With a host of new options, the <I>Player's Handbook 2</I> can bring an entirely new feel to your games. What are these options and how do they stack up against existing content? Read on to find out!
Re: [RPG]: Player's Handbook 2, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
Personally, while I do feel that there is some power creep in PHB2, I think it will actually make for a better game.
The Expertise and Melee Training feats are good examples.
At first I was very sceptical about the Expertise feats, as bonuses to attack are highly unbalancing. However, someone pointed out to me that in 4E AC typically goes up faster than attack bonus, which means that as the levels go up, you start missing more and more often. Since longer combats and wasted dailies are no fun, I consider this to be a reasonable fix. I would have prefered a simple +1 at paragon and epic tiers though, as "mandatory" feats aren't fun either.
Melee Training fixes another such issue, being the fact that melee basic attacks always use Str for the attack role, even though in the world(s) of 4E D&D there are many effective melee fighters who don't use Str to attack. It really makes no sense that a Paladin, Rogue or Avenger can kick butt in melee, while being practically unable to land an opportunity attack (particularly at the epic tier). This also screws classes such as Warlords, who can grant party members additional melee basic attacks. If the melee fighters in the party happen to use an ability other than Str for their attacks, then the ability of the Warlord becomes mostly useless. (By the way, I'm very surprised that this was never noticed during playtesting of the PHB.) Again, I would have prefered a simple rules fix though. It would be sufficient to add a line to each class description stating something like: "Paladins use their Wisdom modifier to make melee and ranged basic attacks."
Re: [RPG]: Player's Handbook 2, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Illustrious Number 6
At first I was very sceptical about the Expertise feats, as bonuses to attack are highly unbalancing. However, someone pointed out to me that in 4E AC typically goes up faster than attack bonus, which means that as the levels go up, you start missing more and more often. Since longer combats and wasted dailies are no fun, I consider this to be a reasonable fix. I would have prefered a simple +1 at paragon and epic tiers though, as "mandatory" feats aren't fun either.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not just a troll.
If WotC found out the game needs a universal bump to attacks, this does not just affect those gamers who buy PHB2, but all customers of the PHB1. The only reasonable place to put these feats is thus the errata.
(If they also want to put them on paper, and thus in PHB2, that's fine. But the current solution forces us customers to pay for errata which is completely unacceptable.)
This without even going into the controversy of the "feat tax" nature of their fix.
And if they didn't intend this to be an universal bump - that is, if they don't expect every math-savvy gamer to take them - the design & development article explaining the thinking behind these feats is way overdue...
Re: [RPG]: Player's Handbook 2, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
Erm, why would I be a troll? That remark was unwarranted.
As to whether or not WotC expects all math-savvy gamers to take these feats: I'm pretty sure they do. In one of their podcasts Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan discuss why there are so few ways to boost your attack bonus in the PHB. (It boils down to the fact that it's quite easy to boost your damage (or status effects), which means that every point of to-hit has a significant effect on combat effectiveness.) They also state that they've probably gone overboard in keeping the bonuses down. I find it unlikely that Mearls forgot all about that when he wrote PHB2.
Now, I agree that a change like this is better effected through the main rules rather than semi-mandatory feats, as I already stated before. However, it's not like it's the first time in the history of RPGs that a fix was pushed as an optional ability in a supplement rather than as a structural fix in the errata. Especially not if the game is still quite playable without the fix.
Re: [RPG]: Player's Handbook 2, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
Could you guys define 'power creep' as it pertains to this discussion? I've heard it bandied around as a gamer term for a while, but no one in any game I've ever played has used it and I'm not clear on the nuances.
Great review, btw. I was really impressed with PHB2. I was all set to play an eladrin warlord before it came out, and I wasted little time in switching to a deva avenger.
Re: [RPG]: Player's Handbook 2, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ineti
Could you guys define 'power creep' as it pertains to this discussion? I've heard it bandied around as a gamer term for a while, but no one in any game I've ever played has used it and I'm not clear on the nuances.
Power creep occurs in RPG lines where supplements introduce increasingly powerful options, thereby invalidating many core options and strongly encouraging consumers to continue buying supplements in order to have powerful characters. RIFTS is a classic example of this, but most game lines have it to a greater or lesser degree where they go on for years.
Here the concern is whether the new options are on the same mechanical field as the core options, or whether we'll see players adopting the new options to the exclusion of core options. In my games I've not seen this happen yet, but I have seen some of the "patch" Feats that are meant to fix balance issues (specifically involving hit chance) become automatically chosen Feats by most characters. I'll probably end up houseruling in these modifiers, as capnzapp suggests, but on the other hand there were certainly Feats for 3.5 characters that were strong enough to almost be required.
Still, a few very nice Feats are far from what would constitute a power creep issue in my mind. The classes are what I'm most concerned with, and at the table I've seen folk use the new classes alongside the existing ones with similar results.
Re: [RPG]: Player's Handbook 2, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Illustrious Number 6
Erm, why would I be a troll? That remark was unwarranted.
I apologize.
I should have explained better that you happened to bring up issues that have become very infected on the forums: saying Expertise "makes for a better game" has proved to be a potential flamethrower and is definitely not the innocent comment you thought it to be.
Quote:
Now, I agree that a change like this is better effected through the main rules rather than semi-mandatory feats, as I already stated before. However, it's not like it's the first time in the history of RPGs that a fix was pushed as an optional ability in a supplement rather than as a structural fix in the errata. Especially not if the game is still quite playable without the fix.
I disagree. Vehemently. And I strongly disapprove of the way you're making any problems out to be small and easily dismissed.
But this is not the place nor the time to have this discussion. Just be aware this is exactly the kind of comment that I find trollish.
Linear Mode
