|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 10:27PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Ranged, free hand
Ranged, Ranged
Ranged, Melee
Ranged, two-hands
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 10:31PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Sweet. I can get behind that. If WotC doesn't sell that book, I'm sure someone will.
Yes, please.
That's your basics, but that's only five. What might be added?
Um... two-shield fighting?
And then there's this.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 10:50PM
#63
|
|
|
Ranged, free hand
Ranged, Ranged
Ranged, Melee
Ranged, two-hands
I'd more thought of melee fighting. But, realistically, it fits. Bow, thrown and/or held, thrown and free hand - I think I'd go with "reach weapon" instead of double-ranged. Think maybe a previous poster mentioned that, but I'm too drunk to check. Screw held in the mouth, I want to be able to model a guy who holds a dagger between the toes of one foot.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 11:02PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
If you're no John Woo fan, you could replace "Ranged, Ranged" with "Ranged, Shield".
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 11:29PM
#65
|
|
|
I likes me some Killer, some Hard Boiled, some Bullet to the Head - just not seeing the 'two handed dagger throwing' as anything but Breach Gnome, I guess. edit: home game reasons, I suppose
Now I wanna watch a bitta Woo
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 1:42AM
#66
|
|
|
Ignoring legacy and such, no, there's no reason for it to cost extra. Every single combatant that isn't using a twohanded weapon or a weapon specifically designed to be used without a second item in the off hand should be using either sheild, or defensive weapon in the off hand. There's just no reason not to, in real life or in games.
random note, in case it's not been adressed: 4e TWF isn't remotely broken. Multiple attacks per turn is, but even that only is because static damage bonuses are broken in 4e.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 4:11AM
#67
|
|
|
I tried to come up with a solution for our upcoming playtest:
2 attacks, both weapons deals only half static damage (main hand rounds up, off hand rounds down)
Magic weapons: depends on DR mechanic, amount and frequency
Either add them before dividing (DR is just Resistance like in the playtest) or after it (if DR is substractive and at least 10 if +5 is max. Enhancement)
Not perfect (since it requires 2 magic weapons to keep up with others in the first case, but its a start (aimed at wielding shortdwords at max without a feat/penalty for 2d6+static max.)
Simple, easy to use and hits the target numbers
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 7:18AM
#68
|
|
|
Oh wait, I see what the confusion is. When I was mentioning 1-3 maneuvers per weapon category (ie Light Piercing), that was referencing something independent of fighting styles. Two Weapon Fighting might be a style with a hundred possible maneuvers, it's just you can get access to a few bonus maneuvers based on the exact weapon you are holding. I never meant to imply that the main combat styles should be limited that sharply.
Sweet. I can get behind that. If WotC doesn't sell that book, I'm sure someone will.
The 9 schools.
1 weapon, 1 open hand.
1 weapon, 2nd weapon
1 weapon in both hands
1 weapon, one shield/defensive item
2 open hands
That's your basics, but that's only five. What might be added?
As an aside, if this doesn't get put in DDN, I'll likely swipe it for my game. If DDN isn't exactly what I want, I'll buy the first books for the mechanics I like (advantage, etc) and hack together my own game. I'd really like 9 'schools' of fighting to match up to the 9 basic schools of magic.
Like the other guy mentioned, I was thinking of Ranged as an extra school. Maybe separate out "Projectile" and "Thrown". That brings it up to 7. Which is enough to get by with.
The only other thing I'd consider is maybe a universal school that is independent of fighting style for a lot of the utility things all characters should have access to. Because if you put all of the great mobility into say Einhander, then Einhander becomes the go-to default option because any melee warrior needs mobility.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 8:38AM
#69
|
|
|
TWF should be free or a simple proficiency, and should allow a fighter using two weapons to do the same average damage (though it might be higher accuracy, lower damage, or something) as a fighter wielding a two-handed weapon (and more than a fighter using a one-handed weapon plus a shield).
That's how it works in the current Gamma World. A 'two handed weapon' is any weapon that takes both hands to use - including a pair of one handed weapons. Stats are the same, regardless.
Is removing the second rolls going to be a deal breaker for most people?
Personally having different mechanics to differentiate TWF from THF is important, but rolling twice to me is irrelavent. I think it would be enough to have THF do one attack roll and 2d6 + str mod damage and have TWF do one attack roll and make a 1d6 and 1d4 attacks and apply the strength modifier to either attack. The THF does slightly more damage compared to the TWF being able to hit an additional targets.
With the current fighter/slayer ability cleave the minor lose in damage to TWF would be made up for in the ability to cut down 4 low hp enemies.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 8:47AM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2005
|
TWF should be free or a simple proficiency, and should allow a fighter using two weapons to do the same average damage (though it might be higher accuracy, lower damage, or something) as a fighter wielding a two-handed weapon (and more than a fighter using a one-handed weapon plus a shield).
That's how it works in the current Gamma World. A 'two handed weapon' is any weapon that takes both hands to use - including a pair of one handed weapons. Stats are the same, regardless.
Is removing the second rolls going to be a deal breaker for most people?
Personally having different mechanics to differentiate TWF from THF is important, but rolling twice to me is irrelavent. I think it would be enough to have THF do one attack roll and 2d6 + str mod damage and have TWF do one attack roll and make a 1d6 and 1d4 attacks and apply the strength modifier to either attack. The THF does slightly more damage compared to the TWF being able to hit an additional targets.
With the current fighter/slayer ability cleave the minor lose in damage to TWF would be made up for in the ability to cut down 4 low hp enemies.
But if you have a twf with the slayer theme then the twf comes out ahead still. Also a THF only does 1d12. The fighter in the playtest does more because of his race affecting his weapon die. If you have a dwarf wielding a battle axe and a handaxe (I don't have the playtest in front of me so I can't verify that handaxe is a light weapon or not) then he will get stepped up dice for both weapons.
Now I wonder how the math is affected by only being able to use your offhand weapon if you hit with the mainhand. I might have to try some math later.
|
|
|
