Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OneWinged4ngel 07-04-07, 04:04 AM	A clear issue has arisen in our time with 3.5: Oftentimes, many weapon styles are clearly not as viable as others. Most notably, a two-handed weapon is *usually* the best choice, while taking two weapons is so feat intensive that it leaves you little other room to customize. And wielding one weapon with nothing in the off hand is just out of the question, regardless of its popularity in fantasy. The basic styles and (what I feel should be) the emphases of each are as follows: Shield and Weapon: Greater defense, but still a solid offense One Weapon: More finesse allows for some more stylish feats of swordsmanship. Two Weapon: More attacks. Two handed weapon: More attack power, but requires strength. Reach Weapon: You get the advantage of reach. Throwing: Shorter range than bows or crossbows, but more damage. Bows: Many quick shots. Crossbow: Focused single shots. Unarmed and light weapons: Weapons are easy to take with you anywhere, and gain advantages in grapples. Exotic: Slightly better than normal weapons, but you get less out of loot because they're rarer. Let's examine some issues though: Shield and Weapon: You trade off a lot of attack power for some defense, which you often can't use all too well in many situations, while doing twice the damage would have dropped your need to defend yourself (also, turtling yourself doesn't help that much if you still leave the squishies open). You do less damage than 2H, and you pay more for enchantment. 2H might also just get the shield anyways by getting an animated one, or wield a buckler. With some effort you can make it good, but it falls behind 2H even when you put in more effort. More effort + less results = more people feeling the need to play a 2-hander (and so we see this flavor of fighter with a greatsword extremely often in D&D) One Weapon: Just clear out. The Einhander tactical feat and the occasional other goody won't really save you. Two weapons: Only good with significant extra damage. It doubles your weapon enhancement costs, and you need to dump a ton of feats on it. Also, you can't even hold two weapons AT ALL before spending a feat. A master swordsman literally becomes *crippled* as soon as he holds a sword in his other hand. It's just ridiculous. How many books, movies, and video games have you seen where the guy will pick up a second weapon and fight with it when convenient, even though it's not his usual style? How many scenes have there been of a man disarming another and using both weapons? D&D requires intense specialization to even *use* two weapons without missing commoners. Two handed weapon: Most bonus from strength, double the bonus from Power Attack (an essential feat, and really the only one 2H needs), lowest enchantment cost, allows casting and stuff, (because you can have a "free hand" without actually dropping it) and Power Attack gets even better with things like Leap Attack and Battle Jump and Shock Trooper. 2H wins without even really trying. Best output + least effort required = many people feel rather compelled to use 2 handed weapons. Throwing: You need to have returning weapons. But hey, you know what? Throwing daggers at people and leaving them sticking out of their skull is often more cinematic, or at least fits better with certain concepts. But you can't really do that... ___ So now then, I played around with some ideas. A few possibilities are already coming to mind. What if the 1.5 strength bonus was a feat for 2 handed weapons? What if that was a prerequisite to power attack? What if Two Weapon Fighting's feat scaled for extra iterative attacks? What if the base penalties for Two Weapon Fighting were reduced? What if costs for enchantment varied by weapon size? What if exotic weapon proficiency also came with a weapon focus in the said weapon? You still have the penalty of the weapon being "rarer", and weapon focus isn't exactly a very-high-value feat. What if throwing weapons (or any weapon, really) could gain an "expendable" enchantment like ammunition that is lost after one use, allowing things like a bandolier of throwing daggers to be a more viable concept? What if there was a bonus for wielding a weapon in one hand and none in the other besides just from the odd specific class feature? What if weapon finesse granted 1.5 times the dex bonus to attack when using one weapon in your main hand and none in your off hand? ___ Please contribute your thoughts and ideas. I hope to realize a world where people can feel free to choose just about any sort of weapon and fighting style with most every class without feeling "gimped."
Cheza 07-04-07, 08:06 AM	Shield and Weapon: Greater defense, but still a solid offense One Weapon: More finesse allows for some more stylish feats of swordsmanship. Two Weapon: More attacks. Two handed weapon: More attack power, but requires strength. Throwing: Shorter range than bows or crossbows, but more damage. Bows: Many quick shots. Crossbow: Focused single shots. Unarmed and light weapons: Weapons are easy to take with you anywhere, and gain advantages in grapples. Exotic: Slightly better than normal weapons, but you get less out of loot because they're rarer. There are other weapon styles. For example fighting with polearms. Shield and Weapon: You trade off a lot of attack power for some defense, which you often can't use all too well in many situations, while doing twice the damage would have dropped your need to defend yourself (also, turtling yourself doesn't help that much if you still leave the squishies open). You might find it acceptable that shields grant a constant bonus to reflex saves (as the 3.0 cover rule for tower shields). You can easily dodge a dragon's breath if you cover - no matter if you're behind a rock or a large shield. And if you wish, you could double the shield bonus. A Tower Shield - a wall as high as the wearer - would have a AC value comparable to a full plate. You do less damage than 2H, and you pay more for enchantment. 2H might also just get the shield anyways by getting an animated one, or wield a buckler. It's easy for a Weapon+Shield guy to use 2WF style with shield spikes. One Weapon: Just clear out. The Einhander tactical feat and the occasional other goody won't really save you. It should have the fewest prerequisites. In addition you can use your off hand as a hand. If you wish, you might use it as a off-hand weapon as well (use enhanced gauntlets). You're able to trink potions, throw things around, use touch spells & spells with material/focus components (you must have one hand free to use) and you can start a grapple. If you change/expand the grapple rules & encourage the DM & players to make full use of the surroundings (swinging on a chandelier, throw chairs or or knock tables over to hinder movement. Edit: Try to fight in narrow places like spiral staircases more often. 2HF should get a higher penality. Two weapons: Only good with significant extra damage. It doubles your weapon enhancement costs, and you need to dump a ton of feats on it. Also, you can't even hold two weapons AT ALL before spending a feat. A master swordsman literally becomes *crippled* as soon as he holds a sword in his other hand. First: You could reduce the penalities for 2WF. Second: You could give the fighter +2 feats but skip shield & tower shield proficiencies. For your 2WF style, they are useless and with this rule, you get 2 more feats. Third: Change "feint" rules so it isn't a standard or move action, but an attack-alternative (like a grapple attempt). Fourth: Reduce number of 2WF feats to 1. The effect should be similar to manyshot (based on your BAB). Two handed weapon: Most bonus from strength, double the bonus from Power Attack (an essential feat, and really the only one 2H needs), lowest enchantment cost, allows casting and stuff, (because you can have a "free hand" without actually dropping it) and Power Attack gets even better with things like Leap Attack and Battle Jump and Shock Trooper. 2H wins without even really trying. Best output + least effort required = many people feel rather compelled to use 2 handed weapons. Power Attack is not a pure 2HF favoring feat. If you use this bonus for your 2WF style, you decrease your attack bonus once to get the damage bonus on all attacks you make. So, if your main and your off-hand attack scores a hit, you deal 2x damage. Make 2handed weapon proficiencies to be a feat. Without that feat, you can only fight with one-handed weapons. A fighter isn't proficient with this weapon style if he doesn't take it instead of tower shield proficiency. Throwing: You need to have returning weapons. But hey, you know what? Throwing daggers at people and leaving them sticking out of their skull is often more cinematic, or at least fits better with certain concepts. But you can't really do that... You have to get magical gloves for that cinematic style. These gloves are treated as a projectile weapon, Any magical enhancement is transferred from your projectile weapon to your a bit more expensive ammunition. :D What if the 1.5 strength bonus was a feat for 2 handed weapons? What if that was a prerequisite to power attack? I don't think this is a wise plan. I would prefer the "2handed proficiency" instead. What if costs for enchantment varied by weapon size? I tried a "per damage dice" rule and it didn't work. What if exotic weapon proficiency also came with a weapon focus in the said weapon? You still have the penalty of the weapon being "rarer", and weapon focus isn't exactly a very-high-value feat. Good idea.
Holy_Beholder 07-04-07, 10:03 AM	Add polearms and slings. Both are really effective, a real sling(that is several feet long) can do lots of damage. As for polearms, I have fought with them, and they are really good against sword and shield.
OneWinged4ngel 07-04-07, 03:10 PM	There are other weapon styles. For example fighting with polearms. Ah, forgot to put "reach weapons" down there. It's easy for a Weapon+Shield guy to use 2WF style with shield spikes. I know. You can also use 2HF with TWF with armor spikes. It should have the fewest prerequisites. In addition you can use your off hand as a hand. If you wish, you might use it as a off-hand weapon as well (use enhanced gauntlets). You're able to trink potions, throw things around, use touch spells & spells with material/focus components (you must have one hand free to use) and you can start a grapple. Actually, you can do all this with a two handed weapon. If you change/expand the grapple rules & encourage the DM & players to make full use of the surroundings (swinging on a chandelier, throw chairs or or knock tables over to hinder movement. Already did that a looooong time ago. Third: Change "feint" rules so it isn't a standard or move action, but an attack-alternative (like a grapple attempt). That's an interesting idea. Fourth: Reduce number of 2WF feats to 1. The effect should be similar to manyshot (based on your BAB). That's what I was thinking of doing. You have to get magical gloves for that cinematic style. These gloves are treated as a projectile weapon, Any magical enhancement is transferred from your projectile weapon to your a bit more expensive ammunition. I already know about the whole gloves idea, but I favor the idea of a bandolier of various knives just like an archer has a quiver of various arrows. Good idea. Thanks. Add polearms and slings. Both are really effective, a real sling(that is several feet long) can do lots of damage. As for polearms, I have fought with them, and they are really good against sword and shield. I am aware of the benefits of real slings :) I think the halfling war sling is a better choice than the silly little simple weapon you get. In reality, isn't a sling *harder* to use than a bow? Silly simple proficiencies...
Rhialto 07-05-07, 04:28 AM	Counterpoint question:Should all of these weapon styles really be balanced against each other? Historically, certain styles prevailed for a reason - certain styles genuinely were objectively better, at least against the opponents they faced within their cultures. I'd rather go for "each better in its own way" than "all objectively equal".
OneWinged4ngel 07-05-07, 02:31 PM	I'd rather go for "each better in its own way" than "all objectively equal". Huh? If you'll look at the first post, it seems pretty clear that I'm going for "each better in their own way." I don't see where I said "All objectively equal" either. So... I don't really see a point to your post here.
Aryxbez 07-05-07, 03:34 PM	Isn't this thread the same one in classes/Prestige forum? So why post here? I guess since this pertains more to the topic rather than classes and such do? So then, which thread should I go posting to discuss the weapon styles? this one or this Thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=879400)
Cheza 07-05-07, 05:43 PM	Counterpoint question:Should all of these weapon styles really be balanced against each other? Historically, certain styles prevailed for a reason - certain styles genuinely were objectively better, at least against the opponents they faced within their cultures. I'd rather go for "each better in its own way" than "all objectively equal". That's wrong. Their is no "best way" and there are nothing like better/worse... even historical. It's a question of many things. The short sword + buckler fighting style is an excellent fighting style. The buckler was big enough to block the short sword. Beside this you can dodge everything. However you can't block arrows with that. So a sword + large shield seem to be better. A larger weapon gives you a greater range, so twohanded swords seem to be the best choice. But they are quite slow and you need to have a good armor to survive glancing hits. 2H weapons are ineffective against polearms and noone can fight with them for a long duration. 2 weapons are uncommon because you need to move your body to strike out with a weapon. This is nessessary and you can't do this with both arms simultaneously. So you can attack with your main weapon whenever you think it's time to attack with your off-hand weapon. In almost any situations you won't need to attack whenever you can, so you have enough time to be ready again. But there is no "prevailed" fighting style ... except for guns.
OneWinged4ngel 07-05-07, 07:48 PM	Isn't this thread the same one in classes/Prestige forum? So why post here? I guess since this pertains more to the topic rather than classes and such do? So then, which thread should I go posting to discuss the weapon styles? this one or this Thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=879400) It's a big issue that's spans a few categories, and I seek to get diverse input (much like I posted the Rebalanced Paladin on the Classes board, as well as the CharOp board and a few non-wizards boards.) Post in whichever one suits you best. That's wrong. Their is no "best way" and there are nothing like better/worse... even historical. It's a question of many things. The short sword + buckler fighting style is an excellent fighting style. The buckler was big enough to block the short sword. Beside this you can dodge everything. However you can't block arrows with that. So a sword + large shield seem to be better. A larger weapon gives you a greater range, so twohanded swords seem to be the best choice. But they are quite slow and you need to have a good armor to survive glancing hits. 2H weapons are ineffective against polearms and noone can fight with them for a long duration. 2 weapons are uncommon because you need to move your body to strike out with a weapon. This is nessessary and you can't do this with both arms simultaneously. So you can attack with your main weapon whenever you think it's time to attack with your off-hand weapon. In almost any situations you won't need to attack whenever you can, so you have enough time to be ready again. But there is no "prevailed" fighting style ... except for guns. Heck, even if there was a supposed "best" way, D&D would have you believe it was the greatsword. However, people didn't all run around holding greatswords for a reason. Speaking of which, here's another "if." What if wielding hefty two-handed weapons gave you a small to-hit penalty when compared to lighter weapons? Thus, it would take more strength and skill to hit people with bigger weapons, which actually seems fairly realistic.
Holy_Beholder 07-05-07, 08:54 PM	That extra range comes in handy. The main problem with 2 handers is no shield, which means archers are deadly. The greatsword was actually built more as a defense against spears than anything else, it was heavy enough to easily knock them to the side when they were held 1 handed, but still not too heavy. Also, like I said, archers really suck when you don't have a shield.
OneWinged4ngel 07-05-07, 11:45 PM	The greatsword was actually built more as a defense against spears than anything else, it was heavy enough to easily knock them to the side when they were held 1 handed, but still not too heavy. Don't you just love when people make blatant assertions with absolutely nothing to support it?
Rhialto 07-06-07, 03:19 AM	... But there is no "prevailed" fighting style ... except for guns. Actually, each prevailed for a short time, until further technology or military tactical innovation rendered the last ultimate weapon obsolete. Guns aren't the single ultimate be-all either. They are just the latest in a long line, and they too will one day be made obsolete by a newer innovation in military weapons or armour.
OneWinged4ngel 07-06-07, 10:31 PM	Actually, each prevailed for a short time, until further technology or military tactical innovation rendered the last ultimate weapon obsolete. Guns aren't the single ultimate be-all either. They are just the latest in a long line, and they too will one day be made obsolete by a newer innovation in military weapons or armour. You're not quite looking at it right, I think. Guns might be prevalent now, but we have a lot of different types of guns, all of which have different benefits and are useful in different situations. They each continue to exist in common use because they each have their own unique benefits (although, obviously, the benefit of some is just that they're cheap, which doesn't play much of a role in D&D balance when it comes to mundane items). There's ones that fire faster, ones that are more accurate, ones with longer range, ones that pierce armor, ones that tear flesh, ones that explodes, ones that are heavy and ones that are light, ones that hold larger magazines and ones that only give a handful of shots... you get the idea. As a result, it would be silly for there to be one "best choice" type of gun in a modern setting game. You've got your handguns, your sniper rifles, your shotguns, and your grenade launchers, and each should serve a worthwhile purpose in their own right. By the same token, there should be diverse benefits to various weapons in D&D, each excelling at a chosen niche. More importantly, balance between styles promotes versatility in concept, creative freedom, and a game that's just more fun. ___ In any case, please don't make this a conversation about "which weapon is the best IRL", because that never leads to anything but stupid arguments. We're talking about enhancing a fantasy game here. You know, the one where you can kill gigantic monsters bigger than your house IRL with your bare hands just because you're badass.
Aryxbez 07-06-07, 10:57 PM	Well said OneWinged4ngel, especially about the monster sized house and one's fists. Also, I see you didn't look like you responded to my ridiculously large post. Probably due to that, I am sorry, however I will post it here then, of course in a Sblock so it doesn't look to take up much space. So now then, I played around with some ideas. A few possibilities are already coming to mind. I like this thread, because I always liked the fighting styles of D&D, my favorite used to be 2-handed until I found out that it was just a uber-charging style. So I do think some styles do need to become stronger. So the following is what I have to comment. What if the 1.5 strength bonus was a feat for 2 handed weapons? What if that was a prerequisite to power attack? I would suggest against it, as one shouldn't just put more feats out, I think just ridding of the whole stupidity of the ubercharging feats fixes a good sum of the power from 2-handed weapons. What if Two Weapon Fighting's feat scaled for extra iterative attacks? What if the base penalties for Two Weapon Fighting were reduced? I am unsure on this one, I guess it would be a good idea, as it would save a person feats who wishes to dual-wield. Also in my games I made my own Ambidexterity feat so that one can end up with smaller penalties, and full-str to the off-hand. Here is the feat, also a dual-wield variant I had read a long time ago from another game. Also on the Dual-wield idea, how about your off-hand is the only one that has penalties? That way if someone just picks up a weapon they can sort of pull it off. The penalties could start at -4, become -2 with TWF, and then become -1 with a light weapon in the off-hand. So something like my Ambidexterity feat could just negate the penalty once and for all. Ambidexterity Feat: Prequisites; Dex 18, Two-weapon Fighting,Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Benefit:When wielding two weapons, the Penalties are reduced by 1, with having -3 with onehanded weapon or -1 penalties with a light weapon in the off-hand. Also the off-hand deals normal strength damage. Dual-Wield: Main hand has no penalties, but your off-hand has a -5 to attack rolls that cannot be changed. I don't truly remember the details, but it was never a good idea. Whirlwind attack feat has following changes: Prequisites: BAB+4, Combat Reflexes, Dex 15 Special: when wielding two weapons while using this attack, can make a second whirlwind attack using your off-hand weapon also take the TWF penalties for both whirlwind attacks if you choose to do so. What if costs for enchantment varied by weapon size? This is just kinda dumb, I don't think a +3 greatsword should cost more than a +3 shortsword. Besides, then you would have people shrinking their weapons to smallest/biggest size for the cheapest price to then just get their weapon back to their normal size. What if exotic weapon proficiency also came with a weapon focus in the said weapon? You still have the penalty of the weapon being "rarer", and weapon focus isn't exactly a very-high-value feat. I don't know, I never thought of Exotic weapons being totally suckage, I thought they could worth their feat, just alot of them aren't that interesting. But I guess there is no harm to doing so. What if throwing weapons (or any weapon, really) could gain an "expendable" enchantment like ammunition that is lost after one use, allowing things like a bandolier of throwing daggers to be a more viable concept? Usually heroes who threw returning weapon usually had only one, at least the ones I recall. I think the throwing of multiple returning weapons is anti-climatic yes, but there is alot of things that aren't climatic in D&D(spellcasters in general). Also wouldn't a character save more by keeping returning weapons? I suppose if someone truly wanted to be treated as ammunition when thrown would be nothing wrong with it. What if there was a bonus for wielding a weapon in one hand and none in the other besides just from the odd specific class feature? What if weapon finesse granted 1.5 times the dex bonus to attack when using one weapon in your main hand and none in your off hand? Thing is, the whole one-handed weapon style never doesn't really fit a role. It is much more like the bard, at least should be like that, where it can do a wee bit of everything. Which these little bit of things looking the most flashiest and somewhat difficult to pull off without special know how to do so in the first place. The Combat expertise thing I don't like,as AC would be able to become too high to easily. In my games I have a great amount of warrior types. Especially my players, not because I force it or anything, just my players happen to play warrior types more than anything. This would cause some trouble. The weapon finesse idea is an okay one, I can see why not as that kinda shows skill and all that. Another thing of combat expertise, I found it kinda dumb for it to be a prerequisite for Improved Trip,and Disarm, I think it should be combat reflexes instead. As that would give those feats more usage and kinda makes sense as you gotta know how to make your most of tripping/disarming your foes. I have also even changed Whirlwind attack to be more easier to take and has an extra bonus for Two-weapon style types. I also put that in the Sblock. I wouldn't mind getting all the styles to be balanced, or at least more decent options so that everyone isn't playing some stupid ubercharger with a greatsword.
OneWinged4ngel 07-07-07, 12:09 AM	Well said OneWinged4ngel, especially about the monster sized house and one's fists. Also, I see you didn't look like you responded to my ridiculously large post. Probably due to that, I am sorry, however I will post it here then, of course in a Sblock so it doesn't look to take up much space. Oh, I read it. I just didn't think I had anything particularly important to say in response ^^;; I like this thread, because I always liked the fighting styles of D&D, my favorite used to be 2-handed until I found out that it was just a uber-charging style. So I do think some styles do need to become stronger. So the following is what I have to comment. Nothing for me to say to this. Statement of approval of the thread's purpose. I would suggest against it, as one shouldn't just put more feats out, I think just ridding of the whole stupidity of the ubercharging feats fixes a good sum of the power from 2-handed weapons. I already restrict some of the ubercharging tools in my houserules. I am unsure on this one, I guess it would be a good idea, as it would save a person feats who wishes to dual-wield. Also in my games I made my own Ambidexterity feat so that one can end up with smaller penalties, and full-str to the off-hand. Here is the feat, also a dual-wield variant I had read a long time ago from another game. Also on the Dual-wield idea, how about your off-hand is the only one that has penalties? That way if someone just picks up a weapon they can sort of pull it off. The penalties could start at -4, become -2 with TWF, and then become -1 with a light weapon in the off-hand. So something like my Ambidexterity feat could just negate the penalty once and for all. An interesting idea, I'd like to know what others think of it. Ambidexterity Feat: Prequisites; Dex 18, Two-weapon Fighting,Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Benefit:When wielding two weapons, the Penalties are reduced by 1, with having -3 with onehanded weapon or -1 penalties with a light weapon in the off-hand. Also the off-hand deals normal strength damage. Dual-Wield: Main hand has no penalties, but your off-hand has a -5 to attack rolls that cannot be changed. I don't truly remember the details, but it was never a good idea. Whirlwind attack feat has following changes: Prequisites: BAB+4, Combat Reflexes, Dex 15 Special: when wielding two weapons while using this attack, can make a second whirlwind attack using your off-hand weapon also take the TWF penalties for both whirlwind attacks if you choose to do so. One of the FIRST things I would do would be getting rid of things like "19 Dex" as a requirement. I don't think someone should need to be one of the world's greatest acrobats just to be able to hold two weapons (something heroes do in fiction all the time just because they feel like it all of a sudden). This is just kinda dumb, I don't think a +3 greatsword should cost more than a +3 shortsword. Besides, then you would have people shrinking their weapons to smallest/biggest size for the cheapest price to then just get their weapon back to their normal size. Okay, there's a good point on the shrinkage and I'll take it into account. I don't know, I never thought of Exotic weapons being totally suckage, I thought they could worth their feat, just alot of them aren't that interesting. But I guess there is no harm to doing so. I can't see how 95% of them are worth a feat at all. Many of them are just getting +1 damage or so on average over a martial weapon. Sometimes they're even outclassed by martial weapons. Usually heroes who threw returning weapon usually had only one Huh? I was talking about NOT needing to use returning weapons. I wouldn't mind getting all the styles to be balanced, or at least more decent options so that everyone isn't playing some stupid ubercharger with a greatsword. Okay. ___ See? My response was boring. :P
Aryxbez 07-07-07, 01:26 AM	I don't think I have ever found someone's responses boring. Also on the bandolier idea, were you talking about an enchantment where the throwing weapon becomes like ammo and it has set ammo like 50, that are all the same. Like if there were throwing axes that were +3 with the new "Ammunition", you would end up having 50 +3 Throwing axes, however they would then be destroyed afterwards? I hope that is what you meant, I was never great at explaining things. Also, I still stand on the idea that one-handed style is a mix of everything, How to pull this off, I am not sure. Obviously ideas like the 1.5 dex to attack are probably a step in the right direction.
OneWinged4ngel 07-07-07, 03:23 AM	I don't think I have ever found someone's responses boring. Then you are easily amused ;) I wish I found more things exciting. :rolleyes: Also on the bandolier idea, were you talking about an enchantment where the throwing weapon becomes like ammo and it has set ammo like 50, that are all the same. Like if there were throwing axes that were +3 with the new "Ammunition", you would end up having 50 +3 Throwing axes, however they would then be destroyed afterwards? That's not how it works, actually. You can get pricing for individual enchantments. In any case, the throwing weapons are not *destroyed*, but their *enchantment* would be expendable, kinda like a scroll.
Aryxbez 07-07-07, 03:33 AM	Then you are easily amused I wish I found more things exciting. Well I don't like to be picky like most individuals about everything. However I do have standards of course. Although particularly I don't really get bored with what people say. Especially if It is the posts of the person who started the subject of the thread in the first place. So instead on the Bandolier thing, you are saying that like normal throwing weapons, except where there enchantments that were placed on them go away once they hit their target, however the throwing axe would then be able to be reenchanted again? Sort of like Ammunition that is not destroyed afterwards?
OneWinged4ngel 07-07-07, 03:34 PM	Well I don't like to be picky like most individuals about everything. However I do have standards of course. Although particularly I don't really get bored with what people say. Especially if It is the posts of the person who started the subject of the thread in the first place. So instead on the Bandolier thing, you are saying that like normal throwing weapons, except where there enchantments that were placed on them go away once they hit their target, however the throwing axe would then be able to be reenchanted again? Sort of like Ammunition that is not destroyed afterwards? Basically. You would have "one-time" enchantments. Possibly, you could get this on non-ranged weapons.
theotherdraxen 07-07-07, 05:29 PM	I'd like to see things run up a little more like this: Shield and Weapon: Shields add usually a +7 or +8 bonus to AC, which isn't enough of a boost for a defensive build. I suggest allowing a character using a shield to increase their shield bonus to AC with Combat Expertise. Thus, for each penalty to attack they take, they gain a +1 dodge bonus and a +1 shield bonus. This lets them boost their AC through the roof while maintaining a solid offense. A Shield and Weapon wielder should also be a good tank. I never cared for the fact that reach weapons are what made people better at tanking. However, I'm not sure how to solve such a discrepancy as this. One Weapon: Not sure; have to get back to this one. Two Weapon: Well, TWFing is great if you have extra damage that applies to each blade, so the best fix for that is to make extra damage off of each blade more available to every warrior-type. Removing the power-attack limitation from light weapons is a good start. Also, use the Ambidexterity feat (which I would rather only had a BAB requirement of 13 and no higher) instead to grant automatic extra attacks per regular attack conferred by your BAB. In addition to this, remove the -2 penaly to attack rolls entirely: TWFers are supposed to hit more often; I doubt even with the above changes that they'll out-damage THFers. Two handed weapon: Two-handed combat works. Some don't like Uber-charging, but I happen to be a fan of it. Just wish it were more viable with a shield in the other hand. Reach Weapon: Reach weapons are nice, since they're usually two-handed. Some nice one-handed reach weapons should be made for the Hoplite image. Throwing: I like your bandolier suggestion. Put regular daggers into the bandolier, and throw them as magical ones (until they make contact or until the start of the next round from which they were thrown). Alternatively, you could wield magical copies of the same dagger that are destroyed upon contact, but either way would essentially be a flavor choice on part of the player. I've also considered letting players use magic gloves of some sort that put enhancements on anything thrown from them. Bows: Make Rapid Shot the equivalent of TWFing, but for bows instead. That is, for each attack your base attack bonus grants, you may make one extra attack with your bow. This way, extra damage will be the source of power for bows, making bow-using rogues more viable. Crossbow: Introduce a new feat that lets one deal 4 times your maximum precision-based damage if you make a single attack as a standard action. This way, one can use a crossbow in conjunction with any new ranged maneuvers from the Falling Star discipline or other standard-action only ranged maneuvers. Unarmed and light weapons: Small weapons already grant a bonus on Sleight of Hand checks IRRC. In a grapple, they're supposed to be the only weapons useable, but there are ways around that. Maybe increase the critical threat range while grappling? Exotic: An exotic weapon either needs to confer an unusual benefit that regular martial weapons can't achieve (e.g. Spiked Chains ability to attack close targets) or it should have such a crit range and multiplier that it increases the damage to the same degree as any other well-balanced feat. I'll see if I have time to get back to you on that one too. :( ... Overall, I'd like to see the system redone in broader terms as well (keeping weapon styles in mind). The standard attack roll should use the wielder's dexterity to-hit and strength for damage. Then, Weapon Finesse will allow a wielder to replace their strength damage with dexterity, and maybe introduce Power Hit as a feat that lets you use your strength on your to-hit instead of dex. You could then create another feat, Called Shot, that lets you subtract a penalty from your attack rolls (if you're using Weapon Finesse) in exchange for a precision-based bonus on damage rolls (equal to the penalty subtracted). If you use nothing in your off-hand, you gain double this bonus. :) One-handed combat is suddenly a much more viable option, while TWFing benefits nicely. Power Attack requires Power Hit and only works for weapons that the character applies Power-hit to. Power hit and weapon finesse should be exclusive to each other. Anyway, I'll be back again if I find I have more time.
Aryxbez 07-08-07, 07:24 PM	One of the FIRST things I would do would be getting rid of things like "19 Dex" as a requirement. I don't think someone should need to be one of the world's greatest acrobats just to be able to hold two weapons (something heroes do in fiction all the time just because they feel like it all of a sudden). Well it is a requirement for my feat because not everyone is Ambidextrous, So I like to think those who are quick reflexes and such should be the ones with no-problem fighting with two weapons. Also not to forget, if using my -4 suggestion, it is only going to be about -1 without that feat, which is only a minor penalty. Which I doubt will slow down any guy who wishes to Two-weapon fight all of a sudden. Another thing on TWF, I think the multiple attacks should only gain if you have the Two-weapon fighting feat. Otherwise it should only be one extra attack, also take away the Dex Requirement as you have already done means you only need one feat really to swing with your off-hand with all your attacks. On Unarmed strikes, In my games, I am going to ask my players to rule that Unarmed Strikes are Touch attacks in a grapple. Because when you are that close to someone, you can easily punch/kick somebody, especially in the face, without having to worry about that guys fullplate. If someone has the shield ward, then they can apply the AC to the touch AC as normal. Damage wise, I think the highest a non-monk unarmed striker, could probably get is around 4d6, with large size. When I say Monk type I mean doesn't have the Monk's Unarmed progression.
OneWinged4ngel 07-08-07, 10:43 PM	because not everyone is Ambidextrous Well, not everyone has every feat? :rolleyes:
Aryxbez 07-09-07, 12:49 AM	Well, not everyone has every feat? Well it is only 2 feats, that is not that big of an investment. Besides you don't truly even need the Ambidexterity feat, as all you are missing out on is full-str in off-hand and zero penalty. Most warriors who will fight many styles will be characters like Fighters(Using Seerows variant), that can easily spend 2 feats.
Inlad_The_Dashing_Paladin 08-08-07, 07:41 PM	Well, I would be more than happy to lend a hand with this thread. I don't have much experience with the system in game, but I have most of the core books (I'm getting the DMG soon) and have read them through many times. The real reason I think I can help is that I fence* So I can give some advice on remaking 1HF. Specifically the rapier, as it is closest to the style I am practicing. I will look though my PHB tonight and see what I can come up with. 2WF: One thing to note is; often the second blade was for parrying. Perhaps a feat for using the off hand weapon for more AC? *Sword fighting, for those who may not know. Inlad The Dashing Paladin.
QZip 08-09-07, 01:29 PM	Why don't I give my opinion. I think that when wielding a 2H weapon that it is more difficult to block attacks. So, you should either slightly lessen AC to 2Hers or increase AC to 1HF. The logic here is that the last opponent you attacked will be the opponent who's attacks you are trying to block because you are focusing on them, making it unselectable allows the effect to be easier to use during play. I would go with increasing AC to 1HFers as follows: When wielding a 1H weapon and nothing in your other hand, you gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC against any melee attack from the last enemy you attacked (whether through a full-attack action, a cleave, an AoO, etc.). This acts and stacks just like any other dodge bonus. Then you might add feats around this idea to the effect of: 1H Weapon Bock: PreReqs - Dex 13. When wielding a 1H weapon and nothing in your other hand, you may choose the target who's melee attacks you get a +2 dodge bonus to AC against as a free action during your turn. If you do not choose, the target is chosen as normal. You can change the target as part of any AoO. You may only select targets you can see. Improved 1H Weapon Block: PreReqs - Dex 15, BaB +6, 1H Weapon Block. When wielding a 1H weapon and nothing in your other hand, your +2 dodge bonus to AC applies to all melee attacks (from targets you can see) against you, with the exception that, when you are flanked, you may only get the +2 dodge bonus to AC against one of the flankers. You could write up other feats along a similar vein. This would go a long way towards 'closing the gap'. My group has, also, always played that light weapons gain the normal benefits from the Power Attack feat. I like your ideas for reducing the number of 2WF feats you need. Inlad_The_Dashing_Paladin: Improved 2W Defense from CW has that effect. As for other styles, letting combat expertise effect shield AC seems ok to me and I don't have much of an opinion on the rest (except where are the 1H reach weapons?).
Holy_Beholder 08-09-07, 03:39 PM	Why don't I give my opinion. I think that when wielding a 2H weapon that it is more difficult to block attacks. So, you should either slightly lessen AC to 2Hers or increase AC to 1HF. The logic here is that the last opponent you attacked will be the opponent who's attacks you are trying to block because you are focusing on them, making it unselectable allows the effect to be easier to use during play. I would go with increasing AC to 1HFers as follows: When wielding a 1H weapon and nothing in your other hand, you gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC against any melee attack from the last enemy you attacked (whether through a full-attack action, a cleave, an AoO, etc.). This acts and stacks just like any other dodge bonus. Then you might add feats around this idea to the effect of: 1H Weapon Bock: PreReqs - Dex 13. When wielding a 1H weapon and nothing in your other hand, you may choose the target who's melee attacks you get a +2 dodge bonus to AC against as a free action during your turn. If you do not choose, the target is chosen as normal. You can change the target as part of any AoO. You may only select targets you can see. Improved 1H Weapon Block: PreReqs - Dex 15, BaB +6, 1H Weapon Block. When wielding a 1H weapon and nothing in your other hand, your +2 dodge bonus to AC applies to all melee attacks (from targets you can see) against you, with the exception that, when you are flanked, you may only get the +2 dodge bonus to AC against one of the flankers. You could write up other feats along a similar vein. This would go a long way towards 'closing the gap'. My group has, also, always played that light weapons gain the normal benefits from the Power Attack feat. I like your ideas for reducing the number of 2WF feats you need. Inlad_The_Dashing_Paladin: Improved 2W Defense from CW has that effect. As for other styles, letting combat expertise effect shield AC seems ok to me and I don't have much of an opinion on the rest (except where are the 1H reach weapons?). It actually isn't much harder to block with a two handed weapon than a one handed weapon or when someone is dual wielding. On the other hand a shield gives way more protection than D&D wants you to think.
Keenath 08-09-07, 05:49 PM	Power Attack is not a pure 2HF favoring feat. If you use this bonus for your 2WF style, you decrease your attack bonus once to get the damage bonus on all attacks you make. So, if your main and your off-hand attack scores a hit, you deal 2x damage.Ehhh. What you said is technically true, but in practice, it's wrong. Light weapons do not gain the benefit of power attack, but they still take the penalty. Most 2WFers are using at LEAST one light weapon, because they're taking a massive penalty if not, and many use light weapons in both hands. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head would be a monk using flurry, which is not technically TWF, but acts similarly.
zephyrTR 08-11-07, 01:36 AM	How about this: Sweeping Strikes: attack two shoulder-to-shoulder targets with a reach weapon, -2 to hit. Must have 17,19 str to get 2nd,3rd sweep. also workin out a good ruling for an impale.
locustechpriest 08-14-07, 02:37 AM	Throwing daggers at people and leaving them sticking out of their skull is often more cinematic, or at least fits better with certain concepts. But you can't really do that... Plug! (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=904998)
Ninetails Demon 08-15-07, 02:06 PM	Being unfamiliar with mounted combat, how do the different weapon styles compare in that area? Do any take absurd leaps in power or do they all stay about the same? Should a seperate weapon style be assigned for the lance-like weapons?
Carwyn_Nhung 08-15-07, 10:00 PM	One of the FIRST things I would do would be getting rid of things like "19 Dex" as a requirement. I don't think someone should need to be one of the world's greatest acrobats just to be able to hold two weapons (something heroes do in fiction all the time just because they feel like it all of a sudden). To my mind one of the peculiarities of D&D is that Dex means both manual dexterity and acrobatic skill. It seems to me that an agility stat for dodging and a unified Dex stat that controlled all to-hit rolls is the best way to go. That way you can still get lumbering idiots who rarely hit, but almost kill with every hit! You can also get differentiated marksmen and skirmishers. I am currently trying to work out how to switch my D&D to a system of Str, Ag, Dex, Cha, Int and Wis, where Cha does will saves, Str does damage and health and Ag does reflex and AC. I expect that this will probably raise the power of Str, but by forcing fighters to split between Dex and Str rather than Str and Con in the old system, hopefully similar balance will be retained.