Would these house rules cause imbalance?

vivsavage · Post by **vivsavage** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:22 pm

There are a couple of house rules I've been thinking about, but I'd like your thoughts regarding possible imbalance...

Problem: I don't really like weapon restrictions. If a wizard wants to be proficient with a sword (Gandalf), he should be able to. Just not to the level of a fighter, etc.

Solution: Instead of each class having a list of weapons they are proficient in, each class starts with a number of weapon proficiency points. Simple weapons (dagger, staff, etc) cost 1 point. Standard weapons (sword, axe) cost 3 points. Wizards have 3 points to spend at first level, meaning they could be proficient in 3 simple weapons or one standard weapon.

Problem: class/race combinations are too similar for my tastes. For example, I want a dwarven fighter to be entirely different than an elven fighter. Dwarves should be stiff tanks, while elves should be smooth samurai. I've come up with an idea to address this: get rid of weapon damage (eg, a dagger does 1d4 a sword 1d8, and so forth). Instead, an elf fighter does 1d6 damage with all his melee weapons and gets 3 attacks every two rounds... while a dwarf fighter does 1d10 with melee weapons and gets 1 attack per round. Another idea... Elves fire off arrows at a 3/2 rate and do 1d8 damage, but suffer attack penalties for using armor heavier than a chain shirt.

Thoughts?

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:57 pm

There may be a problem with combining both rules: that is, an elf fighter has no reason to spend any proficiency points on anything, since the weapon used will be irrelevant. So, it might just be easier to standardize all weapons to d6, and then have certain classes / races modify from there -- for example, a dwarf deals +1 die type with hammer / axe; fighter deals +1 damage with any weapon, as an example. The standardized damage rates of OD&D are a good idea, if one wishes to encourage roleplaying over number-crunching since it does not matter what weapon you use -- they are all effectively the same.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

vivsavage · Post by **vivsavage** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:03 pm

serleran wrote:
There may be a problem with combining both rules: that is, an elf fighter has no reason to spend any proficiency points on anything, since the weapon used will be irrelevant.

The damage might be the same, but the BtH wouldn't. If you're not proficient with a weapon, a wizard would get -4 or -5 to attacking with it.

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:16 pm

I played in an AD&D campaign wherein the DM changed all weapons to a base 1d6 dmg for one handed weapons and 1d6+1 for two handed weapons. He also gave all fighter subclasses an additional +1 on any used weapon. Then you would add all normal strength or other modifiers to damage. It worked surprisingly well in our year or so long campaign.

Ogre · Post by **Ogre** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:24 pm

I really like the idea of leveling out weapons, I feel like no one would ever use a short sword compared to a long sword,

I think it should maybe have something to do with rate of fire against damage.

Such that, a dagger may only do 1d4 damage, but you get three chances to hit compared to only a single change with a long sword.

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:00 pm

Your first proposal is intriguing...and would probably provide the flexibility you're seeking.

The second I can't agree with as written, though adds for race would certainly put some flavor to it. Weapons are not effectively the same, said from having fought with two-handed axe, heavy mace, ball n chain, and sword. A two handed axe will do a lot more damage to an armored person (like nearly cutting them in half with the one I was using) than a sword will...so I can't support the weapon leveling. But hey...it's your game and if you can make it work...go for it.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

anglefish · Post by **anglefish** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:22 pm

I'd say that for you bring back class restrictions on races. i.e., certain races have access to certain classes.

You could do this two ways:

- By offering a broad range of selections to the point that's easier to remember what they CAN'T do, such as banning elves from Fighter or banning dwarves from the Ranger class.

- Or by being very narrow in your selections, such as only elves have access to the Ranger class in your game (and dwarves are the only race to have access to the Fighter)

In theory, this balances out for humans who have access to all classes. Though back in AD&D, class restrictions was one of the factors that lead to such race/class optimization that there were entire campaigns where I never saw a human PC.

Ravenstar · Post by **Ravenstar** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:18 pm

vivsavage wrote:
TIf a wizard wants to be proficient with a sword (Gandalf), he should be able to.

The problem is Gandalf isn't JUST a Wizard, he's an Istari - a member of a group of beings outwardly resembling Men but possessing much greater physical and mental power.

Whereas Wizards in C&C are JUST Wizards, normal (ish) blokes who've spent all their time knee deep in books and parchments.

I would suggest some penalty for using a non-class weapon (-4 to hit in combat?) that way ANYONE can use anything, just not always very well.

Malakor · Post by **Malakor** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:08 pm

You could just allow the wizard to swap out one weapon proficiency (for instance, staff or dagger) for a different weapon if you wanted to do so. . .
_________________
A thinker sees his own actions as experiments and questions--as attempts to find out something. Success and failure are for him answers above all.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:58 pm

I'm not trying to sound obtuse, but what purpose would it serve to have a wizard use a sword in the first place? Their BtH progression is kind of lousy, representing their booking upbringing/training, and if you want a wizard character to have a sword I think it would be best just to give it to them rather than create a new subsystem just to allow this sort of thing. If a wizard wants to get into melee and wave his sword around, he might get what's coming to him.
As far as normalizing weapon damage depending on the race/class combination, I guess you can do that. The main issue I could see arising from that would be a player building his character around combat preference instead of an overall concept. I like the idea that weapon X may deal 1d6 points of damage while weapon Y may deal 1d10. Fortunately, I don't see too many players in my games picking weapons simply because they deal more damage. I do see where you're coming from, though. My only thing would be if you want this sort of thing, make sure you emphasize two weapon fighting and a high dexterity for the elven fighters and big weapon and high strength for the dwarf.

Maybe give dwarven fighters a +1 damage bonus with axes, hammers, maces, and the like, while for elves reduce the penalty for fighting with two weapons by 1 (or two). Just a thought.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

vivsavage · Post by **vivsavage** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:08 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
if you want a wizard character to have a sword I think it would be best just to give it to them rather than create a new subsystem just to allow this sort of thing. If a wizard wants to get into melee and wave his sword around, he might get what's coming to him.

That's what I decided on. There are no weapon restrictions in my game.

Lord Dynel wrote:
only thing would be if you want this sort of thing, make sure you emphasize two weapon fighting and a high dexterity for the elven fighters and big weapon and high strength for the dwarf.

Yes, I've got a planned system for that. Each race/class combination starts with a base score in each attribute. Then you roll dice to add to it. For instance, a dwarf fighter's strength value is 12 + 1d6, while an elf fighter's STR is 9 + 1d6. Or something like that.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:30 pm

Technically, there are no weapon restrictions in C&C. If the weapon is not on your class list, you take a -5 penalty to hit with it.

Now, one way to modify this would be to allow a character to remove two weapons from the allowed list to replace with one of choice. So, for example, a wizard wants to be proficient with a sword, so he has to lose access to two other weapons... say staff and sling.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

anonymous · Post by **anonymous** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:16 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
I'm not trying to sound obtuse, but what purpose would it serve to have a wizard use a sword in the first place? Their BtH progression is kind of lousy, representing their booking upbringing/training, and if you want a wizard character to have a sword I think it would be best just to give it to them rather than create a new subsystem just to allow this sort of thing. If a wizard wants to get into melee and wave his sword around, he might get what's coming to him.

Whereas forcing him to use a dagger or a staff will increase his chances of survival?

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:04 am

At low levels, allowing a wizard to use a sword might give him a slight advantage, just because he'd do a little bit more damage on average. As the party gained levels, however, this would start to balance out. The wizard's BtH really sucks compared to a regular fighting class. His small chance of hitting combined with low hp makes wading into combat a bad idea for a wizard.

So, yeah, I think that the small advantages of letting any class use any weapon will be balanced out by BtH and HPs. Were I a wizard, I'd probably take a sword with me rather than a dagger. Granted, I don't know how to use it. However, I'm not planning on using it unless my more reliable resources (i.e. spells) run out. In that case, I want the hardest hitting thing I can get my hands around.

There is another potential consequence to a rule like this, however, and that's altering the archetypes by changing what weapons certain characters typically carry. If all of your wizards start wearing a sword instead of a walking stick, well, that alters the idea of what a "wizard" is. If that sort of thing is important to you, giving weapon choice a cost of some kind is probably a good idea.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:45 am

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
Whereas forcing him to use a dagger or a staff will increase his chances of survival?

I never said that. If you extrapolated that from my post, my apologies.
Brandishing a dagger or staff does not extend his survival chances any more than carrying a sword shortens his lifespan. This is exactly why I basically said, "Who cares...if you want a wizard to use a sword, go for it." My comment on dying in combat was kind of in response to the Gandalf comment - someone said earlier, Gandalf is not a normal D&D/C&C "wizard." He's a divine being...something akin to an angel. In my opinion, he fought almost as good with a sword as Aragorn did. Now, I'm not saying not to give wizards any weapon they want (and you could even forego the -5 penalty, as you could make it a background element, and maybe at the expense of other weapons) - I'm saying quite the opposite, actually. I just think that, mechanically, the results won't be the same as Gandalf's wielding of a sword...unless you make changes to the wizard's BtH progression (or make a different class altogether). Conceptually, though...hell ya!
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

zombiehands · Post by **zombiehands** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:34 pm

I don't like weapon restriction either. Here is a "rule" I have thought of with but never implemented.

Every class does as much damage with a weapon as their hit dice. If they use a "small" weapon they can throw it and use it for an off hand weapon when fighting w 2 weapons it does one less damage (D8 becomes D6). If they use a large weapon it does (one more 1d10 becomes 1d12) but they need 2-hands.

So a fighter with a hand axe does 1d8, with a long sword 1d10 and a great sword 1d12. A wizard similarly armed would do 1d3,1d4,1d6 respectively.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:25 am

This is where importing Weapon Mastery from the Rules Cyclopedia is advantageous.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

vivsavage · Post by **vivsavage** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:45 pm

zombiehands wrote:
I don't like weapon restriction either. Here is a "rule" I have thought of with but never implemented.

Every class does as much damage with a weapon as their hit dice. If they use a "small" weapon they can throw it and use it for an off hand weapon when fighting w 2 weapons it does one less damage (D8 becomes D6). If they use a large weapon it does (one more 1d10 becomes 1d12) but they need 2-hands.

So a fighter with a hand axe does 1d8, with a long sword 1d10 and a great sword 1d12. A wizard similarly armed would do 1d3,1d4,1d6 respectively.

This I like!

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:25 pm

CharlieRock wrote:
This is where importing Weapon Mastery from the Rules Cyclopedia is advantageous.

Migfht be, Charlie.

zombiehands got me thinking about how Star Wars Saga does it, which is basically weapon damage plus half your level. Might be something to think about. *shrug*
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

anonymous · Post by **anonymous** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:52 pm

zombiehands wrote:
I don't like weapon restriction either. Here is a "rule" I have thought of with but never implemented.

Every class does as much damage with a weapon as their hit dice. If they use a "small" weapon they can throw it and use it for an off hand weapon when fighting w 2 weapons it does one less damage (D8 becomes D6). If they use a large weapon it does (one more 1d10 becomes 1d12) but they need 2-hands.

So a fighter with a hand axe does 1d8, with a long sword 1d10 and a great sword 1d12. A wizard similarly armed would do 1d3,1d4,1d6 respectively.

I also like this, but what damage would a Barbarian do with a two handed weapon?

zombiehands · Post by **zombiehands** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:40 pm

I don't actually use the barbarian as written nor have implemented the damage rules in any game (but I am going too soon) But monks will do D8 base damage and barbarians do fighter damage.

Dr. Halflight · Post by **Dr. Halflight** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:27 am

vivsavage wrote:
Problem: class/race combinations are too similar for my tastes. For example, I want a dwarven fighter to be entirely different than an elven fighter. Dwarves should be stiff tanks, while elves should be smooth samurai. I've come up with an idea to address this: get rid of weapon damage (eg, a dagger does 1d4 a sword 1d8, and so forth). Instead, an elf fighter does 1d6 damage with all his melee weapons and gets 3 attacks every two rounds... while a dwarf fighter does 1d10 with melee weapons and gets 1 attack per round. Another idea... Elves fire off arrows at a 3/2 rate and do 1d8 damage, but suffer attack penalties for using armor heavier than a chain shirt.

Thoughts?

I've been using a document designed to support Basic Fantasy RPG for some time, that I think helps diversify the classes well.

I can't post the link, but google Backgrounds and Specialties: A Basic Fantasy Supplement.

BF is inspired by the Molvay & Cook D&D B/X rules.

I've often used Class HD as Weapon Damage for some time & it works well for me.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:39 am

zombiehands wrote:
I don't like weapon restriction either. Here is a "rule" I have thought of with but never implemented.

Every class does as much damage with a weapon as their hit dice. If they use a "small" weapon they can throw it and use it for an off hand weapon when fighting w 2 weapons it does one less damage (D8 becomes D6). If they use a large weapon it does (one more 1d10 becomes 1d12) but they need 2-hands.

So a fighter with a hand axe does 1d8, with a long sword 1d10 and a great sword 1d12. A wizard similarly armed would do 1d3,1d4,1d6 respectively.

This is interesting but I don't think it is going to inspire any changes. (Would a barbarian using a greatsword do d20?) I like the weapon mastery system because at the basic (1st level) skill a lot of weapons are similar, but at higher level you get interesting variations. Even a mace and a warhammer have two different effects for skilled users.

Unfortunately I noticed the Rules Cyclopedia pdf is no longer for sale (used to be just $4 @ Paizo) ...
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Troll Lord Games

Would these house rules cause imbalance?

Would these house rules cause imbalance?

Re: Would these house rules cause imbalance?

Re: Would these house rules cause imbalance?