|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 8:03PM
#11
|
|
|
Any attempt to add more realism/complexity to weapons is always met with mixed reviews. My hopes are high, my expectations low 
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:05PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2012
|
I see no reason for it needing to be fighter only.
This gets said about anything that is proposed to give to fighters. Eventually you just have to accept it. Why?
Because fighters.
Eh... I don't care about classes. I've certainly been on the record about being tired of all the whining that people pushing for wizards or fighters to have everything.
My reasoning that it should be a fighter thing, while maybe faulty, did indeed have a why.
You might think it's silly, or just disagree on taste, but to me giving weapon bonuses, NOT in the form of +1s is valuable. Having a measurement of skill with a weapon might be valuable to some players who want their character to have some mastery of certain weapons greater than that of another 5th level dude with the seame weapon and stats. It's certainly an archetype people associate with fighters and it's certainly been in past editions as a fighter thing.
It would be cool to have weapon focus, specialization or mastery, in a form that wasn't just raw bonuses. If other players want it for their class, they can multi-class or buy a feat or something. I don't care.
Applying it across the board, is to me, a boring thing for players to remember and slowly take for granted. At least, that's how I've experienced similar systems in the past. I certainly don't value complexity to meleee attacks personally, and if it was an optional thing for all PCs and NPCs or no characters, I'd probably opt to leave it out in my games. If its a small, cool special thing one dude in the party has, it's probably less likely to gum up the works and slow combat down exponentially or whatever so who cares?
You might disagree, but Its not necessarily for nothing.
Also, when I hear meaneuvers and XD, I don't think all clases. When I hear wepon abilities, I don't think Monks really... so you'll have to forgive me for having tunnell vision on the subject. At the same time, there is a vocal group of people moaning about fighters on these boards all the time, and another group (myself included) who immediately roll their eyes when people want more rules OR versimilitude... So I guess that informs my opinion as well if I'm being honest.
A few guidelines for using the internet:
1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart.
2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons.
3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves.
4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health.
5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 1:28AM
#13
|
|
|
I'm surprised this hasn't been said, but this seems like the perfect sort of thing for a module.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 7:05AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Obvious problem:
What happens when a particular weapon has no specific maneuvers, or an already-great weapon gets a crazy maneuver?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 7:08AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Obvious problem:
What happens when a particular weapon has no specific maneuvers, or an already-great weapon gets a crazy maneuver?
Design has failed. Since the designers aren't idiots, I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 7:11AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
Versitility tends to be better.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ … s_Handbook An attempt at CharOp To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
Show
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales." "see sig" redirects here
Show
Oblivious troll is Oblivious PbP supporter! General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Show
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important.
There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level.
Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition. You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 7:14AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
My reasoning that it shouldn't be a fighter thing, while maybe faulty, did indeed have a why.
You might think it's silly
It's not about what I think, or even this particular issue. My point is that there's always a "why" for something to not be fighter only.
Also, bolded for what I assumed you meant based on the prior post - clarification requested.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 7:29AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
This is a cool idea, but I think you first need to ask: does the fighter need more maneuvers? And not more as in more possible maneuver, but actually more known maneuvers.
Fighters start with 3 ways to use their dice: damage, parry, and a maneuver. By level 10 they have 4 more maneuvers (gaining an extra one at 2, 4, 8, and 10). If you wanted, you could pick up 4 more by spending all your feats in that way. In fact, the Martial Training feat is even described like this:
"You have undertaken specialized training to be able to do more with your weapon than simply strike at a foe."
In other words: maneuvers already represent weapon tricks. I don't think it would be a good idea to restrict certain maneuvers to certain weapons.
If someone wants to make a thematic fighter whose maneuvers are tied closely to their chosen weapon, they can do so. But if another person doesn't want to, it is good that they aren't limited in such a way.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 9:21AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Obvious problem:
What happens when a particular weapon has no specific maneuvers, or an already-great weapon gets a crazy maneuver?
Design has failed. Since the designers aren't idiots, I wouldn't worry about it.
Alternately, the concept could be leveraged to provide an actual reason to use a rapier over a shortsword.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 9:24AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Obvious problem:
What happens when a particular weapon has no specific maneuvers, or an already-great weapon gets a crazy maneuver?
Design has failed. Since the designers aren't idiots, I wouldn't worry about it.
Alternately, the concept could be leveraged to provide an actual reason to use a rapier over a shortsword.
I don't know what you are talking about. Your post was about weapons not having specific maneuvers or already-great weapons having a maneuver that is too strong to be combined with it. If that happens, design has failed.
So what does your statement and my response have to do with reasons to use a rapier over a shortsword?
|
|
|
