|
3 months ago ::
Mar 03, 2013 - 4:10AM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
But why even use proficiencies when we have a skill system?
proficiency = skill
Have a skill for heavy blades, light blades, blunt, shields!, etc. Leave the combat styles (1h, 2h, 2w) outside the skill system, and simply be mechanics shared by ALL martial characters. And for pete's sake, stop classifying shields as armor, they are just defensive, off-hand weapons! The skill check would be made for attack rolls and maneuver rolls. Some maneuvers might even be treated as a contest and the defender also makes a weapon skill check.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 03, 2013 - 6:47AM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
|
If you're playing a wizard and you chose to use weapons as your primary method of dealing damage, it's not an issue of choice: you just picked the wrong class to do what you want.
At least the way it's worked in D&D before, is that weapon attacks were your only at-will and thus your means of dealing with anything too weak to fireball (or not worth expending your limited resources upon). You take the good with the bad, and having a somewhat inferior at-will attack was the trade-off for your spells being really awesome when you did use them.
Whenever my wizard threw a dart, I felt like a smart player for having conserved resources. That it was a dart and not a ray of frost is more a thematic thing - at-will magic isn't appropriate for many settings - but it really drove home the point that this is you under-performing now so that you can be awesome later. But the dart could still do that for the player, even if it was mechanically dealing 70% of the fighter's at-will damage (comparable to cantrips in the last packet). The important thing is dragging you out of your area of specialization.
Oh, I totaly agree with you. Notice how a was talking about weapons as a PRIMARY method of dealing damage.
I actualy like the idea of wizards having to rely a bit on mundane weapon attacks.
But to me, someone saying "I want to play a wizard, so that I get to swing those cool 2-handed swords!" just made a bad choice 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here:
http://www.radiancerpg.com
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 04, 2013 - 2:15PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Restricting what weapons you can use based upon your choice of class is not eliminating choice.
It is imposing consequences upon the choices you do make.
As such it is generally a good thing (although an argument can certainly be made for allowing any class to use any weapon and basing the damage the weapon does upon the class (e.g. a longsword in the hands of a fighter does 1d8, while in the hands of a lifegiver cleric it does 1d6 and in the hands of a wizard it does 1d4).
And the simple solution for those whose concepts are limited by either approach is through weapon proficiency feats (which I am confident will eventually exist).
Carl
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 04, 2013 - 2:56PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Restricting what weapons you can use based upon your choice of class is not eliminating choice.
Err, yes, it is. I fail to see why any purely martial class needs to have limits on weapon or armor choice. I can see certain maneuvers limiting weapon type (for balance/continuity), but not at the class level.
Now, for mixed and purely magical classes, there I can see restrictions, although even then I think the "damage by class" might be a better solution.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 05, 2013 - 11:37AM
#75
|
|
|
Restricting what weapons you can use based upon your choice of class is not eliminating choice.
It is imposing consequences upon the choices you do make.
As such it is generally a good thing (although an argument can certainly be made for allowing any class to use any weapon and basing the damage the weapon does upon the class (e.g. a longsword in the hands of a fighter does 1d8, while in the hands of a lifegiver cleric it does 1d6 and in the hands of a wizard it does 1d4).
And the simple solution for those whose concepts are limited by either approach is through weapon proficiency feats (which I am confident will eventually exist).
Carl
Is it actually a good thing?
I get what you're saying, that weapon proficiencies don't eliminate chaoice, and that they impose consequences on the choices you make. However, in practice, the restriction created by weapon proficiencies usually ends up with the player just picking the best weapon that they're proficient with because it's the best weapon that they can use effectively. So, in practice, what you end up with is each class only bothering with about 1-3 weapons. I suppose that's ok if you want class to rigidly enofrce fantasy weapon tropes and to punish people for making non-standard choices, but I can't honestly call that a "good thing."
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 05, 2013 - 1:16PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Restricting what weapons you can use based upon your choice of class is not eliminating choice.
It is imposing consequences upon the choices you do make.
As such it is generally a good thing (although an argument can certainly be made for allowing any class to use any weapon and basing the damage the weapon does upon the class (e.g. a longsword in the hands of a fighter does 1d8, while in the hands of a lifegiver cleric it does 1d6 and in the hands of a wizard it does 1d4).
And the simple solution for those whose concepts are limited by either approach is through weapon proficiency feats (which I am confident will eventually exist).
Carl
Is it actually a good thing?
I get what you're saying, that weapon proficiencies don't eliminate chaoice, and that they impose consequences on the choices you make. However, in practice, the restriction created by weapon proficiencies usually ends up with the player just picking the best weapon that they're proficient with because it's the best weapon that they can use effectively. So, in practice, what you end up with is each class only bothering with about 1-3 weapons. I suppose that's ok if you want class to rigidly enofrce fantasy weapon tropes and to punish people for making non-standard choices, but I can't honestly call that a "good thing."
How is that less true than what you get without proficiencies?
Each character will always choose the weapons that do the best damage and just use those. So without any proficiency requirements at all - you just end up with even fewer weapons in use because everyone (regardless of class) will just use the same two or three weapons (whereas now some have to choose to use a lesser weapon because their class doesn't have proficiency in the 'best' weapon).
The solution in both cases is to either make weapon choice irrelevant (all do the same damage) or to give weapons distinguishing differences which are more important than just doing more damage. The solution is in weapon design, not altering how proficiencies work.
Carl
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 05, 2013 - 1:37PM
#77
|
|
|
Restricting what weapons you can use based upon your choice of class is not eliminating choice.
It is imposing consequences upon the choices you do make.
As such it is generally a good thing (although an argument can certainly be made for allowing any class to use any weapon and basing the damage the weapon does upon the class (e.g. a longsword in the hands of a fighter does 1d8, while in the hands of a lifegiver cleric it does 1d6 and in the hands of a wizard it does 1d4).
And the simple solution for those whose concepts are limited by either approach is through weapon proficiency feats (which I am confident will eventually exist).
Carl
Is it actually a good thing?
I get what you're saying, that weapon proficiencies don't eliminate chaoice, and that they impose consequences on the choices you make. However, in practice, the restriction created by weapon proficiencies usually ends up with the player just picking the best weapon that they're proficient with because it's the best weapon that they can use effectively. So, in practice, what you end up with is each class only bothering with about 1-3 weapons. I suppose that's ok if you want class to rigidly enofrce fantasy weapon tropes and to punish people for making non-standard choices, but I can't honestly call that a "good thing."
How is that less true than what you get without proficiencies?
Each character will always choose the weapons that do the best damage and just use those. So without any proficiency requirements at all - you just end up with even fewer weapons in use because everyone (regardless of class) will just use the same two or three weapons (whereas now some have to choose to use a lesser weapon because their class doesn't have proficiency in the 'best' weapon).
The solution in both cases is to either make weapon choice irrelevant (all do the same damage) or to give weapons distinguishing differences which are more important than just doing more damage. The solution is in weapon design, not altering how proficiencies work.
Carl
I agree entirely with the bolded part. And it's not that I feel weapon proficiencies need to go away exactly. I have mentioned before that I feel that each character should get the weapon proficiencies from their class plus one melee and 1 ranged proficiency so that they can pick the two weapons that they feel are iconic to the character. However, your post also points out the problem with my idea, which is that people are likely to just pick the best weapons. However, that's the reason I agree so much with the bolded part of your post. Damage should really be one of the last things people look at when picking a weapon. For me, that damage is the major property of most of the weapons is rather sad.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 05, 2013 - 3:29PM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Restricting what weapons you can use based upon your choice of class is not eliminating choice.
It is imposing consequences upon the choices you do make.
As such it is generally a good thing (although an argument can certainly be made for allowing any class to use any weapon and basing the damage the weapon does upon the class (e.g. a longsword in the hands of a fighter does 1d8, while in the hands of a lifegiver cleric it does 1d6 and in the hands of a wizard it does 1d4).
And the simple solution for those whose concepts are limited by either approach is through weapon proficiency feats (which I am confident will eventually exist).
Carl
Is it actually a good thing?
I get what you're saying, that weapon proficiencies don't eliminate chaoice, and that they impose consequences on the choices you make. However, in practice, the restriction created by weapon proficiencies usually ends up with the player just picking the best weapon that they're proficient with because it's the best weapon that they can use effectively. So, in practice, what you end up with is each class only bothering with about 1-3 weapons. I suppose that's ok if you want class to rigidly enofrce fantasy weapon tropes and to punish people for making non-standard choices, but I can't honestly call that a "good thing."
How is that less true than what you get without proficiencies?
Each character will always choose the weapons that do the best damage and just use those. So without any proficiency requirements at all - you just end up with even fewer weapons in use because everyone (regardless of class) will just use the same two or three weapons (whereas now some have to choose to use a lesser weapon because their class doesn't have proficiency in the 'best' weapon).
The solution in both cases is to either make weapon choice irrelevant (all do the same damage) or to give weapons distinguishing differences which are more important than just doing more damage. The solution is in weapon design, not altering how proficiencies work.
Carl
I agree entirely with the bolded part. And it's not that I feel weapon proficiencies need to go away exactly. I have mentioned before that I feel that each character should get the weapon proficiencies from their class plus one melee and 1 ranged proficiency so that they can pick the two weapons that they feel are iconic to the character. However, your post also points out the problem with my idea, which is that people are likely to just pick the best weapons. However, that's the reason I agree so much with the bolded part of your post. Damage should really be one of the last things people look at when picking a weapon. For me, that damage is the major property of most of the weapons is rather sad.
True - but the problem is that when it comes down to it few things beat doing more damage.
Short of restrictions on who can use them - or a fatigue system that tires those who use the bigger damage weapons - there aren't too many things that can really make them stand out.
The best approach I've seen was the 4E expertise feats that gave you a bonus related to the weapon type (bonus to charge, ignore cover, etc).
Ironically, the closed playtest actually had rules like that and they disappeared somewhere along the line.
Fighters and Clerics both had "weapon specialization" which they gained around level 4 or 5. They chose one weapon and got the 'specialization benefit' of that weapon.
Granted, some of the benefits weren't very interesting (+2 to damage with longsword, increaed crit damage). But others were designed to make them more useful (loading a crossbow doesn't take an action; Dart specialization gave you a chance to make a second attack in the round; Flail specialization had a chance to grab with the flail; Halberd specialization let you knock them prone, etc.).
Unfortunately, this idea was dropped. I tend to think it was due to the fact that there seem to be two camps on the issue of weapon specialization:
"I want my fighter to be able to focus on a single weapon and be extra effective with that weapon:
and
"Making me choose a particular weapon limits me because if I later find a cool weapon that is the wrong type I'm screwed".
And you can't make them both happy at the same time. I suspect that the idea of 'fighters are masters of all weapons' came from too many of the second group providing input. And thus Weapon Specialization as a class feature died.
I'd like to see it revived as a feat similar to how the Essentials version of the 4E expertise feats (although without the accuracy bonus) worked. Perhaps a feat would give you proficiency in all weapons in the group (for those classes that didn't already have them) and you gain a special ability (as in the 4E feats or as in the above).
The different special abilities would give characters a reason to choose a weapon other than damage.
This fills the necessary design space of allowing for weapon proficiency feats. And it also has benefits to those classes who already have the proficiencies so they have a reason to take it as well. I see the Polearm training as a version of this - but just not quite a good enough version to be worth taking.
This could also be used to fill the empty level 6 in the fighter progression - you give them a free weapon expertise feat (or weapon expertise as a non-feat for games which don't use feats).
Carl
|
|
|
