|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 1:01AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
ElfWizard as his main attack, shoots a magic missile int vs ac doing 3d4+int+lvl mod damage. He then off-hand attacks an adjacent target with his dagger and does 1d4+dex+lvl mod damage.
DwarfFighter swings his two-handed axe and it costs him a main and off-hand action. He does damage to 1 target 1d12+mods+1d10+mods.
ElfWizard attacks again but chooses to shoot his magic missile as an area spell. He hits two targets but there were 4 targets. He divides his main attack damage of 3d4 by 4 and gives each of the 2 hit targets a 4th of the total damage.
As his off hand action, he disengages from adjacent targets without provoking an opportunity attack.
ElfWizard is attacked anyway but Blinks out as a Reaction, reducing the damage he takes.
Your thought or ideas?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 1:30AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
i think you're making it way more complicated than it needs to be.
the current action economy system is fine.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 4:21AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
I'm not happy with two weapon fighting in the play test. I think people need help with ideas.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 5:05AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
ElfWizard as his main attack, shoots a magic missile int vs ac doing 3d4+int+lvl mod damage. He then off-hand attacks an adjacent target with his dagger and does 1d4+dex+lvl mod damage. DwarfFighter swings his two-handed axe and it costs him a main and off-hand action. He does damage to 1 target 1d12+mods+1d10+mods. ElfWizard attacks again but chooses to shoot his magic missile as an area spell. He hits two targets but there were 4 targets. He divides his main attack damage of 3d4 by 4 and gives each of the 2 hit targets a 4th of the total damage. As his off hand action, he disengages from adjacent targets without provoking an opportunity attack. ElfWizard is attacked anyway but Blinks out as a Reaction, reducing the damage he takes. Your thought or ideas?
I like the kind of questions you are asking. Unfortunately there aren't much interests in core mechanics.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 5:25AM
#5
|
|
|
The current action economy is perfectly fine... in fact I find it works better then all of the previous editions.
Two-weapon fighting is one of the things they want to further tackle in the future packets. They have stated that their goal was to make two-weapon fighting as equally attractive as two-handed style or weapon-shield style without any feat requirements, from the feedback given by playtesters.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 5:30AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2011
|
One of my current gripes with the game is players dealing a bit too much damage. Your suggestion pushes that to extremes, especially being able to dual wield normal sized weapons in both hands.
The action economy as stands works well, the issue is the mechanics and classes attached to it.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 5:44AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2012
|
I don't think Casting a Spell should be a Main hand/Off hand action. It IS your Action to Cast!
I do not like Two Weapon Fighting either. I would prefer it to be more a style choice. I think additional attacks should be available to everyone at a penatly of -2 per additional attack with MMD negating the penalty if so desired. If you wield a shield in the off hand you get an AC bonus, so perhaps a weapon should give a +2 damage bonus?
As far as Blink as a reaction, if the spell were set up that way then sure, I could see the spell like this: BLINK-take an action to cast, duration 1 minute, use reactions to gain +5 AC and move 10' for duration.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 6:38AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
While duel wielding two identical weapons, 1 weapon would do 1d12+mods and the same weapon in the off-hand will do 1d10+mods. The damage is high but not as high as MDD. As long as you start characters out with the full constitution score + a max hd number, the damage works out o.k. The math actually makes combat twice as deadly over all. It reduces encounter time by half from the previous edition. Here is a chart that explains the action economy in detail. I think that what is not listed here is that mixed classes will have one school where they can do 3d4 and 2d6 damage. The rest of the schools do the damage listed.
| weapon |
attack roll type |
why? |
| bludgeoning |
con vs ac |
the goal is to keep pounding |
| piercing |
str vs ac |
the goal is to strike hard |
| slashing |
str vs ac |
the goal is to strike hard |
| thin weapons |
dex vs dex |
the goal is to exploit chinks |
| weapon |
actions |
damage |
ac |
| 2-handed |
main+off-hand |
main+mods+off-hand+mods |
|
| long-handled |
main+off-hand |
1 die level lower than main and off-hand+modsX2 |
+2 |
| thrown or hand crossbow |
off-hand |
off-hand+mods |
|
| bow shot |
main+off-hand |
main+mods+off-hand+mods |
|
| Choose a Class. |
ability bonus |
1st lvl skills |
1st lvl hp |
lvl-up hp |
armor restrictions |
main attack damage |
off-hand attack damage |
| fighting class |
str+1 |
3 |
con score+12hp |
1d12 or 6hp |
all armor |
1d12+mods |
1d10+mods |
| skilled class |
dex+1 |
6 |
con score+10hp |
1d10 or 5hp |
up to leather |
1d10+mods |
1d8+mods |
| fighting casting class |
wis+1 |
3 |
con score+8hp |
1d8 or 4hp |
up to chain |
1d8+mods magic 1d10+mods |
1d6+mods magic 1d8+mods |
| casting class |
int+1 |
3 |
con score+6hp |
1d6 or 3hp |
jewlery + 1 plate piece |
1d6+mods magic 3d4+mods |
1d4+mods magic 2d6+mods |
| level advancement |
| level |
level-up award |
| 1st |
3 powers, 1 main action, 1 off-hand action, 1 reaction |
| 2nd |
ability+1 |
| 3rd |
1 power |
| 4th |
skill+1 |
| 5th |
level bonus+1 trained |
| 6th |
1 more main action |
| 7th |
ability+1 |
| 8th |
1 power |
| 9th |
skill+1 or 1 skill |
| 10th |
level bonus+1 proficient |
| 11th |
1 more off-hand action |
| 12th |
ability+1 |
| 13th |
1 power |
| 14th |
skill+1 |
| 15th |
level bonus+1 expert |
| 16th |
1 more reaction |
| 17th |
ability+1 |
| 18th |
1 power |
| 19th |
skill+1 or 1 skill |
| 20th |
level bonus+1 specialist |
| 21st |
1 power |
| 22nd |
ability+1 |
| 23rd |
1 power |
| 24th |
skill+1 |
| 25th |
level bonus+1 master |
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 6:47AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
As far as Blink as a reaction, if the spell were set up that way then sure, I could see the spell like this: BLINK-take an action to cast, duration 1 minute, use reactions to gain +5 AC and move 10' for duration.
I like your train of thought there.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 7:12AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2009
|
While I like the idea of including main-hand/off-hand and the like as game mechanics, I'd prefer to keep the actual actions available in the action economy simpler - one of the criticisms of 4E was that the number of action types bogged down combat, as players tried to acquire as many action types as possible to use in a single combat round. (For instance: in addition to having a standard, move, and minor action each turn, making sure there was an immediate reaction, some triggered free actions, no actions, etc.)
I would like to see "main hand" and "off hand" be keywords attached to particular actions and items. Example: a high-level dedicated two-weapon fighter might have feats, maneuvers, etc. allowing them add off-hand weapon damage to attacks, get a bonus to speed when using an off-hand weapon, get a bonus to AC, get advantage on the main-hand weapon's attack, etc.
This way, even non-traditional characters could take advantage of the abilities: perhaps flasks of alchemist's fire or potions of firebreath would get the off-hand keyword, allowing the wielder to gain two-weapon benefits.
|
|
|