G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Am I reading things right?
In 3.5 Shuriken now get Str bonus to damage but don't have the
inherent extra attacks, it seems.
Except for Monks.
No shuriken masters without a level of Monk????
Seems odd.
What's I miss?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian wrote:
> Am I reading things right?
> In 3.5 Shuriken now get Str bonus to damage but don't have the
> inherent extra attacks, it seems.
> Except for Monks.
> No shuriken masters without a level of Monk????
> Seems odd.
> What's I miss?

I don't understand the strange and unrealistic desire for shuriken to
get special treatment. they're basically round throwing knives. I
don't see the need to have special rules for them (nor have I ever had
special rules for them, mine just do a d3 and that's that). Any
special treatment they are given is the product of geeks who played too
much ninja turtles or watched too many ninja movies.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't understand the strange and unrealistic desire for shuriken to
>get special treatment. they're basically round throwing knives. I
>don't see the need to have special rules for them (nor have I ever had
>special rules for them, mine just do a d3 and that's that). Any
>special treatment they are given is the product of geeks who played too
>much ninja turtles or watched too many ninja movies.

And this is different from the treatment of Katana how? Lightsabers?

(okay, Ninja instead of Samurai or Jedi...)

Star Wars vs Star Trek? Superman vs Hulk? Justice League vs
Avengers? Uhh, Alien vs Predator? Vampires vs Werewolves? Celtics
vs Knicks? Dexter vs Dee-Dee?

Donald (vs Hong Kong!)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:

> Katana were supposed to be very well crafted. Thus, in an
> historically authentic setting, most Katana should be
> Masterwork weapons.

That much is true. I don't have a problem making them masterwork.
Though I suspect that it's possible to make a non-masterwork katana as
well (heck, I'm pretty sure I have one sitting in my living room right
now).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Ophidian" <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_K1Yd.195918$0u.128739@fed1read04...
> Am I reading things right?
> In 3.5 Shuriken now get Str bonus to damage but don't have the
> inherent extra attacks, it seems.
> Except for Monks.
> No shuriken masters without a level of Monk????
> Seems odd.
> What's I miss?

You can draw them as a free action.
Useful for someone focussed in thrown weapons.

Geoff.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Geoff Watson wrote:

> "Ophidian" <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:_K1Yd.195918$0u.128739@fed1read04...
>
>>Am I reading things right?
>>In 3.5 Shuriken now get Str bonus to damage but don't have the
>>inherent extra attacks, it seems.
>>Except for Monks.
>>No shuriken masters without a level of Monk????
>>Seems odd.
>>What's I miss?
>
>
> You can draw them as a free action.

Nice.
Page?

Or is this simply an extension of them being "ammo"?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Ophidian" <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3AhYd.195980$0u.1529@fed1read04...
> Geoff Watson wrote:
>
> > "Ophidian" <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:_K1Yd.195918$0u.128739@fed1read04...
> >
> >>Am I reading things right?
> >>In 3.5 Shuriken now get Str bonus to damage but don't have the
> >>inherent extra attacks, it seems.
> >>Except for Monks.
> >>No shuriken masters without a level of Monk????
> >>Seems odd.
> >>What's I miss?
> >
> >
> > You can draw them as a free action.
>
> Nice.
> Page?
>
> Or is this simply an extension of them being "ammo"?

Yep. Readying ammunition is always a free action unless the description
explicitly states otherwise - e.g., crossbows.

- David Prokopetz.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:
> I don't understand the strange and unrealistic desire for shuriken to
> get special treatment. they're basically round throwing knives. I
> don't see the need to have special rules for them (nor have I ever had
> special rules for them, mine just do a d3 and that's that). Any
> special treatment they are given is the product of geeks who played too
> much ninja turtles or watched too many ninja movies.

They are light-weight and easy to conceal, but that's about
it. I think many systems overestimate their raw damage
potential. Shuriken are poison delivery devices, best used
against unarmoured targets (or if you're skilled enough to
hit exposed skin). And even then, a really butt-kickingly
good poison will need at least a couple of (D&D-style)
Rounds to take effect.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:

> I don't understand the strange and unrealistic desire for shuriken to
> get special treatment. they're basically round throwing knives. I
> don't see the need to have special rules for them (nor have I ever had
> special rules for them, mine just do a d3 and that's that). Any
> special treatment they are given is the product of geeks who played too
> much ninja turtles or watched too many ninja movies.

The desire for source material emulation. Lots of people want to use
RPGs to play the sort of heroes they enjoy reading about or watching in
non-interactive media or playing in computer or console games. The
source material for "heroes who use shurikens" usually has them throwing
massive numbers of the things, so people who want to play shuriken-users
typically desire for their characters the ability to use them in a
manner similar to how their favorite characters use them.

There's nothing really wrong with this -- arguably, RPGing started with
people who read books about fantasy characters and then said "I wish I
could do that!"

I'd argue that while there may be a certain degree of immaturity in
saying "I want to play a ninja character who can do the sort of things
that ninja characters can do in ninja comics, ninja TV shows, ninja
movies, and ninja video games," there's a great deal more immaturity in
saying "I'm better than people who want to play ninja characters that
are authentic to ninja source material, because I content myself with
playing merely swordsmen who can go toe-to-toe with demon lords or
magicians who can briefly stop time."
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> wrote:
>Peter Knutsen wrote:

>> Katana were supposed to be very well crafted. Thus, in an
>> historically authentic setting, most Katana should be
>> Masterwork weapons.

>That much is true. I don't have a problem making them masterwork.
>Though I suspect that it's possible to make a non-masterwork katana as
>well (heck, I'm pretty sure I have one sitting in my living room right
>now).

Just remember to charge players for the better quality. I had
a GM in a GURPS campaign who thought that since the book said
most katanas are of good quality or better, that means they
get the good quality bonuses at the average quality price.
We explained that, no, it just means players should have no
problem finding good quality katanas to buy at the appropriate
price.

Pete
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Ophidian" <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_K1Yd.195918$0u.128739@fed1read04...
> Am I reading things right?
> In 3.5 Shuriken now get Str bonus to damage but don't have the
> inherent extra attacks, it seems. Except for Monks.
> No shuriken masters without a level of Monk????
> Seems odd.
> What's I miss?

What the hell are you talking about? Older implementations of shurikens
were that one "attack" with a shuriken was a barrage of three
one-point-of-damage weinie projectiles doing 0-3 points of damage. 3.5 uses
more credible designs (larger) that are, for all practical purposes, small
throwing knives that can't be used in melee. They can be thrown quickly by
characters with multiple attacks (rapid shot, 6+ bab, flurry..) without the
need for the Quickdraw feat, but the only character who has proficiency in
them to start with are monks, so most characters are more likely to take
quickdraw to throw weapons in which they are already proficient (and get the
quickdraw benefit) rather than just taking the shuriken proficiency.

(exotic proficiencies to learn unusual, rather than superior, weapons
are something of a bum deal - I wonder if it is not better to recast the
Exotic profs more along the lines of the way the bastard sword is
implemented; that is, you can use a weapon in a superior *way*. Some other
mechanism would provide basic proficiencies; skill points, or 'broad'
proficiencies that teach more than one weapon...).


-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <39eodqF5ue5kpU1@individual.net>,
Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
>I'd argue that while there may be a certain degree of immaturity in
>saying "I want to play a ninja character who can do the sort of things
>that ninja characters can do in ninja comics, ninja TV shows, ninja
>movies, and ninja video games," there's a great deal more immaturity in
>saying "I'm better than people who want to play ninja characters that
>are authentic to ninja source material, because I content myself with
>playing merely swordsmen who can go toe-to-toe with demon lords or
>magicians who can briefly stop time."

The latter two happen only at high level. I don't think I'd mind too much if
"throw gazillions of shuriken" were a 20th level ninja ability. Wanting it at
first level is "immature".
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

MICHAEL BROWN wrote:
[...]
> (exotic proficiencies to learn unusual, rather than superior, weapons
> are something of a bum deal - I wonder if it is not better to recast the

I've been wondering about that issue for years (yes, literally).

> Exotic profs more along the lines of the way the bastard sword is
> implemented; that is, you can use a weapon in a superior *way*. Some other
> mechanism would provide basic proficiencies; skill points, or 'broad'
> proficiencies that teach more than one weapon...).

That may be a good idea. Want to start a new thread?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:39eoikF5vj78sU2@individual.net...
> MICHAEL BROWN wrote:
> > (exotic proficiencies to learn unusual, rather than superior,
weapons
> > are something of a bum deal - I wonder if it is not better to recast the
>
> I've been wondering about that issue for years (yes, literally).

> > Exotic profs more along the lines of the way the bastard sword is
> > implemented; that is, you can use a weapon in a superior *way*. Some
other
> > mechanism would provide basic proficiencies; skill points, or 'broad'
> > proficiencies that teach more than one weapon...).
>
> That may be a good idea. Want to start a new thread?

Go and do!

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd397ve.3hp.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The first is 'weapons of similar form and use'. ..
> The other is grouped by *where* you learned them...

We agree with all those ideas. Important issue to decide is how many
weapons consist of a relevant grouping, but ~3 or 4 is probably fine.

> There *can* be cultural aspects to this, of course. You wouldn't see
> "knights' weapons" in medieval Japan -- you'd have "Samurai weapons"
> that include bastard sword (katana), short sword (wakizashi), longbow
> (daikyu, if there's a quantitative difference apart from being able to
> use it mounted).

I've long believed that martial bows and exotic strength bows are the
way to balance archery; they should be separated from the cultural group
(and daikyu-ness can be an exotic feature of the sort you describe below)

> Hmm... /me makes note to consider how Weapon Finesse might make a better
> specialization route/fighting style, rather than 'just' changing the
bonus.

Finesse is hard to balance in that sense, but I'm willing - for now - to
consider feats that "change the controlling stat" differently from feats
that add a bonus regardless of the controlling stat, though I do wonder at
the validity of the concept at all.

> On the other hand, that's a lot of feats. Is the expansion of the
> focus/specialization *really* worth that much? I could see not
> including Expanded Greater Weapon Focus and Expanded Greater Weapon
> Specialization and just saying that Expanded Weapon Focus and Expanded
> Weapon Specialization are sufficient to cover the greater forms as well.

It really comes down to whether one feels that it's "enough" to let a
character who specializes fully in two weapons be considered specialized in
all his cultural kit (or chosen "type") or not. Hey - I think I have a
better paradigm. Make the "extra" specializations/focus/etc. that fill out
the cultural package a "martial arts style bonus". That is, more
explicitly,the "style" would consist, at various levels of investment, two
weapon focus feats & a skill; two weapon specialization feats & more skill,
and so on all the way up to two greater weapon specializations.
A samurai, for instance, might take Focus in spear & bastard sword, and -
in keeping with their philosophy of battle - once he puts some minimum ranks
in a spiritual/artistic skill, that is extended to the wakizashi and two
handed sword. Poof - the fondness for haiku is suddenly apparent, and we
have an interesting case where a smarter warrior actually gains martial
benefit from such!

> Rather than giving +2 damage for specialization (or +1
> to attack rolls for weapon focus), have specialization provide a
> different, tangible benefit per weapon (I first saw this with Dark Sun
> weapons -- proficiency let you use it, specialization let you use it
> *well* to do other things).

Works for me.

> What if (some) weapons had additional features or aspects that became
> available with the presence of certain feats or conditions? Rather than
> saying 'using a bastard sword one-handed is an exotic proficiency',
> bastard sword has a feature, 'if exotic sword use is known, this weapon
> can be used one-handed'? *right now* this means much the same thing,
> but casting it this way opens things up a bit. You could have a number
> of 'different types of weapons' that behave similiarly, *unless* the
> character 'knows how'.
>
> For instance, 'all longswords' do d8//19-20/x2 slashing damage.
> Proficiency with longsword lets you use *any* longsword like this.
> However:
>
> . Bandisal longswords are a little more crit-happy (18-20/x2)
> . Trellheim longswords are balanced to strike harder (d10 damage)
> . Grollian longswords have a finer point (do slash/pierce as desired)
> . Esthar longswords are balanced for quicker response (finessable)

And this is bloody brilliant. A fighting perk with a tangible link to
gameworld culture.

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnd397ve.3hp.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
>> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The first is 'weapons of similar form and use'. ..
>> The other is grouped by *where* you learned them...
>
> We agree with all those ideas. Important issue to decide is how many
> weapons consist of a relevant grouping, but ~3 or 4 is probably fine.

(was thinking through my reasoning there to see if it shed any
additional light -- such as my later suggestion of dropping the
professional groups and just indicate which groups a profession would
typically take.)

>> There *can* be cultural aspects to this, of course. You wouldn't see
>> "knights' weapons" in medieval Japan -- you'd have "Samurai weapons"
>> that include bastard sword (katana), short sword (wakizashi), longbow
>> (daikyu, if there's a quantitative difference apart from being able to
>> use it mounted).
>
> I've long believed that martial bows and exotic strength bows are the
> way to balance archery; they should be separated from the cultural group
> (and daikyu-ness can be an exotic feature of the sort you describe below)

I've seen a suggestion that makes longbow an exotic weapon.

>> Hmm... /me makes note to consider how Weapon Finesse might make a better
>> specialization route/fighting style, rather than 'just' changing the
>> bonus.
>
> Finesse is hard to balance in that sense, but I'm willing - for now - to
> consider feats that "change the controlling stat" differently from feats
> that add a bonus regardless of the controlling stat, though I do wonder at
> the validity of the concept at all.

I was thinking more along the lines of extending Weapon Finesse in a
fashion similar to Power Attack. Right now Weapon Finesse is basically
binary; you have it or you don't. I'm wondering if it'd be possible to
extend that so that using Weapon Finesse gets you something more than
just 'use Dex instead of Str', it opens up some more choices.

>> On the other hand, that's a lot of feats. Is the expansion of the
>> focus/specialization *really* worth that much? I could see not
>> including Expanded Greater Weapon Focus and Expanded Greater Weapon
>> Specialization and just saying that Expanded Weapon Focus and Expanded
>> Weapon Specialization are sufficient to cover the greater forms as well.
>
> It really comes down to whether one feels that it's "enough" to let a
> character who specializes fully in two weapons be considered specialized in
> all his cultural kit (or chosen "type") or not. Hey - I think I have a
> better paradigm. Make the "extra" specializations/focus/etc. that fill out
> the cultural package a "martial arts style bonus". That is, more
> explicitly,the "style" would consist, at various levels of investment, two
> weapon focus feats & a skill; two weapon specialization feats & more skill,
> and so on all the way up to two greater weapon specializations.
> A samurai, for instance, might take Focus in spear & bastard sword, and -
> in keeping with their philosophy of battle - once he puts some minimum ranks
> in a spiritual/artistic skill, that is extended to the wakizashi and two
> handed sword. Poof - the fondness for haiku is suddenly apparent, and we
> have an interesting case where a smarter warrior actually gains martial
> benefit from such!

Very interesting idea. The skill would presumably be one not typically
useful in combat. Tumble is probably a poor choice.

IIRC (and I could well be mistaken, it's been hella longtime since I've
read a lot about it):
.. samurai mostly used katana alone in melee;
.. they *had* daisho, but the wakizashi was typically used as either a
backup weapon or for ceremonial purposes (seppuku);
.. daikyu from horseback was one of their schticks, they were expected to
be good with a bow;
.. spears were *mostly* used by common foot soldiers;
.. a samurai *might* use any weapon -- samurai have been recorded using
various polearms, spears, etc. -- but the sword was his soul.

As a result, I'd probably give samurai bastard sword and longbow to
start, expanding into short sword, twohanded sword, and perhaps spear
later.


>> What if (some) weapons had additional features or aspects that became
>> available with the presence of certain feats or conditions? Rather than
>> saying 'using a bastard sword one-handed is an exotic proficiency',
>> bastard sword has a feature, 'if exotic sword use is known, this weapon
>> can be used one-handed'? *right now* this means much the same thing,
>> but casting it this way opens things up a bit. You could have a number
>> of 'different types of weapons' that behave similiarly, *unless* the
>> character 'knows how'.
>>
>> For instance, 'all longswords' do d8//19-20/x2 slashing damage.
>> Proficiency with longsword lets you use *any* longsword like this.
>> However:
>>
>> . Bandisal longswords are a little more crit-happy (18-20/x2)
>> . Trellheim longswords are balanced to strike harder (d10 damage)
>> . Grollian longswords have a finer point (do slash/pierce as desired)
>> . Esthar longswords are balanced for quicker response (finessable)
>
> And this is bloody brilliant. A fighting perk with a tangible link to
> gameworld culture.

I like it, in part for that reason. It makes minor differentiation
between otherwise similar weapons, without requiring them to be
different proficiencies. It also opens up the possibility of a
specialization path that *isn't* "+1/+2".

Oh, and if you're interested I think I've got most of the spellcasting
framework figured out. I'll see if I can get that written up and posted
soon.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd39epv.3hp.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I've long believed that martial bows and exotic strength bows are
the
> > way to balance archery; they should be separated from the cultural group
> > (and daikyu-ness can be an exotic feature of the sort you describe
below)
>
> I've seen a suggestion that makes longbow an exotic weapon.

IMO, the longbow isn't the problem - it's the composite version.

> > Finesse is hard to balance in that sense, but I'm willing - for
now - to
> > consider feats that "change the controlling stat" differently from feats
> > that add a bonus regardless of the controlling stat, though I do wonder
at
> > the validity of the concept at all.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of extending Weapon Finesse in a
> fashion similar to Power Attack. Right now Weapon Finesse is basically
> binary; you have it or you don't. I'm wondering if it'd be possible to
> extend that so that using Weapon Finesse gets you something more than
> just 'use Dex instead of Str', it opens up some more choices.

As in, trade defense for offense?

> > It really comes down to whether one feels that it's "enough" to let
a
> > character who specializes fully in two weapons be considered specialized
in
> > all his cultural kit (or chosen "type") or not. Hey - I think I have a
> > better paradigm. Make the "extra" specializations/focus/etc. that fill
out
> > the cultural package a "martial arts style bonus". That is, more
> > explicitly,the "style" would consist, at various levels of investment,
two
> > weapon focus feats & a skill; two weapon specialization feats & more
skill,
> > and so on all the way up to two greater weapon specializations.
>
> Very interesting idea. The skill would presumably be one not typically
> useful in combat. Tumble is probably a poor choice.

Aye.

> IIRC (and I could well be mistaken, it's been hella longtime since I've
> read a lot about it):. samurai mostly used katana alone in melee;
> . they *had* daisho, but the wakizashi was typically used as either a
> backup weapon or for ceremonial purposes (seppuku);

Samurai used swords of a variety of sizes, blades the dimensions of a
katana were late-era developments. Weapons that would truly rate status as
two-handed swords were common as well. The fighting style is similar enough
whether it's a 2-12 or a 1-10 sized weapon; a samurai should be proficient
in both. You're correct that the wakizashi was not intended to be a
fighting weapon in the same vein but a certain unorthodox individual
popularized the use of both simultaneously; for fantasy purposes one may
certainly include it.

> . spears were *mostly* used by common foot soldiers;

No samurai would not be trained in the use of the yari. Too important a
defensive weapon.

> Oh, and if you're interested I think I've got most of the spellcasting
> framework figured out. I'll see if I can get that written up and posted
> soon.

Ping me when you do; perhaps I'll have the spare brain cells to think
about tit.

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Stephenls <stephenls@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Anivair wrote:

>> I don't understand the strange and unrealistic desire for shuriken to
>> get special treatment. they're basically round throwing knives. I
>> don't see the need to have special rules for them (nor have I ever had
>> special rules for them, mine just do a d3 and that's that). Any
>> special treatment they are given is the product of geeks who played too
>> much ninja turtles or watched too many ninja movies.

>The desire for source material emulation. Lots of people want to use
>RPGs to play the sort of heroes they enjoy reading about or watching in
>non-interactive media or playing in computer or console games. The
>source material for "heroes who use shurikens" usually has them throwing
>massive numbers of the things, so people who want to play shuriken-users
>typically desire for their characters the ability to use them in a
>manner similar to how their favorite characters use them.

One set of special rules that I was fine with was the
ability to throw multiple shuriken at once, albeit less
accurately. You really can chuck a few of them at
a time. Of course, D&D style combat doesn't model the
usefulness of this trick very well- it's not so much
about killing or seriously injuring someone, but the
distracting effect of somone hucking a handful of sharp
metal at you.

~P.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Patrick Baldwin wrote:

> One set of special rules that I was fine with was the
> ability to throw multiple shuriken at once, albeit less
> accurately. You really can chuck a few of them at
> a time. Of course, D&D style combat doesn't model the
> usefulness of this trick very well- it's not so much
> about killing or seriously injuring someone, but the
> distracting effect of somone hucking a handful of sharp
> metal at you.

That's the sort of advantage I was looking for in the original post.
In 3.5 only monks have a defined ability to do this and its no
better than two-weapon fighting or rapid shot.
I suppose rapid shot can combine with flurry of blows for three shots
at -4.

But I see little reason for 3.5 ninjas to take shuriken.
Or for fighters or rogues to bother with proficiency in them (except
by multiclassing with monk...).

Advantages seem to be:
Concealable.
Automatically able to quick draw.

Disadvantage:
Extremely low damage.

So why use them under game conditions?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote:
>
> But I see little reason for 3.5 ninjas to take shuriken.
> Or for fighters or rogues to bother with proficiency in them (except
> by multiclassing with monk...).
>
> Advantages seem to be:
> Concealable.
> Automatically able to quick draw.
>
> Disadvantage:
> Extremely low damage.
>
> So why use them under game conditions?

Unlike daggers, you can enchant them in batches of 50.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:

> Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>But I see little reason for 3.5 ninjas to take shuriken.
>>Or for fighters or rogues to bother with proficiency in them (except
>>by multiclassing with monk...).
>>
>>Advantages seem to be:
>>Concealable.
>>Automatically able to quick draw.
>>
>>Disadvantage:
>>Extremely low damage.
>>
>>So why use them under game conditions?
>
> Unlike daggers, you can enchant them in batches of 50.

Interesting.
With the right enchantments that might be worth it.
Suggestions for good ones?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Ophidian" <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote in message
news:YgPZd.238915$0u.71634@fed1read04...
> Patrick Baldwin wrote:
> In 3.5 only monks have a defined ability to do this and its no
> better than two-weapon fighting or rapid shot.
> I suppose rapid shot can combine with flurry of blows for three shots
at -4.

Yes.

> But I see little reason for 3.5 ninjas to take shuriken.
> Or for fighters or rogues to bother with proficiency in them (except
> by multiclassing with monk...).

Monkish flurry & proficiency means that a rogue/monk can rip off two
ranged sneak attacks at only a -2 penalty to hit, without spending any
feats.

-Michael
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Ophidian hastily scrawled:
>Keith Davies wrote:
>
>> Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>But I see little reason for 3.5 ninjas to take shuriken.
>>>Or for fighters or rogues to bother with proficiency in them (except
>>>by multiclassing with monk...).
>>>
>>>Advantages seem to be:
>>>Concealable.
>>>Automatically able to quick draw.
>>>
>>>Disadvantage:
>>>Extremely low damage.
>>>
>>>So why use them under game conditions?
>>
>> Unlike daggers, you can enchant them in batches of 50.
>
>Interesting.
>With the right enchantments that might be worth it.
>Suggestions for good ones?

My favorite is Wounding.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> >> MICHAEL BROWN <mistermichael@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > (exotic proficiencies to learn unusual, rather than
superior,
> >> > weapons are something of a bum deal - I wonder if it is not
better to
> >> > recast the Exotic profs more along the lines of the way the
bastard
> >> > sword is implemented; that is, you can use a weapon in a
superior
> >> > *way*. Some other mechanism would provide basic proficiencies;
skill
> >> > points, or 'broad' proficiencies that teach more than one
weapon...).
>
> What if (some) weapons had additional features or aspects that became
> available with the presence of certain feats or conditions?
>
> For instance, 'all longswords' do d8//19-20/x2 slashing damage.
> Proficiency with longsword lets you use *any* longsword like this.
> However:
>
> . Bandisal longswords are a little more crit-happy (18-20/x2)
> . Trellheim longswords are balanced to strike harder (d10 damage)
> . Grollian longswords have a finer point (do slash/pierce as desired)
> . Esthar longswords are balanced for quicker response (finessable)
>
> *in the right hands*.

This is WAY cool and goes toward solving an old problem of mine about
mundane (i.e. non-magical) variations to weapons and other equipment.
(Posted a thread about this, too, called "mundane enhancements")

My question, however, is how would you use this in practice?

Aer these variations free for all? Say Joe Fighter has a feat to spend
on exotic weapon use. Does he pick up the local version of Jane's (a
weapons list like the one in the PHB but with 4-6 variations for each
basic weapon,) checks out the ELS-2 Trellheim available from
Stronginthearm's Sharp Implements and decides he wants one? He then
proceeds to order one by mail, go over to Trellheim to get one (and
training,) or comissions one from the local master weaponsmith (with a
+X to the Craft DC for trying to reverse engineer and copy an unknown
design)?

Or is it all campaign background flavor and therefore rather fixed? Say
Joe is from Trellheim. Trellheimians are knows to have always practiced
with heavier long swords. Joe does 1d10 with his. Esthar has been
destroyed by Wereflumphs in the third age. There's little chance of
finding an Estharian swordmaster nowadays, and that's just the way the
cookie crumbles for Jack the other fighter, who's Dex based.

Silveraxe
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
>>So why use them under game conditions?
>
> Unlike daggers, you can enchant them in batches of 50.

Shouldn't shuriken also be a lot more re-usable than arrows
or bolts?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org