So another thread got me thinking about how easy it was for me, as a player in 4E, to reflavor anything/everything I wanted to appease this vision I had of a character. And this reflavoring ran the gauntlet from Racial aspects with mechanics and classes down to specific weapons and Feats. I don't really know why I didn't get this sense of entitlement from other editions of the game, but I wondered how important a part this will play with D&D:Next's game?
For those who don't really understand where I'm coming from, imagine a character concept: Death Priest who wields a Scythe. Sure, it's cliché but it's thematic and definitly has that "Reaper" feel. And during the character creation phase, the player realizes that the Scythe is just a horribly written weapon. It provides absoutley nothing mechanically and is rather dull. Instead, the player eyes up the Greatsword like it's the best thing since sliced bread and REALLY wants those stats when he's wielding it. He knows that it'll take an extra feat to obtain it (Weapon Prof: Greatsword) so he does and writes down the weapon's damage die, crit. range, weight, and price. So during combat he describes his Death Cleric chopping off the heads of his Goblin foes and starts rolling 2d6 (i'm using 3E rules for this) and the DM says "Wait wait, your using a Scythe, it's 2d4." The player explains that he wanted Greatsword mechanics but just reflavored it to be a Scythe, even says that the feat could represent his practice with the weapon for extra damage. At this juncture, what does the DM do?
This hypothetical situaion could be anything from completley reflavoring a class or a race to spells to weapon damage. Where does the hard-line mechanics need to put it's foot down on creativity, even if that creativity is just flavor and re-skinning and the rules remain balanced?
|
What you write about can be done with any edition of the game. And with 3.0, it was done to a certain extent with Atlas Game's "Burning Shaolin" adventure. In it, the characters could fight while using any weapon, improvised or not, a do the same damage they were doing with their original weapon (an example used was they could kick up a loose floor tile and then kick it towards their foe and have ot do the same damage as whatever weapon they originally had before combat began)...
Personally however, I would not allow this. The game provides rules for certain weapons, and if a player wishes to use a certain weapon, I say use the rules provided...
I openly admit that I am a "You kids get off my lawn!" grognard, but it is my opinion that if a player does not like the rules of the game, play another game!
This does not mean I will not listen to genuine grievances with said rules, but your greatsword/scythe example just smacks to me as nothing more than a player wishing to change the rules in his favor just to be more bad-*** and nothing more; to which I would rule against as explained...
Obviously, YMMV...
Right, but even if said cleric were to go forth and do ALL the requirments to obtain that weapon, by taking the necessary feats AND maintaining the understand that he could use a Greatsword if desired, just chooses to call it a Scythe because it adds more flavor, is that somehow wrong? The rules aren't harmed, because the weapon is used in two hands (both the Scythe and Greatsword), is a heavy blade (in v3.5, both deals slashing damage) and the same enhancements can be added to both (one doesn't get a beneft over the other). Where is the harm in changing the flavor?
I ask because it's one situation that incorporates a LOT of fundamental elements with an RPG. Assigning damage, critical ratios, groupings, and details to weapons of varying sizes and scope is something ALL RPGs do, but I can't say if that's a good thing or not. Part of me wants to say that, as long as the rules allow you to do something, I'm ok with changing flavor to match something you really like. But part of me says, "No no, if you want to wield a Scythe, then you wield a scythe. End of story."
|
For me its a dangerous line to cross. Eventually everyone will have the same build just re-flavored the way they want. I know that's a slippery slope but its still something to consider. If you allow one player to do this you may upset other players. I would like to say my decision would be based on the context of the re-flavoring. I would be most likely to not allow it. After all there are different stats for a reason.
Food for thought:
1) If someone proficient in the greatsword, but not the scythe, picked up this weapon, would they have proficiency?
2) Would you allow a player casting fireball to say that the flames are a brilliant blue or green color? (In 3.5 Forgotten Realms, there was a feat called Spell Thematics that addressed this specifically).
3) What about reflavoring a magic item? Would a tricorn hat of vast intellect offend you? Most men look horrible in headbands and circlets. It really is a fashion best worn by female characters.
I'll say this: when it comes to your scythe issue, a truly dedicated imagination will be able to come up with a greatsword design that resembles a scythe enough to satisfy the player and keep a greatsword a greatsword. Really, if the effect is purely cosmetic, I'd personally allow it, but then, that isn't a line I'm necessarily willing to cross when it comes to the appearances of the races (though I think allowing liberal interpretations is okay).
Hope that helps...!
|
|
Where is the harm in changing the flavor?
If you re-skin something simply for the sake of pure flavor, you leave that door open for every player to potentially go through at any time they want. If that is something a given GM does not mind, then that's one thing. Personally, I'd rather leave that particular door closed...
I would however (using your greatsword/scythe as an example), be more open to creating a whole new weapon...
*EXAMPLE (using 3.5 rules out of familiarity)*
Great Scythe (exotic weapon)
Cost: 50-100 gp (a greatsword costs 50 gp, while a normal scythe costs 18 gp, so a price would have to be nailed down. I would set it at 75 gp)
Dmg (sm): 1d10 (same as greatsword)
Dmg (med): 2d6 (same as greatsword)
Crit: 19-20 (×4)
Range: —
Weight: 12 lb.
Type: Piercing or slashing
This weapon would have a bigger blade, heavier handle (as compared to a normal scythe), and (because it's an exotic weapon) would require a feat to use. It might even require a minimum STR score to use (say a 15 or better) because the way I see it, this would be an extremely awkward weapon to wield...
This last point would be open to debate/discussion, but I would be inclined to keep such a rule just to balance things out, and in order to keep this rule I'd be willing to change the damage output to: sm/med 1d12/2d8 (making the damage output even better than that of a greatsword)...
The reason the scythe is a horrible weapon is because it's a farming implement designed for harvesting grain, not beheading goblins. Yes, they're picked up by farmhands to use against invading goblins because most people don't bring their greatswords to the wheat fields, and they're also fun to be picked up by the occasional animated scarecrow. And of course they're appropriate to priests of death gods who go with a Grim Reaper motif. But a god is a god.
But let's say we go with another death god, or goddess in this case, but rather than styling herself up like the Grim Reaper, she goes in the mode of Atropos, the fate who cuts the thread of life, with a big wicked pair of iron shears. Her priestess wants to dress just like her goddess, and wants to use a big-ass pair of iron shears as her weapon. And she wants them to do greatsword damage.
At a certain point as a GM, you have to go "Um...no." A big sharp pair of scissors can be used as a weapon, but it's generous to let them even be used as a dagger. And you can forget a greatsword. Similarly, you don't see seamstresses using daggers to cut thread and you don't see farmers whacking down grain with a greatsword.
This is not to say that some weapons aren't simply too weak and should be improved, but that's a GM call, not a player one.
Reskinning magic items is something a GM can allow to the players because it doesn't change anything in the mechanics. A headband of intellect uses the same slot as a bicorne of intellect, a wimple of intellect, a crown of intellect, or even a highly ironic dunce cap of intellect. I'd let players create any of these if their characters had the right skills. If a player, however, wanted to make shoes of intellect and even tried to give me some justifying bluster about them being "smart shoes," I'd say "No," because that's not just reskinning, that's changing the slot so as to get a mechanical advantage.
I can understand wanting your character to make a fantasy fashion statement, but unless they're highly enchanted, your scissors should not be doing greatsword damage. Same thing with your scythe. Similarly, unless they're enchanted, chainmail bikinis to not grant the same armor bonus as full chain. If enchanted? Sure. Magic can do lots of things.
Hmmm....some interesting views. Let me address some:
Eventually everyone will have the same build just re-flavored the way they want. I know that's a slippery slope but its still something to consider. If you allow one player to do this you may upset other players. I would like to say my decision would be based on the context of the re-flavoring.
The same build? I'm not buying it. If I want to play someone who loves fire, fire-based spells, and fire breathing I'm probably not going to play a barbarian. I might want to play a Sorcerer or Wizard or even an Elementalist-esque character. That doesn't mean the other players at the table will want to emulate myself or play a Spellcaster for that matter. But I do agree with you about the situation being different every time, and that goes from one changeable aspect to another.
1) If someone proficient in the greatsword, but not the scythe, picked up this weapon, would they have proficiency?
No, probably not. Were they to invest the proper (and legal) requirments for gaining a Scythe (and keeping the flavor of a Greatsword), I'd probably be OK with it.
2) Would you allow a player casting fireball to say that the flames are a brilliant blue or green color? (In 3.5 Forgotten Realms, there was a feat called Spell Thematics that addressed this specifically).
Yes, most definitly yes AND without the requirement of Spell Thematics feat. I believed that was, BY FAR, one of the top 10 worst feats in 3E/v3.5 that I can think of. The mechanical benefit was almost non-existant and all it allowed you to do was pick ONE thematical aspect to apply to your spells.
3) What about reflavoring a magic item? Would a tricorn hat of vast intellect offend you? Most men look horrible in headbands and circlets. It really is a fashion best worn by female characters.I'll say this: when it comes to your scythe issue, a truly dedicated imagination will be able to come up with a greatsword design that resembles a scythe enough to satisfy the player and keep a greatsword a greatsword. Really, if the effect is purely cosmetic, I'd personally allow it, but then, that isn't a line I'm necessarily willing to cross when it comes to the appearances of the races (though I think allowing liberal interpretations is okay).
I'm all for allowing a person to re-define/change magical items such as what you described. There should be some reason behind the change to the Slot Item, such as Gloves of Dexterity could also be Boots of Dexterity or Gauntlets of Strength and a Belt of Strength. But normally if it "fits" with a theme or the PC has a good reason for it, I'll normally allow it. And I'm talking about almost always a cosmetic change. I think by requiring them to fullfill any mechanical prerequisites for using stuff, then they should be allowed to change that to a degree that better fits them. For another example, take Hide armor. I HATE the aspect of wearing multiple hides/skins of animals as armor. Instead, I describe it as cured Leather armor with a hardening of Wax and polish and use Full-plate or field-plate description of over-lapping plates of tanned animal hide. It functions EXACTLY like hide armor, but looks much better IMO.
If you re-skin something simply for the sake of pure flavor, you leave that door open for every player to potentially go through at any time they want. If that is something a given GM does not mind, then that's one thing. Personally, I'd rather leave that particular door closed...
I would however (using your greatsword/scythe as an example), be more open to creating a whole new weapon...
But then doesn't there pose a greater threat with Homebrew items in your game? I'll always err on the side of keeping it within the rules, because at least I know what to expect in terms of power/balance. By homebrewing (Something I love to do, but with exceptions) I feel your opening a much greater and potentially unbalancing door to your PCs.
I can understand wanting your character to make a fantasy fashion statement, but unless they're highly enchanted, your scissors should not be doing greatsword damage. Same thing with your scythe. Similarly, unless they're enchanted, chainmail bikinis to not grant the same armor bonus as full chain. If enchanted? Sure. Magic can do lots of things.
Right, so it's perectly fine if the character actually uses a Greatsword in every single way, because they took the requirments FOR that weapon. But reflavoring it to look like a pair of scissors is out of the question because, thematically, it breaks verisimilitude? What if the scissors were REALLY big, like the size of shortswords pinned together with an adamantine pin? I mean, I hear and understand that concept of limiting PC to the rules-as-written, but then it really restrictes what's "Fun" just because some designers felt that giant Scissors has no place on the battlefield and that mechanically speaking, Greatswords should be superior.
As for Chainmail bikinis, I'll give you that. They should be enchanted to have any AC protection akin to Chainmail. I'd be ok with them akin to Leather though ;)
Random Side Tangent:
HERO system does this as a standard. So i can easily see how this type of thing could be possible and not game breaking. It would simply be a matter of everyone in the group understanding that is how you are choosing to modify the game for your table.
|
|
But then doesn't there pose a greater threat with Homebrew items in your game? I'll always err on the side of keeping it within the rules, because at least I know what to expect in terms of power/balance. By homebrewing (Something I love to do, but with exceptions) I feel your opening a much greater and potentially unbalancing door to your PCs.
If you simply re-skin something, you are still home-brewing it. By making a whole new item (in the case of the greatsword/scythe at least), you have hard stats for the creation, instead of some nebulous notation on the player's character sheet and/or perhaps some campaign-note the GM has scribbled somewhere. You also have the same potential for unbalance by simply re-skinning something that you would by making a new item (or what have you). The new thing created should do the same job with the same or similar stats that the planned re-skinned thing would do (i.e. a "great scythe" works exactly like a greasword that had been "re-skinned" as a scythe)...
I think my problem with simply re-flavoring something "because it'll be cool", is that for me it breaks the associated mechanics of the setting. To me, just because it's a fantasy world, does not mean that "anything goes"; Verisimilitude is important to me - a scythe should remain a scythe and a greatsword should remain a greatsword...
I have in the past however, gone the route Paizo did with the Katana and used stats of similar items (like using a short sword for a gladious for example), because certain items are just that similar in look and/or function...
And for as long as I can remember (across all editions of D&D), magical items could always be re-skinned for a like item (e.g. Gloves of Dexterity/Bracers of Dexterity) and I have never had a problem with that as a GM...
|
I can see your point, but the weapon rules are a (token) attempt to simulate the relative usefulness of each weapon. The greatsword is a better weapon than a war scythe; the historical use of these weapons would support this argument.
I don't think every single weapon falls into these lines exactly, but playing with the perception for character purpose does muddy the waters a bit. If the pseudo-scythe was so good, it would have been the weapon of choice for at least some medieval infantry. In fact, I would say the x4 crit is a handout to those who like the image of a scythe so the weapon is at least somewhat desirable.
For some people, myself included, its a bit too much away from simulation. I play the new Gamma World on occasion, and it's fun to be able to pick any weapon you want based on certain lines, but inevitably I think, if only for a second, "Why is a baseball bat as effective as a katana?"
Finally, I'm from the school that believes limitations encourage creativity. Sure, in GW you can say your weapon is anything, but I love pouring over the different weapons in 3.5 and making a choice that inspires a warrior character. Having meaningful mechanics for each weapon appeals to me. That said, I could envision a rules module that allowed the group to use a point-buy weapon system (X gp for each weapon stat, threshold totals for simple/martial/exotic, and a hard cap on the number of options). That would seem to work for other groups.
|
There are many different role playing games and some of them aim for rules simplicity, often letting the narrative explain specifics rather than mechanics. This is definitely not the way D&D has evolved. However, if you wanted to play a fantastical Medieval Europe pastiche power-acquisition game inspired by D&D with a different rule set, "re-skinned" as it were, then I could imagine two handed weapons, if not all melee weapons, doing effectively the same damage and other mechanics, although it would be a scythe and the narrative would reflect that (e.g. token villager for comic relief will mention you are early for harvest, you always have a convenient walking stick, you get caught on branches and other objects in close environs).
Since the title of this thread mentions the yet-to-be-released fifth edition of D&D let me suggest that the "core" of that rule set looks to be pretty rules light and probably would do fine with generic statistics for weapons of each non-exotic grouping, even if that isn't what the published rules will state.
Whatever system you would like to play I recommend not waiting until in session to mention to the game master/Storyteller/Head Honcho that you've taken liberties with the rules. Always best to ask for feedback from the group when the muse strikes.
With the feed back so far, it seems that re-skinning something should be very situational and not overly used just because it might be cool for a PC to have that. To some extent, I agree with you. I think the reason why this notion was FAR easier for me to come to terms with in 4E is that the layer of immersion for the mechanics and the flavor is soo transparent. I don't feel a strong tie to using a greatsword in 4E (a d10 weapon, BTW) as I did with the v3.5 greatsword (2d6 weapon). Maybe it's because I feel more confident in my ability NOT to take things to the extreme OR perhaps it's because I don't put as much stock into developer's mechanics as I once did.
I can say that it started to stem from the reflavoring of powers and how using them to suit my needs outweight what was specifically written in the flavor box of a Power or Spell. This opened the door for me to look at other aspects of the game in terms of Rules and Flavor, both very separate entities if one chooses. For a non-weapon example, there was this Theme that came along in the Neverwinter Campaign Guide called Pack Outcast. Basically it's a feature that allows you to turn into a medium sized wolf (at-will) and gain some other aspects of being a wolf as your character gained levels. Like all other Themes, you could swap out class "Powers" for ones associated with your Theme. But the wolf aspect didn't thrill me at all. Instead, I always pictured a Bear Warrior, someone who's stoic and strong. So I changed the flavor to be a Bear instead of a wolf. Now, perhaps it's not a far stretch because we're just changing one 4-legged mammal for another 4-legged animal and I had expected NO change in mechanics at all. But it's not what was written and I think a LOT of DM's would have a problem with allowing that sort of change at the time the character was created.
As to how ALL of this goes into D&D:next, I had read somewhere that weapon damage die might not vary as much as we've seen over D&D's history. Really, damage die has run the gambit for including ALL sorts of die and multiples there of. But how much does that (or should that) factor into how you go about your character? Does a simpler solution such as rule that says ALL light blades deal 1d6 damage, for example, fix the problem of re-skinning and verisimilitude? Or does it make the selection bland?
|
|
Well Diffan you are now giving two very different examples. Re-skinning a man-wolf into a man-bear using the same mechanics is done because there are none for the man-bear. Re-skinning the great sword is done because you find the scythe stats are inferior. Not the same thing. Making weapons all use the same Dx in weapons groups sounds like optimization insurance to me.
I find there are two types of optimizers. Type A eliminates options until all that is left are the very best. Type B chooses a concept and then optimizes around that concept. For type A the scythe concept is impossible because the great sword stats are better. Type B will find a way to make it viable as best as the rules will allow.
I guess I have to ask if weapon groups used the same dice, then what will make them different? Give weapons trip, disarm, or reach abilities? Based on monster defenses it wont take long until somebody finds out that disarm works x% less often than tripping therefore weapons with disarm are no longer an option. What about damage type? Same thing people will ignore pierce weapons because slashing will damage more foes.
I prefer benefits and drawbacks approach of some weapons doing less damage but landing a critical more often. Comparing a single class to itself is one thing. When a fighter overshadows another in the same group that can be a problem. Hopefully play testing and statistics can help limit runaway builds. I don't have an issue with the great sword averaging out better than the scythe as long as its not at such a wide margin. These are the things I hope they consider for D&D:Next.
|
A possible issue for me with re-skinning is if the player attempts to gain some extra benefit from the altered "flavour".
For example, with the Scythe example a player may try to argue that they could get past the guards on the road explaining that the scythe is just a farm implement, not a weapon. This would be something the person with the great sword could not do. So in this case I would say that it is clear to the guards that the scythe has been altered to be used as a weapon.
Equally, if the scythe wielding PC is disarmed and an NPC picks up the scythe then as long as that NPC has the appropriate training to use a great sword I would argue that he should be able to use it - I wouldn't allow the player to argue that the NPC would be unfamiliar with using a scythe in combat and should take the -4 non-proficiency penalty.
So basically, I would say re-skinning is okay with the proviso that it will not allow for any additional benefits to be gained and the world will react to the re-skinned item / spell / weapon etc as they would the original item, no matter how little sense that makes in light of the re-skinning.
So to use another example if a Druid tried to use the Lion stats for an animal companion but asked to re-skin it as a large dog then he should expect every villager to be freaked out by that "dog" as much as they would by a lion strolling into town.
Keep it simple:
Give him the Scythe as a martial weapon, with greatsword stats...
But KEEP greatsword stats... so 2d6 slashing, twohanded... BUT also 19-20/x2... not 19-20/x4 (scythe is 20/x4 if I'm not mistaking)
So either the better standard damage (2d6) or the greater crit multiplier with lower threat range... not AND/AND...
Life can be simple... if you want it to be :-)
Keep it simple:
Give him the Scythe as a martial weapon, with greatsword stats...
But KEEP greatsword stats... so 2d6 slashing, twohanded... BUT also 19-20/x2... not 19-20/x4 (scythe is 20/x4 if I'm not mistaking)
So either the better standard damage (2d6) or the greater crit multiplier with lower threat range... not AND/AND...
Life can be simple... if you want it to be :-)
|
I suspect this is an issue for 3e when it isn't for 4e because 4e doesn't have stats for the scythe and 3e does. So reskinning something that has existing stats is maybe more of a (mental) leap than simply reskinning something to create something new. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it in either edition. There is supposed to be a balance and trade-off between the different weapons, so reskinning one martial 2-H weapon as another martial 2-H weapon doesn't seem to me to be an issue. One is 2d6/19-20 and the other is 2d4/x4 - there is a trade-off. In the end, neither really represents what a two-handed sword or a scythe can actually do in combat, so it really boils down to mechanical equivalence - the weapons are broadly similar in game effect and have the same entry requirements, so why not? Unless we are suggesting that somehow the system isn't balanced (gasp! surely not!) and some choices really are better than others, it should all come out in the wash and not be unbalancing, even if this scythe somehow transmogrifies into a flail. After all, a katana is nothing like a bastard sword, yet no one (much) turned a hair over that little bit of equivalence.
The idea that a character should be forced down the route of sacrificing effectiveness because they actually want to have a character with a bit of flavour seems unreasonable to me - either the two-handed sword and the scythe are equivalent, in which case who cares; or the scythe really is less effective than the two-handed sword in which case why should the player be forced to take a less effective choice (or, quite possibly, lose a nice bit of flavour to be more effective mechanically) and generally feel frustrated (either way). The stats in the game for these weapons do not in any way reflect their actual performance in battle anyway, so why get religious about them?
|
|
Not that I am totaly against allowing players to change mechanics slightly to suit their prefered flavour, but what the opening post suggested is not the correct way of doing that I think. The problem is, if a weapon could appear to be a scyth but operate exactly like a greatsword, that creats problems. How can the players ever know that anything is what it appears to be if the rules are inconsistent?
For example, if the PCs charge a bunch of orcs, and one of the orcs is armed with a greatsword, the PCs should know that means he is capable of dealing huge amounts of damage. However, if they see one armed with a scyth they should (rightfully) fear it less. But now that any weapon can function like any other weapon, there is just no way of guessing what you opponent is up to.
It dosen't stop there, either. logically, NPCs would react diffrently to a scyth and a greatsword. I fail to see a way in which awkward situations of consistency aren't aroused by shifting the rules like this.
The better way to accomplish what the opening post wanted is, IMO, to create a new weapon, just like Digitalelf did a couple posts above this one. I actually do this all the time in my games - for example, if a oracle of Gozrah wants to be able to shot sharp leafs (her god's symbole) out of her hand, I allow her to swap "magic missile" from her spell list with another spell, very similar mechanicly, with the only diffrence being in the description and in that the spell deals slashing damage instead of energy damage.
|
|
Well, for one I'd call that metagaming. It isn't an especially serious example but nevertheless that's what that is. Anyway, it isn't the weapon but the wielder - a reasonably competent rogue can do plently of damage with a dagger, in the instance you are describing. Is that unfair?
In the end, it boils down to whether there is balance between the choices. Given that certain types of weapon (e.g. martial two-handed) have identical entry requirements, one could reasonably fairly assume that they are mechanically equivalent. If that isn't the case, you have a problem and probably shouldn't allow it. But then again, why do they have the same entry requirements? Or should everyone just use greatswords, and bugger flavour?
Right, but even if said cleric were to go forth and do ALL the requirments to obtain that weapon, by taking the necessary feats AND maintaining the understand that he could use a Greatsword if desired, just chooses to call it a Scythe because it adds more flavor, is that somehow wrong? The rules aren't harmed, because the weapon is used in two hands (both the Scythe and Greatsword), is a heavy blade (in v3.5, both deals slashing damage) and the same enhancements can be added to both (one doesn't get a beneft over the other). Where is the harm in changing the flavor?
What you're talking about is called "Reskinning" and it's the kind of thing that sticks in my craw. It's up there with people who reskin dogs to cats, goats to tigers,
A scythe is simply NOT a greatsword, the greatsword works the way it does because it has the FORM and mass distribution which is nowhere near that of a scythe.
With your logic, we simply might as well just one dice designations for all weapons and just call it "flavor". Maybe you've got a point though.
We've already eliminated weapon speed and weapon type vs armor adjustments. Why not just chuck what's left of the descriptions and just define weapons as a flavor mechanic of "I hit you." ?
"This is my blob of playdoh. It does 1d8 pts of damage and watch as I reshape it to different shaped blob that does 1d8 pts of damage."
It's really not that bad of an idea, and something I believe they were toying with in D&D:Next. Reskinning is probably the Anathema to Simulationism, but I hate simulationaism with a passion and find that it should has very little relevance in RPGs and espically in Dungeons and Dragons. Weapons speeds....well it really bogged the game down from my experiences and most of the groups that I know that play 2E have done away with it. Same goes for weapons types and armor adjustments. It's just too rules heavy to be a BIG contributing factor to the game. The verisimilitude it creates isn't worth the aggrivation of using it all the time in combat.
@ Aubrey: 4E does include the Scythe:
Simple two-handed melee weapon
Cost: 5 gp
Damage: 2d4
Proficient: +2
Weight: 10 lb.
Group: Heavy blade (Blades are balanced edged weapons. Heavy blades share some of the precision of light blades and some of the mass of axes. Heavy blades are used primarily for slashing cuts rather than stabs and thrusts.).
And your absoutley right, it has FAR more to do with balance in the game vs. what I'm actually holding and how the "world" preceives the weapon. In my initial post, I expressed that the Character would take ALL the prerequisite feats to be able to wield a Greatsword. In effect, they can literally use a Greatsword with NO problems, and use the stats of a Greatsword (2d6/19-20 for 3E; 1d10, +3 Prof., heavy blade). What I don't understand is the problem is just saying that it's a Scythe, aside from the fact that it doesn't match the mechanical description of a Scythe.
It's not about balance, because the Greatsword is a superior weapon to the Scythe, a weapon the character spent limited resources in aquiring. It functions in the exact same way (requires 2-hands). The only hiccup is if the player is disarmed, can someone with Simple Weapon proficiency grab it because it's flavord and used as a Scythe? I'd say that the feat obtained by the Character allows him to use better stats (a Greatsword) than someone with Simple proficiency and they'd use whatever stats a Scythe normally is.
As for creating a brand new weapon, I've done it quite a few times and there's really little problems with balance, but problems can (and do arise) with this avenue, which is why I just like Re-skinning things. But as we talk about reflavoring things and reskinning, how far can one go before it's "too far?" Let me address another situation:
A PC loves the idea of Breathing fire and the stats (+2 STR, +2 CON or +2 CHA) of a Dragonborn. The half-dragon thing, well he could take it or leave it. The DM expressed that here are no Dragons on his homebrew world, which would render the PCs option invalid. The PC just wants to breathe fire once in a while, so he Re-Skins the Dragonborn into a human hailing for some geo-thermic area with fire and they pray to the Fire god and all that. He says he has to be Strong where he's from (thus, the +2 Str) and is very hardy (thus, the +2 Con) and that he's learned the ancient form of Fire Breathing. For all intents and purposes, he's a human in looks and appearances but "mechanically via stats" he's a Dragonborn. Any Dragonborn options would have to be OK'ed by the DM to exclude any Draconic resmblences but this is something I think I would definitly allow on a case-by-case basis.
|
|
What you're talking about is called "Reskinning" and it's the kind of thing that sticks in my craw. It's up there with people who reskin dogs to cats, goats to tigers,
A scythe is simply NOT a greatsword, the greatsword works the way it does because it has the FORM and mass distribution which is nowhere near that of a scythe.
With your logic, we simply might as well just one dice designations for all weapons and just call it "flavor". Maybe you've got a point though.
We've already eliminated weapon speed and weapon type vs armor adjustments. Why not just chuck what's left of the descriptions and just define weapons as a flavor mechanic of "I hit you." ?
"This is my blob of playdoh. It does 1d8 pts of damage and watch as I reshape it to different shaped blob that does 1d8 pts of damage."
Well, the real-world capabilities of weapons have nothing to do with their game stats. Some weapons are simply better, depending on the situation or the prevailing technological level - a scimitar is basically a slashing weapon to be used in a ride-by attack, for example; a warhammer is actually a pick, designed for punching through plate armour; no one in their right mind would consider using an actual scythe in battle other than as an improvised weapon; and so on. So let's forget about the real-world, since it isn't relevant, as in D&D all weapons are roughly equal, with respective trade-offs that work against one-another, rather than the external situation and where it might actually be appropriate to use a weapon of this kind. If you as a DM (or a player) want to enforce these artificial trade-offs, I think that's fine. But they are artificial, and arguably the different weapons should balance off against one another, so there should be no net loss of balance. If there is loss of balance, you have broader issues with the system.
|
|
I think its fairly obvious there are two camps here. Balance is a fundamental issue that has divided the player base. Question is how do you make weapon choice matter more than just the way it looks without giving up some balance? How much balance is needed before a system reaches the breaking point? If damage is universal, can weapon damage types and maneuver bonuses exist without balance issues?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you're talking about is called "Reskinning" and it's the kind of thing that sticks in my craw.
…and you are certainly entitled to your preference.
A scythe is simply NOT a greatsword, the greatsword works the way it does because it has the FORM and mass distribution which is nowhere near that of a scythe.
…and armor does not make you more difficult to hit. It absorbs kinetic energy. So you already accept abstracting real world physics.
You do not like it and that is fine, but the concept is not far off in left field. Some games do make all weapons do the same damage. I like that players do not take up a lot of time pouring over the rules looking for that perfect implement of destruction and just pick something that works well for their concept.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Really I think it's a matter of flavour for the DM/GM on how far you want to go.
For example...
The katana* defaults to bastard sword. Ultimate combat gives it 'curved bastard sword' stats (1d8, 18-20, x2). My fictional character uses a kherev that happens to match a 'great scimitar' which happens to be a longer saber/scimitar type weapon he can use two handed or one handed with an EWP. So it is a bastard sword/katana depending on which rules set you use.
Likewise, if we didn't have stats for the scimitar, the scimitar would likely 'use longsword stats'.
Now if you as a GM want to change scythe stats to match greatsword stats, that's fine, but the rules should be consistent. That's the flavor vs. verisimilitude. Flavor is "katana uses bastard sword stats." Verisimilitude to me is "Why does my scythe to 2d4 X4 and his scythe do 2d6 19-20 X2?" If his scythe looks and acts like my scythe, why does it use completely different mechanics?
Now as to magic, that's one place where flavour comes to me. It doesn't matter if Wally Wizard's fireball is orange and yellow flame and Sammy (infernal bloodline) Sorcerer's fireball is red and black flame that looks like screaming faces. As long as they both have the same 'mechanics' and can both be identified by spellcraft, they can look like whatever they want.* Likewise, it doesn't matter if my human barbarian unhinges his jaw when he rages and ignores the pain when he bites, and your half orc gnashes with his tusks in a frenzy. If they're both using the bite rage power, it's all the same.
The "Why doesn't everyone use the scythe, if it's so good?" argument is 'realism' vs 'fantasy' argument. Like how the Vegans never developed any sort of improved missile system than their kligats in TOS "Friday's Child."
My Two C-Bills.
*
Now if you as a GM want to change scythe stats to match greatsword stats, that's fine, but the rules should be consistent. That's the flavor vs. verisimilitude. Flavor is "katana uses bastard sword stats." Verisimilitude to me is "Why does my scythe to 2d4 X4 and his scythe do 2d6 19-20 X2?" If his scythe looks and acts like my scythe, why does it use completely different mechanics?
You make a great point, and it's something that made me realize why it's so easy for me to re-fluff stuff even when it's not consistant. And that point is Monsters. In 4E, monster's don't use the same rules as PCs and thus, their weapon damage is often significantly different that what's listed in the PHB. Often times higher level creatures attacks with specific weapons don't match the designated damage die. An 8th level Brute using a Longsword could just as well do 2d8+10 damage with a swing where as a Figher using the same sword would only deal 1d8+5. So to me, that sort of verisimilitude of weapons being even across the board sort of flew out the window. The way I look at it, it's not the weapon but the feat that allows me to use X-weapon that gives me the ability to deal 2d6 damage of a greatsword vs. 2d4 damage of a Scythe, regardles of how I describe it.
Now as to magic, that's one place where flavour comes to me. It doesn't matter if Wally Wizard's fireball is orange and yellow flame and Sammy (infernal bloodline) Sorcerer's fireball is red and black flame that looks like screaming faces. As long as they both have the same 'mechanics' and can both be identified by spellcraft, they can look like whatever they want.* Likewise, it doesn't matter if my human barbarian unhinges his jaw when he rages and ignores the pain when he bites, and your half orc gnashes with his tusks in a frenzy. If they're both using the bite rage power, it's all the same.The "Why doesn't everyone use the scythe, if it's so good?" argument is 'realism' vs 'fantasy' argument. Like how the Vegans never developed any sort of improved missile system than their kligats in TOS "Friday's Child."
My Two C-Bills.
*** spoiler omitted **...
Agreed on the magic part, which is why I really hate the feat Spell Thematics, it's just an in-game reason to infuse some creativity in your spells, and your still limited to 1 specific theme.