Talk:Races of War (DnD Other)

From D&D Wiki

This article is a current featured article nominee (discuss). A featured article should exemplify D&D Wiki's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the featured article criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

This is the last of the Tomes. Sadly, it's incomplete (this is most noticeable in the Armor section), but I'm sure the reader could adapt or invent what he needs to. There's more that could be done--like making the appropriate charts and there's a section I left out--about a mass combat mini-game--because I didn't want to deal with the formatting just yet. That being said, I'm taking a break until I stop thinking in terms of wiki formatting. Genowhirl 21:50, 12 May 2008 (MDT)

Contents 1 Feats kinda unfair 2 Featured Article Nomination 3 Stop changing the mechanics 4 Tried to Straighten This Discussion Out

[edit] Feats kinda unfair

For example Murderous Intent: with this, All I need to do is be a monk and have you fail a fort save (stunning fist) and then you just die.

That is false. A Coup de Grace is a standard action, as is stunning them. You only get one standard action in a round. Surgo 15:03, 7 September 2008 (MDT)

I don't know about what he said, but the rules for Special Combat-whatever say Coup de Grace should be a critical hit. So I guess that would keep a Monk from doing the Stun-and-Slay option of Murderous Intent.

And according to how I interpreted this, if I have a BAB of 16, all I have to do is just say I want a feat and then instantly I have full knowledge of how to do it amazingly?

Yep, that's the way they work. The Murderous Intent thing isn't as bad as you'd think. If we're talking about a PHB monk, he gets the ability to coup de gras a stunned enemy at level 15. And how many times have you seen a character actively try to stun someone else?

I realize that the full version of scaling feats can make people blink, because it seems such a huge step up in power (as well it is). But I think it's covered in the Failure of Feats section about how having feat chains pretty much reams any chance of diversifying your character and remaining level-appropriate, so all the feats were designed to provide options and bonuses that you'd actually care about at the level you get them.

I understand Frank and K designed their classes so that one alone is able to go, on average, 50/50 with monsters with CR equal to their level. That's not "easily win," that's "be able to win at all about half the time against level-appropriate monsters". And at high levels, monsters have some pretty crazy abilities, so if a character's going to be stay on the level-appropriate train, at high levels characters have to get abilities that are likewise a little crazy. It's not unreasonable, but it does require that you decide for yourself and your games what a character should be able to do at level 15.

To get an idea...Look up a Marut. It's in the SRD. It's got Dimension Door at will, so a combat person can't stay back and used range. It can cast Earthquake to turn you into an instant fossil and it can cast Plane Shift so if it wanted, it could actually send you to Hell and its melee abilities can either blind or stun you, as well as do 2d6 + 12 + 3d6....

...and at level 15, your character is supposed to be able to usefully contribute to the party being able to beat it while expending only 20% of their useable resources. If you're a PHB fighter or monk, good luck with that.Genowhirl 03:03, 8 November 2008 (MST)

Monks get abundant step at level 11, the marut is cr 15

Are you really suggesting that the ability to Dimension Door once per day helps you keep up with a critter than can Dimension Door every round?

How about when you get the feat you start off with the first benefit. Then the next level if you meet the first BAB req, then you get that ability, then the next level, you get the next ability and so on and ect. So, if you meet the highest req, like 16 BAB, then you gain one ability from the feat each level. --T G Geko 15:09, 16 May 2008 (MDT)

Well, you interpreted it right, although that is an interesting progression idea you have there. The point is that if you take a feat at a level between the upgrade points (which are levels 1, 6, 11, and 16 if you've got Full BAB or max ranks) you get an ability that's appropriate for you to have at your level. Basically, around the time you get to level 11 and definitely by the time you've reached level 16, you've reached that area of DnD known as CrazyTown, and CrazyTown does not much care for combat people--if you're going to be able to contribute against the monsters above level 10 as something other than a target to distract them from attacking the people who do the real damage...You're going to need some likewise crazy abilities. I'd suggest trying it out however it works for you, though. Genowhirl 23:02, 22 August 2008 (MDT)

Use the stuff here with whatever caveats you're comfortable with. Just understand that there are some basic assumptions underlying what's gone in here, and you might be surprised if you tried it as written.Genowhirl 22:24, 16 May 2008 (MDT)

Couldn't we just use the old feats but make them available at every level? That would seem a lot simpler. Furthermore, it would allow characters to become more diversified without having this newer

The old feats are awful. Compare Whirlwind Attack to the Fireball spell. At 7th level, a wizard can cast 3-4 Fireballs a day for 22 damage at range as a standard. A fighter can attack 8-15 enemies (if they all happen to surround him) with a Full Round action. These are not even remotely equivalent, and it only gets worse from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.181.251.115 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

[edit] Featured Article Nomination

Frank and K stuff was always gold, I read this before and it's still tasty now. So I figured, why not? Give them a little bit in the spotlight, FA, here we go. -- Eiji 21:04, 7 June 2008 (MDT)

Support — This article is well thought out and over-all well done. It is the type of article others should strive for.--Ramses IV 21:07, 7 June 2008 (MDT)

Support — I support this article, if you wanna know why, just read it.-Risek 21:48, 7 June 2008 (MDT)

Sure, only...what is it? A campaign Setting or something? --Sir Milo Teabag 13:32, 17 June 2008 (MDT)

It's an article...thing about what rules work and what rules don't, with suggested changes to help things work better. There's three previous Tomes on here--the Tome of Necromancy, the Tome of Fiends, and the Dungeonomicon. --Genowhirl 09:04, 21 June 2008 (MDT)

Support — I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't think it was worthy of being on here. It helps melee characters actively contribute alongside the casters, and it's entertaining and thought-provoking besides. Genowhirl 11:20, 25 July 2008 (MDT)

Support — and I came on to put this back in its original form. Surgo 21:18, 31 August 2008 (MDT)

Comment — I think this page gets the award for longest table of contents. --Green Dragon 05:02, 8 November 2008 (MST)

Ain't that the truth? But there's a lot of material and, well, if someone's going to use this, at least they have a quick reference/link. Genowhirl 12:38, 10 November 2008 (MST)

Actually, GreenDragon, this might be forward of me, but maybe you could set up a sub-category in D&D Other for the Frank & K Tome material? And then the articles could be split down into their component parts, and we wouldn't have these, for example, 206 KB articles to sort through.Genowhirl 20:59, 10 November 2008 (MST)

[edit] Stop changing the mechanics

Anonymous people need to stop going through and changing mechanics, especially mechanics they don't understand. I just went through and removed a bunch of unwarranted changes by a few anonymice and put the document back to the way it was originally. No typo correction, newly created tables, etc. were changed, just random edits that changed mechanics without reason. Surgo 21:17, 31 August 2008 (MDT)

[edit] Tried to Straighten This Discussion Out

I noticed it was a little disorganized, and there were comments on here that were in the middle of other comments, so...yeah...Genowhirl 03:02, 8 November 2008 (MST)