Ditching [W] altogether

[UngeheuerLich]

This thread was originally not about monk weapons i want to put it a bit back on track:

the idea would following weapon user:

attacks:
range: melee weapon
weapons do following thing: different proficiency bonus, maybe little extra damage on attacks
features, feats or powers that allow weapon users to make use of different weapons, but only minor things, so you can take wahteve weapon pleases you. (daggers do the same damage, but have no extras, other than that you can also throw them as a light thrown weapon etc.)

 

[Nichwee]

This thread was originally not about monk weapons i want to put it a bit back on track:

the idea would following weapon user:

attacks:
range: melee weapon
weapons do following thing: different proficiency bonus, maybe little extra damage on attacks
features, feats or powers that allow weapon users to make use of different weapons, but only minor things, so you can take wahteve weapon pleases you. (daggers do the same damage, but have no extras, other than that you can also throw them as a light thrown weapon etc.)

So you could have certain weapons do +1 damage vs others - like the average difference between a d4 and a d6 say?

Basically you have to have the fact that some weapons do different damage in there somewhere (or any limitation to weapon uses/proficiencies is pointless) so it might as well be in the [W] the weapon has.

I can't say I see the point in removing [W] from things when you would have to put the damage differences back in anyway.
That or a million other bonuses need to be invented to differentiate weapons of different types.
And it is a lot simpler to have a system that says a longsword is like a shortsword with a higher damage dice than have to invent some extra difference, adding pointless complexity - when the main difference between a shortsword and a longsword is how much umph they connect with (how much damage they do).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the problem is following:

static damage variations are only really deciding points in 1[W] powers,

as soon as you have 4[W] powers, a bigger damage dice means a lot more damage potential. Also you have more flexibility in class design:

dagger wielder doing a 4d8 damage daily which does only +1 or 2 damage if the PC trains in a rapier. If it did 7[W], the upgrade to rapier will earn you an increase by 0-28 damage. Quite a difference.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

This thread was originally not about monk weapons i want to put it a bit back on track:

the idea would following weapon user:

attacks:
range: melee weapon
weapons do following thing: different proficiency bonus, maybe little extra damage on attacks
features, feats or powers that allow weapon users to make use of different weapons, but only minor things, so you can take wahteve weapon pleases you. (daggers do the same damage, but have no extras, other than that you can also throw them as a light thrown weapon etc.)

Why not just reflavor your weapon and stick with the current rules system. Describe your cool sword but use the stats for a waraxe or whatever you want.

the problem is following:

static damage variations are only really deciding points in 1[W] powers,

as soon as you have 4[W] powers, a bigger damage dice means a lot more damage potential. Also you have more flexibility in class design:

dagger wielder doing a 4d8 damage daily which does only +1 or 2 damage if the PC trains in a rapier. If it did 7[W], the upgrade to rapier will earn you an increase by 0-28 damage. Quite a difference.

Or for multi-attacks, I heard they need a boost b/c multi-[W]-attacks are so superior and will be even more superior with static bonuses.

 

[Nichwee]

the problem is following:

static damage variations are only really deciding points in 1[W] powers,

as soon as you have 4[W] powers, a bigger damage dice means a lot more damage potential. Also you have more flexibility in class design:

dagger wielder doing a 4d8 damage daily which does only +1 or 2 damage if the PC trains in a rapier. If it did 7[W], the upgrade to rapier will earn you an increase by 0-28 damage. Quite a difference.

But a dagger should be a lot less damage than a rapier on a big attack.
4W Attack:
Dagger: I bury my dagger to the hilt, puncturing an organ = 4d4.
Rapier: I bury my rapier through the opponent, puncturing an organ and knicking the spinal column, as well as having two holes to bleed out of = 4d8.
This sort of difference makes sense. The idea that a rapier skewing through a person is no real difference than a dagger embedding in them isn't going to cut it imo.
And what would the difference in a rapier be than a dagger if you don't have real scaling damage? Nothing.

And the oddity gets even worse when you consider that the base [W] would actually have to be built off the minimum possible weapon damage (unarmed = 1d3) and so every weapon starts turning into a "Fist + minor static bonus damage" which is a bit pointless when they went to the bother of making X[W] powers at all. I see those as the replacement of the X swings per go of 3rdEd and as such they should gain a "multiple improvement with weapon size" effect imo - to equate to "multiple hits with the +Y damage weapon".

And your way also compounds the Rangers Twin Strike problem as the improvement of a +Y damage weapon would scale on "Attack more often" but not scale on "Hit for more dice".

 

[Plane Sailing]

But a dagger should be a lot less damage than a rapier on a big attack.
4W Attack:
Dagger: I bury my dagger to the hilt, puncturing an organ = 4d4.
Rapier: I bury my rapier through the opponent, puncturing an organ and knicking the spinal column, as well as having two holes to bleed out of = 4d8.
This sort of difference makes sense. The idea that a rapier skewing through a person is no real difference than a dagger embedding in them isn't going to cut it imo.

I'm not sure that I agree with you (at least on the example given here). Whether strucky by a rapier or a dagger the main issue is whether you are punctured in a vital location - a dagger in the heart or a rapier in the heart would kill you just as dead, no?

I could see an argument for big chopping weapons doing more damage on the basis that the chance of injuring a vital organ might be somewhat higher, but...

There is a lot to be said with the idea that the weapon is pretty irrelevant apart from the reach element it provides to someone, and probably the armour defeating capabilities of it (although people don't tend to want to go there in D&D).

If I wanted to work out some usable rules I think I'd start from the principle that there are piercing, slashing and blunt damage types (and give different types of armour historically representative DR against one or more of those types of damage). I might then consider that you can have light, 1H or 2H representatives of each of those classes, and typically light weapons are easier to use and do less damage, 2H weapons are harder to use and do more damage (or whatever seems to be the historically and dramatically appropriate choice - I've not done the research yet, just spinning out how I would go about it)

Anyhow, back to the original question - surely the 4e way of handling the issue would be to give fixed damage dice to weapon based attacks and allow the attacker to flavour the attack as per the weapon they are using to choice? Score 32 damage with the dagger? "Using the momentum of a spinning ariel attack I use my weight and momentum to drive the dagger into his heart". Score 4 damage with the longsword "I just nicked him". Score 32 damage with the battleaxe? "With an effortless sweep I hack into his thigh".

That seems to be the 4e way

 

[Nichwee]

I'm not sure that I agree with you (at least on the example given here). Whether strucky by a rapier or a dagger the main issue is whether you are punctured in a vital location - a dagger in the heart or a rapier in the heart would kill you just as dead, no?
...
...
...

Anyhow, back to the original question - surely the 4e way of handling the issue would be to give fixed damage dice to weapon based attacks and allow the attacker to flavour the attack as per the weapon they are using to choice? Score 32 damage with the dagger? "Using the momentum of a spinning ariel attack I use my weight and momentum to drive the dagger into his heart". Score 4 damage with the longsword "I just nicked him". Score 32 damage with the battleaxe? "With an effortless sweep I hack into his thigh".

That seems to be the 4e way

So:
Quoted Point 1) I said "puncture an organ" not "heart". Puncture the kidney vs Puncture the kidney, sever the spinal cord and bleed out twice as much IS a big difference (Rapiers go all the way through someone if pushed in as far as they can go).
And you seem to be looking to add in a lot of extra complexity of DR etc just to get weapons to work differently when the current W system does it fine.

Quoted Point 2) So only a dagger ever hits well now?
As a dagger doing 30 damage (with say a 4d8 + stuff attack) is a good dagger hit buried deep, but a 32 damage swing with a rapier (4d8 + stuff + 2 for rapier) is just a bit better with a much better weapon so must therefore be a merely ok hit - So obviously a dagger user gets to "fluff" their hits/skill as much better - as they are often doing a good hit for such a small weapon (30) while the rapier user is only doing a smidge better with a greatly superior weapon (32).

And you ignored the fact that as weapon differences become "static damage bonuses" in your version then the multi-attack powers (like Twin Strike) that are often considered broken already get even better as the choice between
"2d8 + stuff + weapon bonus damage" vs 2x"1d8 + stuff + weapon bonus damage"
just got bigger while
"2[W] + stuff" vs 2x"1[W] + stuff"
isn't as bad.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Why not just reflavor your weapon and stick with the current rules system. Describe your cool sword but use the stats for a waraxe or whatever you want.



Or for multi-attacks, I heard they need a boost b/c multi-[W]-attacks are so superior and will be even more superior with static bonuses.

No, reflavouring is no option if there are rules for the reflavoured thing.

A person uses a big axe, that strikes very hard, when combat advantage. Ok, i can imagine that, but it would be very unfair, if such things happen all the time and you have no chance of guessing what to expect:

Imagine a guy in robes with a wand... oh no in reality he is a reflavoured paladin in plate armor witth swrd and shield, but using magic to accomplish exactly that... no sorry, i don´t buy that.

Really, reflavouring is used inflational and not as it was intended...

I however see, that multi[w] attacks can cause a problem...

Another thing i could imagine were weapon stances, which you can only assume when wielding a certain weapon.
But really, i am fine with the current rule system, it was just hypothetical thinking. And saying, that the monk is a cool weapon using class.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So:
Quoted Point 1) I said "puncture an organ" not "heart". Puncture the kidney vs Puncture the kidney, sever the spinal cord and bleed out twice as much IS a big difference (Rapiers go all the way through someone if pushed in as far as they can go).
And you seem to be looking to add in a lot of extra complexity of DR etc just to get weapons to work differently when the current W system does it fine.

Quoted Point 2) So only a dagger ever hits well now?
As a dagger doing 30 damage (with say a 4d8 + stuff attack) is a good dagger hit buried deep, but a 32 damage swing with a rapier (4d8 + stuff + 2 for rapier) is just a bit better with a much better weapon so must therefore be a merely ok hit - So obviously a dagger user gets to "fluff" their hits/skill as much better - as they are often doing a good hit for such a small weapon (30) while the rapier user is only doing a smidge better with a greatly superior weapon (32).

And you ignored the fact that as weapon differences become "static damage bonuses" in your version then the multi-attack powers (like Twin Strike) that are often considered broken already get even better as the choice between
"2d8 + stuff + weapon bonus damage" vs 2x"1d8 + stuff + weapon bonus damage"
just got bigger while
"2[W] + stuff" vs 2x"1[W] + stuff"
isn't as bad.

Ok, I have another brilliant idea:

Weapons all do the same average damage, but big weapons have a higher damage die, while small weapons have 1d4+2 or 1d6+1. This would fit with bigger weapons beeing good on multi [W] powers, and smaller weapons beeing great for multi hit powers...

 

[CovertOps]

Ok, I have another brilliant idea:

Weapons all do the same average damage, but big weapons have a higher damage die, while small weapons have 1d4+2 or 1d6+1. This would fit with bigger weapons beeing good on multi [W] powers, and smaller weapons beeing great for multi hit powers...

Which of the following are you suggesting?

2[W] = 2d4 + 2
OR
2[W] = 2d4 + 4