|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 1:38AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
Id like to see some vs armor properties for each weapon. A bludgeoning weapon could be +1 vs Platemail.
Actually, I think those are the kind of bookkeeping nightmare modifiers that designers and players alike are hoping to avoid.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 2:01AM
#32
|
|
|
I'm all for going crazy with modifiers, crit ranges, crit bonuses, bonuses vs certain creature types, bonuses to certain maneuvers by weapon type ect...
In an optional module.
My only request is that whoever writes the weapon list actually look at a historical example of what they are about to stat, handle it a bit, mayhaps consult ARMA (not the SCA) and aim for some coherency.
But given the current armour list, I doubt there will be much attention paid.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 3:25AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
The option seems popular - to have a unique property for each weapon group - but makes little sense.
For example:
Flail: A heavy military flail is a staff with a rod linked to it (sort of like nunchuku). This has no special advantage for tripping opponents. Likewise nunchuku would count as a flail, but it also has no special advantage for tripping.
Staff: I would group the “staff” in the club group, together with the mace, morningstar, and so on. Why is “reach” a unique weapon group property? Pretty much all polearms from glaives to great maces have reach.
Hammer: Even light offhand hammers have the stun property? Why it and not a mace? Holding a rock in ones hand would count as a member of the hammer group, does it get the “stun property”?
And so on.
A unique property for each group seems ill conceived.
Agreed.
I prefer weapons as mostly fluff.
Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:
Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage
Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.
This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done.
As a simple system, this is fantastic.
I like this too. The first time I played the 4E version of Gamma World it occured to me how well the simplified weapon table would work for D&D. All you need to add is damage type (pick piercing, slashing, or blunt for your weapon) and pick whatever name you like.
In addition to heavy (or two-handed) weapons doing more damage, I would add light weapons, which would do less damage. These would be for off-hand weapons, rogue weapons, etc.
And then totally include weapon modules that add in extra layers of complexity.
And this, I like quite a bit. A simple, versatile system as the core. Then have specifics for all weapons as a module.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 6:03AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I prefer weapons as mostly fluff. Nothing feels worse as a DM then when your new player finds a cool mini or pic that they want to model their character on, and then they realize that the awesome dagger wielding fighter then have in mind will be doing an awesome 1d4 damage, when another guy in the party is doing 1d12.
Right off the bat they are forced to confront optimization vs character concept. Does the enjoyment they receive from having a capable character in combat have to be mutually exclusive to having a sweet concept? Sadly in DnD it often does.
Due to stuff like this we modified 4e in the following way (with some specific rules for properties like reach which I won't get into here)
Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:
Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage
Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.
This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done.
0e all weapons did d6... I seem to recall your idea being generated somewhere around 1979 or so.. its an oldy but a goody.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 6:16AM
#35
|
|
|
I vote none of the above. For me weapons should crit at different intervals like third edition. This helps distinguish weapons without becoming too complicated. Anything else is probably too much for a weapon unless it is regulated to a module.
I am with you on this one.
But given that classes start at +2 / +3 Weapon Attack Bonus (instead of +0/+1). I have a strong feeling WOTC intends on using the 4E proficiency system, which isn't all that bad.
As long as there is 'something' differentiating weapons, currently it’s too simplistic for my liking
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 8:10AM
#36
|
|
|
I prefer weapons as mostly fluff. Nothing feels worse as a DM then when your new player finds a cool mini or pic that they want to model their character on, and then they realize that the awesome dagger wielding fighter then have in mind will be doing an awesome 1d4 damage, when another guy in the party is doing 1d12.
Right off the bat they are forced to confront optimization vs character concept. Does the enjoyment they receive from having a capable character in combat have to be mutually exclusive to having a sweet concept? Sadly in DnD it often does.
Due to stuff like this we modified 4e in the following way (with some specific rules for properties like reach which I won't get into here)
Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:
Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage
Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.
This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done.
I like this system. Very simple, addresses an important issue, and you could apply it to most games without a hiccup. The core book could fit the entire optional rule set in a single column.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 8:21AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
I prefer weapons as mostly fluff. Nothing feels worse as a DM then when your new player finds a cool mini or pic that they want to model their character on, and then they realize that the awesome dagger wielding fighter then have in mind will be doing an awesome 1d4 damage, when another guy in the party is doing 1d12.
Right off the bat they are forced to confront optimization vs character concept. Does the enjoyment they receive from having a capable character in combat have to be mutually exclusive to having a sweet concept? Sadly in DnD it often does.
Due to stuff like this we modified 4e in the following way (with some specific rules for properties like reach which I won't get into here)
Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:
Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage
Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.
This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done.
0e all weapons did d6... I seem to recall your idea being generated somewhere around 1979 or so.. its an oldy but a goody.
Cool. Channel the past to mold the future. Thanks for that tidbit.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 10:21AM
#38
|
|
|
Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage
Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.
Simple is fine. Martial, by definition is a “superior” weapon.
Two-handed bump makes sense, and even corresponds well with bows.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 1:02PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
Id like to see some vs armor properties for each weapon. A bludgeoning weapon could be +1 vs Platemail.
Actually, I think those are the kind of bookkeeping nightmare modifiers that designers and players alike are hoping to avoid.
Not me and my players. I hate platemail, and the idea of a mace having a bonus against plate was suggested by a player who certainly wont forget when he faces platemail.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 11:05PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
Not much has changed over the past week. I'm calling this poll.
|
|
|
