Greetings! After much thought and work, I've put together a custom weapon system that allows flavorful and creative crafting, with nearly 100% compatibility on existing weapons.
The Document may be found on dropbox. New thread because the old was very poorly formatted.
I need critiques badly, so any input is helpful.
I'm not a fan of it.
1) I don't understand the point of completely changing how weapons and ability scores work with attacks. That's not something I ever thought needed to become more complicated.
2) I don't like the idea of minimum Strength. It's completely unnecessary because the game already models that using carry capacity and the fact that damage and accuracy scales with Strength. You don't need to say an 8 STR character can't wield a longsword. He's going to be terrible with it anyway.
3) Many of the weapon modifications strike me as way too powerful and easy to munchkin. I could make a weapon with a 16-20 critical range and a x4 critical modifier. Then I could take Improved Critical to crit on a 11-20. That would mean I have a 50% chance to critically strike for 4 times the damage.
4) Admittedly, the above point might not be valid as I find it really difficult to use this document as a reference. I spent like 10 minutes trying to find how a weapon's grade is determined. The language of the crafting rules is confusing--I'm still not sure how to craft a weapon.
5) The document has many typos and writing style issues. The most glaring one is "lite," which should be "light." "Lite" is a word for a food or drink with low sugar or calories, originating as a deliberate commercial misspelling from the 1950s. You also misspelled "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" as "Pathfinder Role Playing System." Normally, I don't rake homebrewers over the coals for typos and style errors. However, I wince when I see someone try to make their homebrew document look professional and they misspell the name of the game on the very first page.
Okay, finally someone who's honest.
1. That's fair. Trying to make both dexterity and strength important here, this is the most straightforward way.
2. For the abilities to be balanced, I absolutely do need to have minimum strength requirements. You miss the fact that finesse and dexterity damage play a part here, so strength to access certain abilities becomes necessary.
3. If you had taken the time to read the document through, you would have easily seen that what you propose for critical is downright impossible. The general rule is once per three grades, and each portion of the critical, both range increase, and damage increase, share this slot, so you can't cheese.
4. If you read the document in order, it quite easy to understand; it leads you through with step-by-step instructions. If you know a better way to organize it, enlighten me, seriously.
5. Absolutely there are typos, but I've spotted as much as I can. The Pathfinder 'typo' was intentional, as I'm reworking a system and not the whole game, but since it has you so upset, I've amended it.
If you could please give the system a more thorough review than a once-over, I would appreciate it.
After going through your post a few times I think I might as well throw my hat in the ring as well.
I will admit that the system takes a bit getting used to and can be confusing, BUT I also found it to be a nice medium between people who really want awesome weapons and people who just want a weapon that might not inherently be included in pathfinder. There are a few issues with the new system that I would like to point out, namely that rogues and there ninja counterparts have a set martial or exotic proficiency, instead they are given proficiency over weapons that can (for the most part) be finessed so that they can be a dex based character like they are supposed to. In this system because they don't have either martial or exotic prof they are limited to either eating a feat or having to stick with simple weapons.
Other than that I have enjoyed the system and plan on implementing it in the next campaign I run with my group.
1. That's fair. Trying to make both dexterity and strength important here, this is the most straightforward way.
Dexterity and Strength are already important. A melee fighter needs Dexterity for defense and a ranged fighter needs Strength for damage. If you're trying to implement Dex-to-damage for melee fighters, this is a really clumsy way of doing that.
4. If you read the document in order, it quite easy to understand; it leads you through with step-by-step instructions. If you know a better way to organize it, enlighten me, seriously.
Of course you find it easy to understand--you wrote it. Never assume a player/GM will read the entire rules in order. Any person with significant experience in writing rules for tabletop games can tell you that. People look things up when they need the information. If I just want to see the crafting DC of a katana, I don't want to have to read through the entire document to figure it out.
Also, no wonder I couldn't find what a "grade" means. The document doesn't actually define it. It just says "weapon can accommodate one mod for every grade above 0" as a minor bullet point. If you use a new term, you need to properly introduce it, especially when several tables refer to it. If I read a table that says "goober" as a column, I should be able to find where a "goober" is defined. This is why every chapter of Pathfinder hardcovers that list spells, feats, and equipment have a section that define all the fields and columns you see in the tables.
My point is that it's hard to review the rules because they're so poorly written. The rules for modifications are not listed under the modification section. Unnecessary flowery language clutters the rule text, such as:
Be mindful of the crafting DC in relation to your skill, and the limits of your modding capability. Do not attempt to go far beyond the scope of your skill, lest you be doomed to fail.Many sentences are written awkwardly with typos, grammar, and writing style errors. In many cases, you can sum up a complicated paragraph in one or two sentences. For example, you don't need to say:
Roll ad20 and add your crafting bonus; if this number is greater than or equal to the crafting dc, you’ve successfully made progress that day.
You can better write that sentence by saying, "You make one day of progress on a successful Craft check with a DC based on the weapon's complexity (see Table 4.1)."
Someone shouldn't need to read the whole thing to wrap their head around what you're attempting here. Try writing a new first page that will give the reader an easy to read, easy to understand outline of the big picture. If I have a better idea of whats going on at the beginning, I will be more likely to keep on reading and more likely to understand what I read.
Someone shouldn't need to read the whole thing to wrap their head around what you're attempting here. Try writing a new first page that will give the reader an easy to read, easy to understand outline of the big picture. If I have a better idea of whats going on at the beginning, I will be more likely to keep on reading and more likely to understand what I read.
You're absolutely right, thank you. I'll get right on that, it should help with everything.
@ CyradStrength is flat out worthless because of slashing grace unless you're a two-handed weapon kind of guy. Dex-damage is overpowered as hell; this is an attempt to even it out.
I am long-winded, but you have failed to point out a single grammatical or spelling error. Earlier you caught me on homophone misspellings. It would be helpful if you could provide a writing style error example. I'll also cut out the flowery language, and explicitly define terms, you're right there.
@ kestral
Once per three grades is bolded. I'll be clearer in the next draft, but come on, seriously. The bullet points and nimble/brutishs' texts also state scaling isn't additive as you propose.
Edit: It'll be clearer in the next draft, but effects like keen only add 1, they no longer multiply; you cant reasonable get more than 4 crit-effecting modifications on your weapon even end game.
Strength is flat out worthless because of slashing grace unless you're a two-handed weapon kind of guy. Dex-damage is overpowered as hell; this is an attempt to even it out.
Slashing Grace is a horribly designed feat. I agree with you there. However, Dex-to-damage is not overpowered as long as it does not receive the same benefits as two-handed builds. I always play Strength characters and ran campaigns for Dexterity characters for years. I always gave Weapon Finesse as a free bonus feat and allow my players to select Deadly Agility from Dreamscarred Press's Path of War (very well designed). My only issue with Dex-to-damage stems from gish classes. Dex-to-damage is insanely good for gish classes like the magus and allows them to have deal the same damage as Dexterity martials. Thankfully, Deadly Agility takes take of that with a +1 BAB requirement.
I'm not sure what alternatives are you thinking of. If you play a Strength character and aren't a ranged fighter or a two-handed fighter, what else would you be? A two-weapon fighter? Shield fighter? Those are normally Dexterity fighters. Their problem stems from the unfairness of two-weapon fighting feats.
Even if I agree with you that Dex-to-damage is overpowered, completely changing how weapons and attacks work is a heavy-handed approach to fixing the problem.
I am long-winded, but you have failed to point out a single grammatical or spelling error. Earlier you caught me on homophone misspellings. It would be helpful if you could provide a writing style error example. I'll also cut out the flowery language, and explicitly define terms, you're right there.
There's no such thing as a "crafting bonus." Spells need to be italicized. It's "Craft (bows)" not "Craft: Bows." You alternate between abbreviating, capitalizing, and lowercasing ability score names. They should always be capitalized and never abbreviated unless part of a stat block. Even with your own style, you do not keep it consistent. I list a bunch of the writing style hints here.
Ok, decided to make an account here just to add my two cents in. I agree that the organization needs work and it makes it hard to read, I am in full agreeance with Ciaran Barns that a new first page would help.
And as for you Cyrad I have seen your history around here and you seem to have a far bit of reviews, this is all well and good but this isn't a published Paizo book to rip in to. You indeed have some good points, but like the good critic you think you are, you proceed to nitpick at things that can be sorted out later instead of helping make this into a successful system.
Lastly Pseudos, I would in future recommend that you ask for helpful and creative criticism, plosive questions breed positive answers.
You indeed have some good points, but like the good critic you think you are, you proceed to nitpick at things that can be sorted out later instead of helping make this into a successful system.
I find that kind of input helpful to my homebrew. Making corrections to capitalization, changing what gets boldface or italics, font size, spacing, etc. (presentation) are the simplest kinds of fixes a writer can do. Why not sort them out at the same time the harder stuff (content) is being done? Using a consistant "style" - be it Pazio's or the writer's own - makes for an inviting document and is another way to make it easier for the reader.
12 hours of rewrite later, you can find version 2.1 here on dropbox. The old version now forwards to 2.1.
Changelog:
I completely rewrote most the rules
Eliminated unnecessary flowery language
I use Paizo terms where I can, and stick with style and spelling of things
the crafting bit comes first now
Amalgam weapons are better explained
Weapon pricing now squared; probably going to remove this.
The intent section will likely be replaced with an into paragraph
Let me know if I missed ~marking rule changes, or mucked up stylistically.
General decree: My players understood the original with few questions, so I didn't think it was hard to read. This is much, much easier.
Now for responses:
@ Cyrad
Please give it a closer look when you can, as I've fixed most of your complaints. Yes, it's a heavy-handed way to fix the problem, but its a problem I've been tired of for a long time.
@ Sir Giffard
Thanks for the input; will be more specific on what kind of help I need in future.
@ kestral
There's no way in hell you're going to be able to pick up the kind of weapons your talking about; an NPC would have to have a crafting skill of 10 less than the craft DC; no randomly generated npc is going to have that kind of bonus for Experimental, nevermind Legendary 3, even with items. If you're going by a certain level of services being available, its still a stretch any decent GM would forbid.
Even if you find a guy who can craft that high, you have to consider that extraplanar beings know about things at DC 30 according to Unchained; what do you think they'd do to a guy who's hanging out selling legendary weapons to PCs? Murder people, take the weapons, that's what.
@ Mr. Barnes
Constructive criticism is absolutely helpful, like your earlier comment. I hope you take the time to review the rewrite, as you have helped me in the past.
@ all
Now that the document is easier to understand, please give it another go. Once we agree on the rules of the game, we can ask if they're broken.
Well its quite an overhaul. While easier to read, it is still difficult to understand. I've been looking at it for the last 10-15 minutes though and am starting to make some sense of it.
You open with your intent. That good, but I think opening with a simple walk-through of designing a weapon would be great too. Say I want my fighter to have a long sword. Walk me through the process of designing that.
I suggest not placing the crafting rules on the first page. You should put that information at the end, since we don't even know how to use your system yet. This table also introduces information that is not defined. I have no idea what simplistic, intuitive, trained, and experimental weapons are.
I recommend against using your term "ability modifier" when half of the time its going to be .5 off from the character's standard ability modifier. It might be best to just use the standard ability modifier.
I assume the entries under "weapon types" are to explain the terms used in the table. Whereas the table has a column titled weapon handedness, in the explanation we instead have weapon type.
"Weapon type" lists 7 kinds, the table lists 6 kinds, and then 10 different kinds are actually defined. This is confusing. Perhaps double weapons and repeating crossbows should be placed elsewhere, since they follow the rules for other weapons (I think).
Since all of your bows are composite bows, it actually makes it more confusing that you call them composite bows. Just get rid of all mentions of the work composite. This is because I see composite bow, but I don't see a normal bow anywhere. If short and long are both weapon types, I would like to see both appear on the table. Perhaps instead of making them mechanically similar, reverse the Str and Dex scalars. This would make them similar to light and one-handed weapons, and then greatbow can be like two-handed weapon.
With crossbows its the same thing. I see heavy crossbow on the table, but no light crossbow. Why does the crossbow not have a Dex scalar? Accuracy is still important with such a weapon. Also, while I've never actually cranked a crossbow, I believe that they are designer so that it cannot be cranked beyond a certain tension. They reach a certain point and then lock in place. I don't think they can be overdrawn they way some bows can.
Strength requirement is clear enough, but strength rating is not, since the entry for strength rating refers to itself but does not define it.
Scaling and scalars are also confusing. Maybe scalar should be defined. This system is going to end up with a bunch of 1/2 points of damage. I would remove the explanation on damage bonuses from here and have a different section about calculating damage, instead of having such an important aspect hidden in the definitions for a table.
Finally, I just wanted to include a SCREEN SHOT of what your document looks like on my ipad.
Let me first apologize with a 2.2pdf that's more Ipad friendly (link) Going through your comments line by line:
You're totally right about the walkthrough at the beginning, now with multiple examples.
Crafting got put back at the end.
I make a note about ability modifier at the beginning, and it's now in the example; you're not wrong, but with x2 str scaling, it seems silly not to allow it.
Weapon type now reads weapon handedness, thank you.
Double and repeating's explanations are now in the modifications section; shortbows and light crossbows are on the table.
When migrating to the new version, some things were forgotten. Weapon feats and grades are now explained at the end. Non-composite bows are not study enough for modification; I've made a note in other weapons entry.
While it's a cool idea to give shortbows better Dex scaling, but a shortbow is not so maneuverable that it doubles what a longbow can provide. Bows across the board would need the Dex scaling increase, which makes strength ratings pointless in archer character builds. I'm playtesting this now, it could be that bows need a .5 bump to Dex scaling.
Crossbows do not take the skill that a longbow does; a standard soldier can use a crossbow in a week instead of the years of practice it takes to use a longbow. The longbow takes more skill, and is limited to 0.5 dex scaling, so crossbows get none. (if bows get the bump, crossbows get 0.5 dex scaling)
While you cannot overdraw a crossbow like you can a longbow, you can still increase draw weight. (increasing draw weight increases the force propelling the arrow or bolt)
Strength ratings's explanation is now clearer.
Scalar's definition is now clearer.
Calculating damage now has its own entry, and a bunch of examples.
Also, I removed the square from cost; it doesn't work well.
Edit: forgot to make the table numbers match again. Done.
Well done on the new intro.
Minor revisions:
Added critical explanation,
Minor format change
Craft value in gp rounded up, weight rounded to nearest
Still found here
Have you tried this out in your group?
Just got back to my dwelling, very busy weekend.
Yes, tried it with freshly rolled characters, unchained barb, warpriest, unchained rogue, Ranger/fighter (custom), and a wizard.
We play with max hp (lvl 1 doesn't matter), and a LOT of people still lost consciousness because of the higher damage all around. I have to do a lot more background work, (recalculate pretty much all damage) but everybody seems really enthralled with custom weapons, and at least at low level it doesn't break the game. Even the wizard has knives he throws on strings that do decent damage and decent to hit because he has high dex. Wizard took the hint on comparatively lower damage and prepared effect based spells, letting the melees finish it off. Crossbows have seen some use, but no bows yet, should see some soon with cash injection.
TL;DR
Combat is edgier due to higher damage
More DM work
Wizard damage feels underpowered, he switched to effects. Color Spray!
No bows yet.
Think you'll tone back the damage?
Maybe, but we'll have to see how things play out at level 4 or so; level one and two can be edgy anyway. The only thing I'm really worried about is the lower spell damage in comparison, but our wizard doesn't seem to mind.
If I do need to lower damage I suppose I could do an adaptation from what I have now without the damage rewrite. I'll probably do that anyway here in a few weeks when I'm free again. I do not see a way to reduce overall damage and keep the damage rewrite at the moment. 1.5x melee damage is a burden to put on casters, and I don't want to rewrite more systems.
The group likely the heavy damage feel, but iterative attacks haven't hit yet, low level ect. The game feels a different in a lot of aspects, i.e. the fighter's feats that improve damage by two are de-powered, spell damage is not as effective as it was, but its not a bad feeling, at least so far. We're meeting again here not this but next Friday, so I'll post more after.
Updated pdf here.I've been doing some work trying to separate The two systems, and I'm about done, but I need advice:
I'm trying to balance the length of time it takes to craft items, and I've hit a few issue.
Below are some crafting examples: a person crafts a DC of item making the appropriate check, then takes the most expensive augments they can. Cost is calculated and weighed against the progress they make per day to give the total number of days required to craft.
dc15 r2 base* 2 *2.0 *2.0 = 8*base vs 2/day = 4*base
dc30 r5 base* 5 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0=160*base vs 16/day = 10*base
dc45 r8 base* 8 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 = 2048*base vs 128/day = 16*base
dc60 r11 base*11 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *1.5 *2.0 *2.0 = 16896*base vs 1000/day = 17*base
Crafting a dc15 weapon takes 4 days for a lite weapon, 12 days for a one-handed, and 24 days for a two-handed. This is much too slow.
Crafting a dc60 weapon takes 17 days for a lite weapon, 51 days for a one-handed, and 102 days for a two-handed. This is about the right speed.
I'm using unchained's progress per day and capping it at 1000gp/day, but I need a way to make lower tier faster keeping about the same for high tier. Any thoughts?
instead of scalars I think you should use fractions, this allows you to use more steps than .5, and i feel base damage should be pulled back about .5 per weapon base. light weaposn could be 1/4 str 3/4 dex, reverse for one handed. 3/2 for two handed. steps go from 1/4 - 2/3 - 1/1 - 4/3 - 3/2 - 5/3
First off, welcome to the thread, and thank you for commenting.
I considered a lot of ways to introduce Str/Dex scaling, and after much debate I alighted on the method in the document. Your suggestion is a refreshing alternative to those that don't want to increase damage by ~45% across the board. Here are my original reasons:
- I didn't want to introduce complexity you need a calculator for to use general weapons.
- My less math inclined players didn't have a good time with non-1/2 scalars; 1/2 was already stretching it for one of them. (my check to make sure it could be understood was to have him read it; he understood half scalars)
You're right that damage from attributes was increased by about 50%, or in the case of the two-handed weapon, about 66% (with a mod).
Introducing Scalars as you have suggested reduces melee damage almost universally from RAW Pathfinder. You may be unaware that scalar total cannot increase, only move, exception for two-handed weapons which go up by 0.5.
Examples:
Barbarian, level 8, two-handed weapon. 26str when raging, 14 dex. Nothing changes between Pathfinder and your scalars, which is fine.
Rogue, level 8, two light weapons. 14 Str 22dex. In Pathfinder, she deals +0 fro Str, and +6 from Dex for +6; Your suggestion she deals +0 from Str, +4.5Dex(round down) for +4. Much less okay. Unchained rogue can deal full dex, but still.
You have found a real issue that exits. I'm considering removing the ability to change scaling at all, and reducing two-handed weapon scaling to 2.25, or 2.0str 0.5dex. The origonal intention was to reward both dexterity and strength based playstyles, not make min-max Hell. We're doing playtests right now, it should become apparent.
As far as keeping total damage about the same as it is now, it would work if you wanted to deal parcels of a hitpoint of damage. That's more work that I'm willing to do on paper. If that's what you're interested in I could write it up.
I am currently doing a split of the content, since weapon damage and weapon customization don't much effect one another.
I had a quick and dirty system that worked and nothing else. My players understood it, the people here did not. Less frivolity, less text. Still not understanding; I put in examples and a walk-through guide, and it looks a lot better now. No one complains about its understandability, now its too long to be worth a read.
Given that there's 3 systems (damage progression, new scaling, weapon crafting) I should be allowed 6 pages by your reckoning (you gave two pages first). I have 5 if I cut down to the nitty-gritty. The magic weapons system in pathfinder is 5 pages by itself, and that's one system. I'm doing just fine.
New update with new PDF links:
Dynamic Weapons and Crafting Overhaul 2.3
and now with only the crafting system:
Dynamic Crafting Overhaul 2.3
Changelog:
Weapon scaling is now static, as a result
Removed Brutish modification
Removed Nimble modification
Changed two-handed scaling to be 2.0*Str 0.5*Dex
Fixed a Table X.X
Removed redundant descriptions
Changed the format again
Changed forward to about
Introduced side version without the weapons system
Thanks to Bandw2 for inspiring deep thought to fix outlying issues and new side version. Thanks to LazarX for inspiring redundant text deletion.
@Legowaffles
You absolutely can do that; I try to close as many of the loopholes as I can; the worst cheese you can pull with a weapon right now I already know about, and am okay with.
Ninja update:
Cost lowered almost universally.
Re-arranged a table
made it clearer that Strength rating isn't multiplied in cost.
More modifications are needed, if anybody has some serious suggestions, please post them.
OK ... let's see what happens when I create one of my favourite weapon styles, the huge two-handed hammer of I HATE EVERYTHING.
Two-hander, so min Str 12, base weight 6, d8 damage, Str scaling 2 (twice Str mod when I hit someone, I think?), Dex scaling .5 (so 14 dex means +1 to hurt? Huh.), and costs 4 gold.
d8 for a two-hander is kind'a minimal. Looking at changes?
'Double' might be fun but why is that on one-handers only when the base game requires them to be two-handers?
'Improved Damage' looks like it's needed twice over. So ... two 2.0 cost thingies, and two 1.25 weight thingies. Calculator time already. And I want 'Powerful Critical', so that's another 2.0 cost thingy.
Damage dice time. Table 2.2 is ... ugh. And the damage dice available? Ugh and a half. Still, I guess 3d4 is somewhat decent as damage. At least I avoided the dreaded d4+d6. Because ... um ... why does that exist as a damage 'die'?
Wait. I have two improved damages. I'm ... forced to stick something else in 'slot three'? What the hell else do I want? I just want a huge hammer to hit people with! Nothing else!
So I have two 1.25 weight increases, which I'm guessing add up to a 2.5 x base, so my hammer of ow is 15 pounds. Cost is three 2.0s, which I think add up to 6.0 (I'm guessing all these are additive), so my hammer is 24 gold.
So, 15 pounds, 24 gold, 3d4 damage, and hoping the GM doesn't notice I violated the OPTG rule (ugh, one per three grades) rule. It's still a martial weapon, at least.
Actual in-game earthbreaker? 40 gold, 14 pounds, 2d6 damage, martial two-hander.
OK, how does this fare against a bec de corbin?
1 damage increase to the lovely d4+d6, 1 powerful crit, brace, reach, and bludgeoning or piercing damage. Hello, exotic polearm!
I'm not really seeing an advantage here for custom weapons. I can understand wanting to codify things, and I do like junking the greatclub as a martial weapon (ick), and I love the idea of rewarding those who make their own weapons. But I'm not too keen on making someone using this system need to eat three feats of taxing (Exotic, Improved Exotic, Greater Exotic) when someone willing to do this has to eat TWO MORE feats to make that weapon do other things (Master Craftsman, Craft Magic Arms and Armour).
Let's go through what you id in order.
You want a two-handed weapon that is Martial, and deals more damage. We can do that.
you want:
1. Improved damage
2. Oversized
3. Powerful Critical
Which means the base damage of the weapon would be 3d4, with a x3 crit and reach, and not the bad reach where you don't threaten close to you, but full reach. 18 required strength though, so if you aren't a Strength build forget about it.
Cost (as noted in the opening section 'Determine Cost') is base*modifiers(you do not add them)*grade. so 4*2.0*2.0*2.0*3=96gp. Fair for an oversize weapon.
Weight ('Determining Weight') base*modifiers, so 4*2.0*1.25=10 lbs.
If you think it would be better if determining cost and weight was at the back, I can move it.
On to your other questions:
The reason that base damage is minimal is because most martial Pathfinder weapons have improved damage on them to start.
Double may only be applied to one-handed weapons to keep damage in line with Pathfinder's base. I.e. a two-bladed sword in pathfinder does 1d8/1d8, and is exotic. Here, the exact same sword could be made as a martial with Double, Improved damage, Improved Critical. Letting it be applied to large weapons would increase the damage die one step, breaking damage AND Scaling balance.
While two-handed weapons do less 'dice' of damage at martial tier, they do increased damage overall, so the 1.0 average damage you lose between 1d4+1d6(DWCO) and 2d6(Pathfinder) should be made up for in most cases. This is the strange bit in the system I can't fix; if you've got ideas tell me.
The reason Table 2.2, the damage die table, is the way it is is to avoid cheese. Regularly, the damage progression for non-d10 is:
d2->d3->d4->d6->d8->2d6->3d6->4d6->6d6->8d6-> 12d6
Dnd/Pathfinder's theme is every damage up should be 1.5*as mush as the previous, which is very broken for a system like this. For Example a dc40 craft check could produce a greatsword with 3 damage upgrades and 2 oversize; the required strength is 24, which is quite doable with magic items. Here for a medium character the damage would be 4d6, while the other system would be 12d6.
My Weapon die damage system has a few rules how I calculated it:
The average damage goes up by 0.5 for two steps, 1.0 for two steps, 1.5 for two steps, ect.
Determining dice for that damage can only use two types of dice and they must be next to one another (d4 d6) of (d6 d8).
Additionally, the number of dice may never be reduced from the previous.
Using this system, Table 2.2 was the only possible result. If you have a better Idea how to balance this, I'm all ears.
You may be right about the Extra Exotic feats. I'm playtesting right now, so I'm trying to find out. I was trying to balance the reward out for martial characters who have a lot of feats and limit higher access at earlier levels, but didn't mean to over-penalize people.
Please let me know what your thoughts are.
A double weapon is really a way for a two weapon fighter to get two one-handers going. The two-bladed sword, a two-hander, is basically two longswords. Two longswords are worse penalties than a double-bladed sword, but the double weapon is an exotic to offset that advantage. The rules do say if your double weapon is being used one-handed, it's no longer a double weapon--pick one end each attack.
I won't say there aren't scaling issues in the stock system, and some weird results (the favourite 1d12 vs 2d6 issue, which resolves in favour of 2d6), and d10 mucks everything up of course, but seeing two different die types just looks strange for the system.
As far as that 96gp 2d6 reach but can still threaten warhammer? I think the system starts breaking down once cash stops being an issue. Remember, Karl Marx noted that there's nothing stopping you from hiring someone to crank this weapon out for you. (Well, not specifically in relation to RPG item creation rules, but you get the picture.)
Another issue, and I'd mentioned it in the earlier post ... both Str and Dex are used to add to damage. That's an across-the-board damage increase for almost everyone. I'm not sure how well those 'scalars' would handle the Str 7 wizard flailing uselessly with his quarterstaff. Is he doing -4 damage plus half dex?
Finally, I still don't see it as that compatible with what's there now. I used the earthbreaker as a first example, and it fits for greataxes and greatswords too. The other example that I used, the bec de corbin, changes proficiency. In fact, will everyone have to go through this chart to get their basic gear?
Nothing really needs said about double weapons; normally it's exotic, it's not here. Another does not translate example is the scythe, which needs to be exotic to get past the OPTG rule with its two improved criticals.
I'll give you two different die types is weird.
I've played with ways to get the cost to behave, and so far this is the best way. You can't hire an npc because no npc can actually craft a weapon that high or knows how to (npc level 5 max, skill focus, masterwork tools, other crafting feat for a +2, 20 int, is 5+3+3+2+2+5=+20, which means the merchant could consistently craft a dc 30 exotic 2 w/ 5 grades. You don't really find random non-magic npcs higher than 5. Just like eastern weapons can be controlled, so too could knowledge and therefor access to these. Also, Karl Marx... do you mean Kestral? (I chuckled)
The scaling does result in an overall martial damage increase; if that isn't your cup of tea, there's a version without the scaling, the link is near the beginning of the document beside version number.
The 7str wizard can't actually wield his quarterstaff at all; there's no penalty, he CANNOT use it effectively in combat. It's a double weapon, he could wield one end (a one-handed weapon by my rules) in two hands to reduce the strength requirement by 2 to 8, but his 7 cannot wield it. Maybe wizard man should have picked a knife... which he would have to wield in two hands.
Yes, everyone had to go through the chart (or rather I convert a weapon they pick from Pathfinder). I started a full conversion list, but four hours in I didn't care.
If you can't deal with the weapon dice, this system isn't for you. It's the only way to balance damage dice out with higher tiers.