|
5 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2008 - 10:28AM
#221
|
|
|
Also of note:
2-Handers/Off hand: -1(at least) to AC, some nifty feats/powers, or the ability to use an implement (which could affect m/c builds even if a primary warrior) unless that weapon is a staff or pact blade.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2008 - 12:14PM
#222
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
2-Handers/Off hand: -1(at least) to AC, some nifty feats/powers, or the ability to use an implement (which could affect m/c builds even if a primary warrior) unless that weapon is a staff or pact blade.
Clerics start with no Shield Proficiency and only need to wear their Holy Symbols.
Fighters, Warlords and Paladins have free reign of fighting style.
Rogues have full options except for 2H.
Rangers require 2WF.
Wizards and Warlocks don't commonly hit things with sticks.
Not very many classes start out with many choices for weapon-use, and 1/4th of the available classes you can't even get around that with Feats.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2008 - 1:25PM
#223
|
|
|
Clerics start with no Shield Proficiency and only need to wear their Holy Symbols.
Fighters, Warlords and Paladins have free reign of fighting style.
Rogues have full options except for 2H.
Rangers require 2WF.
Wizards and Warlocks don't commonly hit things with sticks.
Not very many classes start out with many choices for weapon-use, and 1/4th of the available classes you can't even get around that with Feats.
True enough. I was talking about the ones that do have a choice. The above post only gave the bonuses for off-hand/2-handed weapons. I was stating the drawbacks.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2008 - 3:20PM
#224
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2007
|
Will a summary of this ever be posted? I would love some guidelines for creating new weapons that multiple minds have worked out but it is far too late for me to jump in on this thread.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2008 - 7:20PM
#225
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I have a summary of my methodology at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1067354 but mostly everyone's gotten to their own little conclusions. I think the closest to an agreement is Ravenous and Tejon both seem to favor no 2d4, and the results of that change are sprinkled all over the place.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2008 - 10:18PM
#226
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2005
|
My theory is this: the damage die advance table is meaningless. All the weapons were hand-balanced and tinkered with.
That was one of the suggested possibilities going into this. After running the numbers, I sincerely doubt this is the case. If the weapons WERE hand-balanced, the people doing the tinkering were arithmetically challenged to put it lightly.
+3 Proficiency ~ +1 damage per die.
High Crit ~ +.5 damage per die.
This just doesn't pan out. +3 is significantly better than a die class, and high crit is ahead of both. Check any of the massive blocks of numbers I've posted to see examples.
...Versatile is a bad property. It's damage boosting option is simply a bad choice...
Actually, one of the original sparks for this whole discussion was the fact that a longsword in two hands is identical to a greatsword at 1[w], and a bastard sword in two hands is superior period. That may have been on Ravennus's other "no 2d4" thread, though (it's been a LONG debate).
In other words, weapons that used two stats that are on the same defense would be allowed more power leeway than weapons which used stats from separate defenses. This would be to make up for the sub-optimal defense score array that would be used with axes, picks, and hammers.
That would be a reasonably good idea. Unfortunately I don't think they consciously did so. All the evidence points to Ravennus's analysis being correct: to make a two-handed weapon, they took the one-handed version, placed its die on the 2H advancement chart, and took two steps to the right. That chart happened to have 2d4 on it for what I think were entirely legacy reasons (falchion, scythe), which put the 1d10 one-handers half a step ahead after conversion to two hands. No good reason, just a sacred cow.
Will a summary of this ever be posted? I would love some guidelines for creating new weapons that multiple minds have worked out but it is far too late for me to jump in on this thread.
Guamae posted his summary above; mine is on page 7 of this thread near the bottom (look for the last post full of multi-colored numbers), or direct link here.
Note, however, that I imagine the whole field will change after new weapons and feats are added in the next two books. The feats could be especially important.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 15, 2008 - 5:52AM
#227
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2005
|
Just thought I'd post a copy of my own interpretations of the mathematical balancing of PHB weapons. Not CORRECTIVE math, simply... "the math which produces what we already have". Spoiler:
Show
It uses a point pool to balance effects out.
Step One: Proficiency
Select how difficult it is to wield the weapon. Simple weapons are almost intuitive--swing a club, stab with a dagger, or bonk with a quarterstaff. Military weapons require training, such as how to hold a longsword properly or how to aim a longbow. Superior weapons don't just require training, they are rare, exotic, and possibly more difficult to control--but much more powerful.
Simple weapons add 0 points to the pool. Military weapons and superior weapons add 1 point.
Step Two: One or Two Handed, Ranged
First, decide if the weapon is melee or ranged. If ranged, decide if the weapon requires two hands to launch its projectile, or if it only needs one hand free at the moment of firing.
If melee, determine if the weapon can be wielded in one hand without becoming clumsy and unwieldy. If so, it's a one-handed weapon. If the weapon has enough hilt room for two hands, and doesn't become unwieldy when used so, it is versatile. Otherwise, it is two-handed.
Versatile weapons add 1 point to the pool, and two-handed weapons add 1 point for simple weapons, or 2 points for military or superior weapons. Ranged weapons do not receive a point bonus for being one handed or two handed (though their damage still increases). Ranged weapons cannot be versatile.
Step Three: Damage
All one-handed weapons start with a base of 1d6 damage, and two-handed with 1d8. Increasing by one die category costs 1 point.
1d6->1d8->1d10->1d12
Changing the dice from a d6 or d8 to 2d4 costs 1 point, and increasing the die thereafter costs 2 points.
Reducing any damage die one size below its base adds 2 to the pool.
Step Four: Proficiency Bonus
Simple and military weapons have a +2 proficiency bonus. Superior weapons have a +3 proficiency bonus. Increasing a +2 proficiency bonus to +3 costs 1 point.
Step Five: Special Abilities
Some special abilities increase the cost of the weapon, while others do not.
Reach: 2 points
Light thrown, heavy thrown: 1 point
Off-hand: 0 points
Small: 1 point
Others: 1 point
Versatile: Add 1 point (described above)
Step Six: Range
Ranged weapons have a simple formula for their range. Thrown weapons have a range of 5 (6 for thrown ranged weapons), simple ranged weapons have a range of 10, military a range of 15, and superior a range of 20. Two-handed weapons have a range 5 squares larger. The maximum range is double the normal range.
Step Seven: Price
Comparing prices to similar weapons usually functions well, but as a general rule the price should be 1-5 gp for simple weapons, 5-15 for military weapons, and 20-30 for superior weapons. Two-handed weapons cost 5 more gp.
Step Eight: Weight
Weight is more a historical, realistic aspect of weapons than a formula. Feel free to research your weapon's weight, or make it up based on similarly sized and composed weapons.
Step Nine: Group
Read the descriptions of the weapon groups in Chapter 7, and determine the most appropriate group, or groups, for the weapon to belong to.
Step Ten: Compare
Compare your weapon to the rest of the weapons in the Player's Handbook, and make sure it is not stronger, weaker, virtually identical, more expensive, or cheaper than any alternatives. In other words, your weapon should have its own niche and role for its own style of fighting, and not overlap or be superior or inferior to similar-niched weapons.
Example:
For example, for the Talenta tangat, I looked at the Eberron Campaign Setting as a guide. Since reach is now able to attack adjacent targets, I'm skipping the sharrash, but instead giving the tangat the reach property.
Anyway. It's a superior weapon, since it was exotic for 3.5. It was two-handed in 3.5. This leaves us with a 1d8 damage weapon, with 3 points to allocate to damage and special abilities. Skipping ahead, we want it to be a reach weapon, and be usable by Small people despite it being a two-handed weapon--and still be a two-handed weapon to Medium people. So it gains the small and reach properties.
This leaves 0 points left, since reach costs 2 points and small costs 1. The price comes out to about 30 gp, and the ECS places the weight at 5 lb. (well, 10 lb. / 2 for being a small weapon). For a group, it's a polearm and looks like a heavy blade, so we'll give it the polearm and heavy blade groups.
The final result is:
Talenta Tangat
Two-handed weapon
Proficiency +3
Damage 1d8
Price 30 gp
Weight 5 lb.
Group Heavy blade, polearm
Properties Reach, small
Comparing this to other superior weapons, we find it is slightly weaker than the spiked chain--but is unique to all other superior weapons as being a Small-sized reach weapon with high damage. It's a guide to create weapons from scratch that are on par with PHB weapons, and works for recreating all PHB weapons except for a handful (like how the quarterstaff is non-negotiably worse than the morningstar--I am unable to account for the quarterstaff) Perhaps someone here will find it useful when debating.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 15, 2008 - 7:17AM
#228
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2007
|
Why is the Quarterstaff worse than the morningstar? It's an implement. Really. That is the reason.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 17, 2008 - 9:26AM
#229
|
|
|
So I got a couple of d14 along with a d16 just because. I'm not a fan of 2d4 or 2d6.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 18, 2008 - 10:52AM
#230
|
Date Joined:
Dec 23, 2002
|
That was one of the suggested possibilities going into this. After running the numbers, I sincerely doubt this is the case. If the weapons WERE hand-balanced, the people doing the tinkering were arithmetically challenged to put it lightly.
In either case, the people doing the tinkering would appear to have been arithmeticallly challenged, wouldn't they? As I said, I believe the lower damage on many of the two handed weapons is a result of a deliberate change to the greatsword rather than a systemic change or oversight. In other words, my position is that they meant to do it and yours is that they accidentally did it, but in either case it appears that they were wrong.
This just doesn't pan out. +3 is significantly better than a die class, and high crit is ahead of both. Check any of the massive blocks of numbers I've posted to see examples.
I checked your blocks of numbers when I read the thread the first time. What I saw suggested that the proficiency bonus was very close in value to one damage per die. High crit, however, is woefully behind either without weapon group mastery and the assumption that number of weapon dice per attack doesn't improve except for at Epic, where it goes to two from one. Even then, the static damage bonus available at paragon should mean that the higher proficiency is still better than high crit through paragon tier. I simply don't believe this is the assumption that the weapons were balanced around initially.
Actually, one of the original sparks for this whole discussion was the fact that a longsword in two hands is identical to a greatsword at 1[w], and a bastard sword in two hands is superior period. That may have been on Ravennus's other "no 2d4" thread, though (it's been a LONG debate).
I believe that was most likely the original thread. Still, the greatsword is clearly superior to the longsword in two hands, even at level 1 using only at-wills, because of higher critical damage, though it is by just one point. The bastard sword is a superior weapon and isn't really fair to compare to the greatsword, but when you do, it comes out to be an unscaling weapon focus. So a human could start with both feats and not bother with a greatsword, but that's because there's no superior two-handed sword to use. The standard action required to equip or stow a shield makes any "versatility" offered by the ability a novelty in the middle of combat. The highest value anyone gives the ability in balancing is 0 in any case.
That would be a reasonably good idea. Unfortunately I don't think they consciously did so. All the evidence points to Ravennus's analysis being correct: to make a two-handed weapon, they took the one-handed version, placed its die on the 2H advancement chart, and took two steps to the right. That chart happened to have 2d4 on it for what I think were entirely legacy reasons (falchion, scythe), which put the 1d10 one-handers half a step ahead after conversion to two hands. No good reason, just a sacred cow.
The best support for this that I can see is that it's only in the two-handed weapon types that 2d4 is used. The war pick would balance a bit better to the other one-handers if it had 2d4 instead of the 1d8 damage die. Hopefully the new material in upcoming books will help clarify it one way or another as well as providing interesting new options.
Zalabim
|
|
|
