Note: I was given a free copy of the product and I am a 3PP. I look at other things (such as OGL, and PI designations) and also calculate that into my review. I'm a little harsh in words, but they ain't fightin words.
Tides of War: Volley Fire Teamwork Archery Feats shoots a little left for me as a player. It includes 6 simple feats that build upon Volley Fire or Group Fire. Only one of these is included in this book, that would be Group Fire.
Rant: It’s fine to mention Volley Fire as a prerequisite, but if it's not in your product, I have no idea where it is. It's sure not listed in the OGL section of the book. Which is missing "Tides of War: Volley Fire Teamwork Feats" from it and Ranged Tactics Toolkit (which by the way is where Volley Fire Feat comes from). So in order to use this book you have to locate where Volley Fire comes from.
Unless this book is referring to its own special rules they call Volley Fire...which is found at the very last page of the feat section in a little grey box. This arrangement should be placed in the beginning, and it should indicate that it is using these rules. Or players, such as myself might think it’s the Volley Fire teamwork feat.
Again, if it is not the feat of the same name, and it uses these special rules, the feats that have the prerequisite that list Volley Fire, should be "Volley fire rules", or some such.
PS. on the OGL "Into the Breach: Cavalier" has its authors double listed... Are these feats from ItB: Cavalier - if there was a note about that it is, it should state that it was a part of it? I might pick it up. Again I digress.
/end rant.
So what is Volley Fire rules?
Volley Fire Rules require that all characters using a teamwork feat that requires volley fire RULES, “must be within 5 ft. of another ally also using or being granted the use of the same teamwork feat.” I still think you need the Volley Fire Feat. I think.
Basically be within 5 feet of your buddy.
Let’s start with the heart of Volley Fire Feats. It’s Group Fire. By calling commands as a free action to your buddies, you all decided to shoot on the same initiative. This is a full-round action to use the feat. But you net yourself a +1 to damage and +1 for every 3 archers after the second. I think you get a +2 at 5 archers…
Group Fire is a full-round action, not “part of a full round action”. If you have other attacks, toss them out the door, because you can only get 1 shot. But I guess it adds a little balance if your buddies hope in on the shot.
Improved Group Fire: This isn’t where the fix is, but the next logical step up. It address those with multiple ranged attacks. You can the benefit of Group Fire when using a full attack action, even though you are not using group shot (which you shouldn’t). This is a nice step up. Good thought when writing this one, and even identifying that Group Fire only nets you the 1 shot. Clears up any GM/Player feat stacking arguments. Well done.
Since it’s on the same page let us talk about Pincushion. The wording is short and I hate it. “Causes flyers to make….” Flyers. Clearly this means creatures that are flying. Can flyers refer to flying vehicles? Your guess is as good as mine. The phrase; “Flyers just take damage unless….” The language of this feat erks my inflated sense of self of my own knowledge of literature. I think it’s just simple and lazy. Again, I think I know more then I actually do, so take it for what it is.
The feat causes the “flyer” to suffer a cumulative penalty of a -1 to its Fly (skill) check, that it must make once it is it successfully. To what DC I am unsure of, I assume the creatures fly speed check? If the creature fails this check it falls. How far the “flyer” fall? How long does it fall? Does it get a chance to recover? Are the penalties cumulative for the round, combat, life time? As you notice, there is some ambiguous questions that arise from this feet. I’m going to state that this feat falls flat. Love the idea, but the execution needs a review board.
Let us jump to the Arcing Fire feat. This feat is suppose too reduce the target’s AC and Reflex bonus received from cover by half. Again the verbiage of this feat bothers me and feels like there should be a period placed somewhere. Minus the language, it’s a fine feat.
Call the Firing Line: You use a standard action to call commands and grant half your CHA mod to their attack roll.
“The number of attacks that can be modified in this manner are limited to your Profession (soldier) skill modifier…” What? My total skill bonus right? My ability score modifier+ skill ranks + what have you? Not sure how I feel on this one. I’ll let the language slide on this one. I get what the designers are doing. We’ll tag this as okay.
Clustering Volley: Here it mentions the Volley Fire Feat…. See beginning of review…. I cringe when I read this feat. “…..Total the damage in the round before applying damage reduction……” from all shots in the round or just on this initiative? So person A B C and D all shoot. But if E and F decided to shoot later in the turn, does that count towards this feat? I think the language again is the problem. I know what the feat does, because it states, those benefiting from this feat all act on the same initiative (see Special Note of the feat). Feat is okay.
Dodge This: is a little confusing. I like idea behind the feat, but I’m not sure I care for execution. I can’t attempt to go into this. “Special Note: Action is performed on the caller’s initiative.” What caller?
Gauging Shot: Person A fires the first shot. If they hit, everyone else who shoots gets a bonus. This is a fine and simple feat. I like the flavor text in this one.
Conclusion:
Two column layout that spaces after each paragraph. I hate this layout. Creative Commons classic public domain stock art fits the bill of this PDF, and I like it. Pretty green page art.
I want to like this PDF, I really do. It’s just average. It is a 2.5 round to a 3. The price is good at just under a dolla. I get the initial ideas behind it, but I think mechanic language got to me. The publisher in me calls for an overhaul of this PDF. But I am look at the weird things like the OGL and credits page, etc.
My thoughts are my own and may be overlooked by those that are not me, but the PDF does have movements of “Cool idea”, but need to be polished. A good GM can make out the wording and can clean up the questionable questions, and this would be a fine group of feats for NPCs on the field of battle. Give it to a bandit group.
Not really useful to PCs, unless you have at least 2 PCs who are focused on ranged attacks.
|