|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 10:10AM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
Balancing multiple attacks which allow any form of damage modifier is a huge pain in the backside. That is why a few updates ago fighters were so overpowered. My hope is that MDD get changed to WDD, that you can only add any of your damage modifiers to your WDD once per turn, but that you may split up your WDD between as many adjacent foes as you like (so long as your attack roll is high enough to hit said foe). WDD then, effectively, become an abstract and balanced representation of multiple attacks made in any single turn. Meanwhile, I hope you can still spend WDD on maneuvers in order to give up damage in return for extra effects. Giving up any single die then, in effect, become analogous to giving up an attack to do something else (like tripping a foe).
Yes, what I like is WDD, and you can trade them for extra attacks.
So, let's say you have a Fighter with 2 WDD and he's attacking with a longsword, he could make one attack for 3d8, or one attack for 2d8 and another one for 1d8, or three attacks for 1d8 each.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 10:15AM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
The idea that there must be constant progression from level 1 to 20 is something that 3e introduced.
I think there is a point at which your character just can't progress anymore by normal means. At some point you simply become the best that you can be.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 10:28AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Well then stop the level up progression there instead of horning in bunch of dead levels to get the class up to 20.
Furthermore on the WDD, the weapons have not been acceptably set up for such treatment in previous editions, the only one that comes close is 4e and that had a much smaller average weapon dice multiplier and real benefits to using weapons that didn't have d12s or 2d6s for their damage die. Reach actually modified your powers, brutal could close up the average damage, shields didn't completely suck, weapon choice impacted accuracy, and daggers had enough bennies coming their way to make them worth using even if you did end up with 7d4 instead of 7d10.
Using the weapon damage as the base die for MDD means that you introduce a huge benfit to using heavy two-handed non-reach weapons, if you hand out such a bonus to them you have to compensate the lighter weapons, reach weapons, and shields in some manner in order to maintain the fighter's place as the general purpose warrior. Shields may not need to scale to keep up with normal weapons (but they do seem underpowered), but if you're going to introduce a huge skew towards two-handed heavy weapons then you'd better believe the shield guys and the knife fighters are gonna want compensating factors.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 10:40AM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
It seems odd to me that I can say "my lvl 11 Fighter can Protect as well as a lvl 20 Fighter" no matter what.
While comparison to Wizards and Clerics seems unpopular (despite that these are all "Basic" classes and should be comparable) it seems strange that some classes continue to escalate their capability to use lower level abilities (by getting higher spell slots which lower level spells can be put into for more power) while others do not.
It may seem unfair. It may be unfair. But it is not strange or unusual. Back when D&D was a new thing, Hit Dice topped out at what we would call "high heroic" today, but spells continued indefinitely, even after spell levels topped out. Even among casters not everyone was created equal. Clerics had seven levels of spells and magic-users nine.
One of the complaints about D&D today is that the classes are "the same" because they aren't set up that way. D&D Next is just addressing that complaint by returning to the way things were. That's not strange, at all, it's conventional or even "conservative."
The solution is simple, though, just pack in your campaigns not long after 11th level. I think the highest I ever saw a campaign get in the old days wasn't much higher than that, even though the magic-user's spells per day table went to 18th level and beyond.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 10:53AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2006
|
Balancing multiple attacks which allow any form of damage modifier is a huge pain in the backside. That is why a few updates ago fighters were so overpowered. My hope is that MDD get changed to WDD, that you can only add any of your damage modifiers to your WDD once per turn, but that you may split up your WDD between as many adjacent foes as you like (so long as your attack roll is high enough to hit said foe). WDD then, effectively, become an abstract and balanced representation of multiple attacks made in any single turn. Meanwhile, I hope you can still spend WDD on maneuvers in order to give up damage in return for extra effects. Giving up any single die then, in effect, become analogous to giving up an attack to do something else (like tripping a foe).
I'd be okay with allowing limited damage bonuses per attack if there's a limit of once per target per turn. For example, if you split your dice to attack three targets, all three get your str/dex bonus and weapon enhancement bonus.
Doing more total damage by splitting amongst multiple targets is generally okay, balance wise.
Using multiattacks to multiply up damage bonuses against a single target has always been a balance issue.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 11:01AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
Balancing multiple attacks which allow any form of damage modifier is a huge pain in the backside. That is why a few updates ago fighters were so overpowered. My hope is that MDD get changed to WDD, that you can only add any of your damage modifiers to your WDD once per turn, but that you may split up your WDD between as many adjacent foes as you like (so long as your attack roll is high enough to hit said foe). WDD then, effectively, become an abstract and balanced representation of multiple attacks made in any single turn. Meanwhile, I hope you can still spend WDD on maneuvers in order to give up damage in return for extra effects. Giving up any single die then, in effect, become analogous to giving up an attack to do something else (like tripping a foe).
I'd be okay with allowing limited damage bonuses per attack if there's a limit of once per target per turn. For example, if you split your dice to attack three targets, all three get your str/dex bonus and weapon enhancement bonus.
Doing more total damage by splitting amongst multiple targets is generally okay, balance wise.
Using multiattacks to multiply up damage bonuses against a single target has always been a balance issue.
Yeah, add your Str/Dex mod to each attack, but you cannot attack the same target more than once.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 11:16AM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Balancing multiple attacks which allow any form of damage modifier is a huge pain in the backside. That is why a few updates ago fighters were so overpowered. My hope is that MDD get changed to WDD, that you can only add any of your damage modifiers to your WDD once per turn, but that you may split up your WDD between as many adjacent foes as you like (so long as your attack roll is high enough to hit said foe). WDD then, effectively, become an abstract and balanced representation of multiple attacks made in any single turn. Meanwhile, I hope you can still spend WDD on maneuvers in order to give up damage in return for extra effects. Giving up any single die then, in effect, become analogous to giving up an attack to do something else (like tripping a foe).
I'd be okay with allowing limited damage bonuses per attack if there's a limit of once per target per turn. For example, if you split your dice to attack three targets, all three get your str/dex bonus and weapon enhancement bonus.
Doing more total damage by splitting amongst multiple targets is generally okay, balance wise.
Using multiattacks to multiply up damage bonuses against a single target has always been a balance issue.
Maybe. I would need to run exact numbers. I wouldn't want to step on the toes of the wizard by too large a margin. For that reason, I am a little more comfortable with a flat once per turn, no matter what.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 11:33AM
#98
|
|
|
I'd like to see damage for everyone toned down some. 1[W] at 1st level and 5[W] at 20th seems to be enough damage to "get the job done" for weapon users. 2d6-10d6 seems appropriate for casters. And AoE in general should do 1/2 single target damage. Nice and easy to balance around that.
I'd be fine with warrior's trading 1[W] for maneuvers on a straight 1 for 1 basis. ie improved bullrush trades 1[W] to push 10ft on a hit. Extra attacks could follow a similar vein, trade 1[W] to make an extra attack against a separate target.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 11:38AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
I'd like to see damage for everyone toned down some. 1[W] at 1st level and 5[W] at 20th seems to be enough damage to "get the job done" for weapon users.
Me too, and total removal of WDB.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 11:55AM
#100
|
|
|
I'd like to see damage for everyone toned down some. 1[W] at 1st level and 5[W] at 20th seems to be enough damage to "get the job done" for weapon users. 2d6-10d6 seems appropriate for casters. And AoE in general should do 1/2 single target damage. Nice and easy to balance around that.
I'd be fine with warrior's trading 1[W] for maneuvers on a straight 1 for 1 basis. ie improved bullrush trades 1[W] to push 10ft on a hit. Extra attacks could follow a similar vein, trade 1[W] to make an extra attack against a separate target.
I disagree with a lot of your posts, but I am mostly in favor of something like this. Although I can't say I agree with half damage to AOE effects. Maybe 75%, but cut in half is too much combined with saving throws and the fact that they are harder to use without causing friendly fire.
|
|
|
