|
10 months ago ::
Sep 19, 2012 - 10:44PM
#41
|
|
|
Or just go the other way and make it more simple. If you have ever seen the tests done to swords on deadliest warrior you will know that most weapons are much easier to classify.
slashing
cleaving
bludgeoning
crushing
piercing
impaling
a axe would be a cleaving weapon. A short sword would slash or pierce. A bow would pierce. A javalin or spear would impale. a bo staf would be bludgeoning. a maul would be crushing.
I quite like that idea too! More damage types would help to negate the need for a lot of special properties. It makes sense too - slashing is more of a drawing cut (leaving a gaping wound) rather than a remove-limbs-from-bodies cut.
Only problem is a) coming up with new rules for what is immune to what (it needs to make some difference otherwise it's pointless) - a bludgeoning weapon like a quarterstaff might work against a skeleton, but against a stone golemn, you'd have to use a crushing weapon like a hammer or mauler; and b) people aren't going to like that, and will insist that it makes combat too complicated - but really, I think learning three more damage types (most of which are likely to be logical anyway) will be easier than learning a whole range of special properties.
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 20, 2012 - 12:33AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
Crits: It was during the game ran by Chris Perkins. I think it was either Omen or Jim who critted, and Chris started explaining that they were working with new crit rules, where you added a number of dice (this changing every few levels) on top of the max damage. I might be able to find the spot where they were talking about it, but its a 2 hr set of youtube videos so it will be hard to track down.
I thought you were taking about the podcast. I went looking for those videos a couple of weeks ago to no avail. Maybe they are easier to find now. If you can link them, please do so. I'll do the research.
Flails ect: I understand the desire to have a give and take, but other weapons gain advantages without additional penalties because of their design (ie the Crossbow) and you did not add additional restirctions to them. I'm not saying you are wrong, but people might call foul.
To be honest, I cry foul at the Action reload time required for crossbows. This property was designed to justify that time.
Bows: I see it in concept, but still disagree in practice. From how much people are complaining about the rogues "hide then strike" I don't think they would be happy with a property that caused them to spend their turn to use. Also, from your reply you are saying it is their entire turn (standard and move) correct?
Yes, the whole turn, but the bow wielder is by no means forced to take aim every time. If they do, however, they gain advantage on that attack.
Spears: That makes this an even worse property, because it means the spears with reach gain no property. I recognize almost all reach weapons are some kind of spear or polearm, but it seems to defeat the purpose of giving weapons special properties.
That's why I worded the ability as currently written.
Spear: Gain 5 feet to reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack.
As such, a spear would have 10 feet reach and a long spear would have 15 feet reach. Making attacks with the 'extra' reach, however, would be rolled with distadvantage (as the wielder must overextend themselves).
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 12:42AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
As a DM, cannot emphasize how much I do not want to memorize a whole chart full of special properties just because I say an orc is holding a spear instead of a battleaxe.
That's why I kept all these Properties by Weapon Group both simple and optional to implement. If you forget to use them, no problem. Nothing is broken and the game continues seemlessly. If you start craving actual distinctions between weapons, it's there for you.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 12:53AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
Can't you do that anyway? ^_^
While Dexterity or Strength is an option for attacks with Finesse Weapons, I didn't think Strength was an option for damage.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 4:02AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Or just go the other way and make it more simple. If you have ever seen the tests done to swords on deadliest warrior you will know that most weapons are much easier to classify.
slashing
cleaving
bludgeoning
crushing
piercing
impaling
a axe would be a cleaving weapon. A short sword would slash or pierce. A bow would pierce. A javalin or spear would impale. a bo staf would be bludgeoning. a maul would be crushing.
I quite like that idea too! More damage types would help to negate the need for a lot of special properties. It makes sense too - slashing is more of a drawing cut (leaving a gaping wound) rather than a remove-limbs-from-bodies cut.
Only problem is a) coming up with new rules for what is immune to what (it needs to make some difference otherwise it's pointless) - a bludgeoning weapon like a quarterstaff might work against a skeleton, but against a stone golemn, you'd have to use a crushing weapon like a hammer or mauler; and b) people aren't going to like that, and will insist that it makes combat too complicated - but really, I think learning three more damage types (most of which are likely to be logical anyway) will be easier than learning a whole range of special properties.
Actually - what they will object to is c: The golf bag syndome. If there are a wide range of damage types and immmunities or resistances to weapon damage types are anything other than extremely rare - some people feel obligated to carry a dozen weapons around so they always have the right weapon for the situation.
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 8:42AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2008
|
Crits: It was during the game ran by Chris Perkins. I think it was either Omen or Jim who critted, and Chris started explaining that they were working with new crit rules, where you added a number of dice (this changing every few levels) on top of the max damage. I might be able to find the spot where they were talking about it, but its a 2 hr set of youtube videos so it will be hard to track down.
I thought you were taking about the podcast. I went looking for those videos a couple of weeks ago to no avail. Maybe they are easier to find now. If you can link them, please do so. I'll do the research.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Bows: I see it in concept, but still disagree in practice. From how much people are complaining about the rogues "hide then strike" I don't think they would be happy with a property that caused them to spend their turn to use. Also, from your reply you are saying it is their entire turn (standard and move) correct?
Yes, the whole turn, but the bow wielder is by no means forced to take aim every time. If they do, however, they gain advantage on that attack.
Spears: That makes this an even worse property, because it means the spears with reach gain no property. I recognize almost all reach weapons are some kind of spear or polearm, but it seems to defeat the purpose of giving weapons special properties.
That's why I worded the ability as currently written.
Spear: Gain 5 feet to reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack.
As such, a spear would have 10 feet reach and a long spear would have 15 feet reach. Making attacks with the 'extra' reach, however, would be rolled with distadvantage (as the wielder must overextend themselves).
If you were looking a few weeks ago it's no wondder you couldn't find them, they only posted them 6 days ago
Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGXctw8IuGA
Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1-1_aZVB4E
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 10:17AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2012
|
Or just go the other way and make it more simple. If you have ever seen the tests done to swords on deadliest warrior you will know that most weapons are much easier to classify.
slashing
cleaving
bludgeoning
crushing
piercing
impaling
a axe would be a cleaving weapon. A short sword would slash or pierce. A bow would pierce. A javalin or spear would impale. a bo staf would be bludgeoning. a maul would be crushing.
I quite like that idea too! More damage types would help to negate the need for a lot of special properties. It makes sense too - slashing is more of a drawing cut (leaving a gaping wound) rather than a remove-limbs-from-bodies cut.
Only problem is a) coming up with new rules for what is immune to what (it needs to make some difference otherwise it's pointless) - a bludgeoning weapon like a quarterstaff might work against a skeleton, but against a stone golemn, you'd have to use a crushing weapon like a hammer or mauler; and b) people aren't going to like that, and will insist that it makes combat too complicated - but really, I think learning three more damage types (most of which are likely to be logical anyway) will be easier than learning a whole range of special properties.
Actually - what they will object to is c: The golf bag syndome. If there are a wide range of damage types and immmunities or resistances to weapon damage types are anything other than extremely rare - some people feel obligated to carry a dozen weapons around so they always have the right weapon for the situation.
Carl
I wasn't clear enough ... I call it Carl syndrome where you use too few words  ... instead of listing every weapon and all the basic stats for every weapon make a simple weapon chart based off weapon skill and have the damage based off what type of damage the weapon does. Then add in if it is finess etc on that. So you would take a Katana as a finess slashing/ piercing weapon off the folowing chart. A long sword would be a slashing/ piercing weapon with no finess of the same chart.
| weapon type |
untrained damage |
trained damage |
weapon mastery damage |
| slashing |
1D4 |
1D6 |
1D8 |
| cleaving |
1D8 |
1D10 |
1D12 |
| bludgeoning |
1D4 |
1D6 |
1D8 |
| crushing |
1D8 |
1D10 |
1D12 |
| piercing |
1D4 |
1D6 |
1D8 |
| impaling |
1D8 |
1D10 |
1D12 |
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 10:32AM
#48
|
|
|
Can't you do that anyway? ^_^
While Dexterity or Strength is an option for attacks with Finesse Weapons, I didn't think Strength was an option for damage.
As far as I can tell, the damage modifier uses the same ability as the attack modifier.
Besides, if you're using dex to attack, why would you want to use strength for damage? Surely if you're using dex to attack, it's because it's the superior stat, so why would you elect to use an inferior one?
Personally I don't like dex being used for damage anyway. I think melee damage should always be strength based, whatever weapon you use. Having dex based attacks and damage is just going to encourage more people to neglect strength, and we'll have 6 strength 18 dex ninjas pwning everyone with their katanas, while the 13 strength 15 dex fighter sucks by comparison no matter which weapon he uses. 
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 20, 2012 - 2:46PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
| weapon type |
untrained damage |
trained damage |
weapon mastery damage |
| slashing |
1D4 |
1D6 |
1D8 |
| cleaving |
1D8 |
1D10 |
1D12 |
| bludgeoning |
1D4 |
1D6 |
1D8 |
| crushing |
1D8 |
1D10 |
1D12 |
| piercing |
1D4 |
1D6 |
1D8 |
| impaling |
1D8 |
1D10 |
1D12 |
This is pretty much the exact opposite of what I would like to see in D&D. I'd like to preserve flavourful mechanical distinctions between weapons rather than simplistic generic uniformity.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 20, 2012 - 2:52PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2012
|
@Angrygodofmilk
If we use your idea then you will have more min/max from weapons. If you don't care about that then that is fine.
If you don't want min/ max then the only way I can see how to avoid this is to go with different stats for every weapon ala 1E/ 2E method or to go super simple chart kinda like mine.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
