Weapon vs Armour type modifiers
- Thread starter knifespeaks
- Start date
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
reanjr said:
Everything.
Everything a spiked chain can do, a heavy flail can, *except* have Weapon Finesse used with it and have 10' reach. Using Weapon Finesse with a weapon isn't really worth much. The reach is nice, but you're paying for it by spending a precious, precious feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
To be able to really use it, you need a lot of feats. If the player's investing so much effort into something, they should be able to enjoy it. You can make sure and have people use ranged attacks, swarm them with kobold wrasslers, or just suck up the AoOs and trips and close and hammer him. After all, you don't have to be standing to 5' adjust, and attacking while prone is a -4 penalty, so it's not impossible, just slightly more difficult.
Also, the spiked chain wielder is not going to be pouring out a lot of damage if he wants to trip you or disarm you, as he has to hit you first, so Power Attack is going to be contraindicated. While being disarmed or tripped is annoying, dying from massive damage is a lot more annoying.
Brad
knifespeaks,
If they haven’t tried to do this there is most likely no reason for them to do it. The weapons in 3.5 have sufficient differences in damage, critical hits, and being two-handed or not to keep this from happening. There are also DR and material types to cover most of the issues you want to address.
Actually this will add quite a lot of effort if you haven’t gotten that from the other posts yet. It will slow down combat and increase record keeping a lot. Heck if you really wanted something tactical – get a hold of Unearthed Arcana and check out the armor as DR variant in there.
And yet you have the time to make massive changes to the rules as written in order to replicate things that were done in 2nd ed. This seems to fail the logic test to me. The changes may not seem massive to you when you think of them as concepts but by the time you put pen to paper and try to keep everything in balance it will end up being quite extensive.
What? As written, they can’t be taken more than once for a reason – they will get swiftly out of hand and defeat the armor benefits that you are trying to get to be more effective in the first place. There are multiple levels of each in 3.5, which should accomplish what you are trying to get to (greater weapon focus and greater weapon specialization). I again refer to 2nd ed as a source of why things are the way they are. 2nd ed had weapon focus and weapon specialization that stacked. (Again from PO: Combat & Tactics) and also multiple levels of specialization. Only fighters could take more than 1 level of specialization and pretty much only a character with the appropriate number of fighter levels can take specialization in 3.5 too, there are some prestige classes that are exceptions.
If you haven’t noticed yet every time you try to make a “simple” change to the rules as written to incorporate something the result ends up being that many other things end up being likewise “tweaked” to maintain the balance of the system.
I thought you pointed out that you had thought the combat system of 3.5 was too complex (and yet not complex enough since you had wanted to add in casting times for spells) but when you actually ran it you and your players discovered it worked fine. I don’t know if you included that casting time for spells change or not.
Again at the point of being redundant almost everything you are proposing to do to the 3.5 rules was included in the Player’s Options system of 2n ed. If these are things you really want to do – don’t reinvent the wheel - get copies of the books, should be easy enough from ebay if you can’t get the D&D core rules and expansion CDs.
If they haven’t tried to do this there is most likely no reason for them to do it. The weapons in 3.5 have sufficient differences in damage, critical hits, and being two-handed or not to keep this from happening. There are also DR and material types to cover most of the issues you want to address.
Actually this will add quite a lot of effort if you haven’t gotten that from the other posts yet. It will slow down combat and increase record keeping a lot. Heck if you really wanted something tactical – get a hold of Unearthed Arcana and check out the armor as DR variant in there.
And yet you have the time to make massive changes to the rules as written in order to replicate things that were done in 2nd ed. This seems to fail the logic test to me. The changes may not seem massive to you when you think of them as concepts but by the time you put pen to paper and try to keep everything in balance it will end up being quite extensive.
What? As written, they can’t be taken more than once for a reason – they will get swiftly out of hand and defeat the armor benefits that you are trying to get to be more effective in the first place. There are multiple levels of each in 3.5, which should accomplish what you are trying to get to (greater weapon focus and greater weapon specialization). I again refer to 2nd ed as a source of why things are the way they are. 2nd ed had weapon focus and weapon specialization that stacked. (Again from PO: Combat & Tactics) and also multiple levels of specialization. Only fighters could take more than 1 level of specialization and pretty much only a character with the appropriate number of fighter levels can take specialization in 3.5 too, there are some prestige classes that are exceptions.
If you haven’t noticed yet every time you try to make a “simple” change to the rules as written to incorporate something the result ends up being that many other things end up being likewise “tweaked” to maintain the balance of the system.
I thought you pointed out that you had thought the combat system of 3.5 was too complex (and yet not complex enough since you had wanted to add in casting times for spells) but when you actually ran it you and your players discovered it worked fine. I don’t know if you included that casting time for spells change or not.
Again at the point of being redundant almost everything you are proposing to do to the 3.5 rules was included in the Player’s Options system of 2n ed. If these are things you really want to do – don’t reinvent the wheel - get copies of the books, should be easy enough from ebay if you can’t get the D&D core rules and expansion CDs.
knifespeaks
First Post
No, I didn't end up using casting times.
As far as buying UA/2nd edition books, that's kinda one thing I wish to avoid - if I can do something myself which is essentially the same, why shell out $$ if I don't need to?
I don't really care about whether I am re-inventing the wheel. What I care about is making armour and weapons valuable - let me explain.
There is a standard progression in D&D, which goes something like this:
Start off with mundane items
go up a level or 2
get magic weapons/armour
go up another level
get more powerful stuff
go up a level
get more powerful stuff
etc
I don't want that for my campaign. I want something like this:
Start with mundane items
go up a level or 2
get better mundane items (like fighters going from chain to plate about here)
go up a level
get a magic item
go up a level
etc
I run a low magic setting. This is worked into the milieu - that is to say, there is a reason and a logic behind it. Hence, I need to have degrees of normal items, before I start talking about masterwork and magical items. And this is a way to do it.
It allows players to be rewarded with a suit of armour or a heavy crossbow and think - 'this is very useful', rather than - 'this is merchant fodder'. Also, it makes city guards (you know, the average city guard that I don't want to HAVE TO make level 15 just to scare the adventurers off) wearing plate mail difficult targets for anyone who gets too big for their boots.
I appreciate your feedback - really, I do
But you needn't take it so personally If it upsets you, and you sit there thinking "this guy is nuts!", then fine - let me be nuts I just prefer a different way of playing.
Here's a comment from a player from our opening session on the weekend:
"I have to get out of the 3.5 mentality here, don't I?" And he was really happy about that...the comment was in relation to the characters finding some silver pieces - and they didn't even care what was printed on them! I had to PROMPT them to ask - yeah, I could have rolled a spot check - but why should I? If they don't ask, they don't get. So, they received some flavour from the coins - which may or may not be useful....
The point of the story is that the little things often make the difference - you see armour mods as a big thing, I see it as a little thing. And even if it IS a big thing, I NEED it for the style of game I am running. That's it
As far as buying UA/2nd edition books, that's kinda one thing I wish to avoid - if I can do something myself which is essentially the same, why shell out $$ if I don't need to?
I don't really care about whether I am re-inventing the wheel. What I care about is making armour and weapons valuable - let me explain.
There is a standard progression in D&D, which goes something like this:
Start off with mundane items
go up a level or 2
get magic weapons/armour
go up another level
get more powerful stuff
go up a level
get more powerful stuff
etc
I don't want that for my campaign. I want something like this:
Start with mundane items
go up a level or 2
get better mundane items (like fighters going from chain to plate about here)
go up a level
get a magic item
go up a level
etc
I run a low magic setting. This is worked into the milieu - that is to say, there is a reason and a logic behind it. Hence, I need to have degrees of normal items, before I start talking about masterwork and magical items. And this is a way to do it.
It allows players to be rewarded with a suit of armour or a heavy crossbow and think - 'this is very useful', rather than - 'this is merchant fodder'. Also, it makes city guards (you know, the average city guard that I don't want to HAVE TO make level 15 just to scare the adventurers off) wearing plate mail difficult targets for anyone who gets too big for their boots.
I appreciate your feedback - really, I do
But you needn't take it so personally If it upsets you, and you sit there thinking "this guy is nuts!", then fine - let me be nuts I just prefer a different way of playing.Here's a comment from a player from our opening session on the weekend:
"I have to get out of the 3.5 mentality here, don't I?" And he was really happy about that...the comment was in relation to the characters finding some silver pieces - and they didn't even care what was printed on them! I had to PROMPT them to ask - yeah, I could have rolled a spot check - but why should I? If they don't ask, they don't get. So, they received some flavour from the coins - which may or may not be useful....
The point of the story is that the little things often make the difference - you see armour mods as a big thing, I see it as a little thing. And even if it IS a big thing, I NEED it for the style of game I am running. That's it
Henrix
Explorer
You do know there already is a Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization that does exactly this, right?knifespeaks said:
The advantage of having them as separate feats instead of just stacking the normal versions is so that you can have higher level requirments, and the stacking does not get out of hand.
If you allow WF and WS to stack, a 10th lvl fighter could have an extra +5 attack and +10 damage with his favoured weapon. No, don't.
Whimsical
Explorer
There was a chart in the 2nd ed. AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide that had a simpler chart of weapon damage types vs armor. I would recommend using that instead of the 1st ed. system. But I would change how that table is used. Instead of remembering that your blugeoning weapon does +2 against chain mail, just write up three ACs for each armor. Chainmail would have an AC 3 vs bludgeoning attacks, an AC 5 vs piercing attacks, and an AC 5 vs slashing attacks.
The easiest way to handle this is not by changing the rules but instead changing how much money the characters have access to. Less money, means less of the good stuff. The progression for armor and weapons you are talking about roughly corresponds to a progression in the cost of items. If you don’t want to change the money available to the characters then change the costs of the items themselves. This concept makes things a little harder on you but is much easier than running a completely different game-mechanic and should still provide the type of scaling you want. The Complete Warrior has some suggestions for running a low magic item game. Basically increasing the market value of the items by 100% to 300%. This corresponds to an increase in material costs and in exp spent to create the items thus reducing their commonality. A similar logic could be applied to regular and masterwork armors and weapons if desired.
Not really a change in the 3.5 mentality – only a change in how the players play the game. It all works within the same 3.5 mechanics. If the information from the coins was an important storyline issue then a Spot check would have been useful (and called for) but otherwise what you did is just fine. Eventually the players get the idea of what they should be looking for in relation to the story being played out.
A useful tool for this to get players and DMs on the same page is to do a quick debrief following the game and discuss what was good, what was bad, what was expected, etc. Sometimes dropping the idea that not all coins are the same is a useful tool for inserting the flavor/color of the setting being run. A way my DMs have handled money in the past is to describe it by size – not all sp are the same (especially in the type of setting you are running). But the characters would know that all money is different even if the players themselves don’t. Sometimes it is a good idea to tell the players some things that their characters know – especially unique bits of information relating to where the character comes from. I have always valued a good character history as a role-playing tool and rewarded players who put the time into creating a detailed and colorful one.
knifespeaks
First Post
Yeah, that may be a better alternative there Irdeggman - certainly I am in favour of less tweaking IF there are easier alternatives - damn, but I am so out of the mindset for gaming, it's been sooo long
Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for the feedback
Gort
Explorer
One thing - the more weapons a character needs to be good at under your rules system, the stronger the barbarian gets compared to the fighter.
The fighter NEEDS his weapon specialisation and weapon focus feats to be in use all the time just to stay level with the barbarian. If suddenly his signature weapon is useless, he takes big penalties switching to something else. Meanwhile, the barbarian doesn't really care, (except that he might not have as many plusses on his backup weapon) his high strength makes him good with any weapon.
The fighter NEEDS his weapon specialisation and weapon focus feats to be in use all the time just to stay level with the barbarian. If suddenly his signature weapon is useless, he takes big penalties switching to something else. Meanwhile, the barbarian doesn't really care, (except that he might not have as many plusses on his backup weapon) his high strength makes him good with any weapon.
No problem knifespeaks - glad I could help some.
I just hate seeing people spinning their wheels on things that they can get from previously published sources. There are just too many other things a DM can spend his time on to make his game more enjoyable then messing around with mechanics that he can find elsewhere.
I remember the relearning curve I had to go through when I started gaming again. I had played 1st ed at college (we actually had a player successfully run a PC up to being a bard) then after I graduated (and moved) I didn't game again for like 10 years and joined a group playind Dark Sun with 2nd ed revised rules (and heavily house-ruled). I stepped into running a 3rd level druid (in Dark Sun all characters started at 3rd level - and druids were teh major divine spellcasters having access to all of the curing spells and resurrection and rais dead spells while clerics were limited to 3rd level spells that weren't elementally based). Image the spell list I had to go through (and they used spontaneous casting with a spell point variant based on prime attribute - which I had to learn on the fly). Oh yeah then we went through the Player's Option evolution as well as Alternity (the space opera precurser to d20 from WotC) and finally 3.0 and 3.5.
Eventually I got past the mechanics and really enjoyed the role-playing the group did (and still does albeit in differrent games). These are some of the best role-players I have ever met and I am eternally grateful to them for sharing that with me.
I just hate seeing people spinning their wheels on things that they can get from previously published sources. There are just too many other things a DM can spend his time on to make his game more enjoyable then messing around with mechanics that he can find elsewhere.
I remember the relearning curve I had to go through when I started gaming again. I had played 1st ed at college (we actually had a player successfully run a PC up to being a bard) then after I graduated (and moved) I didn't game again for like 10 years and joined a group playind Dark Sun with 2nd ed revised rules (and heavily house-ruled). I stepped into running a 3rd level druid (in Dark Sun all characters started at 3rd level - and druids were teh major divine spellcasters having access to all of the curing spells and resurrection and rais dead spells while clerics were limited to 3rd level spells that weren't elementally based). Image the spell list I had to go through (and they used spontaneous casting with a spell point variant based on prime attribute - which I had to learn on the fly). Oh yeah then we went through the Player's Option evolution as well as Alternity (the space opera precurser to d20 from WotC) and finally 3.0 and 3.5.
Eventually I got past the mechanics and really enjoyed the role-playing the group did (and still does albeit in differrent games). These are some of the best role-players I have ever met and I am eternally grateful to them for sharing that with me.
