can be exploited, will characters die more often (the trend in gaming has been to make characters of all types not die easily--this is probably more important in DnD due to the medium), will monsters die more often, how much work does the DM and players have to do to incorporate the changes. And write out your goals specifically. Write out every single goal you have, and why you have it. And it would be best if it was written where all could see it, since then people could comment on it. --Havvy 23:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
