|
You know, we've been doing something similar with unarmed strikes for YEARS but it never occurred to me to extend it to other weapons.My plan was to do something similar.
UNARMED STRIKE
Simple: 1d3 nonlethal; provokes AoO
Martial: 1d3 lethal or nonlethal; no AoO
Exotic: Scaling damage bonus, like a monk's.
so take IUS and just deal damage as a monk? thats a lot more powerful than most feats, and takes away monks "biggest" claim to fame. if any fighter could just deal monk damage, it makes monk fell a lot less special.
I really like the concept you have here. Might I suggest in response to Name Violation perhaps this:
It's not much of a bump, but I have to agree a little here.
That said, great work, keep it up! :)
So take IUS and just deal damage as a monk? thats a lot more powerful than most feats, and takes away monks "biggest" claim to fame. if any fighter could just deal monk damage, it makes monk fell a lot less special.
Let me clarify: "scaling LIKE a monk's" in terms of not being static, but NOT scaling as quickly, so the monk's progression would still be better. To draw parallels with existing mechanics, look at it this way:
So currently:
Proposed:
Not much is changing except the feat names.
Maybe flails, at exotic proficiencies, should ignore 2 points of a shield bonus? Cause that's what they did. Big old shields (tower shields) could block them, but a buckler or small shield was useless.
Yeah, I like that. And by the same token, picks could ignore some armor bonuses, because that's what THEY did -- penetrate armor.
In terms of polearms:
GLAIVE
Exotic proficiency in maces (heavy or light) allows a confirmed critical hit to inflict Dazed or Staggered for one round (probably allowing a Fortitude save based on damage or Strength)? So you'd get something like
I was thinking something along those lines myself!
How about:
LONGBOW (for Composite Longbow add 10' range)
- Simple: -4 to hit, 1d6 damage, 70 ft range.
- Martial: 1d8 damage, 100 ft range.
- Exotic: 1d10 damage, 130 ft range.
HEAVY CROSSBOW
- Simple: Normal stats.
- Martial: +2 to hit bonus.
- Exotic: +1d10 damage as if hitting with Vital Strike.
How about:
LONGBOW (for Composite Longbow add 10' range)
- Simple: -4 to hit, 1d6 damage, 70 ft range.
- Martial: 1d8 damage, 100 ft range.
- Exotic: 1d10 damage, 130 ft range.
HEAVY CROSSBOW
- Simple: Normal stats.
- Martial: +2 to hit bonus.
- Exotic: +1d10 damage as if hitting with Vital Strike.
For exotic longbow I was thinking about making it 1d8 x4, 120ft
actually 2d6 damage(total) instead of vital strike sounds a bit more balanced, and still lets you vital strikeHow about:
HEAVY CROSSBOW
- Simple: Normal stats.
- Martial: +2 to hit bonus.
- Exotic: +1d10 damage as if hitting with Vital Strike.
If you like!
My ideas for those:
LONGBOW
In essence, this removes the divide between "longbow" proficiency and "composite longbow" proficiency. We can now define "composite longbow" as any longbow built to allow a Str bonus with use. And because composite longbow is like 10x better than any other martial ranged weapon, we make it, in essence, an exotic weapon.
HEAVY CROSSBOW
Better proficiency doesn't change the basic crossbow, but your increasing familiarity lets you load it a lot faster (and allows us to get rid of the "Rapid Reload" feat).
What about classes with specialized weapon proficiency lists in their class descriptions instead of being allowed simple and/or martial weapons? I'm thinking of the druid and the monk, for example. Would they start with martial-level proficiency with the weapons in their list, and be relegated to simple proficiency with the other weapons?
What about classes with specialized weapon proficiency lists in their class descriptions instead of being allowed simple and/or martial weapons? I'm thinking of the druid and the monk, for example. Would they start with martial-level proficiency with the weapons in their list, and be relegated to simple proficiency with the other weapons?
Yeah, I've been thinking about that -- especially monks. I'll probably need to edit the classes, so that they say things like "Fighters have martial proficiency in all weapons," and "monks have simple proficiency in all weapons, and exotic proficiency in unarmed strikes plus any one additional weapon of their choice." Or maybe "Monks have simple proficiency in all weapons. They gain exotic proficiency in unarmed strikes as a bonus feat." And then give them an additional bonus feat at 1st level to use on Martial Weapon Proficiency (any group) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (any single weapon).
What about classes with specialized weapon proficiency lists in their class descriptions instead of being allowed simple and/or martial weapons? I'm thinking of the druid and the monk, for example. Would they start with martial-level proficiency with the weapons in their list, and be relegated to simple proficiency with the other weapons?Yeah, I've been thinking about that -- especially monks. I'll probably need to edit the classes, so that they say things like "Fighters have martial proficiency in all weapons," and "monks have simple proficiency in all weapons, and exotic proficiency in unarmed strikes plus any one additional weapon of their choice." Or maybe "Monks have simple proficiency in all weapons. They gain exotic proficiency in unarmed strikes as a bonus feat." And then give them an additional bonus feat at 1st level to use on Martial Weapon Proficiency (any group) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (any single weapon).
I was looking at bard, and I was thinking that they would have profiency at the default level with specific weapons.
A bard is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword(martial), rapier(martial), sap(martial), short sword(martial), shortbow(martial), and whip(exotic).
So all simple weapons.
Martial profiency with longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow.
Exotic Profiency with Whip.
Another example would be elves get martial profiency with longsword and longbow.
I was looking at bard, and I was thinking that they would have profiency at the default level with specific weapons.A bard is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword(martial), rapier(martial), sap(martial), short sword(martial), shortbow(martial), and whip(exotic).
So all simple weapons.
Martial profiency with longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow.
Exotic Profiency with Whip.Another example would be elves get martial profiency with longsword and longbow.
Since whip will now have abilities at the martial level, you could give them it there. This is if you make the exotic whip better than the current whip is though.
Since whip will now have abilities at the martial level, you could give them it there. This is if you make the exotic whip better than the current whip is though.
I was looking at bard, and I was thinking that they would have profiency at the default level with specific weapons.A bard is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword(martial), rapier(martial), sap(martial), short sword(martial), shortbow(martial), and whip(exotic).
So all simple weapons.
Martial profiency with longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow.
Exotic Profiency with Whip.Another example would be elves get martial profiency with longsword and longbow.
Either way, as long as what the bard has is equal to what they have under the old system.
A bard is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword(martial), rapier(martial), sap(martial), short sword(martial), shortbow(martial), and whip(exotic).
"Bards have simple proficiency with all weapons. They have martial proficiency with light blades and with the short bow, and specific exotic proficiency with whips."
This is if you make the exotic whip better than the current whip is though.
I hadn't viewed this exercise as an excuse to arbitrarily upgrade all weapons. Exotic weapons remain exotic; they don't become martial and then gain "superexotic," because then we'd have to upgrade all the other weapons another step to keep up with them.
Can we upgrade blunt weapons? They are basically bad for no good reason.
Can we upgrade blunt weapons? They are basically bad for no good reason.
No, they are bad because blunt weapons don't have a lot of subtle to them. Don't get me wrong, a blunt weapon can do a lit of damage, but the transmission of force is not as efficient as other weapons.
I would say their one advantage is that they can probably inflict non-lethal damage easier.
Gamist vs. Simulationist - it's a playstyle issue. For some, blunt weapons should be inferior, because eh, they definitely are in some regards. For others, it's more fun if we can imagine any concept and have roughly equal mechanical benefits, even if a mace isn't ACTUALLY as good as a longsword.Can we upgrade blunt weapons? They are basically bad for no good reason.No, they are bad because blunt weapons don't have a lot of subtle to them. Don't get me wrong, a blunt weapon can do a lit of damage, but the transmission of force is not as efficient as other weapons.
I would say their one advantage is that they can probably inflict non-lethal damage easier.
This is true, and I'm definitely simulationist. I think that rapier's shouldn't do the same base damage as greatswords, for example, and daggers are not as effective as war-axes. I know, I'm strange that way. I do agree that blunt weapons can have some advantages of their own, though - the question is which ones to give them. An advantage vs armour might not be a bad idea, say adding to their chance to hit if you attack an armoured opponent for non-lethal damage.
Another real-life advantage for a lot of bludgeoning weapons is that they require less training to use effectively. This could be translated to game terms by giving them decent damage or no to-hit penalties at simple proficiency, but don't let those features scale into martial or exotic proficiencies like other weapons do.
Thus, they would be good weapon choices for characters who don't plan on advancing their weapon skills very much. The martial/exotic proficiencies with these weapons could have the non-lethal and other abilities talked about above as options for warriors that want to advance in that direction.
Ooh, brainstorm idea: Since bludgeoning weapons are good against skeletons, this could be the "theme" to advance for some of the weapons I've mentioned earlier in this thread. Say, a heavy mace. The higher proficiencies for this weapon could give bonuses to hit or damage against skeltal undead. This might be too specific of an ability, but on the other hand, there are a lot of weapons to choose from; I don't see an issue with giving a few of them bonuses against specific enemies instead of generalist abilities.
Gamist vs. Simulationist - it's a playstyle issue. For some, blunt weapons should be inferior, because eh, they definitely are in some regards. For others, it's more fun if we can imagine any concept and have roughly equal mechanical benefits, even if a mace isn't ACTUALLY as good as a longsword.Can we upgrade blunt weapons? They are basically bad for no good reason.No, they are bad because blunt weapons don't have a lot of subtle to them. Don't get me wrong, a blunt weapon can do a lit of damage, but the transmission of force is not as efficient as other weapons.
I would say their one advantage is that they can probably inflict non-lethal damage easier.
It can be. Against chain armor for example, a mace is by far the best choice aside from trying to get in and shank with a stiletto.
Honestly D&D is kind of bad for simulation, I would just have blunt weapons deliver blunt trauma in case of a miss by 2 or less, dealing the weapon's base damage. As far as my mechanic goes, it's supposed to represent getting a good blow but hitting the armor anyway and still dealing some shock damage to the target.
Feel like Necro-ing this thread, because I'm very interested in it. Is Kirth still around, and has he made any more progress with this? Is there a Google Doc for it all? Inquiring minds want to know...
|
I was curious about this thread as well now that its all zombie-fied. (Wait, what CL are we talkin' about here?) I was also curious if anyone had any ideas on firearms? There seems to be a renewed interest in them within my group as of late. Could possibly just use the crossbow abilities like what usually happens to them, lol.
I know this thread is pretty old, and that two people tried to cast resurrection on it already, but I was wondering if anyone had made any more progress with this idea. (I'm looking at you Kirth.)
If not, would anyone be interested in continuing with this notion?
I know this thread is pretty old, and that two people tried to cast resurrection on it already, but I was wondering if anyone had made any more progress with this idea. (I'm looking at you Kirth.)
If not, would anyone be interested in continuing with this notion?
His new weapon write ups can be found perma-linked in the Kirth Gersen Houserules thread.
What Kirth needs to do is get a Kickstarter going to actually publish them.
What Kirth needs to do is get a Kickstarter going to actually publish them.
Considering that I hardly ever encounter a source, open or closed content, without rifling it for ideas, I'm not ever going to publish those houserules -- they're very strictly for home use only.
That is fair enough Kirth.