Kirth's system says that as skill improves, weapon quality matters less and less.
Exactly correct. At low skill, a bigger weapon should do more damage. As skill increases, weapon type should matter less and less, in comparison to skill.
|
Then why even bother having stats for weapons, because they're entirely meaningless in a system like that.Because let's face it, weapon stats in 3.x ARE meaningless, except at the lowest levels. People go for the few combinations that fit and ignore the rest. Two-hander greatsword. Duel rapiers. Etc.
The difference between most weapons is 1.5 damage. More important is how you wield it, because that restricts what you can do. And crit range. I'm contemplating making what weapon you use complete fluff. The weapon stats would be bought by points (pay x to increase your damage die, crit range, modifier, etc.) and if you increase something pay certain levels it has to be wielded a certain way (simple, martial, light, one-handed, etc.).
*shakes fist at Jal 'Ninja' Dorak* :) I might ask your help with the aforementioned idea Jal.
As part of this proposal, perhaps we should consider ditching increasing die size/number for larger and smaller creatures and instead just applying a size bonus to damage.
Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8
Small -1, Tiny -2, Diminutive -4, Fine -8
No more worrying about looking up a table. Pick up a Huge greatsword? It deals 2d6+2 damage. A nice boost to minimum damage, helps out smaller creatures, and ties in nicely to a unified mechanic which is much easier to remember and doesn't get into wierd cases where a large longsword is a greatsword.
A large longsword is a large longsword. It deals 1d8+1 damage, but must be wielded in two hands by a medium creature. Why use it instead of a greatsword? Exactly. Use a greatsword, which is designed to be swunga certain way. If you happen to possess an ability that allows larger weapons, congratulations you can wield a 1d8+1 longsword in each hand!
Incidentally, the answer to the above question is "Riddick".
|
I rather enjoy Pathfinder; certainly more than I did 3.5, but lets leave realism arguments out, shall we? If realism had any relevance in the design of the d20 system, a non-magical dagger would be just as dangerous in the right hands (not counting classes designed especially for dagger use or backstab) at level 20 as at level 1. Unfortunately, this means that while a wizard's damage can keep up with the HP of the monsters, a fighter's damage can't. It does so better than it used to, but 8 points of bonus damage can only go so far.
One thing I've done is made Weapon Focus give a enhancement bonus to attacks and damage that scales with BAB. So I higher level fighter can pick up a nonmagical longsword and still kill something with DR/magic and whatnot.
Jal, thank you for that ridiculously simple suggestion. XD I'll have to think on this some.
I reiterate my "Bullseye" philosophy (but you could apply equally to the Hulk for a barbarian, or Thor for a paladin, or Cho for a rogue). If Bullseye throws a baseball at you, it kills you. Sure it smashes your face open a bit, but you die. If Bullseye throws a needle at you, you are just as dead. Less overt damage, but still as deadly. And that ties in well with an abstract hp model.
This is all well and good for human-sized targets and weapons. Now start throwing Fine sized daggers at Great Wyrm Gold Dragons. You're not going to even scratch it, let alone kill it. Now do the same thing with a greatsword. Now, you have a chance to at least do a bit of damage.
|
|
I reiterate my "Bullseye" philosophy (but you could apply equally to the Hulk for a barbarian, or Thor for a paladin, or Cho for a rogue). If Bullseye throws a baseball at you, it kills you. Sure it smashes your face open a bit, but you die. If Bullseye throws a needle at you, you are just as dead. Less overt damage, but still as deadly. And that ties in well with an abstract hp model.This is all well and good for human-sized targets and weapons. Now start throwing Fine sized daggers at Great Wyrm Gold Dragons. You're not going to even scratch it, let alone kill it. Now do the same thing with a greatsword. Now, you have a chance to at least do a bit of damage.
The colossal wyrm really cares about a slash from a medium greatsword? It takes hundreds of cuts to bring it down.
But fine sized daggers? Each one of those is a called shot at the eyeball, because of their size they penetrate into the brain and sever important nerves and arteries. Still takes a bunch of them, but just as good an option.
Now we come back to the same fighter with the greatsword. Instead of a hundred medium cuts, he targets areas that are effective (not as deadly as the rogue strikes) and instead of 100 cuts it takes 10. He can't just stab the dragon in the eye, greatswords aren't used that way.
Because the alternative, what you are suggesting, is that a Pixie hero who has gained 20 levels in fighter should be utterly incapable of defeating a dragon with her weapons, despite her training.
And for the record, yes, I am using a considerable amount of hyperbole. I'm trying to establish a baseline.
The colossal wyrm really cares about a slash from a medium greatsword? It takes hundreds of cuts to bring it down.
But fine sized daggers? Each one of those is a called shot at the eyeball, because of their size they penetrate into the brain and sever important nerves and arteries. Still takes a bunch of them, but just as good an option.
Now we come back to the same fighter with the greatsword. Instead of a hundred medium cuts, he targets areas that are effective (not as deadly as the rogue strikes) and instead of 100 cuts it takes 10. He can't just stab the dragon in the eye, greatswords aren't used that way.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Bullseye can throw anything and always hit the spot he throws. If he throws a single 1/3 inch blade fractional ounce Fine-sized dagger, as you said, it may blind one of the dragon's eyes, but it won't penetrate far enough to damage the brain. The 42 inch blade 5 1/2 pound greatsword, on the other hand, will go straight through the eye and stand a very good chance of penetrating the brain behind it.
Because the alternative, what you are suggesting, is that a Pixie hero who has gained 20 levels in fighter should be utterly incapable of defeating a dragon with her weapons, despite her training.
Please cite an example of me suggesting any such thing. I never said anything remotely resembling anything like that. What I have said is that over-emphasizing non-weapon damage completely removes the difference between weapons from the equation and makes the Fighter "even more of a colorless, flavorless class". Your conclusion is rather a stretch from that statement.
Pixies are Small, not Fine. And, actually, a Fine-sized greatsword is going to be about the same dimensions as a medium-sized dagger (4-6" blade).
|
1. Us, too. Shield of faith, for example, lasts 1 hour/level in our game -- houstonderek HATES spell nerfs (and I'm rapidly coming to agree with him), and as DM I dislike tracking spell durations.
Just for clarity purposes, I'd like to point out that I pretty much just play fighters, rogues and fighter/rogues.
And I STILL hate spell nerfs!
I would argue the other way. Emphasizing weapon damage pidgeonholes fighters into "Greatsword wielder" or "Shortsword/kukri two-weapon fighter" or "Longsword sword and board" rather than being able to make interesting and effective (albeit marginally less effective) characters that use any weapon of their choosing?
I've never argued for emphasizing weapon damage. I've argued against further DE-emphasizing weapon damage, and furthermore I pointed out something I consider a decent example of differentiating weapons (4E's fighter attacks have different additional effects with the right weapons). People on these boards have a really bad habit of projecting their dislikes onto people who disagree with them.
|
|
Pixies are Small, not Fine. And, actually, a Fine-sized greatsword is going to be about the same dimensions as a medium-sized dagger (4-6" blade).
Grig, then.
And incidentally, fine daggers are not weapons as they do not deal damage. So a grig fighter would probably use a short sword at minimum.
Regardless, if you can kill a colossal dragon with a medium dagger, why not a swiss-army knife? Both are equally silly in the grand scheme of things. And under the current rules, if it deals damage it is a weapon, hence it can be used to kill.
Basing presumed skill off of weapon damage means that the best choice is always going to be the larger weapon, and thanks to 3.5 we have enlarged Monkey Grip goliaths running around with Gargantuan greatswords.
That's a very alliterative phrase.
Much more reasonable to say that a fighter is deadly no matter what weapon he wields.
I've never argued for emphasizing weapon damage.
On the contrary; by insisting that skill-based feats like Vital Strike multiply base weapon damage, that's exactly what you're doing.
I've never argued for emphasizing weapon damage.On the contrary; by insisting that skill-based feats like Vital Strike multiply base weapon damage, that's exactly what you're doing.
Again, I've never made any such argument. Where are you coming up with these ridiculously fallacious claims about what I've said? I'd almost think you're trolling me.
And incidentally, fine daggers are not weapons as they do not deal damage.
Where does it say such a silly thing in the rules? All weapons deal damage. Even cats, who do 1d2-4 damage, still deal a minimum of 1 damage with every attack that lands, barring DR. Cat claws aren't significantly longer than a Fine dagger, although there are of course several of them.
Again, I've never made any such argument. Where are you coming up with these ridiculously fallacious claims about what I've said? I'd almost think you're trolling me.OK, I suggested changing Vital Strike to bonus dice, rather than a base damage multiplier. You proceeded to explain how this made fighters "boring" and was unrealistic to boot. That seems to be a pretty strong argument IN FAVOR of keeping Vital Strike a multiplier, and AGAINST using bonus damage dice -- unless I'm missing something, which hopefully you can fill me in on, since you now claim this is a "ridiculously fallacious claim" and that I'm "trolling." I'll admit I am confused, so maybe you can help clarify what exactly your claims are.
1. I'm assuming no one went in and changed your posts to say the opposite of what you actually said.
2. Therefore, the only thing I can think of is that there's a thrid option for Vital Strike, which you're witholding: not multiplied base damage, and not straight bonus dice.
3. So I'm asking, what is that other option?
:
1) Objects take the same damage from daggers as greataxes
2) Trees take the same damage from daggers as greataxes
3) Golems take the same damage from daggers as greataxes
4) etc...If you actually believe objects with uniform construction take MORE damage from colossal axes than fine daggers, then you line in the real world. If not, where are you, and are the women there hot?
Yeah, good thing we have perfectly reasonable rules like "trees take the same damage from short swords as hand axes" and "rocks take more damage from rapiers than from light picks."
OK, I suggested changing Vital Strike to bonus dice, rather than a base damage multiplier. You proceeded to explain how this made fighters "boring" and was unrealistic to boot.
False. Stop making things up. I assure you that I make plenty enough mistakes in my arguments that you can convince others that I'm wrong without having to lie and make up thing that I've never said.
Incidentally, that argument is also a logical fallacy, the False Dilemma. Arguing against something is not the same as arguing for the opposite.
Incidentally, that argument is also a logical fallacy, the False Dilemma. Arguing against something is not the same as arguing for the opposite.
I'm keenly aware of the fallacy, which is why I asked you what the third option was. What ARE you in favor of, exactly? Please be specific.
P.S. I'm honestly not aware of "making things up." If my summary doesn't match your thoughts, then please explain where I've misconstrued, rather than merely ranting and hurling accusations.
Then please tell me the third option, aqs I requested, instead of simply ranting. What ARE you in favor of, exactly? Please be specific.OK, I suggested changing Vital Strike to bonus dice, rather than a base damage multiplier. You proceeded to explain how this made fighters "boring" and was unrealistic to boot.False. Stop making things up. I assure you that I make plenty enough mistakes in my arguments that you can convince others that I'm wrong without having to lie and make up thing that I've never said.
Incidentally, that argument is also a logical fallacy, the False Dilemma. Arguing against something is not the same as arguing for the opposite.
I already did, twice. If you'd stop foaming at the mouth and actually read my posts instead of writing my posts for me, you'd know that.
I already did, twice. If you'd stop foaming at the mouth and actually read my posts instead of writing my posts for me, you'd know that.
I've read them all again, and still don't see it. Can you do me a favor and spell it out for me: how should Vital Strike work?
ONCE AGAIN, I have made no comments whatsoever about any kind of Vital Strike change, for or against. NOT ONE.
My comments have all been about either A) being against de-emphasizing weapons, and B) the silliness of all weapons doing identical damage.
I have commented that 4E actually had a decent solution to giving weapons their own flavor without having to muck around too much with damage dice by giving weapon-based attacks different effects with different weapons. This can't be directly ported over to Pathfinder because the attack system is different, but it could easily be worked into the Fighter Weapon Training class feature or into feats like Weapon Focus.
Again, I've made no comment at all about Vital Strike. It's my opinion that it's a completely worthless feat since they made it only work on standard action single attacks. It's still going to be a completely worthless feat with that restriction even if its damage is flat instead of scalar, unless you make the flat damage completely over the top.
Just to jump back a couple of pages, I think I am in that group of players with Houstonderek, Jess Door, Androste, and Kirth. Although my contributions are not as significant as the others. Just saying.
My comments have all been about either A) being against de-emphasizing weapons, and B) the silliness of all weapons doing identical damage.
I have commented that 4E actually had a decent solution to giving weapons their own flavor without having to muck around too much with damage dice by giving weapon-based attacks different effects with different weapons. This can't be directly ported over to Pathfinder because the attack system is different, but it could easily be worked into the Fighter Weapon Training class feature.
Again, I've made no comment at all about Vital Strike. It's my opinion that it's a completely worthless feat since they made it only work on standard action single attacks. It's still going to be a completely worthless feat with that restriction even if its damage is flat instead of scalar.
Thank you; that's all I needed. The shouting was unnecessary. In reply:
1. I've agreed with you across the line that all weapons should not do identical damage; I've just added that the differences should become less important as skill levels increased. Altering Vital Strike was the only example I can recall giving that provides a simple mechanism for doing so.2. I agree that 4e had a nice idea going with that; I'd like to see it implemented in some manner in 3.X, preferrably without simply making bigger weapons better.
3. I agree that Vital Strike is worthless as a 3-feat chain, but as a single feat with the option of doubling the bonus damage with a class feature (as I proposed), it becomes a bit more attractive.
Just to jump back a couple of pages, I think I am in that group of players with Houstonderek, Jess Door, Androste, and Kirth. Although my contributions are not as significant as the others. Just saying.
Ga! Sorry, Silverhair. Fingers moving faster than brain at that point. On the balance, I'd rate your contributions along the lines of "equally significant" and "exemplary."
And here I went through the trouble of saying I was the one who said it...
True, but you weren't accusing me of being a troll. For which I thank you.
1. I've agreed with you across the line that all weapons should not do identical damage; I've just added that the differences should become less important as skill levels increased.
2. I agree that 4e had a nice idea going with that; I'd like to see it implemented in some manner in 3.X, preferrably without simply making bigger weapons better.
3. I agree that Vital Strike is worthless as a 3-feat chain, but as a single feat with the option of doubling the bonus damage with a class feature (as I proposed), it becomes a bit more attractive.
That's all fair enough, and we're relatively in agreement, then. I will point out that it was you I was responding to that said "[dagger damage < shortsword damage < greatsword damage] This is a situation that is true only in D&D Land", so you havn't been agreeing with me all across the line.
Again, though, it seems we do (mostly) agree. Truce?
Again, though, it seems we do (mostly) agree. Truce?
That's all I was after. Like I said, there's no requirement that you and I adhere to the same weapons rules in a game. In fact, I personally feel the hobby is better for having large numbers of variant houserules in play. I still am led to believe that, realistically, a deep rapier wound will be a whole lot more dangerous, medically-speaking, than a deep greatsword wound, but I also understand that pushing realism too far is never conducive to good gaming.
|
|
Again, I've never made any such argument. Where are you coming up with these ridiculously fallacious claims about what I've said? I'd almost think you're trolling me.I've never argued for emphasizing weapon damage.On the contrary; by insisting that skill-based feats like Vital Strike multiply base weapon damage, that's exactly what you're doing.
You have argued that damage should be based on the type of weapon used and primarily that. This is how Vital Strike currently works, to a T. And since you have contradicted Kirth's ideas for bonus dice, then you have supported the current rules and gone against non-weapon based damage.
Uh, no. No it isn't. A needle cannot possibly cause as much sheer bodily harm as a two-handed sword can. Can a single needle kill you? Yes. Can it slice your body into two halves? No. A two-handed sword can.
Above statement refutes Kirth's arguments for bonus dice, and affirms the current system of "base damage is everything". If that's not "emphasizing weapon damage" I don't know what is.
|
|
And incidentally, fine daggers are not weapons as they do not deal damage.Where does it say such a silly thing in the rules? All weapons deal damage. Even cats, who do 1d2-4 damage, still deal a minimum of 1 damage with every attack that lands, barring DR. Cat claws aren't significantly longer than a Fine dagger, although there are of course several of them.
Go complain to Monte Cook.
DMG page 28: "A weapon can only decrease in size so far. Weapons that deal less than 1 point of damage have no effect. Once a weapon deals 1 point of damage, it's not a weapon if it shrinks further."
By the weapon-size table on the same page:
Medium 1d4; Small 1d3; Tiny 1d2; Diminutive 1; Fine -
The Pathfinder system has not changed this to my knowledge, as the chart still maintains this progression.
Ironically, that is exactly what you wanted - a grig cannot hope to even scratch a dragon with a dagger.
You have argued that damage should be based on the type of weapon used and primarily that.
Incorrect. I have argued against damage being independent of the type of weapon. That isn't the same as arguing that damage should be "primarily based on type of weapon". False dilemma, again.
Above statement refutes Kirth's arguments for bonus dice
Incorrect. That was a realism debate. I never engaged Kirth's arguments for bonus dice in any manner.
and affirms the current system of "base damage is everything".
Actually, in the current system, base damage is close to being irrelevant in the long run. The vast majority of the damage of a full-attack action (which does more than even a Greater Vital Strike does in most cases) is weapon-independent, even for non-Fighters. I'm arguing against weapons being even further devalued.
And, honestly, I have advocated for a 4-class system: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Everything else is PrC's. But for some reason, people just don't seem persuaded by my vision?
I'd play that. In fact, I'd even take it a step further... oops. That's one of my "classless a-la-carte system" rants coming on... must... resist....