|
4 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 10:42AM
#101
|
|
|
Light. Agile. “Dexterous”. Finesse.
I don't know what your point is, but it seems you think those words are all synonyms. They are not. Dexterous and agile are synonyms. Finesse can be used as a synonym, but it has a number of uses which are not synonymous at all. Light can be used as a virtual (but not actual) synonym of some of the definitions of finesse, but not the definitions which align finesse with agility or dexterity. I stand by what I said. CarlT is correct. One uses a weapon with agility. To claim that a weapon is itself agile is to claim that it has the capability of moving by its own agency.
My main contention is, the term “light” works better as a keyword that refers to the Dexterity ability. In the same way, a “light armor” allows the wearer to use the Dexterity bonus for AC, a “light weapon” can mean allow one to use the Dexterity bonus for the attack roll.
So a rapier, then, is an example of a “light” weapon.
Instead of the term “finesse”.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 2:06PM
#102
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Ah. I see. I agree with you 100%. I mean, the definition of finesse does work--but I too think "light" works better.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 4:20PM
#103
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
I have been looking into pathfinder to be more informed about it when talking here.
and heared that they are thinking of having the martial classes gain weapon dice instead of the asigned dice as they are now.
so would this be simular to giving the fingether the pathfinder vital strike feats as class abilities, and then having your manuvers modify your vital strike damage?
keeping it close to the vital strike feats from essentials might help to guide in those players.
also vital strike is quite simular to Essentials power strike so would apear familiar to 4th edition players who used essentials characters.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 6:47PM
#104
|
|
|
True - but hopefully expanded crit range won't rear its ugly head.
I agree with this. Expanded crit ranges make individual weapons more swingy without a real reason for them to be. Seriously, a dagger doesn't rely more on luck to hurt an enemy than a longsword does, and that's what crit really is, binding a weapon's lethality to luck instead of skill. Plus we have to consider its expanded effects on things like dual-wielding, and especially advantage (which would double the chance of critting).
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 ::
Feb 10, 2013 - 3:27PM
#105
|
|
|
The disparity is proportional. The difference between 5d4 and 5d12 is proportionally the same difference between d4 and d12. Remember that monster's HP scales, so what seems to be a huge difference it's not.
OK. Monster has.... 50HP.
Greatsword does 5D12 max damage 60, median 30. Add 5 for max strength, 35 per hit on average.
Dagger does 5d4, max damage 20, median 10. Add 5 for strength bonus, 15 per hit.
Excluding crits of course.
Gee, I wonder what weapon I'll be using.
Sure, but the characters capable of using a greatsword would never pick a dagger if they can avoid it, in any edition. If you and your group wants to have all weapons be equal, then simply do that. Pick the mechanics (1d12, slashing, for example), and then pick flavor (slashing dagger, for example).
But for people who want a greatsword to be a lot better than a dagger, 1d12 vs 1d4 is great. And the scaling is indeed true.
At level 1, you will deal max 12, average of 6.5 (with no Str bonus). Dagger is max 4, average of 2.5. Again, greatsword is a clear winner, as it should be.
But now how about a more honest comparison: greatsword vs longsword/shield. The shield is giving you the same benefit at all levels: monsters will miss you on one extra number.
With MDD, the greatsword starts out being a good deal better (1d12 vs 1d8): 2 point increase to the average and 4 points to the max damage. But as you gain levels, you don't see any increase. At level 20, you are still only 2 points higher on average, and 4 points higher for the max damage. At the same time, monster HP has gone up; in other words, as you gain levels, the advantage of using a big weapon becomes smaller and smaller.
All WDD does is keep things balanced across levels.
What about the people that want each weapon to be equally useful, but in different ways? I guess we are just left hanging...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 10, 2013 - 3:43PM
#106
|
|
|
True - but hopefully expanded crit range won't rear its ugly head.
I agree with this. Expanded crit ranges make individual weapons more swingy without a real reason for them to be. Seriously, a dagger doesn't rely more on luck to hurt an enemy than a longsword does, and that's what crit really is, binding a weapon's lethality to luck instead of skill. Plus we have to consider its expanded effects on things like dual-wielding, and especially advantage (which would double the chance of critting).
Except by that logic hitting or missing is pure luck, rather than the idea that you find a hole in someone defenses and actually hit them. Where a rapier getting a crit on 18-20 is because its light weight fast and hard to defend against which means more often you are going to hit a vital area.
So your personal fluff of what a hit or miss is shouldn't have any bearing on whether they include expanded crit ranges. The main problem is balancing them, which would be easy if they keep the damage from critical hits to not be so much more than a regular hit. If for instance a dagger crits on an 18-20 then that means 15% of the time the dagger is going to deal 4+1d4 or 5-8 damage. That's not a lot. The problem comes in when you give expanded crit ranges to higher damage weapons like rapiers. 8+1d8 or 9-16 damage is quite a lot but still not that far from a 1d12 great axe that only crits 5% of the time. The damage with an attack bonus of +5 would look like this against AC 15:
Weapon damage crit range Hit chance / damage crit chance / damage total DPR
Rapier 1d8 18-20 40% 1.8 15% 1.875 3.675
Great Axe 1d12 20 50% 3.25 5% 0.925 4.175
About 0.5 points of damage difference. Wow, so in order to be even a Rapier actually needs a higher crit range. I wonder what it would take a dagger to be equal to a great axe? Probably 15-20 or multiple attacks.
As far as dual wielding. that's simple cut the crit range in half for each weapon minimum of 20. So our hypothetical Rapier would get a range of 19-20 and our Dagger would get 17-20 when dual wielded. The answers are laughably easy to implement and this would add depth to the game. The only thing that would need to happen is that you can't increase those ranges with features, feats, magic items, or powers. That would keep it balanced...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 10, 2013 - 8:42PM
#107
|
|
|
True - but hopefully expanded crit range won't rear its ugly head.
I agree with this. Expanded crit ranges make individual weapons more swingy without a real reason for them to be. Seriously, a dagger doesn't rely more on luck to hurt an enemy than a longsword does, and that's what crit really is, binding a weapon's lethality to luck instead of skill. Plus we have to consider its expanded effects on things like dual-wielding, and especially advantage (which would double the chance of critting).
Except by that logic hitting or missing is pure luck, rather than the idea that you find a hole in someone defenses and actually hit them.
Incorrect. Hitting and missing have skill factored in. By contrast, crit range relies on natural results of a D20 roll. If an 18-20 crit range was actually 18+ after bonuses instead of a natural 18-20, then it would be a mixed matter of both skill and luck (just like the attack roll).
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 ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 6:57AM
#108
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
So the Barbarian con only rage as many times as once per battle by level 9? that's pretty much at-will. Yeah, this is one of those places where they need some requirement for the rage to kick in like bloodied, or a chance every time they get hit or hit an enemy or something interesting like that. Otherwise its just a daily martial resource that half the fan base will rail against and the other half won't like because its not unique.
WotC: C+
I agree, that the Barbarian's Rage ability/feature should have some sort of trigger(s). I would like to see the trigger(s) be some requirement that gets built up over a few rounds. I would also like one trigger, with a once/twice daily limit, that can be used at the player's discretion.
Nice idea, I wonder who thought of it first? Oh wait that would be me in my free game Aetherianica. Don't belive me, go check it out for yourself.
WotC: F (keep your eyes on your own work).
That's pretty presumtuous on your part. I doubt you were the first designer to come up with the idea and I question whether WotC got the idea from your game. Coincidences happen.
Ok, so not only do they get massive damage, they will get free maneuvers? Yeah, So still going for Fighters are best at Fighting rather than Fighters are best at weapon and armor usage.
WotC: C (Please review how basic math works).
You seem to think that the Fighter's Class-based Feats/Manuevers are going to include unarmed combat options, rage options, casting options and stealthy options in addition to weapon and armor options. Why?
Fighters should be best at straight up melee (as you say, with regard to weapons and armor) and nothing indicates that they will surpass the other classes in those other areas of combat.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 7:03AM
#109
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I doubt you were the first designer to come up with the idea and I question whether WotC got the idea from your game.
He wasn't. The idea that the "basic" PC is a "Standard" PC with baked-in options was used back in some 3rd edition supplements offering ideas for integrating new players, and it wasn't an original idea even then. It's much more likely that lokiare stole the idea from Wizards than the other way around.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 7:06AM
#110
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I wouldn't mind the loss of dice-for-effect trades on all maneuvers if, perhaps, it was maintained as an option on most (or even just some) maneuvers.
So you'd have "Normal maneuver effect" and then "If you spend 1 die, get this; If you spend 2 dice, get this."
I like this.
Carl
Me 3
|
|
|
