|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 8:57AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
First off, it doesm't seem like weapon mechanics are the focus for this round of the playtest.
Well if they haven't started yet, now would be a good time.
That being said, I find the ideal way to truly convey the differences in the weapons comes down to DM narration and player roleplaying. The weapon stats are never going to be that interesting.
I disagree. I think well designed game mechanics can be interesting.
There is no real difference between the long sword and the battle axe stat wise. However, I will narrate every hit made differently depending on which weapon is used. I rarely go with, "you hit it," unless the fight has dragged on to long. Thats were the different feels come from. Making them seem part of the world.
While a descriptive dungeon master (and players for that matter) are usually welcome at any gaming table, the fact that a battle axe and longsword are mechanically identical still leaves many players cold.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 9:47AM
#12
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />As for the particular implementation - I don't see making it a finesse weapon as remotely part of "Japan-good; Euro-bad". And I see no sign of a Japanese super-weapon. I see it as a recognition that the way one traditionally fights with a Katana is very different from the way one fights with a traditional sword. It;s style of use can be compared to what one would expect for a finesse weapon.
The implication, though, is that Japanese weapons require skill, finesse and dexterity, while European weapons require nothing more than brute force (i.e strength). I was, however, referring to the OP's proposal, not to its current implementation (which I'm okay with).
Also - it is a d8 weapon, not a d10 weapon.
I'm not that bothered by it being a two-handed 1d8 damage finesse weapon, because that isn't that overpowered, and as long as the quarterstaff remains as an alternative, and the shortsword remains as a one-handed 1d6 finesse weapon (so there is at least one European sword that uses skill and finesse  ), then I've no problem with the katana in its current incarnation.
What will bother me is if the katana becomes a 1d10 finesse weapon, like the OP was suggesting, thereby making it superior to all weapons, or if they nerf the quarterstaff.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 11:06AM
#13
|
|
|
Weapon Simplicity
I am in favour of adding more complexity with weapons. I liked the critical threat range of 3E, it had a nice way of diferentiating the scimitar and the longsword. Axes and Maces are better against armour, but allot less versatile than blades.
I would do something like this:
Mace DMG d8 CRIT 20 ×2 SPECIAL +2 dmg vs. armoured opponents
Battle axe DMG d8 CRIT 20 ×3 SPECIAL +1 dmg vs. armoured opponents
Longsword DMG d8 CRIT 19-20 ×2 SPECIAL +1 AC vs. melee attacks
Scimitar DMG d6 CRIT 18-20 ×2 SPECIAL +1 AC vs. melee attacks
NOTE: This is just an example and certainly not saying its the best option
I certainly don't think weapon choices should be purely for 'the look of it' , I think there should be a clear mechanic behind it so that players use diferrent kinds of weapons depending on the siatuation.
RE: Katana
To me the katana should be similar to a bastard sword mechanically (d8 dmg one-handed, d10 dmg two-handed). Realistically, a katana isn't balanced so its in fact harder to fight with (which is why 3Es version of all katanas being +1 to hit is ridiculous) it does make sense that it would be an exotic weapon however. Also a katana is meant to cut only (not bludgeon) so it is infective against armour. I do think WOTC should make historical research on weapons before entering stats, the Japanese having better arms than Europeans is just myth.
Scimitar
Sorry to say, but this isn't a finesse weapon, you can use a longsword with more finesse. A scimitar is a hacking weapon. I don't agree that a certain dark elf ranger should dictate how a weapon functions simply because he happens to be agile. But then again, realistically, dexterity (though I would argue with intelligence) is the best stat to use as an attack modifier for all weapons. Mechanically though strength makes more sense.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Magic seems to stand as the only complexity right now. Meaning you can't give flavour to your gear other then making it magical. Even masterwork is boring as heck. You mean to tell me that smithing only have two levels of quality? Good and Masterwork? Seems lame to me. Who needs to dwarves if all you need is a level 1 artisan to make a masterwork item? Heck little johny can make a weapon as good as Bruenor Battlehammer with those rules. I really think there needs more complexity it terms of mundane gear, put more emphasis on the items themselves and their quality - not everything is about magic.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 11:50AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />As for the particular implementation - I don't see making it a finesse weapon as remotely part of "Japan-good; Euro-bad". And I see no sign of a Japanese super-weapon. I see it as a recognition that the way one traditionally fights with a Katana is very different from the way one fights with a traditional sword. It;s style of use can be compared to what one would expect for a finesse weapon.
The implication, though, is that Japanese weapons require skill, finesse and dexterity, while European weapons require nothing more than brute force (i.e strength). I was, however, referring to the OP's proposal, not to its current implementation (which I'm okay with).
Looks to me like the implication is that at least seven Euopean weapons (three of them swords) require skill, finesse and dexterity. So I'm pretty sure your implication isn't implied at all.
What will bother me is if the katana becomes a 1d10 finesse weapon, like the OP was suggesting, thereby making it superior to all weapons, or if they nerf the quarterstaff.
I agree with the former - and the latter. How good the katana should be has nothing to do with how good people think the katana should be; it's pure mechanics and no two-handed finesse weapon should do more than 1d8 - just because that's the way the numbers work. Whether they call it a Katana or not is ... fluff. That said - there could in theory be a race that has Katana as a special weapon and does d10 (Kenku would be my choice). But that is a separate matter also driven by bare mechanics.
On a related note: In both of the last two feedback packets I've lobbied for a change to staff.
Not the quarterstaff - the staff.
The quarterstaff is, legitimately, a finesse weapon which requires special training to use.
The quarterstaff is not the iconic weapon of clerics and wizards.
The iconic weapon of the wizard is a a staff that is more of a walking stick. Far closer to a shillelagh than it is to a quarterstaff. I've been arguing that they need to add a new weapon to the equipment list: The staff. The staff is a basic weapon in the club group and the staff is the weapon that wizards (as a class weapon proficiency) and clerics (as a basic weapon) are known to use.
Lets dump this idea of wizards walking around proficient in the quarterstaff - and also give clerics back their staff (which seems to alternate packets whether or not they have proficiency in).
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:15PM
#15
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
The quarterstaff is, legitimately, a finesse weapon which requires special training to use.
The quarterstaff is not the iconic weapon of clerics and wizards.
The iconic weapon of the wizard is a a staff that is more of a walking stick. Far closer to a shillelagh than it is to a quarterstaff. I've been arguing that they need to add a new weapon to the equipment list: The staff. The staff is a basic weapon in the club group and the staff is the weapon that wizards (as a class weapon proficiency) and clerics (as a basic weapon) are known to use.
Lets dump this idea of wizards walking around proficient in the quarterstaff - and also give clerics back their staff (which seems to alternate packets whether or not they have proficiency in).
Agreed! The quarterstaff is an awesome weapon that is so underrated in these games. Which is why I like it as it is now.
However, I think the iconic wizards' weapon should be different, to more represent the fact that it's a stick of wood that they hit things with. Create a separate staff for use in the Simple Weapons table.
I don't mind it being the cleric's weapon so much, because clerics have, traditionally, had some training in combat in previous D&D games.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 5:27PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
What will bother me is if the katana becomes a 1d10 finesse weapon, like the OP was suggesting, thereby making it superior to all weapons, or if they nerf the quarterstaff.
To be clear, I was talking about my 'proposed' version of the bastard sword (1d8 one-handed, 1d10 two-handed). I was not suggesting that the katana should deal 1d10 across the board. The katana (once reintroduced along with a host of other Eastern-themed weapons) would work the same way, but have the option of being finessable. Remember, Finesse Weapons do not force wielders to attack with their Dexterity. They can use Strength if they prefer.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 6:14PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
On a related note: In both of the last two feedback packets I've lobbied for a change to staff.
Not the quarterstaff - the staff.
The quarterstaff is, legitimately, a finesse weapon which requires special training to use.
The quarterstaff is not the iconic weapon of clerics and wizards.
The iconic weapon of the wizard is a a staff that is more of a walking stick. Far closer to a shillelagh than it is to a quarterstaff.
Agreed. The 'staff' will make a fine addition to the Basic Weapon list.
I think it's time to compose a 'Revised Weapon' chart in the post I ear-marked after the original post of this thread, bringing some of these ideas together.
I'm starting to get idea on how to add complexity without compromising simplicity. It can go two ways. On the one hand, we can create invidualized rules for all weapons. On the other hand, we can create individualized mechanics for each weapon 'Group', of which there are currently fifteen: Axe, Dagger, Bow, Crossbow, Flail, Hammer, Mace, Pick, Shield, Sling, Spear, Staff, Sword, Unarmed, and Whip. In the latter case, any generic rules that can be agreed upon would apply all weapon in that Group. At that point, it would then be relatively simple matter of avoiding damage redundancy within a weapon Group.
I am already more inclinded towards the latter approach for the sake of preserving simplicity, although I think there may still be certain weapons that deserved specialized/stylized mechanics of their own. One step at a time.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 7:24PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I don't mind it [quarterstaff] being the cleric's weapon so much, because clerics have, traditionally, had some training in combat in previous D&D games.
I don't mind it one way or the other. I think its more important in the context of the wizard.
But they seem to be unable to make up their mind about clerics and quarterstaffs.
This at least gives clerics a staff weapon they can use so that items like Snake Staff work.
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 8:56PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
On a related note: In both of the last two feedback packets I've lobbied for a change to staff.
Not the quarterstaff - the staff.
The quarterstaff is, legitimately, a finesse weapon which requires special training to use.
Well if you want to get historically accurate about the quarterstaff, you need to remove it from the equipment list entirely.
Instead, put it in a list of fighting styles (that may or may not get modeled in game mechanics) along with halfstaff.
Take a six-foot-or-so staff and paint a red stripe around it at its midpoint. Then paint a blue stripe halfway between an end and the red stripe. In quarterstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the blue stripe; in halfstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the red stripe.
But the staff is the same.
(There is a third staff-fighting style... singlestick. It uses a much shorter staff and resembles a mix of sword techniques and club techniques.)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 10:57PM
#20
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Take a six-foot-or-so staff and paint a red stripe around it at its midpoint. Then paint a blue stripe halfway between an end and the red stripe. In quarterstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the blue stripe; in halfstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the red stripe.
But the staff is the same.
This exactly. "Halfstaff" style (holding it in the middle and attacking with both ends) is not generally recommended, and usually used for show-fighting. "Quarterstaff" style has the staff wielded more like a spear.
But it should still be called "quarterstaff" for the same reason that the single-handed sword is still called "longsword" - everyone identifies easily with it.
The katana (once reintroduced along with a host of other Eastern-themed weapons) would work the same way, but have the option of being finessable. Remember, Finesse Weapons do not force wielders to attack with their Dexterity. They can use Strength if they prefer.
I'm aware of that, but having the option to forego strength and use only dexterity is exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that you can do that with an eastern sword, but not with a western sword, heavily implies that eastern swords are inherently superior. Even more so when dex is used for damage as well. This will result in a host of ninja-type characters all using this supposedly exotic weapon, because they're so awesomely agile (despite having no physical strength). 
Or did you mean it can be a 1d8 two handed finesse weapon, a 1d8 one handed martial weapon or a 1d10 two handed martial weapon? That I wouldn't object to, however I think that with the katana and the hand and a half, there should be a strength requirement to using it one-handed. I also think that, if that's the case, the hand and a half needs something else, because otherwise, the katana is basically a version of it that can be finessed (i.e. a superior version of it).
While we're on the subject, I don't think we need a shortsword, longsword, hand and a half sword AND a two-handed sword. I think the shortsword should be the standard single-handed arming sword (single handed 1d6 finesse piercing), the longsword should perform the roles of both the longsword and the hand and a half (one-handed = 1d8 slashing, two-handed = 1d10 slashing AND piercing), and the two hander should stay where it is.
In fact, I think the shortsword should also do slashing damage, but as a martial weapon.
Basically, my suggestion would be: fewer weapons, but more complicated rules with the ones that we have. This would also negate the need for the golf-bag, if several weapons can be used in different ways.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
|
|
|
