Ditching [W] altogether

[UngeheuerLich]

When i was reading the thread about an arteficier not beeing able to use his healing abilities, i though about the whole implement thing as a whole...

First i thought: implements should have an associated [W], but then it would restrict the class design a lot.

Then it occurred to me: the monk is actually the best designed class. Although he is a weapon user, his weapons do different things than just changing the potency of powers. They add quite flavourful effects.

When you keep the concept of hp in mind, weapons should actually not do different amounts of damage, as hp doesn´t represent injuries at all.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Part of the weapon damage issue though is the concept of trading off.

Superior weapons have the best combination of damage, proficiency and stuff like high crit, defensive and brutal properties. Then there is military which loses a bit of potency, and simple even less, which means that certain classes (like clerics) have to take a feat or accept lower damage/proficiency weapons. Even within the prof groups you have the axe vs. sword comparison of extra damage vs. higher proficiency. You have 1 handed vs. 2 handed, which trades damage for the ability to wield a shield or a weapon in the off hand. Speaking of which, off handedness drops the damage even more, as does the ability to throw the weapon, trading damage for versatility.

If all weapon damage was basically the same and all the weapons did were variations on a theme ... well, it would require a lot of changes, or would make choosing a weapon essentially useless. Superior Implements go a long way towards making implement choices more important and make them a bit different from each other.

 

[Mengu]

I can see a design approach where powers get damage assignments, and weapons cover a slightly different design space.

Weapons could keep their proficiency, and still remain interesting. For instance heavy and light blades might be +3 proficiency, axes may be +2 proficiency high crit and +2/4/6 damage, hammers might be brutal 1, and +2/4/6 damage, etc. This would still put some differentiation between weapons, while keeping the doors open for class damage space, much like the damage for monsters. A monster swinging an axe sometimes does 1d10, sometimes 1d12, and sometimes 2d8. PC's could have been designed the same way.

Of course yet another approach would be eliminating damage rolls altogether, and having powers do a fixed amount of damage. Sometimes, it does feel silly to be rolling a 1d4 when you're adding 20 to it.

There is a lot of room for such tweaks in the system. But it seems they picked a path that balanced system prowess, fun (rolling dice is part of the fun), and familiarity (such as rolling 1d4 for daggers, 1d8 for longswords, 1d12 for greataxes).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then it occurred to me: the monk is actually the best designed class. Although he is a weapon user, his weapons do different things than just changing the potency of powers. They add quite flavourful effects.

I have loved monk PCs since AD&D...and I HATE the 4Ed version. That they don't get to take into account the weapon's actual characteristics (like Reach) with their powers bugs the living bejesus out of me.

I'll never play one: PCs with the Multiclass Feat and Avengers are my "monks" in this edition of the game.

I don't know if I'm the only one out there like that, but its just something to consider- before reworking a bunch of stuff around the Monk's class design, you might want to talk to your fellow players.

 

[Saeviomagy]

On the one hand, the existence of the weapon list adds some complexity and variation to the game.

Unfortunately the existence of weapon-specific feats and the power of those feats basically destroys a lot of that: most weapon users will pick a weapon early and will stick with it. Personally I think all the weapon-specific feats should go.

There is an alternative though: you could probably strip the impact of most weapons out of powers and simply create a few feats that simulate those weapons. Shield proficiency might simply say "you gain a +2 to your ac and reflex, but your damage dice are decreased by one size", that sort of thing.

That said, I think different weapon types in their current incarnation are a good thing for most of the game.

However, the monk has me thinking: one of the great benefits of playing a monk is that you are literally free to pick up anything, anything at all and use it as a weapon without needing to account for it in the stats of your powers.

Want to hit someone with the wet end of their dead buddies arm? A monk can do it with ease. Strangle someone with a tapestry? Beat someone with a holy symbol? It's all good.

In fact it's the one thing that makes me keen to play a monk.

It's just a shame they didn't go the whole hog and just give them an implement-based melee basic.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have loved monk PCs since AD&D...and I HATE the 4Ed version. That they don't get to take into account the weapon's actual characteristics (like Reach) with their powers bugs the living bejesus out of me.

I'll never play one: PCs with the Multiclass Feat and Avengers are my "monks" in this edition of the game.

I don't know if I'm the only one out there like that, but its just something to consider- before reworking a bunch of stuff around the Monk's class design, you might want to talk to your fellow players.

I don´t see, why a weapon can´t affect the reach of your powers.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I don´t see, why a weapon can´t affect the reach of your powers.

Because most monk powers are specifically "melee touch", meaning you don't use the reach (or other properties) of the weapon.

[EDIT] Which isn't to say I agree with the 4E Monk design. While I like everything else about the design, I hate that the Monk has little incentive and little benefit to use weapons.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, i know, i meant for a theoretical weapon user that attacks armor not FRW and has reack weapon attacks but only powers with its own damage dice...

 

[ST]

From a layman's standpoint, I can't think of problems from houseruling "melee touch" to be, well, the thing's six feet long, I can touch someone with it as if I had reach. Does that throw balance out of whack?

 

[Sarellion]

Well, mankind invented all these weapons for a reason, because they had different properties. So why do you want to reduce them to flavortext?