|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 4:30PM
#111
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
fencer and swashbuckler sound like specialities.
But two-handers, sword & board, and two-weapon-boys are not?
I'm sure they can be specialties as well. We're only discussing whether a fighting style should be a valid choice absent a specialty. If the only justification is "I want to play a swashbuckler" the proper response would appear to be "Let's make a specialty for that."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:04PM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I wouldn't mind seeing one-handed fighting style also adressed in some way. AD&D 2nd edition had the four fighting styles in the Complete Fighter's Handbook, and later in the Player's Option: Combat & Tactics. I don't think there was anything regarding one-handed fighting style in the Player's Handbook though. Perhaps a good rule for advanced ?
Agreed. In 2e the player could choose not to use a shield, and we usually treated it as I described above, whether it was rule-supported or not.
IIRC in AD&D one weapon fighting style grant -1 AC with 1 weapon proficiency, or -2 AC with 2 weapon proficiency.
I'd like something similar. (ex. +1 AC while at least 1 hand is free)
Yes, and on top of that bonus the swashbuckler kit got an additional -2 AC. It really helped to make the concept viable in 2e. -4 AC not including dex.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:17PM
#113
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
This works mechanically but it doesn't suit the style of a fencer/swashbuckler/duelist, who fights with a side-facing stance and rarely uses his off-hand to punch or grab. Since that style's a particularly cool and cinematic one, it'd be a shame not to see it shine for those who want to play it.
There's a reason just about no army in the history of the world ever fought like that, though.
No, no army really used it. The rapier was essentially the sidearm of the nobility and wealthy. It was nigh-useless against the plate used in war at the time.
However, it wasn't a style that the fighter "rarely uses his off-hand to punch or grab." Some of the best expression of the style was in the 1973 Three Musketeers and Four Musketeers. The hand not holding the rapier was used to hold a dagger, another rapier, a buckler, a chicken, a beer mug (etc.), or nothing (but it was used to parry and grab and punch). Unlike the modern fencing where the off hand is held up and behind, the second hand was used quite a bit.
My husband teaches the style (rapier), and has a class he calls "The Machine" that demonstrates (rather graphically, though not on live targets) how little effort it takes to seriously wound someone. It would be a decent choice for an adventurer. I have a character that's modelled on my husband, and he's very effective as a combatant.
I just have to say...I love this post. Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:17PM
#114
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I generally like what I read in these, and have been mostly pleased with the progress of D&D Next so far.
However, a line in this article alarmed me:
One of the things we’re hoping to accomplish...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
This is disturbing.
Making everything too similar in the named of a nebulous concept of "balance" is what leads to a dull and flavorless game. Giving the Monk and the Rogue the same attack bonus progression as the Fighter was another step in this direction.
It is my considered opinion that that direction is gravely wrong.
It's not bad design, but it is lazy design. Making eveything the same is the easy way to solve the problem Starting with rules that make logical sense first and then finding logical ways to balance them (i.e. spend the time play testing them) is the best option.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:27PM
#115
|
|
|
The actual quote he's responding to doesn't say that, though. "Equivalent" doesn't mean "the same" or even "similar." And RIGHT AFTER THAT he talks about how different the styles will be, and how using a shield is a better defensive style, etc.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 5:30PM
#116
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
I generally like what I read in these, and have been mostly pleased with the progress of D&D Next so far.
However, a line in this article alarmed me:
One of the things we’re hoping to accomplish...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
This is disturbing.
Making everything too similar in the named of a nebulous concept of "balance" is what leads to a dull and flavorless game. Giving the Monk and the Rogue the same attack bonus progression as the Fighter was another step in this direction.
It is my considered opinion that that direction is gravely wrong.
I am going to take a page out of the "Pony Posse's" book and label the decision to proceed with this design decision as "Bad Game Design."
Kindly reverse things, please, WotC; this is Bad Game Design and is ultimately doomed to failure. The game will not appeal to most of the target market if all available options feel too much alike, and the present (and apparently, the upcoming) iterations of the playtest are treading dangerously close to this.
*=You know--those posters who have Brony avatars and march in frothing-at-the-mouth pro-4E lockstep of opinion, ridiculing anything they don't personally like as "bad game design" while promoting their own opinions as pure, unassailable fact? Yeah, that's them...
Finally, as should be readily apparent at this point:"Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers."
See, I can wallow in hubris, too...
"relatively equivalent" does not mean "everything the same". it just means that different options will all have their own strengths, and that there won't be any trap choices.
also, why mention pony avatars? it seems like you're trying to belittle posters with immature personal attacks.
and as for CC's sig, did they not teach sarcasm back in the 1st ed days?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 6:03PM
#117
|
|
|
Charge is a niche option. You only use it when...
a) You'd get an attack bonus.
b) The target is at a specific distance away AND you don't have a ranged option.
Keeping niche rules out of core/basic reduces the number of rules and helps keep it simple.
I wonder if we will see initial encounter distance return to D&D. After all, this is a gridless game and it's one with random encounters. If that's the case then charge will be a fairly common option.
I don't really see why gridded or gridless matters with regard to initial encounter distance. I mean, you're measuring distance either way.
You don't ever see an encounter in a grid based system that starts 100's of yards away or just out side the range of your longbow (in 2e the max range was 210 yards). I mean I've looked through all the 4e modules I have, and I don't see any, everything is all confined to grid maps. In contrast a random encounter in the wilderness in AD&D would very likely produce such results.
A lot of D&D encounters are at rather short ranges. That's a consequence of the "dungeons" part of the game. As for the modules, I never used them. When I DM, regardless of game or edition, an encounter begins at whatever distance is appropriate to realize that an encounter has begun. This may be seeing the flag of an enemy army in the distance, or in more modern games it can be when you see a police or gangmember's car rounding a street-corner. Ultimately, my point is that gridded or gridless doesn't innately affect encounter distance. In a grid-based system it may feel more like an official encounter once you break out the grid, but encounters have always had varying levels of how strictly they feel like encounters.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 6:06PM
#118
|
|
|
@Steely_Dan You still have your fist.
Good point. At its heart, there is no "freehand style". Either you have a weapon in that hand, a shield in that hand, an item in that hand, a fist as that hand (which is just another weapon), the other half of your two-handed weapon in that hand, or that hand is a stump.
Which is a great point - your free hand counts as an "unarmed strike" (puns not intended). Follow the rules for two-weapon fighting (weapon of choice + unarmed strike) and you should be good to go. With all of the added benefits noted above for having a free hand.
This works mechanically but it doesn't suit the style of a fencer/swashbuckler/duelist, who fights with a side-facing stance and rarely uses his off-hand to punch or grab. Since that style's a particularly cool and cinematic one, it'd be a shame not to see it shine for those who want to play it.
Actually, blade grabbing is part of swashbuckling. In my fencing class we learned a legal maneuver to grab the opponent's blade after you've parried it so they cannot parry your riposte.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 6:08PM
#119
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure a traditional fencer would be pretty bad at actually killing someone, though. I mean, better than someone untrained, but if we did one of those Ultimate Warrior type things, I'm pretty sure nearly all of those would beat the piss out of a fencer even with a sword that's actually sharp.
Depends on what kind of fencing you mean. Saber fencing doesn't rely on "right of way" rules, so a saber fencer would likely be a better warrior than a foil or epee fencer. I'm also interested in what type of training you mention the fencer's opponent having.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 6:09PM
#120
|
|
|
@Steely_Dan You still have your fist.
Good point. At its heart, there is no "freehand style". Either you have a weapon in that hand, a shield in that hand, an item in that hand, a fist as that hand (which is just another weapon), the other half of your two-handed weapon in that hand, or that hand is a stump.
Which is a great point - your free hand counts as an "unarmed strike" (puns not intended). Follow the rules for two-weapon fighting (weapon of choice + unarmed strike) and you should be good to go. With all of the added benefits noted above for having a free hand.
This works mechanically but it doesn't suit the style of a fencer/swashbuckler/duelist, who fights with a side-facing stance and rarely uses his off-hand to punch or grab. Since that style's a particularly cool and cinematic one, it'd be a shame not to see it shine for those who want to play it.
There's a reason just about no army in the history of the world ever fought like that, though.
I really don't think real world armies have anything to do with this thread.
It wouldn't be the first time people have tried to force D&D to conform to the real world.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
