Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThoughtBubble" data-source="post: 1426313" data-attributes="member: 9723">Let me repeat myself: Against a skilled spear wielder, a person with a longsword will get fewer attacks in. The last time I tried that, it wound up with me (using the sword) getting in less than 10 swings to more than four times that amount from my dad (using the spear). While I was trying to close the distance, he was attacking and forcing me backwards.And, in fact, I think a dagger wielder would find it harder to make an attack on a second target with an iterative attack than someone weilding a saber or a spear.Here's a question for you. What do those four attacks represent? Do they represent four swings? Do they represent 'four of the arbitrarally many attacks you made in the round'? Personally, since we've got the electron cloud going anyway, I just assume that those four attacks represent the character's damage potential. D&D combat is an aproximation. The system is fairly arbitrary. I like this because it allows me to be more creative with fight-scenes and effects. My stance is that trying to make the system more 'realistic' is actually going to do more damage than good, since it's not a realistic system to start with. That's why I'm arguing for adding impact, control and range as factors. Why? Because it makes sense, allows you to get a more realistic feel and it gives you more factors to balance weapons with.If, on the other hand, all that's wanted is a way to balance out 2-3 points of damage per swing from the high end to the low end weapons to make them a more attractive choice, then there's more things to be worked out. Drop the superior attitude and read the thread. Don't be such a jackass.Just because a few people have a percieved problem with a (fairly unimpressive) local maximum in the D&D combat system and thus begin a conversation of the relative merits of making an alteration to said system does not mean that the people involved in this conversation have "gamers who don't goive a crap about what actually goes into making an interesting character". Personally, since I enjoy system design, I've found this discussion quite enjoyable. It's more enjoyable since we've also ranged into the reasons and the necessity of the change.Now, my biggest problem with the system you proposed is that a hasted rouge using fists has the potential to be a heavy damage machine. In the same fashion, that +1D6 fire damage just got doubled. In fact, the normal + on a weapon just got more useful, as it now adds more to your attack and more damage. Another minus is since the base damage is so close, you lose nothing by taking a dagger then grabbing a shield. On the plus side, you could have weapons of quickness work in a much more satisfying fashion. Myself, I'd be sad the moment the guy wielding the huge weapon doesn't have higher damage potential than the guy with the dagger. I mean, it's huge! He should tear stuff apart!</blockquote>

Verification