|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 12:18AM
#41
|
|
|
Another option for making shields feel more like shields is to just drop the AC bonus and have shields grant disadvantage on attacks against you. Alternately, you could simply treat a shield like cover.
The issue here is that Cover is nothing more than an AC bonus at the moment.
Which brings back to the problem of AC and armour in general. It's a binary dodge bonus. Which sadly takes a lor of the 'oomph' out of what armour, weapons and shields.
Shields can act like cover from area attacks (provide bonus for Dex saves? Allow mitigation of area attacks?). I kinda like having shields provide a bonus to Parry maneuvers as a core mechanic.
Isn't that basically already built in? I mean, one could aslo remove the AC bonus from shields then re-apply it only on rounds where you block. Also, if you're limiting the block to just a single attack per round, you might even be able to get away with increasing the AC bonus (maybe even doubling it).
Edit: I just thought of another option for those who want shields to be more shield-like. An attacker must engage in an attribute contest against the shield-user: a failure means a shield block, and a success means bypassing the shield and being able to attack the shield-user (you could even require the attacker to use the same die roll from the contest if you want to keep die rolling down).
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 12:55AM
#42
|
|
|
...
To recap:
- Two weapons
- Primary Hand (first attack)
- Normal To Hit
- Normal Damage
- Off Hand (Second attack)
- Must be one handed finesse weapon
- Normal To Hit
- Disadvantage on Damage Die.
...
- Shields
- Hand Buckler, 5gp / 2 lbs.
- +1 AC
- +1d4 Mitigation once per round*
- Normal, 10gp / 5lbs.
- +2 AC
- +1d6 Mitigation once per round*
- Large, 20gp / 12lbs.
- +3 AC
- +1d8 Mitigation once per round*
- *Mitigation – Once per round AFTER being hit and BEFORE learning the damage; you can choose to “Mitigate” the attack with your shield. You roll the Mitigation dice based on your Shield type and prevent that much damage from the attack.
And anyone using a Shield PROFICIENTLY, can use the MITIGATE power.
When we introduced this, people chose evenly between TWF & Shields!!! And often chose to carry BOTH!
EDIT - Quick Note*** I got pinged on this... MITIGATION is intended for PLAYER use only, Not mobs, UNLESS you are using an NPC style villain.
The biggest reason is rolling mitigation for every Mob takes too much time as we saw it. Our current method of balacing this out is by simply adding HP to the mob. We've used 3HP per Hit Die for Mobs carrying shields as a starting point. Since all mobs currently carry the "medium" sheild anyway this was easy.
I figure the smaller would be 2 HP per HD, and the larger 4HP per HD. Seems logical.
Lastly Two HANDED weapons. We understood that reach weapons were inferior in damage to Non reach weapons, but ONLY by a possibility of 1-2 damage. And at the benefit of 5 foot reach that seemed utterly pathetic. Why would you take a Great Axe over a long spear? Other than pure RP, nobody would. Secondly with the statistical increase in two weapon fighting, something had to be done with Two Handed weapons.
First, we DID NOT change a darn thing about reach weapons. We agreed that the benefit of reach and statistical damage average of a hit when compared to two weapon fighting was in line.
But NON reach Two Handed weapons were shafted. We agreed that a two handed weapon should do more damage on AVERAGE than a single handed weapon, and also have a larger cap on damage than the probable 1-4 which they currently held over the best single handed weapons. Example, a Long sword does 1D8, a Great Axe does 1D12. Same bottom floor potential. And a ceiling differential of up to only 4; which is nothing. On Average a Long sword does 4 damage (roughly), and a Greataxe 6. Two point differential.
We decided this was insufficient (actually nobody wanted to take them), so we increased the 1D12 to 2D8. Bringing the Minimum damage up by 1; And the Average damage to 9. It also increased the ceiling threshold to 16, which is where we would expect a Two Handed non reach weapon to be.
In summary we adjusted all the Non reach Two handed weapons:
- Two Handed Weapons
- Greataxe, Greatword, Maul
- Katana
- 2D6 Base Damage
- Martial & Finesses
- Quarterstaff
We also added Martial to the Katana, since it seemed stupid that rogues would be using a Samurai sword.
Anyway, we’ve been play testing D&D NEXT since it came out, and we are enjoying it.
We make these proposals in the hopes that other groups Might give these ideas a whirl and see how they work for them. Any and all feedback appreciated.
PS: you can follow our exploits at www.facebook.com/groups/111705682220703/
While I like quite a lot of this, I have some reservations. As a well reasonably informed (but very poorly skilled) HEMA enthusiast myself, I see where you are coming from. Part of my concern is that D&D has never been good at simulating historical combat, and attempts to make it do so often come at the expense of what D&D DOES do well. Personally, if I want a realistic european martial tradition represented in a game, I will play GURPS (can I say that on this board?) If, on the other hand, I want a good fun combat involving heroes and monsters with fireballs and pewpewpew and healing prays and awesome, I will play D&D.
That being said...
One thing to consider for 2handers wothout reach is that the period manuals (Silver, Liberi, every writer on the Montante) all praise the 2 handed sword for its ability for 1 skilled 2handed swordsman to stave off multiple attackers... Perhaps a mechanic for modifying parry/cleave to be more effective with these weapons would help bring them up to par?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 3:13AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2005
|
That being said...
One thing to consider for 2handers wothout reach is that the period manuals (Silver, Liberi, every writer on the Montante) all praise the 2 handed sword for its ability for 1 skilled 2handed swordsman to stave off multiple attackers... Perhaps a mechanic for modifying parry/cleave to be more effective with these weapons would help bring them up to par?
Traditionally in D&D, swords have a lower damage output than most equivalent weapon types (axes, hammers, etc), but have some other math benefit. Perhaps, in exchange for a lower damage die than other weapons, swords can benefit from either a +1 to AC or a +1d4 expertise die.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 4:04AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
When I hear about european martial tradition, I don't know what to think.
Quickness was far most favored in middle age than what most people believe.
Knights weren't slow tank giving enough time to unarmored people to turn around them, find a weak point in their armors, and stab them between plates. If you didn't have an idea of where to find a weak point before the fight, you were already dead.
If the opposition is asian martial tradition, it was not better or worse, from weapon forging to weapon training. European tradition didn't favor unarmed combat, because it was totally inferior and useless in wars against armored and numerous combattants, and because the feudal system placed all charges of protection, including hunt, into the noble's hand.
To be clear, no, I don't think a samourai, armored and armed with traditional weapons, was superior to a knight "of the same level".
Far more on the topic, I also think that two-handed weapons are too inferior to other weapons. The first thing warriors have done when armors have evolved enough to render shield use optional is to fight two-handed.
Two-handed weapons should be the best weapons with D&D big armors.
I have learnt with the story of bastard swords that the abandon of shields to develop two-handed fighting led to more parry with the weapon, but far less than with modern fence. Medieval fence masters favored dodge and evasion, and I'm still talking about warrior in full pate. Maybe because it was also good to preserve the equipment.
Full armored knights were evasive dodgers with big swords to cut you in half.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 7:24AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2009
|
Our group played last night in the begining of a new module. Couple of things we learned.
- Our Duel weild fighter switched between a shield and two weapons often. He enjoyed this ability.
- The other fighter likewise enjoyed mitigation as she switched from swoard and board to longbow often.
- We are considering allowing the MITIGATION roll to happen AFTER damage is announced. Just like Parry.
- The increased AC did not prevent the party in whole from suffering damage. In a comparable encounter to before they came out relatively the same. Two players even went down, one of which was using a shield.
- TWO WEAPON FIGHTING rules should probably not be applied to thrown weapons. This came up and seems as though is should be a balance issue (as in GAME balance). Especially when compared to a bow. Allowing two thrown weapons via Two weapon fighting looks unbalancing.
- A player must have an empty hand in order to grab or manipulate an object.
- On a Likert scale 1-5, all chose 5 when asked if they liked the shield changes as well as when asked if they liked the Dual weild changes.
We did have one quirky scenario come up. When a player dual weilds and attacks someone, then say "I want to drop my dagger and draw my shield". Does the AC bonus apply right away? We ruled that if you USED your HAND (meaning off hand) during your turn you could not use it again to equip a shield. Which all players agreed made sense.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 8:19AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
You have to aim to throw with accuracy, pick each weapon, and give impulsion to each of them. I'm not sure it takes less time than firing a bow.
With moving targets, you have to take the time to calculate the number of revolutions you have to make your thrown weapon do to hit with the right end. Shuriken are good from this point of view, but are weak against armored people. On the opposite side of the spectrum, axes can be thrown with greater strength and inflict big damages, but hitting a moving target with the blade must be a nightmare.
Maybe throwing axes should have a wider range of damage, like 1d12-2. low roll meaning that you hit with the hilt or the back of the weapon, but with enough Strength, you can still inflict damage.
It could work with daggers, doing 1d4 if you aim at a target at short range, and 1d6-2 when you aim at long range.
I heard about a "spear style" dagger throwing for combat use, but I don't know how efficient it is regarding range.
I'm not sure if it's even possible to gain anything from throwing weapons by throwing with the two hands in alternation. And throwing with the two hands at once would make weak throws.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 16, 2012 - 10:28PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2011
|
Got a more radical version for you to consider, riotcontrol. Would probably be a pain to balance, but hear me out:
Each character has two defensive stats: dodge and resist. Each one does essentially what it says on the tin: Characters with high dodge, like the monk or rouge are more difficult to hit, but when something does touch them, they take a lot of damage. Characters with high resist, like the fighter or paladin, get hit more often, but can shrug off most of that damage.
"Ha! Rock beats scissors!" "Darn it! Rock is overpowered! I'm not playing this again until the next edition is released!" "C'mon, just one more." "Oh, all right..." "Wait, what is that?" "Its 'Dynamite' from the expanded rules." "Just because you can afford to buy every supplement that comes out..." "Hey, it's completely balanced! You're just a bad DM for not accommodating it." Spoiler:
Show
RPGs are getting more popular, and whenever something gets more popular, it inevitably changes, usually becoming more palatable to the masses. Nintendo is the perfect example. In the old days their games coined the term "Nintendo hard" to extend play time, but they knew their fans were dedicated enough to play anyway. Now they mostly make stuff a five year old can master. That's not necessarily bad, though. Most of those old Nintendo games were infuriating. Likewise, a lot of old RPGs were too complex and irritating for the average person to really get into. Rules light systems are going to get more popular as more people enter the hobby, simply because the new people aren't bound by nostalgia, and would rather play something easy and fun than something that takes a huge amount of effort to learn.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 6:36PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
We decided this was insufficient (actually nobody wanted to take them), so we increased the 1D12 to 2D8. Bringing the Minimum damage up by 1; And the Average damage to 9. It also increased the ceiling threshold to 16, which is where we would expect a Two Handed non reach weapon to be.
In summary we adjusted all the Non reach Two handed weapons:
riotcontrol, can you offer a solution where the maximum damage for 1 attack is no greater than 12? The reason I'm asking is that the playtest currently adds another main attack at higher levels and it messes with the math. It means that a high level character can do 32 points damage with just the 2 main attacks not counting 2 off-hand attack damage.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 10:29PM
#49
|
|
|
Just as a quibble, I personally think that reach in Next is actually of negligible or even negative mechanical value, depending on your interpretation of the OA rules. The only time it helps you is when your move is just 5' less than it needs to be to get to your target, or when you're already engaged with another target and need that extra 5' to hit a different one without disengaging/provoking. Those are not especially common in my experience. At the same time, because of the way the opportunity attack rules are written, having a reach weapon may mean it's much easier for foes to maneuver around you: they only provoke when they leave your reach, which is expanded (depending on how you interpret the reach property, since it only applies "when you make an attack on your turn..."). But even if you don't buy the OA argument (which you probably shouldn't, at least on the current phrasing) it's really not very valuable and I'd have a hard time considereing it for one point of damage (at least at low levels) much less for 3.5 points.
I think it's important to mention that I agree with this entirely, as nobody seemed to have brought this up again. Excellent point, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this.
|
|
|
