|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 2:28PM
#21
|
|
|
I actually quite liked the inital 2-weapon stuff. 2 attacks at 1/2 damage. Simple.
I liked it too, even if I felt it should be the norm and not something you need a feat to get.
Everyone hated the initial TWF, but it seems great in hindsight. You know what they say about hindsight :P
Actually, the biggest objection that I heard to making the original TWF feat into the default was in regard to non-damage on-hit effects. And that could have been easily taken care of by saying you can only apply those with main-hand attacks.
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 18, 2012 - 2:31PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
One could also consider 3rd eds +50% to damage as two handed wepaons really do suck atm. It wasn't really that which made two handed weapons so good but the way they worked with 3.5 critical hits and power attack.
Making two handed weapons require feat support turns them into feat taxes.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 2:32PM
#23
|
|
|
I actually quite liked the inital 2-weapon stuff. 2 attacks at 1/2 damage. Simple.
I liked it too, even if I felt it should be the norm and not something you need a feat to get.
Everyone hated the initial TWF, but it seems great in hindsight. You know what they say about hindsight :P
Actually, the biggest objection that I heard to making the original TWF feat into the default was in regard to non-damage on-hit effects. And that could have been easily taken care of by saying you can only apply those with main-hand attacks.
There were many threads about how it was bad and how people thought it should be like. I personally remember posting, dozens of times, that it was all about options and not DPS increase. Some people did like, I'm just saying that it was like anything else in this crazy world, people didn't know what they had until it was gone.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 2:32PM
#24
|
|
|
Making two handed weapons require feat support turnes the into feat taxes.
Concept taxes, but yes, you're otherwise entirely correct about that.
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 18, 2012 - 2:39PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
One could also consider 3rd eds +50% to damage as two handed wepaons really do suck atm. It wasn't really that which made two handed weapons so good but the way they worked with 3.5 critical hits and power attack.
Making two handed weapons require feat support turns them into feat taxes.
Not really, because without feats I think everything is fairly well balanced at the moment. It is the feats that other options can pick that makes them so much better than two-handed weapons...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 2:42PM
#26
|
|
|
They should have limited MDD to 4d6 and gave fighters another attack. The extra attack would have benefitted two handlers in the long run.
The extra attack was causing too many problems. They were smart to remove it. What might work is making each "ED" equal to the damage die of the weapon you are using (instead of 1d6). So, if you have 1eD and you are using a 1d8 weapon you may add +1d8 to that attack (or spend it on a maneuver). If you have 6eD at level 20, and you are using a 1d10 weapon, you have +6d10 to add to the attack (or spend on maneuvers). The martial damage bonus should still be a flat add. I worry, however, that such a move would under power rogues...
Look at the riposte feat and put aside all worries of one handed light weapons ever suffering in damage.
Also look at the dual wield feat that gives you advantage on all attacks.
Even if MDD were based on weapon size the two handed weapons would still lose in the damage race.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 2:49PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
One could also consider 3rd eds +50% to damage as two handed wepaons really do suck atm. It wasn't really that which made two handed weapons so good but the way they worked with 3.5 critical hits and power attack.
Making two handed weapons require feat support turns them into feat taxes.
Not really, because without feats I think everything is fairly well balanced at the moment. It is the feats that other options can pick that makes them so much better than two-handed weapons...
Those are level 9 capstone feats though right? Two handed weapons are really only good until the first +1 shield or better turns up and even thats debateable.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 9:29PM
#28
|
|
|
All of them have a 9th level capstone feat that allows for something very neat (and a few other feats here and there, many of which are very cool as well). Two-handed weapon fighters get nothing. Polearm fighters get something cool!
Polearm support is something I've really been waiting for, and I can safely say that I do not like the options presented. Polearm Training turning a reach weapon into a double weapon doesn't even make the least bit of sense, seeing as application of such a technique would defeat the reach aspect since you're using the weapon like a quarterstaff and not taking advantage of the, you know, reach. Your aforementioned Warding Polearm is too little, too late. Threatening reach should be something that's baked into the weapon from the start, as it's an inherent advantage of the weapon in the first place, that is, the ability to keep people at bay with your reach, and should not be a feat tax at such a high level. Why does it require a 9th level fighter to take full advantage of his weapon? I really wish they'd go back to the 3.x route for reach rules.
On a slightly unrelated note, does anybody know if monsters with reach get opportunity attacks when somebody enters their reach? I'd hate to see monsters get that for free and have a player have to wait nine levels to finally get the privilege to have that as one of their very few feat choices.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 12:54AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
They should have limited MDD to 4d6 and gave fighters another attack. The extra attack would have benefitted two handlers in the long run.
The extra attack was causing too many problems. They were smart to remove it. What might work is making each "ED" equal to the damage die of the weapon you are using (instead of 1d6). So, if you have 1eD and you are using a 1d8 weapon you may add +1d8 to that attack (or spend it on a maneuver). If you have 6eD at level 20, and you are using a 1d10 weapon, you have +6d10 to add to the attack (or spend on maneuvers). The martial damage bonus should still be a flat add. I worry, however, that such a move would under power rogues...
Not only that, it would spell the end of all lesser damage weapons. Why use a short sword and get d6's as your MDD when you can use a Bastard Sword/Katana/Urgosh and get d10's as your MDD?
In 3e and 4e, weapons were vaguely 'balanced' or at least differentiated based on a number of things, one of which was damage die. Weapons still do a lot besides damage dice, so if damage die becomes trivial, than weapons that have more cool little features at the 'cost' of a smaller damage die, those weapons become superior to weapons with a big damage die and nothing else going for them. At high level, giving up 1 or 2 damage to use a shield, for instance, is a pretty easy choice. Giving up a point of few of damage to have a weapon you can use both at range and in melee - especially if it's magical - also becomes a great deal. Giving up that point or two /per MDD/, OTOH might still be meangingful...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 6:44AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2007
|
Just make some feats up. Done.
|
|
|
