|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 4:55AM
#1
|
|
|
Call me amazing if you must but I really feel that combat could be made more interesting if Reach was a numerical value not just 'I hit you one square away". If I recall correct 5e won't assume you are using a grid by default so I think this is a pretty important rule. I was thinking it should work something like this: Medium characters have a base reach value of 0 and weapons, class features, etc. can increase it. For example a Dagger would be +2, Flanged Mace +3, Long Sword +4, Maul +5, Halibert +6. Anything +6 or more would be able to attack creates like reach works now. Then when two character are in melee with one another the difference in reach could be used as a value utilized as a modifier in martial abilities, like a Fighter who has superior reach to his opponent adds the difference to the penalty their opponent takes for trying to attack someone else. Another Fighter or class like say Monk or Rogue could have abilities that benefit from getting within the reach of their opponent.
I can see some people not liking this idea just because it will just be another factor in making some weapons better than others but this could easily be mitigated by specific abilities that utilize those weapon groups making up for it somehow. Like Mace powers that don't target AC or Dagger powers that do on going damage from kidney stabbing, that kind of stuff.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:04AM
#2
|
|
|
I can see some people not liking this idea just because it will just be another factor in making some weapons better than others ...
I don't like it, and not for the reason quoted.
I simply dislike it because it's (IMO and mostly) complexity that is not really giving you much. The game should, in essence, be simple and quick in it's system, and I personally find the idea of numerical reach goes 'to deep' for my tastes. Yes, a sword has more reach than a dagger, but skilled fighters can mitigate a lot of that, in my cinematic view of things. Currently (in 4E) it's simple, efficient and does the trick.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:12AM
#3
|
|
|
I can see some people not liking this idea just because it will just be another factor in making some weapons better than others ...
I don't like it, and not for the reason quoted.
I simply dislike it because it's (IMO and mostly) complexity that is not really giving you much. The game should, in essence, be simple and quick in it's system, and I personally find the idea of numerical reach goes 'to deep' for my tastes. Yes, a sword has more reach than a dagger, but skilled fighters can mitigate a lot of that, in my cinematic view of things. Currently (in 4E) it's simple, efficient and does the trick.
I have no problem with reach being mitigated by skill, I just want to see that specfic skills in play, not abstracted. I also think that your point is moot already, from what I understand we will be seeing a return to more open ended (read more complex) spells and giving casters the only depth of mechanics will kill intrested in non-casters. Martial characters need it as well to not be boring.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:14AM
#4
|
|
|
Any suggestion regarding DnD that contains the words "not abstracted" is oxymoronic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:22AM
#5
|
|
|
Any suggestion regarding DnD that contains the words "not abstracted" is oxymoronic.
Ok I'll rephrase, less abstract than there being no mechanic for it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:33AM
#6
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
This does seem unnecessarily complicated. And I don't see how your proposal replicates the benefit that longer weapons have in a fight.
What advantage does a longsword have over a dagger? It's easier to keep the dagger-wielder at bay, since he has to step into your blade's reach to hit you with his blade. It doesn't make the swordsman more likely to hit. It just forces the dagger-wielder to fight more warily. I have no idea how to replicate that in D&D combat without making a completely cumbersome system.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:39AM
#7
|
|
|
The solution is to bring back interlaced turns and weapon speed factor. Or to ignore it as a difference below the resolution of the system to capture.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:44AM
#8
|
|
|
This does seem unnecessarily complicated. And I don't see how your proposal replicates the benefit that longer weapons have in a fight.
What advantage does a longsword have over a dagger? It's easier to keep the dagger-wielder at bay, since he has to step into your blade's reach to hit you with his blade. It doesn't make the swordsman more likely to hit. It just forces the dagger-wielder to fight more warily. I have no idea how to replicate that in D&D combat without making a completely cumbersome system.
Define cumbersome. Maybe it seems simpler to me because I thought it up in the first place but I don't think using the difference as a variable is hard. I mean I can run vehicle combat in GURPS without fudging anything thought so maybe I'm just King of RPG Math. Like using the difference as a penalty to damage against the superior reach combatant because the attacker is forced into ineffective shenanigans to land a hit safely or adding the difference to the penalty a marked inferior reach opponent takes to attacks made against the Fighter allies.
If you think a few paragraphs worth of mechanics is to cumbersome how did you ever play spell casters in 3.5? This has the potential to be far easier than that.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:46AM
#9
|
|
|
The solution is to bring back interlaced turns and weapon speed factor. Or to ignore it as a difference below the resolution of the system to capture.
How could such a low resolution system keep anyones intrest for more than an hour or two at a time though? Let alone an entire campaign. I know some people have different tastes but systems that are mechanically minimalist like Og and Paranoia while great fun don't make for long running sessions or campaigns, there just isn't enough content.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:49AM
#10
|
|
|
How could such a low resolution system keep anyones intrest for more than an hour or two at a time though? Let alone an entire campaign. I know some people have different tastes but systems that are mechanically minimalist like Og and Paranoia while great fun don't make for long running sessions or campaigns, there just isn't enough content.
I've played the entirety of 4th edition and stayed interested without much problems, even though it does not contain this system of yours. Argument disproven?
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell! I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
