Hi, welcome to Dungeons and Dragons Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Weapon Proficiencies That Work (3.5e Variant Rule) page.
Author Boxes Edit
I don't know if you're just deleting the author template from the preload or uploading from somewhere else that doesn't use them, but you need to start putting these on your articles. We place substantial importance on original authors here, and to track those we require author boxes on all articles. - TarkisFlux 21:21, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
- sorry about that... it won't happen again.Teh Storm 21:24, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. New wiki, new policies and all that. Thanks for understanding. - TarkisFlux 21:36, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Rather than bog down GWs blog, I brought it here.
A) This stuff rarely happens in the game as well: only a 5% of a critical or fumble. And that is one roll. B) I like randomness. It keeps the game fun. With out fumbles, the more skilled opponent always wins. ALWAYS. Because then Dragons and epic characters will kill each. To win and stay alive a group of four characters could only face creatures one or two levels lower. Games need randomness!
- 5% isn't rare. If you have 10 combatants, you'll like get a critical hit or a critical fumble each turn.
- In a game of numbers (which DnD is) skill boils down to choices in combat, not the stats on your character sheet (those stats reflect character skill, not player skill). Even with critcal fumbles, the more skilled opponent should win. Otherwise, they aren't really more skilled, are they?
- A group of PCs (in a world without critical fumbles) do not have to fight only lower level enemies to win. That's why I brought up the CR 5 monster that's a threat to my level 14 PCs.
- The game is inherently random. Every time a die drops, you're leaving your fate in chance. However, players and DMs have the ability to shift the odds in and out of their own favor. A natural 20 and a natural 1 represent the exceptions to that rule: they aren't random. Any time one comes up, you already know what's going to happen.
Like I said, I like critical fumbles. I just don't like how you approach them, and how (and why) you feel they need to happen. All they should do is add to the excitement of a game. They aren't a balancing mechanism, and any time you have a campaign that depends on a critical fumble to level the field, you've already gone horribly wrong.--Tavis McCricket 21:49, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
- To be honest, I agree with the assessment that 5% isn't rare, but I am personally of the opinion that fumbles are more of a pure frustration than anything else. It's a single roll, sure, but a single roll that screws your balls to the wall. Assuming you drop your weapon, you provoke AoO's to pick it up again, etc. So basically, that one roll can shaft you for at least one turn, if not more, after the initial fumble. I don't fumbles should happen at all at any level; by the standards of laymen even a first level character represents a reasonably skilled combatant. Not someone who should be flinging his sword into his pal's back every encounter. Even if they were permissable at low levels, the idea that a high-level character should fumble more than a low-level one is absolutely ludicrous, so I wouldn't even include fumbles in my game at all, let alone a critical fumble intended to shaft you even more. As Tavis said, they're not supposed to balance a game, and I wouldn't even go as far as to say they add excitement. More like endless irritation that shouldn't be a part of a game that's played for entertainment. - TG Cid 11:49, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
All uploaded images need to have proper licensing information. We can't (unfortunately) just host any image. If you need help with licensing stuff for images, just ask. This is, of course, brought up because of File:Funny-pictures-firefox-has-new-add-on.jpg, which will have to be deleted unless it is licensed properly (and marked as such). --Ganteka Future 05:09, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
I'm back with a new ideaEdit
Sorry about the long silence, though I'm sure there are those who enjoyed it. But I have not returned empty handed, as I have plans for a series of blog posts that will hopefully allow greater insight into how i play. And also i want to bounce a new variant rule: Adding base attack bonus to damage. This is what I have as far as ideas for future effects-
1. much scarier combat with hideous amounts of damage.
2. negates the hit point discrepancy somewhat.
3. greater divide between heavy, light and weak fighters. (possible con as well?)
4. demonstration of skill being as important as weapon choice. ( ex. "fuck your vorpal +3 keen greataxe, noob! I'm level twenty with a regular long sword! whose gonna win?")
1. should this skill damage be increased by critical, and what would the effect of both yes and no as an answer?
2. would this rule necessitate a rewrite of some fighter feats, like weapon specialization?
3. should there be exceptions to weapons, like splash weapons and artillery?
If anyone reads this and has answers or comments, I'm all ears. Thank you.--Teh Storm 07:12, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Effects like that are what classes are made of. Making it as a variant rule means that there are some classes which were balanced before that will get ridiculous now. Regarding this particular rule, the more attacks you get, the more you benefit. --Foxwarrior 07:46, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- So, basically you're telling me that you see pro 3 as a con to the rule?--Teh Storm 07:58, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Winning fights through damage? My what a novel idea. Karuma 08:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I see bonus to the Awakened monster with Moderate BAB but half a dozen natural attacks (or the Rogue, since they've already got Sneak Attacks that do basically the same thing, so they'll certainly have grabbed all the attacks they can get), and basically no benefit at all to the archetypical one-weapon fighters. There is a feat that helps the one-weapon fighters instead of the Rogues, with much the same mechanical change: Power Attack. --Foxwarrior 08:05, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Karuma, I already realize that this is not original idea wise, but I still like it. Fox, I'm just a crazy guy that think if you are a high level character, your damage should increase as well as accuracy. Besides, a 20th level fighter dealing 21-24 damage with nothing on but a regular dagger will more than be a match for even a well armed 15th level rogue.--Teh Storm 08:13, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Still, am I the only one that thinks D&D is way too equipment based as far a s damage is concerned? Oh, and my math was based on fighter with 10 strength facing a a lone rogue using the same variant above, if that causes math adjustments. Though your math still works if the rogue has good Bluff and improved feint.--Teh Storm 08:23, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to do damage without equipment, use a Monk variant or a caster. --Foxwarrior 08:25, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Not so much damage without equipment as letting skill as much as equipment determine damage. Again, going with my example with the fighter and the dagger, yes he is apparently nude with no magic items and a regular dagger, but if he had his way I imagine that he would prefer the pre-mentioned vorpal +3 keen greataxe, if not something better.--Teh Storm 08:30, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Dude, I just got done saying that I DIDN"T want itemless D&D! I just want the combatants skill to be a factor!--Teh Storm 08:40, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Play a martial adept. They don't suck nearly as much. --Ghostwheel 08:41, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Or play a Races of War class. They suck even less, and aren't magical. --Foxwarrior 08:47, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- That works for the rest of you, but not for me or my group. Hard core Core Rules guy. The most I would use are the feats, spells and prestige classes. Still, thanks for the idea. However, no one here has offered options as to the right answer for the questions. This makes me sad. :.( --Teh Storm 08:54, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- If you can't take the classes, but can take the feats, play a Fighter and get Combat Feats. Ghostwheel's suggestion is WotC-approved, so it isn't out of the question unless you meant SRD when you said Core Rules. If that's the case, and you still want to play a fighting guy, be a Druid. --Foxwarrior 08:59, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- If you only play SRD only, therein lies your problem. That system has been screwed for so long due to the inherent disparity between casters and non-casters that it is an insurmountable gap for most players (who can't optimize extensively because the SRD doesn't possess enough options by itself even if they had the smarts to). All those suggestions above incorporate non-SRD material but are much more sensible than sticking purely to SRD, which basically screwed the pooch on everything (who even uses that phrase anymore?).
- If you want a suggestion for dealing more damage, increase the size category of the weapon's damage by 1 per every additional attack he can make with BAB. So a 16th level fighter with a nonmagical dagger deals 2d6 damage (as if his dagger was Gargantuan). That introduces its own set of problems (namely people looking to get their greatsword damage to something like 16d6 per attack) but is really simple and basically does what you're looking for incorporating previously existing SRD rules. And it takes all of twenty seconds to implement. - TG Cid 13:16, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Even that rule brings up some of the questions above, like would a ballista be affected? Or the dungeon crawler special? (the flask of oil molotov, for those who don't remember the DCS)--Teh Storm 17:21, October 4, 2010 (UTC) Oh, and I agree with SRD having become retarded, but I think that only happened after they came up with the Complete (Blank) series. The new base classes are terrible and pointless. The core classes had it covered. Besides, there should be a divide between magic users and the mundane, because blending features from either only cheapens the beauty and brutality of both sides.--Teh Storm 18:12, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- If I could only start with all the things wrong with that last statement... --Ghostwheel 18:16, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? I said I was open to opinion, and it's not like there is precious memory we are using up. Spill.--Teh Storm 18:21, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I'll let someone else beat that dead horse, thanks. --Ghostwheel 18:26, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- So the Hard Core SRD Rules guy wants to *gasp* change the rules to better suit his needs but is adamant about not using a different set of rules? So you're some kind of a hypocrite? Karuma 18:24, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
- No. I have looked over all the variants out there and ended up making my own when they suited the needs of my campaign. D&D is not religion, it is a game, and a living game at that, making it acceptable if you want to pick and choose. All of you do it, and so do I. While some of the SRD rules are great, some make no sense. Example: combat makes more sense if a round is 3 as opposed to 6 seconds.--Teh Storm 18:31, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yet Another IdeaEdit
I would like to start a campaign using the spell point variant in UA, and I would also like there to be a way to recharge SPs. Ethers, they shall be called, and work as the various cure potions upon SP. But the questions remain: should they be alchemical or magical? If magical could any spell be used to make them or a specific Recharge Mana spell? (i do not like the specific spell option...) How rare and how much should they cost? Should they even be in markets?!? I pose these to those who are more rules lawyery than me, for they are more likely to come up with balanced answers.--Teh Storm 21:37, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Mana-Based Spellcasting, I say. The more mana potions you've got, the more overpowered casters will be. Simple as that. --Foxwarrior 21:44, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
- So, as I have inferred to be your response, rare and expensive, at the very least. But that still leaves several others unanswered.--Teh Storm 21:00, October 9, 2010 (UTC)