|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 10:07AM
#1
|
|
|
I was thinking in order to streamline things, maybe weapons should increase their damage die as you progress in level. In this way, we can help the balance population out, simplify combat, and spped up a turn by not having as many bonuses.
It could look like this:
A typical dagger does d4. But, by level 3 (or 5 or 7 or whatever) in a warrior's hand it does d6. By 6th level it does d8. Same could be true for other weapons as well. A longsword might deal d8, but wouldn't increase till 5th level.
Added onto this, you could add class and racial advantages. Maybe the barbarian increases a bit faster with certain two handed weapons. Maybe the ranger increases faster with bows as opposed to slings, etc. Maybe the dwarf increases a bit faster with warhammers. This way we can get rid of the bonuses, proficiencies, etc.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 11:33AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Wouldn't "damage-by-class" instead of a weapons table radically simplify this idea?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 11:41AM
#3
|
|
|
Wouldn't "damage-by-class" instead of a weapons table radically simplify this idea?
I'm warming up to the idea of weapon damage by class, but it isn't inherently simple. Do you go by proficiency? Do you use it blanketly for all weapons? And should some classes have mechanics that alter this (like a rogue being able to do more than/as much damage with daggers as a fighter)?
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 25, 2013 - 11:47AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Do you use it blanketly for all weapons?
that one.
And should some classes have mechanics that alter this (like a rogue being able to do more than/as much damage with daggers as a fighter)?
which only really exists because rogues generally get stuck with crappy weapons anyway.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 12:00PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
Weapons should be more than flavor. If I go to the trouble of wielding a greatsword, it should definitely not do the same damage as a dagger. Too simplified.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 12:00PM
#6
|
|
|
Wouldn't "damage-by-class" instead of a weapons table radically simplify this idea?
It would simplify it. I was thinking along the lines of simplifying the play, yet keeping complexity in choice. You know, the old quote about Louis Armstrong, "Complex in his simplicity." It seems to me, if the chart is too simple, people complain a lot. When it has "complexity" to it, then people who like to look, analyze, compare and contrast, get their fill too.
In the end, I was looking for something that while at the table would be amazingly simple: You're a level 5 fighter weilding a mace. That does d8. This way it knocks out bonuses that have to be remembered and calculated. Yet, at the same time, a min/maxer might love it, cause they'll be able to find what weapon will work best regarding class and level.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 12:02PM
#7
|
|
|
Weapons should be more than flavor. If I go to the trouble of wielding a greatsword, it should definitely not do the same damage as a dagger. Too simplified.
That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that weapons increase their damage based on class and level. The higher level you are, the greater the damage your weapon produces. I was trying to minimize keeping track of bonuses and adding them into a player's turn.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 12:30PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
Weapons should be more than flavor. If I go to the trouble of wielding a greatsword, it should definitely not do the same damage as a dagger. Too simplified.
That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that weapons increase their damage based on class and level. The higher level you are, the greater the damage your weapon produces. I was trying to minimize keeping track of bonuses and adding them into a player's turn.
Is [W] + STR (+ MDD) that complicated, though? This seems more complicated, and harder in practice than just remembering how much damage a longsword does; now you have to remember how much it does at x level...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 1:57PM
#9
|
|
|
Weapons should be more than flavor. If I go to the trouble of wielding a greatsword, it should definitely not do the same damage as a dagger. Too simplified.
That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that weapons increase their damage based on class and level. The higher level you are, the greater the damage your weapon produces. I was trying to minimize keeping track of bonuses and adding them into a player's turn.
Is [W] + STR (+ MDD) that complicated, though? This seems more complicated, and harder in practice than just remembering how much damage a longsword does; now you have to remember how much it does at x level...
Yes, it actually is more difficult.
You, as a player need to remember nothing. Just d8. That's all. When you raise a level, when you look on the cart it'll state the damage. d8. Nothing changes. Maybe next level, you look and say, "Oh, I got a feat and my damage is d10."
That's much easier than tinkering with numbers each and every time you roll. I know it's not a big deal to some (and frankly it sometimes drives me crazy waiting for someone to add numbers up), but it takes time for a lot of people. In this way, that doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 25, 2013 - 2:39PM
#10
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
To do this properly, all weapons have to start at d4 to giveyou room to expand as you level. But to distinguish weapon sizes, you could have multiple dice.
So light weapons inflict d4
one-handed weapons inflict 2d4.
two-handed weapons inflict 3d4.
Then, as you advance, you increase the damage dice.
The problem is that the light weapons will not keep up in damage. The difference between d4 and d12 is 4 median damage. The difference between d4 and 3d4 is only 5 median damage. But the difference between 4d4 and 12d4 is 20 median damage.
|
|
|
