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
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram