D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 HR – Codex Gigas

[nonsi256]

I've got it saved. His houserules for it are more complex than mine (for example, taking shields into account w/medium weapons).

My first version had a greater difference between the weapons.

-3 for each iterative for light weapons
-5 for medium weapons
-7 for heavy weapons​

My second version used Gygax's weapon speed tables from AD&D and attempted to really balance out all the weapons so that they averaged the same. But, that resulted in having to check the table for practically every weapon used in combat. Too complex.

Third version (and untested) is a variation on Trailblazer's identical bonuses for iterative attacks. TB uses a standard -2 that applies to both attacks and no one gets more than two attacks (without some sort of exception through feats and such). My variation of this that I'm considering is using -2 for light weapons, -4 for medium weapons, and -6 for heavy weapons. It's very simple (at least, I think so right now). And, I like using the same bonus for all of a character's iterative attacks. Downside is that it may weaken medium and heavy weapons too much. I haven't attempted to do the math, yet, to see how balanced or unbalanced it might be. I know it weakens medium/heavy weapons and improves light and natural weapons in relation... And, I LIKE that (just as I like Nonsi's version and my previous version that was similar).

I think people are missing an important factor regarding attack rolls.
I don't know if this was the designers' point of view, but as I see it, a hit roll represents not only a confirmation of one's succes in landing a strike, but the overall chances of actually managing to position one's self to even attempt an attack combined with the chance to hit once an attempt was made.
Given your opponents are:
1. trying to survive.
2. acting simultaneously with you (impossible to truly reflect with game rules).
3. noticing your position once you make each iterative attack and not exactly trying to make things more comfortable for you to attack.
the inescapable conclusion to me is that WotC made a convincing illustration of how iterative attacks should look like.

Given the above, I took longsword (the weapon most archetypically associated with melee) as a baseline for WotC's iteratives' mechanics.
I figured that heavy weapons - having greater mass - make you somewhat slower and a bit more predictable, therefore reducing your ability to make yourself the opportunity to even attempt your next attack(s). The next obvious conclusion was that the very small weapons don't hinder your movement at all (easy to strike with and you don't need to compensate on a miss), therefore you have just that marginally better chance of attempting that next attack.
As levels progress, this becomes more evident in the form of less/more attack rolls.
The result: beter balance and better realism with absolutely negligible extra effort.

I'm sure that now it's much clearer why armors & shields play a part in my mechanics for iterative attacks and why the constraints I used make sense.

And notice that even with my approach, heavy weapons still do more damage on the average (which is fine - there's a reason why one might choose to struggle with a heavy weapon and incase himself in iron).


Regarding your variant, you didn't specify if you figure #attacks accoding to BAB +0/+6/+11/+16 or downwards all the way to +1/+0 (I chose +0 since BAB +0 grants 1 attack, not zero).
If it's the former, then your view of "what an attack role is" is probably significantly different than mine (and I'd be happy if you could describe it).
If it's the latter, you're gonna end up with a level-20 martial class having 10 attaks per round (6-sec) as a baseline (I'm not sure you'd wanna go there - for so many reasons).

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I think people are missing an important factor regarding attack rolls.
I don't know if this was the designers' point of view, but as I see it, a hit roll represents not only a confirmation of one's succes in landing a strike, but the overall chances of actually managing to position one's self to even attempt an attack combined with the chance to hit once an attempt was made.
Given your opponents are:
1. trying to survive.
2. acting simultaneously with you (impossible to truly reflect with game rules).
3. noticing your position once you make each iterative attack and not exactly trying to make things more comfortable for you to attack.
the inescapable conclusion to me is that WotC made a convincing illustration of how iterative attacks should look like.

I agree, but because of the abstraction, I think iteratives can be handled using the same attack bonus for the entire round. Which is why I like Trailblazer's solution and my variant of it.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Given the above, I took longsword (the weapon most archetypically associated with melee) as a baseline for WotC's iteratives' mechanics.
I figured that heavy weapons - having greater mass - make you somewhat slower and a bit more predictable, therefore reducing your ability to make yourself the opportunity to even attempt your next attack(s). The next obvious conclusion was that the very small weapons don't hinder your movement at all (easy to strike with and you don't need to compensate on a miss), therefore you have just that marginally better chance of attempting that next attack.
As levels progress, this becomes more evident in the form of less/more attack rolls.
The result: beter balance and better realism with absolutely negligible extra effort.

All that sounds good, if that paradigm is accepted (and I pretty much agree with most of it). There are arguments that could be made that weapon length and weildiness should be taken into account, too. And, a longer weapon should generally gain an opportunity to strike first when opponents close with one another. It really is just up to those playing how complex they want to make it or how much realism they're willing to sacrifice for playability.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I'm sure that now it's much clearer why armors & shields play a part in my mechanics for iterative attacks and why the constraints I used make sense.

And notice that even with my approach, heavy weapons still do more damage on the average (which is fine - there's a reason why one might choose to struggle with a heavy weapon and incase himself in iron).

And, that's not a bad thing, in my opinion.

I did think for a long while about a houserule that had weapon damage based upon character class and level, instead of the weapon, itself. Damage would scale in a similar manner to how the SRD monk's open hand damage scales. Still might implement it, if I ever get to the point where I'm happy enough with it to give it a try.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Regarding your variant, you didn't specify if you figure #attacks accoding to BAB +0/+6/+11/+16 or downwards all the way to +1/+0 (I chose +0 since BAB +0 grants 1 attack, not zero).

It's the latter (for the -3 for light weapons, -5 for medium weapons, and -7 for heavy weapons). It results in a potential 7 attacks for a character with a BAB of +20 using a light melee weapon at +20/+17/+14/+11/+8/+5/+2. Under this system, I don't award an additional iterative until it can be made at +1.
A character wielding a medium weapon with a BAB of +20 would get the following: +20/+15/+10/+5
A character wielding a heavy weapon with a BAB of +20 would get the following: +20/+13/+6/+1

If it's the former, then your view of "what an attack role is" is probably significantly different than mine (and I'd be happy if you could describe it).
If it's the latter, you're gonna end up with a level-20 martial class having 10 attaks per round (6-sec) as a baseline (I'm not sure you'd wanna go there - for so many reasons).

I guess my math is off or different from yours. I wouldn't allow them to get 10 attacks. Ultimately, numerous attacks at differing attack bonuses is why I dropped it, entirely.

The current system is any character can make a single attack with any weapon with which they are proficient without penalty. Iteratvive attacks are made at a penalty that applies to both attacks. Note, a character can only have a total of two attacks per round without feats of other special circumstances that could grant more than 2 attacks per round.

To make iterative attacks, a character must normally use the full attack action. The player must declare that they are making a full attack before rolling their first attack roll, as the penalty for making iterative attacks applies to all attacks made that round. Here are the penalties:

Light Weapons: -2/-2
Medium Weapons: -4/-4
Heavy Weapons: -6/-6​

I'm considering whether or not to make feats available to reduce these penalties and/or whether or not to decrease these penalties as higher BAB is achieved. Haven't decided either way, yet.

 

[nonsi256]

>> There are arguments that could be made that weapon length and​

>> weildiness should be taken into account, too.​

Wieldiness is exactly what I was thinking about when I assigned weapon speed. A Dagger seems inferior to a sword to the untrained eye. But in the hands of an expert (notice that what you and I would call “expert”, 3e calls “proficient”), it can be just as useful in denying an opportunity to initiate an attack.


>> I did think for a long while about a houserule that had weapon​

>> damage based upon character class and level, instead of the
​

>> weapon, itself.Damage would scale in a similar manner to how the
​

>> SRD monk's open hand​

This one’s already covered by the RAW: Weapon Spec, Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Headless Charge, TW-Rend etc. I find the Monk’s unarmed damage progression to be quite distasteful and uninspiring. The designers would have us believe that the base damage of an unarmed attack could overshadow the base damage of a great axe or a dire maul. There are countless of means of elegantly increasing damage (see what I did with the Monk), but as far as base damage goes… give me a break. I’d like to see even the most devastating martial artist even tickle a bull elephant (I know, I know, “D&D is a game”, but one of its more appealing aspects is that the “physics” part is kept as reliable as possible).


>> The current system is any character can make a single attack with
​

>> any weapon with which they are proficient without penalty.
​

>> Iterative attacksare made at a penalty that applies to both attacks.
​

>> Note, a character can only have a total of two attacks per round
​

>> without featsof other specialcircumstances that could grant more
>> than 2 attacks per round.​

Given feats are such a rare commodity, are you sure you’d want to go that way?
There are already way too many aspects that require feats but should actually be available feat-free. Making the players pay even more is really cruel in my eyes.
​

In addition, a choice that every martial character would make is not really a choice.​

And let’s not forget the absurdity called "Combat Reflexes" that allows you to have more attacks out of turn than what you’d get in-turn.


>> I'm considering whether or not to make feats available to reduce
​

>> these penaltiesAgain – a choice which is not really a choice.


>> and/or whether or not to decrease these penalties as higher BAB is >> achieved.​

This would practically make these penalties meaningless , if you think about it.

​

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

>> There are arguments that could be made that weapon length and​

>> weildiness should be taken into account, too.​

Wieldiness is exactly what I was thinking about when I assigned weapon speed. A Dagger seems inferior to a sword to the untrained eye. But in the hands of an expert (notice that what you and I would call “expert”, 3e calls “proficient”), it can be just as useful in denying an opportunity to initiate an attack.​

In my mind, that only works for the dagger wielder if they are superior in skill to the swordsman. If both are 'experts' of the same degree, the dagger wielder would be much less likely to deny the swordsman an attack.

>> I did think for a long while about a houserule that had weapon

>> damage based upon character class and level, instead of the
​

>> weapon, itself.Damage would scale in a similar manner to how the
​

>> SRD monk's open hand​

This one’s already covered by the RAW: Weapon Spec, Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Headless Charge, TW-Rend etc. I find the Monk’s unarmed damage progression to be quite distasteful and uninspiring. The designers would have us believe that the base damage of an unarmed attack could overshadow the base damage of a great axe or a dire maul. There are countless of means of elegantly increasing damage (see what I did with the Monk), but as far as base damage goes… give me a break. I’d like to see even the most devastating martial artist even tickle a bull elephant (I know, I know, “D&D is a game”, but one of its more appealing aspects is that the “physics” part is kept as reliable as possible).​

Haven't you heard the stories of real world martial artists who could rip the hearts from bulls? Let alone the various bone breaking techniques.

Please, don't confuse base damage and damage from skill. The base damage of an unarmed strike isn't even lethal without Improved Unarmed Strike (or similar proficiency). I look at the damages listed for the weapons in the core PHB as damage the weapon causes at a basic proficiency level. Earlier versions of D&D, like the BOXMI sets included rules for increased weapon damage based upon the level of mastery of the wielder (working similar to the progression of the monk's open hand damage in the SRD).

I'll take another look at your monk and see what I think. Thanks.

>> The current system is any character can make a single attack with

>> any weapon with which they are proficient without penalty.
​

>> Iterative attacksare made at a penalty that applies to both attacks.
​

>> Note, a character can only have a total of two attacks per round
​

>> without featsof other specialcircumstances that could grant more
>> than 2 attacks per round.​

Given feats are such a rare commodity, are you sure you’d want to go that way?
There are already way too many aspects that require feats but should actually be available feat-free. Making the players pay even more is really cruel in my eyes.
​

No, I'm not certain that I'd want to go that way. And, if I did, the prerequisites for the feats would be stiff, so as not to make it an automatic option for every character. In addition, we have hundreds of feats available, in our game, so there are plenty of options. Also, I give characters 2 bonus feats at 1st level and 2 more at every even numbered level. So, the characters in my games have plenty of feat slots to spend. In addition, additional bonus feats beyond this can be gained through various means, in game.

In addition, a choice that every martial character would make is not really a choice.​

And let’s not forget the absurdity called "Combat Reflexes" that allows you to have more attacks out of turn than what you’d get in-turn.​

I see what you're saying about Combat Reflexes. Have you looked at Trailblazer's solution to this? It's really nice, especially since it expands upon the AoO rules to allow for various Combat Reactions and it changes how Combat Reflexes works (getting rid of the absurdity that you mention).

>> I'm considering whether or not to make feats available to reduce

>> these penaltiesAgain – a choice which is not really a choice.​

Unless, other feat choices in the game are equally enticing. Making feats like this isn't a priority, for me, at this time. It's more of a thought in the back of my mind as a possibility.

>> and/or whether or not to decrease these penalties as higher BAB is >> achieved.

This would practically make these penalties meaningless , if you think about it.​

It would if it completely negated them, but I'm still mulling over Trailblazer's similar logic. I may or may not take that path.

 

[nonsi256]

>> I look at the damages listed for the weapons in the core PHB as​

>> damage the weapon causes at a basic proficiency level. Earlier​

>> versions of D&D, like the BOXMI sets included rules for increased​

>> weapon damage based upon the level of mastery of the wielder​

>> (working similar to the progression of the monk's open hand​

>> damage in the SRD).
>> I'll take another look at your monk and see what I think. Thanks.​

To be honest, weapon mastery was one of OD&D’s best highlights for me and in most cases made sense. However, it has several drawbacks:​

- You have to go back to the tables all the time​

- The overall stats for the different weapons feel too much to be mostly handwaves.​

- The AC bonuses for some weapons could make sense as long as the attacker is no more than 1 size category larger (e.g. does it sound even remotely feasible that a dagger could in any way have any effect on an enormous great axe wielded by a storm giant? No way. Not in my book. Same goes for a club vs. arrows).​

- Multiple deflections (my favorite combat option of all times) make just as much sense as multiple AoOs.​

There are some more issues, but I really don’t feel like getting down to the charts right now.

​

Also, you should notice that there are some new feats I added to significantly aid a Monk’s offensive power (Ki Reinforce, Ki Extend, Lightning Fists, Ramming Shoulder Butt) and other feats that are open to most classes.




>> Also, I give characters 2 bonus feats at 1st level and 2 more at​

>> every even numbered level.​

This would not only perpetuate the casters’ action-economy advantage, but would actually increase it significantly.​

- Double Wand Wielder​

- Twin Spell​

- Repeating Spell​

- Split Ray​

- Persistent Spell​

- Sudden Quicken​

I can’t see a reason why any 16th level caster in your campaign would not have all of them by level 16.​

And this is just regarding the action-economy.​

Scarce feats are the only way to keep casters at bay to any degree.

​