D&D General Weekly Wrecana : A New Division of Martial aka Martial Power through the editions

[Igwilly]

Overall, I like the concept. Dividing martial characters per fighting style seems solid; I just don’t know about the exact division by ability scores. I have some comments about it:
Dual-wielding rogues was something new to Wrecan, I guess, but not to me right now. I remember this motif with Final Fantasy XIV, Dragon Age: Inquisition and some fan-made table-top systems of the former. I had this concept in mind since the 4e PHB, by a rogue’s paragon path: daggermaster, I guess. It makes sense. And, of course, Ninjas surely use the style.
1) I liked the idea of an Int-heavy warrior. As a certain coacher says “I know you‘re the smartest guys in this school, and this counts more than anything else” (of course, he got crushed, but that’s because you need actual training for that smartness to be effective). Anyway, it’s a good idea.
2) Wisdom for Rangers make sense too; at least, on how wisdom is defined in D&D.
3) I don’t know about making those attributes the main ones. As secondary attributes is easy to grasp, but as main ones… I’ll need some time to think about it.
4) There’s a style that often gets unmentioned in those divisions: the single-handed style. Wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand, and nothing in the other. It may sound silly that the warrior is not using all hands, but it’s cool, and reminds me of swashbuckler, gunblade, rapiers, Squall, Lightning, Pathfinder’s Magus with one sword in hand and the other to cast spells, and so on. It’s just cool. I think the Weapon Master expands on this style, but I felt essential to say it anyway.
The “flaw” is the feeling that every class can fill every role. It’s a feature, not a flaw, but which classes fulfill which roles is part of the class game for me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

HOWEVER I think within that there was support for both the Warlord using a strength style archery and other characters using a wisdom style (we officially have priests using it could very reasonably be opened to others) and while I didnt mention the support for it still others using a dex style.

I think broad interpretation allows me to have my cake and eat it to...a relatively simple result where "style" is the broad brush strokes single attribute used by the particular character.

I think it can work, though IMHO it would have been cooler if it wasn't necessary to set it up that way. This is why your weapon primarily determines the stat used for attack bonuses in HoML. A warlord can simply have a good DEX and pick up a bow and that's fine. You'd still need to designate some powers to exploit using a bow, but as a martial character there's plenty of powers in the martial list that work with bows... Beyond that, various boons can jack you into other ones if you need more.

So in my system characters aren't much hindered in terms of what weapon they want to use, though a fighter that insists on being primarily a bow user may run into thematic coherency issues that manifest in a mechanical fashion (IE his mark punishment mechanic isn't going to work so well, though he will have a nice way to mark most anyone on the board).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Overall, I like the concept. Dividing martial characters per fighting style seems solid; I just don’t know about the exact division by ability scores. I have some comments about it:
Dual-wielding rogues was something new to Wrecan, I guess, but not to me right now. I remember this motif with Final Fantasy XIV, Dragon Age: Inquisition and some fan-made table-top systems of the former. I had this concept in mind since the 4e PHB, by a rogue’s paragon path: daggermaster, I guess. It makes sense. And, of course, Ninjas surely use the style.
1) I liked the idea of an Int-heavy warrior. As a certain coacher says “I know you‘re the smartest guys in this school, and this counts more than anything else” (of course, he got crushed, but that’s because you need actual training for that smartness to be effective). Anyway, it’s a good idea.
2) Wisdom for Rangers make sense too; at least, on how wisdom is defined in D&D.
3) I don’t know about making those attributes the main ones. As secondary attributes is easy to grasp, but as main ones… I’ll need some time to think about it.
4) There’s a style that often gets unmentioned in those divisions: the single-handed style. Wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand, and nothing in the other. It may sound silly that the warrior is not using all hands, but it’s cool, and reminds me of swashbuckler, gunblade, rapiers, Squall, Lightning, Pathfinder’s Magus with one sword in hand and the other to cast spells, and so on. It’s just cool. I think the Weapon Master expands on this style, but I felt essential to say it anyway.
The “flaw” is the feeling that every class can fill every role. It’s a feature, not a flaw, but which classes fulfill which roles is part of the class game for me.

Yeah, I think it might work better to have six secondary stats, one for each stat, vs primary. You could STILL have STR, DEX, and CON work as primaries. In fact HoML pretty much works this way, you have a weapon, which uses one of STR, DEX, or CON as its ability score, and then every martial class has some sort of secondary stat. So you might be using large two-handed weapons with STR, and be a Ranger with WIS as your secondary. In that case it works pretty close to how 4e works now. You could also be a DEX ranger and favor bows and light weapons, but you could use the same POWERS with either build, as the power doesn't dictate a stat (though they may favor certain secondaries, and may well only work with a subset of weapons, which could effectively make a few powers fairly well tied to a given stat).

4e DOES have a 'single handed' build, the brawler fighter, who can profitably wield a weapon in one hand and grab with the other. In general though 4e follows life here. A guy with nothing but a rapier is really never better off than a guy who's got a buckler or parrying blade in the off hand, even if he very rarely employs it for much. Such seems to have been historically the case as well, as during the heyday of light swords most people that went armed also carried an off-hand weapon/defense.

 

[Garthanos]

4e DOES have a 'single handed' build, the brawler fighter, who can profitably wield a weapon in one hand and grab with the other. In general though 4e follows life here. A guy with nothing but a rapier is really never better off than a guy who's got a buckler or parrying blade in the off hand, even if he very rarely employs it for much. Such seems to have been historically the case as well, as during the heyday of light swords most people that went armed also carried an off-hand weapon/defense.

It is probably historic and realistic ... which is usually a meh reason to do things if they have fantasy running contrary to it, but hey.

i can anecdotally argue that the two handed weapon use is better all around and even better for defense... unless the enemy has gone full sword and board , in which case I suspect it can be a toss up.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is probably historic and realistic ... which is usually a meh reason to do things if they have fantasy running contrary to it, but hey.

i can anecdotally argue that the two handed weapon use is better all around and even better for defense... unless the enemy has gone full sword and board , in which case I suspect it can be a toss up.

I'd say they are about even. A nice halberd is a fine defensive weapon and quite evenly matched against any other weapon choice, as is a great sword, etc.

As for 'fantasy running contrary to it', I'm not sure it does to any great degree. I mean, if you go peruse old hack-n-slash scenes, there's a lot of guys with a dagger in the off hand, or doing something interesting with that hand anyway, its rarely ignored. I liked the concept of 'throw and stab' that the MP2 ranger has. That was a good way to give the off hand something interesting to do.

Honestly though, overall I thought 4e should have stuck to the concept that having an off-hand weapon could give you a defense and/or damage bonus. It was a small edge, but worthwhile, and yet one you could also forgo without any big issue if you wanted to use the hand for something else entirely.

 

[Garthanos]

I'd say they are about even. A nice halberd is a fine defensive weapon and quite evenly matched against any other weapon choice, as is a great sword, etc.

As for 'fantasy running contrary to it', I'm not sure it does to any great degree.

I agree I was just establishing ONE paradigm for ignoring historic things entirely.

I have found that the offhand weapon lacks leverage and speed to such a great degree and introduces complexity to usage that a nice longsword or Katana will chew em up but it is pretty much even with even reasonable shield use and It may just be that making the offhand weapon properly coordinate is hard enough that it looses out and this I would actually guess it too may not occur with someone well trained in that fighting style. (and my anecdotes are so far from being data)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree I was just establishing ONE paradigm for ignoring historic things entirely.

I have found that the offhand weapon lacks leverage and speed to such a great degree and introduces complexity to usage that a nice longsword or Katana will chew em up but it is pretty much even with even reasonable shield use and It may just be that making the offhand weapon properly coordinate is hard enough that it looses out and this I would actually guess it too may not occur with someone well trained in that fighting style. (and my anecdotes are so far from being data)

lol, I am no more an expert than you are.

I thought the whole TWD/TWO feat pair was a good way to convey the whole thing. If you ARE trained in it, then its a good option, otherwise it doesn't really help and you should get a shield (which also requires training, but you may already HAVE that at least).

 

[Igwilly]

Realism is a very secondary concern to me. Sure, when it improves gameplay, it’s a welcome addition; but style, feel, and awesomeness are more important. Style and awesomeness tell me that this swashbuckler with a broadsword in one hand and nothing on the other is a fearsome opponent. I still have to see the 4e Brawler Fighter; I missed up Martial Power 2, but I’ll read it, sometime.
In addition, not everyone needs to be a master of this style. It’s perfectly fine for most classes to ignore it and go with something else. I just think this style needs a specialist that ends up being as good as other specialists.

 

[Garthanos]

Realism is a very secondary concern to me. Sure, when it improves gameplay, it’s a welcome addition; but style, feel, and awesomeness are more important. Style and awesomeness tell me that this swashbuckler with a broadsword in one hand and nothing on the other is a fearsome opponent. I still have to see the 4e Brawler Fighter; I missed up Martial Power 2, but I’ll read it, sometime.
In addition, not everyone needs to be a master of this style. It’s perfectly fine for most classes to ignore it and go with something else. I just think this style needs a specialist that ends up being as good as other specialists.

Highly recommend that one the brawling fighter drips with flavor

Sent from my XT1585 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

Realism is a very secondary concern to me. Sure, when it improves gameplay, it’s a welcome addition; but style, feel, and awesomeness are more important. Style and awesomeness tell me that this swashbuckler with a broadsword in one hand and nothing on the other is a fearsome opponent. I still have to see the 4e Brawler Fighter; I missed up Martial Power 2, but I’ll read it, sometime.

Highly recommend that one the brawling fighter drips with flavor

I'll second that, I've played a few brawling fighters, they add a little depth over the typical fighter, for me, and are fun for the sheer crazy things you can do with some of the powers meant for them. I'd also poach powers meant for the tempest build, since a free hand is a free hand... One of them was a one-off guest character in a regular campaign, his schtick was that he as an ambassador sent by a rival family, and was enjoined from carrying weapons.