Weapons as special effects

[Vargo]

Have you thought about setting the DCs to something like 10+(d/v) where d = damage, and v = some number like 5 or 10? 10 would be very good, as it would keep the DCs reasonably low, the math easy, and the game fast.

 

[woodelf]

Have you thought about setting the DCs to something like 10+(d/v) where d = damage, and v = some number like 5 or 10? 10 would be very good, as it would keep the DCs reasonably low, the math easy, and the game fast.

Mathematically, that's very elegant--probably the /5 version gives better numbers, but i'd have to sit down and do some figurin'. However, as a practical matter, i think it'd be too awkward. At least with my group, keeping track of the various options this presents, just in terms of when it's best to go for big damage, and when to go for big crit, is plenty. Not only would you have to calculate these DCs on the fly, but it would add in the question of trading off likely damage for save difficulty--and in a non-obvious way, IMHO--to the calculation of what grip to use.

So, in short: brilliant idea, wish i'd thought of it; but i don't think it would work with my group, at least.

Using BAB is, in this case, i think, a reasonable compromise: it reflects general martial prowess, if not the specific effectiveness of the attack or the grip chosen, or the size of the weapon/wielder. On the downside, you're giving up some verisimillitude. On the upside, it helps reflect the "skill trumps physics" feel of the system in general, by not further disadvantaging small wielders (who would have lower save DCs on special effects, in addition to lower damage to start with).

 

[micr0c0sm]

Amazing job. Very solid design and redesign. I will definately use in my campaigns. You should design an alternate magic system (Although probably five times more difficult than this). You know what, scratch that. You should design alternate subsystems like feats and skills or something...actually....I don't know what I'm saying.
I just want more stuff from you is what I'm getting at.

 

[Insight]

I just now read thru this thread, Dan, and I must say it's intriguing. We should set up a playtest session for these rules when you're ready.

 

[Bearfs]

Oh,a Masterpiece!
But why are so many Kong-fu example there?DnD is a Fantastic Medieval Wargame isn't it?
Or just because western heros like Conan never discard his big bad sword ?

 

[IcyCool]

I know it's been a while since this thread has seen the light of day, but I just wanted to know if there has been any more work or play-testing on this?

 

[woodelf]

I know it's been a while since this thread has seen the light of day, but I just wanted to know if there has been any more work or play-testing on this?

I've been using the system, in the version i last uploaded, in my game for the last few months. Unfortunately, we're only around 6th level, so the system hasn't been really given a workout yet. But, so far, so good.

My only concern is that it looks like the warriors may actually be gradually outstripping the spellcasters in combat potential. However, i don't really have a good testbed for this: the spellcasters are a runethane (2nd-string spellcaster), multiclass magister (so only 2nd-level caster), and greenbond/witch (primary spellcaster, but not combat-oriented, and frequently absent); while both of the warrior sorts are top-tier warriors; and the only real in-betweener (the magister) is a spryte, so, regardless of system, he isn't gonna be much of a warrior. Still, that might just be a matter of adjusting the damage steps, or maybe the occasional attack quality.

I'll let you know in another 5 levels, or so, if it's a problem. Especially if you remember to ask me.

 

[Zoatebix]

Thanks woodelf! I'll be using your latest version of the system when I finally start a game that's suited for these rules. I knew there was a reason that I had this thread bookmarked. Thanks for keeping us informed!
-George

 

[dead_radish]

Woodelf: Yeah, that's really not a good testbed for data. I'd expect a straight warmain to outstrip that group pretty easily. I assume the Greenbond/Witch is a wood witch, so that's a fairly healing focused char, and still lacking complex or exotics, to get the real damage dealers. A runethane is already behind in pure spell power, and more a flexible caster. And a spryte magister loses power for flight - seems like all your other PC's are made for flexibility and coverage, rather than blowing stuff up.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I've been using it in a party with 2 secondary 'casters and a primary warrior, and it's worked well. We're using EoM[R], though, which basically does for magic what DanMcS' system does for combat, so it might not be quite the same balance as core.

I've been using the following house rule:

Unarmed Focus
Whenever you gain a new Combat Proficiency feat (including at character creation), you may choose to focus on unarmed combat. Your unarmed strikes deal damage as light weapons, but your weapon attacks deal damage as if they were one sized smaller. Thus, a 1st-level fighter could choose Unarmed Focus as an option, dealing 1d6/x3 with an unarmed strike or one-handed weapon.

You can only choose this when you gain a new level of Proficiency, so it'll never actually reduce your weapon damage, just keep it from increasing. It's not a feat, just an option.