|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:42PM
#41
|
|
|
I think, logistically, it makes plenty of sense. Martial weapons require training, simple weapons do not. Most classes get simple traning, most classes do not get martial training. Martial training should be a key feature of a class, allowing the use of better weapons. But if you make the crossbow balanced with a bow, then how are they any different? How does a bow being a martial weapon make it better than the simple crossbow?
If you take every simple weapon and say "Why is it not very good? We should make it just as good as others", then you destroy the difference in classification. Simple weapons are meant to be lower quality weapons, that is their purpose.
The problem with that is that lower quality weapons don't get used unless you force people to. And, at that point, not only are you telling people how to play, you're imposing a feat-eating concept tax on them to boot.
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:43PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Crossbow can be easier to conceal on a person, fired while proned, in cramped spaces and onehanded.
more than enough for weapon speed loss.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:46PM
#43
|
|
|
Crossbow can be easier to conceal on a person, fired while proned, in cramped spaces and onehanded.
more than enough for weapon speed loss.
How fast a weapon is to fire doesn't require a loading time mechanic. Just because big heavy weapons do more damage doesn't mean we require them to have a cocking (as in cocking it back before a swing) mechanic. A two-handed battleaxe doesn't have a cocking mechanic to make it separate from a regular axe.
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:48PM
#44
|
|
|
I think, logistically, it makes plenty of sense. Martial weapons require training, simple weapons do not. Most classes get simple traning, most classes do not get martial training. Martial training should be a key feature of a class, allowing the use of better weapons. But if you make the crossbow balanced with a bow, then how are they any different? How does a bow being a martial weapon make it better than the simple crossbow?
If you take every simple weapon and say "Why is it not very good? We should make it just as good as others", then you destroy the difference in classification. Simple weapons are meant to be lower quality weapons, that is their purpose.
Heavy Crossbows currently require martial training, FYI. Also, crossbow using characters are cool and fill a niche in the literature. It would be nice to be able to make a crossbow using character without gimping oneself.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:48PM
#45
|
|
|
I think, logistically, it makes plenty of sense. Martial weapons require training, simple weapons do not. Most classes get simple traning, most classes do not get martial training. Martial training should be a key feature of a class, allowing the use of better weapons. But if you make the crossbow balanced with a bow, then how are they any different? How does a bow being a martial weapon make it better than the simple crossbow?
If you take every simple weapon and say "Why is it not very good? We should make it just as good as others", then you destroy the difference in classification. Simple weapons are meant to be lower quality weapons, that is their purpose.
The problem with that is that lower quality weapons don't get used unless you force people to. And, at that point, not only are you telling people how to play, you're imposing a feat-eating concept tax on them to boot.
You are not imposing a feat tax any more than taking a feat to cast a couple of level 0 spells is a feat tax. You get a little extra damage, but at the cost of something else, just like every other feat in the game.
Martial weapons are supposed to be superior to simple weapons, period. That is the reason the Fighter gets martial weapon proficiencies and a Wizard does not.
Why are we arguing to let all classes, more or less, use weapons on an equal level to Fighters/Paladins/Rangers?
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:50PM
#46
|
|
|
I think, logistically, it makes plenty of sense. Martial weapons require training, simple weapons do not. Most classes get simple traning, most classes do not get martial training. Martial training should be a key feature of a class, allowing the use of better weapons. But if you make the crossbow balanced with a bow, then how are they any different? How does a bow being a martial weapon make it better than the simple crossbow?
If you take every simple weapon and say "Why is it not very good? We should make it just as good as others", then you destroy the difference in classification. Simple weapons are meant to be lower quality weapons, that is their purpose.
Heavy Crossbows currently require martial training, FYI. Also, crossbow using characters are cool and fill a niche in the literature. It would be nice to be able to make a crossbow using character without gimping oneself.
That's fine. Make a rapid reload feat. I understand there are cool crossbow wielding characters in literature, but they still had to load their crossbow :P
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:55PM
#47
|
|
|
I think, logistically, it makes plenty of sense. Martial weapons require training, simple weapons do not. Most classes get simple traning, most classes do not get martial training. Martial training should be a key feature of a class, allowing the use of better weapons. But if you make the crossbow balanced with a bow, then how are they any different? How does a bow being a martial weapon make it better than the simple crossbow?
If you take every simple weapon and say "Why is it not very good? We should make it just as good as others", then you destroy the difference in classification. Simple weapons are meant to be lower quality weapons, that is their purpose.
Heavy Crossbows currently require martial training, FYI. Also, crossbow using characters are cool and fill a niche in the literature. It would be nice to be able to make a crossbow using character without gimping oneself.
That's fine. Make a rapid reload feat. I understand there are cool crossbow wielding characters in literature, but they still had to load their crossbow :P
Right, so what do you think of the proposal I made in my OP? An action to reload is lame. There are other ways to accomplish this mechanic.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 2:58PM
#48
|
|
|
I think, logistically, it makes plenty of sense. Martial weapons require training, simple weapons do not. Most classes get simple traning, most classes do not get martial training. Martial training should be a key feature of a class, allowing the use of better weapons. But if you make the crossbow balanced with a bow, then how are they any different? How does a bow being a martial weapon make it better than the simple crossbow?
If you take every simple weapon and say "Why is it not very good? We should make it just as good as others", then you destroy the difference in classification. Simple weapons are meant to be lower quality weapons, that is their purpose.
Heavy Crossbows currently require martial training, FYI. Also, crossbow using characters are cool and fill a niche in the literature. It would be nice to be able to make a crossbow using character without gimping oneself.
That's fine. Make a rapid reload feat. I understand there are cool crossbow wielding characters in literature, but they still had to load their crossbow :P
Right, so what do you think of the proposal I made in my OP? An action to reload is lame. There are other ways to accomplish this mechanic.
It's not bad. Really I would be cool with changes, so long as the bow remains a superior weapon, unless the crossbow becomes martial as well. If the crossbow, all of them, became martial, then I wouldn't give a crap  But I think some people might miss their crossbow wizards.
Derp: So apparently I looked over the fact that shortbows were simple now too. This might put a bit more impact to your argument. Perhaps your suggestions might be a good one indeed.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 3:07PM
#49
|
|
|
I think, logistically, it makes plenty of sense. Martial weapons require training, simple weapons do not. Most classes get simple traning, most classes do not get martial training. Martial training should be a key feature of a class, allowing the use of better weapons. But if you make the crossbow balanced with a bow, then how are they any different? How does a bow being a martial weapon make it better than the simple crossbow?
If you take every simple weapon and say "Why is it not very good? We should make it just as good as others", then you destroy the difference in classification. Simple weapons are meant to be lower quality weapons, that is their purpose.
The problem with that is that lower quality weapons don't get used unless you force people to. And, at that point, not only are you telling people how to play, you're imposing a feat-eating concept tax on them to boot.
You are not imposing a feat tax any more than taking a feat to cast a couple of level 0 spells is a feat tax. You get a little extra damage, but at the cost of something else, just like every other feat in the game.
Martial weapons are supposed to be superior to simple weapons, period. That is the reason the Fighter gets martial weapon proficiencies and a Wizard does not.
Why are we arguing to let all classes, more or less, use weapons on an equal level to Fighters/Paladins/Rangers?
That's a fallacy. A wizard that is proficicent with a longsword is not equivalent to a fighter with a longsword. Also, a wizard won't use a crossbow even the reload mechanic were nixed (cantrips are much more effective). Only the classes that depend on weapons, which are presumably the classes that should have the most martial proficiency, are the ones who get impacted by this.
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.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 27, 2013 - 3:26PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2013
|
I think, logistically, it makes plenty of sense. Martial weapons require training, simple weapons do not. Most classes get simple traning, most classes do not get martial training. Martial training should be a key feature of a class, allowing the use of better weapons. But if you make the crossbow balanced with a bow, then how are they any different? How does a bow being a martial weapon make it better than the simple crossbow?
If you take every simple weapon and say "Why is it not very good? We should make it just as good as others", then you destroy the difference in classification. Simple weapons are meant to be lower quality weapons, that is their purpose.
The problem with that is that lower quality weapons don't get used unless you force people to. And, at that point, not only are you telling people how to play, you're imposing a feat-eating concept tax on them to boot.
Wouldn't it be simple enough to just re-flavor a longbow into a crossbow if you have a specific concept in mind?
Presumably if I wanted to play a rock-master that pummels people with rocks, I could just reflavor the longsword as a rock. This seems to me like a better option than making every conceivable weapon statistically identical to a longsword.
|
|
|
