Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mageslayer" data-source="post: 2476986" data-attributes="member: 34824">Modified Combat Rules Based on Personal Experience  In D&D the only skills that can practicably be experienced in the real world are few and far between.  One could admit criminal experience (or employment with Pop-A-Lock), and thereby expound on the troubles with the skillset afforded the thief, such as there are.  One could be a forester and a tracker – or even special forces – and teach the game designers a thing or two about being a ranger.  Well, I am not a burglar, nor am I anything approaching a SF soldier.  I am, however, a martial artist, like many around the world, and possibly like some here.  I’ve been studying an art that incorporates more than 40 different weapons for the past few years (Filipino Kali), and another that is primarily designed for street combat (Jeet Kune Do) since ’98.  So, I feel qualified to speak to certain aspects of the Fighter class.  Here are a few ideas.  I think they are valid, whether they tend to unbalance the game or not, since balancing the game only requires adjustments in other areas, should those involved be so inclined.  Having said that, I also think most of these aren’t terribly upsetting to the basic game play.  In the interest of brevity, I shall only discus weapons (my specialty).  If this generates interest, I’ll continue:  Weapons Anyone wielding two weapons should acquire a bonus to AC (even if one might argue that the DEX bonus already incorporates this facet).  Why?  Quite simply because a secondary weapon, even in the hands of a less than expert warrior, affords a level of protection only surpassed by the shield.  I suggest that anyone with a small weapon should gain a +2 to AC, and anyone with a medium secondary weapon should gain a +4 to AC.  There are innumerable ways in which a second weapon can in fact be more desirable than shield anyway.  I also believe many of the advantages disappear when you face another double weapon wielder, so this AC bonus is dynamic in my scheme: anyone faced with a secondary weapon smaller than theirs will gain an AC penalty equal to half their secondary weapon AC bonus.  Facing a secondary weapon of equal size negates your secondary weapon AC bonus. Any hooked or forwardly curved weapon (like a sickle, kopesh, or kukri) are incredibly effective at binding limbs and weapons for the split second needed to fend off an attack or deliver one.  A small hooked weapon should give a +1 to AC or a +1 to attack (not both).  The character must pick which bonus to apply at the beginning of each round.  Weapons like swordbreakers would not acquire this bonus, unless the fighter is facing a blade-wielding enemy (although this bonus doesn’t apply against axes either). Two-handed blades of any type (axe, sword, etc) would automatically acquire the “B” bludgeoning weapon type, in addition to any other types allowed.  Against chain mail a great sword or two-handed axe is capable of shearing off a limb, but it is still effective against a plate-mailed foe, causing concussive blows and imparting massive contusions.  A powerful enough swing is capable of breaking bones, especially in the forearms and ankles – favored targets in medieval combat.  I do not believe a “grazing blow” with one of these weapons is very likely, and while I haven’t really thought a great deal about it, I’m leaning toward giving such weapons a +1 to damage across the board.  However, it is just as justifiable to reduce the wielder’s AC by 1 when facing a smaller weapon.  A fighter can do amazing things with a two-handed blade weapon, but they are slower than, say, a short sword (though much faster than many people might assume). My two scents.  Comments?</blockquote>

Verification