| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greetings everyone.
I had this idea for quite some time now and finally wrote them down.
The aim of these rules is to give players a simple way to wield whatever kind of weapon they want their character to wield without thinking about whether the chosen weapon is "good" or "bad" or "unefficient".
If you want your character to wield a falchion instead of a greatsword because it just fits his background, than do so.
These rules DO NOT intend to be able to recreate all weapons 1-to-1.
And remember: These rules are still in beta.
Nothing?
No interest at all?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Nothing?
No interest at all?
I checked it out. You are at the same point I was when I started working on this about 3 months ago.
Have you playtested using your rules at all? Testing pricing versus existing items? We had a discussion in a chat room last night about your rules and consensus was that you have made a good start, but need to work on abilities and pricing.
I would play under your rules without thinking twice about it. The only thing I would change is to make the "type" of weapon (simple, martial, exotic) dependent on the wielder's degree of proficiency, not on the weapon itself. In other words, a peasant could pick up a club and wield it with Simple proficiency for 1d6/20/x2, or a fighter could pick up the same club wield it with Martial proficiency for 1d8/20/x3, or a weapon master with Exotic proficiency would wield the same weapon for 1d8/19-20/x3.
This would simplify pricing and so on, as the only properties inherent to the weapon would be melee vs. ranged, size (light, 1-hd., 2-hd.), and damage type (P/S/B).
I think I was able to get a 15-20/x4 "longbow" for 750 gp. With improved critical, of course.
Might want to work on that one.
I think I was able to get a 15-20/x4 "longbow" for 750 gp. With improved critical, of course.
Not how I read it... DracoDruid's exotic weapons give two (2) critical enhancements, not an unlimited number. So an exotic longbow could, at best, be 19-20/x3, then take Improved Critical and bump it to 17-20/x3. Good -- worth the two feats you're sinking into it -- but nowhere near as crazy as what you've finangled.
Exotic weapons give 2 critical enhancements. Two-handed weapons have critical weapon multiplier increase by 1. There's also the critical weapon special quality.
So before spending any critical enhancements (of which we can have 3), we're at 20/x3. Spend two to get 18-20/x3. Now spend the last one to get 18-20/x4. Add on improved critical, and that's 15-20/x4.
base price: 50 gp.
price with critical quality: 75 gp.
Multiply that by 1.5 from being two-handed: 112.5
Multiply that by 5 for ranged: 562.5
Not sure how I got the 750 gp last time.
OK, if so, there are some mods that need to be made.
Nix those, and it's a bit less broken.
We also get, without two-handed weapons or critical, basically every martial one-handed weapon having 1d8 19-20/x3 as its stats. Which, as we all know, is the same as the supar br0ken falcata.
Also, the game's trip property doesn't do what you have it do. Not sure if that's deliberate, or what.
Sadly, I can't look any of that up, because his link seems to be down currently.
Wow. Didn't expect this much feedback in such short time.
Great thanks to all of you.
1st:
As I said it's still "beta". Especially the pricing I shot from the hip without much testing. So yeah, there is still work to be done.
2nd:
"Base Price" is considered all the pricing in the left side table, not just the one from "simple, martial, exotic".
This doesn't effect weapons with only one special quality, but makes weapons with multiple ones a little less pricey.
3nd:
The bow (or whatever weapon you want it to be - i.e. a firearm) might be powerful, but would have a reload time of "standard action" without any additional feats, you considered this?
And you still need Exotic WP for a feat.
4th:
I'll take out the bonus increase from two-handed weapons. Might be a good idea.
5th:
I am kinda intrigued by the idea to make "simple, martial, exotic" stay entirely on the user's side and not on the weapon (don't know how to discribe it better). But then well trained combatants would gain A LOT from rather cheap weapons. I don't know if that's balanced either.
6th:
I thought about splitting both "Martial WP" and "Exotic WP" into: "Choose either light, one-handed, two-handed or ranged (together with either martial or exotic). You can now use these kinds of weapons without penalty."
-----------------
Again, thank you all for your feedback and feal free to continue. ;)
ADDITION:
removed both TH-weapon bonus critic imp. and critical special quality.
Link should work (just tested it).
@Cheapy:
I C&P the "trip" quality directly from 5th edition core rules, maybe you should recheck your book?
And HOW exactly do you get a "OH-martial" to 19-20/x3 without "ImproCrit."?!
If WITH "ImproCrit", then where's the problem? The battle-axe has 20/x3 or 19-20/x3 with the feat.
I am kinda intrigued by the idea to make "simple, martial, exotic" stay entirely on the user's side and not on the weapon (don't know how to discribe it better). But then well trained combatants would gain A LOT from rather cheap weapons. I don't know if that's balanced either.
Once you get past 2nd level, the difference between 5 sp and 750 gp is negligible.
You might also consider crits in terms of "dots."
Each critical bonus might add a dot, rather than an auto-expanded range or multiplier.
The version of the rules that I was reading said that martial weapons had a base range of 19-20/x2 and one handed weapons had one critical improvement.
Might be worthwhile to revisit quickdraw too if you monkey with draw times.
Your last one should be SIX dots not nine.
(+2 multiplier times range of 3 = 6)
@ Cheapy:
OH DAMN! Thank you. I was tired then and am tired now (it's 00:38 on this side of the globe right now)
Fixed the part (was some copy and paste error).
Your last one should be SIX dots not nine.
(+2 multiplier times range of 3 = 6)
Oops! You are correct, sir! But 6 is still a whole lot bigger than 3.
EDIT: Post above corrected. Thanks!
BTW:
Long time no see KIRTH. Last time we "rambled along" was in the PF Beta if I am not mistaken!
Hope you're doing fine. :)
I really like this. The ability to fluff your weapon as being whatever you like most, instead of having dozens of fighters using falcatas and scimitars is something I've wanting to see for a long time.
I see it still needs some refining, but it's a wonderful idea.
I actually want to incorporate this in my game. How does this influence feats like Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc...
Those feats reward specialization, but since the character can buy the chosen weapon with any stats he want, they kinda lose their point.
I suppose it still holds for random loot... Anyway, worst case scenario, it's a great buff to most martials, so I'm not complaining.
I like this idea. Now let's see if we can do it to spells. :P
Weapon Focus and such were always retarded to begin with (at least from my POV). I HATE WF...
But you are right, those feats need to be addressed.
As I proposed in my first reply above, I thought about splitting proficiencies not only into simple, martial, exotic, but also into light, one-handed, two-handed, ranged.
Think of it as a "proficiency grid", were you have to match "base type" and "wielding effort".
Feats like WF at al. would then be assigned to one of those "groups" (i.e. "martial one-handed" or "exotic ranged").
P.S: I'm really happy that this idea gets so much positive feedback (not all my ideas do... :P )
Actually I don't know anymore for sure.
I think it had something to do with too high damage for light exotics.
:P
BTW:
Thank YOU very much for the "mechanical" idea. I admit, I "stole" that from you...
Don't know if anyone took a look into the lastest version.
Anything BIG still in need of fixing?
One Question to the "Falcata":
Do you think it is broken because 19-20/x3 is WAY too powerful or because it's the ONLY weapon having this stat (and making it superior to all others).
If the latter, than I don't think this is a problem for these generic rules, since there is no "weapon rivalry" for one type/group of weapons anymore (the whole point of these rules).
shameless bump
Do you think it is broken because 19-20/x3 is WAY too powerful or because it's the ONLY weapon having this stat (and making it superior to all others).If the latter, than I don't think this is a problem for these generic rules, since there is no "weapon rivalry" for one type/group of weapons anymore (the whole point of these rules).
The big issue is undoubtedly the 'rivalry' factor. I don't think anyone is going to start complaining that melee combatants are really overpowered because of 19-20/x3.
On an unrelated note, the more I look at the weapon list the more an overhaul seems to be needed... 'exotic' weapons are getting a little out of control compared to older ones. I mean, if you can argue that a nodachi has 'brace' even though it has no pole to brace with, then what about a greatsword? If a falcata is so exceptionally deadly, then why did it drop out of use two thousand years ago?
BTW: Long time no see KIRTH. Last time we "rambled along" was in the PF Beta if I am not mistaken! Hope you're doing fine. :)
Yeah, ramblin' along. Spent the last couple years rewriting Pathfinder more to my liking. Nice to see you again, DD!
ANother thing to concider is that slashing weapons tend to have better threat ranges while peircing weapons tend to have better crit multipliers.
True, but that exactly the kind of things I am NOT enforcing.
If you want a high crit range weapon that looks like a big hammer, then for the love of Bahamut do that.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see any specifics about the cost or requirements for multiple damage types. I was always annoyed by the fact that with the original weapons, you weren't allowed to do choose to do piercing damage with a sword (which is obvious), but you could somehow choose to do either piercing or bludgeoning damage with a morningstar (just depends on how you bash someone with it?).
You are correct. I didn't specify any rules, just guidelines.
And I had similar problems, as to why a sword couldn't do piercing damage, and WHY ON EARTH the morningstar would do BOTH piercing and bludge.
Sure, the morningstar has "thorns", but those are usually so short that it would NEVER do the same sort of wound as a spear for example!
It would just be a simple mace with maybe +1 to damage.
Following that, every weapon has ONE damage type, some might have an additional one (like the halbert), but you must ALWAYS choose what type to deal. (No weapon with two constant damage types)
Following the halbert example, you must choose for each attack, whether to use the spear tip (and do piercing damage) or use the axe blade (and do slashing damage).
-------------
Actually, I thought about getting rid of the different damage types all together!
Except for some (undead) damage reductions, is there ANY real use of those?
Version 1.0 is now live.
- added the option of increasing the damage die with critical improvements
- reduced reload time of ranged weapons by 1 action step
- slightly reworked the base costs
- renamed the "small" weapon quality into "little" to prevent confusion with weapon sizes (small, medium, large)
To add:
- Simple clarification about weapons of different sizes
- clarification about feats and abilities that target specific weapons (such as weapon focus)
Probably noone interested anymore, but I'll post anyways:
Version 1.1 is now live.
CHANGES:
- melee/ranged now defining stat instead of special quality
- added Ultimate Combat special qualities, improved TRIP quality
- added clarification about what defines a weapon type
- added starting weapon proficiencies
- mechanical ranged weapons may increase their weapon damage by increasing their reload time
- exotic weapon proficiency now requires corresponding martial weapon proficiency first.
-------------------------
several rules changes implemented (feel free to ignore them):
- Light and finesse weapons may automatically use DEX for attack rolls.
- Ranged weapons always use DEX for weapon damage rolls (no more crossbow/bow/composite bow weirdness)
(If you don't like this, simply state that mechanical weapons don't add the wielder's STR to damage)
- Weapon Finesse now allows to add DEX instead of STR to DAMAGE rolls of light and finesse weapons. Shield still imposes a penalty.
Okay, I had to backpedal on some things.
I realize now, that this was too much, but I kept a middle-ground.
Version 1.2:
- All weapons simply use STR for damage, no exceptions or special rules
- Light and finesse weapons automatically MAY use DEX for attack rolls.
- Finesse special quality received several restrictions (no shield or non-finesse secondary weapon, no power-attack 50% bonus)
- Weapon Finesse feat now simply obsolete and removed.
Version 1.3:
- Changed the critical improvements to the system proposed by KIRTH.
- Readded the "Critical" special quality.
- Changed the basic range of ranged weapons into a multiplier of the creatures natural reach.
---------------------------
I am thinking about completing changing the whole critical thing again.
Since most players will probably aim for a higher threat range, why not simply make it that way...
Maybe threat range = BAB/5 +1 & changing/dropping ImpCrit/Keen.
Or: Light 18-20/x2, One-handed 19-20/x3, Two-handed 20/x4, and keeping ImpCrit/Keen. But would this fit for ranged weapons too?
Man, I am completely lost in the woods about this right now...
1st, let me say again that I love this.
I believe a lot of people will go for the 19~20/x3 critical (look how many players claim Falcatas are the best weapon evar!). A few may take that x4 too.
I don't think you should remove options just 'cause they are not the most optimized. A possible way to balance things out would be adding some weapon property that is only appliable to 20/x4 weapons, and maybe a lessened version of such effect to 19~20/x3 ones as well.
Let me see... Something like this:
Cleaving Critical: A weapon with this quality can apply half the damage it deals on a critical hit to a creature adjacent to its target. The original target only suffer half the normal critical damage as well. This ability is only activated on a natural 20.
This is just an example, I've no idea how balanced it is (probably not much). It could ecourage people to go for the 20/x4 critical, since it only activates on a nat 20 (so having a better threat range doesn't help the ability at all, but a bigger critical multiplier does).
And what are the rules on fire arms? I'd say the targetting touch AC should be considered a critical enhancement, so we don't see 18~20 revolvers or similar insanity.
I may have missed it, but what are the rules for bows? Is there a "ranged weapon with X quality can be modified to add Strength modifier to damage rolls" line somewhere?
Also, since bows are two-handed ranged weapons, do they require a move action to be reloaded?
Wow... this might solve the Weapon Specific feats problem...
Though I think using Pathfinderized Weapon Group Feats from Unearthed Arcana does a better job of this while allowing each weapon it's own unique flavor...
And I know of no good,bad, uneffective, inefficient, or otherwise weapon. Though some weapons do have better stats, but historically most weapons ended up being replaced by better weapons. Such as the broadsword being replaced by the longsword which in turn was replaced by the bastard sword. Heck the Falcata is one of 5 weapons to claim to have been used through out history. These 5 are Quarterstaff, spear, falcata, axe, and the bow. With the simplest one, the quarterstaff, being the youngest to actually have a finalized, consistent design.
Again good concept, fixes one of the problems with some feats. But doesn't allow for each weapon their own mechanical flavor. Heck, if anything add abilities to the weapons that already exist. Such as a Scimitar, rapier, elven curved blade, and other such weapons having a weapon quality that allows extra attacks in favor of a penalty. Heck, a sword cane should be usable with weapon finesse as they were developed for fencers/duelist to always have a sword available and not have to deal with constables.
There are easier ways of improving weapons than making a new system.
That being said. Good work. It might not be for everyone but it would solve a lot of problems. Keep the ideas coming.
Disclaimer: I think this system is good, only not for me. I am just trying to provide some criticism in relation to Pathfinder's system and the design theory that was carried over from AD&D/3.x.
Do you think it is broken because 19-20/x3 is WAY too powerful or because it's the ONLY weapon having this stat (and making it superior to all others).If the latter, than I don't think this is a problem for these generic rules, since there is no "weapon rivalry" for one type/group of weapons anymore (the whole point of these rules).
The big issue is undoubtedly the 'rivalry' factor. I don't think anyone is going to start complaining that melee combatants are really overpowered because of 19-20/x3.
On an unrelated note, the more I look at the weapon list the more an overhaul seems to be needed... 'exotic' weapons are getting a little out of control compared to older ones. I mean, if you can argue that a nodachi has 'brace' even though it has no pole to brace with, then what about a greatsword? If a falcata is so exceptionally deadly, then why did it drop out of use two thousand years ago?
You do realize a true No-Dachi has a 2-1/2 to 4 foot hilt right... Also it is a martial weapon...
A better question... Why isn't the Naginata a Monk weapon? They invented the bloody thing!
Also the Falcata was used by Skirmishers all the way up into the Napoleonic Era and was. Even carried by some Greek and Italian soldiers in WWII.
Oh I made a BOOBOO. I rechecked all the weapons from the core rules:
Version 1.4:
- martial and exotic weapons don't increase the base damage.
- Single, martial, exotic weapons gain +1 Critical Improvement.
- tried to clearify the thing about ranged weapons
- "Critical" special quality removed again.
TODO:
- Rules for firearms
|
I like this idea a lot. It's irritated me when I wanted to use one weapon for flavor, but another for the stats. This would solve that problem nicely.
Some things you could consider:
* Primitive/Advanced templates on a weapon, representing that a weapon is the invention of a more advanced or primitive civilization/production technique. An Advanced weapon would be strictly better than a normal one, but requires special (not normally available in the setting's default country, the one used as basis for comparison) knowledge to fabricate. Primitive weapons are strictly worse, but are used by less advanced nations lagging behind in the arms race, like orcs.
* Alternative materials: bone/stone/obsidian/bronze etc. In fact, the difference between wood/metal might matter to Sunder attempts on standard weapons.
There are some other considerations:
* I've long wanted to run D&D in a more swashbuckler kind of style, where specific equipment isn't so important; most of your power comes from skill, you can pick up anything sharp and kill people almost as well as with an heirloom weapon. (Implies few magic weapons.) With the idea mentioned above that your proficiencies determine how well you can use a weapon (getting better damage if you have the Exotic for a given weapon), that would become possible.
* There's a risk that this could really slow down NPC weaponry and treasure analysis. It might still be useful to have an appendix with standard weapon builds, made to intuitively fit the weapon to sensible stats for that weapon, for quick usage.
Of course, after this the next logical step might be to make something similar for armors...
P.S. I like your typesetting. What software/font etc. did you use?
Thanks for the kind feedback.
I already started on armor, just check this board for "[Homebrew] Generic Armor" ;)
----
I use Office 2007 and Calibri, Cambria or Garamond most of the time.
Version 1.5:
- Made LITTLE weapons into a full category to make things a little better to understand (they usually count as light weapons for game purposes)
- Two-handed ranged weapons no longer usable while mounted!
- Increased two-handed weapon cost from x1.5 to x2
- Added missing rule for small and large weapons
- New Feat "Lightning Reload" (missed to mention from previous version)
- Included a detailed basic quality table at the end, to quickly assign basic damage stats for a weapon
- Did some layout changes (due to the changes)
----------------------
QUESTION @ all:
I am thinking about restricting damage increase through critical improvements to 2.
Meaning: Exotic weapons would "lose" the last possible damage increase,
effectively, they would do damage as a martial weapon of the same type, but would always have a better criticial combination.
I am considering this, because the damage with 20/x2 is pretty high (just look at little/light exotic weapons in the new table!)
Thoughts? Oppinions?
----------------------
About Firearms:
- I believe firearms can be used as they are introduced.
The list is quite small and I don't fancy to include all those special rules into my doc.
I would recommend to use the original "Weapon Proficiency (Firearms)" feat as a prerequisite.
Version 1.6:
- Martial/Exotic proficiencies now "one-for-all" (no need to specify a weapon type, you can use all weapons with one/two feats)
- minor clarifications
---------------------
THOUGHTS:
I am still pondering about the idea with weapon stats dependent on user proficiency (simple/martial/exotic) instead of the weapon itself.
I'll leave the GWR as they are now, but will give this some more thoughts at time.
|
* I've long wanted to run D&D in a more swashbuckler kind of style, where specific equipment isn't so important; most of your power comes from skill, you can pick up anything sharp and kill people almost as well as with an heirloom weapon. (Implies few magic weapons.) With the idea mentioned above that your proficiencies determine how well you can use a weapon (getting better damage if you have the Exotic for a given weapon), that would become possible.
i have run a similar system from a 1E/2E rulesframe.
similar to how there are 3 BAB tables, i had 3 Weapon Damage schemes.
low was d4/d6/d8
med was d6/d8/d10
hi was d8/d10/d12
in which the 'wield' was light/one-handed/two-handed.
i have yet to translate this to pathfinder, because of all the critical hit stats, weapon special qualities, and character feats, as it is a much more complicated system. but i would look here if i were to.
the idea that you just select the weapon for your character that you want because it's cool is great.
I'm not too fond of your revised weapon drawing rules. A standard action to draw a two-handed weapon is too steep, considering the difference in damage between 2-h and 1-h. Perhaps a 2-h base damage of d10?
Wow! Feedback! °__°
@ rainzax: Well, thanks, I guess. You are welcome to use what you like, though a little credit is always welcomed. ;)
@ Ciaran Barnes: I guess you are right. I actually wanted to change as little ingame mechanic as possible and obviously, I forgot about that at this point.
I previously thought it's a locial idea: Bigger weapon: more damage, less easy to handle. And since there is no speed factor or something like it anymore, I went for the drawing rules.
But since a one-handed weapon is only marginally lower in damage, AND also receives the +50% power attack bonus when wielded in two hands, who would take a two-handed weapon?
So, thanks for pointing it out, it will be changed in the next version, though I will keep the swift action for light weapons.
Keep the feedback coming!
Hey DracoDruid some great ideas here! Good to see all the various responses, redactions and retweaks over time. I like a lot of this, much simpler and streamlined.
Keep up the good work.
P.S. The layout and presentation are top-notch. Well done!
Thanks Oceanshieldwolf. It's always nice to get a little pat on the shoulder from time to time. :)
-------------------------------------
On an unrelated note:
I always had this idea in my head to move the critical hit chances away from weapons and into the hands of the combatant, as this makes much more sense in my eyes.
I know this would change quite a bit and many people won't like it, because it might nerf their early crit builds but I'll post it anyway und would like you guys (and gals) to tell me what you think:
Critials based on Proficiency:
- All weapons no longer possess critical stats, just damage, range, special qualities.
- All combatants gain a critical threat range and multiplier based on their BAB:
BAB +0 - 20/x2
BAB +5 - 19-20/x2
BAB +10 - 18-20/x3
BAB +15 - 17-20/x3
BAB +20 - 16-20/x4 (maxed out)
- Improved Critical [Revised]
Prerequisites: Critical Focus, BAB +11.
Benefit: Increase your BAB by 4 to determine your critical statistics.
(maybe drop the requirement to pick a weapon)
- KEEN does the same as Improved Critical and is not stackable with it as always.
And that's about it.
--------------------------------
I realize that this nerfs early high crit build and one might argue that 16-20/x4 is totally OP, but keeping in mind that we are talking about level 16 at the earliest and comparing to spellcasters at this level, I am not so sure that this really is such a big deal.
But my experiences on those levels are pretty limited so I need you to make a better call.
--------------------------------
Why?
Because I never liked nor understood the idea that some weapons are "more dangerous" than other weapons or whatever you wanna call a higher crit stat,
but a combatants martial skill (BAB) was no factor for this (sure, confirmation rolls are sort of doing this, but I never really liked those either).
Bottomline, the critical mechanic feels (to me) as a strange haphazard combination of different ideas and mechanics.
In addition, reading through all the boards, it seems pretty obvious that high crit range weapons are considered clearly superior to low crit range weapons.
So any weapon that hasn't 18-20 is considered a bad choice if you could take one instead.
This reduces the ridiculously large weapon list to only a small number of "acceptable" weapons, resulting in most melee characters wielding one out of 4 weapons (rapier, scimitar, falchion, and elven curve blade)
It's power gaming (not a bad thing per se) and boring to only see those 4 weapons all the time, but they DO have a point.
If going for an effective melee character, criting more often with lower multiplier is better than criting less often with a higher one.
I think I lost my point somewhere and I definitely am out of time, so I'll stop here and hope some of you will continue (constructively please).
This slipped by me, but I'm glad I finally spotted it. I'll drop back by when I have more time to look everything over (PDF and posts alike). Just off hand the end bit of moving the critical chances over to the character is a great idea. It makes sense that this would improve as their skill does and gives the full BAB classes a little advantage over other classes. It also helps eliminate the hunt for the "perfect weapon" (maxing the crit range and multiplier) which always irritated the h*ll out of me. Very nice.