Stormtalon
First Post
Yeah, I'd agree with the sentiments that while there were good changes from 3.0 to 3.5, the weapon size thing appeared good on paper, but in the end was just cumbersome and annoying. Good riddance!
Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)
- Thread starter jaelis
- Start date
I would normally agree, but then I started thinking about halflings with reach weapons. Logically, a halfling with a reach weapon should get all the benefits of reach against another halfling, but probably no benefits against a target of Medium size or larger. This is because, if they're half the size of a normal person, they should function on a grid of squares 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet in diameter. Then I got a headache trying to work out the implications of all of this, and gave up.Lizard said:
Pistonrager
First Post
UngeheuerLich said:
Kittens give Morbo gas.
Propheous_D said:
That is quite true yes. But there is one important aspect in a fight that a shield can't emulate, the pressure a bladed weapon has. A shield can be dangerous yes but in the end in doesn't have the offensive capabilities of a sword.
Each weapon and each weapon style has it's own uses, there is not one superior to the other. Shields dominated the battlefields because they insured better chances of survival in the chaos and the arrow/bolt volleys, In duels their weight and size would be cumbersome. Against cavalry you had spears and other polearms, against heavy armored opponents you used maces, morningstars and the likes.
We do the same in DnD when we switch weapons when fighting an opponent with dr 20/slashing
(no more in 4th though we may switch for other reasons).Baka no Hentai
First Post
While I do share the concerns of some other posters that only rangers will be able to use two-weapon fighting effectively, I have a feeling that those concerns will be alleviated when we see the full rules (including feats, the combat chapter, and class powers).
However it ends up, I believe that no matter what the three main fighting styles (two-handed, two-weapon, one-handed + shield) will be balanced against each other, as that seems to be the main goal of 4E. As long as that is the case I will be satisfied.
At any rate, I think all this "how weapons are used in reality" talk is detracting from the most important topic of discussion at hand... which of course is whether or not you should be able to use Intimidate in skill challenges!
However it ends up, I believe that no matter what the three main fighting styles (two-handed, two-weapon, one-handed + shield) will be balanced against each other, as that seems to be the main goal of 4E. As long as that is the case I will be satisfied.
At any rate, I think all this "how weapons are used in reality" talk is detracting from the most important topic of discussion at hand... which of course is whether or not you should be able to use Intimidate in skill challenges!
Regarding TWF, and the possibility of feats granting powers generally.
Its possible that feats will grant new at will powers.
Certain powers are very unbalanced when it comes to granting them through a feat. You can reason through and see why, if you try. A 4e character has a certain power curve built into him.
At will abilities
1[W]+Stat+small effect
Unlimited use
Encounter abilities
2[W]+Stat+small effect
Restricted number based on level
Per Day abilities
3[W]+Stat+small effect
Restricted number based on level
That's basically what you're looking at, with some variation. For example, a per encounter ability might do 1[W]+stat+big effect.
Now feats granting new powers could break this curve by giving the players more times per day that they could accomplish 2 or 3[W] than their level plans for them. And since feats are considered less valuable resources than powers in 4e, it would be inappropriate to grant this by consuming feats. That's probably why the multiclass feats all dropped the granted powers down a level, so that per encounter became per day, and at will became per encounter.
But not every power has features which would break this planned power curve. Specifically, at will attack powers might not break the power curve.
At will powers that are not attacks, like the ranger's marking ability, can break the curve because making them available at will is close to a permanent damage bonus.
At will powers that are attacks but which come coupled with very good special non damage bonuses can break the power curve because granting the power at will also grants the non damage bonus.
But at will powers that primarily or solely do damage might NOT break the power curve, because if the damage is already comparable to the damage dealt by the class' other powers, all you're accomplishing is converting the method by which the damage is dealt. You're not actually increasing the power at all.
So, in other words.
A Cleaving Fighter deals damage equal to 1[W]+Str+Str. The second +Str goes to a second target, but this is the total damage dealt.
If two weapon fighting is designed so that the weapons used for it, when you add their [W] values together, equal the [W] value of a two handed weapon, then this comes out the same.
Watch.
Two handed fighting: 1[W1]+Str+Str
Two weapon fighting: 1[W2]+Str+1[W3]+Str
where W1=W2+W3
This changes almost nothing about the characters damage output.
The only things that change are:
1. TWF gets a slight benefit in that it can be used against a single opponent and Cleave requires two targets to work.
2. In the long term, two weapons can have more magical options on them than a single weapon. This is the biggie. On critical hits under 4e rules, two weapons beats one weapon once you have magical enhancements, because, while the [W] being maximized is smaller, the +1d6 per enhancement bonus is a flat boost applied to two items instead of just one. Plus, since weapons can get powerful per encounter enhancements, the TWF wielder could get twice as many.
I don't know how much of a problem those last two issue are. But the general principle, that extra at will attack powers don't automatically bust the power curve, still stands. If a power doesn't grant an extra [W] damage, or a new, valuable type of effect, it can fit cleanly into the established power curve.
Its possible that feats will grant new at will powers.
Certain powers are very unbalanced when it comes to granting them through a feat. You can reason through and see why, if you try. A 4e character has a certain power curve built into him.
At will abilities
1[W]+Stat+small effect
Unlimited use
Encounter abilities
2[W]+Stat+small effect
Restricted number based on level
Per Day abilities
3[W]+Stat+small effect
Restricted number based on level
That's basically what you're looking at, with some variation. For example, a per encounter ability might do 1[W]+stat+big effect.
Now feats granting new powers could break this curve by giving the players more times per day that they could accomplish 2 or 3[W] than their level plans for them. And since feats are considered less valuable resources than powers in 4e, it would be inappropriate to grant this by consuming feats. That's probably why the multiclass feats all dropped the granted powers down a level, so that per encounter became per day, and at will became per encounter.
But not every power has features which would break this planned power curve. Specifically, at will attack powers might not break the power curve.
At will powers that are not attacks, like the ranger's marking ability, can break the curve because making them available at will is close to a permanent damage bonus.
At will powers that are attacks but which come coupled with very good special non damage bonuses can break the power curve because granting the power at will also grants the non damage bonus.
But at will powers that primarily or solely do damage might NOT break the power curve, because if the damage is already comparable to the damage dealt by the class' other powers, all you're accomplishing is converting the method by which the damage is dealt. You're not actually increasing the power at all.
So, in other words.
A Cleaving Fighter deals damage equal to 1[W]+Str+Str. The second +Str goes to a second target, but this is the total damage dealt.
If two weapon fighting is designed so that the weapons used for it, when you add their [W] values together, equal the [W] value of a two handed weapon, then this comes out the same.
Watch.
Two handed fighting: 1[W1]+Str+Str
Two weapon fighting: 1[W2]+Str+1[W3]+Str
where W1=W2+W3
This changes almost nothing about the characters damage output.
The only things that change are:
1. TWF gets a slight benefit in that it can be used against a single opponent and Cleave requires two targets to work.
2. In the long term, two weapons can have more magical options on them than a single weapon. This is the biggie. On critical hits under 4e rules, two weapons beats one weapon once you have magical enhancements, because, while the [W] being maximized is smaller, the +1d6 per enhancement bonus is a flat boost applied to two items instead of just one. Plus, since weapons can get powerful per encounter enhancements, the TWF wielder could get twice as many.
I don't know how much of a problem those last two issue are. But the general principle, that extra at will attack powers don't automatically bust the power curve, still stands. If a power doesn't grant an extra [W] damage, or a new, valuable type of effect, it can fit cleanly into the established power curve.
Brown Jenkin
First Post
UngeheuerLich said:
I believe Morbo is saying
“Earthlings do not yet know the meaning of suffering.”
