tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130042139488470994.post1858702298392804595..comments2023-03-20T14:48:04.850-07:00Comments on Dagda's Workroom: d20 System: Weapon Speed VariantDagda (Brooks Harrel)http://www.blogger.com/profile/12719198062375441018noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130042139488470994.post-85366545758047056322008-12-23T17:03:00.000-08:002008-12-23T17:03:00.000-08:00Now the greatsword's a dumb choice. And wizards at...Now the greatsword's a dumb choice. And wizards at best are a bit underpowered - sorcerers go to town with heavy crossbows (almost as good as anything else), longspears (better than most everything else), and at least 4 color sprays/day if need be. That's actually rather awesome. Clerics are so slightly worse at fighting that 2 cure light wounds rank as a huge boon, and druids rock your face from 1 to 20 (and 1 might be the only level where they actually are horrendously overpowered compared to the other full spellcasters, not to mention the classes contained in merely one of its class features).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I get that warrior-spellcaster balance isn't the goal here, but I'd say anything done for any reason that weakens warriors' unacceptable, and that there's still no-brainer choices. A.k.a. light weapons if you have large miscellaneous damage bonuses (which, at high levels' true even for non-rogues, as long as the character cares about weapon use at all), and not using a two-handed weapon in any case other than heavy opportunity attack specialization.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130042139488470994.post-70321650392559315972008-12-22T16:24:00.000-08:002008-12-22T16:24:00.000-08:00The goal of this house rule's to make weapon choic...The goal of this house rule's to make weapon choice more interesting by making more of the options actually viable- it's fine for the dagger is supposed to be weaker than the greatsword, but I don't want a longsword to automatically be a dumb choice.<BR/><BR/>Balancing the warrior against other classes is beyond its scope. And I think that requiring a full attack to use a greatsword at low levels is perfectly fine- you're giving up mobility for a damage increase, it's a balanced tradeoff where you used to have one option directly beating out the other. And this coming up at low levels actually diminishes the problem in my eyes- remember how weak 3.X's casters are at that point?Dagda (Brooks Harrel)https://www.blogger.com/profile/12719198062375441018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9130042139488470994.post-38391466496914754742008-12-21T11:28:00.000-08:002008-12-21T11:28:00.000-08:00First, the small weapons' extra attack. Essent...First, the small weapons' extra attack. Essentially, what you lose by using a smaller weapon's a pittance in damage (basically; I know there's other details), while the extra attack, at high levels, adds lots of damage in, so small weapons > large weapons, which I guess isn't exactly desirable. With one exception: since dual-wielding sucks and is exactly the thing the best weapons don't do, using this might help make non-rogue dual-wielding balanced. But how things turn out for the guy with one dagger vs. one greatsword ...<BR/><BR/>The further nerf to large weaponry: maybe it'd help balance two-handed weapons vs. 2 weapons, but in that case you might not need the boost above. But there are 2 fairly large problems IMO: a) balancing two-handed weapons down hits problems with how warriors in general already are lacking and how non-optimized warriors already can hit problems with high-hp monsters; and b) not being able to move and attack (even with it being only at low levels - though one could say "those are the levels most people actually play at") sucks - one of the big things about Tome of Battle was there being decent things for high-level characters to do after moving, you shouldn't want that to be reversed at low levels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com