# The Player's Guide is here! [Updated to Final Version!]



## Morrus (Apr 23, 2009)

Check your subscriptions - the _Player's Guide_ lives!

[EDIT: THIS FILE IS NOW UPDATED TO THE FINAL VERSION (April 29), SO MAKE SURE YOU GRAB THE LATEST FILE IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY]

[imager]http://enworld.rpgnow.com/images/87/61375.jpg[/imager]
*The acclaimed War of the Burning Sky campaign saga comes to 4E!*

 This FREE 20-page Player's Guide contains information for players about to embark on the _War of the Burning Sky_ campaign saga.

The guide contains a brief history of the Lands, a more detailed look at the starting city of Gate Pass, an overview of the various nations and factions within the campaign saga and new rules material including character races and backgrounds, class variants, feats, powers, rituals, equipment, and magic items,

This guide is designed to be handed to your players before the start of the campaign.  You are free to copy and distribute this free file to your heart's content!


----------



## fissionessence (Apr 23, 2009)

Well, this was my first look at War of the Burning Sky. This looks great (although I really don't have much use for it, but it's still an interesting read). It's a cool place, with a cool story, complete with myths and plenty of stuff for new characters/players to start with.

Then I got to "Section Two: New Rules." Most (all?) of the mechanics are interesting and tied to the backgrounds and setting, and it's all very evocative and interesting. However, some of it is totally broken. In fact, some of it is so broken that _it actually breaks 4E, causing it to no longer function_. I read everything, stopping at the rituals, so there was probably more than this, but I'm just going to flip through the pages and write about what I remember noticing. Also, I'm going to try to leave out stuff that I feel is mostly my designer's opinion, focusing on things that I believe are _strictly broken_ (balance-wise, or in terms of actually not working right).

1) Warlock's _curse of flesh_ power uses an Intelligence attack roll (instead of Charisma or Constitution). In addition, it has an attack roll line, but no *Hit* line! It has an *Effect*_,_ but effects don't require an attack roll. Also, I noticed that other powers have a *Damage* line, so I thought maybe damage would go there and other stuff would go under *Effect*, but in 4E rules *Effect* doesn't require a hit, so I really just wasn't sure what this power was even trying to do. That said, _curse of flesh_ really needs to do damage or be way underpowered.

2) _Wayfarer's step_ teleports an enemy or an ally? Or either? What about the burning sky? And why that weird range description (not only on this power)? "*Range* 10; *Area* burst 1" should be "*Area* burst 1 within 10 squares". I don't know why you'd feel the need to change that. Also, why the heck is it an area? It only targets one creature! So, it should just be "*Ranged* 10".

3) The 'background' feats concept is overpowered. I don't have a problem with that, as it allows a DM to allow his players to be a little stronger and more tied to the setting. But, I figured it was worth mentioning.

4) The Cavalry Errant feat is strictly better than Mounted Combat, which is obvious, as it actually _includes_ that feat. Once again, I don't have a problem with this as it ties the character to the setting, except that you're also _potentially giving this feat away for free_. I was okay with breaking these rules a little, but this is pushing it.

5) Moral Insight is a very cool feat mechanic. The 'identify alignment' usage should not require a healing surge. Balance-wise, it doesn't need it, plus I'm just not groking it at all. I don't know why this is there.

6) Student of War is crazily sillily overpowered. At least make this a feat bonus.

7) Vow of Healing and West Wind Style _don't work_. They break the game. The rules do not function while these powers exist. _Channel divinity_ can be used once per encounter, regardless of which divinity power the character uses. Thus, a divinity power that that can be used twice per encounter, or a divinity daily power _just doesn't work_. These concepts hurt my mind. There is verbiage that could describe how these concepts _could_ work, but as it stands, they don't.

8) Can you really have these whip rules? I'm not sure how the GSL works with DDI content.

9) Potion Bracer lets me use a free action to retrive a potion stored in it. I can then follow the normal rules to drink a potion as a minor action without provoking opportunity attacks. OR I could use the Potion Bracer's ability to drink directly from the bracer as a minor action, but provoking opportunity attacks. Question: Why would I ever choose the latter option, when the former only costs me an extra _free action_ and I don't provoke?

10) The Hat of Exceptional Intelligence has a level 10 version, a level 20 version, and a level 30 version. There are no mechanical differences in them aside from their costs.

End. There were other things that I disagreed with from design perspectives, but not so strongly as what's above.

~ fissionessence


----------



## Morrus (Apr 23, 2009)

fissionessence said:


> Well, this was my first look at War of the Burning Sky. This looks great (although I really don't have much use for it, but it's still an interesting read). It's a cool place, with a cool story, complete with myths and plenty of stuff for new characters/players to start with.




Thanks!

For the rest, I can address some of it:



> Warlock's _curse of flesh_ power uses an Intelligence attack roll (instead of Charisma or Constitution). In addition, it has an attack roll line, but no *Hit* line! It has an *Effect*_,_ but effects don't require an attack roll. Also, I noticed that other powers have a *Damage* line, so I thought maybe damage would go there and other stuff would go under *Effect*, but in 4E rules *Effect* doesn't require a hit, so I really just wasn't sure what this power was even trying to do. That said, _curse of flesh_ really needs to do damage or be way underpowered.




You are correct in that that should say  "Hit" not "Effect".  We'll errata that.

However, while it appears underpowered in a regular 4E campaign, in WotBS in is a LOT more useful.  I don't know if you're familiar with the story from the 3.5 version, so I'll put this in a spoiler block:

[sblock]The main enemy (aside from Leska) are a group of nightmare creatures called the Trillith.  These are all insubstantial, and are weakened considerably when made solid.  The players, of course, don't know this at the start of the campaign.[/sblock]

There are a few things which are WotBS specific, and would need tweaking to be viable in another campaign, but there are a lot of plot-based considerations in some of these things whereby something is actually more powerful and weaker than it appears.



> 2) _Wayfarer's step_ teleports an enemy or an ally? Or either? What about the burning sky?



At the start of the campaign, the burning sky effect still applies.  That changes later in the story.   Again, spoilers. 



> And why that weird range description (not only on this power)? "*Range* 10; *Area* burst 1" should be "*Area* burst 1 within 10 squares".



Slight editing gaffe.  Easily fixed!



> 3) The 'background' feats concept is overpowered. I don't have a problem with that, as it allows a DM to allow his players to be a little stronger and more tied to the setting. But, I figured it was worth mentioning.
> 
> 4) The Cavalry Errant feat is strictly better than Mounted Combat, which is obvious, as it actually _includes_ that feat. Once again, I don't have a problem with this as it ties the character to the setting, except that you're also _potentially giving this feat away for free_. I was okay with breaking these rules a little, but this is pushing it.



Absolutely.  The background bonuses are intended to be "better" than regular options, and be free and in addition to them.  The idea is to invest characters in the setting from the get-go.  It does, indeed, make a WotBS party _ever so slightly_ more powerful than a regular party, if all else is equal.




> 8) Can you really have these whip rules? I'm not sure how the GSL works with DDI content.



I didn't see it in the SRD, which is all that matters when it comes to the GSL.  



> 9) Potion Bracer lets me use a free action to retrive a potion stored in it. I can then follow the normal rules to drink a potion as a minor action without provoking opportunity attacks. OR I could use the Potion Bracer's ability to drink directly from the bracer as a minor action, but provoking opportunity attacks. Question: Why would I ever choose the latter option, when the former only costs me an extra _free action_ and I don't provoke?



Normally, no reason.  The primary use is to use the former method.  The additional use was added because we envisaged a possible situation whereby a character wasn't able to retrieve the potion or item (both hands occupied, for example).



> 10) The Hat of Exceptional Intelligence has a level 10 version, a level 20 version, and a level 30 version. There are no mechanical differences in them aside from their costs.



I'll check; probably just a gaffe.  The great thing about PDFs is that when we find something like that, we cna simply insert the missing text and re-upload the file!

Thanks for the feedback!  It's always great when folks tell us what they think.

We've also brought on a new editor for the series, who will be starting with the _Campaign Guide_ - Kevin Kulp.  Nothing like an extra layer of insulation!


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 23, 2009)

Well, since someone else started it, Reactive Counterspell should be an immediate interrupt, not a reaction, and from what I see, the feat Spellduelist Counterspell is much stronger than Reactive Counterspell.

But it looks great. I wish we'd had some of this art available when we did the player's guide the first time around.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 23, 2009)

Hey everyone - expect an amended file shortly.  You'll be able to download it from RPGNow.  I'll post here when it's available.

Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## fissionessence (Apr 23, 2009)

> The additional use was added because we envisaged a possible situation whereby a character wasn't able to retrieve the potion or item (both hands occupied, for example).




Ooh very nice. I hadn't thought of that; good foresight.




> I didn't see it in the SRD, which is all that matters when it comes to the GSL.




Cool.

~


----------



## RedBeardJim (Apr 23, 2009)

Morrus said:


> You are correct in that that should say  "Hit" not "Effect".  We'll errata that.
> 
> However, while it appears underpowered in a regular 4E campaign, in WotBS in is a LOT more useful.  I don't know if you're familiar with the story from the 3.5 version, so I'll put this in a spoiler block:




Morrus, I think a bigger concern is that Warlocks have two primary attack stats (Charisma and Constitution), but this power isn't based on either of them for its attack roll.


----------



## scrubkai (Apr 24, 2009)

fissionessence said:


> 6) Student of War is crazily sillily overpowered. At least make this a feat bonus.




Maybe I'm missing something, but in practice is this going to be more overpowered the Impliment Expertise feat from PHB2?
Yes it is a little bit more powerful, but not by all that much.


----------



## fissionessence (Apr 25, 2009)

scrubkai said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but in practice is this going to be more overpowered the Impliment Expertise feat from PHB2?
> Yes it is a little bit more powerful, but not by all that much.




Many people already consider Implement Expertise a mistake, partially (primarily?) because it stacks with everything else. Having this feat stack as well exacerbates the problem. Making it a feat bonus alleviates some of that, but it's still a pretty consistent bonus to attack rolls. Where the expertise feats were considered a 'fix' to the combat math, a feat like this would just skew it in the other direction (albeit only for controllers and swordmages).

~


----------



## Morrus (Apr 25, 2009)

This has all been addressed in the update!


----------



## talarei07 (Apr 25, 2009)

im confused by the Shahalesti being synonomus with eladrin but it not listing eladrin any where in the countries description


----------



## Morrus (Apr 25, 2009)

talarei07 said:


> im confused by the Shahalesti being synonomus with eladrin but it not listing eladrin any where in the countries description




Good catch!  References to "elf" in the description of Shahalesti should read "eladrin".  That's an artifact of the 3.5 version.  We'll make sure that's in the next update.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 25, 2009)

There's one last update on its way.  It includes the above elf/eladrin references, and some feat changes.  That'll be the final version, which I'll be announcing publically on Monday.

The current update on RPGNow contains 90% of the changes.  This last update is just a few more little tweaks before we properly go public with it.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 26, 2009)

This file has now been updated to Version 3.  Make sure you have the latest version (you can redownload from RPGNow).


----------



## Dannager (Apr 26, 2009)

Will you be making additional editing changes to this document as needed?  I know it's the final version, but there are still a number of things that need to be fixed within the document.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 26, 2009)

That's the final version for now - we're working on the Campaign Guide now.

If there are any errors in it that you've spotted, feel free to let us know, because we always revisit our PDFs at a later date.  But I think it's pretty tight in this iteration.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 27, 2009)

I'll list the errors that I spot, along with any design suggestions (balance issues, choices incongruous with 4th Edition design, etc.)

*Reactive Counterspell*


Minor quibble, but the trigger line would be clearer if it read "hit" instead of "struck".
The power's effect needs to be clarified.  The phrase "his spell fails" is unclear; does this mean that the spell misses the character who used Reactive Counterspell, that it misses all targets, that it is considered expended but otherwise has no effect (including any effects that do not require a hit or miss), or some other resolution?
The power's special line needs to be clarified.  That it lasts "until the end of your next turn" implies that standard actions gained through other characters' powers, your own powers, or action points would be lost in addition to the normal standard action you receive each turn.  I suggest changing it to read something like "You spend your next standard action doing nothing," which is both clear and has design precedent in powers like Far Realm Phantasm (Warlock 7).
*Curse of Flesh*


This power lacks the Implement keyword.  I assume this was unintentional, as this power is already borderline underpowered even without losing the ability to apply your magic implement's enhancement bonus to the attack roll.
*Gabal's Superior Missile*


As a general design rule, encounter attack powers do not significantly scale up as the character's level increases.  Instead, characters are urged to take higher-level attack powers when they reach the appropriate point.  I suggest adding, perhaps, a second, paragon-tier encounter attack power that represents a more advanced version of this spell.
*Blessed by Dreams*


The wording of this feat is odd in that it allows you to reroll a saving throw for an ally if you so choose.  It is unclear if this reroll would receive any bonuses to saving throws you possess (as the feat causes _you_ to make the reroll instead of the ally who made the original saving throw), or if it would use your ally's bonuses despite you rolling the die.  Furthermore, it is unclear if your ally would then be able to affect the saving throw with abilities that have a trigger of "You roll a saving throw" or similar.
*Cavalry Errant*


"For the round" is not a clear duration mechanic in 4th Edition.  I suggest rewording it to "until the end of your next turn" or "until the end of your ally's next turn".
*Initiate of the East Wind*


"Unarmed strikes" are not used in 4th Edition.  I suggest rewording it to "unarmed attacks" instead.
Page 25 of the Player's Handbook states that "You can’t choose the Abyssal or Supernal languages as a 1st-level character."  I suggest making it clear that, if this feat is taken at 1st-level, you gain the ability to speak Supernal (but not to have your words universally understood) despite the normal restriction on this language.
*Moral Insight*


The success line of Detect Presence of Good or Evil should read "Evil or Good power is detected within the *burst's* area."
The duration on the stunned effect of an overwhelming aura should use a duration mechanic more clear than "one round."  I suggest changing the wording to "until the end of the character's next turn."
*Spellduelist*


This feat is very powerful, to the point where it makes Spellduelist, Skill Training (Bluff) and Skill Focus (Bluff) must-have feats for nearly any Intelligence-based arcane character (especially Swordmages, melee Bards, and any other melee-based character with an Arcane multiclass)
"In addition, you may negate an opportunity or immediate action against you," should be changed to read "In addition, you may negate an opportunity or immediate action triggered by you," in order to avoid clarity issues.
The Bluff check to negate an action should oppose the target's passive Perception score.
The phrase "combat encounter" is unnecessary.  "Encounter" should be fine.
This feat provides no way for resolving immediate and opportunity actions made by traps and hazards.  They lack Insight scores.  If this ability cannot be used against traps and hazards, that should be made clear in its text.
*Spellduelist's Counterspell*



This power should receive the Arcane keyword.
The power's trigger is unclear.  It should be reworded to "You are targeted by a spell."
It is unclear whether a successful negation of the attack using this power cancels the effects of the source of the attack completely, or merely for you.  As written, its effects are only negated for you; all other targets of the power remain affected.
Feats which unconditionally grant powers are generally to be avoided.  Instead of "You gain the _counterspell_ feat power," I suggest rewording the feat's benefit to read "You can swap one 6th-level or higher utility power you know for the counterspell utility power."
*Thieves' Guild Sympathizer*


Characters who are potentially surprised do not make Perception checks in the first place (unless they are specifically watching for an ambush, and are thus alert).  The surprising group makes a Stealth check (using the modifier of the creature with the lowest Stealth bonus) opposed by all other creatures' passive Perception scores.  Those whose passive Perception score they beat are surprised.  The text of this feat should be reworded to read "If you are not surprised at the start of an encounter, your allies may make an active Perception check to avoid being surprised," or something similar.
*Vow of Healing*


This feat is not powerful enough to justify its drawback, in my opinion.  I realize that it probably exists primarily for flavor reasons, but assuming the party has a leader character, the administer first aid action is usually not required at all.
*Whip Proficiency*


A body of feats for whip mastery have already been published in Dragon #368.  They are multiclass feats which build off the introductory feat Whip Training.  Whip Proficiency, as a non-multiclass feat, potentially has its own niche.  A character who wishes to focus on whip fighting, however, is probably better off taking Whip Training and its other associated feats.
The ability to grab a target with this feat is unclear.  Is the target grabbed because it is ensnared by the whip?  If so, it should be made clear that the character cannot attack with the whip while the target is grabbed.  Is the target pulled into an adjacent space, or is it grabbed in whichever square it was attacked in?  Can the wielder of the whip move up to 1 square away from the target while maintaining the grab?
*Shining Warrior*


"Until the end of the encounter," durations last until the character takes a rest or five minutes pass (Player's Handbook pg. 278).  As worded, this feat essentially reads "The intensified light lasts for 10 minutes or 5 minutes or until the character rests."  I suggest simply leaving it at "until the end of the encounter."
This feat's special line needs to be removed.  Fighters do not receive bonus feats in 4th Edition.
*Whip*


A write-up for the whip has already been published in Dragon #368.  Though it is not referenced in the SRD, it creates something of a conflict for DMs making use of all available official material (especially since the WotBS version of the whip is a great deal more powerful than that printed in Dragon #368).
*Shatterspell*


This item is very powerful.  The level 5 version costs practically nothing to a paragon- or epic-tier party and can end effects of any level.
Area burst 1 is a 3-square-by-3-square area.  This is incongruous with the text of the ability (in two different places it is implied that only a single square is affected by the item).
The item's text should be reworded to read "All magic effects within the *zone *must make a saving throw or end immediately."
The decision to have this item create a zone should be reexamined.
It is unclear who makes the saving throw for the magical effects disrupted by the item.  If the effect's caster makes the saving throw, does he apply applicable saving throw bonuses to the roll?
The item's effect is unclear.  Do magical effects which stretch into the item's attack area end entirely, even if their area would extend outside the area of the attack?  Do those effects return once the zone dissipates?
The shatterspell's potion entry should grant resist 5 (or 10, 15, 20) against damage from spells, not +5 (or 10, 15, 20) damage resistance against spells.  The mechanic "damage resistance" is not used in 4th Edition.
*Orb of Persistence*


This item is beyond powerful, arguably stronger than any implement published for 4th Edition to date.  It will kill solo monsters by itself.  It should, at a bare minimum, have its item level increased by 1 at each iteration.  I strongly suggest reexamining this item's daily power.
This item's daily power should be reworded to read "One of your powers that has an effect that will end this turn can be sustained (Sustain Minor, until the end of your next turn) for a number of rounds equal to your INT bonus (minimum 1).
*Feigning Fez*


I'm having a hard time seeing how this item is functionally any different from a Hat of Disguise.
*Feather Token*


The whip entry is unclear.  The created whip is described as a _+1 whip_ but whether or not the whip gains the critical property of a +1 weapon on its own attacks should be clarified.
The whip entry has AC and Fortitude defense values for the created whip, but lacks hit points (and, perhaps, resistance).
*Arcane Servant*


It is unclear who makes the saving throw if the focus is dropped.  If the ritual's caster makes the saving throw, does he apply any bonuses or penalties he may have to the roll?
*Duelist's Etiquette*


The nonlethal damage mechanic does not exist in 4th Edition.  When a creature is reduced to 0 hit points, the creature responsible for the final attack chooses whether the target is knocked out or killed.  I suggest rewording the ritual to make it clear that characters reduced to 0 hit points by spells or spell effects (which covers conjurations and summonings) within the ritual's area are automatically knocked out.
That's what I was able to track down on a careful pass through the booklet.  Again, a number of the points I made above are simply suggestions, but they are made in an effort to make the new material less incongruous with existing material.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Thanks!  We can certainly adopt some of those suggestions if they assist in clarity.  Clarity is good!

I now know how WotC custserv feels!


----------



## Morrus (Apr 29, 2009)

It is done.  The definite, final version of the Player's Guide is now on RPGNow.

I sent out a message via RPGNow's system.  It told me that a few hundred people got it (those being the ones who, according to them, "permit update notifcations").  But even if you didn't get the email, you can still download the latest version.


----------



## bpkri (Apr 29, 2009)

took a look at the thing ... and I dunno. I think the story is pretty cool (after all I purchased WoBS for 3.5), but a few rule-specific things bug me:

- "punishing" teleportation might be an issue (in exchange for MAYBE a damage bonus). I'll have to see how this works out in-game. The problem is, that this limits some racial features and "core class features" like certain Warlocks. In 3.5 teleportation was not all that common, so this might have played out differently.

- "spells" At several points in your Player's Guide you mention spells, but what a spell is, is AFAIK not clearly defined. Referring to the keywords describing a power might be better - but I don't know if that's maybe not possible due to licensing issues?


----------



## Morrus (Apr 29, 2009)

bpkri said:


> - "punishing" teleportation might be an issue (in exchange for MAYBE a damage bonus). I'll have to see how this works out in-game. The problem is, that this limits some racial features and "core class features" like certain Warlocks. In 3.5 teleportation was not all that common, so this might have played out differently.




It's a _major_ part of the plot.  If you've read the 3.5 version, you'll understand why.  It doesn't last the entire campaign saga, and the damage is very low for the in-combat teleports - low enough that it didn't really have much effect at all in playtests except to remind players of the Burning Sky effect.  It certainly wasn't enough damage to discourage use of the powers, and provided some quite cool tactical options for players.

If it really bothers you, though, simply don't apply the fire damage for in-combat teleports.  Just tell your players that the trip was uncomfortably hot for some reason, but not enough to hurt them.  That should, at least, keep them wondering what's going on.



> "spells" At several points in your Player's Guide you mention spells, but what a spell is, is AFAIK not clearly defined.




"Spells" are defined in the PHB (and the PHB2).  Specifically, they're wizard, warlock, sorcerer and bard powers.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 29, 2009)

bpkri said:


> - "spells" At several points in your Player's Guide you mention spells, but what a spell is, is AFAIK not clearly defined. Referring to the keywords describing a power might be better - but I don't know if that's maybe not possible due to licensing issues?



The sidebar on page 54 of the Player's Handbook defines what a *spell* is - it is, specifically, a power derived from the *arcane* power source.  As Morrus explained, this includes anything from the Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, Artificer and Swordmage classes (to date).

For clarification, powers from the


*arcane* power source are called *spells*.
*martial* power source are called *exploits*.
*divine* power source are called *prayers*.
*primal* power source are called *evocations*.


----------



## bpkri (Apr 30, 2009)

aah. Okay. Iw asn't clear if this naming of powers was ALWAYS the case. The way you state it, it is definitely not a problem.

And as for the teleportation: While I disagree, that it is a minor thing for in-combat teleport powers, I will definitely want to give it a try. It might not be as bad as I fear it is, but it blocks some options. "Fleeing" from a tight spot while in trouble can become a non-option all of a sudden, as you  are likely to lack the HP, BUT on the other hand suddenly using teleportation as a melee-enhancer becomes a viable option. E.g. Building an Eladrin Rogue, who teleports one or two squares into a flanking position and then strikes with sneak and fire. Not bad. Very careful someone would have to be with fey pact warlock, as, especially at the beginning their pact boon can become too much to handle for them. Can. Not must.
And considering the benefits ... it might well be worth the try.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 1, 2009)

Morrus --

I got the email with the link to download my updated player's guide, and my order shows two different links to download the guide.  Analyzing the two links, there are two different product IDs.

Which one is the updated guide?  Is one a B&W version?


----------



## Morrus (May 1, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Morrus --
> 
> I got the email with the link to download my updated player's guide, and my order shows two different links to download the guide.  Analyzing the two links, there are two different product IDs.
> 
> Which one is the updated guide?  Is one a B&W version?




That's weird.  I have no idea.  There should be only one file there.  I don't know how the product IDs are assigned by RPGNow.

The correct one has a full page art piece on the last page, with several faces, the Tempest airship above them, and a flaming stag in the bottom right.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 1, 2009)

Huh.... I looked them and they both appear to be the same.

Attached is a screenshot of my downloads links from my order page.


----------



## Morrus (May 3, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Huh.... I looked them and they both appear to be the same.




Well, as long as you got it OK, that's the important thing!


----------

