# Weapons as special effects



## DanMcS (Oct 7, 2004)

I'm thinking, there shouldn't be a mechanical difference between weapons wielded by someone of the same skill level.  But a fighter should be more dangerous with a dagger than a wizard.  The description of the weapon should just be flavor text, basically.

Here's where I'm going: there are no proficient/ nonproficient weapons, just the user's skill with them.

Someone with no weapon proficiency should do 1d6 20/x2 with a medium-sized weapon.  A sword, an axe, a spear, a club, whatever, it's all descriptive text and makes no mechanical difference.

You can scale them up or down on the size chart very easily- small do 1d4, large do 1d8.  Large give 1.5 str bonus to damage, but you can't use a shield.  Light add 1/2 str bonus but are finessable.

The 'Ranged' quality gives you a range increment- thrown is 10', a bow is 30'.  A thrown weapon (one that can be used in melee and at range) reduces the damage by one die.  A light throwable weapon used by someone without weapon proficiency would do 1d3 damage, but gets to add her full strength damage when throwing it.  The bow increment is used for weapons that can't be used in melee at all.

Someone with *Weapon Proficiency* (BAB +1 prereq) does 1d8 20/x3.  Scale as normal- a small weapon does 1d6, a large does 2d6.  You can change the threat/multiple around (20/x3, 19-20/x2, drop the damage one die for 20/x4).  Thrown weapons have range 20', bows have range 60'.

Drop the damage one die to make the weapon finessable, or have 10' reach, or give a +2 to trip (and drop to avoid being tripped), or a +2 to disarming, but you can only add two qualities.  You can shuffle around damage and crit modifiers- maybe you want your great halberd to do 2d8 20/x2, or your broadheaded pike (reach, used two-handed) to do 1d6 20/x4.

If you take Improved Weapon Proficiency (BAB +5 prereq), you can add a quality or up the damage dice- 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 20/x3.  You can drop them up to three steps to add qualities like finessable, tripping, disarming, reach, or improved threatened area (threaten & attack at 5' and 10'), and can shuffle around damage dice and crit mods.  Range increments are 30' and 90'.

An improved weapon might be a hand and a half sword (2d6, 19-20/x2, used one-handed), or a lashing chain (used two handed, improved threatened area, tripping, finessable, 1d6, 20/x3).  You can't quite get a stock spiked chain here, because it has four qualities (threatened area, tripping, finessable, and disarming).

Greater Weapon Proficiency (10 levels in fighter) takes you to 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 20/x3, use up to 4 qualities, but from here on out it's only available to fighters, who should be the kings of armed combat.  40' and 120' range increments.

A zweihander (large, 4d6, 19-20/x2) or a punch sword (small, finessable, 2d6 20/x3) would be a weapon used by a fighter of this caliber.  Use creative names as appropriate.

Weapon Mastery (Fighter 15) gives you 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 20/x3 and you can swap for up to five qualities.  Here is where you create your two-handed great daiklave (4d6 20/x3, improved threatened area)

Anywhere above where it says 2d6, you can use 1d10 if you prefer the flatter probability.  Similarly with 3d6 and 2d8.

A finessable weapon should be described as light or flexible (a rapier or a chain).

A tripping weapon should have a part which can hook or wrap around the opponent.

A disarming weapon should be able to wrap around a weapon or have multiple prongs to trap it with.

A weapon with an improved threat area should either be large and give a long reach (like a greatsword or long chain) or have a long shaft and be able to thrust out far and near (like a spear).

The good thing about this is, if a high level warrior is forced to defend himself with a dagger, he's still more dangerous than a low-level fighter would be with a sword.  If he picks up a curtain rod, you know he's a threat.  The weapon isn't the dangerous part, the warrior is.

Weapon focus, specialization, and improved critical would still apply to a given weapon (probably the signature weapon of the character).

Now instead of worrying about weapon costs, you give characters a weapon or two that they want at character creation, and let the players worry about the details.  Let them call it a two-handed grand scythe of slaying, but while they just have the weapon proficiency feat, it's a 2d6 20/x3 weapon (or some variation) like any other.  When they pick up improved weapon proficiency, they get to be more dangerous with it.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Oct 7, 2004)

I really, really like this.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 7, 2004)

I guess there's a better way to quantify this.

Damage die scale:
1
d2
d3
d4
d6
d8 (or 2d4)
2d6 (or d10)
3d6 (or 2d8)
4d6
6d6
8d6
12d6
16d6

Nonproficient users start at d6, 20/x2 (for medium users).  You can take one quality. Thrown has a 10' and Ranged has a 30' range increment.
Weapon Proficiency starts at d8, 20/x3.  20' or 60'.  May use 2 of the available weapon qualities.
Improved Weapon Proficiency at 2d6, 20/x3. 30' or 90'.  May use 3 of the available weapon qualities.
Greater Weapon Proficiency at 3d6, 20/x3. 40' or 120'.  May use 4 qualities.
Weapon Mastery at 4d6, 20/x3.  50' or 150'.  May use 5 qualities.

You may freely go one step up or down the scale by using a large or small weapon.  Small weapons are finessable.

You may freely go one step down the damage scale to improve your crit modifier 1 point.

You may reduce your crit modifier to x2 (if it's x3) to get one step up the scale.

Most qualities reduce you on the damage scale, except 'ranged', as it has a built-in penalty.

*Qualities*
_Available to any user_
Throwable: Weapon can be thrown, gets your strength bonus to damage, max range increments 5.  Range increment is based on your proficiency.
Ranged (not usable in melee, damage not reduced):  A shot weapon, like a bow or crossbow.  Max range 10 increments.  Does not add your strength bonus to damage unless you buy a mighty weapon.

_Available to proficient users_
Settable: You may set the weapon against a charge; if you ready an attack against a charge, you inflict double damage if you hit.
Finessable: Can use dex for attack bonus instead of strength (if you have the feat).  Light weapons have this quality automatically for a user, and it doesn't count against the quality limit for them.
Reach: Threatens at 10' from your square, but not at 5'.
Disarming: Add a +2 bonus to disarm checks made using this weapon.
Tripping: Add a +2 bonus to trip checks made using this weapon, and if you fail you can drop it to avoid being counter-tripped.

_Available to users with Improved Weapon Proficiency_
Wide Threatened Area: you threaten both the squares 5' and 10' from yours.  If combined with reach, threatens 10' and 15' from you.
Penetrating: You may ignore up to 5 points of armor or natural armor bonus on your target.
Parrying: When used with Combat Expertise, each point of attack bonus used for defense provides an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC.
Defensive: When used with Two Weapon Defense, the shield bonus you gain doubles.
Bloody: An opponent hit by your attack takes an extra 1d6 + (appropriate strength bonus) damage on your next turn.

_Available to Greater Weapon Proficiency_
Touch (Must be using the weapon with finesse): Your attack is made as a touch attack, but causes only 1 point of damage (str bonus does not apply); any extra damage from precision or expressed as bonus dice applies normally.
Fast: When making a full attack, you may make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus with the weapon. All attacks take a -2 penalty.
Knockback: When you hit an opponent, you may choose to force him to make a fortitude save, DC equal to the damage dealt, or be moved 5' in a direction you choose.

_Available at Weapon Mastery_
Elemental: Add one of the following special abilities to the weapon: Thundering, Flaming Burst, Icy Burst, or Shocking Burst.
Aligned (Your alignment must be appropriate for this): Add one of the following special abilities to the weapon: Anarchic, Axiomatic, Holy, or Unholy.
Deadly: The DC for saves versus massive damage from this weapon are increased by your strength bonus (modified for size, ie half if the weapon is light, 1.5x if the weapon is two-handed).

A new combat maneuver: *Change Grip*.  As a move action, you can switch the way you use your weapon, giving it different qualities in use.

Feat: *Quick Change Grip* (Wisdom 13, Weapon Proficiency): You may change your grip on a weapon as a free action.

Example: Rangar the fighter is fighting orogs.  He hews down the last one nearby with his greatsword (weapon proficiency, 2d6 19-20/x2), but sees one 40' away.  He changes his grip on his sword, leaving one hand on the hilt but gripping the blade just above the hilt in his gloved hand, effectively holding the weapon as a spear.  He's using the "settable" quality, so if that bugger charges him it's in for a world of hurt.

Next round: It did, and got skewered; he looks around and sees the last of the humanoids fleeing.  Quickly changing his grip once more, he throws his greatsword with a range increment of 20' as a 1d8 19-20/x2 weapon.

He might also use the quillions as a disarming aid, or turn the sword around completely, holding it by the pointy tip, to use it to trip someone with the hilt.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Oct 8, 2004)

This is the best system for stylized anime-esque weaponry I've seen yet.  Major kudos!


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 8, 2004)

Why reinvent the wheel? It rolls fine.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 8, 2004)

Some people like to tinker.  Also, I like the way it makes a fighter-type more dangerous with a dagger than a spellcaster using the same dagger.  It gets rid of the distinction between proficient and nonproficient weapons; I figure having a low BAB and doing less damage with the sword works just as well as nonproficiency, but you don't have to keep track of which weapons anyone is proficient with.  There are no exotic weapons this way, just regular weapons used exotically.

You never have to look up weapon statistics.  If you have the weapon proficiency feat, you know a medium-sized weapon does a d8 20/x3 damage.

It takes away the penalty for style- a spear fighter is equivalent to a swordsman is equivalent to a guy that carries a baseball bat, if they have the same feats.


----------



## JimAde (Oct 8, 2004)

Does this get rid of Weapon Focus/Specialization/etc. as well?


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 8, 2004)

JimAde said:
			
		

> Does this get rid of Weapon Focus/Specialization/etc. as well?




I don't think it needs to; the proficiency feat chain would represent general talent at all kinds of arms, the focus/specialization/improved critical chain would cover dedication to one weapon in particular.

Next up: more advanced qualities, because there need to be more than just "wider threatened area".


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 8, 2004)

*More Qualities*

Available at Improved Weapon Proficiency:
Penetrating: You may ignore up to 5 points of armor or natural armor bonus on your target.
Parrying: When used with Combat Expertise, each point of attack bonus used for defense provides an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC.
Defensive: When used with Two Weapon Defense, the shield bonus you gain doubles.
Bloody: An opponent hit by your attack takes an extra 1d6 + (appropriate strength bonus) damage on your next turn.

Qualities Available at Greater Weapon Proficiency:
Touch (Must be using the weapon with finesse): Your attack is made as a touch attack, but causes only 1 point of damage (str bonus does not apply); any extra damage from precision or expressed as bonus dice applies normally.
Fast: When making a full attack, you may make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus with the weapon.  All attacks take a -2 penalty.
Knockback: When you hit an opponent, you may choose to force him to make a fortitude save, DC equal to the damage dealt, or be moved 5' in a direction you choose.

Edit: categories, and added them to the mechanical post above.


----------



## Vrecknidj (Oct 8, 2004)

DanMcS,

Any chance you'll want to put all this into a Word document, complete with examples and descriptions and all that?  I've been emailing bits and pieces of your ideas to some of my players (some of whom are also DMs) and they're starting to drool.

Dave


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 8, 2004)

These are getting up to the magical level, now, but it seems uncreative to just reuse these.

_Qualities available at Weapon Mastery_
Elemental:  Add one of the following special abilities to the weapon: Thundering, Flaming Burst, Icy Burst, or Shocking Burst.

Aligned (Your alignment must be appropriate for this):  Add one of the following special abilities to the weapon: Anarchic, Axiomatic, Holy, or Unholy.

Deadly: The DC for saves versus massive damage from this weapon are increased by your strength bonus (modified for size, ie half if the weapon is light, 1.5x if the weapon is two-handed).


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 8, 2004)

*Examples*

Weapons in this method become simpler descriptors- a sword is a slashing, one-handed weapon.  A magical spear is a +2 piercing weapon.

Jackie Chan, in any number of movies where he plays himself, picks up a ladder.  He has Improved Weapon Proficiency, and so can apply up to three qualities.  The DM says he can use it as a blunt double weapon, but neither end is light, so he's at -4/-4 if he has TWF.

Jackie starts at 2d6/2d6 20/x3.  He applies the defensive quality and the tripping quality, but drops the crit modifier, sending him to 1d8/1d8 20/x2, and proceeds to go to town on the mooks surrounding him with their silly broom handles.

---

Li Mu Bai is fighting bandits near the Wudan temple.  He has Greater Weapon Proficiency, and is generally badass.  Green Destiny is a +3 slashing sword.

Master Li starts with 3d6 19-20/x2.  There are a lot of bandits, but they're not too tough, so he uses his weapon with a parrying, penetrating grip, ending up with a 1d8 19-20/x2 weapon.  The bandits' low-quality armor will not protect them from his technique, and they find themselves unable to hit him, so after he kills a few, they run off.

He tires of all the killing, and goes to give the sword away.  Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon happens, and Zhang Ziyi has taken the sword.  She has Improved Weapon Proficiency, and attacks Master Li.  She is finessing the sword, so it is a 1d8 20/x3 weapon.

Master Li is not impressed by her technique.  He picks up a stick, a medium blunt weapon.  He still has GWP, so he uses the stick as a disarming, finessable, fast, parrying weapon.  This drops the stick to 1d6 20/x2, but he's not trying to hurt her.  He bats aside her clumsy cuts, unleases a flurry of tap-tap-tap with the stick, and lands Green Destiny back in his hands where it belongs.

Jade Fox faces him down at the end.  She has that wierd needle-shooting gun thing.  It is obviously ranged, and she has greater weapon proficiency, so it does 3d6 20/x3 damage on a hit.  She doesn't care about that though, really, because she has a wicked Con-damage poison to use, but at least we don't have to worry about statting that whacky thing out.

---

William Wallace, in Braveheart, is fighting english soldiers in his village.  He has Weapon Proficiency at this point, but no weapons.  He grabs a stone, and uses it as a 2d6 20/x2 weapon to crush a guard and take his uniform and sword.  He later uses a threshing flail, a deer antler, a sledgehammer, and various actual weapons, and is effective with all of them, because it is the man that fights, not the weapon.

In one scene, he kills a man with a sword; he spots another man running towards him, so he quick-changes his grip on the sword to get ready to throw it; it drops to 1d6 19-20/x2, but gains a range increment of 20'.  He wings it at the charging soldier, who dies spectacularly; must have been a crit.

---

Nameless, in Hero, is fighting Sky.  He is a weapon master, and has perfected the unblockable attack (probably a whole different feat chain).  His sword is slashing or piercing, and he uses it as a finessable, parrying, knockback, touch weapon.  Spoiler: 



Spoiler



He only wants to touch Sky with the blade, not kill him; he unleashes his attack, Sky voluntarily fails his save versus the knockback, and lays there pretending to be dying.



Flying Snow, when fighting, demonstrates that she is equally effective with blade or the hem of her skirt.  She is a weapon master as well, and will do 4d6 damage with either if she hits.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 8, 2004)

Vrecknidj said:
			
		

> Any chance you'll want to put all this into a Word document, complete with examples and descriptions and all that?  I've been emailing bits and pieces of your ideas to some of my players (some of whom are also DMs) and they're starting to drool.




Not a bad idea.  Here it is, cleaned up a bit, with the examples and my pet fixes for power attack included.  I'm nothing if not egomaniacal, but ignore any part you don't like, obviously.

Edit: this version has been superceded by later discussion, see the new file attached later in this thread.


----------



## Balder (Oct 9, 2004)

If the idea is to make a wielder's skill matter potentially more than the weapon itself, wouldn't it be easier to just add a general rule that says that for every 3 points an attack roll exceeds the target's AC, 1 point is added to the damage roll. This would, as I see it, accomplish much the same. Just a thought.


----------



## JimAde (Oct 9, 2004)

But that keeps all the special rules for all the various weapon types, and you still have to remember which weapons your character is proficient with.  This system is great for the examples given (Hong Kong and Hollywood action).  This would work well in a swashbuckling game of any kind, I think.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Oct 9, 2004)

This system is cool. I assume fighters, rangers, etc. would start with Weapon Proficiency free?


----------



## Abisashi (Oct 10, 2004)

I think this is really cool. I had a question about one of the examples though:



			
				The Word Document said:
			
		

> Ragnar, now a much higher level fighter, has found his nemesis at last.  He draws his trusty greatsword, in his hands typically a 6d6 19-20/x3 heavy slashing weapon.  He chooses (since he has Weapon Mastery) to put two qualities on it as he draws it, penetrating and aligned (holy), since he knows this foe is vulnerable to good weapons.  The aligned property takes a standard action to activate, so his whole round is spend drawing, gripping, and energizing the blade.  Next round, fight!




Why is the sword typically a 19-20/x3? It's 6d6 becuase that is one step above 4d6, which is what he gets from weapon mastery, so he's not turning the damage into critical range. It might also help if you mentioned that his damage ends up at 3d6, for clarification.


----------



## BSF (Oct 10, 2004)

OK, I am thinking this is pretty nifty.  Here is a question though, What about unarmed attacks?  What if a fighter took improved unaramed attack?  

I can see this really being fun to use with a good group.


----------



## aurance (Oct 10, 2004)

I think this is a great alternative! Especially for players/groups that like to describe cinematic combat actions.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 10, 2004)

Abisashi said:
			
		

> Why is the sword typically a 19-20/x3? It's 6d6 becuase that is one step above 4d6, which is what he gets from weapon mastery, so he's not turning the damage into critical range. It might also help if you mentioned that his damage ends up at 3d6, for clarification.




I assure you that there is a simple, and straightforward answer to that, involving the fact that I typed that doc at the end of the day on friday.  Typo, I'll fix it up monday morning.  It's 6d6 because it's a heavy weapon for him, 19-20/x2.  It will end up as a penetrating, aligned (holy), 3d6 19-20/x2 heavy slashing weapon.  Which is a lot of descriptors, but most of them are from the user; the base stats from the weapon are "heavy slashing weapon".


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 10, 2004)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> OK, I am thinking this is pretty nifty.  Here is a question though, What about unarmed attacks?  What if a fighter took improved unaramed attack?




I wouldn't let this work on unarmed attacks, even if the fighter took improved unarmed attack.  Off the top of my head, I'd do a new feat chain that would end up looking like the monk progression:

Martial Arts (BAB +1) 1d6
Improved MA (BAB +4) 1d8
Greater MA (BAB +8) 1d10
Unarmed Mastery (BAB +12) 2d6
Improved UM (BAB +16) 2d8
Greater UM (BAB +20) 2d10

Stick in a "rapid strike" feat chain something like flurry of blows, and I'd probably allow unarmed damage to work with light martial arts weapons.

So you can make a martial artist out of a stock fighter, without him having to use the pseudo-mysticism of the monk class.


----------



## BSF (Oct 10, 2004)

The more I think about this, the better I like it.  I could see this as being a wonderful way to handle a campaign that only used the 3 "generic" classes from Unearthed Arcana.  I keep trying to figure out how I would retrofit this into my current  campaign.  

Have you had much playtesting with this system?  If so, how do you suggest handling non-fighter combat classes?  For my current campaign, I have 7 PCs and not one of them has a fighter level.  I have had fighters in my games, but the players tend to find them less interesting over time.  I would love to turn that trend around.  This system also reduces the dependance on equipment

Speaking of equipment, in the .doc, you use an infamous Jackie Chan ladder and a stick as weapon examples.  Is it appropriate to still differentiate between weapons and improvised weapons for to-hit penalties?  

The ideas here are dang cool.  I want to find a situation to play with them in and see how well they work.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

If you did want to stick with the original list, you could say Unarmed is another catagory, like Light, Standard, and Heavy weapons.  Unarmed is -2 dice categories on damage and is automatically Finessable like Light weapons.  The benefit is that you don't have a weapon in your hands, meaning you can't be disarmed.  You can't use the Reach, Wide Threatening Area, Thrown, or Ranged qualities while unarmed, and until Improved Weapon Prof, you always deal Nonlethal damage (after that, you may choose to deal either lethal or nonlethal).

In most cinematic fights, the fighter is almost as deadly with his bare hands as he is with a weapon.  Having a completely seperate progression defeats this truism, IMHO.  If they are equally good with all weapons in a variety of stances and uses, surely they'll know how to fight barehanded as well...


----------



## Samurai (Oct 10, 2004)

Also, I really like this idea, but I think I prefer a smoother, slightly slower damage progression.  Personally, I'd go like this:

...d4, d6, d8, d10, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10 (or 3d6), 4d6, 5d6, 6d6...

which corresponds to an average damage of 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17.5, 21...


----------



## Nifft (Oct 10, 2004)

Simple, flexible, extensible. Genius.   

For you, sir, I take off my hat of d02.

Thanks for sharing! -- N


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 11, 2004)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Simple, flexible, extensible. Genius.
> 
> For you, sir, I take off my hat of d02.
> 
> Thanks for sharing! -- N



What he said.


----------



## Macbeth (Oct 11, 2004)

This is a really niffty system. I still have a few ideas/questions/whatever that will have to wait until after I get home from class today. Right now, I wanted to ask if you've thought about getting this published? It seems like a really cool system, and I'm sure somebody (maybe even EN Publishing) would at least take it as an article, possibly expand it into a full length PDF.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 11, 2004)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> Have you had much playtesting with this system?  If so, how do you suggest handling non-fighter combat classes?  For my current campaign, I have 7 PCs and not one of them has a fighter level.  I have had fighters in my games, but the players tend to find them less interesting over time.  I would love to turn that trend around.  This system also reduces the dependance on equipment




No experience whatsoever, I started brainstorming this last wednesday or thursday.  But as written, non-fighters are limited to Improved Weapon Proficiency.  This is ok, because they have other schticks.  Rangers have favored enemy and fighting style.  Paladins have spells and smiting.  Barbarians have rage and two-handed power attacking, which is so overpowered that I noted in the .doc that I use PA as 1.5x rather than 2x for two-handed weapons.



> Speaking of equipment, in the .doc, you use an infamous Jackie Chan ladder and a stick as weapon examples.  Is it appropriate to still differentiate between weapons and improvised weapons for to-hit penalties?
> 
> The ideas here are dang cool.  I want to find a situation to play with them in and see how well they work.




Improvised vs weapons: I wouldn't differentiate.  Jackie seems to do pretty well with a stool or a flute versus men with swords a lot of the time.

I think the best feature here is that it's close enough to the original weapon list that you can mostly use them unmodified if you need to.  Rather than figuring out grips for every warrior in the bandit raiding party, give them spears and swords straight out of the phb.  But then the last mook standing (who has absorbed the power of his dying comrades, in true movie tradition) ends up being a badass with Improved Weapon Proficiency and you schrodinger some improved technique feats onto him and he whups up on the PCs for a minute before going down gloriously.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 11, 2004)

Samurai said:
			
		

> If you did want to stick with the original list, you could say Unarmed is another catagory, like Light, Standard, and Heavy weapons.  Unarmed is -2 dice categories on damage and is automatically Finessable like Light weapons.  The benefit is that you don't have a weapon in your hands, meaning you can't be disarmed.  You can't use the Reach, Wide Threatening Area, Thrown, or Ranged qualities while unarmed, and until Improved Weapon Prof, you always deal Nonlethal damage (after that, you may choose to deal either lethal or nonlethal).




Hey, that's pretty smooth.  It tracks nicely, too- a non-proficient user gets bumped down two steps and ends up with a d3 subdual.  Proficient get a d4, Improved get a d6 and can do lethal.  I like it.  Probably have to rename the thing, Combat Proficiency or something, since weapon proficiency would not be totally descriptive anymore.

I might allow Wide Threatened Area, rationalized as a kung fu stance where the user lunges to hit someone.  Most (real-world) pro boxers have a listed reach over 6 feet.

Seems like version two of the .doc is shaping up nicely.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 11, 2004)

Combat Proficiency rules, version 2.  Includes the unarmed attack rule, patches to power attack and weapon finesse, fixed a couple of typos, clarified the examples a bit, and cleared out some redundant text.


----------



## Verequus (Oct 11, 2004)

I've seen in your Word document, that you allow to take certain weapon special abilities, which I consider as magical enhancements (like Flaming Bursts). Would it be unbalancing, if I disallow these?


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 11, 2004)

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I've seen in your Word document, that you allow to take certain weapon special abilities, which I consider as magical enhancements (like Flaming Bursts). Would it be unbalancing, if I disallow these?




I don't think so.  They're not overly powerful (you have to give up a round worth of actions to activate the magical ability, and at level 15+, a round is a lot to give up), but they're not strictly necessary either.

They are magical enhancements, but a level 15 fighter is a pretty magical being, himself.  It's less obvious than a level 15 wizard, but he's basically a demigod or a hero along the lines of hercules.  He can take on a good sized army or duel with a demon, or plummet from a 200' cliff and live.  The ability to make his sword burst into flames doesn't seem like it should be beyond him, to me.  But do what you like, and enjoy.


----------



## Nareau (Oct 12, 2004)

OK, I already thought you were cool for coming up with this very elegant combat scheme.  But your use of "schrodinger" as a verb just totally made my day. 

While I really like your system, I have to ask:  isn't the fighter already much more deadly with that dagger than the wizard?  Imagine a 6th level fighter going up against a 6th level wizard:  Fighter gets +6/+1 (with possible weap. spec., weap. focus, armor) vs. +3.  Don't the bonus feats, BAB, and automatic proficiencies the fighter gets already represent his ability to fight extremely well?  Would this system replace any or all of that?

Spider


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 12, 2004)

Spider said:
			
		

> While I really like your system, I have to ask:  isn't the fighter already much more deadly with that dagger than the wizard?  Imagine a 6th level fighter going up against a 6th level wizard:  Fighter gets +6/+1 (with possible weap. spec., weap. focus, armor) vs. +3.  Don't the bonus feats, BAB, and automatic proficiencies the fighter gets already represent his ability to fight extremely well?  Would this system replace any or all of that?




Mmm, kinda.  I guess that was a bad example.  My thought was that two fighters, who have sunk equivalent feats into their weapon of choice, should be equally effective.  There's a wide variety of weapons that are all medium sized; in the PHB, some do 1d6 20/x2, some do 1d8 19-20/x2.  A fighter is essentially penalized for using a spear style instead of a longsword.  I didn't want there to be optimal weapons (cough*spikedchain*cough), just better fighters.

In many games, especially point-buy ones like MnM and Hero, a weapon is just an attack that you buy.  Whether you describe it as a spear or a longsword or a barstool, if you pay 10 points for it, it's as good as any other 10 point weapon.  That's what I was going for, though I didn't quite go all the way- I still differentiate between light, one-handed, and heavy weapons, for instance.  That's too D&D for me to cut out completely.

An interesting point about iterative attacking; I'll have to ponder that.  In Mutants and Masterminds, they've done away with iterative attacks.  The only way to get extra attacks is to fight with two weapons or the feat rapid strike (2 attacks at -2).  Since damage can continue to go up with level, maybe you wouldn't need to use iterative attacks.  A high level fighter might do 6d6 damage with his greatsword; you could describe that as him being unstoppably tough and hitting really hard, or you could describe it as several swings and nicks and slashes.  I must ponder this more deeply.


----------



## Zoatebix (Oct 13, 2004)

I read the first post and subscribed.  I'll post again once I read through.  Wow!
-George


----------



## Zoatebix (Oct 13, 2004)

I'm directing _so_ many people to this thread.  Please look for a publisher!  
-George

PS - Did I mention that this is great?  Here's hoping that the maneuvers and stunts from Mearls'/Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might mesh really really well with this stuff so we can have us some really cinematic D&D combats.


----------



## Fieari (Oct 13, 2004)

Wow.  This is, quite frankly, awesome.  I like how you incorporated weapon size as well.  There is something I would love to see though, which I think your system could accomodate even though standard D&D does not... a differentiation between blunt, slashing, and peircing.

There is a real cinematic difference in feel between these types, but almost no mechanical differences at all, and this bothers me.  Yes, I know that heros use whatever they have on hand equally well, but they do it in different -ways-.  And besides... swords were made for killing people.  There's a reason Samurai went into battle with Katana instead of Boken (Bokken?).  Under these rules, there'd be no real difference.

My thought was that the three weapon types would get a list of special qualities that could be added with a grip like everything else... like one technique per feat.  I... uh... can't actually think of any at the moment, but then, it is 11:30 and my eyes are drooping.  I'll come back in the morning.  But does anyone agree that this would be a good idea to add?


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 13, 2004)

Macbeth said:
			
		

> This is a really niffty system. I still have a few ideas/questions/whatever that will have to wait until after I get home from class today. Right now, I wanted to ask if you've thought about getting this published? It seems like a really cool system, and I'm sure somebody (maybe even EN Publishing) would at least take it as an article, possibly expand it into a full length PDF.




I actually wrote up a similar system to this for an issue of the Player's Journal.  In it, the weapons you used basically didn't matter.  You got iterative attacks, but whether you used one weapon, two weapons, or a dozen, you just made one attack roll and one damage roll.

It was perhaps over-simplified.

If I were to re-create the system, using the 'simplified tactical movement rules' I've been brainstorming, it'd probably end up . . . well, actually, let me start a new thread.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 13, 2004)

Posted here:  http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1803574


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 13, 2004)

What about having improvised weapons reduce the base weapon damage by one step to reflect that they aren't optimized for combat? I was thinking about making 'improvised weapon' a quality available to all users, but seems cleaner. Great, great system.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Oct 13, 2004)

I noticed a while back that you can't make a rapier with this system, at least not at the Improved Combat Proficiency level. Is that a problem, do you think? I don't think it was intentional. I also don't really think that finessable is worth a damage die drop.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 13, 2004)

Fieari said:
			
		

> There is something I would love to see though, which I think your system could accomodate even though standard D&D does not... a differentiation between blunt, slashing, and peircing.
> 
> There is a real cinematic difference in feel between these types, but almost no mechanical differences at all, and this bothers me.  Yes, I know that heros use whatever they have on hand equally well, but they do it in different -ways-.  And besides... swords were made for killing people.  There's a reason Samurai went into battle with Katana instead of Boken (Bokken?).  Under these rules, there'd be no real difference.




That was pretty much the goal, to not have the weapons be at all different, just the users.

Musashi is famed for having grown to such mastery in dueling that he stopped bothering to fight with a sword, and killed his opponents using a wooden practice sword and, in one case, an oar from a rowboat.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 13, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> I noticed a while back that you can't make a rapier with this system, at least not at the Improved Combat Proficiency level. Is that a problem, do you think? I don't think it was intentional. I also don't really think that finessable is worth a damage die drop.




A rapier is kind of a wierd weapon, with several exceptional qualities.  It's one-handed but finessable, and (like a light weapon) can't be used two-handed for extra strength damage.  That's going to make it hard to do in any generic framework.  In that way, it's like a spiked chain, which you can't build in this system until greater combat proficiency I think.

At improved combat proficiency, you start at 2d6 20/x3 with a one-handed piercing sword.  You can make that 1d8 18-20/x2 by the "drop a die to increase critical" and "18-20/x2 is equivalent to 20/x4" rules, and then add finessable for 1d6 18-20/x2.  You now have basically a rapier, except it's still a stock one-handed use so the 'can't be used two-handed for extra damage' thing isn't there.

You could also use a light piercing sword, so it would start out at 1d8 20/x3, and then shift damage and crits around to get 1d6 18-20/x2 again, this time with the "light" set of weapon attributes.

So you can't really recreate a rapier using Combat Proficiency, but you can at the Improved level.

In general, I said everything that was an advantage should be a quality that reduces damage on the scale.  Being able to use a melee weapon with dex instead of strength is an advantage, so it knocks down damage.

If you don't agree with that for finesse, you're probably also one of the people that thinks all weapons should use dex to-hit and strength for damage.  That would be a variation in straight D&D, and it would be a perfectly acceptable variation for this kind of rule, too.


----------



## Ferrix (Oct 13, 2004)

Cool system, would be fun if someone ran a game with it.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Oct 14, 2004)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> In general, I said everything that was an advantage should be a quality that reduces damage on the scale.  Being able to use a melee weapon with dex instead of strength is an advantage, so it knocks down damage.




Yes, but being able to take a feat to use your Dex instead of Str is pretty pitiful. I think that I'll use Rule 0 here and say that the "no 2-hands for pwr attack and 1.5 Str" balances finesse, and probably use something similar for other weapons like that. A die drop for finesse does sound about right for 2-handed weapons, though.




> If you don't agree with that for finesse, you're probably also one of the people that thinks all weapons should use dex to-hit and strength for damage. That would be a variation in straight D&D, and it would be a perfectly acceptable variation for this kind of rule, too.




Not really, no. I just think that Finesse isn't worth the damage you sacrifice, except maybe at high levels.

Note: I meant Combat Proficiency, not improved, sorry.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 14, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Yes, but being able to take a feat to use your Dex instead of Str is pretty pitiful.




You think?  In the game I play in on sundays, it's worth about +4 to-hit for the two characters that have it (at mid-levels, 10+ or so).  Doesn't seem too pitiful to me.



> I think that I'll use Rule 0 here and say that the "no 2-hands for pwr attack and 1.5 Str" balances finesse, and probably use something similar for other weapons like that. A die drop for finesse does sound about right for 2-handed weapons, though.




I was pondering something like that, having a flawed version that worked that way.  It would really only be necessary to recreate rapiers, though, which is why I thought that an exception for such an outlying case wasn't necessary.

Maybe it should work like that for all one-handed weapons (apply finessable, you can't two-hand it for extra damage but your damage doesn't drop), we don't really have any other weapons for comparision.  Wait, there was an exotic rapier (fullblade?) in Sword and Fist that did a d8 I think; you couldn't two-hand it, could you?  I don't remember.

Then heavy weapons have to take the damage hit, but keep their strength and power-attacking bonus (which, in my head, comes mostly from leverage).  Finessable for heavy weapons shouldn't show up until greater combat proficiency, maybe.



> Note: I meant Combat Proficiency, not improved, sorry.




Ah.  Then my long explanation of how it was actually possible wasn't necessary.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Oct 15, 2004)

Yup, the weapon you refer to is the Elven thinblade; a pretty nifty weapon actually. The Fullblade is a Large bastard sword (in 3.5). Re-reading my post, this bit 







			
				me said:
			
		

> Yes, but being able to take a feat to use your Dex instead of Str is pretty pitiful.



Is not clear. I meant that dropping the damage so you could take a feat to use Dex was bad, not that Weapon Finesse itself was. 



			
				DanMcS said:
			
		

> Maybe it should work like that for all one-handed weapons (apply finessable, you can't two-hand it for extra damage but your damage doesn't drop), we don't really have any other weapons for comparision. Wait, there was an exotic rapier (fullblade?) in Sword and Fist that did a d8 I think; you couldn't two-hand it, could you? I don't remember.
> 
> Then heavy weapons have to take the damage hit, but keep their strength and power-attacking bonus (which, in my head, comes mostly from leverage). Finessable for heavy weapons shouldn't show up until greater combat proficiency, maybe.




That sounds good. The thinblade was reprinted for 3.5 in CW; let me check.
Nope, no mention of thinblade not used 2-handed. 

Another question: How would you handle bastard/hand-and-a-half swords in this system? I see that you have one given as an example for Improved Proficiency, but that's still the same as a longsword. Maybe they should be able to be used as medium or heavy weapons with a grip change? So a proficient wielder could use one 1-handed for 1d8 19-20/x2, or 2-handed for 2d6 19-20/x2.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 15, 2004)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Another question: How would you handle bastard/hand-and-a-half swords in this system? I see that you have one given as an example for Improved Proficiency, but that's still the same as a longsword. Maybe they should be able to be used as medium or heavy weapons with a grip change? So a proficient wielder could use one 1-handed for 1d8 19-20/x2, or 2-handed for 2d6 19-20/x2.




I wouldn't differentiate.  It's either a one-handed slashing sword, or a heavy slashing sword.  I think three categories of weapon size is enough, without adding intermediate ones; heavy exotic weapons like the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe were a needless complication to the system, I think.

A one-handed weapon can already be used two-handed, and gets 1.5 str bonus.  If they want to do extra damage with it, Improved Combat Proficiency boosts the damage die.

I don't think the hand-and-a-half sword is a problem, really, since it's a difference between a 2 pound 24" blade and a 3 pound 28"  blade in real life, or something similar.  I'm trying to get rid of mechanical distinctions, not recreate the original system, warts and all.


----------



## dead_radish (Oct 19, 2004)

To start: Holy jebus, I love this system.  I doubt I'd be able to finagle my group in to using it, but wow.  It smacks greatly of ADnD prof., which I'm assuming was deliberate.

Here are my concerns: I haven't run over the mechanics too much, though they seem excellently well done.  I am concerned by the fact that you base these abilities strictly on fighter level, though.  That creates a lot of conflict in my mind.  First off, I play AU, not 3.X, so there's not even a fighter to consider.  I hate to think that, say, a mageblade is restricted from taking this.  I'd prefer to see something along the lines of a BAB requirement, with fighters getting these for free at relevant levels.  That way if Wally Wizard really wants to be a bad-aspirin with his q-staff, he can take Improved at level 12, when he has +6 bab.  If Mikey the Mageblade wants to, he can add it, but he's not as good as the straight fighter, since he's getting magic enhancements.  

There's also the concern that under this system, you would give up a chunk by taking a PrC.  Flavorfully, moving to the Weapon Master PrC shouldn't make you *less* effective with a weapon than a warrior.  And unless you're willing to revamp every PrC out there, it would be easier to look at the above BAB type requirements....

And let me re-iterate: Wow.  Incredible job.  Those descriptions of the various combats were just amazing.

Is there anyone out there interested in an Arena Fight type PbP game to test some of these rules out, and play around with them?  I'd play, but not run, because I'm swamped.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 20, 2004)

dead_radish said:
			
		

> To start: Holy jebus, I love this system. I doubt I'd be able to finagle my group in to using it, but wow. It smacks greatly of ADnD prof., which I'm assuming was deliberate.



 Heh I said the exact same thing when Ken Hood revised his Grim n Gritty rules and I helped with tweaking it some.  I tried to explain it to my group and I even wanted to use it for an AU campaign but the group was kinda skeptical and then the group spectacularly disintegrated during 2 seperate divorce cases so yeah.

 I also agree that if you switch this system to non-standard D&D it should just be a BAB requirement.  I know part of the idea is to make sure that Fighters are better combatants at heart than other classes, but the yhave all those extra bonus feats.  They will likely have ALL of the related combat feats here and you'll have Wizards, Thieves etc who maybe pick up one level and go no farther.

 Hagen


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 20, 2004)

At first I thought this was overly complicated and almost brushed it off.  But I was so intrigued by the idea I came back and reread it.  Man is it cool.  I really like what you've done, and I'll be trying to simplify it so I have something for future use.  Well done.


----------



## brento766 (Oct 20, 2004)

*hmmm*

great idea but what about double weapons?  would that be a quality because with a double you get to treat the off hand as a light.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 20, 2004)

dead_radish said:
			
		

> Here are my concerns: I haven't run over the mechanics too much, though they seem excellently well done.  I am concerned by the fact that you base these abilities strictly on fighter level, though.  That creates a lot of conflict in my mind.  First off, I play AU, not 3.X, so there's not even a fighter to consider.  I hate to think that, say, a mageblade is restricted from taking this.  I'd prefer to see something along the lines of a BAB requirement, with fighters getting these for free at relevant levels.  That way if Wally Wizard really wants to be a bad-aspirin with his q-staff, he can take Improved at level 12, when he has +6 bab.  If Mikey the Mageblade wants to, he can add it, but he's not as good as the straight fighter, since he's getting magic enhancements.




Combat proficiency and Improved CP are general feats, and list only BAB as a prerequisite.  The two upper-tier feats (Greater CP & Weapon Mastery) are fighter-specific, like Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization.  That was completely intentional, because I don't think there is enough incentive to stick with fighter past level 10 or 12.  You've filled up your list of necessary feats for your style by then, and almost everyone goes into a prestige class because the upper levels of fighter don't provide anything new.  There should be a bit of a reward for sticking with it.  Actually, I think all classes should have a reward at level 20 that you can get for sticking with it all the way through.  I'll have to ponder that more deeply.

Anyway, in a variant which doesn't have the fighter class, it would be easy to ignore the "fighter 10" or "fighter 15" prereqs and just use BAB, you're right.



> There's also the concern that under this system, you would give up a chunk by taking a PrC.  Flavorfully, moving to the Weapon Master PrC shouldn't make you *less* effective with a weapon than a warrior.  And unless you're willing to revamp every PrC out there, it would be easier to look at the above BAB type requirements....




Isn't the weapon master a class dedicated to one weapon?  He would lose access to the top tiers of the proficiency feat chain, in return for greater prowess with a single weapon.

In any case, yes, I think that's the way prestige classes work; you give up some abilities (spell progression, turning, whatever) in return for others.


----------



## DanMcS (Oct 20, 2004)

brento766 said:
			
		

> great idea but what about double weapons?  would that be a quality because with a double you get to treat the off hand as a light.




I'm unsure.  They're such bizzaro weapons that it's wierd to come up with a general rule for them.  In one of the earlier examples (jackie chan with a ladder) I just described him using it as a double weapon without any penalty.

Double isn't a quality that is applied by the wielder, it's inherent to the physical shape of the weapon, the same as heavy and light.  A double weapon is a weapon which typically looks like two one-handed weapons joined together, and one end counts as light.

Here's what I think.  Say you have a double sword.  Both ends are the size of a one-handed slashing sword for you, and you have Combat Proficiency, so they would normally do 1d8 20/x3 or some variant thereof.  One end counts as light, so (assuming appropriate feats) he can make one attack with each end, both at -2 to-hit.  No quality necessary.

This makes double weapons viable with just one feat, combat proficiency, but you also need two-weapon fighting to be any good, you can't use a shield, and you aren't getting the regular two-handed bonus to damage because it's not really a heavy weapon.  I don't think that's too out of whack.

Hmm.  You know, you could use nearly any big weapon as a double weapon; pommel and blade for a greatsword, axe-head and pole for a halberd, similarly for other polearms.  I'll have to think about this more, too.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 4, 2004)

Well, we tried this system out in last week's game, and it seems like it's gonna work. Though it needs some polish (unsurprisingly).

 First, some general thoughts:


The system as written unnecessarily screws smaller characters, IMHO.  I'm using AU for the ruleset, so there are standard PC races ranging from Tiny to Large, and the double-whammy (if i've read it right) of scaling for both a smaller weapon and a smaller wielder is a real killer.

I really like the concept of exotic weapon templates that AU uses--not just exotic-because-it's-weird, but exotic because it's special. 

I wish it better integrated with unarmed damage for monks/oathsworn. BUt, then, those are kinda funky mechanics to begin with, and at least they, like this system, allow the warrior a fair bit of customizability to their attacks.

I start to wonder how many other things should be yanked out of feats and into general options, in response to this.

What about armor? While i have a little more trouble wrapping my brain around armor changing its effectiveness from round to round, it only seems "fair".

Projectile should just be a descriptor, not a quality, like slashing is--since it can't be altered, and doesn't trade off for damage, there's no point in labeling it a quality.

 
 On these points, in order:


I think simply scaling for weapon size will be sufficient, and the fact that smaller characters use smaller weapons will be more than enough of o penalty/adjustment.

My gut reaction is to have the various weapon templates add to the weapon by either automatically giving a quality (much like light, heavy, and projectile do already) above and beyond what the wielder imparts, and which can't be swapped out for other things, or giving access to qualities that you can't otherwise utilize, but you still have to "pay" for them, just like you would any other quality.

Probably just leave the unarmed stuff alone, as a separate system--inelegent, but efficient.

It starts to really change the feel of things, and perhaps become a balance issue, if i were to allow all the "flexibility" feats without actually taking the feat--things like Combat Expertise (trading attack for defense), or trading damage for attack. Not sure i want to go there just yet. Plus, these things, as tradeoffs, would probably have to be implemented differently than the current qualities, which're clearly good things. Only feat i'm almost certainly gonna ditch is Weapon Finesse. As long as i'm going this far in revamping how weapons behave, it's time to make the switch to Light weapons automatically use Dex for attacks, Heavy automatically use Str, and i haven't reached a conclusion on the middle ground.

One thought that comes to mind is inspired by the articulated armor of AU, which gives you a better AC adjustment if you have the exotic armor prof, because you learn to shift the pieces to better block blows. So, perhaps a skilled user can trade off between AC, armor-check penalty/spell failure, and max dex? Dunno where this thought is leading me. Should it be limited more by class of armor, or by user skill? Is a cloak all the armor you need if you're a skilled swordsman--you can whip it around and block just as effectively as a full tin can would protect an unskilled user? Conversely, is there enough skill involved in wearing that tin can that the unskilled user is no more protected than when they're wearing a studded leather coat (because they don't effectively utilize its flutings, leave joints exposed, etc.)?

 
 Also, some thoughts on further qualities. I'm not sure where to slot all of these, but here goes:
 Combat Proficiency:


Blocking: When fighting defensively, increase AC bonus by +1, or on total defense increase AC bonus by +2. 

Cavalry: When used in a charge, this weapon does double damage on a successful hit.

Flexible: The weapon is very flexible, like a whip or chain, or even a very thin sword, allowing you to ignore shield bonuses to AC.

 
 Improved Combat Proficiency:


Double strike (heavy required): You use the other end of a two-handed weapon to get in a secondary attack. Both attacks suffer a -4 penalty, and the secondary attack suffers a -4 unless the character has ambidexterity.

Bashing (bludgeoning/slashing): You use the mass of the weapon to overcome armor, ignoring up to 5 pts of armor or natural armor bonus on your target.

Dazing: The target must make a Fort save, DC=damage, or be dazed for one round.

Entangling: The weapon entangles the target, preventing any action except escaping the entangling, as if grappled. [n.b.: need to work on the mechanics of this one.]

Skewering (piercing): you can drive the weapon home in a target, leaving it embedded. With a successful opposed strength check, you can keep the target from moving, unless she wishes to un-skewer herself, which causes additional damage equal to the initial strike. You can choose to release your hold on the weapon, allowing the target to remove it without additional damage, as a full-round action.

 
 Greater Combat Proficiency:


Wounding: the target takes an additional 1hp damage/round until she takes a full-round action to bind up the wound (Heal DC 15), or is healed magically.

Returning (projectile, thrown): The weapon returns to you after thrown/fired, whether the hit is successful or not. (end of same action? 5 init counts later? before next action? next round?)

Stunning: The target must make a Fort save, DC=damage, or be stunned for one round.

Paralyzing: By striking at vital points, you can temporarily paralyze an opponent. This attack does no normal damage, but the target must make a Fort save against a DC equal to the total damage the attack would have done, or be paralyzed for one round.

Demoralizing: You strike such an awesome blow that the target suffers subdual damage equal to, and in addition to, the regular damage, as they lose heart in the battle.

 
 Combat Mastery:


Bypass armor: you can ignore all bonuses from armor or shield (including magical bonuses), but not natural armor or force effects.

Incapacitating: Target must make a Fort save, DC=damage, or be knocked unconscious.

Crippling: attack does an additional 1d3 temporary dex damage. [Or should this just be 1pt of ability damage?]

Seeking (projectile): ignores concealment.

Dancing (melee only): You can use your weapon with such skill that it is as if you need not even touch it. You may attack with a weapon for one round after you cease holding/touching the weapon. Re-grabbing a weapon that has just been dancing, but has not yet fallen to the ground, is a free action. [Yes, you could keep, say, 4 longswords in play this way, by drawing two, "dancing" them as you draw two more, and switching back and forth each round.]

 
 Oh, on weapon templates:


Dire: Adds +2 damage, requires exotic[heavy] weapon proficiency. A dire weapon is covered in extra spikes and blades. It gives user access to Bloody, Skewering (even if not piercing), and Wounding qualities, regardless of skill level. Cannot use for subdual damage, or take the Flexible, Entangling, Demoralizing, or Touch qualities.

Devanian: Requires the exotic[agile] weapon proficiency. Weapon is treated as one size category smaller for purposes of wielding (so a Medium person can use a Medium Devanian weapon as a light weapon, or a Large Devanian weapon one-handed). Cannot take the Blocking, Cavalry, Bashing, or Knock-back qualities, but can take the Double-strike quality if its size is large enough, even if it is being wielded one-handed.

Articulated: Requires the exotic[agile] weapon proficiency. The weapon has joints or flexible portions that enable the user to adjust the weapon's shape and capabilities to better suit the situation. An articulated weapon can take one more quality at any given time than is usual for the wielder's skill level, and gives access to the Reach, Disarming, Tripping, Parrying, Defensive, Fast, and Bypass Armor qualities at one level lower of proficiency than usual. An articulated weapon, despite it's reconfigurability, cannot be flexible enough to take the Flexible or Entangling qualities.

 
 So, what do you think? Sorry, no more-concrete thoughts on armor types or use qualities.

 And, in case it's not obvious, i'm with DanMcS that "double" isn't all that special--i'd say anything that's at least one size larger than the wielder can be used as a double weapon, and i added a quality for exactly that.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 4, 2004)

Oh, and i'd suggest that some of the qualities be limited based on weapon type:


Settable: wielder size or larger, piercing or slashing

Penetrating: piercing or slashing

Bloody: piercing or slashing

Knock-back: slashing or bludgeoning


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 4, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> [*]The system as written unnecessarily screws smaller characters, IMHO.  I'm using AU for the ruleset, so there are standard PC races ranging from Tiny to Large, and the double-whammy (if i've read it right) of scaling for both a smaller weapon and a smaller wielder is a real killer.




I didn't mean to double-whammy small characters, so if you read it that way, I wrote it poorly.  A small character using a one-handed weapon should be one step below a medium character using a one-handed weapon, not two (but I can see how you'd think that, since a one-handed weapon for a small guy is smaller than a one-handed weapon for a medium guy).  Weapon size doesn't actually count, though, only whether it is light, one-handed, or heavy for the wielder.

Projectile as a descriptor, yeah, you're right, I hadn't completely thought all that through when I wrote that originally.



> One thought that comes to mind is inspired by the articulated armor of AU, which gives you a better AC adjustment if you have the exotic armor prof, because you learn to shift the pieces to better block blows. So, perhaps a skilled user can trade off between AC, armor-check penalty/spell failure, and max dex? Dunno where this thought is leading me. Should it be limited more by class of armor, or by user skill? Is a cloak all the armor you need if you're a skilled swordsman--you can whip it around and block just as effectively as a full tin can would protect an unskilled user? Conversely, is there enough skill involved in wearing that tin can that the unskilled user is no more protected than when they're wearing a studded leather coat (because they don't effectively utilize its flutings, leave joints exposed, etc.)?




There are good thoughts here about armor.

I need to go through your post more fully, which won't happen until later, but thanks for the notes.


----------



## BarkingDeathSquirrel (Nov 4, 2004)

At first I shrugged off this system, even more so when someone mentioned crazy anime weapons (don't get me wrong, anime is all fine and dandy, I quite enjoy it, just not all the quirky weapons and stuff)... However, then I stopped and thought about it: This is like a _perfect_ system for making crazy steampunk weapons! 

I'm thinking of implementing this into my steampunk campaign (if I ever get done designing it ), but with a seperation between innate weapon abilities and abilities that can be gained through creative use or skill. IE: A Returning weapon would be likely a lower level if the ability was _innate_ (a boomarang), and a much higher one if the player wants to add it as a skill-based quality, ie: a fighter of such skill that he throws his dagger in such a way that it returns to him). The damage and the like would remain the same, however.

Good work, I must say!

*salutes

Edit: Oh... what about the weight of weapons? As in for carrying them around? How would you handle that in this system?


----------



## Impeesa (Nov 5, 2004)

A thought on unarmed damage: Perhaps make unarmed damage a step below Light, as it is now, and just have monks gain a special +1 damage step when fighting unarmed at every level their unarmed damage would normally increase. Or something to that effect.

--Impeesa--


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 5, 2004)

BarkingDeathSquirrel said:
			
		

> Edit: Oh... what about the weight of weapons? As in for carrying them around? How would you handle that in this system?



 I would say weapon weights are still based as they are in the PHB now.  Items that aren't given weights in the PHB *big sticks, ladders, franklin stove pipes, etc* could be house ruled by the DM.

 Hagen


----------



## woodelf (Nov 6, 2004)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> I need to go through your post more fully, which won't happen until later, but thanks for the notes.



 If that were to happen in time for my Sun afternoon game, that'd be really cool.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 9, 2004)

*bump*

 Anybody else still interested in this?


----------



## Zoatebix (Nov 9, 2004)

Me!

I just haven't gotten around to doing any gaming.  I think that this system is loads of fun, though.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Nov 10, 2004)

Still interested.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2004)

My gaming group hasn't been able to coordinate our schedules for 2 months, so I haven't had a chance to put anything together to show it off anyway.  
 Next game I run I plan on making use of this, as well as Ken Hood's Grim N Gritty ruleset.  Some good stuff going on here and I think once we have a few more tweaks it will be VERY cool indeed.

 Oh yeah, Dr Spunj's pointbuy system will also be getting used for character creation.  Ken and Spunj's stuff can be found in House Rules in threads with their usernames.

 Hagen


----------



## woodelf (Nov 11, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> My gaming group hasn't been able to coordinate our schedules for 2 months, so I haven't had a chance to put anything together to show it off anyway.
> Next game I run I plan on making use of this, as well as Ken Hood's Grim N Gritty ruleset.  Some good stuff going on here and I think once we have a few more tweaks it will be VERY cool indeed.



 One thought: it seems to me that GrimNGritty and this weapons-as-skill system are working against one another. The former is trying to make combat more realistic, and perhaps more complicated; the latter is trying to make combat more free-flowing and heroic. I'm not sure i'd combine them without serious revisions to one or both. I suspect one would frustrate the other's effects, and they just wouldn't mesh very well.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 12, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> One thought: it seems to me that GrimNGritty and this weapons-as-skill system are working against one another. The former is trying to make combat more realistic, and perhaps more complicated; the latter is trying to make combat more free-flowing and heroic. I'm not sure i'd combine them without serious revisions to one or both. I suspect one would frustrate the other's effects, and they just wouldn't mesh very well.



 I haven't gotten to do any playtesting of the idea yet, so yes its possible.  The reason I was excited about this, and in using it with GNG, was that it frees you to use whatever weapons you want and not worry about "this is a gimped weapon".  I'll hafta see how it all works.

 Hagen


----------



## dead_radish (Nov 12, 2004)

I'm still open to someone running a PbP arena type game, but I'm too busy/lazy to put it together.


----------



## Navarp (Nov 12, 2004)

This is great.  The only thing I would add is that the stunning DC=Damage dealt would be overpowered.  One foe would never be unstunned.


----------



## Corlon (Nov 12, 2004)

hmmm, I SOUNDS pretty cool, and is certainly balanced against itself.  But how about hit point advancement, and magic that have all been thought out to be pretty balanced with each other.

Would this allow fighting types to do more than they should according to the current rules?


This sounds like you want to play Feng Shui or Pagoda my friend.


----------



## Quickleaf (Nov 13, 2004)

Great work! And thanks!

My first thought is: Inigo Montoya is chasing the six fingered man downstairs. The six-fingered man has his sword in hand, but when Inigo appears through the door, the six fingered man hurls a knife at him.
In this system, there appears to be no difference in throwing a one-handed sword (either in terms of damage or range) or tossing a dagger. In other words, the six-fingered man could just as well thrown his sword at Inigo. This doesn't explain why all those movies have people throwing daggers and handaxes. Ideas?


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 14, 2004)

Quickleaf said:
			
		

> Great work! And thanks!
> 
> My first thought is: Inigo Montoya is chasing the six fingered man downstairs. The six-fingered man has his sword in hand, but when Inigo appears through the door, the six fingered man hurls a knife at him.
> In this system, there appears to be no difference in throwing a one-handed sword (either in terms of damage or range) or tossing a dagger. In other words, the six-fingered man could just as well thrown his sword at Inigo. This doesn't explain why all those movies have people throwing daggers and handaxes. Ideas?



 It isn't nearly as stylish or easy to throw a 1 handed sword.  I would still say that you would gain minuses to throw non-throwing weapons like you do in the PHB anyway, unless you take the feat to allow it with no penalty heh.

 Hagen


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Nov 14, 2004)

He's more skilled at melee fighting, so he wanted to keep the bigger weapon in his hand. In DnD, it'd work out because your main weapon in probably mw/magical, and you wouldn't want to throw it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 14, 2004)

This is really a very cool system. I might even go so far as to say brilliant, with just a little bit of polishing. 

Honestly, though, I'd remove the requirement that you be a figther to take the upper-level feats. Sure, rangers, paladins, and barbarians have their own schtick. The fighter also has his own schtick: Extra feats. Give the paladin et al. the option of being better fighters; they'll pay for it by not being able to take other feats. That's the one unbalanced part of this, IMO; you've elevated the fighter much farther above the other warrior classes than the core rules suggest.

Other than that, though, I think this might just work.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 30, 2004)

OK, i've done a bit of polishing, as Mouseferatu (and i, for that matter) wanted. It's divorced a bit more from specific classes, with all the class stuff (1) shoved into the last section and (2) being AU-centric, 'cause that's the core rulebook i use for my D&D games. It should be attached as a PDF.

 So, all y'all let me know what you think. We've been using roughly this in our game for a few weeks, and so far the only complaint is from the faen greenbond who effectively lost a die step on her attacks (due to having no combat proficiency). And i don't think she'd mind, if we'd been using these rules from day 1, and she could've built her character to accomodate. [For that matter, i'm certainly gonna allow her to rebuild her character if she wants to--she's missed the last couple sessions, and a couple other things are in flux about the rules.]

 The next step in evolution is to see about rolling armor/defense in in a way that parallels weapons/offense. That's proving to be more than a might bit trickier, in large part because it's less obvious what the fundamental currencies are (like damage, threat range, and crit mult are for weapons), and how to cleanly trade off between them.


----------



## Zoatebix (Nov 30, 2004)

Yay - I get the first view!  The layout looks gorgeous, but I'm too sick to read it thoroughly.  I did notice one thing, though: are the damage steps supposed to scale up so quickly?  I thought they were supposed to match the size-change rules from the 3.5 Monster Manual.

Anyways, I'll post back here later with more comments.


----------



## woodelf (Nov 30, 2004)

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Yay - I get the first view! The layout looks gorgeous, but I'm too sick to read it thoroughly. I did notice one thing, though: are the damage steps supposed to scale up so quickly? I thought they were supposed to match the size-change rules from the 3.5 Monster Manual.
> 
> Anyways, I'll post back here later with more comments.



 They scale at the same rate, roughly, as the original proposal by Dan McS. I changed a few of the steps to "smooth out" the progression, IMHO, and to keep the minimum from scaling quite so fast (so, frex, i have 8d12 at the same step that he had 16d6). Oh, and i added 2 more steps on the top of the scale, to accomodate larger PCs (giants can potentially get to size Huge) and warmains (speaking of which--i just realized that i probably should've redefined one of the warmain's abilities in terms of a step increase--hmmm, i'll have to take a look at that).


----------



## woodelf (Nov 30, 2004)

Oh, two other notes i should've included:

 1: the layout is from my players' handout for my home campaign, using Al Qadim as the setting, and AU as the rules, so it's meant to be evocative of both of those layouts in about equal measure.
 2: the weapon styles are, at this point, just a descriptive hook. They could, however, have a mechanical value, too, such as tying into feats, or even breaking down proficiency a bit further, more in line with weapon groups.

 and an error: Weapon Proficiency, Exotic, shouldn't be in the list of removed feats, because that's still how you get access to many of the templated weapons.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Dec 1, 2004)

It's excellent, but the _incapacitating_ ability is much too potent!  Damage-per-blow goes up in to the 30's and 40's easily, and no one can make that save.  Death would be inevitable next round after a Coup De Grace.  The _demoralizing_ ability is almost as bad, not to mention it changes the definition of subdual damage completely...


----------



## woodelf (Dec 1, 2004)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> It's excellent, but the _incapacitating_ ability is much too potent! Damage-per-blow goes up in to the 30's and 40's easily, and no one can make that save. Death would be inevitable next round after a Coup De Grace. The _demoralizing_ ability is almost as bad, not to mention it changes the definition of subdual damage completely...



 I'd been wondering about changing all of the qualities with saves to be 'standard" DCs: 10 + ability mod + char level, or something along those lines. The flaw in incapacitating just highlights why. Dan McS: any particular reason you used save DCs based on damage, instead of the standard formula?

 Yeah, now that i think about it, demoralizing is too powerful, since it basically doubles your damage. Hmmm... i like it conceptually, does D20 System have anything like "morale damage" built in? I suppose i could just fudge something with a save and a -1 on future rolls for some length of time.

_edit: doh! i, of course, meant DC = 10 + ability mod + 1/2 char level. And, really maybe replace 1/2 char level with 1/2 BAB--unconventional, yes, but really reflects what it "should" be, in this context, i think._


----------



## Anabstercorian (Dec 1, 2004)

Will save or Shaken, that's my advice.  And giving a weapon Save or Unconscious on EVERY BLOW is still completely broken.


----------



## DanMcS (Dec 1, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I'd been wondering about changing all of the qualities with saves to be 'standard" DCs: 10 + ability mod + char level, or something along those lines. The flaw in incapacitating just highlights why. Dan McS: any particular reason you used save DCs based on damage, instead of the standard formula?




There's a feat like it, Awesome Blow, which gives you a reflex save vs damage dealt or be knocked back 10 feet.  This isn't a spell-like ability (to have DC 10 + ability mod + 1/2 hit dice), it was supposed to be something based on damage, so that was the mechanic I wanted.



> Yeah, now that i think about it, demoralizing is too powerful, since it basically doubles your damage. Hmmm... i like it conceptually, does D20 System have anything like "morale damage" built in? I suppose i could just fudge something with a save and a -1 on future rolls for some length of time.




You could have a will save vs damage dealt (heh) or suffer the effects of the frightened condition, or maybe shaken.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Dec 1, 2004)

Okay, we've got some issues here.

One: Awesome blow requires the user to do two important things to use it.  First, it must be used as a standard action - that prevents it from being used in every attack of a full-attack action.  Yours activates on every attack.  Second, the user suffers a -4 penalty to attack when using it.

Two: Awesome blow moves you back 10 feet, possibly doing an additional 1d6 damage.  Incapacitating Blow *knocks you unconscious* and leaves you vulnerable to coup de grace.

THIS IS BAD.

I'd make Incapacitating Blow an entirely separate feat, personally...


----------



## DanMcS (Dec 1, 2004)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Okay, we've got some issues here.
> 
> One: Awesome blow requires the user to do two important things to use it.  First, it must be used as a standard action - that prevents it from being used in every attack of a full-attack action.  Yours activates on every attack.  Second, the user suffers a -4 penalty to attack when using it.




That's a reasonable point.



> Two: Awesome blow moves you back 10 feet, possibly doing an additional 1d6 damage.  Incapacitating Blow *knocks you unconscious* and leaves you vulnerable to coup de grace.
> THIS IS BAD.
> I'd make Incapacitating Blow an entirely separate feat, personally...




Meh.  I didn't write that one, woodelf did.  Convince him


----------



## woodelf (Dec 2, 2004)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Okay, we've got some issues here.
> 
> One: Awesome blow requires the user to do two important things to use it. First, it must be used as a standard action - that prevents it from being used in every attack of a full-attack action. Yours activates on every attack. Second, the user suffers a -4 penalty to attack when using it.
> 
> ...



 OK, two ways to go at this:
 First, i really like the idea of being able to knock someone out. So, within this weapon-quality system, and keeping in mind that you won't be getting any access to it 'til BAB +15, how would you implement a chance-of-KO quality? 
 Second, let me try toning down the Incapacitating quality to keep the flavor, but make it less deadly: (A) does an extra d8 of subdual damage (on top of the regular damage)--you're basically trading off one die of lethal damage for a die of subdual, roughly. It could be more complicated mechanically, and exactly equal the loss of lethal damage for whatever step you're going down, but that's probably excessive. And it could probably be d10 subdual, to reflect the generally-less-lethal impact, and still be balanced. (B) KO % chance equal to half the damage? Fort save DC = 10 + half BAB + Str mod? (C) like massive damage: if the attack does >X damage, make a Fort save DC 15?

 Oh, and along those lines, Paralyzing should perhaps be toned down a bit--a paralyzed opponent is only slightly better than unconscious. maybe just Fort DC 15? By the time we're talking BAB +10 (or +15--maybe move Paralyzing up to the Combat Mastery level), a DC 15 Fort should be pretty easy for equal-level opponents. 

 For both of these, i have no problem with them generally not being useful on equal-level opponents. I see what you're saying--in D20 System, incapacitating someone is pretty powerful--but i think they fulfill their flavor role just fine if they're only useful on mooks. Frex, a 16th level fighter being able to wade through a sea of 3rd-level mooks, and KO 3-4 in one round (rather than killing them) seems perfectly reasonable. The problem with the powers as they are right now is that saves don't scale anywhere near like damage does. So something needs to be changed.

 As for Demoralizing: i'm thinking go with the Will save or shaken (or maybe something a little tougher, like frightened) makes perfect sense. You're right that almost doubling damage (it actually works out to about x1.5, once you figure in the step-down you're taking to use the quality) is too much, compared to the other qualities. 

 oh, one other thing to keep in mind: don't let the top end of the scale scare you. In general, non-crit damage isn't gonna get much above 25-30: Large 15th-level PC, Combat Mastery, heavy weapon, knocking crit down to x2, is 6d8 damage, or average 27+Str. And that's a pretty extreme PC, for any level. Anything more than that is either a seriously bad-*** warrior, or a giant, or something, and maybe it *should* be possible for them to KO in one blow. I'm not sure. Racking up subdual damage might still be a better way to go. I'm just tossing this out there.


----------



## woodelf (Dec 2, 2004)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> There's a feat like it, Awesome Blow, which gives you a reflex save vs damage dealt or be knocked back 10 feet. This isn't a spell-like ability (to have DC 10 + ability mod + 1/2 hit dice), it was supposed to be something based on damage, so that was the mechanic I wanted.



 So, have you had a chance to take a look at what i did? I took your idea and ran with it, and i'd love to know whether you think i polished it or butchered it. Also, how'd you like to provide a copyright entry and OGC declaration so i can reuse this formally and release it for others to build on (or butcher)?


----------



## DanMcS (Dec 2, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> OK, two ways to go at this:
> First, i really like the idea of being able to knock someone out. So, within this weapon-quality system, and keeping in mind that you won't be getting any access to it 'til BAB +15, how would you implement a chance-of-KO quality?
> 
> snip
> ...




Yep, you got it right, there.  In D&D, you knock someone out in combat by doing enough damage (subdual or otherwise) to reduce their hps below zero.  You shouldn't sidestep that mechanic.

You could have various qualities that stun people, though, or like was mentioned earlier, cause them to be shaken, panicked, or whatever.

Regarding slapping an OGL on this thing, I'm in the process of moving and I'm typing on another person's computer right now, so it will probably be sunday or monday before I get a chance to do that.


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 2, 2004)

Dan and Woodelf - I'm loving your rules! And thanks for the pdf too!   
I'd be interested in running a test-run combat on WebRPG or another program to give them a try. To me, it looks like they really rely on miniature combat and a tactical grid, i.e. the whole Attack of Opportunity system. Which is a little strange, because these are mean to be more cinematic...

Anyhow, I would host a quick 2 hour combat if anyone is interested in trouble-shooting them. These rules really, really appeal to me, and will probably see use in my games once they've been tested out. Thanks again!


----------



## woodelf (Dec 3, 2004)

Quickleaf said:
			
		

> Dan and Woodelf - I'm loving your rules! And thanks for the pdf too!
> I'd be interested in running a test-run combat on WebRPG or another program to give them a try. To me, it looks like they really rely on miniature combat and a tactical grid, i.e. the whole Attack of Opportunity system. Which is a little strange, because these are mean to be more cinematic...
> 
> Anyhow, I would host a quick 2 hour combat if anyone is interested in trouble-shooting them. These rules really, really appeal to me, and will probably see use in my games once they've been tested out. Thanks again!



 I've been actually using these rules, as they evolve, for the last several weeks. We never use a battlemat or miniatures for combat--occasionally i might do a quick sketch and use some spare dice to represent something when exploring a room, but not during combats. 

_edit: all of which is not to say that i wouldn't be keen to hear the results of a test-run combat to check out any changes i've made, and see how things actually run. I've got a sub-5th-level group, so, needless to say, i 'm working on theory, not practice, when it comes to balancing the high-level qualities._

 Why do you see these as being any more dependent on either a battle mat or AoOs than the standard rules? None of the qualities are either dependent on AoOs, nor provoke them. What am i missing?

 Of course, i really need to simplify the AoO rules, too, to their essence: you do something that takes your attention off the fight, or puts you in a situation where the other guy can reach you, and you can't reach him, you provoke an AoO. And that's it. Still not sure whether reach should give you an AoO when someone engages, disengages, or both. I'm inclined to go with the former, only, because it represents fending, and then when you're badly hurt you can retreat safely.

 Oh, and, at this point, i still haven't figured out what to do about incorporating armor use into the system. Bounced some ideas off the guys last night, and we didn't really make any progress.


----------



## woodelf (Dec 6, 2004)

OK, few minor updates, incorporating the suggestions from folks here, plus hopefully fixing the "paralyzing" quality--maybe it needs to be renamed, now. And made all the save DCs consistent and level-based, rather than damage-based--as flavorful and "realistic" as basing them on the damage is, i think it's too prone to breaking the system, since saves just don't scale up very quickly. Which is really too bad. A couple other minor tweaks to things like the excised feats list (i'm putting Paralyzing Blow back in as a feat, since that effect is gone from the qualities, frex).

 Oh, two thoughts on styles: first, you could rephrase all quality prerequisites in terms of the style, rather than light/one-handed/heavy, or just stack style prerequisities on top for some qualities. Second, if the styles are to be given any more prominence/influence in the system, another style should be added: shield and pole-arm. It's too common historically to leave out, or require a feat just to use.


----------



## Vargo (Dec 6, 2004)

Have you thought about setting the DCs to something like 10+(d/v) where d = damage, and v = some number like 5 or 10?  10 would be very good, as it would keep the DCs reasonably low, the math easy, and the game fast.


----------



## woodelf (Dec 14, 2004)

Vargo said:
			
		

> Have you thought about setting the DCs to something like 10+(d/v) where d = damage, and v = some number like 5 or 10?  10 would be very good, as it would keep the DCs reasonably low, the math easy, and the game fast.




Mathematically, that's very elegant--probably the /5 version gives better numbers, but i'd have to sit down and do some figurin'. However, as a practical matter, i think it'd be too awkward. At least with my group, keeping track of the various options this presents, just in terms of when it's best to go for big damage, and when to go for big crit, is plenty. Not only would you have to calculate these DCs on the fly, but it would add in the question of trading off likely damage for save difficulty--and in a non-obvious way, IMHO--to the calculation of what grip to use.

So, in short: brilliant idea, wish i'd thought of it; but i don't think it would work with my group, at least. 

Using BAB is, in this case, i think, a reasonable compromise: it reflects general martial prowess, if not the specific effectiveness of the attack or the grip chosen, or the size of the weapon/wielder. On the downside, you're giving up some verisimillitude. On the upside, it helps reflect the "skill trumps physics" feel of the system in general, by not further disadvantaging small wielders (who would have lower save DCs on special effects, in addition to lower damage to start with).


----------



## micr0c0sm (Dec 23, 2004)

Amazing job. Very solid design and redesign. I will definately use in my campaigns. You should design an alternate magic system (Although probably five times more difficult than this). You know what, scratch that. You should design alternate subsystems like feats and skills or something...actually....I don't know what I'm saying.
I just want more stuff from you is what I'm getting at.


----------



## Insight (Dec 23, 2004)

I just now read thru this thread, Dan, and I must say it's intriguing.  We should set up a playtest session for these rules when you're ready.


----------



## Bearfs (Dec 25, 2004)

Oh,a Masterpiece!
But why are so many Kong-fu example there?DnD is a Fantastic Medieval Wargame isn't it?
Or just because western heros like Conan never discard his big bad sword ?


----------



## IcyCool (Apr 6, 2005)

I know it's been a while since this thread has seen the light of day, but I just wanted to know if there has been any more work or play-testing on this?


----------



## woodelf (Apr 6, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I know it's been a while since this thread has seen the light of day, but I just wanted to know if there has been any more work or play-testing on this?




I've been using the system, in the version i last uploaded, in my game for the last few months. Unfortunately, we're only around 6th level, so the system hasn't been really given a workout yet. But, so far, so good. 

My only concern is that it looks like the warriors may actually be gradually outstripping the spellcasters in combat potential. However, i don't really have a good testbed for this: the spellcasters are a runethane (2nd-string spellcaster), multiclass magister (so only 2nd-level caster), and greenbond/witch (primary spellcaster, but not combat-oriented, and frequently absent); while both of the warrior sorts are top-tier warriors; and the only real in-betweener (the magister) is a spryte, so, regardless of system, he isn't gonna be much of a warrior. Still, that might just be a matter of adjusting the damage steps, or maybe the occasional attack quality.

I'll let you know in another 5 levels, or so, if it's a problem. Especially if you remember to ask me.


----------



## Zoatebix (Apr 6, 2005)

Thanks woodelf!  I'll be using your latest version of the system when I finally start a game that's suited for these rules.  I knew there was a reason that I had this thread bookmarked.  Thanks for keeping us informed!
-George


----------



## dead_radish (Apr 6, 2005)

Woodelf: Yeah, that's really not a good testbed for data.  I'd expect a straight warmain to outstrip that group pretty easily.  I assume the Greenbond/Witch is a wood witch, so that's a fairly healing focused char, and still lacking complex or exotics, to get the real damage dealers.  A runethane is already behind in pure spell power, and more a flexible caster.  And a spryte magister loses power for flight - seems like all your other PC's are made for flexibility and coverage, rather than blowing stuff up.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 7, 2005)

I've been using it in a party with 2 secondary 'casters and a primary warrior, and it's worked well. We're using EoM[R], though, which basically does for magic what DanMcS' system does for combat, so it might not be quite the same balance as core.

I've been using the following house rule:

Unarmed Focus
Whenever you gain a new Combat Proficiency feat (including at character creation), you may choose to focus on unarmed combat. Your unarmed strikes deal damage as light weapons, but your weapon attacks deal damage as if they were one sized smaller. Thus, a 1st-level fighter could choose Unarmed Focus as an option, dealing 1d6/x3 with an unarmed strike or one-handed weapon.

You can only choose this when you gain a new level of Proficiency, so it'll never actually reduce your weapon damage, just keep it from increasing. It's not a feat, just an option.


----------



## Oberyn (Jun 8, 2005)

Ive gotta say i love this system. I have a game thats already started but i wish i could get them to use this system instead. Really would allow me a bit more flavor room in my weapons and how i use em. How do you think it would work if a fighter choose ten or so weapons to have under his specialty list and then also have the damage die go down one step for improvised weapons?
Maybe another ten weapons could be chosen at every step of proficiency so by the end they could have 40 they were masters of?


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Jun 9, 2005)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean  

I'd love to help you, but...


----------



## Oberyn (Jun 9, 2005)

I just would like to know what you think would happen to the balance if at each proficiency level a fighter chose 10 weapons (any at all) to be able to use his full skill with.


----------



## magic_gathering2001 (Jun 12, 2005)

First off,  this is the best radical ideaive seen in a looooong time.

Second,  i wish i thought of it

Third, i personally believe that welding a trident and weilding a greatsword are two related but different things

Fourth, i think you should confine the feats to weapon categories (aka swords) but should recieve the lower categories each time the feat is taken
ie: when improved combat proficiency (light swords) is taken, combat proficiency (heavy swords) should be granted as a bonus feat.  this shows how techniques are adapted because of insight

or if you dont narrow it down into those categories

then one feat should grant the lower feats for the other two


----------



## A Man In Black (Jul 2, 2005)

magic_gathering2001 said:
			
		

> First off,  this is the best radical ideaive seen in a looooong time.
> 
> Second,  i wish i thought of it
> 
> ...




Well, the entire point of the rules, as I understand them, was to get rid of the distinctions between weapons, to generate a sort of cinematic/anime feel.

That said, if you want to adapt the rules that way, modify them and post them! I'd like to see how you treat weapon categories in a system like this.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jul 3, 2005)

Wow, thanks for the thread necromancy.  I never would've seen this deeply awesome idea if you didn't bump it.

That said, I really love this.  I'd actually been doing thinking along similar lines, but I never considered anything for wide-reaching as this.  Very, very cool.  I think I'd do a few things differently in my own campaigns, but this is definitely brilliant.

The whole general idea seems extremely appropriate for Green Ronin's new True20 system, and I think I'm now going to have to try adapting it.  I wonder if I can get some distillation of Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might in there, too, without overlap or contradiction.  The result would be a beautifully cinematic and flexible combat system.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Jul 3, 2005)

Oberyn said:
			
		

> I just would like to know what you think would happen to the balance if at each proficiency level a fighter chose 10 weapons (any at all) to be able to use his full skill with.




Hmmm.....I think it'd be best to just go with the all-item-proficiency. If not, I'd use weapon groups from UA rather than individual proficiencies.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jul 5, 2005)

Okay, as threatened, I'm kinda-sorta adapting this idea for True20.  Here's the thread I posted over in the True20 forum.

My goal there isn't to turn every weapon into a Swiss army knife of endless utility, or to give warriors ever-increasing damage capacity (True20 generally doesn't go in for level-based damage dealing/resistance progressions), but to come up with a simple toolbox to let players and GMs make their own mechanically-balanced weapons.


----------



## Sravoff (Jul 5, 2005)

WOW.......Pure Genius.

I was working on a similar system that allowed characters of higher levels to do more damage with weapons but this put the skill system to shame!

-Sravoff


----------



## Zoatebix (Jul 5, 2005)

Yay GreatLemur!  I haven't looked at your stuff yet, but you're trying to combine some of my favorite things in OGL gaming, so you get bonus points wth me right off the bat.


----------



## jstater (Jul 15, 2005)

Just a note to let people know I've been using the rules as written in the PDF for a while now, and I love them. My players love them as well. The only adjustment I had to make as a DM was to the greater damage being caused by the players. To compensate I threw slightly stronger monsters at the party, or gave them more than the average hit points. But, basically, a great system.


----------



## Zoatebix (Jul 16, 2005)

I checked out your stuff, GreatLemur, it looks pretty darn cool.  Have you checked out Grim Tales by Bad Axe Games?  The weapon creation rules there are similar to the system you've outlined.

Awesome avatar, jstater!


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Jul 20, 2005)

*Nice*

This has many similarities to a system I'm designing. It's very cool and I'd be interested in seeing more! Good work!


----------



## johndaw16 (Dec 22, 2005)

This is a huge bit of thread necromancy but I'm wondering if woodelf is out there and still using this system with his game because if he is I'm sure he's at a higher level by now and I'd be interested in seeing it gettin a real workout at the high levels.  

Here's to hoping, 

John


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 22, 2005)

I've been using this system in every game since I first saw it. It works great and is easy for me to take care of with newbies, I just ask 'em what weapons they want and make them with the system. I don't like high-level so much so I've got no experience with it in that situation, but it's worked great for my needs, and I'm still spreadin' the word.


----------



## genshou (Dec 22, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> I've been using this system in every game since I first saw it. It works great and is easy for me to take care of with newbies, I just ask 'em what weapons they want and make them with the system. I don't like high-level so much so I've got no experience with it in that situation, but it's worked great for my needs, and I'm still spreadin' the word.



Yeah, it's a pretty good system.  I wish I could have gotten a chance to use it when I first encountered it... 

I'm starting a new game in January, but with the number of house rules I'm already implementing, I might not be able to convince the players we should use this... hrmmm...


----------



## SSquirrel (May 26, 2006)

More thread necromancy!!  These rules are too cool to hide 80 pages back   Also curious how it's been going for people using them.  These rules are on my short list of house rules to institute whenever I manage to find a new group to play with.


----------



## sirwmholder (Feb 7, 2007)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> More thread necromancy!!  These rules are too cool to hide 80 pages back   Also curious how it's been going for people using them.  These rules are on my short list of house rules to institute whenever I manage to find a new group to play with.



/cast Thread Resurrection

I too am curious on how games that have adopted this combat mechanic have fared... I am seriously considering using this House Rule in my up coming campaign and would like to know if any improvements or alterations had to be made.

Thank you for your time,
William Holder


----------



## Quartz (Feb 8, 2007)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> I am seriously considering using this House Rule in my up coming campaign and would like to know if any improvements or alterations had to be made.



I'd appreciate your thoughts on my own musings.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 25, 2007)

This, the Revised and simplified Grim N Gritty and Dr Spunj's classless d20 are some of my fave mods for d20.  Of course right now I'm debating Aberrant or a Technocracy campaign for Mage heh.


----------



## Drowbane (Mar 28, 2007)

bump


----------

