# Community

 Dungeons & Dra.. D&D Next General D.. MDD maneuver competes with [W]
Pause Switch to Standard View MDD maneuver competes with [W]
Flag January 14, 2013 6:10 AM PST
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.
Flag January 14, 2013 6:20 AM PST
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.
Flag January 14, 2013 6:30 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

Flag January 14, 2013 6:33 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

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.

Flag January 14, 2013 6:36 AM PST
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.
Flag January 14, 2013 6:37 AM PST
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.
Flag January 14, 2013 6:50 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:36AM, Orzel wrote:

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

Flag January 14, 2013 7:00 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:50AM, ren1999 wrote:

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.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:07 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:13 AM PST
Weapons need to have a bonus balanced with the size difference.

Like...

2-handed: d10  *base damage
1-handed: -1 size
Finess: -1 size
Reach (Warding Polearm): -1 size  *with the current OA rules, reach needs something more.
Range: -1 size  *maybe
Martial: +1 size  *Simple weapons do not require proficiency.
Improvised: -1 size (will break on a 1 or 20).
Limited: +1 size *such as crossbows that take an action to load.
Damage type: +0  *no penalty or bonus for slashing over bludgeoning types.

then we get...
Great club: 1d10
Maul (martial): 1d12
Goodsword  : 1d10
Greatsword (martial): 1d12
Longsword: (1 handed) 1d8
Bastardsword: (1 handed, martial) 1d10
Shortsword: (1 handed, finess) 1d6
Rapier: (1 handed, finess) 1d6
Spear (reach): 1d8
Gouge (reach, martial): 1d10
Spiked Chain (reach, finess, martial): 1d8
Whip: (1 handed, finess, reach) 1d4
Sling: (1 handed, ranged): 1d6
Shortbow: (ranged) 1d8
Longbow: (ranged, martial) 1d10
Dagger: (1 handed, finess, ranged): 1d4  *probably a bit weak, but d4 dagger is iconic.

Easy to expand/customize too...
Nuncucks: (finess, martial): 1d10
Broom: (improvised): 1d8
Garden Hose (improvised, finess) 1d6

And of course, don't let people swap weapons too freely.  Like no hitting with a maul, then grabbing a polearm to poke the next charging orc.
Flag January 14, 2013 7:19 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:00AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:50AM, ren1999 wrote:

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.

I would like to see multiple attacks return as a default progression.

They have, in fact, returned to the Fighter with Combet Surge (albeit only 1/day and starting at 11th level).

Flag January 14, 2013 7:23 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

No, it doesn't. The difference is proportionally the same that it was. I liked the news. Now weapon choice can be important and balanced again. People always talk about the difference between 5d4 and 5d12. It is proportionally the same difference between d4 and d12. And properties are good.

Actually, if the weapon's damage die do not scale, it become useless.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:24 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:07AM, A-koss wrote:

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?

It's not so much trouble and because each weapon achieves that median in different ways it makes weapons feel different without unbalancing things.

And that way Parry won't have to be adjusted either and all maneuvers "cost" the same amount in damage.

If maneuvers cost [w], then they do cost the same and Parry won' t have to be adjusted.

Actually, looking at the MDD charts, the fighters gets 6d6 MDD at 20th level which is median MDD of 18.  That's only 3[w].

It seems to me that [w] will increase as follows:
1[w] Cleric 1-9, Wizard 1+
2[w] Cleric 10-17, Fighter/Monk/Rogue 1-3
3[w] Cleric 18+, Fighter/Monk/Rogue 4-6
4[w] Fighter/Monk/Rogue 7-9
5[w] Fighter/Monk/Rogue 10+

Flag January 14, 2013 7:28 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:19AM, lawrencehoy wrote:

They have, in fact, returned to the Fighter with Combet Surge (albeit only 1/day and starting at 11th level).

I didn't mean it wouldn't come back at all.  I meant it's not going to return as something you do every round.  Rollign twice once a day seems perfectly reasonable.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:32 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

Averages are fine for math parties, but at the table people don't remember them.    What we remember are all the times the 2h fighter killed the big guy in one strike.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:34 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:32AM, dmgorgon wrote:

What we remember are all the times the 2h fighter killed the big guy in one strike.

If the medians are balanced, the sword-n-dagger fighter can take the big guy down in one strike too.  But if your friends prefer the swingier weapons (d12-.5 over d4+d6), that's a legitimate preference.  The math, btw, is for design only.  It should be invisible at the table, making most typical weapon choices equally valid.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:37 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:23AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

No, it doesn't. The difference is proportionally the same that it was. I liked the news. Now weapon choice can be important and balanced again. People always talk about the difference between 5d4 and 5d12. It is proportionally the same difference between d4 and d12. And properties are good.

Actually, if the weapon's damage die do not scale, it become useless.

The difference is up to 40 points of damage.    In a game with BA that's unacceptable.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:37 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:33AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 --  6:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

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.

I don't think we need that. Properties make up for damage.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:39 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:37AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:33AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

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.

I don't think we need that. Properties make up for damage.

Right.  Properties are how I intended to increase or reduce damage by .5 to even things out.  That's what I wrote.  (See the boldface I inserted.)

Flag January 14, 2013 7:44 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:37AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 --  7:23AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 --  6:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

No, it doesn't. The difference is proportionally the same that it was. I liked the news. Now weapon choice can be important and balanced again. People always talk about the difference between 5d4 and 5d12. It is proportionally the same difference between d4 and d12. And properties are good.

Actually, if the weapon's damage die do not scale, it become useless.

The difference is up to 40 points of damage.    In a game with BA that's unacceptable.

It's completely acceptable. It's Bounded Accuracy, but damage scales.
Let's see the critical hits:
d4 = 4 damage
d12 = 12 damage
Proportion: 1:3
5d4 = 20 damage
5d12 = 60 damage
Proportion: 1:3
Its the same difference. Only scaled. Why it's fine weapons making triple damage at low level, but not at high level? Remember that monster's HP scale, so that 3 point difference needs to scale, or it becomes insignificant.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:53 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:39AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:37AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:33AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

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.

I don't think we need that. Properties make up for damage.

Right.  Properties are how I intended to increase or reduce damage by .5 to even things out.  That's what I wrote.  (See the boldface I inserted.)

I was talking about the 2d4+1 or d6+d4, for example. Remember that two-handed, light and finesse are properties and have a big impact.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:56 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:44AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:37AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:23AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

No, it doesn't. The difference is proportionally the same that it was. I liked the news. Now weapon choice can be important and balanced again. People always talk about the difference between 5d4 and 5d12. It is proportionally the same difference between d4 and d12. And properties are good.

Actually, if the weapon's damage die do not scale, it become useless.

The difference is up to 40 points of damage.    In a game with BA that's unacceptable.

It's completely acceptable. It's Bounded Accuracy, but damage scales. Let's see the critical hits: d4 = 4 damage d12 = 12 damage Proportion: 1:3 5d4 = 20 damage 5d12 = 60 damage Proportion: 1:3 Its the same difference. Only scaled. Why it's fine weapons making triple damage at low level, but not at high level? Remember that monster's HP scale, so that 3 point difference needs to scale, or it becomes insignificant.

monster hit points don't scale in a way that makes that extra damage acceptable.

Flag January 14, 2013 7:58 AM PST
I really doubt we'll see more that 4W at level 10. I expect 4W at level 10 actually.

So the difference between dagger guy (4d4) and greatsword guy (4d12) is 16 because it is a 4 point damage drop per die from greatsword to dagger. But the dagger is finessable and throw able. It also is a simple weapon. The martial version of a knife should be 1d6 and thus only 3 damage per die.  And who knows how TWF will work?

And look at a maneuver like Lunge. The greatweapon guy loses 6.5 average damage while the glaive guy keeps his die and only loses 1 damage per die. It'll  take 7W before the greatweapon guy makes up for the reach the glaive guy has for free (7d10 vs 6d12).
Flag January 14, 2013 7:58 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:56AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 --  7:44AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 --  7:37AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:23AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:30AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

No, it doesn't. The difference is proportionally the same that it was. I liked the news. Now weapon choice can be important and balanced again. People always talk about the difference between 5d4 and 5d12. It is proportionally the same difference between d4 and d12. And properties are good.

Actually, if the weapon's damage die do not scale, it become useless.

The difference is up to 40 points of damage.    In a game with BA that's unacceptable.

It's completely acceptable. It's Bounded Accuracy, but damage scales. Let's see the critical hits: d4 = 4 damage d12 = 12 damage Proportion: 1:3 5d4 = 20 damage 5d12 = 60 damage Proportion: 1:3 Its the same difference. Only scaled. Why it's fine weapons making triple damage at low level, but not at high level? Remember that monster's HP scale, so that 3 point difference needs to scale, or it becomes insignificant.

monster hit points don't scale in a way that makes that extra damage acceptable.

HP scales, so the difference between weapons needs to scale or it becomes insignificant. It's the same thing that happens at low levels.

Flag January 14, 2013 8:02 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:58AM, Orzel wrote:

I really doubt we'll see more that 4W at level 10. I expect 4W at level 10 actually. So the difference between dagger guy (4d4) and greatsword guy (4d12) is 16 because it is a 4 point damage drop per die from greatsword to dagger. But the dagger is finessable and throw able. It also is a simple weapon. The martial version of a knife should be 1d6 and thus only 3 damage per die. And who knows how TWF will work? And look at a maneuver like Lunge. The greatweapon guy loses 6.5 average damage while the glaive guy keeps his die and only loses 1 damage per die. It'll take 7W before the greatweapon guy makes up for the reach the glaive guy has for free (7d10 vs 6d12).

Well if the orge is viable at level 10 with 32 hit points is it  fair that the two handed weapon fighter @4d12 has a good chance to drop him in one shot, but the dagger fighter can't ever do it @4d4?

Flag January 14, 2013 8:02 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:48AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Remember that two-handed, light and finesse are properties and are good.

The two-handed property prevents you from using another weapon.
The light property allows you to use a second weapon.

Neither of these affect the math, except that it allow the second die.  There is nothing in the light property that adds +1 when weildign two daggers, though that's what I do propose here.

The finesse property just lets you use Dex instead of Strength, which doesn't affect the math either.  It's a benefit to character customization and is not worth anything with respect to median damage analysis.

Here's what I would do...
Primary: You can weild a secondary weapon or shield in your other hand.  (Most d6 weapons would get this property)
Secondary: This weapon has all the properties of a primary weapon and can also be weilded in your other hand as the second weapon.  (Most d4 weapons would get this property.)
Versatile: You can  weild a shield in your other hand. If you weild this weapon in two hands, the damage increases by +1.  (Most d8 or 2d4 weapons would get this property.)
Two-Handed: This weapon requires two hands to weild. (Most d10 weapons would get this property.)
Reach: This weapon requires two hands to weild. It increases your reach by five feet, but imposes dissadvantage against adjacent creatures. (Most d12 or 2d6 weapons would get this property.)

Additional properties to be given to d8 and d10 weapons.
Brutal: This weapon allows you to reroll natural 1's on damage.
Keen: This weapon scores a critical hit on a 19 or 20.

Flag January 14, 2013 8:07 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:02AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Well if the orge is viable at level 10 with 32 hit points is it  fair that the two handed weapon fighter @4d12 has a good chance to drop him in one shot, but the dagger fighter can't ever do it @4d4?

The dagger-guy should be doing 8d4+8 (28 median, 40 max.) compared to the 4d12 (26 median, 48 max.) guy.  That should be just fine.  If the dagger guy chooses to weild a single dagger instead of two, he shouldn't be surprised that his 4d4 (10 median, 16 max.) doesn't stack up

Flag January 14, 2013 8:11 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:02AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:58AM, Orzel wrote:

I really doubt we'll see more that 4W at level 10. I expect 4W at level 10 actually. So the difference between dagger guy (4d4) and greatsword guy (4d12) is 16 because it is a 4 point damage drop per die from greatsword to dagger. But the dagger is finessable and throw able. It also is a simple weapon. The martial version of a knife should be 1d6 and thus only 3 damage per die. And who knows how TWF will work? And look at a maneuver like Lunge. The greatweapon guy loses 6.5 average damage while the glaive guy keeps his die and only loses 1 damage per die. It'll take 7W before the greatweapon guy makes up for the reach the glaive guy has for free (7d10 vs 6d12).

Well if the orge is viable at level 10 with 32 hit points is it  fair that the two handed weapon fighter @4d12 has a good chance to drop him in one shot, but the dagger fighter can't ever do it @4d4?

If we have an level 1 monster with 10 hit points, a d12 greatsword can one-shot him, but a d4 dagger cannot. It's the same thing that happens at low levels

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:02AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:48AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Remember that two-handed, light and finesse are properties and are good.

The two-handed property prevents you from using another weapon.
The light property allows you to use a second weapon.

Neither of these affect the math, except that it allow the second die.  There is nothing in the light property that adds +1 when weildign two daggers, though that's what I do propose here.

The finesse property just lets you use Dex instead of Strength, which doesn't affect the math either.  It's a benefit to character customization and is not worth anything with respect to median damage analysis.

Light and Two-handed will affect the math with the damage die important now, and with Two-Weapo Fighthing. And finesse let you choose Dex as primary stat.

Flag January 14, 2013 8:12 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:44AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:37AM, dmgorgon wrote:

The difference is up to 40 points of damage.    In a game with BA that's unacceptable.

It's completely acceptable. It's Bounded Accuracy, but damage scales. Let's see the critical hits: d4 = 4 damage d12 = 12 damage Proportion: 1:3 5d4 = 20 damage 5d12 = 60 damage Proportion: 1:3 Its the same difference. Only scaled. Why it's fine weapons making triple damage at low level, but not at high level? Remember that monster's HP scale, so that 3 point difference needs to scale, or it becomes insignificant.

I'm with you on this one.  Bounded Accuracy seems to get used as an example for why things don't work even when it doesn't apply.

Wrecan, your idea is a good way to maintain balance between weapons, but I think it makes the final version too complicated, especially for those who would roll 2d4+1 or 1d6+1d4 for each "MDD".  Keeping track of 6d6 is one thing, keeping track of a number of d6s and d4s is another.
But I think the bigger issue is that if we are going to go to such lengths to make the weapons perfectly balanced, why not just reevaluate the way weapons are designed in the first place?  If the goal is to make weapons balanced, we don't really need a huge weapon chart.  Something small and simple like the one used in Gamma World would be fine.  Players pick the type of weapon (like heavy two-handed) and then assign a damage type.

In the end, I don't think it is a big problem to use damage die instead of a flat d6 for the extra damage.  As cassi said, the damage scales proportionally.  If we assume that weapons are balanced at level 1 (so a two-handed weapon at 1d12 is equivalent to a shield and one-handed weapon at 1d8), then scaling up to when you are dealing 4[W] or whatever should still be equivalent.  The reason is that the +1 AC is just as valuable at level 20 as it was at level 1.  It is still increasing your AC by 1 point, resulting in monsters missing you on 1 roll out of 20.

So that brings us to the issue of a fighter who wants to use a weaker weapon.  The big question is: should weapon choice matter?  Personally, I think this should be left to each group.  There are some people who think weapon choice should make a difference, and for these people it is a good thing that a fighter with a dagger would be a lot less effective than one with a greatsword.  For people who think weapon choice should simply be aethetic, there is a simple solution: simply increase the damage for weapons.  So that fighter with the dagger?  Let him do 1d8 damage (because he has a hand free).

Flag January 14, 2013 8:13 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:11AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Light and Two-handed will affect the math with the damage die important now

Right, it affects the math in precisely the way I outlined and which you were taking issue with.

And finesse let you choose Dex as primary stat.

Which has no affect on the weapon math.  It's a benefit to character choice because it helps avoid multipl-attribute dependency

Flag January 14, 2013 8:24 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:13AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 --  8:11AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

Light and Two-handed will affect the math with the damage die important now

Right, it affects the math in precisely the way I outlined and which you were taking issue with.

And finesse let you choose Dex as primary stat.

Which has no affect on the weapon math.  It's a benefit to character choice because it helps avoid multipl-attribute dependency

In your system? I can't find the part when you talk about two-weapon fighting in your rules. But in a balanced Two-Weapon Fighting, it matters. And we don't know about the Two-Weapon Fighting now, because thigs will chance.
And many people are saying that Dex fighters are already better than Strength fighters. With Dex in initiative and AC, I think that finesse counts a lot.

Flag January 14, 2013 8:29 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:12AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Wrecan, your idea is a good way to maintain balance between weapons, but I think it makes the final version too complicated, especially for those who would roll 2d4+1 or 1d6+1d4 for each "MDD".  Keeping track of 6d6 is one thing, keeping track of a number of d6s and d4s is another.

I agree. One way to avoid that is to key two-weapon fighting to the smaller weapon and give a +1 to damage.  So two daggers is 2d4+1.  Two shortswords is 2d6.  (I don't think "2d4+1" as [w] is too complicated.)

Of course, right now we do have two different dice as weapons in the form of double weapons. The urgosh does 1d10+1d4 (median 8). The quarterstaff does d8+d6 (median 8).

If the goal is to make weapons balanced, we don't really need a huge weapon chart.  Something small and simple like the one used in Gamma World would be fine.  Players pick the type of weapon (like heavy two-handed) and then assign a damage type.

Oh, the basic module could simply have the following chart:

 Size Damage Bludgeoning Piercing Slashing Properties Light d4 Sap Dirk Dagger Secondary Short d6 Club Short Spear Short sword Primary Long d8 Mace Rapier Longsword Versatile Great d10 Greatclub Longspear Greatsword Keen Reach d12 Maul Pike Glaive Reach

And add a few ranged weapons. The only reason the table is as long as it is is due to the three types of damage. And the advanced version of the game can add all sorts of other weapons.

Flag January 14, 2013 8:30 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

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).

There probably is a way to setup things so it remains balanced, but remember it has to be dead simple also. No [W] = 1d6+1d4 or [W] = 2d4+1, that would create all sorts of complexity trying to explain the rules. I don't want to be trying to explain to a new player that his base damage is 2d4+4 but when he does 2 weapon damage it is 4d4+5, because it is 2d4+1 from weapon and +3 from str.

Flag January 14, 2013 8:31 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:24AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

I can't find the part when you talk about two-weapon fighting in your rules.

Look again. It's shortsword and dagger (d6+d4) or two daggers (2d4+1)

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:24AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

many people are saying that Dex fighters are already better than Strength fighters. With Dex in initiative and AC, I think that finesse counts a lot.

Not to weapon damage analysis.  That's an imbalance in the way the classes are designed because Dexterity is simply too useful an Ability right now compared to Strength as it is used for Initiative, most skills and plenty of saves.  That issue can't be fixed with weapon damage.

Flag January 14, 2013 8:33 AM PST
Actually I like the math to be hidden in the system and the core to be simple

Martial
Two handed heavy- 1d12
Two handed heavy reach- 1d10
Two handed finesse- 1d10
Two handed finesse reach- 1d8
One handed-1d10
One handed thrown- 1d6
One handed finesse-1d8
One handed light finesse- 1d6
One handed light thrown- 1d4
Flag January 14, 2013 8:34 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:30AM, JayM wrote:

No [W] = 1d6+1d4 or [W] = 2d4+1

Fine.  For all two-weapon fighting [w] = 2d4, regardless of the weapons being used.  Give these weapons some decent properties and we're all set.

Flag January 14, 2013 8:41 AM PST
So for those keeping track, here's my current proposal:

 Size Damage Bludgeoning Piercing Slashing Properties Light d4 Sap Dirk Dagger Light Short d6 Club Short Spear Short sword Keen, Light Long d8 Mace Rapier Longsword Keen, Versatile Great d10 Greatclub Longspear Greatsword Brutal, Two-Handed Reach d12 Maul Pike Glaive Reach, Two-Handed

And add a few ranged weapons.

Brutal: When weilding this weapon, you reroll any natural "1" on your damage roll.
Keen: When weilding this weapon, you score a critical hit on a 19 or 20
Light: You can weild a light weapon in your other hand.  When you do so, your weapon damage is 2d4.  You can also weild a shield in your other hand instead.
Versatile: You can weild this weapon two-handed. Doing so increases the weapon die to d10. You can also weild a shield in your other hand instead.
Reach: You can attack targets five feet from you.  Attacking adjacent targets incurs disadvantage.
Two-Handed: This weapon requires two hands to weild.

Done.
Flag January 14, 2013 8:48 AM PST
I like the simplicity with a dash of interesting elements of the latest idea... i... what are you thinking for shield use... it could be treated as an off hand weapon actually.
Flag January 14, 2013 8:53 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:48AM, Garthanos wrote:

I like the simplicity with a dash of interesting elements of the latest idea... i... what are you thinking for shield use... it could be treated as an off hand weapon actually.

It depends on the armor system.  I figure a shield grants you cover (how much depends on the size of the shield) against one attack as a reaction or cover against all attacks until your next begins as an action.

Flag January 14, 2013 8:53 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:33AM, Orzel wrote:

Actually I like the math to be hidden in the system and the core to be simple Martial Two handed heavy- 1d12 Two handed heavy reach- 1d10 Two handed finesse- 1d10 Two handed finesse reach- 1d8 One handed-1d10 One handed thrown- 1d6 One handed finesse-1d8 One handed light finesse- 1d6 One handed light thrown- 1d4

This.

Brutal: When weilding this weapon, you reroll any natural "1" on your damage roll.
Keen: When weilding this weapon, you score a critical hit on a 19 or 20
Light: You can weild a light weapon in your other hand.  When you do so, your weapon damage is 2d4.  You can also weild a shield in your other hand instead.
Versatile: You can weild this weapon two-handed. Doing so increases the weapon die to d10. You can also weild a shield in your other hand instead.
Reach: You can attack targets five feet from you.  Attacking adjacent targets incurs disadvantage.
Two-Handed: This weapon requires two hands to weild.

Brutal slows the game down for minimal gain (especailly on d10 weapons).
Keen is not balanced.  It could be, but it would be difficult.
Light sounds too complicated.  It should just add 1d4 to your main-hand attack.
Versatile is ok.  But i'm not sure it really helps anything.
Reach is too complicated, not to mention basicly a straight negitive with the current OA rules.
Two-handed is fine.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:03 AM PST
mellored: Brutal slows the game down for minimal gain (especailly on d10 weapons).
Actually, it's only going to happen 1-in-10 hits.  Even on a 4[w] roll, it happens 1-in-3 hits, which is like 1-in-5 attacks.  It's no slower than the current advantage system, which is lauded for keeping things quick.

mellored: Keen is not balanced.  It could be, but it would be difficult.
How is it not balanced?

mellored: Light sounds too complicated.  It should just add 1d4 to your main-hand attack.
Then your [w] would be d6+d4 is you weild a shortsword and dagger.  [w]=2d4 is as simple as it gets and it lets you roll two dice for two-weapon fighting, which preserves the feel of weilding two weapons.

mellored: Versatile is ok.  But i'm not sure it really helps anything.
It keeps damage balanced.

mellored: Reach is too complicated, not to mention basicly a straight negitive with the current OA rules.
What's complicated about disadvantage against adjacent creatures?  And, yes.  It's a negative to make up for the increased damage that such weapons receive.  Reach weapons are intended for use by the guy in the second row of a marching order and is then dropped when the monsters break through the first line.
Flag January 14, 2013 9:04 AM PST
I think dual-wielding should work as a single weapon.

Dual Wield - d8 damage, requires both hands, allows you to make two-attacks but each one only deals 1/2 damage.

You could also have Light Dual Wield - d6 damage, finesse, requires both hands.

Compared to a two handed weapon you trade some damage for versatility in the form of better chance to apply conditions, the ability to attack multiple targets,  and better minion clearing capabilities. This greatly simplifies dual wielding.
Flag January 14, 2013 9:06 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:53AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:48AM, Garthanos wrote:

I like the simplicity with a dash of interesting elements of the latest idea... i... what are you thinking for shield use... it could be treated as an off hand weapon actually.

It depends on the armor system.  I figure a shield grants you cover (how much depends on the size of the shield) against one attack as a reaction or cover against all attacks until your next begins as an action.

That to me really makes shield use seem kind of too passive..

Flag January 14, 2013 9:07 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:06AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:53AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:48AM, Garthanos wrote:

I like the simplicity with a dash of interesting elements of the latest idea... i... what are you thinking for shield use... it could be treated as an off hand weapon actually.

It depends on the armor system.  I figure a shield grants you cover (how much depends on the size of the shield) against one attack as a reaction or cover against all attacks until your next begins as an action.

That to me really makes shield use seem kind of too passive..

As I said, whether the shield also gives you an AC boost depends on the math of the armor system.  What else do you want?

Flag January 14, 2013 9:10 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:04AM, Lawolf wrote:

Dual Wield - d8 damage, requires both hands, allows you to make two-attacks but each one only deals 1/2 damage.

Do you think two attacks every round will slow things down?  Particularly if used in conjunction with advantage or disadvantage?

Flag January 14, 2013 9:12 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:07AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:06AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:53AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:48AM, Garthanos wrote:

I like the simplicity with a dash of interesting elements of the latest idea... i... what are you thinking for shield use... it could be treated as an off hand weapon actually.

It depends on the armor system.  I figure a shield grants you cover (how much depends on the size of the shield) against one attack as a reaction or cover against all attacks until your next begins as an action.

That to me really makes shield use seem kind of too passive..

As I said, whether the shield also gives you an AC boost depends on the math of the armor system.  What else do you want?

hmmm I guess was thinking maneuvers but we do have some already dont we .... maybe nothing additionally needed. I do want parry to work with shields against ranged attacks. Parry should also standardly work vs thrown attacks. Shields as bashing/attacking tools dont seem quite covered

Flag January 14, 2013 9:15 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:10AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:04AM, Lawolf wrote:

Dual Wield - d8 damage, requires both hands, allows you to make two-attacks but each one only deals 1/2 damage.

Do you think two attacks every round will slow things down?  Particularly if used in conjunction with advantage or disadvantage?

As both attack rolls should be rolled at the same time, no the slowdown (if any) should be relatively minor.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:21 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:12AM, Garthanos wrote:

I guess was thinking maneuvers

Maneuvers are a separate discussion.  I'm just talking about the ultra-simple 16-page intro.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:22 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:15AM, Lawolf wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:10AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:04AM, Lawolf wrote:

Dual Wield - d8 damage, requires both hands, allows you to make two-attacks but each one only deals 1/2 damage.

Do you think two attacks every round will slow things down?  Particularly if used in conjunction with advantage or disadvantage?

As both attack rolls should be rolled at the same time, no the slowdown (if any) should be relatively minor.

They can't be rolled at the same time if you have advantage or disadvantage.  You have to keep the attack rolls separate.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:30 AM PST
Personally I thing the basic weapon system could just be damage, damage type (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning), weapon group (simple, martial, special), handedness (one or two handed), range (thrown or missle), and 6 properties (versatile, light, heavy, finesse, reach, double) and cover all common weapons.

No need for brutal, high critical, keen, and other stuff in the basic package.
Flag January 14, 2013 9:32 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:30AM, Orzel wrote:

Personally I thing the basic weapon system could just be damage, damage type (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning), weapon group (simple, martial, special), handedness (one or two handed), range (thrown or missle), and 6 properties (versatile, light, heavy, finesse, reach, double) and cover all common weapons. No need for brutal, high critical, keen, and other stuff in the basic package.

Simplify it more. No need for versatile, light, or heavy. Have weapon types be 1 handed, 2 handed, or dual wield.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:33 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:30AM, Orzel wrote:

No need for brutal, high critical, keen, and other stuff in the basic package.

I only include it for balance purposes.  Otherwise the basic game really does encourage you to weild the largest weapon you can.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:35 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:29AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:12AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Wrecan, your idea is a good way to maintain balance between weapons, but I think it makes the final version too complicated, especially for those who would roll 2d4+1 or 1d6+1d4 for each "MDD".  Keeping track of 6d6 is one thing, keeping track of a number of d6s and d4s is another.

I agree. One way to avoid that is to key two-weapon fighting to the smaller weapon and give a +1 to damage.  So two daggers is 2d4+1.  Two shortswords is 2d6.  (I don't think "2d4+1" as [w] is too complicated.)

Of course, right now we do have two different dice as weapons in the form of double weapons. The urgosh does 1d10+1d4 (median 8). The quarterstaff does d8+d6 (median 8).

Yeah, I guess 2d4 isn't bad, as long as people remember that they can't split them up.
Also, I don't think you will roll [W] for other maneuvers; it doesn't make any sense for the guy with the greatsword to get a better result from Defensive Roll compared to the guy with a dagger.  So you can keep the Dice as d6s, and just define the Damage option as: "Spend any number of dice.  For each die you spend, roll your weapon dice and add it to the damage you deal."  In this way, it becomes very simple, even for odd combinations (like the Urgosh).
In other words: I have been convinced that something like this could work just fine, and it is actually a great way to keep dual-weilding equivalent to a two-handed weapon.

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:29AM, wrecan wrote:

If the goal is to make weapons balanced, we don't really need a huge weapon chart.  Something small and simple like the one used in Gamma World would be fine.  Players pick the type of weapon (like heavy two-handed) and then assign a damage type.

Oh, the basic module could simply have the following chart:

 Size Damage Bludgeoning Piercing Slashing Properties Light d4 Sap Dirk Dagger Secondary Short d6 Club Short Spear Short sword Primary Long d8 Mace Rapier Longsword Versatile Great d10 Greatclub Longspear Greatsword Keen Reach d12 Maul Pike Glaive Reach

And add a few ranged weapons. The only reason the table is as long as it is is due to the three types of damage. And the advanced version of the game can add all sorts of other weapons.

Yeah, that is exactly the type of chart I would like to see!  The current weapons chart is too long for its own good.  Something like this is simple and easy to use, and puts everything in a nice table for easy comparison.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:36 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:33AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:30AM, Orzel wrote:

No need for brutal, high critical, keen, and other stuff in the basic package.

I only include it for balance purposes.  Otherwise the basic game really does encourage you to weild the largest weapon you can.

So eliminate weapons.
1d6 for one-handed, 1d8 for two-handed, 1d4+1d4 for two-weapon.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:41 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:36AM, Qmark wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:33AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:30AM, Orzel wrote:

No need for brutal, high critical, keen, and other stuff in the basic package.

I only include it for balance purposes.  Otherwise the basic game really does encourage you to weild the largest weapon you can.

So eliminate weapons.
1d6 for one-handed, 1d8 for two-handed, 1d4+1d4 for two-weapon.

You could do that.  I'd divide it into fighting styles:

Sword and Board: d8 (4.5) + shield
Two-Weapon: 2d4 (5)
Two-Handed: 1d10 (5.5)

Then you just need some weapons to even it out.

 Size Damage Bludgeoning Piercing Slashing Simple d4 Club Dirk Dagger Standard d8 Mace Spear Sword Great d10 Greatclub Greatspear Greatsword

Small: You can weild a small weapon or shield in the other hand. When you hit and have a light weapon in both hands, you inflict the damage of both.
Standard: You can weild a shield in your other hand.
Great: This weapon requires two hands to weild.
Flag January 14, 2013 9:43 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:35AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:29AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:12AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Wrecan, your idea is a good way to maintain balance between weapons, but I think it makes the final version too complicated, especially for those who would roll 2d4+1 or 1d6+1d4 for each "MDD".  Keeping track of 6d6 is one thing, keeping track of a number of d6s and d4s is another.

I agree. One way to avoid that is to key two-weapon fighting to the smaller weapon and give a +1 to damage.  So two daggers is 2d4+1.  Two shortswords is 2d6.  (I don't think "2d4+1" as [w] is too complicated.)

Of course, right now we do have two different dice as weapons in the form of double weapons. The urgosh does 1d10+1d4 (median 8). The quarterstaff does d8+d6 (median 8).

Yeah, I guess 2d4 isn't bad, as long as people remember that they can't split them up.
Also, I don't think you will roll [W] for other maneuvers; it doesn't make any sense for the guy with the greatsword to get a better result from Defensive Roll compared to the guy with a dagger.

Heh I actually do they are extremely useful for fending off an enemy ... you are trained that maintaining the weapon between you and your enemy is your primary defense.

Compared to that maneuvering a dagger so that it blocks my weapon? for instance? ummm yeh I push single handed weapons aside very very easily.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:44 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:41AM, wrecan wrote:

Sword and Board: d8 (4.5) + shield
Two-Weapon: 2d4 (5)
Two-Handed: 1d10 (5.5)

Are you condensing TWF to a single attack roll?
That's... just way too obvious to be right.

Sword and Board is the rough equivalent of "just sword", right?

Flag January 14, 2013 9:46 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:43AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:35AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:29AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:12AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Wrecan, your idea is a good way to maintain balance between weapons, but I think it makes the final version too complicated, especially for those who would roll 2d4+1 or 1d6+1d4 for each "MDD".  Keeping track of 6d6 is one thing, keeping track of a number of d6s and d4s is another.

I agree. One way to avoid that is to key two-weapon fighting to the smaller weapon and give a +1 to damage.  So two daggers is 2d4+1.  Two shortswords is 2d6.  (I don't think "2d4+1" as [w] is too complicated.)

Of course, right now we do have two different dice as weapons in the form of double weapons. The urgosh does 1d10+1d4 (median 8). The quarterstaff does d8+d6 (median 8).

Yeah, I guess 2d4 isn't bad, as long as people remember that they can't split them up.
Also, I don't think you will roll [W] for other maneuvers; it doesn't make any sense for the guy with the greatsword to get a better result from Defensive Roll compared to the guy with a dagger.

Heh I actually do they are extremely useful for fending off an enemy ... you are trained that maintaining the weapon between you and your enemy is your primary defense.

Sure, but that sounds more like Parry (which might make sense to use the damage die of the weapon, as long as a Shield gives you a bonus).  Defensive Roll reduces damage from a failed Dex save.  Why would a greatsword result in less damage from a fireball or lightning bolt?

Flag January 14, 2013 9:46 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:44AM, Qmark wrote:

Are you condensing TWF to a single attack roll?
That's... just way too obvious to be right.

Thanks.  yes I am.  The math doesn't work at 2d4 if you have to make two attack rolls.  And if you up the damage to 2d6 or 2d8 then it's really open o abuse, with two-weapon fighting being overpowering against low-AC foes and two-handed fighting compratively overpowered against high-AC foes.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:48 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:00AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:50AM, ren1999 wrote:

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.

What do you mean by "swingy" in this context exactly?

I interpret that to mean that splitting damage between multiple attacks has a higher variance than trying to deal all the damage on one attack, which is precisely the opposite of the actual effect.

For example, 2 attacks at 50% to hit for d8 damage has a mean of 4.5 and a variance of 15.375, while 1 attack at 50% to hit for 2d8 damage has a mean of 4.5 and a variance of 25.5.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:48 AM PST
@wrecan
The drop in damage is not bad if reach and range are effective and shield go up to +2 AC. Add in some reach, shield, light, heavy, and thrown only maneuvers and the system can work even better.
Flag January 14, 2013 9:51 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:46AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:43AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:35AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:29AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:12AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Wrecan, your idea is a good way to maintain balance between weapons, but I think it makes the final version too complicated, especially for those who would roll 2d4+1 or 1d6+1d4 for each "MDD".  Keeping track of 6d6 is one thing, keeping track of a number of d6s and d4s is another.

I agree. One way to avoid that is to key two-weapon fighting to the smaller weapon and give a +1 to damage.  So two daggers is 2d4+1.  Two shortswords is 2d6.  (I don't think "2d4+1" as [w] is too complicated.)

Of course, right now we do have two different dice as weapons in the form of double weapons. The urgosh does 1d10+1d4 (median 8). The quarterstaff does d8+d6 (median 8).

Yeah, I guess 2d4 isn't bad, as long as people remember that they can't split them up.
Also, I don't think you will roll [W] for other maneuvers; it doesn't make any sense for the guy with the greatsword to get a better result from Defensive Roll compared to the guy with a dagger.

Heh I actually do they are extremely useful for fending off an enemy ... you are trained that maintaining the weapon between you and your enemy is your primary defense.

Sure, but that sounds more like Parry (which might make sense to use the damage die of the weapon, as long as a Shield gives you a bonus).

Ah you mean the maneuver defensive roll.. not a defensive roll.... ok.. got ya.

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:46AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Why would a greatsword result in less damage from a fireball or lightning bolt?

Well I am inclined to allow a magical weapon to be useful to parry the lightning bolt... when the user is high enough level.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:56 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:03AM, wrecan wrote:

mellored: Brutal slows the game down for minimal gain (especailly on d10 weapons).
Actually, it's only going to happen 1-in-10 hits.  Even on a 4[w] roll, it happens 1-in-3 hits, which is like 1-in-5 attacks.  It's no slower than the current advantage system, which is lauded for keeping things quick.

Math fail on my part.

I could see brutal working, if there was an attribute that only deserved a little bit of damage reduction, such as being able to throw it.  But overall it still slows the game down.

mellored: Keen is not balanced.  It could be, but it would be difficult.
How is it not balanced?

6-3.5+3.5 * .05 = 0.3
8-4.5+4.5 * .05 = 0.4

It's even worse against low HP targets...

Against a 3 HP target and 75% chance to hit...
1d6 = 5% + (50% * 70%) = 40% kill chance
1d6 + keen = 10% + (50% * 65%) = 42.5% kill chance.

2.5% difference.

mellored: Light sounds too complicated.  It should just add 1d4 to your main-hand attack.
Then your [w] would be d6+d4 is you weild a shortsword and dagger.  [w]=2d4 is as simple as it gets and it lets you roll two dice for two-weapon fighting, which preserves the feel of weilding two weapons.

d6+d4 = 6.

Half a step behind 2-handed.  Which seems good to me.

mellored: Versatile is ok.  But i'm not sure it really helps anything.
It keeps damage balanced.

Have you ever has someone wish they could switch hands?  (besides 4e swordmages, who swaped to attack, then swaped back for defense).

Unless there's some sort of swap cheese (4e swordmage), it's basicly a useless property.

mellored: Reach is too complicated, not to mention basicly a straight negitive with the current OA rules.
What's complicated about disadvantage against adjacent creatures?  And, yes.  It's a negative to make up for the increased damage that such weapons receive.  Reach weapons are intended for use by the guy in the second row of a marching order and is then dropped when the monsters break through the first line.

Nothing for people using battlemats.  But it's hard otherwise.

Also, the enemy can walk around the front line without provoking.  Now your at disavantage, unless you spend an action to disengage.

What you effectivly have is a range 10' bow.

Flag January 14, 2013 9:57 AM PST
Parry should default to the shield damage.

No better.. the skill dice value. And using a shield ups the dice by 1.
Flag January 14, 2013 9:57 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:48AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:00AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:50AM, ren1999 wrote:

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.

What do you mean by "swingy" in this context exactly?

I mean that the variance between the two types of attacks is huge.

As you said: 2 attacks at 50% to hit for d8 damage has a ... variance of 15.375, while 1 attack at 50% to hit for 2d8 damage has ... a variance of 25.5.

Flag January 14, 2013 10:00 AM PST
The impression I get is that every 1[w] can be split off to make an additional attack against a different target. So if a 10th level fighter dual-wielding short swords can do 4d6 to two separate targets (total 8d6 damage per round) or 1d6 to eight targets. Meanwhile, the greatsword fighter does 4d12 to one target or 1d12 to four targets. The damage itself is almost identical between the two styles, but 2H gets the edge in attacking a single, powerful foe (like a dragon), but  2WF effectively gets a localized AoE attack. If this assessment is accurate, then I don't see the problem here.
Flag January 14, 2013 10:00 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:57AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:48AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:00AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:50AM, ren1999 wrote:

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.

What do you mean by "swingy" in this context exactly?

I mean that the variance between the two types of attacks is huge.

As you said: 2 attacks at 50% to hit for d8 damage has a ... variance of 15.375, while 1 attack at 50% to hit for 2d8 damage has ... a variance of 25.5.

Right, but multiple attacks bring a lower variance.  So why are multi-attacks "horribly swingy"?

Flag January 14, 2013 10:03 AM PST
mellored: overall it still slows the game down.
Minimally.  I find it more than acceptable.

mellored:
6-3.5+3.5 * .05 = 0.3
8-4.5+4.5 * .05 = 0.4
I only need to add around .5.  .3 or .4 is plenty.

melloredIt's even worse against low HP targets...
Damage balance is less relevant against low-hp targets.

mellored: d6+d4 = 6. Half a step behind 2-handed.  Which seems good to me.
It's still complicated.  Several people in this thread complained about it.  I even proposed d6+d4 and got a bunch of complaints immediately.  Take it up with them. I'm tired of arguing with people who aren't reading the thread.

mellored: Have you ever has someone wish they could switch hands?
That's not what versatile does.  It gives you +1 when weilding the weapon two-handed.

mellored: Nothing for people using battlemats.  But it's hard otherwise.
Even people who don't use battlemats know the difference between adjacent and not adjacent.

mellored: Also, the enemy can walk around the front line without provoking.  Now your at disavantage, unless you spend an action to disengage.
Or drop your polearm and pull your sword, just like we used to do in the Basic D&D that the basic ruleset is trying to replicate.

mellored: What you effectivly have is a range 10' bow.
That does d12 damage.  A bow should do d8 at most.
Flag January 14, 2013 10:04 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:57AM, Orzel wrote:

Parry should default to the shield damage. No better.. the skill dice value..

I disagree...It is pretty simplistic for me to push aside 1 handed weapons parry...  due to there lack of leverage and inferior reach.
I agree that shields need to rock.. though.

Flag January 14, 2013 10:04 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:00AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Right, but multiple attacks bring a lower variance.  So why are multi-attacks "horribly swingy"?

I didn't mean the multi-attacks theselves are swingy but that the system that has single attacks and multi-attacks in comparable placement is swingy.

Flag January 14, 2013 10:05 AM PST
Two weapon fighting is simple to me. Just give two attacks at penalty. The character deals lower damage but has a higher hit rate.
Flag January 14, 2013 10:05 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:00AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:57AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:48AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:00AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:50AM, ren1999 wrote:

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.

What do you mean by "swingy" in this context exactly?

I mean that the variance between the two types of attacks is huge.

As you said: 2 attacks at 50% to hit for d8 damage has a ... variance of 15.375, while 1 attack at 50% to hit for 2d8 damage has ... a variance of 25.5.

Right, but multiple attacks bring a lower variance.  So why are multi-attacks "horribly swingy"?

You are assuming (incorrectly) that multiple attacks are implemented so that instead of one attack you have two attacks that do 1/2 damage. Multiple attacks in D&D have been known for their brokenness because they repeatedly stack modifiers.

For example a fighter who has his damage go up by 1[W] every 5 levels and another who gains another attacks every 5 levels you will see a hige variance in damage between the two. Each attack adds Strength mod, magic bonuses, feat bonuses, class bonuses, and other misc bonuses per attack.

Multiple attacks could be handled by each attack granting a d20 roll and each additional "hit" adding an additional 1[W] damage to the total to remove any possibility of stacking though.

Flag January 14, 2013 10:06 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:05AM, Orzel wrote:

Two weapon fighting is simple to me. Just give two attacks at penalty. The character deals lower damage but has a higher hit rate.

That rarely works simply because the penalty to hit is almost always offset by radically increased (almost double) damage.

For dual wielding to actually work it should probably just be two attacks at 1/2 normal damage.

Flag January 14, 2013 10:10 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:05AM, Lawolf wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:00AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:57AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:48AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:00AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:50AM, ren1999 wrote:

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.

What do you mean by "swingy" in this context exactly?

I mean that the variance between the two types of attacks is huge.

As you said: 2 attacks at 50% to hit for d8 damage has a ... variance of 15.375, while 1 attack at 50% to hit for 2d8 damage has ... a variance of 25.5.

Right, but multiple attacks bring a lower variance.  So why are multi-attacks "horribly swingy"?

You are assuming (incorrectly) that multiple attacks are implemented so that instead of one attack you have two attacks that do 1/2 damage. Multiple attacks in D&D have been known for their brokenness because they repeatedly stack modifiers.

For example a fighter who has his damage go up by 1[W] every 5 levels and another who gains another attacks every 5 levels you will see a hige variance in damage between the two. Each attack adds Strength mod, magic bonuses, feat bonuses, class bonuses, and other misc bonuses per attack.

Multiple attacks could be handled by each attack granting a d20 roll and each additional "hit" adding an additional 1[W] damage to the total to remove any possibility of stacking though.

I did no such thing.  I commented on Wrecan's response to a suggestion that actually did precisely what you are talking about (splitting the weapon damage into separate attacks) which stated it was "horribly swingy," a comment which he has since clarified.

Flag January 14, 2013 10:28 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:10AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:05AM, Lawolf wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:00AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:57AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 9:48AM, Pyromantic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 7:00AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:50AM, ren1999 wrote:

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.

What do you mean by "swingy" in this context exactly?

I mean that the variance between the two types of attacks is huge.

As you said: 2 attacks at 50% to hit for d8 damage has a ... variance of 15.375, while 1 attack at 50% to hit for 2d8 damage has ... a variance of 25.5.

Right, but multiple attacks bring a lower variance.  So why are multi-attacks "horribly swingy"?

You are assuming (incorrectly) that multiple attacks are implemented so that instead of one attack you have two attacks that do 1/2 damage. Multiple attacks in D&D have been known for their brokenness because they repeatedly stack modifiers.

For example a fighter who has his damage go up by 1[W] every 5 levels and another who gains another attacks every 5 levels you will see a hige variance in damage between the two. Each attack adds Strength mod, magic bonuses, feat bonuses, class bonuses, and other misc bonuses per attack.

Multiple attacks could be handled by each attack granting a d20 roll and each additional "hit" adding an additional 1[W] damage to the total to remove any possibility of stacking though.

I did no such thing.  I commented on Wrecan's response to a suggestion that actually did precisely what you are talking about (splitting the weapon damage into separate attacks) which stated it was "horribly swingy," a comment which he has since clarified.

Oops, sorry misunderstood then.

Flag January 14, 2013 10:32 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:03AM, wrecan wrote:

mellored: Have you ever has someone wish they could switch hands?
That's not what versatile does.  It gives you +1 when weilding the weapon two-handed.

Why would anyone use it 2-handed when there's a greatsword that does more damage?

mellored: Also, the enemy can walk around the front line without provoking.  Now your at disavantage, unless you spend an action to disengage.
Or drop your polearm and pull your sword, just like we used to do in the Basic D&D that the basic ruleset is trying to replicate.

I'd really rather not have trap options, or force people to use more then 1 weapon.

It would be much better as a d8 damage without the disavantage.

Flag January 14, 2013 10:48 AM PST
mellored: Why would anyone use it 2-handed when there's a greatsword that does more damage?
It does the same median damage when used two handed (d8+1 vs. d10).  It lets you weild a shield, and drop the shield if you want the improved damage over the better defense.  In other words, it's versatile.

mellored: Also, the enemy can walk around the front line without provoking.  Now your at disavantage, unless you spend an action to disengage.
Wrecan: drop your polearm and pull your sword, just like we used to do in the Basic D&D that the basic ruleset is trying to replicate.
mellored: I'd really rather not have trap options, or force people to use more then 1 weapon.
So bar reach weapons from your game.  Done and done. I don't see it as a trap at all.  It's weapon to hold if you're a Strength-based fighter in the second row of a marching order.

mellored: It would be much better as a d8 damage without the disavantage.
I'll pass your suggestion to my non-existent manager.

Flag January 14, 2013 11:01 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 10:48AM, wrecan wrote:

mellored: Why would anyone use it 2-handed when there's a greatsword that does more damage?
It does the same median damage when used two handed (d8+1 vs. d10).  It lets you weild a shield, and drop the shield if you want the improved damage over the better defense.  In other words, it's versatile.

mellored: Also, the enemy can walk around the front line without provoking.  Now your at disavantage, unless you spend an action to disengage.
Wrecan: drop your polearm and pull your sword, just like we used to do in the Basic D&D that the basic ruleset is trying to replicate.
mellored: I'd really rather not have trap options, or force people to use more then 1 weapon.
So bar reach weapons from your game.  Done and done. I don't see it as a trap at all.  It's weapon to hold if you're a Strength-based fighter in the second row of a marching order.

mellored: It would be much better as a d8 damage without the disavantage.
I'll pass your suggestion to my non-existent manager.

I really don't understand why you think it's ok to drop a polearm and grab a greatsword.

But not drop a shield+longsword and grab a greatsword.

To me, i just see unneccicaray properties cluttering things.

Flag January 14, 2013 11:07 AM PST
mellored: I really don't understand why you think it's ok to drop a polearm and grab a greatsword. But not drop a shield+longsword and grab a greatsword.

I don't have a problem with someone dropping a shield and longsword and grabbing a greatsword if he prefers a d10 and no shield bonus to a d8 and shield bonus.  Or he could use his longsword two-handed.  That would be equally fine.  I'm not sure why you think it's an issue.

Someone could also drop two daggers (2d4) and draw his greatword (d10) if he wants.
Flag January 14, 2013 11:16 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 11:07AM, wrecan wrote:

mellored: I really don't understand why you think it's ok to drop a polearm and grab a greatsword. But not drop a shield+longsword and grab a greatsword.

I don't have a problem with someone dropping a shield and longsword and grabbing a greatsword if he prefers a d10 and no shield bonus to a d8 and shield bonus.  Or he could use his longsword two-handed.  That would be equally fine.  I'm not sure why you think it's an issue.

Someone could also drop two daggers (2d4) and draw his greatword (d10) if he wants.

It's not an "issue" per say.

It's just unneccicaray clutter.  I don't see how it adds anything to the game.

Flag January 14, 2013 11:19 AM PST
mellored: It's just unneccicaray clutter.  I don't see how it adds anything to the game.

I see how it does which is why I proposed it. We just disagree. But that's what makes D&D great.  One man's fun is another man's folly.

Flag January 14, 2013 12:11 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

If we assume that d4 and d6 weapons will be wielded in conjunction (short sword and dagger).

If we're going to be making that assumption, then the whip needs to be either a d8 weapon, or it needs to be a d6 one-handed weapon or a d4 one handed light weapon.  Because the whip just flat out blows as a weapon, especially if you keep it as a special weapon that requires you to burn a feat to know how to use it.

Flag January 14, 2013 12:16 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:11PM, MechaPilot wrote:

If we're going to be making that assumption, then the whip needs to be either a d8 weapon, or it needs to be a d6 one-handed weapon or a d4 one handed light weapon.

I really don't envision the whip being in the basic rules.  In the advanced module, we can make all sotts of funky customized rules for the whip.

Flag January 14, 2013 12:45 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:11PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

If we assume that d4 and d6 weapons will be wielded in conjunction (short sword and dagger).

If we're going to be making that assumption, then the whip needs to be either a d8 weapon, or it needs to be a d6 one-handed weapon or a d4 one handed light weapon.  Because the whip just flat out blows as a weapon, especially if you keep it as a special weapon that requires you to burn a feat to know how to use it.

That's a terrible assumption.    There is nothing wrong with a short sword and shield fighter (roman legionare).

I'm so sick of mechanics for mechanics sake.    I think the next playtest package is going to make me vomit.

Flag January 14, 2013 1:07 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:45PM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:11PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

If we assume that d4 and d6 weapons will be wielded in conjunction (short sword and dagger).

If we're going to be making that assumption, then the whip needs to be either a d8 weapon, or it needs to be a d6 one-handed weapon or a d4 one handed light weapon.  Because the whip just flat out blows as a weapon, especially if you keep it as a special weapon that requires you to burn a feat to know how to use it.

That's a terrible assumption.    There is nothing wrong with a short sword and shield fighter (roman legionare).

I'm so sick of mechanics for mechanics sake.    I think the next playtest package is going to make me vomit.

It isn't intended to be taken orally.

But also, you are right: there is nothing wrong with short sword and shield, and no one has said that there is something wrong with it.  You are losing an iota of damage compared to longsword and shield, nothing that will be missed.  Even if you add weapon die to damage instead of a flat d6, by level 20 it is only 6 points less...again, not something you will notice.

As a DM, I would even let that character deal 1d8 damage with his short sword.

Flag January 14, 2013 1:22 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 1:07PM, Arithezoo wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:45PM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:11PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

If we assume that d4 and d6 weapons will be wielded in conjunction (short sword and dagger).

If we're going to be making that assumption, then the whip needs to be either a d8 weapon, or it needs to be a d6 one-handed weapon or a d4 one handed light weapon.  Because the whip just flat out blows as a weapon, especially if you keep it as a special weapon that requires you to burn a feat to know how to use it.

That's a terrible assumption.    There is nothing wrong with a short sword and shield fighter (roman legionare).

I'm so sick of mechanics for mechanics sake.    I think the next playtest package is going to make me vomit.

It isn't intended to be taken orally.

But also, you are right: there is nothing wrong with short sword and shield, and no one has said that there is something wrong with it.  You are losing an iota of damage compared to longsword and shield, nothing that will be missed.  Even if you add weapon die to damage instead of a flat d6, by level 20 it is only 6 points less...again, not something you will notice.

As a DM, I would even let that character deal 1d8 damage with his short sword.

I just think that some gamers are bit too caught up in the mechanics and sometimes they forget that a character concept doesn't start with the game mechanics.     A player shouldn't have to alter his character concept simply because the game makes mechnical assumptions.

I can't believe that Mearls is talking about wizards being controllers and fighters having high hit points and high AC.  I thought we were past all of that with Next.

Flag January 14, 2013 1:40 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:11PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

If we assume that d4 and d6 weapons will be wielded in conjunction (short sword and dagger).

If we're going to be making that assumption, then the whip needs to be either a d8 weapon, or it needs to be a d6 one-handed weapon or a d4 one handed light weapon.  Because the whip just flat out blows as a weapon, especially if you keep it as a special weapon that requires you to burn a feat to know how to use it.

I'm fine with whips being strictly worse than other weapons because they're not combat weapons; they're pain compliance tools.  It's one of the few cases in which I expect a player to sacrifice efficacy in combat for a character concept.

Flag January 14, 2013 1:43 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 1:22PM, dmgorgon wrote:

I can't believe that Mearls is talking about wizards being controllers and fighters having high hit points and high AC.  I thought we were past all of that with Next.

Since what edition did Fighters not have above average AC and HP? Since when did Wizards not have the majority of the AoE abilities? Always, that's when. He just happened to use buzzwords like "control" that get's people pantys in a wad. Fighters have always had higher HP and AC on average than anyone else, Wizards have always had the most debilitating and AoE centric abilities, clerics have always turned or harmed undead and healed, Etc. That's why he prefaced that part with saying they are the "Most Iconic Versions" of the class. It's how they have been every. single. edition.

Flag January 14, 2013 4:23 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:29AM, wrecan wrote:

 Size Damage Bludgeoning Piercing Slashing Properties Light d4 Sap Dirk Dagger Secondary Short d6 Club Short Spear Short sword Primary Long d8 Mace Rapier Longsword Versatile Great d10 Greatclub Longspear Greatsword Keen Reach d12 Maul Pike Glaive Reach

And add a few ranged weapons. The only reason the table is as long as it is is due to the three types of damage. And the advanced version of the game can add all sorts of other weapons.

See, I disagree with you but at least you are coming up with your own tables to explain your solutions.

Here is my current table of axes.

 Weapon Table attack type actions damage range or reach in squares ac bonus thrown axe str vs ac main+off-hand 1d6 4/8 +0 small axe str vs ac main or off-hand 1d8 1 +0 large axe str vs ac main or off-hand 1d10 1 +0 long axe str vs ac main+off-hand 1d12 2 +2 two-handed axe str vs ac main+off-hand 3d6 1 +0
Flag January 14, 2013 4:27 PM PST
What maneuvers or unique weapon features would go well with these melee weapons in order to make these weapons unique choices?

axe
club
hammer
mace
morningstar
pick
sickle
spear
staff
dagger
sword
Flag January 14, 2013 4:29 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 5:57AM, Garthanos wrote:

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.

Smaller weapons need to have extra powers, feats, etc. that apply to them to allow for them to get into the same ballpark of effectiveness as big weapons.  If they impliment a way to use dice or something to get a second (or even third) attack from the dagger, but not from a greatsword, it would go a long way to making it as effective as a greatsword.

Flag January 14, 2013 4:30 PM PST
Probably worth trying out. I liked the 4th ed weapon properties and so did my players. A weapon like a dagger could gain a +1 bonus to hit, multiple attacks (like 2nd ed) or something similar to make up for the d4 damage.
Flag January 14, 2013 5:09 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 1:40PM, Kaganfindel wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:11PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

If we assume that d4 and d6 weapons will be wielded in conjunction (short sword and dagger).

If we're going to be making that assumption, then the whip needs to be either a d8 weapon, or it needs to be a d6 one-handed weapon or a d4 one handed light weapon.  Because the whip just flat out blows as a weapon, especially if you keep it as a special weapon that requires you to burn a feat to know how to use it.

I'm fine with whips being strictly worse than other weapons because they're not combat weapons; they're pain compliance tools.  It's one of the few cases in which I expect a player to sacrifice efficacy in combat for a character concept.

If that's the case, then it shouldn't be on the weapons list.  If it's just a tool, it should be on the equipment list with some guidance about opposed checks to make the whipee comply.  Anything that's actually on the weapons list should be viable as a main weapon.

Flag January 14, 2013 10:38 PM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 5:57AM, Garthanos wrote:

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?

People who do less damage with their normal attack will lose less damage when they decide not to attack.  Thus was it ever.

Flag January 15, 2013 10:23 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 5:09PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 1:40PM, Kaganfindel wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:11PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

If we assume that d4 and d6 weapons will be wielded in conjunction (short sword and dagger).

If we're going to be making that assumption, then the whip needs to be either a d8 weapon, or it needs to be a d6 one-handed weapon or a d4 one handed light weapon.  Because the whip just flat out blows as a weapon, especially if you keep it as a special weapon that requires you to burn a feat to know how to use it.

I'm fine with whips being strictly worse than other weapons because they're not combat weapons; they're pain compliance tools.  It's one of the few cases in which I expect a player to sacrifice efficacy in combat for a character concept.

If that's the case, then it shouldn't be on the weapons list.  If it's just a tool, it should be on the equipment list with some guidance about opposed checks to make the whipee comply.  Anything that's actually on the weapons list should be viable as a main weapon.

I quite agree - it should be taken off the weapon list, and made into a tool with specific rules governing its use.  I'd rather they let the whip do all of the awesome nonlethal stuff it does instead of trying to shoehorn it into being a lethal weapon.

Flag January 15, 2013 8:37 PM PST

Jan 15, 2013 -- 10:23AM, Kaganfindel wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 5:09PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 1:40PM, Kaganfindel wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 12:11PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 6:20AM, wrecan wrote:

If we assume that d4 and d6 weapons will be wielded in conjunction (short sword and dagger).

If we're going to be making that assumption, then the whip needs to be either a d8 weapon, or it needs to be a d6 one-handed weapon or a d4 one handed light weapon.  Because the whip just flat out blows as a weapon, especially if you keep it as a special weapon that requires you to burn a feat to know how to use it.

I'm fine with whips being strictly worse than other weapons because they're not combat weapons; they're pain compliance tools.  It's one of the few cases in which I expect a player to sacrifice efficacy in combat for a character concept.

If that's the case, then it shouldn't be on the weapons list.  If it's just a tool, it should be on the equipment list with some guidance about opposed checks to make the whipee comply.  Anything that's actually on the weapons list should be viable as a main weapon.

I quite agree - it should be taken off the weapon list, and made into a tool with specific rules governing its use.  I'd rather they let the whip do all of the awesome nonlethal stuff it does instead of trying to shoehorn it into being a lethal weapon.

We actually disagree, but I get what you are trying to say.

Flag January 15, 2013 8:41 PM PST
There are fantasy fighting styles that use it as a adjunct to a weapon... like a shield is used.
Flag January 16, 2013 9:29 AM PST

Jan 14, 2013 -- 5:57AM, Garthanos wrote:

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.

Although I'm not a fan of MDD I may offer an idea here...

Let's say a Battleaxe does 1d8 damage.
And a Rapier 1d6 damage, but has a property of +2 on Disarm checks.

Now say you have 3 MDD:
You can do 3d8+Str with your battleaxe, or roll a 1d20+Str for Disarm.
You can do 3d6+Str with your rapier, or roll 1d20+Str+6 for Disarm.

Seems like a nice way to balance weapons.
Although, with the Bounded Accuracy system I'm not sure the bonus on maneuver checks this way would get too overpowered at higher levels.
If so, maybe this should be reduced to a +1 per MDD.

Flag January 16, 2013 9:42 AM PST

Jan 16, 2013 -- 9:29AM, Rastapopoulos wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 5:57AM, Garthanos wrote:

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.

Although I'm not a fan of MDD I may offer an idea here...

Let's say a Battleaxe does 1d8 damage.
And a Rapier 1d6 damage, but has a property of +2 on Disarm checks.

Now say you have 3 MDD:
You can do 3d8+Str with your battleaxe, or roll a 1d20+Str for Disarm.
You can do 3d6+Str with your rapier, or roll 1d20+Str+6 for Disarm.

Seems like a nice way to balance weapons.
Although, with the Bounded Accuracy system I'm not sure the bonus on maneuver checks this way would get too overpowered at higher levels.
If so, maybe this should be reduced to a +1 per MDD.

I like properties making weapons different.

Though having something as specific and niche as disarm doesn't work as well.  Since people will just carry a battle axe and a rapier.

Flag January 16, 2013 12:45 PM PST

Jan 16, 2013 -- 9:42AM, mellored wrote:

I like properties making weapons different.

Though having something as specific and niche as disarm doesn't work as well.  Since people will just carry a battle axe and a rapier.

I don't see a problem with that.
Warriors (even modern ones) do often carry more than one weapon for different purposes, even if merely a smaller and a larger sword (or a pistol and a knife?)

What can't be allowed, of course, is characters carrying 30 different weapons and saying "hey now I'm gonna Trip so I'm gonna use that one."
But other rules should cover that.

Weight allowance by Str is one.
You could also limit the number of weapons a character can "quick draw."
Say, two smaller ones at your waist and another one (or a shield) on your back. And anything else you carry beyond that is considered "in your luggage" and can't be drawn for combat with a single action but takes a full round or two to ready.