Playtest Update and Wuxia Weapons (cronk)

I posted Update #36 to the Kickstarter page, just a quick update about the upcoming playtest, a new cronk that should please players who want badass unarmed monk characters, and another Gerald Lee art preview.

Focus on the PCs

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Playtest Update and Wuxia Weapons (cronk)

  1. The power itself is kinda cool, though I agree with Cyrad that its kinda just a numbers ability, so not much exciting going on. It looks like you’re supporting Unarmed Combat characters after all, with your mention of Stunning Fist and the like as a power. Just seems like they’d simply just need to take Wuxia, with Stunning fist, and the other Unarmed “required” moves to fulfill that.

    {, if you choose your +1 Flaming Longsword as your focus weapon,}

    Probably just a term ye used from D&D for our understanding, but are +X weapons back in the game? I know your wands article touched on this, seemingly introducing +x wands for wizards, so it can be likely you’re doing the similar for non-casters. If it’s the case its a feature of Five Moons, is it going to be an expected part of the games math? If it is expected math bit, then why not simply fold it into PC progression, opposed to making “mandatory items”? Since that’s just simply a “sacred cow” that’s long since needing to go away (even though the item will have effects on top of the numerical bonus). Of course, If Not, then it just means PC’s get a slight bonus that eventually allows them to circumvent -5 penalty to certain things at the upper/end-game level range (pending how it all scale, 5-tier means no +5 till 25th).

    Also the level 5th upgrade wasn’t obvious when I first read it (I get its so can be anyones weapon, not needing to carry it), so I’m concerned new players might not see that. Might just be better to clarify ye don’t need to carry the item at 5th. Though I understand if ye wanted to use “bearing” as a pseudo-game term thats reference easily above in a sentence, so they could just simply re-read that to grasp the benefit.

    Like

  2. I noticed that the ability says it has to be “your” weapon. While more ambiguous, that strikes me as a shrewd decision to keep the text simple and let the GM handle corner cases. It still does an effective job of preventing situations such as borrowing someone’s weapon and giving it back.

    One of my players now wants a version of this feat in my Pathfinder campaign. Another player also thought of an interesting idea using a loophole in the feat. The monk and the magus have a very strong bond, which raised the question if the magus could let the monk choose her signature katana as the monk’s focus weapon Adding another twist to this scenario, the katana has intelligence with a connection to a mysterious eldritch entity that would very much approve of having another soul bound with them.

    Like

    • {It still does an effective job of preventing situations such as borrowing someone’s weapon and giving it back.}
      For some reason, I thought that was in part what ye could do with the 5th level benefit of Wuxia. Since ye simply just need to be “holding” it during preparation. So it doesn’t have to be on you, and could virtually be anywhere (in a vault, with another PC). So I’m not sure what mean by “shrewd”, does seem like that could cause arguments of what “your” entails through that interpretation. Assuming no “bonding/attuning” type rules with magical weapons, since if you’re wielding it, technically yours. That said, wouldn’t want it to cause arguments, as seems no big deal if someone uses this power to wield the properties of someone else’s weapon (assuming its not the class feature of the other character, nor it being a Artifact)

      Much like Garrick Williams just pointed out with the PF example, there’s flavor and story ye could do with it already! (thumbs up)

      Like

      • The feat says you have to own the focus weapon. The 5th level benefit doesn’t change that–it only changes that you don’t need to have the weapon on your person. In fact, the 10th and 15th level benefits still say the weapon must be yours.

        3rd Edition style guide avoids using ownership in rules text because the concept of ownership is highly subjective for many reasons explained in Sean’s magic item design guide. As a result, magic items in 3rd Edition refer to the “wearer,” “wielder,” or “bearer.” Alternatively, they use some kind of mechanic that keys or attunes the item to a specific person. The Wuxia Weapon feat deliberately defies this convention. I considered this a bold decision of astute judgment (“shrewd”) because…
        1) It intentionally makes Five Moons’s rules read more naturally and less like a legal document, one of the problems with 3rd Edition’s text.

        2) It gives power to the GM to decide whether a corner case counts as ownership. This takes a step away from a common criticism of 3rd Edition of taking power from the GM and giving it to the players. Sean briefly mentioned this during the President’s Day interview.

        3) Not defining ownership can create interesting interactions and loopholes with GM consent. I gave the example that if two characters have joint ownership of a weapon, one of them can use it as a focus weapon for Wuxia Weapon even while the other is currently wielding it.

        Like

      • {This takes a step away from a common criticism of 3rd Edition of taking power from the GM and giving it to the players. }

        While its definitely commonly said, I’m not too convinced its true. As there are groups that disrespect the DM, or distrust to make a rules call & move on (I’ve had this happen in a campaign of mine). Which in part can be mix of personalities of the people in question, Gygaxian culture of DMing (Happy DM’s day!) making confrontational divide.

        More Importantly, its good we avoid wordings that can make “unintentional” openness In the Playtest, so that abilities aren’t interacting inconsistently (harming the integrity of the reports). Though I’m all for open-ended abilities, and definitely would enjoy such things in home games.

        {3) Not defining ownership can create interesting interactions and loopholes with GM consent.}
        Agreed, which is in part why I enjoy the “technicality” of sorts. In a way, its sorta teamwork-related, building bonds in ways more than one.

        Like

      • {While its definitely commonly said, I’m not too convinced its true. As there are groups that disrespect the DM, or distrust to make a rules call & move on..}

        Don’t play with people you don’t trust –for the same reason you wouldn’t play Settlers of Catan with a guy that steals resources or rearranges pieces when others aren’t looking.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s