Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[Argyle King]

You say that's extreme, but I have, actually seen and played in several different games where that was exactly how it was handled. *shrug* It works. In many respects, I prefer it to big, long lists of weapons that are only marginally different from each other.

Which is fine, but then why bother to have the list we have? Just make the weapon entry smaller and give more room for other aspects of the game.

 

[Mistwell]

You mean the Tactical Module we have not seen anything from so far?

Yes Derren, I mean the tactile module and the customization module you have not seen so far. Because the game is in beta test, and you are not an alpha tester. I am not sure why you feel entitled to have seen the entire game including all optional rules before the game has even been published, but I think it's fair for me to say you should be patient enough to wait until the game actually comes out and you have a chance to read it, before deciding on that aspect of the game. You know, like you did for all prior official versions of the game.

 

[DMZ2112]

Yes, thank you for the false binary choice.

Sigh.

Noted, Hobo. I won't respond to any of your future posts without scalpel precision unless I'm in the mood to be antagonized.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm too lazy to go back and find the appropriate posters to quote, but I think the idea was that there would be powers for each of the the weapon's attributes. So a morning star might give you a trip bonus, PLUS it would have reach, PLUS maybe something to do with blunt force.

That was me. I said that I thought every weapon (or weapon group) should have at least one property, and that the three damage types (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) should have a meaningful reason for being in the game. But that in no way needs to add "complexity"... seeing as how the mechanics for all these things are already in the game, and have been in previous editions of the game.

We already have the place where weapon damage type comes into play. In the Skeleton entry in the Bestiary. Skeletons have a Vulnerability to bludgeoning weapons. But that's like the only one as far as I know that uses the Resistance/Vulnerability mechanic for weapon damage type (unless some monsters that were created in some of the adventures have it too but I didn't go through every single adventure bestiary.) Monsters up the wazoo have Resistance and Vulnerabilities and Immunities to "energy types" and "magic types"-- poison, fire, charm, sleep, thunder etc. etc... but why not more to the weapon damage types? Make selecting a weapon from one of these types actually meaningful. Make actually having them DEFINED in the game meaningful. Would it kill the game to have a dozen monsters or so have select weapon damage types affect it more or less? To actually give those terms meaning? Because right now, there is practically no point to those terms being there in the game. Skeletons and the 15th level 'Devastating Critical' ability of the Path of the Warrior sub-class. Whoopty-do! So glad we're keeping track of the weapon damage types!

Then beyond that... each weapon or weapon group gets a property. To me, that's a no-brainer. Because when a Flail is 1d8 bludgeoning damage and the Warhammer is 1d8 bludgeoning damage *and* Versatile... why would anyone ever select the Flail (other than purely aesthetic reasons?) Now someone might claim you can save 5 gold pieces by buying the flail rather than the warhammer... but come on. When you get 175 gold to start with to buy equipment... that reason is absolutely stupid. And there are a number of easy-to-remember properties out there that could be assigned that would not add any amount of "complexity" over what you already need to remember for "Reach" or "Versatile" or "Thrown" or "Finesse". Like Brutal (on a damage roll, re-roll any 1), or High Crit (on a crit, roll an extra damage die). Give the remaining weapons something to call their own.

 

[Derren]

It isn't about what new players think.

Well every time a vaguely not totally simple rules come up one of the first arguments against it usually is something along "Think of new players".

 

[gweinel]

Well every time a vaguely not totally simple rules come up one of the first arguments against it usually is something along "Think of new players".

Although I don't disagree with you, I consider that Wizards value more the opinion of their existing players (the faithful ones and those whose abandon dnd) than the potentional new ones. I don't have clues of course to back it but it is my feeling that "the edition which unites all dnd players and all dnd iterations" is addressed to the old players. I am not saying that they don't care for new players. On the contrary.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

If complexity was really a main concern, the Wizard class would be have been dumped or reworked in favor of a simpler Wizard class a while ago.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Would it kill the game to have a dozen monsters or so have select weapon damage types affect it more or less? To actually give those terms meaning?

I'm fond of the idea of weapon damage type resistance/vulnerability.

So, skeletons are Vulnerable to Bludgeoning

Maybe Oozes Resist Piercing

Maybe Constructs Resist Slashing

Maybe Dragons are Vulnerable to Piercing

Maybe trolls (with their severable limbs) are Vulnerable to Slashing

And maybe a spell that drops rocks on everyone deals Bludgeoning damage?

 

[Argyle King]

That was me. I said that I thought every weapon (or weapon group) should have at least one property, and that the three damage types (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) should have a meaningful reason for being in the game. But that in no way needs to add "complexity"... seeing as how the mechanics for all these things are already in the game, and have been in previous editions of the game.

We already have the place where weapon damage type comes into play. In the Skeleton entry in the Bestiary. Skeletons have a Vulnerability to bludgeoning weapons. But that's like the only one as far as I know that uses the Resistance/Vulnerability mechanic for weapon damage type (unless some monsters that were created in some of the adventures have it too but I didn't go through every single adventure bestiary.) Monsters up the wazoo have Resistance and Vulnerabilities and Immunities to "energy types" and "magic types"-- poison, fire, charm, sleep, thunder etc. etc... but why not more to the weapon damage types? Make selecting a weapon from one of these types actually meaningful. Make actually having them DEFINED in the game meaningful. Would it kill the game to have a dozen monsters or so have select weapon damage types affect it more or less? To actually give those terms meaning? Because right now, there is practically no point to those terms being there in the game. Skeletons and the 15th level 'Devastating Critical' ability of the Path of the Warrior sub-class. Whoopty-do! So glad we're keeping track of the weapon damage types!

Then beyond that... each weapon or weapon group gets a property. To me, that's a no-brainer. Because when a Flail is 1d8 bludgeoning damage and the Warhammer is 1d8 bludgeoning damage *and* Versatile... why would anyone ever select the Flail (other than purely aesthetic reasons?) Now someone might claim you can save 5 gold pieces by buying the flail rather than the warhammer... but come on. When you get 175 gold to start with to buy equipment... that reason is absolutely stupid. And there are a number of easy-to-remember properties out there that could be assigned that would not add any amount of "complexity" over what you already need to remember for "Reach" or "Versatile" or "Thrown" or "Finesse". Like Brutal (on a damage roll, re-roll any 1), or High Crit (on a crit, roll an extra damage die). Give the remaining weapons something to call their own.

I couldn't XP you again, but I agree with virtually all of your post. The parts I highlighted with bold are in line with what I've been trying to express with some of my posts.

 

[Obryn]

I'm fond of the idea of weapon damage type resistance/vulnerability.

So, skeletons are Vulnerable to Bludgeoning

Maybe Oozes Resist Piercing

Maybe Constructs Resist Slashing

Maybe Dragons are Vulnerable to Piercing

Maybe trolls (with their severable limbs) are Vulnerable to Slashing

And maybe a spell that drops rocks on everyone deals Bludgeoning damage?

I dunno, it looks to me like that would mean the Return of the Golf Bag.

To me, that's kind of rudimentary differentiation. Just enough to be annoying, but not enough to add additional interest or options to Bob Fighter.