View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:53 pm



Reply to topic  [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Rigon's "new" house rules 
Author Message
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
So, I've been thinking of my "expanded rules" for PCs beyond 12th level. Which got me to thinking about ditch medicine. I think I need to expand it, to show (as someone up thread said) the experience of the ranger/barbarian/druid.

Here how I have it now:
Ditch Medicine: The ranger is able to use his knowledge of herbs and plants to make effective poultices. The ranger is able to heal 1d6+Wis mod hit points of damage once per day per person.

I'm thinking of having it increase by a die at every 6th level. So at 6th level it would heal 2d6+Wis mod, at 12th level it would heal 3d6+Wis mod, etc.

Do you thing this will be useful when characters get to higher levels? I think it will be.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:28 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
And I added this too:
Attribute Score Increase: Beginning at 6th level and every 6th level, the player character can increase any attribute of their choice by 1 point. Can not increase attributes beyond normal racial ranges.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:32 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Rigon wrote:
So, I've been thinking of my "expanded rules" for PCs beyond 12th level. Which got me to thinking about ditch medicine. I think I need to expand it, to show (as someone up thread said) the experience of the ranger/barbarian/druid.

Here how I have it now:
Ditch Medicine: The ranger is able to use his knowledge of herbs and plants to make effective poultices. The ranger is able to heal 1d6+Wis mod hit points of damage once per day per person.

I'm thinking of having it increase by a die at every 6th level. So at 6th level it would heal 2d6+Wis mod, at 12th level it would heal 3d6+Wis mod, etc.

Do you thing this will be useful when characters get to higher levels? I think it will be.

R-

Screw it, I like this change. I'm adding it.

I also added something for the monk.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:39 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Changes to Ditch Medicine:
Ditch Medicine: The barbarian is able to use his knowledge of herbs and plants to make effective poultices. The barbarian is able to heal 1d6+Wis mod hit points of damage once per day per person. At 6th level and every 6th level, the number of dice healed increases by 1 (2d6 at 6th, 3d6 at 12th, etc).

Addition to monk:
Wise Defense: The monk adds his Wis bonus to his AC.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:44 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
After giving it some thought, I changed the fighter's cleave ability again. If the fighter drops an enemy he can make an immediate attack on another nearby (within 5 ft) opponent. I know one of my players had a questions about archers and I had decided that it would be out to 30 ft, but I think that was to much. The archer can still make the second attack, however the opponent must be within 5ft of the 1st target. That just makes sense to me.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:38 pm
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 20660
Location: Arizona and St Louis
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Rigon wrote:
After giving it some thought, I changed the fighter's cleave ability again. If the fighter drops an enemy he can make an immediate attack on another nearby (within 5 ft) opponent. I know one of my players had a questions about archers and I had decided that it would be out to 30 ft, but I think that was to much. The archer can still make the second attack, however the opponent must be within 5ft of the 1st target. That just makes sense to me.

R-


Agreed. For fighter it is an option because the second target is close to the first, so the same principle should be used for missile weapons. Heck, I think its a requirement in 3E as well. Been so long now since I ran 3E a lot of that rules stuff is getting very hazy.

_________________
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.


Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:42 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
I changed the names of a couple of classes (Illusionist to sorcerer and knight to cavalier) and did some reorganization.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Mon May 13, 2013 5:38 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
So, I've been thinking about the progression for extra attacks for all classes as well as for the fighters weapon specialization. I don't think I'm happy with fractional attacks (ie 3/2, 5/2, etc). I'm thinking I want to maybe go with something similar to how it was done in 3.x, that once you reach a certain to hit number, you got another attack. Maybe something like this (thinking out loud):

Whenever your BtH is evenly divided by 6, you gain an extra attack.
-fighters would gain extra attacks at levels 6, 12, 18, 24, etc
-rangers, et al would gain extra attacks at levels 7, 13, 19, 25, etc
-clerics, et al would gain extra attacks at levels 12, 24, etc
-wizards, et al would gain an extra attack at level 18 etc

For weapon specialization, I was thinking of allowing the fighter to add the to hit bonus to his BtH so he can get to the divisible of 6 sooner with his specialized weapon. With how I have the bonus to hit and damage for specialization, the fighter would gain an extra attack every 5th level with their specialized weapon. (5+1=6, 10+2=12, 15+3=18 and so on)

I would limit it to no more than 4 attacks a round for fighters (barring cleave and combat dominance) and 3 attacks a round for every one else.

Furthermore, in looking at doing extra attacks this way, showed me that I really don't like the rogue to hit progression at all, so I changed it to that of the cleric.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Wed May 22, 2013 7:20 pm
Profile
Unkbartig
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 877
Location: Eastern Wisconsin
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Rigon wrote:
So, I've been thinking about the progression for extra attacks for all classes as well as for the fighters weapon specialization. I don't think I'm happy with fractional attacks (ie 3/2, 5/2, etc). I'm thinking I want to maybe go with something similar to how it was done in 3.x, that once you reach a certain to hit number, you got another attack. Maybe something like this (thinking out loud):

Whenever your BtH is evenly divided by 6, you gain an extra attack.
-fighters would gain extra attacks at levels 6, 12, 18, 24, etc
-rangers, et al would gain extra attacks at levels 7, 13, 19, 25, etc
-clerics, et al would gain extra attacks at levels 12, 24, etc
-wizards, et al would gain an extra attack at level 18 etc

For weapon specialization, I was thinking of allowing the fighter to add the to hit bonus to his BtH so he can get to the divisible of 6 sooner with his specialized weapon. With how I have the bonus to hit and damage for specialization, the fighter would gain an extra attack every 5th level with their specialized weapon. (5+1=6, 10+2=12, 15+3=18 and so on)

I would limit it to no more than 4 attacks a round for fighters (barring cleave and combat dominance) and 3 attacks a round for every one else.

Furthermore, in looking at doing extra attacks this way, showed me that I really don't like the rogue to hit progression at all, so I changed it to that of the cleric.

R-


For the Spell casters, does this affect how many spells they can cast a round?
also in the clerics case does this incsease how many times they could sac a spell for the cure ability


Wed May 22, 2013 9:43 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Dracyian wrote:
Rigon wrote:
So, I've been thinking about the progression for extra attacks for all classes as well as for the fighters weapon specialization. I don't think I'm happy with fractional attacks (ie 3/2, 5/2, etc). I'm thinking I want to maybe go with something similar to how it was done in 3.x, that once you reach a certain to hit number, you got another attack. Maybe something like this (thinking out loud):

Whenever your BtH is evenly divided by 6, you gain an extra attack.
-fighters would gain extra attacks at levels 6, 12, 18, 24, etc
-rangers, et al would gain extra attacks at levels 7, 13, 19, 25, etc
-clerics, et al would gain extra attacks at levels 12, 24, etc
-wizards, et al would gain an extra attack at level 18 etc

For weapon specialization, I was thinking of allowing the fighter to add the to hit bonus to his BtH so he can get to the divisible of 6 sooner with his specialized weapon. With how I have the bonus to hit and damage for specialization, the fighter would gain an extra attack every 5th level with their specialized weapon. (5+1=6, 10+2=12, 15+3=18 and so on)

I would limit it to no more than 4 attacks a round for fighters (barring cleave and combat dominance) and 3 attacks a round for every one else.

Furthermore, in looking at doing extra attacks this way, showed me that I really don't like the rogue to hit progression at all, so I changed it to that of the cleric.

R-


For the Spell casters, does this affect how many spells they can cast a round?
also in the clerics case does this incsease how many times they could sac a spell for the cure ability

This is mainly for the fighting types and their extra attacks, so, no, one spell per round. Unless the caster wants to make a SIEGE check to see if they can cast 2 spells in the same round. And that check would be hard to make.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Thu May 23, 2013 3:27 am
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Ok, so I've refined this little idea to look like this.

Extra Attacks: Most classes gain additional melee/ranged attacks each round as they advance in level. Whenever a character’s BtH is evenly divided by 6, you gain an extra attack.
-fighters gain extra attacks at levels 6, 12, & 18 (4 attacks max barring cleave and combat dominance)
-rangers, barbarians, berserkers, paladins, and cavaliers gain extra attacks at levels 7 & 13 (3 attacks max)
-clerics, druids, thieves, assassins, and bards gain an extra attack at level 12 (2 attacks max)
-wizards and sorcerers never gain an extra attack

Weapon Specialization: At first level the fighter selects one weapon to become an expert with. The fighter gains a +1 to hit and damage rolls. This bonus increases by +1 every 6 levels thereafter (+2 at 7th, +3 at 13th, etc) to a total bonus of +5.
Furthermore, a fighter can add his to hit bonus from specialization to his BtH for determining his eligibility for extra attacks, but only with the specialized weapon. (Extra attack with specialized weapon at levels 5, 10, & 15)


How does that look?

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Thu May 23, 2013 2:18 pm
Profile
Unkbartig
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 877
Location: Eastern Wisconsin
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Rigon wrote:
Ok, so I've refined this little idea to look like this.

Extra Attacks: Most classes gain additional melee/ranged attacks each round as they advance in level. Whenever a character’s BtH is evenly divided by 6, you gain an extra attack.
-fighters gain extra attacks at levels 6, 12, & 18 (4 attacks max barring cleave and combat dominance)
-rangers, barbarians, berserkers, paladins, and cavaliers gain extra attacks at levels 7 & 13 (3 attacks max)
-clerics, druids, thieves, assassins, and bards gain an extra attack at level 12 (2 attacks max)
-wizards and sorcerers never gain an extra attack

Weapon Specialization: At first level the fighter selects one weapon to become an expert with. The fighter gains a +1 to hit and damage rolls. This bonus increases by +1 every 6 levels thereafter (+2 at 7th, +3 at 13th, etc) to a total bonus of +5.
Furthermore, a fighter can add his to hit bonus from specialization to his BtH for determining his eligibility for extra attacks, but only with the specialized weapon. (Extra attack with specialized weapon at levels 5, 10, & 15)


How does that look?

R-


After reading through it twice to actually wrap my head around whats going on, A little high i think from all the mold spores floating up from the "cleaned carpet" at work, I think it looks good.


Thu May 23, 2013 5:54 pm
Profile
Hlobane Orc
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:00 am
Posts: 123
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
I read through most of it and looks like it would work out. I think you would have to actually play with these rules before you can make a permanent decision though.


Wed May 29, 2013 11:22 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
ArrowHawk wrote:
I read through most of it and looks like it would work out. I think you would have to actually play with these rules before you can make a permanent decision though.

True, but as my game right now is to test out my house rules to see how well I like them, I might just go a head and implement them to give them a try. I'll make a decision by Monday sometime before the game starts.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Thu May 30, 2013 3:53 am
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 20660
Location: Arizona and St Louis
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Rigon wrote:
ArrowHawk wrote:
I read through most of it and looks like it would work out. I think you would have to actually play with these rules before you can make a permanent decision though.

True, but as my game right now is to test out my house rules to see how well I like them, I might just go a head and implement them to give them a try. I'll make a decision by Monday sometime before the game starts.

R-


Considering my house rules, if your fine with how things are in my games, which you have been playing in for over 5 or 6 years now, I have no doubt you won't find anything in your rules as being "too much".

_________________
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.


Thu May 30, 2013 5:37 am
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
I changed how multiple attacks and weapon specialization works.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:02 pm
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 20660
Location: Arizona and St Louis
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
For the convenience of our game group I copy/pasted these rules to our game thread, page 1.

_________________
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.


Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:00 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Treebore wrote:
For the convenience of our game group I copy/pasted these rules to our game thread, page 1.

OK, thanks.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:02 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Over in my Mere of Dead Men thread, we are having a discussion about fighters being able to specialize in more than one weapon. I am of the mind that by selecting a single specialization, the fighter becomes a "master" with his chosen weapon. Some of the others feel that that is too limiting to for the fighter and have made some interesting arguments for increased specializations. One of the suggestions was for group specialization. I kind of like this idea, so was thinking how I would divide up the weapons in the PHB to fit into groups. Looking at the weapons list, I was thinking something like this:

Bows: Longbow, Shortbow, Comp Longbow, Comp Shortbow
Axes: Battle axe, Bearded axe, Hand/Throwing axe, Piercing axe, 2-handed axe, Hatchet
Small Blades: Knife, Cleaver, Dagger, Dirk, Main Gauche, Poniard
Short Blades: Short sword, Rapier, Tulwar, Hook sword, Flatchet
Long Blades: Broad sword, Long sword, Scimitar, Nine Ring Broad sword
Large Blades: 2-handed sword, Bastard sword, Falchion, Great Scimitar, Flamberge
Clubs: Club, Light mace, Heavy mace, Morningstar, Godentag
Hammers: Light hammer, Warhammer, Maul
Flails: Sap, Light flail, Heavy flail
Crossbows: Light crossbow, Heavy crossbow, Hand crossbow
Spears: Spear, Long spear, Wolf spear, Staff, Triden, Man Catcher, Sleeve Tangler
Picks: Light pick, Heavy pick, Crowbill
Polearms: Bardiche, Bec De Corbin, Bill or Billhook, Fauchard, Fauchard Fork, Lucerne Hammer, Military Fork, Glaive, Glaive Guisarme, Guisarme, Halberd, Partisan, Pike, Ranseur, Voulge
Slings: Slings, Bolas
Lances: Light lance, Heavy lance
Whips: Cat-o-nine-tails, Whip
Thrown Weapons: Harpoon, Javelin, Aclis, Dart
Punching Weapons: Brass Knuckles, Cestus, Katar
Reaping Weapons: Scythe, Sickle

That just leaves the Blowpipe and the Hafted Hook as the only weapons that I can't group. Any suggestions?

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:16 pm
Profile
Unkbartig
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 877
Location: Eastern Wisconsin
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Rigon wrote:
Over in my Mere of Dead Men thread, we are having a discussion about fighters being able to specialize in more than one weapon. I am of the mind that by selecting a single specialization, the fighter becomes a "master" with his chosen weapon. Some of the others feel that that is too limiting to for the fighter and have made some interesting arguments for increased specializations. One of the suggestions was for group specialization. I kind of like this idea, so was thinking how I would divide up the weapons in the PHB to fit into groups. Looking at the weapons list, I was thinking something like this:

Bows: Longbow, Shortbow, Comp Longbow, Comp Shortbow
Axes: Battle axe, Bearded axe, Hand/Throwing axe, Piercing axe, 2-handed axe, Hatchet
Small Blades: Knife, Cleaver, Dagger, Dirk, Main Gauche, Poniard
Short Blades: Short sword, Rapier, Tulwar, Hook sword, Flatchet
Long Blades: Broad sword, Long sword, Scimitar, Nine Ring Broad sword
Large Blades: 2-handed sword, Bastard sword, Falchion, Great Scimitar, Flamberge
Clubs: Club, Light mace, Heavy mace, Morningstar, Godentag
Hammers: Light hammer, Warhammer, Maul
Flails: Sap, Light flail, Heavy flail
Crossbows: Light crossbow, Heavy crossbow, Hand crossbow
Spears: Spear, Long spear, Wolf spear, Staff, Triden, Man Catcher, Sleeve Tangler
Picks: Light pick, Heavy pick, Crowbill
Polearms: Bardiche, Bec De Corbin, Bill or Billhook, Fauchard, Fauchard Fork, Lucerne Hammer, Military Fork, Glaive, Glaive Guisarme, Guisarme, Halberd, Partisan, Pike, Ranseur, Voulge
Slings: Slings, Bolas
Lances: Light lance, Heavy lance
Whips: Cat-o-nine-tails, Whip
Thrown Weapons: Harpoon, Javelin, Aclis, Dart
Punching Weapons: Brass Knuckles, Cestus, Katar
Reaping Weapons: Scythe, Sickle

That just leaves the Blowpipe and the Hafted Hook as the only weapons that I can't group. Any suggestions?

R-


Hafted Hook i would put in the reaping weapons.
The blow dart and the sling I would leave in their own category together, I don't see those being too popular for weapons outside of special occasions, I would move Bolas into the the thrown weapons because you are actually throwing the whole thing.
I would also include hammers into the club section because the way you fight with a war hammer, or maul is very similar to the way one fights with a maul, a mace, or a godentag.

Hope my opinions help somehow

Edit: You also don't have a staff section, don't know if that is on purpose or not I was just thinking of the different jutsu you would learn in the east and they have two for staffs


Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:14 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Dracyian wrote:
Hafted Hook i would put in the reaping weapons.
The blow dart and the sling I would leave in their own category together, I don't see those being too popular for weapons outside of special occasions, I would move Bolas into the the thrown weapons because you are actually throwing the whole thing.
I would also include hammers into the club section because the way you fight with a war hammer, or maul is very similar to the way one fights with a maul, a mace, or a godentag.

Hope my opinions help somehow

Edit: You also don't have a staff section, don't know if that is on purpose or not I was just thinking of the different jutsu you would learn in the east and they have two for staffs

Thanks for the input Drac. I was thinking hammers and clubs would be similar enough that I could put them in the same category, but I also think that there is enough of a difference to keep them separate.

As for the bolas being with slings, I believe they are similar enough in the mechanics of use to be grouped together. That's also why I included the staff in with the spears.

That would just leave the blowpipe (which isn't like anything else on the list).

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:37 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Oh, and I'm thinking of splitting the polearms into 2 categories, Light polearms and Heavy polearms.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:38 pm
Profile
Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:00 am
Posts: 1693
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
I would make slings a "thrown" weapon.

You could also merge hammers, clubs and flails. And put picks in with either axes or polearms. Although the fighting styles might differ slightly, I would think an expert could adapt himself quite readily to the new weapon.

One way that fighters do differ is in fighting style, rather than weapons. I.e., I would not worry too much about separating maces and hammers, but how one fights with a solitary longsword versus a longsword and shield versus a longsword and dagger in the off hand is very different. So, although I would broaden specialisation on weapons, I would narrow it on styles. This necessitates allowing extra styles to be learned as the character levels and perhaps fiddly bonuses for various styles, so the simplicity of C&C may prefer that we ignore these style differences :) but my point is, it is in these styles more than a slightly longer or shorter weapon that I think the specialist would notice a difference in adaptability


Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:56 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Aramis wrote:
I would make slings a "thrown" weapon.

You could also merge hammers, clubs and flails. And put picks in with either axes or polearms. Although the fighting styles might differ slightly, I would think an expert could adapt himself quite readily to the new weapon.

One way that fighters do differ is in fighting style, rather than weapons. I.e., I would not worry too much about separating maces and hammers, but how one fights with a solitary longsword versus a longsword and shield versus a longsword and dagger in the off hand is very different. So, although I would broaden specialisation on weapons, I would narrow it on styles. This necessitates allowing extra styles to be learned as the character levels and perhaps fiddly bonuses for various styles, so the simplicity of C&C may prefer that we ignore these style differences :) but my point is, it is in these styles more than a slightly longer or shorter weapon that I think the specialist would notice a difference in adaptability

I don't agree with your argument, Aramis. I would imagine that the differences in weapon length, weight, point of attack (thrusting or slashing), etc is what makes the difference in how well one could use a weapon.
If I did do this type of specialization, I would want to limit the number of weapons that a fighter could apply his bonuses to, not give him a access to most weapons with a single ability. As I have the groups now, the specialization would work on 2-7 weapons depending on group with the average being 4 weapons for each group. That's plenty of choice as far as I'm concerned.
By expanding your argument, I should just do groups as generally as bladed weapons (all swords and knife types), blunt weapons (all maces, hammers and such), polearms (all polearms, spears, and the like), ranged weapons (all of them), every thing else. I mean, I'm a fair hand at archery. I can use a compound bow and a crossbow both fairly well. Does that mean that I should put all "bow" type weapons in one category? For me, that just takes away from how I envision weapon specialization to work.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:40 pm
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 20660
Location: Arizona and St Louis
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Slings are a "thrown/hurled" weapon in earlier editions of D&D. Plus as you guys know I often use Slings for my characters, especially Wizards and Clerics.

_________________
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.


Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:44 pm
Profile
Mogrl

Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am
Posts: 13801
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
I'm not really a huge fan of weapon groups, but I have considered it. One thing I might do would be to think along technological lines, for example...

Primitives include ax (hatchet), staff, sling, spear, dagger (knife), net, hammer, and short bow (this is purposefully incomplete because I don't remember all the weapons listed in the PHB)

Bronze Age includes sword short, long bow, battle ax, warhammer, and those previously available

and so forth. Then, the character just comes from an area that defines weapon access.


Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:51 pm
Profile
Unkbartig
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 877
Location: Eastern Wisconsin
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Rigon wrote:
Aramis wrote:
I would make slings a "thrown" weapon.

You could also merge hammers, clubs and flails. And put picks in with either axes or polearms. Although the fighting styles might differ slightly, I would think an expert could adapt himself quite readily to the new weapon.

One way that fighters do differ is in fighting style, rather than weapons. I.e., I would not worry too much about separating maces and hammers, but how one fights with a solitary longsword versus a longsword and shield versus a longsword and dagger in the off hand is very different. So, although I would broaden specialisation on weapons, I would narrow it on styles. This necessitates allowing extra styles to be learned as the character levels and perhaps fiddly bonuses for various styles, so the simplicity of C&C may prefer that we ignore these style differences :) but my point is, it is in these styles more than a slightly longer or shorter weapon that I think the specialist would notice a difference in adaptability

I don't agree with your argument, Aramis. I would imagine that the differences in weapon length, weight, point of attack (thrusting or slashing), etc is what makes the difference in how well one could use a weapon.
If I did do this type of specialization, I would want to limit the number of weapons that a fighter could apply his bonuses to, not give him a access to most weapons with a single ability. As I have the groups now, the specialization would work on 2-7 weapons depending on group with the average being 4 weapons for each group. That's plenty of choice as far as I'm concerned.
By expanding your argument, I should just do groups as generally as bladed weapons (all swords and knife types), blunt weapons (all maces, hammers and such), polearms (all polearms, spears, and the like), ranged weapons (all of them), every thing else. I mean, I'm a fair hand at archery. I can use a compound bow and a crossbow both fairly well. Does that mean that I should put all "bow" type weapons in one category? For me, that just takes away from how I envision weapon specialization to work.

R-


Thats how they do it in skyrim :P

But to be honest I haven't met a single person who does weapon specialization that would tell you there is no real difference between weilding bladed weapons, the length of your weapon, the weight, the width all account for how you use it. I would actually aruge against Aramis because how you weild a weapon and how you attack are the same no matter what the opposition is weilding. Where you start to differ is the order of the attacks and the choice of which attack you use. I envision a weapons master being able to use his weapon against any other weapon combination


Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:58 pm
Profile
Lore Drake
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:00 am
Posts: 1693
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Rigon wrote:
Aramis wrote:
I would make slings a "thrown" weapon.

You could also merge hammers, clubs and flails. And put picks in with either axes or polearms. Although the fighting styles might differ slightly, I would think an expert could adapt himself quite readily to the new weapon.

One way that fighters do differ is in fighting style, rather than weapons. I.e., I would not worry too much about separating maces and hammers, but how one fights with a solitary longsword versus a longsword and shield versus a longsword and dagger in the off hand is very different. So, although I would broaden specialisation on weapons, I would narrow it on styles. This necessitates allowing extra styles to be learned as the character levels and perhaps fiddly bonuses for various styles, so the simplicity of C&C may prefer that we ignore these style differences :) but my point is, it is in these styles more than a slightly longer or shorter weapon that I think the specialist would notice a difference in adaptability

I don't agree with your argument, Aramis. I would imagine that the differences in weapon length, weight, point of attack (thrusting or slashing), etc is what makes the difference in how well one could use a weapon.
If I did do this type of specialization, I would want to limit the number of weapons that a fighter could apply his bonuses to, not give him a access to most weapons with a single ability. As I have the groups now, the specialization would work on 2-7 weapons depending on group with the average being 4 weapons for each group. That's plenty of choice as far as I'm concerned.
By expanding your argument, I should just do groups as generally as bladed weapons (all swords and knife types), blunt weapons (all maces, hammers and such), polearms (all polearms, spears, and the like), ranged weapons (all of them), every thing else. I mean, I'm a fair hand at archery. I can use a compound bow and a crossbow both fairly well. Does that mean that I should put all "bow" type weapons in one category? For me, that just takes away from how I envision weapon specialization to work.

R-


Remember, a "specialized" weapon skill does not make you a kensai. It grants a 5% bonus. Are you saying expert familiarity with a broadsword does not translate over to a longsword, verus a normal non fighter who may never have picked up a longsword in his life?

I don't consider a crossbow a "bow" (amusingly enough) but a better comparison is a short and longbow. If a longbow specialist and a broadsword specialist both pick up a shortbow, does it seem plausible that the longbow specialist would not be 5% more accurate? Heck, if anything, specialisation undersells how much better the longbowman would be than the broadswordsman

Let me offer a brief contradiction of my previous arguments, followed by a contradiction of my contradiction ;). Back in the mists of time, litttle Aramis and his pals, newly discovering a game called dungeons and dragons, signed up for fencing lessons. Even back in the day, I was no great fan of playing fighters, but unfortunately Wizarding was not offered as a class (I took that later).

While there, we learned 3 different weapons; foil, epee, and sabre. Foil is a flimsy rapier like weapon (poking style) that only targets the torso, epee is a firmer rapier that targets the entire body and sabre is a slashing weapon that targets the upper body. Now, according to my model, these would all be "swords" which is a bit dumb, since poking is different than slashing. If you add in medieval longsword, which is actually more like a blunt force weapon that you rely on mass x acceleration for the cut, rather than razor sharp flashes of steel, how can they all be the same. Well, they can't.

But, we learned them all because the similarities between the 3 weapons were so much greater than the differences that they were mutually reinforcing. At the olympic level, people are pretty exclusive, but at our level, the sameness translated more than the differences. But if we had spent 3 years fencing and then picked up a longbow, there would have been no benefit.

At the end of the day, it's your call of course. And, more than that, if you prefer the fighter as a kensai model, that is perfectly fine. But that is not the fighter I envision. The fighter is a generalist who can kill equally well with sword, bow and tankard of beer! If the poor vanilla C&C fighter specialises in longsword and finds a frostbrand broadsword on his travels, the result is a sad sad fighter for no particularly good reason either in terms of game balance or realism


Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:51 pm
Profile
Unkbartig
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 877
Location: Eastern Wisconsin
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Aramis wrote:
Rigon wrote:
Aramis wrote:
I would make slings a "thrown" weapon.

You could also merge hammers, clubs and flails. And put picks in with either axes or polearms. Although the fighting styles might differ slightly, I would think an expert could adapt himself quite readily to the new weapon.

One way that fighters do differ is in fighting style, rather than weapons. I.e., I would not worry too much about separating maces and hammers, but how one fights with a solitary longsword versus a longsword and shield versus a longsword and dagger in the off hand is very different. So, although I would broaden specialisation on weapons, I would narrow it on styles. This necessitates allowing extra styles to be learned as the character levels and perhaps fiddly bonuses for various styles, so the simplicity of C&C may prefer that we ignore these style differences :) but my point is, it is in these styles more than a slightly longer or shorter weapon that I think the specialist would notice a difference in adaptability

I don't agree with your argument, Aramis. I would imagine that the differences in weapon length, weight, point of attack (thrusting or slashing), etc is what makes the difference in how well one could use a weapon.
If I did do this type of specialization, I would want to limit the number of weapons that a fighter could apply his bonuses to, not give him a access to most weapons with a single ability. As I have the groups now, the specialization would work on 2-7 weapons depending on group with the average being 4 weapons for each group. That's plenty of choice as far as I'm concerned.
By expanding your argument, I should just do groups as generally as bladed weapons (all swords and knife types), blunt weapons (all maces, hammers and such), polearms (all polearms, spears, and the like), ranged weapons (all of them), every thing else. I mean, I'm a fair hand at archery. I can use a compound bow and a crossbow both fairly well. Does that mean that I should put all "bow" type weapons in one category? For me, that just takes away from how I envision weapon specialization to work.

R-


Remember, a "specialized" weapon skill does not make you a kensai. It grants a 5% bonus. Are you saying expert familiarity with a broadsword does not translate over to a longsword, verus a normal non fighter who may never have picked up a longsword in his life?

I don't consider a crossbow a "bow" (amusingly enough) but a better comparison is a short and longbow. If a longbow specialist and a broadsword specialist both pick up a shortbow, does it seem plausible that the longbow specialist would not be 5% more accurate? Heck, if anything, specialisation undersells how much better the longbowman would be than the broadswordsman

Let me offer a brief contradiction of my previous arguments, followed by a contradiction of my contradiction ;). Back in the mists of time, litttle Aramis and his pals, newly discovering a game called dungeons and dragons, signed up for fencing lessons. Even back in the day, I was no great fan of playing fighters, but unfortunately Wizarding was not offered as a class (I took that later).

While there, we learned 3 different weapons; foil, epee, and sabre. Foil is a flimsy rapier like weapon (poking style) that only targets the chest, epee is a firmer rapier that targets the entire body and sabre is a slashing weapon that targets the upper body. Now, according to my model, these would all be "swords" which is a bit dumb, since poking is different than slashing. If you add in medieval longsword, which is actually more like a blunt force weapon that you rely on mass x acceleration for the cut, rather than razor sharp flashes of steel, how can they all be the same. Well, they can't.

But, we learned them all because the similarities between the 3 weapons were so much greater than the differences that they were mutually reinforcing. At the olympic level, people are pretty exclusive, but at our level, the sameness translated more than the differences. But if we had spent 3 years fencing and then picked up a longbow, there would have been no benefit.

At the end of the day, it's your call of course. And, more than that, if you prefer the fighter as a kensai model, that is perfectly fine. But that is not the fighter I envision. The fighter is a generalist who can kill equally well with sword, bow and tankard of beer! If the poor vanilla C&C fighter specialises in longsword and finds a frostbrand broadsword on his travles, the result is a sad sad fighter for no particularly good reason either in terms of game balance or realism


Why I am defending R i'm not sure lol maybe its cause I have Forgotten realm goodness from him on my bookshelf now, but he did divide up the weapons in a fairly sensible manner with all the one handed long blades together, and the two handed long blades together and the daggers together.


Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:59 pm
Profile
Clang lives!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 7106
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA
Post Re: Rigon's "new" house rules
Aramis wrote:
Remember, a "specialized" weapon skill does not make you a kensai. It grants a 5% bonus. Are you saying expert familiarity with a broadsword does not translate over to a longsword, verus a normal non fighter who may never have picked up a longsword in his life?

I don't consider a crossbow a "bow" (amusingly enough) but a better comparison is a short and longbow. If a longbow specialist and a broadsword specialist both pick up a shortbow, does it seem plausible that the longbow specialist would not be 5% more accurate? Heck, if anything, specialisation undersells how much better the longbowman would be than the broadswordsman

Let me offer a brief contradiction of my previous arguments, followed by a contradiction of my contradiction ;). Back in the mists of time, litttle Aramis and his pals, newly discovering a game called dungeons and dragons, signed up for fencing lessons. Even back in the day, I was no great fan of playing fighters, but unfortunately Wizarding was not offered as a class (I took that later).

While there, we learned 3 different weapons; foil, epee, and sabre. Foil is a flimsy rapier like weapon (poking style) that only targets the torso, epee is a firmer rapier that targets the entire body and sabre is a slashing weapon that targets the upper body. Now, according to my model, these would all be "swords" which is a bit dumb, since poking is different than slashing. If you add in medieval longsword, which is actually more like a blunt force weapon that you rely on mass x acceleration for the cut, rather than razor sharp flashes of steel, how can they all be the same. Well, they can't.

But, we learned them all because the similarities between the 3 weapons were so much greater than the differences that they were mutually reinforcing. At the olympic level, people are pretty exclusive, but at our level, the sameness translated more than the differences. But if we had spent 3 years fencing and then picked up a longbow, there would have been no benefit.

At the end of the day, it's your call of course. And, more than that, if you prefer the fighter as a kensai model, that is perfectly fine. But that is not the fighter I envision. The fighter is a generalist who can kill equally well with sword, bow and tankard of beer! If the poor vanilla C&C fighter specialises in longsword and finds a frostbrand broadsword on his travels, the result is a sad sad fighter for no particularly good reason either in terms of game balance or realism

Aramis, I get your point, but I envision the kensai type expert for my fighters. And while it is only 5% at lower levels, by the time the fighter reaches higher levels it can be as much as 25%. So, to use your example of the fencer, you and your friends would be the low level fighter and while the Olympic fencer would be the high level fighter.
As for bows, I am equally good with both, compound (composite longbow) and re-curve (longbow) bows, so there I get you. And crossbows are way easier to use. Being a bow hunter, I would be a low level fighter with a bow, however, my cousin's daughter is a Jr national archery champion. She would be a high level fighter.
I don't know, more to think about.

R-

_________________
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads


Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:32 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.