Go complain to Monte Cook.
I was unaware of that rule. Thank you.
Ironically, that is exactly what you wanted - a grig cannot hope to even scratch a dragon with a dagger.
Grigs are not Fine. They aren't even Diminutive. They're Tiny.
EDIT: Regardless ... yes, a Fine-sized creature (roach sized, for the record) should have very severe trouble damaging a Colossal creature. There are no Fine (and I believe no Diminutive) PC-compatible races, and certainly no Gargantuan or Colossal ones, so it doesn't cause game balance problems.
I know I REALLY should finish reading this thread before I comment, I'm sorry, but I really have to contest with this one. "Death by Teacup" should be entirely possible for a fighter, though he takes the penalty unless he's got the feat to negate it.
(10 points to whoever identifies the source of that quote. And for the record HECK NO that character isn't a rogue, it's a PF fighter who specializes in being stealthy, thanks to our lovely new class skill system that actually allows it)
... so the "who is the better killer" game will be won by the better (read higher level) fighter rather than the one with the bigger weapon. I could buy that.
I've been frustrated with small/week/low damage weapon character not being able to get decent damage without a Sneak-Attack-like damage modifier. Giving non-rogues a similar option isn't a bad idea.
[threadjack]
I would argue that Riddick is conceptually a rogue, even if he should be stat'd otherwise.
[/treadjack]
'findel
|
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.
If damage is NOT independent of the type of weapon, then it is contingent on the type of weapon. Since you have still failed to provide an alternative, then you are supporting the default rules. Just because you claim you haven't explicitly said you support the RAW doesn't make it automatically a "false dilemna".
Above statement refutes Kirth's arguments for bonus diceIncorrect. That was a realism debate. I never engaged Kirth's arguments for bonus dice in any manner.
Yes you have. Numerous times. Your statement that damage should not be independent of the type of weapon is a direct refutation of Kirth's bonus dice. I fail to see how you can deny that. Saying you were only arguing for realism is still engaging in the debate.
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.
Which means you value weapon damage, which taking in the sum total of your statements is your position. If this is not why you do not want further devaluation, please explain.
|
|
Go complain to Monte Cook.I was unaware of that rule. Thank you.
Ironically, that is exactly what you wanted - a grig cannot hope to even scratch a dragon with a dagger.Grigs are not Fine. They aren't even Diminutive. They're Tiny.
You're welcome. I must confess, I'm a little off today. I don't know why I keep overlooking the size of sprites.
So what I gather is that it's not the average damage, or the statistical damage, but the maximum damage?
If that's the case, then this isn't really a discussion about weapon damage at all. It's a rant about how damage doesn't scale like HP's do. Not that I object (I would love to see 10d6 mean something again), but damage inflation is not the solution to hp inflation. That's like curing power-creep with higher AC: The only people who benefit are the munchkins that can game the system. Everyone else has lousy 1st level characters that can't survive an encounter with a housecat...
I'm new to the tread, but from what I can see from the latest page at least, is that it is a discussion about "should a weapon's base damage receive a multiplying factor OR a multiplied modifier IN ADDITION to the weapon's base damage"
'findel
If damage is NOT independent of the type of weapon, then it is contingent on the type of weapon. Since you have still failed to provide an alternative, then you are supporting the default rules. Just because you claim you haven't explicitly said you support the RAW doesn't make it automatically a "false dilemna".
The argument I was refuting is that I want weapon damage to be the primary source of damage. This is false and unsupported. I want it to be a significant, but not the only significant, source of damage. Alternately, I want weapons to provide other effects than raw damage, ala 4E fighter abilities. It's a false dilemma because there are more than two options. Just off the cuff:
1) Damage based entirely on skill, no matter what you attack with.
2) Damage based entirely on weapon, no matter how good you are at attacking.
3) Damage based partially on weapon and partially on skill.
See? Trinary system. Technically it's even more than trinary because 3 can easily be split into near-infinite sub-headings, but trinary covers it well enough for this purpose. It's a false dilemma to claim, as you did, that just because I don't want weapons to be meaningless, that what I do want is for skill to be meaningless. I want them both to be meaningful.
Yes you have. Numerous times. Your statement that damage should not be independent of the type of weapon is a direct refutation of Kirth's bonus dice. I fail to see how you can deny that. Saying you were only arguing for realism is still engaging in the debate.
No, it isn't. Did you even read the (very recent) posts in this thread where Kirth said he agrees with me that weapons shouldn't all deal the same damage? Did you also read the posts where it was Mirror, Mirror who was responding to the Vital Strike debate, not me? I made no entry into that debate. I was talking about base weapon damage dice.
Which means you value weapon damage, which taking in the sum total of your statements is your position. If this is not why you do not want further devaluation, please explain.
Yes, I value weapon damage. I also value skill damage. The two aren't a binary set where I can only value one or the other. They both have a place. It is my opinion that, in high level combat, weapons have too little importance because the difference between a dagger (2.5 average damage) and a greatsword (7 average damage) is almost nonexistant compared to +10 from strength, +9 from power attack, +5 from weapon enhancement bonus, +2d6 from energy enchantments, +X from class features. There's too much weapon-independent damage; when you combine it all, it makes the weapon virtually meaningless. Until Vital Strike, there was only one single source of weapon-dependent damage: the weapon. With the way high level physical combat works in D&D now, the only stats that matter on a weapon are its critical threat range and critical multiplier. That's sad, because it reduces diversity.
To be honest, if it were me, I'd remove the gains in hp and instead have AC scale at the same rate as BAB. Thus actually hitting an opponent is always as difficult as it was before, but the actual hits remain effective. But then we'd be playing an entirely different game.
Just a note: D&D replicates that just fine if you're willing to divorce hit point damage and physical damage. Hit points represent luck, endurance, and a hundred other intangible things in addition to the ability to take an actual hit. Obviously there's a little bit of conflict with poisons and other contact-applied effects, but those can be explained away.
Sort of. If it really did just that, AC would be DR instead...
Not really. In the "HP represent more than physical damage" view, an attack that hits your AC may be an attack that you turn into a non-life-threatening attack (turning aside from the blow), an attack that you just barely manage to dodge (anime-style that-attack-just-shaved-the-top-of-my-hair), a series of attacks that you manage to deflect but that still wear down your endurance, etc. An attack that misses your AC is an attack that was so feeble or so poorly aimed that it didn't really stand any chance of hurting you anyway, so you didn't expend any toughness/luck/endurance/whatnot.
As an old-school 1e grognard, I subscribe to Zurai's "hp =/= physical damage until the last few" argument. Because EGG told me to.
I'm actually of the opinion that 3rd edition's initiative system sucks, so I'd be all for jazzing that up somehow. I personally prefer a "reroll initiative every round" system, but I do acknowledge that it gets very time-consuming and confusing for large combats. Still, it works out fine for Shadowrun. Note that in a reroll-every-turn system, bonuses and penalties to Initiative are much more important, and spells like sign and nerveskitter become far less powerful because they only affect the first round of combat.
That's kinda off-topic, though.
So, to reflect more experienced fighters doing more damage naturally, what about mucking with the weapon base damage/crit multipliers?
For quite some time, I experimented with a system where damage was determined by weapon size, type (P/S/B), and amount by which you succeeded on the attack roll. A "barely hit" result by a mace did 4 points of damage, and scaled slowly from there, to a max of like 16 damage. A "barely hit" result by a rapier did 1 point of damage, but potentially scaled higher, to a max of 21 damage. Then I ran the probabilities of hitting by each given margin, and made sure the two were balanced against each other overall. This system superceded the 3e system of critical hits entirely.
In the end, it was a monumental pain in the butt during actual game play, and we went back to independent attack and damage rolls soon thereafter.
So, to reflect more experienced fighters doing more damage naturally, what about mucking with the weapon base damage/crit multipliers?For quite some time, I experimented with a system where damage was determined by weapon size, type (P/S/B), and amount by which you succeeded on the attack roll. A "barely hit" result by a mace did 4 points of damage, and scaled slowly from there, to a max of like 16 damage. A "barely hit" result by a rapier did 1 point of damage, but potentially scaled higher, to a max of 21 damage. Then I ran the probabilities of hitting by each given margin, and made sure the two were balanced against each other overall. This system superceded the 3e system of critical hits entirely.
In the end, it was a monumental pain in the butt during actual game play, and we went back to independent attack and damage rolls soon thereafter.
Yep, that's the type of system that works incredibly well for a computer game (which can do the calculations effectively instantly, and totally transparently if desired) and really horribly for tabletop games (Rolemaster, I'm looking at you).
I've actually used a system extremely similar to the one you describe in a programming project before. Mine was a comparison between the attacker's attack roll and the defender's evasion (dodge, parry, or shield block) roll, though, and the result modified the damage of an attack, which was modified by what type of weapon was used to make the attack and the various stats that impacted that type of weapon. Very complex and utterly impossible to pull off face-to-face in meat-speed, but a nice dynamic system for a computer.
|
I'm actually of the opinion that 3rd edition's initiative system sucks, so I'd be all for jazzing that up somehow. I personally prefer a "reroll initiative every round" system, but I do acknowledge that it gets very time-consuming and confusing for large combats. Still, it works out fine for Shadowrun. Note that in a reroll-every-turn system, bonuses and penalties to Initiative are much more important, and spells like sign and nerveskitter become far less powerful because they only affect the first round of combat.
That's kinda off-topic, though.
As a high Dex character player, I agree. Using the old d20 for initiative sucks. Big.
And I love a lot of Shadowrun mechanics. Kirth's "a la carte" d20 he keeps resisting talking about shares a lot with Shadowrun (and a host of other skill based systems, actually).
|
|
If damage is NOT independent of the type of weapon, then it is contingent on the type of weapon. Since you have still failed to provide an alternative, then you are supporting the default rules. Just because you claim you haven't explicitly said you support the RAW doesn't make it automatically a "false dilemna".The argument I was refuting is that I want weapon damage to be the primary source of damage. This is false and unsupported. I want it to be a significant, but not the only significant, source of damage. Alternately, I want weapons to provide other effects than raw damage, ala 4E fighter abilities. It's a false dilemma because there are more than two options. Just off the cuff:
1) Damage based entirely on skill, no matter what you attack with.
2) Damage based entirely on weapon, no matter how good you are at attacking.
3) Damage based partially on weapon and partially on skill.See? Trinary system. Technically it's even more than trinary because 3 can easily be split into near-infinite sub-headings, but trinary covers it well enough for this purpose. It's a false dilemma to claim, as you did, that just because I don't want weapons to be meaningless, that what I do want is for skill to be meaningless. I want them both to be meaningful.
See, now we're being productive. Rather than just coming in and disagreeing with someone. I appreciate the effort to spell something out.
Now, since we are brainstorming I think I can work with your idea. Obviously, I concur that at base value a greatsword causes greater physical damage. Should that play a factor along with skill?
I don't think so, but let's play with such a system:
What if Vital Strike (or similar ability) grants +1d6 damage per critical multiplier (minimum +2d6) plus the characters level in damage.
OR
Vital Strike (or similar ability) grants critical multiplier X characters BAB as die (rounded down). So greataxe at BAB +1 is +3d1 damage. BAB +2 is +3d2. BAB +3 to +5 is +3d4. Etc.
For the record, I've long been tinkering with feats that allow certain weapons special effects, but the process is long and I always lose interest with all the work.
|
|
'findel,
Well, yes, except that the gist of the argument for damage (particularly VS) not being weapon-based is that it does not scale. That's what's being said when people say "skill should count for something", or "who should big weapons have all the glory". It is not an issue about the weapons, though. That is a problem with the damage/hp ratio. So, someone suggests adding 6d6 (or 12d6) to compensate. I ask why?
If VS multiplied everything, it would actually do more damage than 12d6 without letting the fighter slaughter orcs with toothpicks. Sakes, even Conan used a sword! Even Riddick prefered to have a weapon! Why not fight with magic hairpins if the weapon doesn't matter? For that matter, why shouldn't damage be BAB based? Because the better I am with a dull spoon, the more damage, right? In fact, someone else with a sword, who is just as good as I am with a spoon, does the same damage!
And that is the perposterious part. Why does a real weapon loose to a teacup if the weilders are of the same skill? How do you show that the bastard sword is a more efficient killing machine than wet socks? THAT's what base damage is all about, and THAT is why, if someone is hit with a planet, they have a smaller chance of living than if hit with a pebble, even IF the pebble was thrown by someone with the same skill. And THAT, I think, is an important difference...
This is a good point, and the best argument for a hybrid system.
What if Vital Strike (or similar ability) grants +1d6 damage per critical multiplier (minimum +2d6) plus the characters level in damage.
OR
Vital Strike (or similar ability) grants critical multiplier X characters BAB as die (rounded down).
See, I don't like these because, as I said, critical threat and multiplier is about the only thing that matters in 3.5 anyway. While these do accomplish the goal of making weapons different to a degree, it just continues the "gimme the weapon with the best crit stats" mentality.
Yeah, I realize I havn't added anything positively to the question of how to resolve this, but that's because I havn't hit on an idea I like well enough to propose yet. It's a thorny situation that's rooted very deep in 3rd edition's base combat engine.
If the weapon doesn't matter why use a melee weapon? The halfling Shots everyone from hiding with a blow gun 1 point darts. 1 + 12d6 damage
Good luck finding him before he gets 5 shots off.
Welcome to Darksun!
|
|
I could be wrong here, but from what I remember from Kirth's homebrew rules, the doubling ability only applies to melee, so the sniping halfling could only do 6d6 per round.
(Sorry if I'm wrong on that Kirth.)
But the point is still relevant. You might as well use the weakest, quietest, most concealable weapon AT ALL TIMES rather than a sword. Meeting the Ogre King due to a great diplomacy roll earlier? Well, since the fighters all use Imp Unarmed Strike, they hand over the ornimental, unsharpened shortswords, walk into the throne room, and have at with 1d3+12d6. And the monk is even better off, since HIS base damage changes with level!!
Which is all well and good if this is a Chineese WuShu film, but if it's supposed to be "Swordsinger", then people should really have a reason to use swords, right??
I think that's were Zurai's ideas for weapon-based special abilities comes in.
We've hit the extremes of each argument.
Weapon-based: Everybody goes around using enlarged greatswords.
Skill-based: Everybody goes around using fists or knives.
Obviously we need a middle-ground. I would argue that 3.5 had the stage set for weapon-based, but detracted from that with Strength bonuses which had nothing to do with skill.
Pathfinder emphasizes weapons more with Vital Strike, but doesn't add any skill-based damage aside from weapon training.
If the weapon doesn't matter why use a melee weapon? The halfling Shots everyone from hiding with a blow gun 1 point darts. 1 + 12d6 damage
In a vaccuum, I could see how that would seem to be the case. Let me add, then, that I've made an effort to keep various styles relevant, by including style-specific feats and class features to augment them. Overhand Chop and Backswing are back in, for 2-handed weapons; TWF has the Two-Weapon Rend feat and a high-level "Girallon Rend" class feature to improve that; one-handed light weapons get better benefits from Combat Expertise, and a high-level class feature to improve on that; Shield users have access to a feat that lets them add their shield bonus to Reflex saves; etc.
A guy with a greatsword, full-attacking and using the relevant feats, will far out-damage the halfling with the blowgun, hands-down. The halfling's brother who uses a full attack with poisoned darts will effectively out-damage the single-attack blowgun halfling (if that were allowed, but the class feature does apply only to melee attacks, so the hobbit is dealing +6d6 -- at 16th level! -- not +12d6). Etc.
|
|
Hmm. What if instead of coming up with ideas for each weapon, we developed a generic set of advantages that could be combined based on the weapons original statistics...plus some non-attached advantages that could be picked up in general.
Every time you gain a feat, you also gain a Weapon Proficiency. These can be spent on the improvements below. The benefits apply to any weapon that fits the category. Note that in this system certain feats are now Weapon Proficiencies, these feats still apply to a single weapon.
Base Damage
1d3: The weapon is an extension of your hand. You gain a +2 bonus on grapple checks.
1d4: The weapon is allows for quick strikes You gain +2 to your initiative.
1d6: The weapon is swift and accurate. You gain +2 on all attacks of opportunity. If ranged, you take no penalty when using Rapid Shot.
1d8 and 2d4: The weapon is well-suited for multiple styles. You gain +2 on all Combat Maneuvers requiring a weapon. If ranged, the penalty for range increments is reduced by 1.
1d10: The weapon is ideal for disrupting a charge. If you strike a charging opponent, they end their movement and cannot attack as part of the charge. If ranged, the benefits of Point Blank Shot increase by +1.
1d12 and 2d6: The weapon is made for cleaving. You gain a +2 bonus on Sunder attempts and a +2 bonus on attack rolls made when using the Cleave feat.
Base Critical
x2: The weapon leaves distracting wounds that are difficult to ignore. Opponent takes -2 circumstance penalty to Will saves when you threaten or confirm a critical hit. Any amount of healing or a DC 15 Heal check removes this penalty.
19-20x2: The weapon leaves well-placed wounds that make movement in combat difficult. Opponent takes -2 circumstance penalty to Reflex saves when you threaten or confirm a critical hit. Any amount of healing or a DC 15 Heal check removes this penalty.
18-20x2: The weapon leaves deep wounds that debilitate the body. Opponent takes -2 circumstance penalty to Fortitude saves when you threaten or confirm a critical hit. Any amount of healing or a DC 15 Heal check removes this penalty.
x3: The weapon leaves gaping wounds that make combat difficult. Opponent takes -2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls when you threaten or confirm a critical hit. Any amount of healing or a DC 15 Heal check removes this penalty.
x4: The weapon leaves deadly wounds anywhere on the body. Opponent takes 1 point of wounding damage per round for 4 rounds when you threaten or confirm a critical hit. Any amount of healing magic or a DC 15 Heal check removes this penalty.
Type
Piercing: You gain +2 to attack rolls against opponents with armor.
Bludgeoning: You gain +2 to attack rolls against opponents with natural armor.
Slashing: You gain +2 to attack rolls against opponents with no armor or natural armor.
Special Property
Maneuver Bonus: A core bonus granted by any weapon can be increased +1.
Charge Bonus: Deal +2 damage against a charge (this is not doubled).
Mounted Bonus: Deal +2 damage while mounted.
Weapon Feats
Each of these feats is now purchased with a Weapon Proficiency:
Improved Critical
Greater Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Specialization
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
|
|
The only pain I see is taking away WS and GWS from the fighter. Other than that, it certainly does diversify the weapons.
BTW, I assumed that when you said "when you gain a feat" you only meant the base level feats, not bonus feats from class, race, etc. So every odd level.
Originally I had meant every feat, but in retrospect there aren't enough options to warrant that. However, in turn that severely limits the ability of the fighter to master all weapons.