Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[Flynn]

Why? Can I ask what the advantage is to having fewer choices? Streamlining is part of the point of this, but I want to do it in such a way that it increases options for PCs rather than removing them. I feel that a fantasy setting requires a much larger selection of weapons than vibroweapon, lightsaber, and various types of blasters, and the existing weapon list provides that. Why would we do otherwise?

I am not saying it is wrong to have the opinion that we need to have fewer weapons, but can someone please indicate why it would be better?

Most people that support this approach seek to minimize the randomness of weapons, and remove some of the excesses that have been introduced into the system under the guise of 'diversity.' Some don't feel that allowing a rapier with a threat range of 18-20 is mandatory to playing a swashbuckler character, nor does the scythe need a x4 multiplier in order for someone to portray a cleric of the Grim Reaper.

I support streamlining the weapons because of the numbers, reducing the randomness and excesses. I can understand the concept of roleplaying over roll-playing. I don't feel that reducing weapon selections somewhat will limit options, because there will be a few new weapons added as well.

BTW, if you check out the Grim Tales standard weapon list, it's streamlined, and the selections are good. Some of them are even new weapon concepts.

Just something to think about,
Flynn

 

[Dalamar]

I am not so much a proponent of decreasing the number of different weapons as I am a proponent of decreasing the number of different base combinations of critical ranges/multipliers.
As I see it, the better criticals in standard DnD are there so that Martial weapons are mechanically better than Simple weapons while still keeping the base damage of the best weapons low so that even a poor damage roll doesn't kill a low-level character. So, as I am pushing for both triple starting HP and increased base damage for weapons, I don't think the first increase in crit values is necessary as the "better than Simple" value can be reached with base damage instead.
As a side note, I don't believe it is so much the increased threat range of a rapier that makes it the choice for swashbucklers, but the fact that it is a one-handed finesseable weapon.

Regarding Weapon Groups, one of the reasons I am advocating for them is to be able to keep the Saga multiclassing rules (just one starting feat from classes after 1st, the rest become bonus feats).
Another reason is that it allows reclassification of some weapons, such as making shuriken part of the Thrown weapons group and thus making being proficient in them a more valid choice for more characters, which should results in more characters using them. As it is, the dagger is pretty much the only weapon I've seen chosen as a thrown weapon because it is practically the only option (well, daggers and two-handed melee weapons with the Throwing enhancement).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

In my experience, with the current weapon list, typically a character will choose one weapon and stick with it, because of feat investment and such. Additionally, the range of weapons used by the entire party is limited. Polearms are unpopular because damage-wise, they're worse, and mechanically the bonuses they grant are related to combat moves that slow things down. This is why I think the major types of weapon all need to be brought to the same level, so that it becomes less of a straight mechanical choice and more a flavour thing. That's not to say that some weapons can't still have interesting features, such as threat range or critical multiplier or double damage against a charge.

Streamlining would be better for new players not to have to wade through a list of difficult to understand weapon details. Weapon groups would make feat choices less rigid. Broad weapon groups (don't differentiate between big or small swords for instance) mean you have to dish out less proficiencies to get equivalent 3.5 fighters. Narrower groups make feat choices a bit more critical, and make a little more sense (one or two hands drastically changes how you use a weapon). Your Conan example was nice - he probably doesn't know how to use every weapon, but he's so damned good the -5 to hit doesn't bother him. Or perhaps he has a feat to reduce that (improvised weaponry, ignore non-proficiency penalties but can't use weapon feats, hence not a long term option).

On a related matter, it would be nice to see talents/feats related to fighting style. I remember the old combat and tactics rules were a bit broken, but when fitted into Baldur's Gate II they were great. One weapon, two weapons, two-handed weapon, sword and shield, they each have their own nuances. Sadly I think the duelist style one weapon and the sword and shield have been a bit neglected in 3.5.

 

[EditorBFG]

Most people that support this approach seek to minimize the randomness of weapons

By randomness, do you mean the die rolls for damage? Or do you mean that the stats for weapons seem to have been assigned randomly, as in arbitrarily? I don't understand.

and remove some of the excesses that have been introduced into the system under the guise of 'diversity.' Some don't feel that allowing a rapier with a threat range of 18-20 is mandatory to playing a swashbuckler character, nor does the scythe need a x4 multiplier in order for someone to portray a cleric of the Grim Reaper.

Maybe they are not needed-- heck, you could run the game with every weapon doing a d6 and not even use crits-- but what is wrong with an 18-20 crit range or a x4 multiplier? Do they affect the game negatively in some way?

I support streamlining the weapons because of the numbers, reducing the randomness and excesses. I can understand the concept of roleplaying over roll-playing.

I don't quite follow this part.

I don't feel that reducing weapon selections somewhat will limit options, because there will be a few new weapons added as well.

What new weapons would you like to add?

BTW, if you check out the Grim Tales standard weapon list, it's streamlined, and the selections are good. Some of them are even new weapon concepts.

Would you be adverse to using the Grim Tales weapon generation rules as a base, then including the Grim Tales example list AND the rules for creating your own weapons? Because then I feel we put the choices for the settings weapons more directly in the hands of the GM, which is good. I would be open to having fewer weapons if we included rules for creating more.

Having fought in soft weapon fantasy combat societies for 15 years, I find that weapon groups work well for reflecting what warriors carry out into the field and how they build their weapon skills. I've never seen a warrior effectively carry and use weapons from more than four weapon groups in any particular battle, and I figure watching people do this for years on end should be a good indication of what the average character would likely do in such an environment.

Is increased realism a goal of this project? Because if so, Saga is a bad starting point for that, I think. Not to dismiss your argument on that grounds, but the philosophy behind Saga was clearly making the game more cinematic rather than more realistic.

What seems strange to me is, that those of us who are arguing for Weapon Groups seem want to use them in place of the current (simple, martial, exotic) categories, when in fact they are not designed to be mutually exclusive. Per Unearthed Arcana:

While the Weapon Group proficiency feats work well in conjunction with the standard classes' starting armor and weapon proficiencies*, you might want to substitute a number of these feats for each class's starting weapon proficiencies.

*[Emphasis mine]

It seems to me like there is no reason to eliminate the old categories when we adopt Weapon Groups, and in fact in some ways that is counter to the authors' original intent. Why take one new variant system designed to increase PC capabilities, and implement them in a way that decreases PC capabilities? This makes no sense to me.

 

[EditorBFG]

In my experience, with the current weapon list, typically a character will choose one weapon and stick with it, because of feat investment and such. Additionally, the range of weapons used by the entire party is limited. Polearms are unpopular because damage-wise, they're worse, and mechanically the bonuses they grant are related to combat moves that slow things down. This is why I think the major types of weapon all need to be brought to the same level, so that it becomes less of a straight mechanical choice and more a flavour thing (...) Streamlining would be better for new players not to have to wade through a list of difficult to understand weapon details.

While I am not yet 100% won over, you raise some very valid points. Part of the problem with all the mechanical variation is that some weapons never get used. Fair enough.

Weapon groups would make feat choices less rigid. Broad weapon groups (don't differentiate between big or small swords for instance) mean you have to dish out less proficiencies to get equivalent 3.5 fighters. Narrower groups make feat choices a bit more critical, and make a little more sense (one or two hands drastically changes how you use a weapon).

I would prefer broad groups. Either way, I want to make it clear that in many ways I support Weapon Groups, for the reasons you and I others describe. But, I do not understand why a Longspear and a Lance can't both belong to the same Weapon Group unless Longspears stop being Simple and Lances stop being Martial; the Weapon Group system is designed to retain the Simple/Martial/Exotic categories, and eliminating them needlessly has no upshot in my mind, unless fighters who can use fewer weapons is somehow a positive. Do we need to eliminate other categories to have weapon groups? Do weapons need to stop being bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing as well, or stop having sizes?

Your Conan example was nice - he probably doesn't know how to use every weapon, but he's so damned good the -5 to hit doesn't bother him. Or perhaps he has a feat to reduce that (improvised weaponry, ignore non-proficiency penalties but can't use weapon feats, hence not a long term option).

Why not just let PCs do so without a feat or a penalty? It seems to me one of the main points of Saga is letting the PCs be capable of more by default, and this would be in line with that design philosophy.

On a related matter, it would be nice to see talents/feats related to fighting style. I remember the old combat and tactics rules were a bit broken, but when fitted into Baldur's Gate II they were great. One weapon, two weapons, two-handed weapon, sword and shield, they each have their own nuances. Sadly I think the duelist style one weapon and the sword and shield have been a bit neglected in 3.5.

I agree. In fact, I did some Weapon Style talents in POSTMODERN: Talent Tree Compendium, and included adapted versions of several Iron Heroes weapon style feats in POSTMODERN: Iconic Combat Feats, and I would love to take them even further.

 

[EvilDwarf]

Dark Lore Primer

I'm coming in late to this very important, very interesting thread, but has anyone mentioned or is anyone aware of the Dark Lore Campaign Primer published by Malladin's Gate Press? It follows the six attribute-based class model, and has talent trees for each of these classes in a fantasy setting. Several of the chapters on race, class, skills, and feats/talents are designated OGL. A lot of the discussion in this thread sounds like what Malladin has already done for the most part. It would be easy enough to convert the attribute-based classes into fighter (and ranger and barbarian), priest, rogue, wizard, and even sorcerer.

Just FYI.

 

[Mokona]

Weapon Equipment

Part of the problem with all the mechanical variation is that some weapons never get used. Fair enough.I would prefer broad groups. Either way, I want to make it clear that in many ways I support Weapon Groups, for the reasons you and I others describe.

I approach this project with two goals. Do you all agree?

1. We should make a few changes as necessary to accomplish Fantasy. As few changes to Dungeons & Dragons v.3.5 and as few changes as we can to Saga.

2. We should remain compatible with as much D&D related material as possible. By such a statement I meant to include d20 (and some OGL) material.

Therefore I present my theory on weapons. Saga has six weapon proficiencies (advanced melee weapons, heavy weapons, lightsabers, pistols, rifles, and simple weapons) plus the open-ended Exotic category. Unearthe Arcana (Wizards of the Coast, pg. 94-97) presents fifteen (15) weapon groups plus two meta-groups (Exotic and Exotic Double Weapons).

In Star Wars everyone starts with simple weapons and pistols (except the Jedi who replaces pistols with lightsabers proficiency). The scout and warrior classes add rifles (total 3 weapon proficiencies). Other than weapon proficiencies every class gets one (1) bonus predetermined feat, though some have to meet requirements to qualify. In addition to all that the warrior gets an additional bonus feat: Armor Proficiency (medium).

Warriors in Saga are not proficient with all weapon categories (they start with neither advanced melee nor heavy weapons and it probably goes without saying that they don't have lightsabers proficiency). Fighters under the Unearthed Arcana system receive five (5) starting weapon group feats while Clerics get three (3), Rogues get three (3), and Wizards get one. Remember there are fifteen weapons groups to choose from.

I would not redesign or reduce the number of weapons in any way; I don't see why we would want to invalidate all those sourcebooks out there (which contain weapons). I would, however, reduce the number of feats needed to become proficient in most or all of those weapons. Given the multiclass rules in Saga I would use steal the weapon group feat concept from Unearthed Arcana but reduce the number of groups (and reassign weapons to more sensible groups) to six plus leaving Exotic and Exotic Double Weapons as they stand (the 7th and 8th group).

Depending on how the groups are defined, Fighter should be able to choose their own groups at first level (but not be allowed to choose either Exotic group). Fighters could take the Exotic groups with the 2nd+ level bonus feat, the human bonus feat, or the 1st level feat that all characters receive. I'd give Fighters and Clerics three starting weapons while Rogues and Wizards got two starting weapons (every character should have a melee group and a ragned attack group).

I'd use the simplest method to power up weapons in order to get above Damage Thresholds. All dice of damage (manufactured or natural) for weapons are doubled. Short swords do 2d6, Longswords do 2d8, Greatswords do 2d12, and converting Monster Manual monsters is easy (Hill Giants do greatclub 4d8+10 or rock 4d6+7).

PS: I know that greatswords start with 2d6 damage but I think it's too good and it isn't elegant because all other sword/axe comparisons use the same damage die but different critical hit stats except Greatsword (2d6) versus Greataxe (1d12).

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

How many weapons does the usual fighter character actually use? If they get to choose four weapon groups, would that cover all of the stuff that particular character concept would use? In my experience, it does. I haven't had anyone playing a fighter type ever complain about not having enough weapon group feats to cover the stuff they carry around and use in-game. Often, they only use two weapons or combinations anyway: one for melee and one for ranged. Having fought in soft weapon fantasy combat societies for 15 years, I find that weapon groups work well for reflecting what warriors carry out into the field and how they build their weapon skills. I've never seen a warrior effectively carry and use weapons from more than four weapon groups in any particular battle, and I figure watching people do this for years on end should be a good indication of what the average character would likely do in such an environment.

That's because in both D&D 3e and a lot of other systems you are required to make investments in a certain weapon type, ergo you only use that weapon. It doesn't matter that you are able to use all weapons - the second you have spent a feat/profiencicy slot/skill point etc., you use that weapon exclusively. One melee, one ranged. That's what I call married to a weapon type. That's why on the Rolemaster boards over at ICE suggested that there was a 'melee skill' and a 'missile skill'. All that socalled diversity with having to develop each weapon type and blah blah is moot. Once invested in, you go with it. For the entire campaign.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I allow weapon focus to apply to 'melee weapons', exoctic weapons to light melee, heavy melee (a la AU/AE) and so on. To diverse weapon use.
Also, I suggested that Baron Opal's idea be more generic and applicable to any weapon at hand. This for the same reasons as above.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I'm coming in late to this very important, very interesting thread, but has anyone mentioned or is anyone aware of the Dark Lore Campaign Primer published by Malladin's Gate Press? It follows the six attribute-based class model, and has talent trees for each of these classes in a fantasy setting. Several of the chapters on race, class, skills, and feats/talents are designated OGL. A lot of the discussion in this thread sounds like what Malladin has already done for the most part. It would be easy enough to convert the attribute-based classes into fighter (and ranger and barbarian), priest, rogue, wizard, and even sorcerer.

Just FYI.

I forgot about that one! Since i'm bored at work, I think I will have to call my wife and get her to mail it to me (at work )

 

[Baron Opal]

It doesn't matter that you are able to use all weapons - the second you have spent a feat/profiencicy slot/skill point etc., you use that weapon exclusively. One melee, one ranged. That's what I call married to a weapon type.

I see that as a feature, not a bug. It bugs me that a fighter who has been using a sword for thirteen levels gets captured, breaks out, steals the jailer's axe and is just as good with that axe as he is with the sword. He never picked up an axe before during his adventuring life, but he weilds this one with just as much skill.

I like sub-systems that delve into the aspects of specialization of weapon styles. Having access to special capabilites through secret manouvers or exploiting a weapon's special geometry (axe - cutting power, spear - long reach, &c.) is really cool to me.

These can be advanced, such as the Jedi special lightsaber training, but I do like them to be available.