In my upcoming campaign, I'm going to be very free about modifying game rules. For example, it bugs the heck out of me that TWF is so cool and yet sucks so much as a raw combat style. So I'm going to give each individual player of a TWF character the option to either use the standard TWF mechanics or these:
1. Full Str bonus applies to off-hand attacks.
2. Power Attack applies to off-hand attacks just as it does to regular attacks.
3. All TWF penalties are reduced by 2.
4. Precision damage can only be applied to one weapon wielded at a time. This includes sneak attack, skirmish, sudden strike, favored enemy bonuses, and similar abilities.
The idea is to make it possible to create cool and effective two-weapon warrior-types, without creating a munchkin's dream for sneak-types. I realize that a TWFer using these mechanics will deal even more damage than a THFer, but I believe they should with all the feats and cash they'll have to spend on their style. Thoughts?
Over Powered
with twf, they can gain shield bonuses to ac (two-wep defense), 2h cant do that. With d8 and d6 martial weapons twf you do more damage that the greatest 2h weapon (greatsword at 2d6) with the same STR bonus to damage at only a -2 penalty. not only that, but at +16 BAB and greater twf, you get 7 attacks in a single round that can all be directed at different foes. take exotic weapon prof bastard sword and suddenly you rack up 2d10+1.5 Str that’s 7d10 in a single round vs 8d6 at the cost of -4 to attack. a fair trade I would say.
furthermore, if you use complete warrior there are all sorts of cool "style" feats that a character can use to add even more powerful effects that completely creams the 2hs abilities.
yes, at low levels 2h will be more powerful, yes it takes feats to become a good twf character; but have you ever swung a long pole by its base compared to fought with 2 equal-length sticks, the 2 sticks are far harder.
pros of twf:
-more attacks
-same str total as 2h
-shield bonus with the right feats
-free disarms, trips, etc with the right feats
-style and drama
cons:
- -2 penalty to attack if you're smart, -4 if you like alot of damage
- not effective if you can't handle several feats
more attacks are neither pro nor con, as it gives more chances to his OR miss, say you can only hit an opponent with a natural 20, suddenly the odds are 1/10 at1st level rather than 1/20.
two weapon fighting is fine, as the rules go it seems a little overpowered to me, but that’s fine due to the feats it takes up...
When proposing new rules, I always keep an eye towards the potential for abuse. In your case, I'd have my eye on the character who makes a Fighter/Swashbuckler build and takes 2 light weapons, with Insighful Strike and Weapon Specialization, he's already dealing +2 +Int bonus extra damage on each attack, in exchange for a mere -2 to hit... do you really want to make life even easier for him?
What I've always hated about two-weapon fighting in D&D has nothing at all to do with any of this. It's come down to two things.
1)Two weapon fighting should turn a character into a whirling ginzu machine of doom. Look at two weapon fighting sometime. Do you know the difference in D&D between Musashi whirling away with two katanas and some guy slashing and poking with a sword is? One attack per round! Sometimes out of as many as five attacks! That's not right! Two weapons should give you twice as many attacks. Every time you attack with one, you should be able to attack with the other. Every time--not once a round.
2)Two weapon fighting is WAY too hard. Eating -10s and -8s is just ridiculous. I am better at two weapon fighting than what the rules say a trained fighter is--and I stink at fighting. Is doing something with your off hand really that much harder? Remember trying not to hit your friend whose wrestling on the floor with an orc is only a -4. That's just dumb.
In my campaigns you get two attacks per attack column for fighting with two weapons. My custom penalties have never jelled and change from campaign to campaign, but they usually are something like -4/-6 to start before feats. Does it mess with the "game balance"? YEP! In my opinion the game balance is a far far far distant second to mechanics that make the game play the way it should--besides there's so many other game altering house rules I've made that I just couldn't care less. And interestingly enough it works fine. It feels cool. And really I guess that's what's the most important thing.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
1)Two weapon fighting should turn a character into a whirling ginzu machine of doom. Look at two weapon fighting sometime. Do you know the difference in D&D between Musashi whirling away with two katanas and some guy slashing and poking with a sword is? One attack per round! Sometimes out of as many as five attacks! That's not right! Two weapons should give you twice as many attacks. Every time you attack with one, you should be able to attack with the other. Every time--not once a round.
Well, Grim, to be fair, the various two-weapon fighting feats are designed to scale with the regular attacks a character gets. TWF requires simply Dex 15. Improved TWF requires Dex 17 and a +6 BAB, which is the same BAB that awards the second attack of the round. Greater TWF raises the bar again, Dex 19 and BAB +11 (which is the THIRD attack BAB). Now, I think the Dex requisites are a little ridiculous and I simply require Dex 15 for ALL non-epic TWF feats in my games, but the BAB requirements basically allow you to get an extra attack with your off-hand for each attack you would get for your on-hand as long as you continue to follow the feat chain.
I don't really have an issue with TWF by the RAW except for the increasingly obscene Dex requirements. To each his own.
Grim,
flailing around with two swords is not two-weapon fighting, have you ever dueled a trained swordsman who used one swrd while you used two? he could most likey attack far more accurately and faster than you, two weapons do becoma a liability in an actual fight, why do you think they werent more historically common?
These modifications make Two-Weapon Fighting more powerful than it currently is. Consider these three options:
- Character wields a sword and shield. Makes one attack per round with moderate weapon damage. Applies 1x his Strength modifier.
- Character wields a two-handed weapon. Makes one attack per round with high weapon damage. Applies 1.5x his Strength modifier, but suffers from a lower armor class.
- Character wields two weapons. Makes two attacks per round, each with moderate weapon damage. Applies 1.5x his Strength modifier between the attacks, but suffers from a lower armor class and a -2 attack penalty.
What you're suggesting would be much more powerful. You would be dealing two attacks per round, applying 2x Strength modifier overall, and suffering no penalty other than the feat you have to take. You're nerfing the ubiquitous TWF rogues, fair enough, but you're also decreasing the power of TWF rangers, who are supposed to be all offence at the expense of defence, and deal their own precision damage as frequently as possible by taking more attacks.
In other words, you're significantly beefing up TWF fighters who are already quite strong relative to the other fighter types, and nerfing rangers who are the main two-weapon fighters in the game.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I agree with everything eveyone* else has said thus far. TWF is not underpowered and, even assuming it is, this fix goes way too far in the other direction. It makes TWF much better than THF.
*Except Grimcleaver. That's some crazy-ass s&#%. I can vaguely see the merit in reducing the penalties for non-proficient TWF (which seem extremely high in order to make the relevant feats valuable), but his cavalier disregard for game balance is shocking. I dropped my monocle into my glass of champagne while reading it, that's how shocked I was.
|
Grim,
flailing around with two swords is not two-weapon fighting, have you ever dueled a trained swordsman who used one swrd while you used two? he could most likey attack far more accurately and faster than you, two weapons do becoma a liability in an actual fight, why do you think they werent more historically common?
I have trained in twin chinese broadswords, sais, nunchukas, tonfas, and a variety of more obscure weapons and if you take 2 people with the same amount of training in their respective styles, with the same relative level of natural abilities, the TWF will own any 2handed weapon weilder. The reason it isn't more historically common is that it is easier to train someone to hack at someone in a sword and board style or a 2-handed weapon style then it is to teach someone the nuances of 2 weapon fighting.
FH
Glad so many of you chimed in! I'm not sure why I see TWF as so weak, while most of you find it so badass, but to each their own.
My take is that by RAW, single-sworders do X damage. THFers do about (X 1.5) damage...a bit more with power attack factored in. And then TWFers do about (X 1.5) damage...but less with their shafted Power Attack and AB penalties factored in. My goal is to simply boost TWFers to (X 2) damage. Maybe it'll turn out too good...I'll find out if any of my players decides to make a TWFer.
I realize that I've given TWFers more damage potential than THFers, with the additional access to shield bonuses via feats and animated shields. But keep in mind that feats and cash are in much shorter supply to TWFers than THFers. So a TWFer could deal a boatload of damage and have a decent AC to boot, but they will suffer significantly in other areas.
Kirth: I hadn't thought about Insightful Strike and such, but now that I have, such bonuses would fall under the category of precision based bonuses.
Grim: I should have known you would chime in with your thumbs up!
Sebastian: ILMAO! Monacle...champagne...
PS: Perfect TWF will be a non-epic feat. It annoys the heck out of me that it's officially epic.
oh and grim, I didnt mean to be insulting there sorry if it came off as a rant.
but seriously, the 1 attack at 1st level in a 6-second round even if all you do is stand there is odd in and of itself. Ive always taken it to be the one attack that could have even a possibility of hitting given feints, parries, beats, disengages, etc... that go on in a normal fight
Grim,
flailing around with two swords is not two-weapon fighting, have you ever dueled a trained swordsman who used one swrd while you used two? he could most likey attack far more accurately and faster than you, two weapons do becoma a liability in an actual fight, why do you think they werent more historically common?
I have trained in twin chinese broadswords, sais, nunchukas, tonfas, and a variety of more obscure weapons and if you take 2 people with the same amount of training in their respective styles, with the same relative level of natural abilities, the TWF will own any 2handed weapon weilder. The reason it isn't more historically common is that it is easier to train someone to hack at someone in a sword and board style or a 2-handed weapon style then it is to teach someone the nuances of 2 weapon fighting.
FH
exactly... its EASIER to train them, with the "normal" training being considered the norm, harder styles would and should suffer an attack penalty when compared to the "easier" style.
by the time you are skilled with two weapons the other person will have gained a greater amount of skill in one...
just my 2... or 3... or maybe 4 cents
If I perceive a problem with a particular rule in D&D I like to ask my players what they think. Often, they will have no trouble with the way things are, but are just as likely to chime in with an opinion. TWF has never been an issue for either myself or my players. One of the last PCs was a guy with a two-bladed sword. He found he could easily create quite a powerful fighter using the existing rules of TWF without a problem. I have done the same for NPCs. I find that too many DMs like to change the rules simply because they don't like them, not because the rules don't work.
I find that too many DMs like to change the rules simply because they don't like them, not because the rules don't work.
While it is true that RAW works just fine, in the same way that underaged cheese tastes just fine, there is always room for improvement. Maybe it's just my creative streak coming out, but I can never just sit back and let a perceived wrinkle go unstraightened...at least while I sit in the DM's chair.
|
|
I find that too many DMs like to change the rules simply because they don't like them, not because the rules don't work.
I see this as a carry over from 2nd edition. You needed houserules to keep the game running smoothly. Newer DMs that make a lot of houserules seem to get inspiration from the players of older editions either online in forums or sitting around their table.
There is alot of temptation in making a houserule. People can get a trip out of having the power to change rules, or they can get very possessive about a game over houserules. I find that in 3.5 there really isn't a need to have houserules (except maybe some minor ones) and that changing one aspect of the game has far-reaching effects on the game.People aren't approaching houserules with the respect they should in 3.5, they seem to think that changing one thing is just that....changing one thing, when it's not and it has further consequences than immediately foreseeable.
Might look good at 1st-12th level but could blow apart a game above that.
*disclaimer*The above is only my opinion and should not be viewed as an offense to people who think differently.
FH
*disclaimer*The above is only my opinion and should not be viewed as an offense to people who think differently.
Glad to hear it, because there will be many more TS house rules in the paizo messageboard future...
|
|
Glad to hear it, because there will be many more TS house rules in the paizo messageboard future...
*disclaimer*The above is only my opinion and should not be viewed as an offense to people who think differently.
Kinda figured and I don't want to discourage that but I do urge caution. Most of the houserules that I have ran across in 3.5 fall apart at some point and if class/style specific they can ruin a PCs effectiveness. Just take extra care is all.
Had a DM who decided that evasion shouldn't allow rogues to avoid all damage if a save is made....ended up ruining rogues.
Kinda figured and I don't want to discourage that but I do urge caution. Most of the houserules that I have ran across in 3.5 fall apart at some point and if class/style specific they can ruin a PCs effectiveness. Just take extra care is all.
Had a DM who decided that evasion shouldn't allow rogues to avoid all damage if a save is made....ended up ruining rogues.
I appreciate notes of caution when they don't come in the form of "WTF is rong with yous stupidz DM F~#&ER!!!!" as it does so often on other message boards.
My house rules used to be totally motivated by what made sense to me in a "realistic" sense (evasion and such). Now, my rules are motivated by my desire to make the game simpler and more fun (this rule obviously falls into the latter category). I do make mistakes, but I'd rather change the game by trial and error rather than waiting for 4th edition.
I have none, zero (0), zippo, notta experience with actually using two weapons in combat. I expect most D&D players are in the same category. It's a well established fact that even basic physics and economics are consciously diregarded in D&D. Therefore, bringing up real-world experiences using weapons to make a point about a mechanic that was designed with simplicity, useability, cinematics, and game balance, with logic being a very distant last, doesn't really accomplish much. Don't get me wrong: I love reading the posts of those who have actually had the experience. It's just that it isn't something to base an opinion off of when formulating a rule, anymore than a physics book.
To me, with my total lack of experience, I don't have a problem with the penalties an untrained person takes when attempting TWF.
As far as the power level is concerned, TWF is just fine. I spent a long time yesterday with a friend planning his character for a solo game this summer. He's going to be a gestalt fighter/rogue, so I'm sure that threw it out of whack a little, but nevertheless, I think the calculation is 9 attacks per round with a two-bladed sword once all his feats and BAB kick in. 10 with haste. And sneak attack damage. There's where TWF is probably strongest, in the hands of a rogue who can double his already impressive sneak attack damage per round. Rogue players absolutely love this, in my experience, and often completely stop caring about what type of weapon they're using. The base weapon damage isn't nearly as important with that many bonus dice, and magic at high levels. They often opt for daggers just for the option of throwing them and expanding the versatility of their sneak attackingness. I digress.
TWF isn't going to be good in the hands of joe schmoe adventurer (kind of an oxy moron, no?). It's for people who are serious about their melee combat style. It seems to me that D&D's rules tend in vert distinct directions. Single weapons are for those who aren't primary combatants (bards, wizards and sorcerers, etc.). Sword and shield are for paladins and clerics, and only some fighters.
But anyone who's really concerned about melee power goes THF or TWF. It's just what you do. It simply depends what other class features you're looking for (rage? feats? evasion?), what style you prefer (Blah! Kronk smash! -or- Surprise! Sneak attack!), or what ability scores you prefer. Obviously, they want to discourage full-plate wearers from gaining sneak attacks, reserving it for light-armor types (due to the Dex requirements of following TWF). When I think about it, it does seem really arbitrary, but I've never had a problem with it.
I suppose TWF is at a slight disadvantage in abstract because of the large number of feats it takes to pursue the style, but the fact is that the light-weights who use such as tactic generally have classes that provide a much deeper bag of tricks to call on than those that promote TWF. Rogues and bards and rangers can do quite a bit more in combat, overall, than fighters and barbarians usually can. So, keeping up with them in pure damage terms is slightly harder (though still very achievable).
...but the fact is that the light-weights who use such as tactic generally have classes that provide a much deeper bag of tricks to call on than those that promote TWF.
This is the issue that I'm trying to deal with. By standard rules, TWFing is only useful to rogues, rangers and such because they have a mess of other abilities. But what if someone wants to make a straight warrior-type character, without that bulging bag of tricks, who uses TWF? Cinematically it's awesome, but in practicality they'd be better off picking up a greatsword and power attack. I want TWF to be cool AND as effective as other combat styles, for the warrior archetype.
It's a well established fact that even basic physics and economics are consciously diregarded in D&D. Therefore, bringing up real-world experiences using weapons to make a point about a mechanic that was designed with simplicity, useability, cinematics, and game balance, with logic being a very distant last, doesn't really accomplish much. Don't get me wrong: I love reading the posts of those who have actually had the experience. It's just that it isn't something to base an opinion off of when formulating a rule, anymore than a physics book.
An excellent point that I myself often forget (which is odd, given that the game mechanics assume that magic works, for example...).
...but the fact is that the light-weights who use such as tactic generally have classes that provide a much deeper bag of tricks to call on than those that promote TWF.This is the issue that I'm trying to deal with. By standard rules, TWFing is only useful to rogues, rangers and such because they have a mess of other abilities. But what if someone wants to make a straight warrior-type character, without that bulging bag of tricks, who uses TWF? Cinematically it's awesome, but in practicality they'd be better off picking up a greatsword and power attack. I want TWF to be cool AND as effective as other combat styles, for the warrior archetype.
I am not sure what you mean by bulging bag of tricks. Strictly taking TWF requires one feat. Adding other feats help but choosing feats is always a tradeoff.
For Thundarr the barbarian a +2 wpn costs 8,000. This would gain Dartanion the swashbuckler (3) +1 wpns. Thundarr pays 18,000 for a +3 wpn and Dartanion can buy (2) +2 wpns for 16,000. Thundarr's +4 wpn costs 32,000. For 36,000 Dartanion can get (2) +3 wpns. Thundarr's +5 wpn costs 50,000. Dartanion can get a +4 (32,000) and a +3 (18,000) for the same cost. Also Dartanion can go with a +2 offhand (8,000) and +3 (9,000) shield if he feels AC is very important. Normally a two-handed fighter will not carry a shield and one handed wpn.
The most damaging weapons are energy types; fire, cold, etc. Being able to place these magics on secondary attacks greatly increases ones damage output. These are weaker against creatures with energy resistance.
To conclude a two weapon user will carve up humans but suffer against resistance and DR creatures, like outsiders.
A fighter with a two-handed weapon will excell against the high DR creatures. To me it sounds like a fair balance. It would just depend on what you end up fighting.
"...The idea is to make it possible to create cool and effective two-weapon warrior-types, without creating a munchkin's dream for sneak-types..."
All your doing with this is creating the munchkin's dream of a two weapon fighter.
Equal if not more damage than a two handed weapon user? Extra attacks? Fewer feats (basically meaning less training required to be skilled), and you want them to have this "bag-of-tricks?"
I'm just not seeing how much cooler and/or effective a two weapon user needs to be. Yes they have to spend more money, but they obviously need to keep two weapons maintained. Yes, they have to spend an extra feat or two, but believe it or not, more skill is required to fight like that, thus the feats.
Nothing personal, it's your game and your're free to do what you want with the rules, but I don't see any problem with two weapon fighting as it is. Were I playing in your game, I'd probably make a traditional two weapon user just out of spite.
-Kurocyn
...but the fact is that the light-weights who use such as tactic generally have classes that provide a much deeper bag of tricks to call on than those that promote TWF.This is the issue that I'm trying to deal with. By standard rules, TWFing is only useful to rogues, rangers and such because they have a mess of other abilities. But what if someone wants to make a straight warrior-type character, without that bulging bag of tricks, who uses TWF? Cinematically it's awesome, but in practicality they'd be better off picking up a greatsword and power attack. I want TWF to be cool AND as effective as other combat styles, for the warrior archetype.
Its already as powerful as the other combat styles. You want it to be more powerful because it is cinematically cooler, and that must shurely make it more powerful. Fights are not movie scripts, they are fights... movies are choreographed and much of the "fighting" in them would easily get one killed in a duel or battle.
Two weapon fighting is as strong as the other styles with the advantage of being cooler. A fighter is by far a better twf and general fighter than either ranger or rogue, they get upwards of 18 feats with only 5 needed to "max out" the style and only 3 truely needed to optimize it. That leaves the fighter with 13-15 extra feats to plug into weapon focus, specialization etc.
Compare that to the rogue, 7 feats and 3-5 must be in twf... not so optimal, suddenly onlt 2-4 feats are left in their entire 20 level progression. As for the ranger, they get it for free but can still spend feats to max it out.
TWF SHOULD require "tons" of feats to build, it take a relatively huge amount of training irl, so why not in game?
Equal if not more damage than a two handed weapon user? Extra attacks? Fewer feats (basically meaning less training required to be skilled), and you want them to have this "bag-of-tricks?
No, I don't want badass TWFers to also have big bags of tricks such as rangers and rogues do. Sorry, but where did you get the idea that I'm giving TWF extra attacks with less feats?
"Nothing personal, it's your game and your're free to do what you want with the rules, but I don't see any problem with two weapon fighting as it is. Were I playing in your game, I'd probably make a traditional two weapon user just out of spite.
Again, I understand that RAW works just fine, in the same way that a made-for-tv movie is just fine, but again there is always room for improvement. And hey, if anyone wants to make TWF Fighter with the standard rules I won't try to stop them. That's why I called this thread 'a non-exclusive house rule'.
Its already as powerful as the other combat styles. You want it to be more powerful because it is cinematically cooler, and that must shurely make it more powerful.
I'm not interesting in arguing, but you're welcome to show me how TWF is not inferior to other styles, particularly THF. And just to be sure I'm not being misunderstood-I don't think TWF should be better than other styles because it's cooler. I think it should be better because of all the investments that it requires. Again, did I say somewhere that I think TWF shouldn't require a ton of feats and cash?
I don't think it matters a lick of difference TS, it's just some plusses so if you want to make them house rules, go right ahead. Stat blocks don't matter unless you are playing Chess or Monopoly...
Oh, and its something to talk about too.
As ever,
ACE
Again, I understand that RAW works just fine, in the same way that a made-for-tv movie is just fine, but again there is always room for improvement. And hey, if anyone wants to make TWF Fighter with the standard rules I won't try to stop them. That's why I called this thread 'a non-exclusive house rule'.
If it works just fine it aint broke. If you are saying that it works fine but still needs improved then it only seems fair thatyou "upgrade" the other styles.
Oh and sorry if my last post sounded grouchy; i was tired.
In my campaigns you get two attacks per attack column for fighting with two weapons. .
What do you mean by 'per attack column'?
What do you mean by 'per attack column'?
In my campaigns you get two attacks per attack column for fighting with two weapons. .
I think he means one can move then attack with both weapons or use a full attack to double all attacks instead of just adding one for TWF or just adding two in the case of ITWF.
Fizz
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't think it matters a lick of difference TS, it's just some plusses so if you want to make them house rules, go right ahead. Stat blocks don't matter unless you are playing Chess or Monopoly...
Oh, and its something to talk about too.
As ever,
ACE
Ace, that's incoherent even for you. I really want to try and type up a response pointing out the exceedingly obvious (the game aspect revolves almost exclusively around those stat blocks), but I'm sure I'll get something back about telling stories and all that. To me, that's not playing a game, that's playing tea party. But hey, it's all about having fun, so if putting Raggedy Ann in a blue gingham dress gives her +4 to her Profession (Hostess) skill at your table, then yeah, I guess stat blocks don't matter. For everyone reading these boards that is playing D&D, they're relevant.
P.S. Saern - nice post.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not interesting in arguing, but you're welcome to show me how TWF is not inferior to other styles, particularly THF. And just to be sure I'm not being misunderstood-I don't think TWF should be better than other styles because it's cooler. I think it should be better because of all the investments that it requires. Again, did I say somewhere that I think TWF shouldn't require a ton of feats and cash?
I'll entertain the argument that TWF is slightly inferior to THF. However, your house rules don't so much fix the problem as they make THF completely inferior to TWF. I would think the goal would be to achieve a balance whereby TWF and THF are approximately equal. I think the core rules come pretty close to achieving that balance by giving each fighting style certain advantages (THF benefits more from power attack; THF benefits more from sneak attack and other per-strike abilities).
Your house rule does what most of your house rules do, compares apples to oranges, claims the apples lack enough citris, and then completely throws away the apples to make new and improved oranges.
I'll entertain the argument that TWF is slightly inferior to THF. However, your house rules don't so much fix the problem as they make THF completely inferior to TWF. I would think the goal would be to achieve a balance whereby TWF and THF are approximately equal. I think the core rules come pretty close to achieving that balance by giving each fighting style certain advantages (THF benefits more from power attack; THF benefits more from sneak attack and other per-strike abilities).
Yes, my goal is to make TWF obviously superior in mathematical terms to THF under most circumstances. The advantage of THF will remain it's ease of use; all it takes to be an effective THF is power attack and a single weapon, which leaves a lot of resources open for other things. Maybe I'll regret this rebalance later, but hey "you live, you learn" right?
I'm just not happy with standard TWF because of it's usefullness being limited to certain classes (rogues, rangers, etc). The style is already balanced with regards to those few classes; I want to create balance with regards to tank type characters because I just don't see how TWF would be an advantageous style for any such character. Yes, it's a cool style and that is a big draw. But if I were only interested in what I considered to be "cool", "logical" and "realistic" I wouldn't be playing d&d; I'd play a 100% story structured rpg.
I don't think it matters a lick of difference TS, it's just some plusses so if you want to make them house rules, go right ahead. Stat blocks don't matter unless you are playing Chess or Monopoly...
Oh, and its something to talk about too.
As ever,
ACEAce, that's incoherent even for you. I really want to try and type up a response pointing out the exceedingly obvious (the game aspect revolves almost exclusively around those stat blocks), but I'm sure I'll get something back about telling stories and all that. To me, that's not playing a game, that's playing tea party. But hey, it's all about having fun, so if putting Raggedy Ann in a blue gingham dress gives her +4 to her Profession (Hostess) skill at your table, then yeah, I guess stat blocks don't matter. For everyone reading these boards that is playing D&D, they're relevant.
P.S. Saern - nice post.
What is incoherent about it? It's as succinct a post as i've ever posted here. Also, it is clear that you understand what i'm saying based on the rest of the post. Suggesting that the game revolves almost exclusively around stat blocks only tells one about your gaming philosophy...much like saying it doesn't matter a lick about stat blocks.
Two questions for anyone reading this thread:
If TS institues his proposed house rules above, do you think really it will matter?
If a bishop in Chess is allowed to additionally move like a knight, will that matter?
My suspician is that some folks simply don't care for many of my ideas but that's ok, posts like this make for good medium to create dialogue and further point out my gaming philosophy.
As ever,
ACE
I understand Ace, I think. In the end, it's only a game so how much can a tweak like this matter? Like Phil pointed out, players are free to just ignore it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What is incoherent about it? It's as succinct a post as i've ever posted here. Also, it is clear that you understand what i'm saying based on the rest of the post. Suggesting that the game revolves almost exclusively around stat blocks only tells one about your gaming philosophy...much like saying it doesn't matter a lick about stat blocks.
It's incoherent in that it's not even participating at the same level of shared assumptions as everyone else playing the game and participating on the boards. Yes, we all know that you can disregard all the rules and play let's pretend. We did that in 4th grade, and it was fun, but now we like a little order and structure, and so we play D&D to have rules and stats and methods for resolving conflicts. To come in and say "the rules don't even matter" to this audience is as relevant as going into an evangelical church and saying "Jesus is just a historical figure."
Two questions for anyone reading this thread:
If TS institues his proposed house rules above, do you think really it will matter?
If statblocks don't matter, I think a more compelling question is: "Does anyone on this thread think it makes a lick of difference if TS has one player run a commoner with the average array and another player runs a 20th level drow ninja barbarian." Given that we assume that TS is running D&D, or some variant thereof that employs things like rules and dice, the answer is obviously yes, it does make a difference. If he's playing Mr. Rogers funtime Trolly adventure, then no, it probably isn't relevant. But he's not posting on the Mr. Rogers Board, he's posting on a board about D&D. A game that has rules.
But, to answer your question, yes, it matters, as every other poster (except Grimcleaver) has indicated.
My suspician is that some folks simply don't care for many of my ideas but that's ok, posts like this make for good medium to create dialogue and further point out my gaming philosophy.
As ever,
ACE
As explained, it's not that your ideas are revolutionary, it's that they don't have any real value to the question asked: is a particular change balanced under the rules of the game. If they were asking about whether the rules are necessary or whether there isn't an alternative style of play that is more story-friendly, you post would make a meaningful contribution. But yeah, we all know that we can throw down those tyrant rules and just say that our characters have swords plus infinity and can't be killed. However, a question about the effects of a change in the framework of the rules cannot be answered by the "let's play pretend" philosophy of gaming.
This thread is getting a bit too harsh and rude for my tastes.
TS, signing out.
This thread is getting a bit too harsh and rude for my tastes.
TS, signing out.
Yup...me too. I'm not really sure what the issue is, but no need to continue with that.
As ever,
ACE
This thread is getting a bit too harsh and rude for my tastes.
TS, signing out.
You started this whole shamozzle Tequila! ;)
This thread is loaded with opinions now, so allow me to put in mine.
TWF is pretty much balanced I think, and I have often asked my players what they think. We haven't had much a problem with it, and once 3.5 came around it was even better, seeing as how you didn't have to take one more feat then you take now to lessen the negatives in melee(or at least that is what I think it was like, I have forgotten an extensive bit of 3.0). Whenever I make a fighter or some other tank, he uses one weapon and a shield, I find it as though TWF is too used and a shield fits perfectly. I do like how you are using the house rule to power up TWF because it just may need it if they are to match up to THF. With all the feats to get TWF it may seem underpowered but I think otherwise.
And about how the negatives with TWF is, I think they should be lowered, because it may be the harder style to train in but it isn't so hard that it would double the difficulty of hitting an opponent in a tight grapple or wrestle match...I mean come on, -4 to hit an opponent that is in a grapple but -8 for weapons, that's just absurd. But, I wish you the best of luck with your new TWF type. It seems fair enough with me. Watch out for the munchkin in your table(if you have one) for he may overuse your generosity with TWF. And just putting it out there, is Sword and Shield all but forgotten nowadays?
Sir Smashes Alot...smashing your problems to bits