• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

pawsplay's dealbreaker list


log in or register to remove this ad

WheresMyD20

First Post
pawsplay said:
At what, -10 to hit or something? And it was impossible in Basic D&D, and probably OD&D as well.
Nikosandros said:
Nope. -4 to hit with the secondary weapon and -2 to hit with the primary one. The reaction adjustment from dexterity reduces this penalty.
Very similar rules also exist for two weapon combat in Basic D&D. I think they're in the Master's Set and the Rules Cyclopedia.
 

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
WheresMyD20 said:
Very similar rules also exist for two weapon combat in Basic D&D. I think they're in the Master's Set and the Rules Cyclopedia.
Yes, the rule is found on page 19 of the Master book and page 110 of the RC. The secondary attack is at -4 and there is no penalty on the primary attack. Dexterity does not reduce the penalty.
 

Nightchilde-2

First Post
pawsplay said:
Wouldn't making wizards half-decent with a crossbow accomplish the same thing?

Possibly, except then what you really have is "slightly better commoner with a crossbow who can fire a couple of spells per day" rather than "a wizard that can blast spells and might occasionally have to use a crossbow."

Dunno 'bout anyone else, but I know which one I prefer...

Edit: Oh. Yes. And I LOVED Kill Bill. I wish MORE games would emulate it.
 
Last edited:

pawsplay

Hero
Baen said:
A pure samurai would likely be a fighter, however Musashi would likely be a ranger, especially given how he was not so much a Samurai lord as he was a wandering Ronin.

See, that's the place where I draw the line. If Musashi is not a fighter, nobody is.

I just wonder what you would do in place?

Probably the same thing I've been doing... using lots of humanoid opponents about four or five levels below the PCs as filler. Around 8th or 9th level, I stop using hordes of orcs and other humanoids as significant opponents, because they aren't enough orcs in the world of that level to challenge heroes of that calibre.

Not really, since it doesn't fit the image of any wizard I have ever heard of. I don't think I have ever read a fantasy novel where the wizard went, oops, no more spells for the day.

Perhaps you ought to check out the books of a guy named Jack Vance. He's pretty good. In those stories, "I have the Excellent Prismatic Spray," is a threat meaning I have one (1) prepared spell that will kill you dead. Most magicians struggle to pepare more than a handful of spells, and magicians generally go armed with rapiers.

I have heard them being knocked out from exhaustion maybe, but never pull out a crossbow.

That's mainly because of D&D's punitive view of weapon proficiency for wizards. Gandalf did just fine with a longsword, and the Grey Mouser was handy with rapier, staff, and dagger.

Not really wanting to quote anymore, the deal is that twf will be in 4e, and will likely be a nice advantage considering it is one of the main class features of the Ranger, a heavy damage dealer. As previously mentioned, take away the name ranger and their mechanics can be interpreted in multiple ways for several character concepts. TWF is in no way shape or form gone from 4e.

It is, however, diminished and ghettoized.
 

pawsplay

Hero
Moon-Lancer said:
When I read your first post that talked about experience, I had a hunch it was about boffer combat. twf is easer done with lighter weapons (although i still manage to suck at it somehow). I dont have the knowledge or experience to debate if twf was historically true or not, but i do know some maneuvers with boffer combat do not apply to real fighting due to the nature of how light boffer weapons are, and how blade orientation is almost never considered (in the group i attend at least)

I am familiar with the issues. However, I was trained originally on flat blades. Further, Amtgard weapons are durable, and hence, close to historical weights, unlike most other boffer sports. I have handled IFGS and Nero weapons and know the difference... most Amtgard weapons are not considered safe in other boffer sports because of their weight. When I first started, many years ago, boffer weapons were often heavier than their real world counterparts, sometimes 3-4 lbs just for a 36" blade, because of the amount of duct tape and high density foam involved. Nowadays, I think the standard Amtgard weapon is probably just under historical weights, maybe 1 1/1 lbs for a short sword, 2 to 2 1/2 pounds for a longer blade.

As I noted above, I have also fought with SCA rattan weapons. They are usually heavier than real world weapons of their length. As the SCA uses a different range of targets than Amtgard, and requires a solid hit, it requires a different style. I learned early on that a number of slashes would never count as a hit in SCA because of the lack of power.

Also as I noted above, I have had some escrima lessons. Escrima is weapons training. I have never spared with steel knives, rubber knives, or hard sticks, although I have spared with people who have. Escrima weapons and techniques cannot be impugned for unrealistic weights or lack of power.

I have handled steel weapons, and although I have never sparred with them, I can certainly perform credible forms with them.
 

pawsplay

Hero
Nikosandros said:
Yes, the rule is found on page 19 of the Master book and page 110 of the RC. The secondary attack is at -4 and there is no penalty on the primary attack. Dexterity does not reduce the penalty.

You learn something new every day. There is such an optional rule. I never owned a copy of the RC or the Master set when I was younger. I now have a digital copy of the RC.
 

Baen

First Post
pawsplay said:
See, that's the place where I draw the line. If Musashi is not a fighter, nobody is.
Why a fighter though? You seem very caught up on the names of the classes. I would consider Aragorn a Fighter by the D&D definition as well. Musashi did far more wandering and training then other samurai of his era, maybe not a natural woodsman but spent far more time then others of the warrior caste outside of cities. Even thematically he fits the ranger best. Besides, no one introduces their character in D&D by a Class1/Class2/Class3. The classes themselves are not the roleplay definition of the character. They are simply the definition for their skills and how they work in combat. The class system in 4e is more about the mechanics then the true fluff involved. It has always been that way really. The goal is always to take a character concept in mind and turn that into something to play at the game table. In most respects 4e seems to have the potential to be far better about that then in 3rd edition.

pawsplay said:
Probably the same thing I've been doing... using lots of humanoid opponents about four or five levels below the PCs as filler. Around 8th or 9th level, I stop using hordes of orcs and other humanoids as significant opponents, because they aren't enough orcs in the world of that level to challenge heroes of that calibre.
Same as everyone else then. My question is this then, how many rounds does it take for one of your pcs to kill a single opponent four levels below them? An how much of a threat are those characters to your pcs? The new minion rules give them the potential to do level appropriate damage while still dying easy, a threat if mobbed by them since they can actually hit, but one easily dealt with. However the hookup over the minions is rather pointless. You can still do the same thing you are doing now. Actually it is far easier to delevel foes in this edition, so you can even mix a group of orcs with far lower level versions to fill things up.

pawsplay said:
Perhaps you ought to check out the books of a guy named Jack Vance. He's pretty good. In those stories, "I have the Excellent Prismatic Spray," is a threat meaning I have one (1) prepared spell that will kill you dead. Most magicians struggle to pepare more than a handful of spells, and magicians generally go armed with rapiers.
The deal is that the books that the vancian system is based off of are the ONLY example of such a system. Even in this case they don't rely on crossbows. Making them better at the sword would only invalidate the fighter. So what then would you suggest?

That's mainly because of D&D's punitive view of weapon proficiency for wizards. Gandalf did just fine with a longsword, and the Grey Mouser was handy with rapier, staff, and dagger.
True, however Gandalf was at lowest level 17 fighting level 2 orcs. I would personally put him in the epic tier. The Mouser was a multiclass rogue/wizard and therefore doesn't apply. Even when a wizard does get in combat in fantasy, they are in some way enhanced by their magic. Do you really think Gandalf could fight that well hand to hand as old as he was? He wasn't neglecting magic for the sake of hand to hand, he was using magic efficiently to boost his own capabilities at hand to hand. A while back they were talking about the wizard having some melee powers, attacks enhanced by their magic.

I still don't see though how you see two weapon fighting as completely diminished. What is really so different now? The same requirements are there to use it effectively. No class cannot use it. Being able to use it(especially naturally like the ranger) will grant a Huge advantage most likely in damage output (considering that is the rangers job.)

EDIT: Actually, didn't they in a way make a wizard better in melee in this edition? Now all BAB scale equally, so it will not be impossible for a wizard to hit in melee. So sure they made it so a wizard can always cast some spell. However how does that in any way go against traditional fantasy? It seems to me at least that the new wizard is a better representation of a traditional wizard then in any other edition. They won't be able to throw down meteor showers all day, but they won't be left completely defenseless in every encounter after the second fight of the day.
 
Last edited:


Baen

First Post
No, the classes are named for D&D Archetypes, not after singular character concepts. However the names of a class mean nothing when trying to actually create such character classes. By your logic, Fighter should be a Fighter, Paladin a Fighter, Ranger a Fighter, Rogue a fighter, and in some cases Cleric a Fighter. The names are but the package of traditional D&D abilities they contain.

Regardless I would like to hear good reasons why the things you have mentioned are so bad or so detached from D&D that you can't stand it?
 

Remove ads

Top