April 17, rule of 3

[vagabundo]

My ideal weapon system for DND would be something like this:

- Use the weapon groups from 4e. So we have Maces, Large blades, Flails etc. Each has a proficient bonus and damage dice.

- Damage depends on how it is being welded, using it two handed doubles the damage dice. If someone uses a mace in two hands it does 2d6, otherwise 1d6.

- Each of the weapon groups have special properties to unlock. So becoming an expert in Axes unlocks the brutal 1 (any damage dice that come up 1 can be rerolled) property. If you become a Master at Axes you unlock the High Crit property, etc. 4e had a decent amount of mundane weapon properties that could be used.

- Exotic weapons have very specific special qualities.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

#2 doesn't necessarily mean the weapons will all be identical - for starters there's different damage types. The effects of improving your competence with those weapons (focus, specialization, etc.) could be different. Criticals with swords could do more damage, maces could daze for a round, axes could reduce armor class and so on.

 

[Minigiant]

#2 is interesting. A longsword, battleaxe, shortspear, and heavy mace might be all 1d8 and have the same proficiency bonus of +2.

But they might do different damage types.
They might have different secondary effects.

But people wont be punished for picked a battleaxe, shortspear,or heavy mace over THE MIGHTY LONGSWORD!


#3 I love this one. All adventures should be half decent and competent in all 3 pillars.

 

[Mattachine]

Everyone has baseline competence in all three areas? Sounds good to me.

 

[howandwhy99]

So here's my thing about unique weapons. They were changed from "everything does 1d6" to make them more than aesthetically interesting.

Right, everything is modular-optional with a personal choice to include for any of these, but unique mechanical traits can be added without ruining the balance or fun of a game system. First, four categories by training, below average (m-u), average (th), above average (clr), and elite (fighters). Like Simple, Martial, Exotic, most of the weapons proficiently available to a character improve with their level of training. (there are definitely exceptions) Ranged, melee, hand-to-hand, and even non-combat uses are all just further means to create uniqueness for a particular weapon. Here are some more: amount of variable damage, linear and curvilinear odds of damage, the newer critical damage modifiers and threat ranges, the length of a weapon, the substance it is created in, their utility in special attacks like tripping, snagging, locking, riding use, underwater, readied, etc., if they are thrown or propelled, how they work in one or more hands, how they even work in combination with each other, the environment, one's allies, the enemy, and with items that aren't weaponry.

The thing is, every single one of these weapons is arguably better than any other in a different given situation. The lower damage dealing weapons typically aren't as valuable, so that are rated as such. However, this is primarily because they are not as commonly useful in regards to XP gaining acts by a class within the specific setting being played. It is a weapon's regularity of value that makes it better than others in a given setting.

A big part of the combat strategy game can be planning how to take out an enemy, preparing with particular weaponry, and then using the best available weapons with a particular strategy. It's about using the best tool for the job and have the judgment on how to do so.

Just please to remember to allow for the inclusion of the strategic level of combat in the game before going "everything is uniform" again.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, at least they're thinking about wounds.

 

[billd91]

Everyone has baseline competence in all three areas? Sounds good to me.

We'll see how it looks after the optimization crowd gets ahold of it. I expect "baseline competence" will quickly become incompetent in messageboard debates because the PC who is at or near the baseline isn't optimized enough.

 

[YRUSirius]

God, I hate that.

-YRUSirius

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We'll see how it looks after the optimization crowd gets ahold of it. I expect "baseline competence" will quickly become incompetent in messageboard debates because the PC who is at or near the baseline isn't optimized enough.

Ahhhh... I wish I could say you were wrong

 

[billd91]

Ahhhh... I wish I could say you were wrong

And I wish I wasn't so pessimistic, but given what we saw throughout 3e's run (and still see from some critics), I think it's inevitable.