I know!
I got into 3E after falling in love with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and seeing the blade dancer in 3E Oriental Adventures, and I've been tinkering with the concept on and off again for all these years, since it's always somewhere on the edge of what 3E covers.
The fact that Trailblazer includes Weapon Kata played a big part in your sale to me.
Early on I had made the monk so that he got to use his "monk damage" regardless of what weapon he was holding (or none). I think that may still be the best solution for monks.
Yes, I considered that at one point (or more). There is a certain elegance to it, but it invites the question of why not do this with every class? It certainly isn't inappropriate for the genre or inherently problematic for the game if, all other things equal, a fighter with a dagger is more dangerous than a wizard with a greatsword.
But it's something of a can of worms, so I decided I'd rather leave it alone.
Of course, you did something very similar with the fighter anyway...
...for the greatest number of players.
[...]
Or the other players.
Yes, certainly.
It seems we only diverge on our threshold of "sucks."
For what it's worth, my threshold isn't actually at 1 point.
Dude, it's 10.5 average vs. 9 average. Let go of the 1 point envy.
The numbers in the example are arbitrary. Unfortunately, 4E has more than it's share of more noticeable gaps.
But what I was trying to say with that example is that I dislike situations where there the choice is completely one-sided. I'm more bothered by an imbalance between 1d6 and 1d8 than between 1d4 19-20 and 1d8. 1d4 19-20 is actually worse in all but the most unusual cases than 1d6, but it does an advantage (crit rage) over 1d8, even though it's severly limited in scope.
To clarify, we're talking about the fact that the long spears and polearms have a "donut" shape where you can't attack if the opponent is adjacent?
Right, but I think you misunderstand me.
I'm wondering about the fact that closing with a 10 ft. reach giant (or our friend the long spear wielding monk
) doesn't provoke an AoO (since you're just moving into and within his threatened area), while closing with a polearm wielder provokes (since you're moving into his threatened area, and then leaving it and entering the "donut hole"). It certainly seems unusual to me that the "defender" (thinking of the giant/monk rather than the guy closing) would be disadvantaged by the fact that they can threaten more area.
