Pre-art draft feedback

[Panda]

[Mataxes]

Avoid Blow can be used against ranged attacks. What has been removed is the requirement for a good success against ranged attacks.

[etherial]

[Panda]

[Utsukushi]

From a player's perspective (and bearing in mind I'm not previewing the book, so I only know the text quoted here) -- my reading would be that if the rules state, "using two would mean replacing the original Step once, and then replacing the Step again." ... then clearly, you can do that.

That sure sounds to me like if you have Air Dance (5) and Cobra Strike (2), you can absolutely use Cobra Strike, replace your Dex, and then use Air Dance, replacing your Dex again, and then roll. At, yes, +5, not +7, but if you spent the Strain on both Talents, then they should both be active and the secondary effects would apply.

In other words, I think that by trying to clarify that you can't do that, you put in wording that... really says you can. If that's not the intention, I'd change that.

(Assuming we still have the Rule of Three, though, I'm not really sure that is so bad. Effect-stacking can indeed lead to some impressive combinations, but that's part of what gives Earthdawn its round-to-round tactical decisions, instead of just twenty turns in a row of, "I roll to-hit. Again." Even with Durability, I find that Strain gives people something to think about pretty quickly.)

[Panda]

[peterjk3]

[etherial]

[Lys]

[Panda]

I appreciate you have a different opinion and you are free to house rule as you see fit. However, the racial ability equivalency in value of Versatility is still at the high end. The most comparative mechanically race to a human is an ork. The total stat modifier of an ork is +1 and they get low-light vision. Humans get Versatility. +1 to an attribute is half way to a Defense point and a third of a way to a Step. An inherent problem was how deforming the game could be because of Versatility and all of the external social factors which had to be attached to it to rein it in. Every talent is written with the eye of how it could be abused with Versatility. It still has this potential, but it has been blunted to a degree.

A magician with Versatility can pick up Tiger Spring at First Circle. An Air Sailor can have useful animal companions without chasing Beastmaster. They will have to pay more than the Beastmaster, but this should be more than fair since they are copying the moves of another discipline without actually understanding where the magic is coming from. There should be a surcharge for this, otherwise it cheapens the original discipline's access. If you are learning a talent from another adept's second discipline through Versatility pre-4E, you are paying less than your teacher. It is an ability intended to add some different options from other disciplines, not replace them entirely. It's about the importance and focus of each discipline. Versatility inherently undermines this goal.

As for weapon names in Earthdawn, I pretty much ignore them as written, outside of those with special rules (e.g. lances for charging). A broad sword is a size 3 melee weapon. A two-handed sword is a size 6 melee weapon. Since melee weapons without special abilities always do Size+2 damage, it matters little to me what name is attached to it, or how it is described. Want a size 3 hammer? Done. Size 4 axe? Not an issue. Double-ended size 7 flail? Well, it's kinda weird, but I have no problem... has she been hitting the D&D 3.X books pretty hard recently?

Earthdawn has always been anachronistic with regard to equipment, like every other fantasy RPG. For example, inns have massive plate glass windows, but no functioning plumbing. This is a digression of a digression, but it's much easier to shed all of the earthly weight attached to the basic melee weapon list and just live with the underlying math. When you venture to ranged weapons and special abilities, it starts to get stranger. Entries such as the flowing blade (why ever use a broad sword again?) and the size limits on bows. These are areas where waters get more mechanically treacherous. I don't have any specific comment on these, other than to point out these curiosities and wonder what the original intention was 20 years ago. My assumption in the case of bows is to keep the damage in line with a one-handed weapon and the size within the upper limit of a dwarf. The reduced damage for the size is the downside of a weapon which otherwise increases your access to opponents, while reducing their access to you.