Weapon-based combat


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Will this fix the battlefield, perhaps not entirely, but my group feels it is a step in the right direction. Feel free to comment or criticize.

1) Spellcasting:

  • As deault all spells require a full-round action to cast, unless their current casting time is longer.
  • Save-or-die spells (including spells like hold person) require 1 round to cast.
  • Direct-damage spells remain as a standard action unless they have a secondary effect.
  • Spells with casting times specifically less than a standard action keep their casting time the same.

  • With more chance to disrupt spells with a normal attack, or catch a caster afterwards with a full attack, there is little need to alter the Concentration rules. However, it may be adviseable to change the DC to 10 + spell level + highest threatening BAB. This is an optional rule.

    2) Combat:

  • All characters may make an iterative or feat-based full-attack as a standard action. This includes flurry of blows and two-weapon fighting but not monsters using natural attacks. This does not affect the charge action.

  • Characters who take a full-attack action make all iterative attacks at their highest BAB. This does not affect the charge action.

  • Characters may substitute a move action for an attack of opporunity. Movement in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent incurring the original attack.

    So what do you think? Is it too much at once?


  • So, in a system that buffed fighters and other combatants, but gave the casters next to nothing, you still feel the need to nerf casters and give bonuses to meele fighters?

    Can't agree with either decision, actually, but if you REALLY wanted a caster nerf, try this:

    Casting Delay
    Spells cast have a casting delay equal to their spell level. Spells cast on one initiative must be cast for a number of initiatives equal to the casting delay. The spell can be interrupted during this time. Spells used for counterspell actions do not have a casting delay.

    Example: Wizard casts a 5th level spell on init 17. On init 12 the spell actually completes, meaning the opposition has until then to try to hit them and trigger a concentration check. If an opposition caster has init during that time, they can try to counterspell.

    And I wouldn't do any of your changes to meele combat. Instead, I would allow all bonuses to stack when using the Vital Strike feat chain. That effectively does the same thing, but with less exploitable material.


    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    So, in a system that buffed fighters and other combatants, but gave the casters next to nothing, you still feel the need to nerf casters and give bonuses to meele fighters?

    Casters had it ALL in 3.0/3.5, so, yeah, I totally agree with Jal Dorak that there's a lot of work still to do. The houserules that houstonderek, Jess Door, Andostre, and myself are currently playtesting are similar to Jal's:

  • Casting a spell with somatic or material components is a full attack action. A stilled spell with no material components is a standard action.
  • Concentration is against DC 10 + 1/2 BAB of threatening party + (2 x spell level). Additional threating creatures add +2 each to the DC, as if "aiding another."
  • An iterative attack can be traded for 10 ft. of movement.
  • Attacks and movement can be reserved for use as immediate actions later in a round, without the clunky declaration mechanics of the current "readied action" mechanic.

    So far, the net result is that casters are a bit more careful. They're hardly "nerfed to uselessness" or anything of the sort.

  • Scarab Sages

    Mirror, Mirror wrote:

    So, in a system that buffed fighters and other combatants, but gave the casters next to nothing, you still feel the need to nerf casters and give bonuses to meele fighters?

    Can't agree with either decision, actually, but if you REALLY wanted a caster nerf, try this:

    Casting Delay
    Spells cast have a casting delay equal to their spell level. Spells cast on one initiative must be cast for a number of initiatives equal to the casting delay. The spell can be interrupted during this time. Spells used for counterspell actions do not have a casting delay.

    Example: Wizard casts a 5th level spell on init 17. On init 12 the spell actually completes, meaning the opposition has until then to try to hit them and trigger a concentration check. If an opposition caster has init during that time, they can try to counterspell.

    And I wouldn't do any of your changes to meele combat. Instead, I would allow all bonuses to stack when using the Vital Strike feat chain. That effectively does the same thing, but with less exploitable material.

    While I enjoyed the initiative system of previous editions, I don't think that a hybrid would work in 3.x. Essentially, all the warriors would delay until just after the wizard and the wizard would never get a chance to get a spell off if they lost initiative. Of course, could get rid of the delay action to solve that problem.

    Thanks for the input. This is meant as critique of half-in-use houserules and part edification of curious third parties.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Casters had it ALL in 3.0/3.5, so, yeah, I totally agree with Jal Dorak that there's a lot of work still to do.

    Just out of curiosity, exactly HOW buff do the fighters need to get before people stop complaining about the Wizards??

    I played both. Wizards have it rough at low levels, and eventually come into their own. But only 1 fight can I remember where the other party members did not have their own crucial role to play.

    Fighters have it good at the beginning, and in PFRPG, they have it even better for longer. The first 10 levels are already dominated by the fighter types.

    I guess what I can't figure out is what encounters you are regularly facing that Wiz pwns everything and fighters just carry his luggage...

    Scarab Sages

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    So, in a system that buffed fighters and other combatants, but gave the casters next to nothing, you still feel the need to nerf casters and give bonuses to meele fighters?

    Casters had it ALL in 3.0/3.5, so, yeah, I totally agree with Jal Dorak that there's a lot of work still to do. The housreules that houstonderek, Jess Door, Andostre, and myself are currently playtesting are similar to Jal's:

  • Casting a spell with somatic or material components is a full attack action. A stilled spell with no material components is a standard action.
  • Concentration is against DC 10 + 1/2 BAB of threatening party + (2 x spell level). Additional threating creatures add +2 each to the DC, as if "aiding another."
  • An iterative attack can be traded for 10 ft. of movement.
  • Attacks and movement can be reserved for use as immediate actions later in a round, without the clunky declaration mechanics of the current "readied action" mechanic.

    So far, the net result is that casters are a bit more careful. They're hardly "nerfed to uselessness" or anything of the sort.

  • Point by point:

    1) Hmm. Good catch. I can buy the component argument. It's much easier than sifting through spells one at a time or in groups, but that was an intended charm of my method. Easier to remember. And allowing metamagic to change that improves its usefulness.

    2) At face value that seems like a high DC. Let's see, that would put it at about DC 25, and with a +15 or more level-based it actually works well. In my own game I will probably use Spellcraft for Concentration, which would give around +15 on average, but more ease at low levels.

    3) I think my move-action substitute is easier for me to remember, but as a whole I think they balance out.

    4) Yeah, I'm pretty loose with the whole readied action thing, maybe not to that agree but I can see why. But I think you are implicitly stating they can save iterative attacks and such?

    {Overall my design goals were two-fold. First, almost all spells are a standard action which is both boring and too advantageous, and Concentration should be based on the skill of the attacker. Second, warriors used to be able to threated the whole battlefield with tactics. I wanted to bring that back.}

    By the way Kirth, you have an awesome gaming group!

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    Jal Dorak wrote:

    Will this fix the battlefield, perhaps not entirely, but my group feels it is a step in the right direction. Feel free to comment or criticize.

    1) Spellcasting:

  • As deault all spells require a full-round action to cast, unless their current casting time is longer.
  • Save-or-die spells (including spells like hold person) require 1 round to cast.
  • Direct-damage spells remain as a standard action unless they have a secondary effect.
  • Spells with casting times specifically less than a standard action keep their casting time the same.

  • With more chance to disrupt spells with a normal attack, or catch a caster afterwards with a full attack, there is little need to alter the Concentration rules. However, it may be adviseable to change the DC to 10 + spell level + highest threatening BAB. This is an optional rule.

    2) Combat:

  • All characters may make an iterative or feat-based full-attack as a standard action. This includes flurry of blows and two-weapon fighting but not monsters using natural attacks. This does not affect the charge action.

  • Characters who take a full-attack action make all iterative attacks at their highest BAB. This does not affect the charge action.

  • Characters may substitute a move action for an attack of opporunity. Movement in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent incurring the original attack.

    So what do you think? Is it too much at once?

  • I would say 'as is' the caster nerf is just too big. Most of the changes will cause casters to consistently lose spells, a full round is plenty of time to get hit with all sorts of things that would throw the caster off. Spells like Hold Person which the held person can save vs each round are hardly worth casting if it takes an entire round to cast, goes off the next round, and they save against it, you've wasted two rounds and got nothing in return.

    Add in the melee buffs and I see casters bending over and taking multiple pointy objects in the posterior. Higher level melee's will be completely dominating and any poor caster that gets caught on the ground (fly being a full round cast) will be decimated most likely even if they do get initiative.


    Jal Dorak wrote:

    While I enjoyed the initiative system of previous editions, I don't think that a hybrid would work in 3.x. Essentially, all the warriors would delay until just after the wizard and the wizard would never get a chance to get a spell off if they lost initiative. Of course, could get rid of the delay action to solve that problem.

    If the enemy delays till after the Wiz, but the Wiz just casts a 1st level spell, they wasted their time. If the party protects the spellcasters, buying them the time to cast the spell, then the spell just goes off. Playing with the init just encourages more team-based play. Basides, i would cackle at the idea of the party fighters delaying to attack the enemy wizard, rushing his position, then realizing those guys who were standing guard were actually TWF rogues, who now have them flanked and had delayed THEIR actions too.

    And I would like to see them figure out when the Wiz is casting if the spell is silent/still/eschewed. Spells of pure thought would be particularly hard to identify, I think.

    Scarab Sages

    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Casters had it ALL in 3.0/3.5, so, yeah, I totally agree with Jal Dorak that there's a lot of work still to do.

    Just out of curiosity, exactly HOW buff do the fighters need to get before people stop complaining about the Wizards??

    I played both. Wizards have it rough at low levels, and eventually come into their own. But only 1 fight can I remember where the other party members did not have their own crucial role to play.

    Fighters have it good at the beginning, and in PFRPG, they have it even better for longer. The first 10 levels are already dominated by the fighter types.

    I guess what I can't figure out is what encounters you are regularly facing that Wiz pwns everything and fighters just carry his luggage...

    Just so we're clear, and I think Kirth agrees here so I can say "we":

    It's not what the mages can do. In fact, I love save-or-die spells and generally will not be using the nerfed spells. I like spellcasters powerful. It's what the warriors can't do - and that is have any chance to stop the mages from doing their thing when they try.

    In general, the warrior is still doing the same amount of damage he did in previous editions. But he can't be mobile anymore, his saves got worse, and his hit points stayed about the same.

    In contrast, mages have had some spells nerfed, but they can now cast spells 6x faster, can move at the same time, and have probably 2x the hit points (especially in Pathfinder).

    Scarab Sages

    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    Jal Dorak wrote:

    While I enjoyed the initiative system of previous editions, I don't think that a hybrid would work in 3.x. Essentially, all the warriors would delay until just after the wizard and the wizard would never get a chance to get a spell off if they lost initiative. Of course, could get rid of the delay action to solve that problem.

    If the enemy delays till after the Wiz, but the Wiz just casts a 1st level spell, they wasted their time. If the party protects the spellcasters, buying them the time to cast the spell, then the spell just goes off. Playing with the init just encourages more team-based play. Basides, i would cackle at the idea of the party fighters delaying to attack the enemy wizard, rushing his position, then realizing those guys who were standing guard were actually TWF rogues, who now have them flanked and had delayed THEIR actions too.

    And I would like to see them figure out when the Wiz is casting if the spell is silent/still/eschewed. Spells of pure thought would be particularly hard to identify, I think.

    Yes, it does sound intriguing. And certainly adds tactics, but it is also a big hassle to keep track of as a DM as it is a unique mechanic.


    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    Wizards have it rough at low levels, and eventually come into their own. Fighters have it good at the beginning, and in PFRPG, they have it even better for longer. The first 10 levels are already dominated by the fighter types. I guess what I can't figure out is what encounters you are regularly facing that Wiz pwns everything and fighters just carry his luggage...

    All the encounters AFTER 10th. I've gone out of my way to nerf the warriors slightly at lower levels (10 + 1/2 BAB isn't a very high DC to meet when your BAB is only +1, for example, and my homebrew barbarians start at +2 Str/Con during rage and work their way up to +4 at 5th level). The net goal is to create a game in which EVERYONE has it equally hard/easy at all levels (I almost certainly haven't succeeded in that goal, but that's where I'm headed). Because starting off weak and becoming powerful is fun; that's why we have levels in the first place. Starting off powerful and becoming weak is not fun.

    Scarab Sages

    riatin wrote:

    I would say 'as is' the caster nerf is just too big. Most of the changes will cause casters to consistently lose spells, a full round is plenty of time to get hit with all sorts of things that would throw the caster off. Spells like Hold Person which the held person can save vs each round are hardly worth casting if it takes an entire round to cast, goes off the next round, and they save against it, you've wasted two rounds and got nothing in return.

    Add in the melee buffs and I see casters bending over and taking multiple pointy objects in the posterior. Higher level melee's will be completely dominating and any poor caster that gets caught on the ground (fly being a full round cast) will be decimated most likely even if they do get initiative.

    I think I've forgotten to specify: in these rules a full-round action for spells works as a full-attack (ie. occurs during your turn, can take a 5ft step). A 1 round action works as the old full-round action, in that it occurs at the beginning of your next turn.

    And before you lambast me too much... ;)

    I do use some of the old 3.0 spell effects, meaning longer durations for buffs.


    Jal Dorak wrote:

    It's not what the mages can do. In fact, I love save-or-die spells and generally will not be using the nerfed spells. I like spellcasters powerful. It's what the warriors can't do - and that is have any chance to stop the mages from doing their thing when they try.

    In general, the warrior is still doing the same amount of damage he did in previous editions. But he can't be mobile anymore, his saves got worse, and his hit points stayed about the same.

    In contrast, mages have had some spells nerfed, but they can now cast spells 6x faster, can move at the same time, and have probably 2x the hit points (especially in Pathfinder).

    Well, the one "you're hit and can't cast this round" rule of 2nd Ed really turned people off playing casters. In fact, fighters tended to rule all of 2nd Ed. Especially once the "save or die" spells became essentially useless at higher levels...

    OTOH, hp's rose dramatically for everyone, which was an effective nerf to DD spells. Now, common wisdom is to avoid those like the plague and go for battlefield control instead. Except that now many of the continuious effect spells have multiple saves. This whole pile of (expletive) led me to playing an illusionist, which was a class I had not touched since specialist gnomes of 2nd Ed...

    BUT, I completly agree with the mobility problem, which was why I suggested you allow the VS chain to stack all bonuses (well, probably only those that would stack on a crit, but still...)

    Now, a charging fighter in full plate can move 40' and still hit with most of their damage intact. With mobility, they would just ignore the AoO. If you allow the overrun CM to bind to this as well, you have a tank that can charge through a defensive line and still strike with most of their damage. With step-up, the caster can't even back up without another AoO. That leaves a concentration check, which usually results in a lower level spell being cast.

    Scarab Sages

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    All the encounters AFTER 10th. I've gone out of my way to nerf the warriors slightly at lower levels (10 + 1/2 BAB isn't a very high DC to meet when your BAB is only +1, for example, and my homebrew barbarians start at +2 Str/Con during rage and work their way up to +4 at 5th level). The net goal is to create a game in which EVERYONE has it equally hard/easy at all levels (I almost certainly haven't succeeded in that goal, but that's where I'm headed). Because starting off weak and becoming powerful is fun; that's why we have levels in the first place. Starting off powerful and becoming weak is not fun.

    Nice debuffs at low levels. I'm certainly in the "deadly is fun" camp. It's the same problem as in 2nd Edition, where the berserker kit was clearly a better choice over the fighter base class. Why just have weapon focus when you can have weapon focus AND rage AND fast movement, since you can't afford heavy armor anyway?

    I'd consider delaying or toning down the paladin immunities as well. They're too clustered. But I also think they deserve negative energy immunity at high levels.


    Jal Dorak wrote:

    1. I do use some of the old 3.0 spell effects, meaning longer durations for buffs.

    2. I'd consider delaying or toning down the paladin immunities as well. They're too clustered. But I also think they deserve negative energy immunity at high levels.
    3. By the way Kirth, you have an awesome gaming group!

    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.

    2. Our homebrew paladin is a prestige class, which helps with that...

    3. Yes; so far, they're one of the best it has been my privilege to DM for.

    Scarab Sages

    Mirror, Mirror wrote:


    Well, the one "you're hit and can't cast this round" rule of 2nd Ed really turned people off playing casters. In fact, fighters tended to rule all of 2nd Ed. Especially once the "save or die" spells became essentially useless at higher levels...

    Which is why I was hesitant to increase the DC to Concentration. It should be fair to both - warrios can intercept, mages can still try to get the spell off.

    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    OTOH, hp's rose dramatically for everyone, which was an effective nerf to DD spells. Now, common wisdom is to avoid those like the plague and go for battlefield control instead. Except that now many of the continuious effect spells have multiple saves. This whole pile of (expletive) led me to playing an illusionist, which was a class I had not touched since specialist gnomes of 2nd Ed...

    Yeah, don't get me started on hit point bloat. I'd be more than happy to lower HD sizes again. My first 3.0 wizard had over 150 hit points. That's just stupid.

    One houserule I have used successfully is to allow Con to raise your HD rolls up to the maximum, but not beyond. That way you are guaranteed max hit points with a good Con score. Feats like Toughness/Improved Toughness still work as normal.

    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    BUT, I completly agree with the mobility problem, which was why I suggested you allow the VS chain to stack all bonuses (well, probably only those that would stack on a crit, but still...)

    It is a good idea, and something I considered when I saw the Vital Strike feat. It just makes sense, as everything else stacks. Your solution is pretty elegant, and should work for someone who wants a minor tweak.


    Jal Dorak wrote:
    It is a good idea, and something I considered when I saw the Vital Strike feat. It just makes sense, as everything else stacks. Your solution is pretty elegant, and should work for someone who wants a minor tweak.

    My Vital Strike is a single feat (rather than a chain), for +2d6/+4d6/+6d6. High-level fighters can take a "Mountain Hammer" feat (also available to barbarians as a rage power) to double that.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    Jal Dorak wrote:
    I think I've forgotten to specify: in these rules a full-round action for spells works as a full-attack (ie. occurs during your turn, can take a 5ft step). A 1 round action works as the old full-round action, in that it occurs at the beginning of your next turn.

    Ahh, that makes sense and would help to keep the poor caster from never getting a spell off. Has more of a 2nd ed casting feel to it though, that may be what you're going for.

    Quote:

    And before you lambast me too much... ;)

    I do use some of the old 3.0 spell effects, meaning longer durations for buffs.

    No lambasting here :) our group likes the longer duration buffs as well, reduces the bookkeeping and increases the fun.

    Scarab Sages

    Kirth Gersen wrote:


    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.

    2. Our homebrew paladin is a prestige class, which helps with that...

    3. Yes; so far, they're one of the best it has been my privilege to DM for.

    My number 1 pet peeve as a DM and player is keeping track of spell durations. Spells like haste, where the effect is drastic and noticeable are fine, because you remember it each round. But something like bless which provides such a minimal bonus, it's better to just say it lasts a long time and forget about it.

    My other problem with spell nerfs is that it makes them more mechanical and less narrative. High level magic should act and sound awesome, otherwise you get into weird Marvel-comics territory where things are very inconsistent and Storm can survive getting shot by a tank.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    My Vital Strike is a single feat (rather than a chain), for +2d6/+4d6/+6d6. High-level fighters can take a "Mountain Hammer" feat (also available to barbarians as a rage power) to double that.

    High-level fighter with a greataxe and Mountain Hammer charges, hits, and gets 1d12 + bonuses + 12d6!

    High-level fighter with a dagger and Mountain Hammer charges, hits, and gets 1d4 + bonuses + 12d6?

    High-level halfling fighter with a toothpick and Mountain Hammer charges, hits, and gets 1 + bonuses + 12d6??

    Sounds more like a SA thing, IMHO. Static damage, and all.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    Sounds more like a SA thing, IMHO. Static damage, and all.

    And that is as it should be. A fighter should get that damage no matter what weapon he uses. He is just that deadly in combat.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    And that is as it should be. A fighter should get that damage no matter what weapon he uses. He is just that deadly in combat.

    EXACTAMUNDO! Give this man a cigar. If I'm a 20th level fighter, I should be able to kill you with a drinking straw. A 15-foot-long-sword that weighs 800 pounds would be useless for actual fighting, whereas a short sword is a highly-efficient killing tool.

    In other words, "It's not the size; it's what you do with it."


    TriOmegaZero wrote:


    And that is as it should be. A fighter should get that damage no matter what weapon he uses. He is just that deadly in combat.

    ???!

    Then why even have Rogues? Just have sneakier fighters with rapiers, and you don't even need to catch them FF or have them flanked! And if they need to stand and fight, they can TWF dwarven waraxes better than their Rogue counterparts could TWF shortswords!

    No, taking the limits off VS is a better way to go, overall, I think. And, besides, 72 max damage is actually LESS than a tweaked VS fighter gets. Think, that's only 24 dmg base per attack needed with GVS (x4 dmg). VS chain is (should be) much better than that. Leave the "needle attacks" to the Rogues...

    Scarab Sages

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    And that is as it should be. A fighter should get that damage no matter what weapon he uses. He is just that deadly in combat.

    EXACTAMUNDO! Give this man a cigar. If I'm a 20th level fighter, I should be able to kill you with a drinking straw. A 15-foot-long-sword that weighs 800 pounds would be useless for actual fighting, whereas a short sword is a highly-efficient killing tool.

    In other words, "It's not the size; it's what you do with it."

    Bullseye (the character and the phrase). He isn't magic, he isn't superpowered, he's just that good.

    Works fine if you consider hit points as effort. The base damage is the same, but it's the training of the fighter that forces you to expend your own effort to avoid death. It's not that the drinking straw cuts huge gashes in you, its that Bullseye is aiming it for your eye and you exhaust yourself avoiding it.

    Of course, at the same time I can see the point of multiplying base damage. Kirth's method is simpler in the long run, but it's a minor quibble.

    The point of Rogues is that they can do a whole bunch of other things a fighter can't, or do them much better. Like gain sneak attack on every attack in a full attack. While Kirth's fighter gets 1 attack with +6d6 damage, the rogue can get three or more all with the same bonus.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Mirror, Mirror wrote:

    ???!

    Then why even have Rogues? Just have sneakier fighters with rapiers, and you don't even need to catch them FF or have them flanked! And if they need to stand and fight, they can TWF dwarven waraxes better than their Rogue counterparts could TWF shortswords!

    No, taking the limits off VS is a better way to go, overall, I think. And, besides, 72 max damage is actually LESS than a tweaked VS fighter gets. Think, that's only 24 dmg base per attack needed with GVS (x4 dmg). VS chain is (should be) much better than that. Leave the "needle attacks" to the Rogues...

    Because the fighter is getting that damage on only ONE attack every round. Or he's full attacking, where his real damage is.

    A rogue with the drop on the fighter is doing full SA on EVERY hit. And if he can get enough damage in before the fighter can come to bear (or has a buddy doing mirror damage) the fighter is dead.

    Rogue's get by using stealth and trickery. A fighter is the one to give and take.


    Mirror, Mirror wrote:
    Then why even have Rogues?

    That's a valid question; my answer involves shifting the rogue's focus away from combat a bit. Don't get me wrong: they still have things to do in a fight; +10d6 damage is nothing to sneeze at. But if you really want someone killed, call a fighter. I've expanded rogue talents so that, properly-focused, they can lie undetected, catch almost any lie, hide so well as to be invisible, remain undetected by magic, or disable almost any system (including an enemy's magical protections).


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    And that is as it should be. A fighter should get that damage no matter what weapon he uses. He is just that deadly in combat.

    EXACTAMUNDO! Give this man a cigar. If I'm a 20th level fighter, I should be able to kill you with a drinking straw. A 15-foot-long-sword that weighs 800 pounds would be useless for actual fighting, whereas a short sword is a highly-efficient killing tool.

    In other words, "It's not the size; it's what you do with it."

    Then why even bother having stats for weapons, because they're entirely meaningless in a system like that.

    Scarab Sages

    Zurai wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    And that is as it should be. A fighter should get that damage no matter what weapon he uses. He is just that deadly in combat.

    EXACTAMUNDO! Give this man a cigar. If I'm a 20th level fighter, I should be able to kill you with a drinking straw. A 15-foot-long-sword that weighs 800 pounds would be useless for actual fighting, whereas a short sword is a highly-efficient killing tool.

    In other words, "It's not the size; it's what you do with it."

    Then why even bother having stats for weapons, because they're entirely meaningless in a system like that.

    Well, they're meaningless at high levels to be exact. Which is how it should be, the same way the wizard casts off his crossbow around 5th level.

    The fighter is the ONLY class in the game restrained by the physical limitations of his weapons. Anything that improves that while still maintaining the sensibility of the class is fine by me. That's why I like armor training and weapon training so much - the fighter doesn't just use weapons and armor, he uses them better than anyone else.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Zurai wrote:
    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.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:

    [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.

    Um, then why play a D20 system? Just go to Tri-Stat, where abilities are everything, and equipment is just fluff.

    I disagree that weapon stats are meaningless, since each one has uses that others can't cover (without feats). With the resurgence of sword&board in PFRPG, I find weapon choice even more varied than it was before.


    Jal Dorak wrote:
    Well, they're meaningless at high levels to be exact. Which is how it should be, the same way the wizard casts off his crossbow around 5th level.

    You mean around 0th level? Wizards don't use crossbows any more. A better comparison is magic missile, and yet Wizards never cast that off. They get feats and class abilities that continue to make their low-level spell slots relevant.

    4E actually did a somewhat decent job with this by giving the fighter different bonuses with different types of weapons. Your system robs the fighter of even more variability and makes it even more of a generic, flavorless, colorless class.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Mirror, Mirror wrote:

    Um, then why play a D20 system? Just go to Tri-Stat, where abilities are everything, and equipment is just fluff.

    I disagree that weapon stats are meaningless, since each one has uses that others can't cover (without feats). With the resurgence of sword&board in PFRPG, I find weapon choice even more varied than it was before.

    Careful, or Kirth will talk your ear off about his classless point buy d20 system. :) As for why, it's because it is the only system I've had any experience and is the system of choice for my groups.

    Well, for me the odd +2 in certain situations doesn't mean enough. And I'm not of the opinion that sword and board is much better than 3.5 either. So we're not like to find common ground. And since this is personal feelings, I really don't have any points to offer you. So thanks for listening at least.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Zurai wrote:
    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.

    That's certainly an interesting idea. Also, what I would consider the main thing that makes all melee classes underpowered at high levels is simply that weapon damage is so low by that point as to be irrelevant. 2d6+strength and a half versus a CR20 creature is going to be laughed at. Magic is powerful, and it should be. Melee classes suffer from the fact that after fifteenth level, nonmagical weapons have long since ceased to be a credible threat against anything. Weapon training and the various fighter only feats go some way towards fixing that, but it's still a problem.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Chris Parker wrote:
    That's certainly an interesting idea. Also, what I would consider the main thing that makes all melee classes underpowered at high levels is simply that weapon damage is so low by that point as to be irrelevant. 2d6+strength and a half versus a CR20 creature is going to be laughed at. Magic is powerful, and it should be. Melee classes suffer from the fact that after fifteenth level, nonmagical weapons have long since ceased to be a credible threat against anything. Weapon training and the various fighter only feats go some way towards fixing that, but it's still a problem.

    This is quite true as well. Once you start adding +15/20 damage per swing, you don't care about the dice so much.

    Also, I find it irritating that larger weapons get more dice. Creatures larger than Medium get additional Str bonuses, AND more dice for their weapon damage. It's fixing the problem twice.

    I would much rather see the minimum damage go up rather than the max. A 1d8 Medium weapon should become 2d4, not 2d6 or whatever. From 1-8 to 2-8. A large weapon deals more damage consistantly, not just moar damage.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    A large weapon deals more damage consistantly, not just moar damage.

    You realize that 2d6 vs 1d8 perfectly illustrates "a large weapon deals damage more consistently" perfectly, don't you? The more dice you throw, the more likely it is that the total will be close to the average total. With 1d8, it's equally likely to get any of the eight possible results. With 2d6, you're far more likely to get a result of 7 than any other.

    And, since size is a factor in maximum possible damage -- a needle will cause less possible physical damage than a dagger, which will cause less possible physical damage than a shortsword, which will cause less possible physical damage than a two-handed sword -- it's appropriate that the maximum increases as well.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

    Not when you roll snake eyes. :P But I suppose my main gripe is the ridiculous increase in Str bonus of melee monsters. Just too much damage going too quick.


    Zurai wrote:
    a dagger... will cause less possible physical damage than a shortsword, which will cause less possible physical damage than a two-handed sword

    This is a situation that is true only in "D&D-Land," however. Sacred cow? Maybe. But I do like a good steak.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    This is a situation that is true only in "D&D-Land," however.

    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.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

    However, a dagger and a two handed sword each have a equal chance of killing you in one blow. D&D maskes this due to hit points.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    However, a dagger and a two handed sword each have a equal chance of killing you in one blow.

    Again, no they do not. A dagger has to land a very solid hit on a critical area to kill you in one attack (brain, heart, lung, major vein or artery). A two-handed sword can land a decent hit pretty much anywhere and you're gonna die without immediate medical attention simply from blood loss.


    Zurai wrote:
    And, since size is a factor in maximum possible damage -- a needle will cause less possible physical damage than a dagger, which will cause less possible physical damage than a shortsword, which will cause less possible physical damage than a two-handed sword -- it's appropriate that the maximum increases as well.

    I'm going to call BS on that one. Placement is a much larger factor in physical damage caused than size. A knife through the kidney, the heart or even the armpit can cause the target to bleed out within a minute or two. A two handed sword might look more impressive, but lopping someone's arm off isn't going to cause much more blood loss - and thus bring them noticeably closer to death - than a knife through the artery that runs through there anyway. As to a longer, wider and heavier longsword, it makes little difference except in terms of reach. It's still the same surface area connecting, and more of the force comes from the arm wielding the sword than from the weight of the sword itself.

    Edit:

    Zurai wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    This is a situation that is true only in "D&D-Land," however.
    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.

    With great difficulty, yes. You have to be more accurate with a dagger than with a two handed sword in order to cause a guaranteed death, but it can be done in a single blow, and not just by people like Arnie in his prime...


    You have to be much more precise with a dagger to get a killing blow than you do with a greatsword. With a greatsword, you CAN just lop off the arm and be done with it. With the dagger, you have to know where the major artery is AND be able to cut it.

    And, again, I never said you couldn't kill someone with any weapon. It's just much easier to kill someone with a bigger weapon, because you have to be much less precise. You're far more likely to die from an arbitrary hit from a greatsword than an arbitrary hit from a dagger. The greatsword will affect a much greater portion of the body in any single hit than a dagger, greatly increasing the chance of striking a critical area.

    The ease of killing someone is reflected in the increased average and maximum damage. That's the reason why greatswords deal 2d6 and daggers deal 1d4. It's not because daggers can't kill someone -- they'd deal no damage if that were the case -- but rather because it's less likely that any given hit is going to cause enough damage to kill. Intentionally precise attacks to the heart, lungs, arteries, etc are reflected in class features like sneak attack and favored enemy and in feats like Power Attack.

    The default assumption for D&D combat is that you're aiming for ANY hit against the opponent. In that model, it's reasonable and even required for larger weapons to deal more possible damage.


    Chris Parker wrote:
    and not just by people like Arnie in his prime...

    You don't have to be Arnold Schwarzenegger to kill someone with a sword. A college kid killed a burglar in ... Boston? Somewhere in New England, anyway -- with one strike. Took the guy's hand almost all the way off and he bled to death. The kid wasn't a body builder, and he couldn't have done it with a dagger.


    A bit of medical research indicates that serious puncture wounds are almost always more life-threatening than serious slashing wounds (this is assuming you don't die instantly). To be "realistic," bludgeoning and slashing weapons would have higher base/minimum damages, but much lower maxima. Rapiers should have absurdly low minima, but on the upper end be able to deal 2-3 times the damage of a greataxe.

    That level of realism is neither workable nor desireable in-game, however. What we can simulate is that, among untrained individuals, bigger weapons do more damage. However, with trained people, skill counts for a lot more than weapon type. I'm happy with that level.

    You seem to prefer a more Anime-like model, in which bigger weapons are always better. That doesn't mean either of us are doing it wrong; it just means that we have different sensibilities when it comes to combat.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

    Which is what the point of Vital Strike is about. A fighter can take any weapon and get that precise strike the first time. That really has no bearing on our argument of weapon damage, but at least it is relevant to the OT. XD


    And yet it is all but physically impossible to kill a moderately healthy commoner with a single dagger strike. The heart is relatively easy to hit, provided you hit the person you're attacking in the first place and particularly if you're grappling - a dagger thrust up from just under the rib cage, a little left (from their perspective) of centre. Doesn't take much accuracy; just that little basic knowledge of anatomy that anyone with any combat training will have. That person is dead. They might not realise it yet, but they're just as dead as if you cut them in half.

    If you miss the heart, then chances are you got a lung. In that case, they're not dead yet, but eventually their lungs will start to collapse, making it harder and harder to breathe because the air pressure outside the lungs is greater than that going in.

    The kidneys are a little trickier, but are generally a one hit then the guy is down. The pain will usually knock a guy unconscious before killing him from blood poisoning.

    The throat is harder, because that area tends to move around more than the rest of the body, and the head even more so. The armpits are fairly simple; if you hold the blade parallel with the person's side and thrust up, there's a very good chance you'll get the main artery.

    Simply put, rogues are the only people who'd learn this kind of stuff. Anyone who has been taught how to fight with a knife will know where to strike with one for full effect, and will have practised doing so.


    Zurai wrote:
    Chris Parker wrote:
    and not just by people like Arnie in his prime...
    You don't have to be Arnold Schwarzenegger to kill someone with a sword. A college kid killed a burglar in ... Boston? Somewhere in New England, anyway -- with one strike. Took the guy's hand almost all the way off and he bled to death. The kid wasn't a body builder, and he couldn't have done it with a dagger.

    Incidentally, when I said Arnie, I was referring to killing someone in one hit with a knife, not a sword. Possible in real life, but not in D&D. Swords are much lighter than most people give them credit for.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    You seem to prefer a more Anime-like model, in which bigger weapons are always better.

    Nice strawman.

    Let's turn that around, shall we? You're saying that size is utterly irrelevant to weapon damage and that any weapon is capable of causing the exact same amount of bodily harm as any other weapon. It doesn't matter if one weapon is a dagger for a Fine sized creature (1/3 inch blade no thicker than a hair) and the other is a greatsword designed for a Colossal creature (60+ foot long blade with a thickness up to a foot or so).

    Nevermind that the Fine sized dagger won't even be able to penetrate the skin of an elephant. Nevermind that the Colossal greatsword would break every bone in the body of any elephant it hit squarely. They do the exact same damage.

    Scarab Sages

    Zurai wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    You seem to prefer a more Anime-like model, in which bigger weapons are always better.

    Nice strawman.

    Let's turn that around, shall we? You're saying that size is utterly irrelevant to weapon damage and that any weapon is capable of causing the exact same amount of bodily harm as any other weapon. It doesn't matter if one weapon is a dagger for a Fine sized creature (1/3 inch blade no thicker than a hair) and the other is a greatsword designed for a Colossal creature (60+ foot long blade with a thickness up to a foot or so).

    Nevermind that the Fine sized dagger won't even be able to penetrate the skin of an elephant. Nevermind that the Colossal greatsword would break every bone in the body of any elephant it hit squarely. They do the exact same damage.

    But what you are arguing is that a person with maximum possible training with a weapon (ie. fighter) will still be more deadly with a larger weapon.

    Kirth's system says that as skill improves, weapon quality matters less and less. So rather than compound the idea that weapons define skill (as multiplying damage does), Kirth is saying that skill defines the weapon (hence extra damage dice).

    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.

    1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Weapon-based combat All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.