|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:50AM
#101
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
Why not give a 1.5 str bonus for 2handed weapons? they seem like a trap this edition. I would rather see a smaller mdb. I think weapons should be different but still a viable option. A dagger fighter should be style of fighter than a gretasword fighter, but in a different way.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:53AM
#102
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Why not give a 1.5 str bonus for 2handed weapons? they seem like a trap this edition. I would rather see a smaller mdb. I think weapons should be different but still a viable option. A dagger fighter should be style of fighter than a gretasword fighter, but in a different way.
What we need are 'combat styles'. Unique systems and bonuses for fighting a certain way, two handed, two weapon and the like.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 7:36AM
#103
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
We needn't have three measures of progression for martial prowess. Weapon attack bonus, martial damage dice and martial damage bonus can be trivially rolled into one system, and we can have more variety therein. Just allow 1 maneuver per weapon attack bonus, with the default maneuver being damage. If we need to fix the damage math on top of that, throw in additional damage according to the same progression, or smoother, such as 1 per level. Something more elegant can be done.
For those that prefer weapon choice not to matter: why bother with different dice or properties at all then? Either weapons should matter throughout your career, or never at all, and never at all is trivial to house-rule after the fact.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 7:38AM
#104
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2012
|
Considering that every weapon on the list can strike a one shot leathal blow IRL, it's probably one of the most realistic things that D&D has ever done.
And consider how unreal hps, themeselves, are. A high level character might have 100 or more hps, yet he should still logically be killed just as dead by a dagger through the heart as sword through the heart. The higher-level MDD character doing /almost/ the same damage with a sword or dagger represents that. All that 'damage' with the dagger is just getting past the high-level enemy's defenses to you can plant that little blade in his heart.
This. Damage and hit point totals are an abstraction anyway. I'd rather a warrior be defined not by his actions rather than his weapon selection, which was often how 3.X edition games played out due to feat investments.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 8:13AM
#105
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Why not give a 1.5 str bonus for 2handed weapons? they seem like a trap this edition. I would rather see a smaller mdb. I think weapons should be different but still a viable option. A dagger fighter should be style of fighter than a gretasword fighter, but in a different way.
What we need are 'combat styles'. Unique systems and bonuses for fighting a certain way, two handed, two weapon and the like.
That is baked into the Martial damage bonus...How is your dagger fighter doing damage that is comparable to a great axe fighter? Differentiated fighting styles that's how. It is left up to us to describe how we are fighting differently yet still effectively. Right off the bat your dagger fighter is likely using dex instead of strength for combat. From there specialty and maneuver choice starts to play in, but you aren't required to take any of those options in order to be effective. Those other options are more about style choices rather than having to make up for a deficiency caused by weapon choice.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:34AM
#106
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
I think the conceot of trivializing monsters as characters increase in level is most to blame. If we weren't intent upon wading through 'low level' monsters in the upper tier of our heroicness, we wouldn't need to accommodate such a steep HP/Damage Output curve. If we flatten both out, the numbers become far less ridiculous, every monster remains a threat for even longer, and there's less fiddly things to deal with whenever we take martial actions. -- All around win!
If we need the excitement of destroying minions, let's design a template for minions. -- Seems to be a much simpler and far more elegant solution.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:39AM
#107
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
And would someone please tell me if Martial Damage dice refresh at the beginning or end of your turn?
They can be used every turn (not just yours, but any combatant's turn). Within a turn you may have a choice as to when or how you use the dice - all damage; power a maneuver; split between damage and maneuver; distributed across multiple attacks and so forth.
Ah, right on, so they refresh every turn (regardless of whose turn).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:46AM
#108
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I think the conceot of trivializing monsters as characters increase in level is most to blame. If we weren't intent upon wading through 'low level' monsters in the upper tier of our heroicness, we wouldn't need to accommodate such a steep HP/Damage Output curve. If we flatten both out, the numbers become far less ridiculous, every monster remains a threat for even longer, and there's less fiddly things to deal with whenever we take martial actions. -- All around win!
If we need the excitement of destroying minions, let's design a template for minions. -- Seems to be a much simpler and far more elegant solution.
Furthermore, if the point of bounded accuracy is to keep monsters useful for longer then they shouldn't be curving HP or damage anywhere near as sharply in the first place. The unique guys like Asmodeus should remain crazy powerful and break the rules because they're unique creatures and it's OK to have exceptions to the rule.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:47AM
#109
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
I think the conceot of trivializing monsters as characters increase in level is most to blame. If we weren't intent upon wading through 'low level' monsters in the upper tier of our heroicness, we wouldn't need to accommodate such a steep HP/Damage Output curve. If we flatten both out, the numbers become far less ridiculous, every monster remains a threat for even longer, and there's less fiddly things to deal with whenever we take martial actions. -- All around win!
If we need the excitement of destroying minions, let's design a template for minions. -- Seems to be a much simpler and far more elegant solution.
Furthermore, if the point of bounded accuracy is to keep monsters useful for longer then they shouldn't be curving HP or damage anywhere near as sharply in the first place. The unique guys like Asmodeus should remain crazy powerful and break the rules because they're unique creatures and it's OK to have exceptions to the rule.
Agreed!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:54AM
#110
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
I think the conceot of trivializing monsters as characters increase in level is most to blame. If we weren't intent upon wading through 'low level' monsters in the upper tier of our heroicness, we wouldn't need to accommodate such a steep HP/Damage Output curve. If we flatten both out, the numbers become far less ridiculous, every monster remains a threat for even longer, and there's less fiddly things to deal with whenever we take martial actions. -- All around win!
If we need the excitement of destroying minions, let's design a template for minions. -- Seems to be a much simpler and far more elegant solution.
Furthermore, if the point of bounded accuracy is to keep monsters useful for longer then they shouldn't be curving HP or damage anywhere near as sharply in the first place. The unique guys like Asmodeus should remain crazy powerful and break the rules because they're unique creatures and it's OK to have exceptions to the rule.
Agreed!
Yeah, AC 17 (1st level fighter with a 20 Str only needs to roll an 11 to hit his ass)?!
Monsters took a serious AC beat-down in this last packet (the vrock had a 17 AC in the previous, now has a 13...).
|
|
|
