Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bkdubs123 07-10-07, 02:27 AM	So, I'm sorry if this has been suggested before in some long forgotten thread. I only skim the very surface of these forums, and this is in fact my first visit to the House Rules forum. I've just gotten the wild notion in my head to replace many actions, class features, and feats with ability checks. Stay with me please. Have you ever looked at a feat and thought: "Anyone can do that. I can do that right now, even though I've never done it before. With a moment's thought through perhaps an encounter's worth of experience I would and could do that." Ever thought that? Here's why you know you could do that: You know (give or take a point or two) your own "ability scores." That is to say you know what is within your capabilities. Your experiences in the past, things you know you can do, things know you can't, and current circumstances tell you what you can and can't do. Never fought with two weapons before? No? Well, do you consider yourself pretty dexterous? Yes? Oh, well then why don't you pick up a couple weapons and start twirling them around? See if your natural dexterity (quickness of thought and reaction) is enough to handle swinging two things around at once. Is it? Good. You've just performed an ability check to gain the benefits of two-weapon fighting. Does this mean you get those benefits permanently? Probably not. But you know that generally (under normal circumstances, and in a nonstressful environment) you're capable of doing it, at least for a while. Using a system of ability checks (and corresponding DCs) to do complex things rather than feats opens up some interesting options. Reduce the two-weapon fighting penalties=Dex check. Use some fencer manuever=Int check. Intelligence check to cast a spell from given directions, ie: Scroll/Spellbook. Intelligence check to memorize a spell. Don't provoke AoO from Bull Rush or Grapple? Dex check. Specific classes get bonuses to ability checks that are relevant to their style of gameplay. A fighter gets bonuses on ability checks made to attack, wield weapons, and on specific tactical combat manuevers (bull rush, grapple, disarm, etc). A Wizard gets bonuses on ability checks to cast and memorize spells. Basically this system amounts to: Everyone can do everything. However certain classes are inherently better at doing certain things than others. Your 5th level fighter can cast spells, IF he is smart (or lucky) and he has access to directions on how to do so. Your 1st level Wizard can pick up a Greatsword and start swinging if he gets desperate as long as he has strength enough to wield it. Of course radically altering the class and feat system like this could require radical alteration of several other game systems to accommodate, but I am merely throwing the idea out, in its very rough, conceptual stage to see if I can spur any sort of discussion. Hope to see some comments! Thanks for reading!
Rhialto 07-10-07, 03:12 AM	Most skills can be used untrained, in which case they are effectively the same as an ability check with no skill rank bonus. Most of those other things are either governed by other die rolls anyway, in which case adding another roll just turns the game into roll-playing, or are defined in the mechanics are a skill that cannot be used at all untrained.
Megido 07-10-07, 07:26 AM	Anyone can use 2 weapons to fight in D&D. You just take a higher penalty because of lack of training. There have been a few instancee I have allowed a player to use a feat he doesnt have, but with stiff penalties (-5 or higher). Plus they must be able to "qualify" for the feat.
058 07-10-07, 10:35 AM	Skills that aren't usable untrained always bothered me. Why can't the barbarian who's never studied history think for a second to see if he's ever heard of the big battle that took place on this field years ago? Why can't the ranger stick a pick in a lock and play around with it until something happens? Bkdubs, this is an interesting idea. Being able to temporarily gain the benefits of a feat isn't a bad idea.
bkdubs123 07-10-07, 03:03 PM	@Megido: Right, but you take an enormous penalty. I could see someone taking a huge penalty if they have a low Dex, but someone with 16-18 Dex, you're going to tell me that they need special training to swing around two swords? Why? I know I've never had special training, and I've done it before. For the skeptics out there, let me put forth a list of feats that frustrate me and started to get this idea rolling: Combat Casting (Dex check) Combat Reflexes (Just a consequence of having high Dex) Two-Weapon Fighting (and its ilk, again highly Dexterous charaters should be able to do this no problem) Improved Feint (Why is this ever a standard action in the first place? At worst it should be a move action, and with a light weapon it should be a free action) Martial Weapon Proficiency (or weapon proficiencies in general. Anyone can pick up any weapon and use it effectively. A crossbow is a simple weapon but is mechanically more complex than any bastard sword. You pick the thing up and swing it!) Dodge and Mobility (Again with the Dexterity) Run... (this one is literally called something that everyone can already do. at least call it improved sprint or something...) Tower Shield Proficiency (ok, so you know how to use a shield. this one's just very big. are you strong enough to pick it up, i.e. a strength check? then pick it up and use it) Two-Weapon Defense (should be a consequence of fighting with 2 weapons) Weapon Finesse should automatically apply to light weapons, and possibly a few others (Rapier, bla, bla) Close Quarters Fighting (While cool, if some tries to grab me, I'm going to punch them anyway.) Goad (can't anyone trash talk? why do you need special training for this? you try it, and either it works or doesn't) Etc... can you see where I'm coming from? I'm sure a common concerns to what I'm proposing is, "But this makes everyone a Factotum!" Not at all. Each class would still get bonuses that make them innately better at doing what they do best. A Fighter would have the highest and most frequent bonuses to attack rolls, and to tactical ability checks, where a barbarian might not get so many bonuses, but he has his extraordinary class features. A calm fighter will always best a calm barbarian in melee, but a raging one? The Fighter ought to be careful now. After we get past ability checks in place of several feats we get to other actions, sometimes "exclusive" class features such as Lock Picking, Spellcasting, Trapfinding, among others. In stories there are always fighters that dabble in spell-like abilities -- people have been trying to get the archetype right for Dnd for years. I say casting spells from directions on what to say, and what hand gestures to make, is an Intelligence check. Wizards just have such a high bonus that they don't even need to roll (most of the time). Lockpicking? Can't anyone learn how to do this? Yeah, its kinda hard, but honestly, pick up some thieves tools and fiddle around for a while. What's really idiotic about the current rules on lock picking is that anyone can craft a lock (and know its inner workings intimately) but that same person has no idea how to disable a lock. The same goes for traps, and searching for traps. Anyone with some intelligence knows to be wary of traps if the world is filled with crazy villains that like to put traps out. Then it just takes a smattering more intelligence to be able to guess where a good place to put a trap might be. Is any of this starting to make sense? If so, I'll start bashing out some actual rulings based upon ability checks and ability scores (characters would gain more benefits than a modifier from having a high ability score) soon. If anyone would like to help me with this project, that would be quite welcomed.
058 07-10-07, 05:08 PM	I would just like to point out that any warrior worth his salt isn't going to be swinging two big swords around - he's going to pick up something lighter, which reduces the penalties to -4/-4, an acceptable number. The benefit of two weapon fighting is that you generally hit less but swing more; greater chance of a natural twenty, and a good enough chance of hitting anyway.
bkdubs123 07-10-07, 05:18 PM	Ah, but why is he not going to pick up two big swords and start swinging them around? Because, 1. he probably doesn't have good enough balance to handle all of that extra weight everywhere, 2. he knows he isn't strong enough to wield two big swords, and 3. perhaps he knows he isn't dexterous enough. My point is that the penalties for two weapon fighting should be based on your Dex score, and that instead of taking penalties for not bring proficient with a weapon, if you are strong enough (or smart enough, or both) to pick one up and use it properly you get no penalties. Eliminate the feats Weapon Proficiency and Two-Weapon Fighting, and just make requirements for weapons that if you don't meet you get penalties. Make rules requirements for Two-Weapon Fighting that if you don't meet you take penalties.
058 07-10-07, 06:04 PM	I fail to understand the necessity of this. In reality, a person who has taken the time to train with the use of two weapons is going to be more skilled than someone who has the potential to learn (meaning someone with a high enough Dex to make your check). As for weapon proficiency - hand a longsword to the next jock you see. He's certainly strong enough to wield it, but put him against someone who's trained in how to fight with a sword, and the jock will lose, even if he's stronger than the swordsman. Feats represent training, and training is important in combat. Natural potential, as represented by ability scores, is not the same as training.
bkdubs123 07-10-07, 06:32 PM	feats should not grant the ability to pick up a sword and swing it, they should grant other abilities. The person trained to fight with a sword will beat the jock, not because he knows how to swing the sword better, but because he knows techniques and manuevers to make the jock look like an idiot. Feats should be techniques that actually require time to learn. Feats should not be something that makes you think, I can do that already.
058 07-10-07, 07:40 PM	The -4 on a non-proficient weapon doesn't represent an inability to swing, it represents an inability to do anything else. Martial Weapon Proficiency doesn't represent "alright, now I know how to hold this sword and chop," it represents "Ok, I'm now knowledgable in the aspects of parrying, deflection, feints, and other maneuvers that help me to better get around a foe's defence." Mêlée combat is so much more than just swinging a sword, and that's why nonproficient users get a penalty. Take fencing, for example; anyone can pick up a foil and try to stab someone, but it takes weeks of training to be able to handle it effectively.
bkdubs123 07-11-07, 02:50 AM	I understand the reasoning behind the -4 penalty, I'm saying I think its stupid. If Proficiency represents parrying, deflection, feints, and other maneuvers then why can't you make any use of those abilities? So, in game mechanics your saying that a +4 bonus to attack rolls indicates a vast breadth of knowledge of combat tactics and maneuvers? I'm saying: I want to use those manuevers. Make the fighter better at attacking because of his knowledge of manuevers that he, the player, can actually employ in combat.
Rhialto 07-11-07, 04:57 AM	Because proficiency represents a basic ability to use those. To actually feint etc at an outstanding level requires additional training. Think of it as different levels of mastery over the weapon.
058 07-11-07, 10:22 AM	Indeed; if, as you say, your goal is to allow the player to utilize various combat maneuvers that aren't currently available, instead of simplifying combat to the level of "if I can swing it, I'm OK," make some new feats pertaining to maneuvers. There's already an Improved Feint, but why not borrow the Parry rule from Neverwinter Nights? If your Parry check succeeds versus your foe's attack roll, they miss, and if you beat it by more than ten, you get a counter-attack, but you can't attack normally in the same round that you parried, and you can't parry more attacks than you normally get in one round. I'm certain that there are other feats of this sort, and if not, then invent them yourself. :)
bkdubs123 07-16-07, 06:14 AM	The point of this exercise is not to increase the amount of feats, nor is it to simplify combat to the level of "if I can swing it, I'm ok." The point is to increase the complexity of combat to a level where if you can swing it, sure you're okay (A Wizard with 24 strength can pick up a greataxe and even with the -4 nonproficiency penalty end up with at least a +3 to attack roll. Tell me that the difference between proficiency and non is a host of maneuvers and parries, etc), but if you can flourish it, parry it, finesse it, and excel with it you're great. By actually making proficiency mean something other than negating a penalty to an attack roll (ie, swinging the weapon at someone) there is a greater complexity to combat. Anyway, I am going off topic as to what I actually wanted to say in this post. I have refined the original idea of using ability checks to using ability score requirements for a host of things. Wielding weapons for example. A non-proficient wielder can pick up a use a weapon without penalties to rolls as long as he has the prerequisite ability scores. Light Melee Weapons generally would have a STR requirement of 10, One-Handed Melee Weapons STR 12+, and Two-Handed at 14+. This would mean that Proficiency would have to take on a whole new meaning to reflect a higher level of mastery with a weapon than merely knowing how to wield one (which I think makes logical sense). The details of that level of mastery I have yet to work out, but I'll get there. Not only wielding weapons would be effected by requirements however. I went through many books to find the feats I thought were among the most elementary to their targetted class and made them something less than feats. Not automatic abilities mind you, but abilities that can be taken advantage of as long as a character met the requirements. Below is just a few of the feats I've altered in this manner. Blind-Fight: Prerequisites - Wisdom 13 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +2 Power Attack: Prerequisites - Strength 15 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher, OR Dexterity 13 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher, Balance 4 Ranks Combat Casting: Prerequisites - Dexterity 13 or higher, Base Reflex +2 or higher, Concentration 1 Rank Combat Expertise: Prerequisites - Intelligence 15 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher Combat Reflexes: Prerequisites - Dexterity 13 or higher Two-Weapon Defense: Prerequisites - Dexterity 15 or higher, Base Reflex +3 or higher, Balance 8+ Two-Weapon Fighting: Prerequisites - Dexterity 13 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher, Balance 5+ Weapon Finesse: Prerequisites - Dexterity 13 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher Arcane Defense: Prerequisites - Wisdom 13 or higher, Spell Focus or Specialist Wizard Close-Quarters Fighting: Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher, Base Reflex +3 or higher Eyes in the Back of Your Head: Prerequisites: Dexterity 17 or higher, Listen 5+, Spot 5+, Sense Motive 5+ Hamstring: Ability to Sneak Attack, Dexterity 13 or higher, Intelligence 15 or higher Improved Weapon Familiarity: Prerequisites - Given Race, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher Prone Attack: Prerequisites - Dexterity 15 or higher, Base Reflex +4 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +3 or higher Throw Weapon: Prerequisites - Dexterity 15 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +2 or higher, Weapon Proficiency, Strength at least 2 points higher than required to wield weapon Jack of All Trades: Prerequisites - Intelligence 16+, Wisdom 13+, Charisma 13+ Many from the above list could still be taken as feats if a character didn't have the prerequisites listed. Several of the prerequisites for the "abilities" outlined above are harsher than those given to take the feats of the same name, and therefore may be attractive to those without the skill ranks and ability scores, but for those characters who already have the skill ranks and ability scores it allows them to develop their characters in other ways. I know these alternate rules are still very drastic changes, so I ask your opinions.
058 07-16-07, 09:45 AM	What I'm most curious about is how you're going to change weapon proficiencies. I see how your way makes sense, but no more or less sense than the way it's down in the rules. What nifty little goodies are you going to give players who take proficiencies that they don't otherwise get?
BillTheManiac 07-16-07, 11:48 AM	I would just like to point out that any warrior worth his salt isn't going to be swinging two big swords around - he's going to pick up something lighter, which reduces the penalties to -4/-4, an acceptable number. The benefit of two weapon fighting is that you generally hit less but swing more; greater chance of a natural twenty, and a good enough chance of hitting anyway. Just like to point out that as long as 20+AB still hits AC the chance of a critical hit is directly proportional to the chance of a hit.
bkdubs123 07-16-07, 11:49 AM	Okay, woke up this morning with some inspiration. New Proficiency and Weapon Focus Rules: If a character wields a weapon he is not proficient with, he does not gain the benefit of iterative attacks with that weapon, and cannot use it to make disarm, sunder or trip attempts. Furthermore any additional usefulness the weapon might normally have is rendered useless. For example a nonproficient wielder of a Spiked Chain gains no special bonus on disarm attempts, cannot use the weapon to make disarm or trip attempts, and may only take a single attack with it each round. Weapon Focus is now more potent as well granting not only a +1 competence bonus to attack rolls made with the chosen weapon, but also a +1 competence bonus to AC while holding that weapon. Furthermore as long as the character has not missed with an attack roll in any given encounter the character gains a +2 morale bonus to Will saving throws for the duration of the encounter. This represents a degree of combat focus. At any time during the encounter the character may expend this focus, losing all benefits of Weapon Focus for that round (including the bonuses to hit, AC, and the ability to Combat Focus), to take a 10 on a single attack roll made with that weapon.
058 07-16-07, 01:33 PM	Just like to point out that as long as 20+AB still hits AC the chance of a critical hit is directly proportional to the chance of a hit. Critical hits aside, I mentioned natural twenties because they're automatic hits, regardless of your foe's AC. You attack twice in a turn, you have twice the chance to roll a twenty and hit anyway, even if you're attacking at a reduced bonus (as anyone dual-wielding is).
bkdubs123 07-19-07, 02:11 AM	Any thoughts on my versions of Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus?
Roog 07-19-07, 03:21 AM	Light Melee Weapons generally would have a STR requirement of 10, One-Handed Melee Weapons STR 12+, and Two-Handed at 14+. That is severely broken. Those numbers are too high, make no sense, and make things more complex for no real gain. Not only wielding weapons would be effected by requirements however. I went through many books to find the feats I thought were among the most elementary to their targetted class and made them something less than feats. Not automatic abilities mind you, but abilities that can be taken advantage of as long as a character met the requirements. Below is just a few of the feats I've altered in this manner. Blind-Fight: Prerequisites - Wisdom 13 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +2 Power Attack: Prerequisites - Strength 15 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher, OR Dexterity 13 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher, Balance 4 Ranks Combat Casting: Prerequisites - Dexterity 13 or higher, Base Reflex +2 or higher, Concentration 1 Rank Combat Expertise: Prerequisites - Intelligence 15 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher Combat Reflexes: Prerequisites - Dexterity 13 or higher Two-Weapon Defense: Prerequisites - Dexterity 15 or higher, Base Reflex +3 or higher, Balance 8+ Two-Weapon Fighting: Prerequisites - Dexterity 13 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher, Balance 5+ Weapon Finesse: Prerequisites - Dexterity 13 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher Arcane Defense: Prerequisites - Wisdom 13 or higher, Spell Focus or Specialist Wizard Close-Quarters Fighting: Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher, Base Reflex +3 or higher Eyes in the Back of Your Head: Prerequisites: Dexterity 17 or higher, Listen 5+, Spot 5+, Sense Motive 5+ Hamstring: Ability to Sneak Attack, Dexterity 13 or higher, Intelligence 15 or higher Improved Weapon Familiarity: Prerequisites - Given Race, Base Attack Bonus +1 or higher Prone Attack: Prerequisites - Dexterity 15 or higher, Base Reflex +4 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +3 or higher Throw Weapon: Prerequisites - Dexterity 15 or higher, Base Attack Bonus +2 or higher, Weapon Proficiency, Strength at least 2 points higher than required to wield weapon Jack of All Trades: Prerequisites - Intelligence 16+, Wisdom 13+, Charisma 13+ All of this seems to be designed to increase the advantage high stat characters have over low stat ones. Systems like this make DEX into a combat GOD-stat, and GOS-stats are one thing D&D has avoided. Additionally many of these prerequisites don't make a lot of sense. Combat Reflexes - you may as well give it to all chars, in fact free to DEX = 13 is a joke. Weapon Finesse - give it to everyone unless you have an irrational dislike of DEX = 12 characters.
bkdubs123 07-19-07, 03:56 PM	Thanks for that insightful attack on my thoughts. Anyway, fine maybe the strength requirements are a bit too high, but as for not making sense are you kidding me? So you think a character with 7 Strength can pick up and swing around the next Greatsword they find laying on the ground? Oh, but its two handed they can use their other hand! Listen, 7 strength is about the strength of an average 7 yr old girl. Hand them a Greatsword and watch what they do with it. The strength requirements are requirements for proficiency. You can't become proficient with a weapon you can hardly pick up. Therefor any character who does not meet the required strength takes the nonproficiency penalties that I also outlined above, but also the standard -4 to attack rolls that exist for nonproficient wielders in the PHB. Perhaps it should be that Light Weapons require no strength to wield, or at least some minimal amount like 5 or whatever... Maybe one-handed should require 10 str, and two-handers 12str... As far as your assessment of GODstats are concerned, what are you talking about?? TWO of the "feats" outlined above require anything more than 15 in a stat, and about 50% of the "feats" require just 13. I suppose I can see your argument that I'm discriminating against ability score 12 characters, so maybe I'll lower the prereqs to the lowest you can have a stil get the bonus (ie: 12, 14, 16, etc). Also, sure, many of the above "feats" require dex, but that's just because those are only a few of the feats I've done that with and because I started with Dex and Int feats because those are the styles of fighting a prefer. Also, I don't think I've made Dex into a GODstat, as any character with average Strength can do devastating amounts of damage with any 2-handed weapon, power attack and cleave. If next time you would like offer constructive criticism, I would appreciate it.
Roog 07-19-07, 11:19 PM	Thanks for that insightful attack on my thoughts. Anyway, fine maybe the strength requirements are a bit too high, but as for not making sense are you kidding me? Awkwardness: - characters of different sizes will need to remove their size mod to STR to determine what weapons of their own size they can use. You will also need rules for using weapons of different sizes (eg with monkeygrip and for characters using smaller size weapons) From this point I'll assume that characters are using appropriate sized weapons. Smoothness: - characters with below average STR are already penalized when using weapons. The system you are suggesting gives a very sudden cut-off to the -4 penalty. At 9 you have a -5 penalty to hit with the Kukri, at 10 you have no penalty. Thats too much marginal improvement for +1 stat point, you need something smoother. Lack of Sense (maybe I could have put that more politely) - Each category contains a significant range of weapons with regard to STR requirements, especially one-hand melee (rapier to say flail) and two-hand melee (ranseur to D&D style Greataxe). The flat 10/12/14 system you suggested does not reflect that well. - Two handed weapon requiring more STR that one handed weapons. Since the design constraints for both types is human strength, in general full size one-handed weapons and full-sized two handed weapons have the same range of strength requirements, with specific weapon type having a far greater influence. The strength requirements are requirements for proficiency. You can't become proficient with a weapon you can hardly pick up. Therefor any character who does not meet the required strength takes the nonproficiency penalties that I also outlined above, but also the standard -4 to attack rolls that exist for nonproficient wielders in the PHB. Perhaps it should be that Light Weapons require no strength to wield, or at least some minimal amount like 5 or whatever... Maybe one-handed should require 10 str, and two-handers 12str... If you use a system like this, weapons that were used by relatively untrained troops (eg the Spear) should have a STR requirement that is reasonable for an average peasant (or at least a penalty that isn't too large). If you really want a system like this then I would suggest that the categories should be {Light Simple Weapons, Other Simple Weapons, Light Martial Weapons, Other Martial Weapons} Listen, 7 strength is about the strength of an average 7 yr old girl. How do you work that out? STR 7 has lift capacity 70% of STR 10. Can a 7 year old girl lift 70% of what the average adult can? Thats probably not the method you used, so please explain how you got your result. As far as your assessment of GODstats are concerned, what are you talking about?? GOD-stat: a stat that is far more useful than others. In this case GOD-stat may be an overstatement, but unless all stats give extra feats in a reasonably balanced way, you give a big bonus to characters who have the needed stat. If you make the stat req high less characters get the feats, and if you make the stat req low more characters do, but either way you make the stat more valuable (and other ways to get the feats less valuable). The current list you have looks like it would give a big bunch of feats based on DEX, and the standard Rogue gains Power Attack + Combat Reflexes + Two Weapon Defence + Two Weapon Fighting + Weapon Finesse + Close Quarters Fighting + Eyes in the back of Your Head + Hamstring + Prone Attack + possibly others depending on his other stats. Thats 9 or more additional feats, and your feat list doesn't look like it is complete yet. I understand the reasoning behind the -4 penalty, I'm saying I think its stupid. If Proficiency represents parrying, deflection, feints, and other maneuvers then why can't you make any use of those abilities? So, in game mechanics your saying that a +4 bonus to attack rolls indicates a vast breadth of knowledge of combat tactics and maneuvers? I'm saying: I want to use those manuevers. Make the fighter better at attacking because of his knowledge of manuevers that he, the player, can actually employ in combat. You sound like you want a less abstracted system (take a look at The Riddle of Steel). More relevantly to D&D, take a look at Book of Iron Might from Malhavoc Press, it gaves a pile of extra maneuvers, without devalueing feats. As reguarding the system you are suggesting wouldn't giving extra feats based on BAB (rather than stats) fit this better? Stat Generation: I think that your system makes stats significantly more valuable that in the standard rules, and this would mean that it would be a bad idea to use a system like this will rolled stats. Note: What would be an interesting rules variation (assuming PB) would be to have a list of feats for each stat (not necessarily unique), and a number of times each encounter equal to their modifier for each stat allow each character to use a feat from the appropriate list. (Maybe limit it to their non-enhanced modifier). But that would still devalue feats.
bkdubs123 07-20-07, 12:08 AM	Awkwardness: - characters of different sizes will need to remove their size mod to STR to determine what weapons of their own size they can use. You will also need rules for using weapons of different sizes (eg with monkeygrip and for characters using smaller size weapons) From this point I'll assume that characters are using appropriate sized weapons. Ah, yes, the strength requirements for the proposals assume that the characters are using size appropriate weapons. Smoothness: - characters with below average STR are already penalized when using weapons. The system you are suggesting gives a very sudden cut-off to the -4 penalty. At 9 you have a -5 penalty to hit with the Kukri, at 10 you have no penalty. Thats too much marginal improvement for +1 stat point, you need something smoother. I suppose I can agree with you there. Perhaps a lower to hit penalty. Perhaps in this system STR wouldn't even give a bonus on attack rolls, or perhaps at least not without a feat. Please remember that these ideas I have in my head are kinda swimming around randomly for right now. I have the notion that I want to fix several things with the Dnd system, and many of my thoughts are cohesive, but many more are not at all. Lack of Sense (maybe I could have put that more politely) Allow me to apologize, I could have been more polite as well. - Each category contains a significant range of weapons with regard to STR requirements, especially one-hand melee (rapier to say flail) and two-hand melee (ranseur to D&D style Greataxe). The flat 10/12/14 system you suggested does not reflect that well. Agreed. Again, allow me to apologize, I misspoke earlier. I am much better at convincing people that I know what I'm talking about in person rather than on forums (I can immediately re-explain my points that I feel they are misunderstanding). The system of STR requirements would not be a flat rate, but rather those were simply numbers thrown out of a hat to be regarded as guide lines. Nothing of this system has been playtested at all yet. - Two handed weapon requiring more STR that one handed weapons. Since the design constraints for both types is human strength, in general full size one-handed weapons and full-sized two handed weapons have the same range of strength requirements, with specific weapon type having a far greater influence. Understandable. Two-Handed weapons require a bit more strength, however they are two-handed. However I still think that they would tend to require a bit more strength than your average one-handed weapon (at least that has been experience in life. most two-handed weapons are poorly balanced with respect to one-handed weapons and ergo require more strength to wield fluidly). As I side, though, there would not be a flat rate. How do you work that out? STR 7 has lift capacity 70% of STR 10. Can a 7 year old girl lift 70% of what the average adult can? Thats probably not the method you used, so please explain how you got your result. Again, just a statistic that was rather pulled willy nilly out of nowhere. Although I wouldn't say that 7 strength is 70& the strength of an average adult. As you go down the scale seems to grow exponentially worse than as you go up. I see 10 being average human, 12 being an athletic human, 14 being someone very strong who lifts weights as part of their daily routine, 16 being a professional athlete, and 18 being nearly peak human strength of professional body builders, and beginning to push superhuman ability. I'll have to take a look at those other systems to see what I can glean from their approaches. Basically, yes I am looking to effectively do a rewrite of nearly all the rules. There are some things that DnD does very well. However, there some things that can be done much better. The first one is feats and feat selection. When you listed off the feats that the average rogue would have under my rules, looking through a non-DnD lens, which ones did not seem like abilities your average rogue would have in real life? Perhaps two-weapon fighting, defense and power attack, but the others seem like solid mainstays of the rogue's arsenal - Just as Turn Undead is to the Cleric. Each character type should have things that he or she can do, just because he is built to do them, or born to do them (i.e. having the right ability scores). As far as not rolling ability scores, I can agree that perhaps a point buy would be better for a system like this. But rolling has its fun factor as well. (I've always ran roll-for-stats games, dunno why). Now, on to this idea of devaluing feats. The feats that I'm devaluing either already have little to no value, OR have far too much value when balanced against the other feats on the list. I'm kinda aiming to devalue these feats - that way I can go through and make new feats that are actually worth taking. As I've said somewhere in this thread a feat ought to either teach you a new maneuver/technique/unique ability or trick rather than give you some mundane capability that feels like you should be able to do already. I've already begun work on new Fighter ONLY feats to help reclaim some of his worth, and I'll be working on some other feats as well. I like your idea of Having a list of feats that are based off of certain ability scores and making characters able to use them a certain number of times per day. That idea hearkens back to the original notion I had when I begun this thread. I may keep that idea. This kind of system really negates the uniqueness of the Factotum as basically anyone could attempt to do almost anything. The Factotum would simply have the unique ability at being good at doing anything. Anyway, thanks for being much more constructive this time around. I've actually come away with some new ideas, and enjoyed the critiques. At some point I need to come up with a coherent rules primer and update it as I go (right now I have a ragtag group of new rulings hashed out in a notepad document, lol). That way, the things I'm working out in my head will become more immediately clear, so I don't have to go through it all re-explaining myself. Finally, thanks alot for everyone who has offered advice and criticism so far, and I hope to get some more help/advice/criticism.
BillTheManiac 07-21-07, 03:52 PM	Critical hits aside, I mentioned natural twenties because they're automatic hits, regardless of your foe's AC. You attack twice in a turn, you have twice the chance to roll a twenty and hit anyway, even if you're attacking at a reduced bonus (as anyone dual-wielding is). As I said, if 20+AB won't hit, then might as well grab another weapon to get some more crazy luck. But in that situation, you're probably better off running away screaming.