| Paradigm Concepts https://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/ |
|
| Fervidite https://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=997 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | val Holryn [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Fervidite |
Originally posted this in the wrong spot. Fervidite. Make a weapon out of it and it and it does +1 damage (+2 vs people in AR greater than 3). The errata lists this as an equipment bonus. As written doesn't this bonus overlap (not stack) with the bonus you get from fine or exceptional quality (which I would assume is also an equipment bonus)? Perhaps Fervidite should have a "materials" bonus? |
|
| Author: | Harliquinn [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fervidite |
No, it's an equipment bonus of +2 (which overwrites the +1 from Fine but gives the 'net' +1 it used to have). It traded the extra +1 damage vs. AR 3 for ignoring up to AR 5 for objects and constructs. John |
|
| Author: | frzntundra4 [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fervidite |
I brought this up a few months ago. Here is what Pedro said during that thread: PCI_StatMonkey wrote: SamhainIA wrote: what are the sources named? I'm going to clarify it, one would be a item bonus and the other untyped. With as expensive to utilize and rare as this material is, I think the bonuses should work as Pedro originally indicated. |
|
| Author: | SamhainIA [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fervidite |
yeah rick i brought that up so instead of making them stack we increased the bonus on fervidite and the extra damage VS heavily armor opponents was deemed to unbalancing (im not sure why) so was replaced with a bonus vs constructs and stuff |
|
| Author: | Harliquinn [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fervidite |
The reason given for the reluctance to add static damage bonuses was the presence of the "Gritty Rules" and bypassing Fortitude for a Wound. |
|
| Author: | frzntundra4 [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fervidite |
I'm curious who determined that this bonus was so significant? and based on what? What makes me amused by that concept is how much damage someone who can smite (or use a few other spell bonuses) does in one hit. it makes an additional 1-2 static damage look like a scratch. With as expensive and rare as fervidite weapons are there should be a benefit beyond an occasional +1. The ignoring of AR is such a specialized instance its almost a non-factor, imo. |
|
| Author: | Harliquinn [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fervidite |
Pedro had the concern. John |
|
| Author: | frzntundra4 [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fervidite |
Well I hope he reconsiders. If the Gritty rule is the concern there are much bigger damage options to consider. |
|
| Author: | PCI_StatMonkey [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fervidite |
frzntundra4 wrote: Well I hope he reconsiders. If the Gritty rule is the concern there are much bigger damage options to consider. Which will all be looked at.. AR is the best defense when you use the gritty rule... if you think that additional +1 damage & the ability to wreck constructs (and sunder someone's shield to splinters when they use shield defense) it's your prerogative... the stacking of maneuvers like Between the seams + Fervidite as well as other abilities forced the change. |
|
| Author: | Harliquinn [ Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fervidite |
To be fair, this saw a lot of back and forth before released to public errata and I think we were all in agreement it was a fair change. John |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|