|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 5:57AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Something which bothers me... MDD have to have results which compete with the damage dice rolled... how do you do that when/if the value of a damage die may vary greatly, like for a big weapon d12 and d4 for dagger. So the two handed weapon user is less likely to do a martial take down?
I know I am jumping the gun a little as we havent seen the exact implementation.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 6:10AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Weapon damage dice should be constrained to a narrower range. d6, d8 or d10 - anything that needs to be special beyond that should be handled with properties.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 6:20AM
#3
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
The conversation is easier if we use median values:
d4=2.5
d6=3.5
d8=4.5
d10=5.5
d12=6.5
Let's make "6" the target median.
The d12 weapon and d10 weapon are pretty close to the target. Perhaps d12 weapons should be restricted to weapons you can use while mounted (like the lance) or weapons that require reach and gain a negative for attacking adjacent creatures (like a halberd). d10 weapons may get properties like brutal (reroll natural 1's on damage) or keen (increased crit range) to give them a .5 boost.
If we assume that d4 and d6 weapons will be wielded in conjunction (short sword and dagger). That's a median of 6 compared to the 5.5 of the d10 weapons. In this case your "[w]" is the sum of the two individual weapon dice (i.e., your [w] = d6+d4). If you weild two d4 weapons (like daggers) perhaps you get a +1 to your [w] value (i.e., your [w] = 2d4+1).
The d8 weapon (like longsword) can get the same .5-valued properties as the d10 weapons like keen and brutal. It also either allows you to weild a shield (whose benefits should equal a +1 to your [w] value) or gives you a +1 to your [w] when weilded with two hands (i.e. [w] = 1d8+1). If shields gave you the chance to negate a melee attack against you as a reaction, that would be a scaling benefit possibly sufficient to make up for the loss in offense (possibly too potent depending on the mechanic used).
There are definite ways to keep the damage somewhat balanced on a strict numerical basis.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 6:30AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
There are definite ways to keep the damage somewhat balanced on a strict numerical basis.
Maybe not as bad as I was thinking, but any variations once they become Nx[W] as part of MDD intensify it considerably.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 6:33AM
#5
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
any variations once they become Nx[W] as part of MDD intensify it considerably.
As long as the benefits scale with level, it should be comparable.
So on my hastily proposed solution we have:
[w] = 2d4+1 = 6
[w] = d6+d4 = 6
[w] = d8+1+.5 = 6
[w] = d10 + .5 = 6
[w] = d12 - .5 = 6
The trick then is just whether brutal and keen (and any other properties) are in fact worth .5 to the [w], and whether a shield is realy worth +1 to the [w].
Also, let's remember that the 20th level fighter's MDD is only 6d6. Assuming that scale is maintained, a 20th level fighter gets 6[w]. If the variation is only .5 per [w], then the difference you're looking at in 20th level is 3 or ½[w]. Given the damage levels being inflcited at 20th level, I think that variation is well within acceptable tolerances. It's the difference between 36 damage and 33 damage.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 6:36AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Well let's compare the fighters shall we?
The greatweapon guy has no properties on his weapon. He is obviously going for damage and therefore the use of maneuvers harm his gimmick.
The polearm guy does slightly less damage but has Lunge for free and can use Lunge for 10 ft reach.
The dagger guy is obviously not going for damage and is probably using a throw or two. Using maneuver wouldn't hamper his tactic.
The one handler with a shield guy is in the middle for damage and maneuver use.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 6:37AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Perhaps it is fine for heavy weapons users to have access to less manouvers? Basically they trade off tactical versatity in favour of brute force. It make also sense that nimble weapons to have a wider array of uses. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 6:50AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
Well let's compare the fighters shall we? The greatweapon guy has no properties on his weapon. He is obviously going for damage and therefore the use of maneuvers harm his gimmick. The polearm guy does slightly less damage but has Lunge for free and can use Lunge for 10 ft reach. The dagger guy is obviously not going for damage and is probably using a throw or two. Using maneuver wouldn't hamper his tactic. The one handler with a shield guy is in the middle for damage and maneuver use.
The Lunge feature has great potential but it competes a little with one of the benefits of long handled weapons.
I was thinking something like this.
Daggers are not intended to penetrate armor but exploit chinks in the armor, the contest is the attacker's dexterity versus the target's dexterity.
The dagger does 1d4 damage plus magic, plus the dexterity modifier, plus the level modifier/weapon proficiency.
If we say that the dagger does 2[w] at a higher level, what are we saying? The character already gets a bonus if he or she increases the dexterity ability at higher level, and increases level proficiency with the weapon.
We need to choose between an ability mod+level mod or compound 2[w], 3[w] damage. We already tried that with 4th edition and the math becomes a nightmare.
It is better to keep the math down by doing this. Each attack does 1[w] damage but characters get more attacks at higher levels.
I'm thinking 2 main attacks and 2 off-hand attacks per turn at the highest level.
The character can either split the attacks among targets or focus on 1 target.
I'm dumping the strength requirements because they were unpopular.
The off-hand weapon is 1 dice step lower than the main weapon.
fighting only classes up to two-handed weapons
rogue classes up to 1d10 weapons
fighting and casting classes up to 1d8 weapons
casting only classes up to 1d6 weapons
daggers 1d4
thrown weapons 1d6
small weapons 1d8
large weapons 1d10
two-handed weapons 3d6 main+off-hand action
long weapons 1d6 AC+2 reach 2 main+off-hand action
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 7:00AM
#9
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
It is better to keep the math down by doing this. Each attack does 1[w] damage but characters get more attacks at higher levels.
I don't see them bringing back multi-attacks. It's horribly swingy (no pun intended) and multiple rolls slows combat down.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 7:07AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 24, 2002
|
The conversation is easier if we use median values:
Let's make "6" the target median.
If you're going to go through the trouble of trying to bring all weapons in line in such a way - would not keeping MD as d6s as they are now be an easier way? And that way Parry won't have to be adjusted either and all maneuvers "cost" the same amount in damage.
|
|
|
