Proposal 1 - dragon#364 made legal

Dunamin · Nov 19, 2008

Seems like we need to branch out a general "L4W Proposals Discussion" thread, probably prefaced with related chapters from covaithe's awesome charter:

covaithe said:
Game mechanics and approved sources

At the time of this writing, the games in this world are run using 4th Edition D&D rules as described in the following sources:

The three core books: Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual

Errata for the above books published here

Characters may be created from the PHB races and the monstrous races at the back of the MM.

Changing the rules: proposing new sources and mechanics

Any player may propose that the rules be changed, or that new source material be allowed. To do so, the player should create a new thread in the forum with a title beginning with "Proposal: ". In the proposal, they should explain what the proposed change to the rules is, and why they feel that the change is needed. The judges, after allowing time for refinement and discussion of the proposal, will vote by indicating YES or NO in a post in that thread. In order to pass, a proposal must receive at least three YES votes, and the YES votes must outnumber the NO votes by at least two. When that condition has been met for 48 hours, the proposal passes and becomes part of the official rules. If a proposal receives at least 3 NO votes, and NO votes outnumber YES votes by at least two for a period of 48 hours, the proposal fails and the matter is closed.

It is possible that a proposal will neither pass nor be officially closed. Example: A proposal may gain 4 yes votes and 3 no votes and attract no further votes. In such a circumstance, the proposal has not passed and does not become a rule barring a change in circumstances.

A proposal that fails may be proposed again, but not before three months have passed since it failed. Conversely, players may propose to repeal a passed proposal after at least one month has passed, but if that repeal proposal fails, it may not be reconsidered for three months.

A judge cannot vote in his or her own proposals.

Proposals to include new rules content may be made either for specific rules or articles (e.g. "I propose that the text of Magic Missile be amended thusly...", or "I propose that we adopt the rules in the article 'Pimp my Halfling' in Dragon #666"), or for entire sources ("I propose that the Adventurer's Vault be made an approved source"). No published sources will be considered until they have been available to the public for at least three months. This is to allow the D&D community at large an opportunity for discussion and playtesting.

Or would it be better for each proposed source to get its own thread: "Proposal: Martial Power", "Proposal: Dragon 369", etc?

covaithe · Nov 19, 2008

I kind of prefer them to have their own threads, so we can keep the discussion a bit more focused. I think if all proposals were lumped into the same thread, I'd find it terribly confusing.

Atanatotatos · Nov 19, 2008

covaithe said:
I kind of prefer them to have their own threads, so we can keep the discussion a bit more focused. I think if all proposals were lumped into the same thread, I'd find it terribly confusing.

I agree.

I took a quick peek at Martial power... Well, dwarves are unparalleled as fighter. I didn't notice anything obviously overpored, but brutal, yes!

And. We really can't allow those double weapons in AV as they are if we have in mind, even a long time from now, to allow tempest fighters. Definitely not.

I have looked back at the brutal property in regards to size increase. Actually, it doesn't look much of an issue. The questionable cases are two: either a weapon is 1d10,brutal 2, and increasing in size becomes 1d12, brutal 2; or it's a 1d12, brutal 2, and would seemingly pose an issue, becoming 2d6, brutal 2 (it's the case of the executioner axe), but if you think about it, the increase in size does not improve the max dmg: it seems only fair that it at least improves its minimum damage... am I getting it wrong?

elecgraystone · Nov 20, 2008

The d10 going to a d12 isn't an issue at all. Brutal actually kicks in less with that. Now d12 to 2d6, THAT'S an issue. Brutal kicks is 4 times as often then. Lowest damage goes from 3 to 6. Ugly.

I didn't have a problem with tempest fighters and double weapons though. Is a bastard sword and heavy shield overshadowed by a double sword tempest fighter? Not from my quick look at the martial book. I'll take a better look this weekend, but is there something that worries you about them Atanatotatos?

nerdytenor · Nov 20, 2008

Nerdytenor's Elemental Brutality Theory:

Each level of 'brutal' adds 0.5 damage per throw on average. For instance, 1d6 is 3.5 damage on average. 1d6 brutal 1 is 4, brutal 2 is 4.5 etc. etc.
It is possible to simulate brutal weapons using invisible castle or other web tools easily enough. A 1dN brutal B weapon can be exactly simulated as 1d(N-B) + B. For instance, 1d8 brutal one = 1d7+1. 1d10 brutal 2 = 1d8 + 2.
Weapons of equal average damage but different brutality still have a significant difference. For instance, 1d6 brutal 2 has the same average damage as 1d8. However, the 1d8 does more damage on a critical, while the 1d6 brutal 2 has a lower standard deviation.

OK I'm done with the mental masturbation now...

Atanatotatos · Nov 20, 2008

Elec, I'll sum it up: a tempest fighter with chain mail and double sword will have a +1 to AC from the defensive feature of double weapons; +1 to AC from Two-weapon defense feat for free; +1 to attack rolls with off-hand weapons, which double swords are; +2 to dmg; and the benefits of both light blades and heavy blades; the dmg dice of a longsword.
Now compare that with a two-weapon ranger. Isn't it a bit off?

Also, 6 as lowest dmg is great. But max dmg doesn't change. You've got to get something from size increase, right?

Atanatotatos · Nov 20, 2008

Oh, and I was forgetting you only pay once to enchant both ends of double weapons. Talk about discount...

elecgraystone · Nov 20, 2008

Atanatotatos said:
Elec, I'll sum it up: a tempest fighter with chain mail and double sword will have a +1 to AC from the defensive feature of double weapons; +1 to AC from Two-weapon defense feat for free; +1 to attack rolls with off-hand weapons, which double swords are; +2 to dmg; and the benefits of both light blades and heavy blades; the dmg dice of a longsword.

Atanatotatos said:
Now compare that with a two-weapon ranger. Isn't it a bit off?

Also, 6 as lowest dmg is great. But max dmg doesn't change. You've got to get something from size increase, right?

Oh, and I was forgetting you only pay once to enchant both ends of double weapons. Talk about discount...

Well, lets look at a fighter that took the bastard sword feat and uses a heavy shield. (It only seems fair to compare fighter to fighter.)

Tempest has chain, the one handed fighterhad scale and a heavy shield.
AC goes to the one handed fighter PLUS his ref is two higher.

Tempest does a d8+2, the bastard sword does a d10. So the tempest does more minimum damage, but same max. However that's only with 1[w] damage attacks. From 2[w] on the max damage goes to the one handed fighter.

And while the enchantment bonus is used for both ends, you only get the special properties of the weapon on the main hand. A +3 frost double sword only frosts on one end making it much less desirable than having it be two weapons both with an enchantment. It's not as much of a bargain if you want something on that second end other than a simple plus.

SO the tempest fighter loses +1 AC, +2 ref and maximum damage(from 2[w] on) but gets +2 minimum damage, light weapon use and one less check penalty over the one handed fighter when both use a feat for a weapon. I'm not seeing the problem. It looks pretty balanced.

Atanatotatos · Nov 20, 2008

Well... with your main at-will, you'll be doing 1d8+2, twice, actually (dual strike, identical to twin strike, except only vs one creature). You only lose 1 Ref, since Two-Weapon defense applies to Reflex defense too.
Also, well, having a property on both weapons surely is good, but the enhancement is the main thing, and you'll have a lot of spare money to spend on other magic items.
In short, you'll be slightly less defended, but will generally do more dmg.
The problem is, you'll probably end up doing more dmg than a ranger, with more hp, higher defenses, and the great features of the fighter.
The tempest is balanced with normal weapons, that is, a one-handed and an offhand, or two offhand. It shouldn't be a better two-weapon fighter than the ranger (though this would be only true at low levels)

elecgraystone · Nov 20, 2008

Atanatotatos said:
Well... with your main at-will, you'll be doing 1d8+2, twice, actually (dual strike, identical to twin strike, except only vs one creature). You only lose 1 Ref, since Two-Weapon defense applies to Reflex defense too.

Oops, you are correct. I was thinking it was just AC.

Atanatotatos said:
Also, well, having a property on both weapons surely is good, but the enhancement is the main thing, and you'll have a lot of spare money to spend on other magic items.

Well that all depends on the character. If I have a tiefling tempest fighter with hellfire blood, I'm missing out on +1 hit and +1 damage on the off hand. If I have lasting frost and wintertouched, I'm losing +2 to hit and 5 damage. The fact is, you lose out on using a power for your second attack. it's nothing to sneeze at.

Atanatotatos said:
In short, you'll be slightly less defended, but will generally do more dmg.

How does he do more damage than a ranger? You get a 1d8+2/1d8+2 for the tempest at will and you get a 1d10/1d10/1d6(bastard sword). At best you do slightly more minimum on one target. He pulls ahead once 2[w] powers kick in or he picks up lethal hunter.

Atanatotatos said:
The problem is, you'll probably end up doing more dmg than a ranger, with more hp, higher defenses, and the great features of the fighter.

See above for why higher damage isn't right. More hp? Melee rangers get toughness for free so a fighter starts with 15hp + con and the ranger starts with 17hp + con. Higher defenses? How do you figure? That will all depend on stats. Since a ranger uses light armor, his dex/int will determine AC and ref and that's the area tempests are ahead on bonuses. I'd say the tempest will tend to have higher AC, but I see them being even or in the rangers favor for the others.

As far as the 'great fighter features', those are things a striker DOESN'T want to use. Combat challenge and combat superiority keeps the bad guys on you and you are less of a defender than a sword and shield fighter. Does your ranger, rogue or warlock want the bad guys stuck on them? Why would the tempest?

Atanatotatos said:
The tempest is balanced with normal weapons, that is, a one-handed and an offhand, or two offhand. It shouldn't be a better two-weapon fighter than the ranger (though this would be only true at low levels)

But he isn't. At worst, he comes out slightly behind[on single targets] and loses ground as he levels up.

The thing is it balances up nicely with all the other fighter builds. Look at these three builds, using a feat for weapons and an 18 strength. (we'll throw in a ranger too)

1 handed fighter with bastard sword and heavy shield. (1d10+4+4 with cleave)
2 handed fighter with full blade. (1d12+4+4 [plus high crit] with cleave)
Tempest fighter with double blade. (Damage 1d8+2/1d8+2 with at will)
Ranger with twin bastard sword (1d10/1d10/1d6)

So max damage = 1H(18), 2H(20[32 w/ crit]), T(20), R(26). So without a crit, the tempest equals a 2 handed fighter and is SIX points behind the ranger. On a crit, the 2 handed wins out big time. How is the double sword not balanced? He's a full 6 points behind rangers in max damage and close with the other fighters when using at-wills. Because he can only damage one target?