Community

 Will lower damage weapons have more maneuver options than weapons like greataxes and greatswords?

One of the things we’re hoping to accomplish with an upcoming iteration of the rules is to make fighting with two weapons, fighting with a single two-handed weapon, or fighting with sword-and-shield relatively equivalent options across most of the game, with simple reasons to choose each option. For example, we might say that the main reason to wield two one-handed weapons is to be able to attack multiple, weaker foes, while the main reason to wield a two-handed weapon is to get better critical hits, while wielding a one-handed weapon and a shield allows you to increase your defensive ability while sacrificing some offense. Ideally, this means that maneuvers work with any weapon you want to use, so if you want to trip people you don’t have to worry about what kind of weapon you are wielding. Plus, we know that weapon choice is also an aesthetic choice, which is one of the reasons we’re aiming to make all three of those major options something that works right out of the gate with no need for feat buy-ins to get up to competency.

Yes, but we aren't seeing any of that. What we are seeing is horrible mechanics that show the developers don't know how to do basic probability math, and that they use their one off play testing anecdotal evidence as if it means anything of value. I mean "Well we did this one time and it 'felt' fun, so it must be good right.". Yeah, one time in college I went to a restaurant while drunk and the food tasted awesome. I went back several times later when I wasn't drunk, and the food was aweful, very salty and tasted burned most of the time. Please go back and do real testing to make sure these things work. Other posters on this forum have pointed out quite clearly where you guys are horrible at math, take their advice and run the numbers.

Some quick suggestions for balancing the different fighting styles:

Two-Handed weapons deal slightly more damage (1d10 instead of 1d8, maybe brutal 1 or 2 or something like that). Get +0 to attack for being proficient. Require Strength of 12+.

One handed weapons deal lower damage (1d4-1d8). Get a +3 to +5 to attack for being proficient. Require Dexterity of 12+ in order to dual wield.

Shield grants +3 to AC (someone else did the math in another thread and +1 means the two-handed weapons are a better defense option because they cut the battle time in half).

 Will the sorcerer and warlock from an earlier playtest packet return at some point?

Yes. We haven’t forgotten about those classes at all, and continue to work on them even now, though (as Mike has mentioned before in Legends & Lore) it’s likely that the sorcerer design you saw before will become its own, new class focused more on being the “warrior mage” archetype, as opposed to trying to reskin the sorcerer to fit that archetype.

In other words, sure they'll be in there but we have no idea what we are going to do.

 Where is the line between providing character building options like feats and the mentality that grows around those options of "if I don't have this feat or skill, I can't perform this action?"  In other words, should a character without the chandelier swing feat be able to swing from a chandelier and how can the rules express that?

As we continue to iterate on feats, one of the design guidelines we use for feats addresses this very issue. In general, we want feats to either give you access to something that should be behind a buy-in gateway—for example, getting a familiar or being able to cast some minor healing spells are both examples of things we don’t expect you to be able to improvise—or to allow you to break the rules in some way. Normally you have to choose between the hustle and attack actions, but the Charge feat lets you break the rules and do both.

This is the first piece of good news I've heard in a while, now lets see if they can actually pull it off.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55AM, OrKKiller wrote:

 Will lower damage weapons have more maneuver options than weapons like greataxes and greatswords?

One of the things we’re hoping to accomplish with an upcoming iteration of the rules is to make fighting with two weapons, fighting with a single two-handed weapon, or fighting with sword-and-shield relatively equivalent options across most of the game, with simple reasons to choose each option. For example, we might say that the main reason to wield two one-handed weapons is to be able to attack multiple, weaker foes, while the main reason to wield a two-handed weapon is to get better critical hits, while wielding a one-handed weapon and a shield allows you to increase your defensive ability while sacrificing some offense. Ideally, this means that maneuvers work with any weapon you want to use, so if you want to trip people you don’t have to worry about what kind of weapon you are wielding. Plus, we know that weapon choice is also an aesthetic choice, which is one of the reasons we’re aiming to make all three of those major options something that works right out of the gate with no need for feat buy-ins to get up to competency.

Yes, but we aren't seeing any of that. What we are seeing is horrible mechanics that show the developers don't know how to do basic probability math, and that they use their one off play testing anecdotal evidence as if it means anything of value. I mean "Well we did this one time and it 'felt' fun, so it must be good right.". Yeah, one time in college I went to a restaurant while drunk and the food tasted awesome. I went back several times later when I wasn't drunk, and the food was aweful, very salty and tasted burned most of the time. Please go back and do real testing to make sure these things work. Other posters on this forum have pointed out quite clearly where you guys are horrible at math, take their advice and run the numbers.

Some quick suggestions for balancing the different fighting styles:

Two-Handed weapons deal slightly more damage (1d10 instead of 1d8, maybe brutal 1 or 2 or something like that). Get +0 to attack for being proficient. Require Strength of 12+.

One handed weapons deal lower damage (1d4-1d8). Get a +3 to +5 to attack for being proficient. Require Dexterity of 12+ in order to dual wield.

Shield grants +3 to AC (someone else did the math in another thread and +1 means the two-handed weapons are a better defense option because they cut the battle time in half).

 Will the sorcerer and warlock from an earlier playtest packet return at some point?

Yes. We haven’t forgotten about those classes at all, and continue to work on them even now, though (as Mike has mentioned before in Legends & Lore) it’s likely that the sorcerer design you saw before will become its own, new class focused more on being the “warrior mage” archetype, as opposed to trying to reskin the sorcerer to fit that archetype.

In other words, sure they'll be in there but we have no idea what we are going to do.