All good points. So would you say that giving all attacks against you disadvantage (proposed blade power) is about equal in power to giving one foe disadvantage on all attacks (proposed hammer power)?
It should probably be considered equivalent. The main thing that can tip the balance is that the blade's special property increases in overall effectiveness if the entire party is using blades against numerous targets. But that might be compensated for by the fact that hammer power is more useful when the party coordinates against only a few targets.
It should probably be considered equivalent. The main thing that can tip the balance is that the blade's special property increases in overall effectiveness if the entire party is using blades against numerous targets. But that might be compensated f
All good points. So would you say that giving all attacks against you disadvantage (proposed blade power) is about equal in power to giving one foe disadvantage on all attacks (proposed hammer power)?
It should probably be considered equivalent. The main thing that can tip the balance is that the blade's special property increases in overall effectiveness if the entire party is using blades against numerous targets. But that might be compensated for by the fact that hammer power is more useful when the party coordinates against only a few targets.
Great! So it sounds like we've got a decent system brewing finally.
It should probably be considered equivalent. The main thing that can tip the balance is that the blade's special property increases in overall effectiveness if the entire party is using blades against numerous targets. But that might be compensated f
Oops! Sorry. yeah, I should have written mace instead of hammer!
Except I want the mace option for hammers Pushing is nice and all, but would it be perhaps better to organize the effects based on damage type? So all blunt weapons can pick from the following options, etc?
Except I want the mace option for hammers :( Pushing is nice and all, but would it be perhaps better to organize the effects based on damage type? So all blunt weapons can pick from the following options, etc?
Oops! Sorry. yeah, I should have written mace instead of hammer!
Except I want the mace option for hammers Pushing is nice and all, but would it be perhaps better to organize the effects based on damage type? So all blunt weapons can pick from the following options, etc?
I am certainly for that to me the difference would indeed be how you use it.
Except I want the mace option for hammers :( Pushing is nice and all, but would it be perhaps better to organize the effects based on damage type? So all blunt weapons can pick from the following options, etc?[/quote]I am certainly for that to me the
Except I want the mace option for hammers Pushing is nice and all, but would it be perhaps better to organize the effects based on damage type?
It doesn't make sense that you could have one warhammer that is battering and another warhammer that is penetrating. My advice would be to ask your DM to let you reflavor a hammer as a mace. And my proposal (post 3) gives you very cdetailed rules about crafting your own weapon, including an example of a weapon (rapier) belonging to one family (blade) and yet having the weapon property of a different family (spear).
It doesn't make sense that you could have one warhammer that is battering and another warhammer that is penetrating. My advice would be to ask your DM to let you reflavor a hammer as a mace. And my proposal (post 3) gives you very cdetailed rules a
Actually, this could be getting bigger than the weapons.
If you separated the funky abilities from weapon family and then grouped them by damage type, that increases the options in combat a great deal and frees us from some of the inconsistency (like the difference between a hammer and a mace).
Actually, this could be getting bigger than the weapons.If you separated the funky abilities from weapon family and then grouped them by damage type, that increases the options in combat a great deal and frees us from some of the inconsistency (like
That would just be eliminating families and making all these benefits a combat superiority option. But the whole point is to differentiate weapons, so the complaint of "I don't like maces being different than hammers" is sort of just saying "I don't want weapons to be differentiated."
That would just be eliminating families and making all these benefits a combat superiority option. But the whole point is to differentiate weapons, so the complaint of "I don't like maces being different than hammers" is sort of just saying "I don't
Staff: Weapons in this family are "doubling". On a hit, roll damage twice, as if you successfully attacked twice in one round. If the attack roll was a critical hit, only the first instance of damage is treated as a critical hit.
Idea for staves:Staff: Weapons in this family are "doubling". On a hit, roll damage twice, as if you successfully attacked twice in one round. If the attack roll was a critical hit, only the first instance of damage is treated as a critical hit.
well the differentiation would still be there, but it wouldn't be as specific.
Really, the one that seems to make the least sense to people's brains is the hammer/mace thing. It doesn't especially bother me but when we get new comments about the system, that's one of the first things people say.
So aside from the families both being blunt weapons, I'm kinda interested in hearing what it is about them being different categories that stands out.
well the differentiation would still be there, but it wouldn't be as specific.Really, the one that seems to make the least sense to people's brains is the hammer/mace thing. It doesn't especially bother me but when we get new comments about the syste
Staff: Weapons in this family are "doubling". On a hit, roll damage twice, as if you successfully attacked twice in one round. If the attack roll was a critical hit, only the first instance of damage is treated as a critical hit.
I can dig it. The staff family would be another one that really wouldn't include anything shorter than (really) long. (or longer than really short).
A baton is more of a mace or club, right?
I can dig it. The staff family would be another one that really wouldn't include anything shorter than (really) long. (or longer than really short).A baton is more of a mace or club, right?
A jo stick would be a one-handed staff. Similarly, the Dark Sun weapon "singing stick" could be a one-handed staff.
@wrecan: wouldn't the giving up advantage requirement mess with Sneak Attack? Is it intended to be incompatible, or should a rogue be able to get the familial benefits along with Sneak Attack?
A jo stick would be a one-handed staff. Similarly, the Dark Sun weapon "singing stick" could be a one-handed staff.@wrecan: wouldn't the giving up advantage requirement mess with Sneak Attack? Is it intended to be incompatible, or should a rogue be a
A jo stick would be a one-handed staff. Similarly, the Dark Sun weapon "singing stick" could be a one-handed staff.
@wrecan: wouldn't the giving up advantage requirement mess with Sneak Attack? Is it intended to be incompatible, or should a rogue be able to get the familial benefits along with Sneak Attack?
I've trained with a jo, and you can't wield it one handed. It doesn't require more than one hand to support it but without the other hand to control your strike you can't really get any power or do anything interesting with it.
I've trained with a jo, and you can't wield it one handed. It doesn't require more than one hand to support it but without the other hand to control your strike you can't really get any power or do anything interesting with it.
Except twirl it. Twirling can be interesting. I would have to say that only 2h staves would benefit from doubling.
On a related note, if you wanted to reintroduce those stupid double weapons from 3e then they could end up as reflavored staves with a different damage type. However, would a reflavored double sword (for instance) be both a staff and a blade? If this is the case, then I guess it does raise the subject of weapons having multiple family advantages and if they do, what does that mean for the use of exotic weapons? Or do we draw a line in the sand and say "A weapon can only belong to one family, choose wisely"?
@Mithrus: It really depends largely on whether the 'advantage sacrifice' is actually giving up advantage or giving up the benefit from having advantage. I guess that should be clarified because you raise a very good point.
Except twirl it. Twirling can be interesting. I would have to say that only 2h staves would benefit from doubling. On a related note, if you wanted to reintroduce those stupid double weapons from 3e then they could end up as reflavored staves with
I would have to say that only 2h staves would benefit from doubling.
Actually, I think all staves are 2 handed. Otherwise they are classified as sticks (as used in stick fighting and gatka or whatever) which would probably be classfied as close or short maces.
Actually, I think all staves are 2 handed. Otherwise they are classified as sticks (as used in stick fighting and gatka or whatever) which would probably be classfied as close or short maces.
A jo stick would be a one-handed staff. Similarly, the Dark Sun weapon "singing stick" could be a one-handed staff.
@wrecan: wouldn't the giving up advantage requirement mess with Sneak Attack? Is it intended to be incompatible, or should a rogue be able to get the familial benefits along with Sneak Attack?
I've trained with a jo, and you can't wield it one handed. It doesn't require more than one hand to support it but without the other hand to control your strike you can't really get any power or do anything interesting with it.
Isn't the bo staff the longer version? IIRC, the jo stick was considerably shorter (like 2' instead of 5-6'). Then there is the tetsubo(sp), which IIRC was similar but had metal studs.
I've trained with a jo, and you can't wield it one handed. It doesn't require more than one hand to support it but without the other hand to control your strike you can't really get any power or do anything interesting with it.[/quote]Isn't the bo st
Isn't the bo staff the longer version? IIRC, the jo stick was considerably shorter (like 2' instead of 5-6'). Then there is the tetsubo(sp), which IIRC was similar but had metal studs.
The jo staff is just over four feet in length. Ish. Basically, if you hold it vertically with one end resting on the floor, it's generally around the height of a bar. Wikipedia's got a decent article about it, actually.
It's definitely a hand-and-a-half (long) weapon.
The jo staff is just over four feet in length. Ish. Basically, if you hold it vertically with one end resting on the floor, it's generally around the height of a bar. Wikipedia's got a decent article about it, actually.It's definitely a hand-and-a-ha
Right now, the staff family would have four items:
Short: Shortstaff Long: Rod Great: Quarterstaff Reach: Featherstaff
No thrown or close version, but I'm allowing the shortstaff. BUT, I'm going to add onto the "doubling" property that you must be wielding the staff with two-hands to gain the benefit of the doubling. The shortstaff would be useful to halflings and is a staff you can wield in close quarters.
I could imagine a staff mastery specialty that lets you "twirl" a staff to get the doubling effect when using it one-handed.
As for the mace/hammer issue, I'll sthink about it. To me, the mace has a knob and made for striking, but the hammer has a much larger head and is made for swinging. The mace is in between a staff and hammer.
Right now, the staff family would have four items:Short: ShortstaffLong: RodGreat: QuarterstaffReach: FeatherstaffNo thrown or close version, but I'm allowing the shortstaff. BUT, I'm going to add onto the "doubling" property that you must be wieldi
Was thinking of the mace vs. hammer thing and I think you're right, they are different but the opposite side of the coin but I'm not entirely sure I agree your descriptions of mace = striking / hammer = swinging. IMO mace = bashing / hammer = striking / flail = swinging. Regardless, I have no problem with the weapon family benefits although the 'toppling' ability possibly belongs with 2h bludgeoners - but that is merely splitting hairs and being pedantic about wording. What happens though if the target is larger than the wielder? Would they be staggered instead (pushed 5 feet or -10 feet to movement)?
Was thinking of the mace vs. hammer thing and I think you're right, they are different but the opposite side of the coin but I'm not entirely sure I agree your descriptions of mace = striking / hammer = swinging. IMO mace = bashing / hammer = striki
I could imagine a staff mastery specialty that lets you "twirl" a staff to get the doubling effect when using it one-handed.
lol sorry, you just totally gave me the image of a marching band baton twirler. Like an army of them.
I think we just found the thrown staff...
lol sorry, you just totally gave me the image of a marching band baton twirler. Like an army of them.[/quote]I think we just found the thrown staff...;)
Right now larger creatures cannot be toppled. I can see downgrading it to staggered for creatires one size larger, but I cannot see a dwarf knocking back a dragon without having a class feature that allows it.
Right now larger creatures cannot be toppled. I can see downgrading it to staggered for creatires one size larger, but I cannot see a dwarf knocking back a dragon without having a class feature that allows it.
Right now larger creatures cannot be toppled. I can see downgrading it to staggered for creatires one size larger, but I cannot see a dwarf knocking back a dragon without having a class feature that allows it.
Staggered for one size class larger is fine, but it's a break from the way you're treating the rest of the mod re: creature size.
One interesting way to modify at bay using the same logic is they can stop them from attacking but not from moving toward you/through you.
Staggered for one size class larger is fine, but it's a break from the way you're treating the rest of the mod re: creature size.One interesting way to modify at bay using the same logic is they can stop them from attacking but not from moving toward
Right now larger creatures cannot be toppled. I can see downgrading it to staggered for creatires one size larger, but I cannot see a dwarf knocking back a dragon without having a class feature that allows it.
I think the weapons that have a size limitation should have some alternate feature for the larger targets. Perhaps, instead of knocking prone, they lose half their movement (and still pushed back 5')?
I think the weapons that have a size limitation should have some alternate feature for the larger targets. Perhaps, instead of knocking prone, they lose half their movement (and still pushed back 5')?
Either that or they just have no effect on creatures bigger than on size larger.
i.e. A hammer wielded by a human can topple a gnoll or an ogre (large) but not a dragon (huge), but the same hammer wielded by a halfling can topple the gnoll, but not the ogre and certainly not the dragon. Similarly, if the human is wielding a pike, he keep the gnoll and the ogre at bay, but the dragon will still have him for dinner. The halfling-
...actually, how would that work? Does the halfling get the "at bay" ability for wielding a 'long' spear or longsword 2 handed or will they luck out altogether?
Either that or they just have no effect on creatures bigger than on size larger. i.e. A hammer wielded by a human can topple a gnoll or an ogre (large) but not a dragon (huge), but the same hammer wielded by a halfling can topple the gnoll, but not
That's a good question. Maybe small creatures can't use the at bay power, but make them immune to close quarters (just like Tiny creatures currently are).
That's a good question. Maybe small creatures can't use the at bay power, but make them immune to close quarters (just like Tiny creatures currently are).
I think the weapons that have a size limitation should have some alternate feature for the larger targets. Perhaps, instead of knocking prone, they lose half their movement (and still pushed back 5')?
It's still going to break credulity for a halfling to slow a giant with a hammer, particularly if the halfling is not actually a fighter or someone who specializes in fighting giant or with a hammer.
Either we live with size limits on some wepaon powers or we come up with weapon powers that don't strain credulity.
It's still going to break credulity for a halfling to slow a giant with a hammer, particularly if the halfling is not actually a fighter or someone who specializes in fighting giant or with a hammer.Either we live with size limits on some wepaon powe
That's a good question. Maybe small creatures can't use the at bay power, but make them immune to close quarters (just like Tiny creatures currently are).
It could be a feature of small to have both. They could be immune to close quarters and still be able to keep creatures of their size and smaller at bay. I think a halfling sized pike should definately be usable against small and smaller creaturs to keep them at bay.
It could be a feature of small to have both. They could be immune to close quarters and still be able to keep creatures of their size and smaller at bay. I think a halfling sized pike should definately be usable against small and smaller creaturs t
That's a good question. Maybe small creatures can't use the at bay power, but make them immune to close quarters (just like Tiny creatures currently are).
It could be a feature of small to have both. They could be immune to close quarters and still be able to keep creatures of their size and smaller at bay. I think a halfling sized pike should definately be usable against small and smaller creaturs to keep them at bay.
I'm really not sure that would work with respect to reach weapons because a small pike would effectively lose the 'reach' quality and for all intents and purposes become a long spear and gain the versatile quality.
I think that's fair. I'm really not sure that would work with respect to reach weapons because a small pike would effectively lose the 'reach' quality and for all intents and purposes become a long spear and gain the versatile quality.
That's a good question. Maybe small creatures can't use the at bay power, but make them immune to close quarters (just like Tiny creatures currently are).
It could be a feature of small to have both. They could be immune to close quarters and still be able to keep creatures of their size and smaller at bay. I think a halfling sized pike should definately be usable against small and smaller creaturs to keep them at bay.
I'm really not sure that would work with respect to reach weapons because a small pike would effectively lose the 'reach' quality and for all intents and purposes become a long spear and gain the versatile quality.
Then give small and smaller creatures the ability to use weapons to remove immunity to close quarters from creatures. That effectively gives them "at bay" without actually attaching it to the weapon, and also goes towards helping overcome the penalties for being small that some people feel is unbalanced.
I think that's fair. I'm really not sure that would work with respect to reach weapons because a small pike would effectively lose the 'reach' quality and for all intents and purposes become a long spear and gain the versatile quality. [/quote]Then
Then give small and smaller creatures the ability to use weapons to remove immunity to close quarters from creatures. That effectively gives them "at bay" without actually attaching it to the weapon, and also goes towards helping overcome the penalties for being small that some people feel is unbalanced.
I don't understand what you mean. I don't think it would make sense for a Small creature to use a weapon to keep people at bay that a Medium person could not use.
I don't understand what you mean. I don't think it would make sense for a Small creature to use a weapon to keep people at bay that a Medium person could not use.
Then give small and smaller creatures the ability to use weapons to remove immunity to close quarters from creatures. That effectively gives them "at bay" without actually attaching it to the weapon, and also goes towards helping overcome the penalties for being small that some people feel is unbalanced.
I don't understand what you mean. I don't think it would make sense for a Small creature to use a weapon to keep people at bay that a Medium person could not use.
It's harder for bigger creatures to keep smaller ones away. I can keep a big dog away with a stick easier than I can a chihuahua. And a fly? Forget it. Allowing small and smaller creatures to keep other small creatures from being immune to close quarters if they have a weapon in hand makes sense to me. Nothing is actually being kept "at bay" in the sense of the mechanic being discussed, but removal of immunity to close quarters is comparible to "at bay."
I don't understand what you mean. I don't think it would make sense for a Small creature to use a weapon to keep people at bay that a Medium person could not use. [/quote]It's harder for bigger creatures to keep smaller ones away. I can keep a big
I still think limiting it to one size class larger preserves enough of reality to make it work.
I've been making NPCs for my next session under the assumption that the abilities are determined by how many hands you need to use to wield the weapon rather than the weapon's size. So for small creatures the weapon size just slides down one with long weapons being two handed and short weapons being versatile. Close weapons become 1 handed, but can be wielded at close quarters without penalty. If for some reason I had a tiny creature, I'd probably carry on that way with short weaponws being two handed, close being versatile and I'd make up another category for one handed. At that point the tiny creature can't really be penalised for close quarters so it's a moot point.
I've got a large NPC as well that's made me add a size class "humongus" to the other side of great, which serves as their two handers and great weapons are versatile, long are one handed and short are close. Reach weapon damage goes up as well 'cause it makes sense to my brain, but suffer a penalty to damage when striking twice as large an area.
Half way through the first session I had to overturn the size restriction in favour of what I said: 1 size class larger flies because it just sucked too hard and made small creatures suck even more.
I still think limiting it to one size class larger preserves enough of reality to make it work.I've been making NPCs for my next session under the assumption that the abilities are determined by how many hands you need to use to wield the weapon rath
I've amended the rules to allow these weapon categories to affect creatures up to one size bigger than you. So a human can keep an owlbear at bay, but not a bullette. I also added an ehtire section on weapons of unuaul size in the "Design Your Own Weapon" section.
The other thing to remember with at bay is there are no attacks of opportunity in this iteration of the playtest. So if you have a halberd and two men with longswords approach you, you can only keep one at bay at a time. The other is going to close in on you. Which means, even if you back up five feet and hit one swordsman, you are still getting attacked by the other swordsman (and at some point may run out of space!)
If they reintroduce attacks of opportunity, the at bay rule should state that hitting someone on an attack of opportunity does not keep them at bay.
I've amended the rules to allow these weapon categories to affect creatures up to one size bigger than you. So a human can keep an owlbear at bay, but not a bullette. I also added an ehtire section on weapons of unuaul size in the "Design Your Own
I've been toying with giving my halberd/combat reflexes player a choice between dealing damage or stopping them but not both. I haven't seen it get really abusive yet but he knows it's on my radar so he'll probably keep it clean in hopes that I let at bay stand as it is.
I've been toying with giving my halberd/combat reflexes player a choice between dealing damage or stopping them but not both. I haven't seen it get really abusive yet but he knows it's on my radar so he'll probably keep it clean in hopes that I let a
MacEochaid: What about an ongoing damage, or just a second dose of damage at the begining of the next round to represent a deep wound?
These are good ideas. I wonder if they would be too complicated for a mechanic that is likely to be invoked, on average every encounter.
MacEochaid: I would remove the throwing knife from blades, I just don't see a thrown slashing weapon helping add versimilitude (nor does a deflective throwing knife make much sense to me).
I understand your point. I'm going to hold off removing throwing blades until we're certain we're using deflective as the blade property. That's one of the properties potentially on the chopping block. If we replace it with something that does make sense with a ranged weapon, then the throwing knives stay.
As for the more general point as to why I don't let holes in the system, it's to ensure that if someone comes up with a character concept, the tools are there for them to use it. I don't want someone to be excited about a character concept that requires a close axe and then find out there's no such thing.
I'm not going for realism here. I am going for cinematic storytelling. So if someone wants to weild two mini-axes, I don't care that it's not particularly realistic. Same reason spiked chain is in there.
MacEochaid: Also why are flails slashing?
Good catch. Mostly, because there are way too many bludgeoning weapons (flails are traditionally bludgeoning) and almost no slashing weapons. In my mind, I was thinking of a swinging piece of metal tearing flesh from their enemies as slashing damage, rather than simply swinging a mini-wrecking ball into someone's cranium as bludgeoning damage. But I'm amenable to restoring the flails to bludgeoning if people are bothered by them being slashing.
MacEochaid: maybe remove morning star for it's dubious historocity and replace with the DnD triple headed flail
I'd like triple-headed flail to be an exotic weapon of some sort. I don't see anybody but gnolls really getting to use them. And, for better or ill, morningstar has a lot of history in the game, so I'd rather not remove it, despite the historical inaccuracy.
MacEochaid: Lastly, would you use these rules for monsters natural weaponry
I was actually thinking monster attacks would be described in individual monster entries. But it might be worth having a short paragraph in the basic rules explaining how monster attacks fit into the schema along the lines you suggested.
Just to maybe contribute a little on the whole question of flails, morningstars, and maces...
There were a couple types of flails in use. One was the simple agricultural flail, which was used now and then by peasants as a makeshift weapon. There are a few illustrations of these with spikes added, but in general they're a long pole (4' or so) with a shorter cylindrical head attached by a couple links of chain. The other type of flail was a short (often very short) handle with one or more heads attached by chains about as long as the handle. These could be spiked balls or just weights. clearly these smaller flails were purely military weapons.
Morning stars were BASICALLY maces, but with spikes. They came in both infantry and cavalry (light, one-handed) versions. The infantry version was typically at least 4' and sometimes as much as 8' in length. They always had a tip spike and might or might not also have side spikes (usually). Some of the longer versions with only a tip spike were called 'godendag' and were probably used mostly like a spear with an auxiliary mace-like bludgeoning mode.
Then you're grading into the various maces and then hammers. All of these weapons were made in both one and two-handed versions, and some hammers were made as pole arms. They all work on the same principles though.
Frankly, IMHO it would be most ACCURATE to consider the mace/hammer/morning star/club as one single 'club' weapon family. That does reduce the need to come up with extra rules and resolves the "what is the club pole arm slot called (lucern hammer)". Of course this may not meet with the expectations of a lot of players...
Flails certainly seem mechanically somewhat different, though in terms of the damage delivered they don't seem much different from other clubs. They were certainly difficult to defend against, with blows easily avoiding shields, tangling with weapons, and striking from odd angles and with high speed. It is quite hard to defend against a determined flail attack. OTOH if the weapon users momentum can be broken or the head snagged then it can quickly become useless. Perhaps something can be done to portray this nature of the weapon, though I don't think the last version you put up was bad at all.
Just to maybe contribute a little on the whole question of flails, morningstars, and maces...There were a couple types of flails in use. One was the simple agricultural flail, which was used now and then by peasants as a makeshift weapon. There are a
Is it just me or are some of the weights waaaaay too high, especially for swords? Realistic weapon weights are easy to look up.
Give me a list, I'll be happy to include it. I just went with a generic system on weights. So i just went with increments of 3 -- 3-6-9-12-15. Encumberance is such a minor part of the game that I didn't feel the need to spend my time researching it. But if someone else wants to invest the time to list more accurate weights for each weapon, I'm all for it.
Well, maybe it is worth distinguishing 'encumbrance weight' from 'physical weight'. The truth is that the very heaviest actual non-show weapons used by humans in combat never weigh more than about 9 lbs. Once a weapon exceeds this weight the added weight has no benefit and just makes it a worse weapon. You get LESS total kinetic energy dealt by a blow and the utility (not to mention encumbrance) becomes a serious liability.
The largest actually servicable swords that are known to have been made for actual use in battle are large 2-handers, with the heaviest being under 8 lbs. Typical examples are between 5 and 6, and some examples are as low as about 4. A typical longsword would top out at around 2.2 lbs. A 1-handed mace, hammer, etc likewise all top out at around 2.5-3 lbs. 2 handed versions appear to be up to maybe 9 lbs or so. The same is true of pole arms, the heaviest halbards used in pike squares (where they were fairly long) might weigh 9 lbs or so. The more common 6-7' ones are in the 6 lb range.
So, IMHO realistically reach weapons 9 lbs, 2 handed weapons 7 lbs, hand-and-a-half 5 lbs, one handed 3 lbs, close weapons are then in the under 2 lb range. Even these are really maximum weights, but not unrealistic.
Give me a list, I'll be happy to include it. I just went with a generic system on weights. So i just went with increments of 3 -- 3-6-9-12-15. Encumberance is such a minor part of the game that I didn't feel the need to spend my time researching i
AbdulAlhazred: IMHO it would be most ACCURATE to consider the mace/hammer/morning star/club as one single 'club' weapon family. That does reduce the need to come up with extra rules and resolves the "what is the club pole arm slot called (lucern hammer)". Of course this may not meet with the expectations of a lot of players...
That's my thoughts, too. For now, I'm still keeping maces and hammers separate. Clubs ar ein the mace family and I have no desire to separate club and mace. If anything, I'm on the fence about merging hammers and maces.
AbdulAlhazred: Flails certainly seem mechanically somewhat different, though in terms of the damage delivered they don't seem much different from other clubs. They were certainly difficult to defend against, with blows easily avoiding shields, tangling with weapons, and striking from odd angles and with high speed. It is quite hard to defend against a determined flail attack. OTOH if the weapon users momentum can be broken or the head snagged then it can quickly become useless. Perhaps something can be done to portray this nature of the weapon, though I don't think the last version you put up was bad at all.
I think that sort of flavor is precisely what a flail specialization would be perfect to accomnodate!
AbdulAlhazred: maybe it is worth distinguishing 'encumbrance weight' from 'physical weight'. Traditionally, that sort of distinction is made in encumberance rules. I'll leave that out of the weapon rules, I think.
AbdulAlhazred: So, IMHO realistically reach weapons 9 lbs, 2 handed weapons 7 lbs, hand-and-a-half 5 lbs, one handed 3 lbs, close weapons are then in the under 2 lb range. Even these are really maximum weights, but not unrealistic.
So you're suggesting 2/3/5/7/9? Right now, I have 2/3/4/6/8 (and 1 for thrown). I don't think we differ by so much (technically, by 1 lb. for three lengths). I'll leave it as is.
AbdulAlhazred: IMHO it would be most ACCURATE to consider the mace/hammer/morning star/club as one single 'club' weapon family. That does reduce the need to come up with extra rules and resolves the "what is the club pole arm slot called (lucern hamm
AbdulAlhazred: IMHO it would be most ACCURATE to consider the mace/hammer/morning star/club as one single 'club' weapon family. That does reduce the need to come up with extra rules and resolves the "what is the club pole arm slot called (lucern hammer)". Of course this may not meet with the expectations of a lot of players...
That's my thoughts, too. For now, I'm still keeping maces and hammers separate. Clubs ar ein the mace family and I have no desire to separate club and mace. If anything, I'm on the fence about merging hammers and maces.
AbdulAlhazred: Flails certainly seem mechanically somewhat different, though in terms of the damage delivered they don't seem much different from other clubs. They were certainly difficult to defend against, with blows easily avoiding shields, tangling with weapons, and striking from odd angles and with high speed. It is quite hard to defend against a determined flail attack. OTOH if the weapon users momentum can be broken or the head snagged then it can quickly become useless. Perhaps something can be done to portray this nature of the weapon, though I don't think the last version you put up was bad at all.
I think that sort of flavor is precisely what a flail specialization would be perfect to accomnodate!
AbdulAlhazred: maybe it is worth distinguishing 'encumbrance weight' from 'physical weight'. Traditionally, that sort of distinction is made in encumberance rules. I'll leave that out of the weapon rules, I think.
AbdulAlhazred: So, IMHO realistically reach weapons 9 lbs, 2 handed weapons 7 lbs, hand-and-a-half 5 lbs, one handed 3 lbs, close weapons are then in the under 2 lb range. Even these are really maximum weights, but not unrealistic.
So you're suggesting 2/3/5/7/9? Right now, I have 2/3/4/6/8 (and 1 for thrown). I don't think we differ by so much (technically, by 1 lb. for three lengths). I'll leave it as is.
Yeah, I was posting ahead, your weights are fine, no reason to split hairs and any weights you use are rough, plenty of examples of weapons at various sizes exist that are unusually heavy or light (I found an example of 'bastard' sword in a museum collection that weighs 2.2 lbs, lol).
A lot of weapon differences really are pretty subtle of course. It is like the differences between various small axes. A tomahawk and a fransesca were 2 you mentioned. If you look at examples of each they're not really different in size or weight, just subtly different in form. Fransescas were presumably purely a throwing weapon (they might serve as a hand weapon in a pinch, but it isn't what they were designed for AFAICT), where tomahawks are intended to be either thrown or used as a hand weapon. A hatchet is not too far from a tomahawk, but not really reliably throwable. Supposedly a Fransesca is effective up to 40', tomahawks more like 20-30'. I have no idea how you would make those kind of distinctions in a system, but most weapon distinctions are equally rather subtle.
Yeah, I was posting ahead, your weights are fine, no reason to split hairs and any weights you use are rough, plenty of examples of weapons at various sizes exist that are unusually heavy or light (I found an example of 'bastard' sword in a museum co
A lot of weapon differences really are pretty subtle of course. It is like the differences between various small axes. A tomahawk and a fransesca were 2 you mentioned. If you look at examples of each they're not really different in size or weight, just subtly different in form. Fransescas were presumably purely a throwing weapon (they might serve as a hand weapon in a pinch, but it isn't what they were designed for AFAICT), where tomahawks are intended to be either thrown or used as a hand weapon. A hatchet is not too far from a tomahawk, but not really reliably throwable. Supposedly a Fransesca is effective up to 40', tomahawks more like 20-30'. I have no idea how you would make those kind of distinctions in a system, but most weapon distinctions are equally rather subtle.
I don't think a RPG is really an appropriate place to make such subtle distinctions. At some point, you end up designing a game only a SCA member could love.
I don't think a RPG is really an appropriate place to make such subtle distinctions. At some point, you end up designing a game only a SCA member could love.
A lot of weapon differences really are pretty subtle of course. It is like the differences between various small axes. A tomahawk and a fransesca were 2 you mentioned. If you look at examples of each they're not really different in size or weight, just subtly different in form. Fransescas were presumably purely a throwing weapon (they might serve as a hand weapon in a pinch, but it isn't what they were designed for AFAICT), where tomahawks are intended to be either thrown or used as a hand weapon. A hatchet is not too far from a tomahawk, but not really reliably throwable. Supposedly a Fransesca is effective up to 40', tomahawks more like 20-30'. I have no idea how you would make those kind of distinctions in a system, but most weapon distinctions are equally rather subtle.
I don't think a RPG is really an appropriate place to make such subtle distinctions. At some point, you end up designing a game only a SCA member could love.
Agreed, I don't particularly value realism too highly in RPGs. I'm torn though on the subject of distinctions between weapons in this context. The best way to retain some faithfulness with the real world and ignore ugly tedious details that don't matter much is abstraction. OTOH its perfectly understandable that people want their axe to be a little interesting and unique compared to Joe's sword. Of course then we're piling purely imaginary distinctions and details on top of abstraction, which feels weird to me. Certainly if I were designing my own RPG I would desire some 3rd way (not that there is one, the best I can come up with is just inventing fighting styles and assigning them to weapon types and leaving it at that).
I don't think a RPG is really an appropriate place to make such subtle distinctions. At some point, you end up designing a game only a SCA member could love.[/quote]Agreed, I don't particularly value realism too highly in RPGs. I'm torn though on th
And here I was thinking this thread couldn't get any more awesome!
Quick question: Wrecan, where has the table gone from post #3? Is it in temporary reconstruction limbo?
And here I was thinking this thread couldn't get any more awesome! Quick question: Wrecan, where has the table gone from post #3? Is it in temporary reconstruction limbo?
Certainly if I were designing my own RPG I would desire some 3rd way (not that there is one, the best I can come up with is just inventing fighting styles and assigning them to weapon types and leaving it at that).
The beauty of this is you can dial up as many mechanics as you like. For example, you might go with the basic rules and then include lots of Specializations based on fighting styles. Someone else may ignore Specializations and use the Weapon Family rules I provide. Someone else might use the basic rules only, and someone else might allow everything and the kitchen sink. And the best part is they should all work perfectly well.
The beauty of this is you can dial up as many mechanics as you like. For example, you might go with the basic rules and then include lots of Specializations based on fighting styles. Someone else may ignore Specializations and use the Weapon Family
On that note, I'm pretty happy with how it's all turned out, except for one wrinkle: At Bay as lockdown against a solo.
So, you're in the Caves of Chaos and you enter the owlbear's lair. The owlbear is a large beast meant to take on the whole party, but it has no ranged attack. It also has low AC, but tons of hp. Your fighter grabs his polearm. He stands in the cave entrance and keeps hitting the owlbear and keeping it at bay while his allies safely behind him either shred it with missile damage or boost the fighter's attack anyway they can. Sure, the fighter may at some point miss the owlbear, but the odds are definitively in the fighter's favor, turnign a challenging encounter into a cakewalk.
It's a good strategy and, truly, exactly what polearms are designed for. That's who medieval folks fought bears. They took pikes and used them to keep the bear at bay while they stabbed it safely until it died.
But in D&D, that's pretty dissatisfying. Any suggestions? I don't want to scrap at-bay. I just want to give animals, particularly, who would have no ranged attacks, a way to challenge a party.
On that note, I'm pretty happy with how it's all turned out, except for one wrinkle: At Bay as lockdown against a solo. So, you're in the Caves of Chaos and you enter the owlbear's lair. The owlbear is a large beast meant to take on the whole party
Yeah at bay's been a really big question mark. I love it but it's problematic... What if you made it an opposed roll? Like your attack roll vs theirs? More rolls though. hmm.
Yeah at bay's been a really big question mark. I love it but it's problematic... What if you made it an opposed roll? Like your attack roll vs theirs? More rolls though. hmm.
On the one hand, pole arms are designed to keep people at bay. On the other hand, there's a whoel class fo creatures (beasts) for whom such a power is overpowered.
I'm thinking we get a toned down version of "at bay" and a polearm specialization can slowly ramp up its effectiveness.
How is this:
At Bay: If you hit an opponent that is your size or smaller with a great or reach weapon in which you are proficient, you may choose to try to keep them at bay. Roll damage, but inflict only half-damage on the target. If the target uses its next action to attack you with a melee weapon with shorter length than yours, or if the target uses its next move to move closer to you or to pass you, it automatically takes the remainder of the damage. Any creature that is not mindless is aware that it will take damage if it uses its next action or move in the way described. You must declare you are trying to keep the creature at bay before rolling your attack roll.
On the one hand, pole arms are designed to keep people at bay.On the other hand, there's a whoel class fo creatures (beasts) for whom such a power is overpowered.I'm thinking we get a toned down version of "at bay" and a polearm specialization can sl
On the one hand, pole arms are designed to keep people at bay...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />At Bay: If you hit an opponent that is your size or smaller with a great or reach weapon in which you are proficient, you may choose to try to keep them at bay. Roll damage, but inflict only half-damage on the target. If the target uses its next action to attack you with a melee weapon with shorter length than yours, or if the target uses its next move to move closer to you or to pass you, it automatically takes the remainder of the damage. Any creature that is not mindless is aware that it will take damage if it uses its next action or move in the way described. You must declare you are trying to keep the creature at bay before rolling your attack roll.
I feel that needs to be one size category or smaller. Large adult bears would likely be a large sized creature, right?
I feel that needs to be one size category or smaller. Large adult bears would likely be a large sized creature, right?
On that note, I'm pretty happy with how it's all turned out, except for one wrinkle: At Bay as lockdown against a solo.
So, you're in the Caves of Chaos and you enter the owlbear's lair. The owlbear is a large beast meant to take on the whole party, but it has no ranged attack. It also has low AC, but tons of hp. Your fighter grabs his polearm. He stands in the cave entrance and keeps hitting the owlbear and keeping it at bay while his allies safely behind him either shred it with missile damage or boost the fighter's attack anyway they can. Sure, the fighter may at some point miss the owlbear, but the odds are definitively in the fighter's favor, turnign a challenging encounter into a cakewalk.
It's a good strategy and, truly, exactly what polearms are designed for. That's who medieval folks fought bears. They took pikes and used them to keep the bear at bay while they stabbed it safely until it died.
But in D&D, that's pretty dissatisfying. Any suggestions? I don't want to scrap at-bay. I just want to give animals, particularly, who would have no ranged attacks, a way to challenge a party.
I'd say let the person being held at bay have an option of overcoming it. It might be as simple as giving the person a free attack, or double damage with a successful at-bay attack, but still allow you to close.
I'd say let the person being held at bay have an option of overcoming it. It might be as simple as giving the person a free attack, or double damage with a successful at-bay attack, but still allow you to close.
At Bay: If you hit an opponent that is your size or smaller with a great or reach weapon in which you are proficient, you may choose to try to keep them at bay. Roll damage, but inflict only half-damage on the target. If the target uses its next action to attack you with a melee weapon with shorter length than yours, or if the target uses its next move to move closer to you or to pass you, it automatically takes the remainder of the damage. Any creature that is not mindless is aware that it will take damage if it uses its next action or move in the way described. You must declare you are trying to keep the creature at bay before rolling your attack roll.
I'm thinking the at-bay quality might be most appropriately handled as an opposed check/contest. There is a built-in limitation of effectiveness based on the opponent's reach and strength.
You don't have to say "colossal creatures can't be kept at bay" - they will likely win that contest, and even if they lose still have the reach.
I'm thinking the at-bay quality might be most appropriately handled as an opposed check/contest. There is a built-in limitation of effectiveness based on the opponent's reach and strength. You don't have to say "colossal creatures can't be kept at ba
On the one hand, pole arms are designed to keep people at bay. On the other hand, there's a whoel class fo creatures (beasts) for whom such a power is overpowered.
I'm thinking we get a toned down version of "at bay" and a polearm specialization can slowly ramp up its effectiveness.
How is this:
At Bay: If you hit an opponent that is your size or smaller with a great or reach weapon in which you are proficient, you may choose to try to keep them at bay. Roll damage, but inflict only half-damage on the target. If the target uses its next action to attack you with a melee weapon with shorter length than yours, or if the target uses its next move to move closer to you or to pass you, it automatically takes the remainder of the damage. Any creature that is not mindless is aware that it will take damage if it uses its next action or move in the way described. You must declare you are trying to keep the creature at bay before rolling your attack roll.
The only issue I see with this mechanic is that there's rarely any incentive for the player use at-bay if there is only the possibility of doing the same amount of damage. It's like being told that you can either be given $10 today, or $5 with the potential to earn $5 more . . . there's not much point in waiting. Maybe if you don't halve the second part of the damage?
The only issue I see with this mechanic is that there's rarely any incentive for the player use at-bay if there is only the possibility of doing the same amount of damage. It's like being told that you can either be given $10 today, or $5 with the po
Maybe if you don't halve the second part of the damage?
I was thinking something similar.
Maybe it could do full damage and the target gains the 'at-bay' status. If the target decides to advance, the wielder rolls weapon damage again.
I was thinking something similar. Maybe it could do full damage and the target gains the 'at-bay' status. If the target decides to advance, the wielder rolls weapon damage again.
The only issue I see with this mechanic is that there's rarely any incentive for the player use at-bay if there is only the possibility of doing the same amount of damage. It's like being told that you can either be given $10 today, or $5 with the potential to earn $5 more . . . there's not much point in waiting. Maybe if you don't halve the second part of the damage?
Doh! Of course. Okay. I want to avoid unnecessary rolls. Let's try this...
At Bay: If you hit an opponent that is a size category larger than you or smaller with a great or reach weapon in which you are proficient, you may choose to try to keep it at bay. Roll damage, but inflict only half-damage on the target. If the target uses its next action to attack you with a melee weapon with shorter length than yours, or if the target uses its next move to move closer to you or to pass you, it automatically takes the full amount of damage you just rolled. Any creature that is not mindless is aware that it will take damage if it uses its next action or move in the way described. You can only keep no more than one opponent at bay with an action. You must declare you are trying to keep the creature at bay before rolling your attack roll.
Doh! Of course. Okay. I want to avoid unnecessary rolls. Let's try this...At Bay: If you hit an opponent that is a size category larger than you or smaller with a great or reach weapon in which you are proficient, you may choose to try to keep it
Maybe it could do full damage and the target gains the 'at-bay' status. If the target decides to advance, the wielder rolls weapon damage again.
If you do full damage there's never a reason not to try to keep them at bay.
Tru dat
One thing one my player who's totally latched on to at bay has pointed out is the primary balance for at bay, close quarters, is not a choice. His argument is that as long as the disadvantage of a reach weapon is not optional, the advantage shouldn't be optional either.
I think it's worth considering.
If you do full damage there's never a reason not to try to keep them at bay. [/quote]Tru dat[/quote]One thing one my player who's totally latched on to at bay has pointed out is the primary balance for at bay, close quarters, is not a choice. His ar
One thing one my player who's totally latched on to at bay has pointed out is the primary balance for at bay, close quarters, is not a choice. His argument is that as long as the disadvantage of a reach weapon is not optional, the advantage shouldn't be optional either.
That's not how balance works. Balance and symmetry are two different things. At bay, versatile, and close quarters are all merely designed to make weapons of different lengths feel appropriately distinct. At bay allows long weapons to hinder opponents. Close quarters allows short weapons to be used in situations where long weapons cannot be. Versatile gives medium length weapons a choice between agression and defense.
As long as they are all of roughly equal value, then it works just fine.
That's not how balance works. Balance and symmetry are two different things. At bay, versatile, and close quarters are all merely designed to make weapons of different lengths feel appropriately distinct. At bay allows long weapons to hinder oppon
Maybe. I'm willing to let the gameplay decide but it's probably one of those things that is largely determined by the setting. I prefer the idea of an opposed roll though, modified by creature size.
That way, at bay just sort of happens and it either is successful or not. One thing I don't really like about it dealing damage when they approach anyway is it leads to a situation where we're keeping track. I know that in 5e there's no opportunity attacks so that's relatively simple, but I think it's likely we'll end up with multiple opponents being kept at bay and without some kind of drawing or mat or whatever I'll struggle with keeping track of it, personally.
Maybe. I'm willing to let the gameplay decide but it's probably one of those things that is largely determined by the setting. I prefer the idea of an opposed roll though, modified by creature size.That way, at bay just sort of happens and it either
I think it's likely we'll end up with multiple opponents being kept at bay and without some kind of drawing or mat or whatever I'll struggle with keeping track of it, personally.
I don't know how it's possible to have multiple opponents being kept at bay. Each pole arm user can hold only one creature at bay at a time. So each pole arm user can keep track of his own at-bay damage.
I guess if you send your PCs against a squadron of halberdiers, it can be some bookkeeping to keep track of the at bay damage for each halberdier. Do people think that would be so onerous that we should rethink the mechanic?
I don't know how it's possible to have multiple opponents being kept at bay. Each pole arm user can hold only one creature at bay at a time. So each pole arm user can keep track of his own at-bay damage.I guess if you send your PCs against a squadr
I think it's likely we'll end up with multiple opponents being kept at bay and without some kind of drawing or mat or whatever I'll struggle with keeping track of it, personally.
I don't know how it's possible to have multiple opponents being kept at bay. Each pole arm user can hold only one creature at bay at a time. So each pole arm user can keep track of his own at-bay damage.
I think through fending (all out defense) it should be possible to keep more than one at bay. But one of the things about fantasy, fighting more than one enemy is often easier than is realistic.
I don't know how it's possible to have multiple opponents being kept at bay. Each pole arm user can hold only one creature at bay at a time. So each pole arm user can keep track of his own at-bay damage. [/quote]I think through fending (all out def
I think through fending (all out defense) it should be possible to keep more than one at bay. But one of the things about fantasy, fighting more than one enemy is often easier than is realistic.
There's really no mechanicsm of that, sinc eit keys off an attack. Allowing multi-attack to keep multiple creatures at bay would be overpowered, in my opinion.
There's really no mechanicsm of that, sinc eit keys off an attack. Allowing multi-attack to keep multiple creatures at bay would be overpowered, in my opinion.
kay I've been discussing this at length with my player on my way home. He says if we go with the .5x damage, then 1x if they close then the thing he'd want to do is actually have the reach weapon to start but carry a greatsword for when he's out of reach targets, finally he'd grab a close weapon for close quarters.
Armed to the teeth, eh? I kinda like the feel of that though.
I think the other thing is 1.5x weapon damage is perfectly awesome for 5e but in the land of double damage criticals in 3e it's sort of lackluster.
He also expressed concern that I'd just have the mobs close no matter what. He's actually got a fair point with that one, I tend to play a really vicious game and I exploit player weakness mercilessly.
So to reflect my playstyle and 3e's damage sensibilities, we're gonna try it with him dealing 2x weapon damage if they try to close. I totally think it's overpowered like that but what the hell, let's put the crazy on and see if we can break it
kay I've been discussing this at length with my player on my way home. He says if we go with the .5x damage, then 1x if they close then the thing he'd want to do is actually have the reach weapon to start but carry a greatsword for when he's out of r
He says if we go with the .5x damage, then 1x if they close then the thing he'd want to do is actually have the reach weapon to start but carry a greatsword for when he's out of reach targets, finally he'd grab a close weapon for close quarters.
That depends on whether you charge a move action to sheathe a weapon. Also, he just drops the pole arm, right? So if he's pushed back, the polearm could be kicked away and he could lose it.
I don't mind someone dropping a polearm when foes press forward, and drawing a weapon. Frankly, the "close" weapon he should plan to use in close quarters is gauntlets, which are probably built into his heavy armor.
I think the other thing is 1.5x weapon damage is perfectly awesome for 5e but in the land of double damage criticals in 3e it's sort of lackluster.
Except he gets the 1.5X on a basic hit, which should be more frequent than a critical.
He also expressed concern that I'd just have the mobs close no matter what. He's actually got a fair point with that one, I tend to play a really vicious game and I exploit player weakness mercilessly.
Okay, but then your mobs are taking 1.5 damage. What do they take now for closing in?
That depends on whether you charge a move action to sheathe a weapon. Also, he just drops the pole arm, right? So if he's pushed back, the polearm could be kicked away and he could lose it.I don't mind someone dropping a polearm when foes press forw
Once they're threatening the player they don't need to take any more 'cause they're there. And only one mob at a time means it'll be really, really easy to overwhelm him.
My plan is to give him a mix of tactics and see how he deals with it, but the way we generally play involves some stonkingly dangerous thing surrounded by baddies so if I go with what I normally go with he'll be in close quarters pretty quick.
Once they're threatening the player they don't need to take any more 'cause they're there. And only one mob at a time means it'll be really, really easy to overwhelm him.My plan is to give him a mix of tactics and see how he deals with it, but the wa
The reasoning he's using is any melee mob will have the hp to take it and get close enough to take a few swings at him. He's bearing in mind that in the war of attrition he can't win, so the tactic of doing extra damage isn't very compelling because basically everyone will close. He needs a realistic shot at overwhelming them with damage before he an get swarmed or the ability is useless (as far as he's concerned.)
5e mobs have no hp anyway so 1.5x damage is perfectly reasonable, but if I'm rolling 6-10d8 per monster he fights (it's a lvl 10 game) then the odds are they'll survive swarm him.
ahh wait I think I get what you mean.The reasoning he's using is any melee mob will have the hp to take it and get close enough to take a few swings at him. He's bearing in mind that in the war of attrition he can't win, so the tactic of doing extra
The reasoning he's using is any melee mob will have the hp to take it and get close enough to take a few swings at him. He's bearing in mind that in the war of attrition he can't win, so the tactic of doing extra damage isn't very compelling because basically everyone will close. He needs a realistic shot at overwhelming them with damage before he an get swarmed or the ability is useless (as far as he's concerned.)
5e mobs have no hp anyway so 1.5x damage is perfectly reasonable, but if I'm rolling 6-10d8 per monster he fights (it's a lvl 10 game) then the odds are they'll survive swarm him.
Furthermore, if your friend built his character around using a polearm, or conceptually consistently using a polearm, you're frequently taking that away from him. Though the playtest does not have feats to pertain to any weapons that resemble a polearm currently, I would be angered if my character build were rendered completely useless because hordes of monsters frequently swamped me and it disallowed me any defense against it.
I really dislike the idea of 10' only reach if it means no opportunity attack, as it gives practically no advantage to said weapon. Looking back at it now, what DOES a reach weapon get as an advantage? A 5-10 foot reach? It sounds like putting a bandage on the major wound that is martial immobility.
Furthermore, if your friend built his character around using a polearm, or conceptually consistently using a polearm, you're frequently taking that away from him. Though the playtest does not have feats to pertain to any weapons that resemble a pole
I really dislike the idea of 10' only reach if it means no opportunity attack, as it gives practically no advantage to said weapon. Looking back at it now, what DOES a reach weapon get as an advantage? A 5-10 foot reach? It sounds like putting a bandage on the major wound that is martial immobility.
Traditionally, polearms were the weapons of choice for the folks in the second row of a marching order. The first row would keep the monsters from getting to you and you'd reach over with your pole arm and poke 'em to death.
The problem with making a reach specialty is that it's a build based on keeping people away and the game is based on those things hitting you regularly. But that's really a topic for a different thread.
Traditionally, polearms were the weapons of choice for the folks in the second row of a marching order. The first row would keep the monsters from getting to you and you'd reach over with your pole arm and poke 'em to death.The problem with making a
Furthermore, if your friend built his character around using a polearm, or conceptually consistently using a polearm, you're frequently taking that away from him. Though the playtest does not have feats to pertain to any weapons that resemble a polearm currently, I would be angered if my character build were rendered completely useless because hordes of monsters frequently swamped me and it disallowed me any defense against it.
I really dislike the idea of 10' only reach if it means no opportunity attack, as it gives practically no advantage to said weapon. Looking back at it now, what DOES a reach weapon get as an advantage? A 5-10 foot reach? It sounds like putting a bandage on the major wound that is martial immobility.
Well we're playing a 3e game so he's got his combat reflexes. It'll be OK.
Well we're playing a 3e game so he's got his combat reflexes. It'll be OK.
OK.. everyone's favourite: small characters. The module alludes to what small creatures can do through your description of large creatures, but I have some questions.
I said earlier that the way I decided to treat small characters was by just looking at how many hands they needed to wield stuff and give them the ability on the basis of that rather than try to do gymnastics with the weapon categories. The damage die slices down a step but the abilities don't; that seems to be how you outline the larger creatures so I figured it'd be the same for small.
Close quarters. I get how larger things take more obstacles/opposition to be placed in close quarters and I agree, but the small creature presents a couple of problems. First, their space and reach don't actually shrink below that of a medium creature except for their being unable to wield reach weapons. Second, allowing 3 obstacles to put them in close quarters puts them at a significant disadvantage to the medium creature that I feel might be unwarranted as they're all ready on a lower damage die.
Given what they get as penalties:
lower damage die
no reach weapons
at bay ineffective vs large creatures. Effective vs tiny creatures but there are considerably fewer of those.
vs what they get as bonuses:
.... you know, I can't think of any. They can use tiny weapons? Is that a bonus?
I think maybe letting their close quarters condition remain at 4 or more is sensible. It fudges some of the symetry in the system but it does reflect the reality of small size being a penalty in and of itself enough as it is.
OK.. everyone's favourite: small characters. The module alludes to what small creatures can do through your description of large creatures, but I have some questions.I said earlier that the way I decided to treat small characters was by just looking
The damage die slices down a step but the abilities don't; that seems to be how you outline the larger creatures so I figured it'd be the same for small.
In the weapon rules I present, medium and small creatures wield the same weapon. Small creatures require the same number of obstacles and creatures to be in "close quarters". Here are the only differences...
Small creatures cannot use reach weapons Small creatures must use long weapons two-handed Small creatures cannot keep large creatures "at bay" Small creatures can help impose "close quarters" on tiny creatures
I'm amenable to other bonuses for being small. Suggestions?
In the weapon rules I present, medium and small creatures wield the same weapon. Small creatures require the same number of obstacles and creatures to be in "close quarters". Here are the only differences...Small creatures cannot use reach weaponsS
Maybe small creatures can obviate some mechanic or tactic that larger creatures use due to their size? I can imagine a halfling's small stature making a lot of the flourishes of a swordsman more difficult, because he's used to dealing with things at eye level. Bending down while you fight would suck.
I don't see any clear options for that, other than at-bay. But it'd lessen at-bay if small creatures were too nimble to be held back that way. Perhaps it'd be a two-size-category difference? At-bay could work on creatures a size larger than you down to a size smaller than you; halflings couldn't be kept at-bay by large creatures. And how often will there be tiny creatures that a PC has to keep at-bay, for us to miss the lower size options for at-bay?
That's probably not a great suggestion, but I hope the core thought behind it is heeded. Small characters should have an advantage that is directly tied to being smaller than their competition.
Lurkin' lurker here to offer thoughts.Maybe small creatures can obviate some mechanic or tactic that larger creatures use due to their size? I can imagine a halfling's small stature making a lot of the flourishes of a swordsman more difficult, becaus
Actually, I was thinking something similar (with respect to reach weapons only). It would be a whole heap harder for someone standing at the other end of a 10 or 15 foot pole to present a credible barrier to someone the size of a human child so maybe at-bay can only be used against the wielders size and one size larger. Any target who is a size smaller is not a viable target for at-bay. Or they require an attack roll against any target one size less or smaller
Also, I was showing this table to friend of mine who runs a different game. His thoughts were that the advantages of reach weapons outweighed all other weapons and if it was his group, the entire party would have a reach weapon - for the d12 damage and the 10" reach quality alone - and another short or versatile weapon as a backup (by level 2 if the martial WP feat makes it into Next). His feedback was to switch reach and great weapons in terms of damage and remove the at-bay bonus from great weapons and let the increased damage (1d12 rather than 1d10) be the draw card for using the weapon seeing as it still has the family bonus. His other comment was that at-bay was a great ability but didn't fit with anything other than a pole arm. Great weapons should have the ability to knock opponents away (by sacrificing advantage) instead.
Actually, I was thinking something similar (with respect to reach weapons only). It would be a whole heap harder for someone standing at the other end of a 10 or 15 foot pole to present a credible barrier to someone the size of a human child so mayb
halflings couldn't be kept at-bay by large creatures.
Now that's interesting. So you can only keep a creature at bay if it is within one size category of you. And since tiny creatures cannot wield long or longer weapons, that's a net benefit for small creatures...
Now that's interesting. So you can only keep a creature at bay if it is within one size category of you. And since tiny creatures cannot wield long or longer weapons, that's a net benefit for small creatures...
I don't actually mind that small creatures have so many disadvantages. I was pointing them out because I was unsure if they were meant to be caught in close quarters by fewer since it takes more for large creatures and figured I'd make a case.
I assumed the 1 size up also meant 1 size down as well. It's a sensible thing to do.
Problem with great weapons knocking people away is it's basically the hammer bonus all over again. I think the term "at bay" is somewhat misleading because it conjures an image of a dude with some kind of improvised weapon like an oar or something keeping the shark away. A great weapon certainly does have superior reach to a long weapon and people did, in fact, use them to keep opponents away from them (and is actually as long as an oar, in many cases).
I keep bashing around at bay in my head and I keep going back to leaving it alone. I'm not convinced that doing extra damage is enough to make it work in the woundless D&D world of hit points, but until I get more gameplay in with it I don't have any better ideas.
The fall back I'm thinking is to give them a choice between doing damage or stopping movement. So in the scenario we're trying to avoid with the great/reach weapon wielding player solo vs the owlbear, you can remain safe from the owlbear but you can't hurt it as well.
I don't actually mind that small creatures have so many disadvantages. I was pointing them out because I was unsure if they were meant to be caught in close quarters by fewer since it takes more for large creatures and figured I'd make a case.I assum
I was guiding another player through this and he noted that the blade advantage was crazy better for not requiring advantage.
Do you reall mean to allow bladed weapons to impose disadvantage to all melee attackers all the time? Without an advantage requirement, they're virtually gaining the benefit of a passive bonus to melee defense.
Oh yeah: blades.I was guiding another player through this and he noted that the blade advantage was crazy better for not requiring advantage.Do you reall mean to allow bladed weapons to impose disadvantage to all melee attackers all the time? Without
The fall back I'm thinking is to give them a choice between doing damage or stopping movement. So in the scenario we're trying to avoid with the great/reach weapon wielding player solo vs the owlbear, you can remain safe from the owlbear but you can't hurt it as well.
Except this lets you hold the owlbear at bay while your allies safely destroy it with ranged attacks. Guaranteed at-will movement stoppage is a problem. I'd rather have it be a gamble, and let the owlbear soak up the extra damage so it can get at the PCs.
Except this lets you hold the owlbear at bay while your allies safely destroy it with ranged attacks. Guaranteed at-will movement stoppage is a problem. I'd rather have it be a gamble, and let the owlbear soak up the extra damage so it can get at t
The fall back I'm thinking is to give them a choice between doing damage or stopping movement. So in the scenario we're trying to avoid with the great/reach weapon wielding player solo vs the owlbear, you can remain safe from the owlbear but you can't hurt it as well.
Except this lets you hold the owlbear at bay while your allies safely destroy it with ranged attacks. Guaranteed at-will movement stoppage is a problem. I'd rather have it be a gamble, and let the owlbear soak up the extra damage so it can get at the PCs.
Well it'd kinda depend on the lay of the land. In a tunnel with no room for the owlbear to move around, they'd definitely get cover in the form of your friend with the sharpened stick and it's likely they'd be able to retreat into a larger room (their lair or what have you) where you couldn't totally stop them with said sharpened stick.
The owlbear is stupid but it's got a survival instinct and isn't going to just sit there and get killed. Only mindless creatures would do that.
Now an owlbear zombie.. he'd totally be kept at bay and get picked off.
What about attacking the weapon, itself? I could see a big mindless creature being held at bay turn their attention to the thing that's in their way rather than the person holding it.
Except this lets you hold the owlbear at bay while your allies safely destroy it with ranged attacks. Guaranteed at-will movement stoppage is a problem. I'd rather have it be a gamble, and let the owlbear soak up the extra damage so it can get at t
We don't have rules for sundering yet, and I sort of don't want to go down that route. If sundering were easy, you'd do it all the time.
I'm mostly thinking of the owlbear encounter (room 34) in the Caves of Chaos playtest packet. The owlbear is napping in a dead end cave with a simple 10' passage. One fighter stands in the entrance witha polearm and his allies stand behind him and shoot arrows and spells. If the owlbear has no way to get past the weapon, he's toast. The most it can do is retreat into the back passage to hide. But the fighter can stand there too and hold the owlbear at bay with no fear of attack due to the owlbear's 5' reach.
If the owlbear cannot choose to plunge into the fray, taking an additional 50% damage, he will be killed without the party taking a single hp damage.
We don't have rules for sundering yet, and I sort of don't want to go down that route. If sundering were easy, you'd do it all the time.I'm mostly thinking of the owlbear encounter (room 34) in the Caves of Chaos playtest packet. The owlbear is nap
I guess it all boils down to how many hps things have. If they don't have many, at bay's extra damage is a serious deterrent. If they have a fair amount, they won't care about at bay.
Sorta beyond the scope of the mod but it totally controls whether the ability is broken, powerful or just kinda meh.
I guess it all boils down to how many hps things have. If they don't have many, at bay's extra damage is a serious deterrent. If they have a fair amount, they won't care about at bay.Sorta beyond the scope of the mod but it totally controls whether t
Good point. one thing I did change is that a larger or larger creature's unarmed attacks are now considered to have a length equal to their size. This means the large owlbear can attack someone who uses a great weapon to keep it at bay, and any large creature with 10' reach can attack even if it is being held at bay.
But it still doesn't help the owelbear vs. the pole arm, and it doesn't help any medium or smaller beast stuck in a corner.
Good point. one thing I did change is that a larger or larger creature's unarmed attacks are now considered to have a length equal to their size. This means the large owlbear can attack someone who uses a great weapon to keep it at bay, and any lar
I wonder if at bay could be given a siimilar ruleset to grappling, in that it is more of a contest than an absolute. Perhaps the owlbear can either disarm the weapon or otherwise bat it way long enough to move closer. It becomes a contest, and the owlbear may then still do at most half-damage on thier next attack (since most of their concentration is on the weapon, the the wielder).
Most weapons could then be used to hold people "at bay", but the larger weapons have a notable bonus, and probably close weapons are simply disallowed.
I wonder if at bay could be given a siimilar ruleset to grappling, in that it is more of a contest than an absolute. Perhaps the owlbear can either disarm the weapon or otherwise bat it way long enough to move closer. It becomes a contest, and the ow
I wonder if at bay could be given a siimilar ruleset to grappling, in that it is more of a contest than an absolute. Perhaps the owlbear can either disarm the weapon or otherwise bat it way long enough to move closer. It becomes a contest, and the owlbear may then still do at most half-damage on thier next attack (since most of their concentration is on the weapon, the the wielder).
Most weapons could then be used to hold people "at bay", but the larger weapons have a notable bonus, and probably close weapons are simply disallowed.
I was hoping we could keep the mechanic simple... something that could be easily applied. Having a lot of contest rules complicates matters. (I'm still not crazy with how my flail benefit works.) But it may be unavoidable in this case.
I was hoping we could keep the mechanic simple... something that could be easily applied. Having a lot of contest rules complicates matters. (I'm still not crazy with how my flail benefit works.) But it may be unavoidable in this case.
Bookmarked! I'll be printing and taping this into my 5ePHB on day 1.
Credit to Wrecan for the first substantial 5E module!
You deserve at least 3 Booyakas.
Bookmarked! I'll be printing and taping this into my 5ePHB on day 1. Credit to Wrecan for the first substantial 5E module!You deserve at least 3 Booyakas.
Thank you for your hard work Wrecan. I'm sure some version of this will make it into my Next based campaign that I will be started up early in 2013.
Can'r wait for part 3 as well.
Thank you for your hard work Wrecan. I'm sure some version of this will make it into my Next based campaign that I will be started up early in 2013.Can'r wait for part 3 as well.
Bookmarked! I'll be printing and taping this into my 5ePHB on day 1. Credit to Wrecan for the first substantial 5E module! You deserve at least 3 Booyakas.
He also makes them pretty.
I am guessing he will want to make adjustments after next is fully released.
He also makes them pretty. I am guessing he will want to make adjustments after next is fully released.
Pushing is nice and all, but would it be perhaps better to organize the effects based on damage type? So all blunt weapons can pick from the following options, etc?
