D&D Equipment [Rebalancing 3.5]

[Risada]

Agreed. I'm just pointing out what we don't want to wind up creating. My only problem with WF here...

An elf with a rapier vs. longsword.

1d6+1+stuff, vs. 1d8+stuff.

2-7 is a bit better than 1-8.

I may be crazy (possibly 'cause I'm quite drunk right now), but in the Rapier damage I see 1 and stuff.... does that 1 refers to Strength? If so Elennsar, you're thinking Shadow Blade there, when Robby's WF REPLACES Str in weapon dmg...

[RobbyPants]

I may be crazy (possibly 'cause I'm quite drunk right now), but in the Rapier damage I see 1 and stuff.... does that 1 refers to Strength? If so Elennsar, you're thinking Shadow Blade there, when Robby's WF REPLACES Str in weapon dmg...

I think he's comparing an elf with a rapier to a non-elf with a longsword.  The idea would be that the elf gets +2 Dex, and if the elf had the same natural Dex roll as the non-elve's Str roll, then he'd be one point ahead.  At least, I think that's what he meant.

Although, that +2 Dex comes at a cost: -2 Con.  All of these things thrown into the mix complicate things.

[Elennsar]

No, I'm comparing elf to elf.

Take my elf in AC's/Sinister's campaign.

Dexterity 16, Strength 15.

Rapier: 1d6+3+other modifiers
Longsword: 1d8+2+other modifiers.

4-9 vs. 3-10.

It makes "I use a rapier!" a touch more tempting for elves than "I use a longsword!" despite the fact they're supposed good at both. This might not be a good thing.

[RobbyPants]

Yeah, I guess elf to elf works to.  The point is the Dex is two higher than the Str, which is where that +1 comes from damage.

[Elennsar]

Right. Since Elves get a +2 to Dex as a racial bonus and no bonus to Strength, most elves will look like that.

It's not a huge issue. I'm just making sure we don't overlook it so that we know its there (and can determine its not at all important if so, can fix it if it is).

[SiggyDevil]

Robby, to answer your question if WFin would replace STR completely for hit and damage, I do have a proposal.
I'll refer STR-based weapons as Brute and DEX-based as Deft.

Brute: full hit and damage bonus from STR, half each from DEX (and CON)
Deft: full hit and damage bonus from DEX, half each from STR (and INT or CHA)

CON and CHA could come in to the concept somewhere, possibly as another "half bonus" for Brute weapons, just as INT could apply as a lesser bonus for Deft weapons.
Many builds do stat-shifting with examples listed in the "X stat to Y bonus" compendium on the WOTC forums; INT and CHA are frequent replacements for weapon attack and damages, with CON being for damage bonuses in special cases (and also in 4e for certain melee weapons).
WIS doesn't tend to be an offensive stat but just like CON there could always be applications for it somewhere. Ranged attacks, for instance, thanks to Zen Archery.

Of course you should be able to kill a demon with a well honed thrust.  You should be able to kill a demon with your fists or a dagger or a chair or your ruggedly handsome good looks.  Restrictions in this regard are pretty dickish, since the guy who's always wanted to roleplay Inigo will be severely nerfed if he cant kill stuff because his weapon is a rapier.

Remember- game.  Meant to be fun.  Personally, the severe lack of dragons in real history makes me less inclined to learn about it, so lets shelve realism before it rears its ugly head again.

Completely agreed.
Also as joked on /tg/, a succubus should also be able to, say, wink luxuriously at an army and the foes are gashed brutally from the force of a charismatic character's charms.
Many years ago, back in the stilted role restriction days of AD&D, I witnessed an attack in Final Fantasy Tactics that caused damage by reciting boring lectures.
It blew my RPG-ruminating mind.
The magelike character held a book item (equipped) in hand, moved their mouth a bit, then shut the book. The target a few spaces away then recoils suddenly in pain as they take physical damage.

[Elennsar]

One thing that is a proposal that may or may not be any good, tweaked from the A Game of Thrones d20 game.

A character may take the following feats

Bravado (Charisma)
Brute (Strength)
Canny (Wisdom)
Finesse (Dexterity)
Tactics (Intelligence)

When taken, you add the modifier in question to attack rolls (normally, in AGoT, you don't add any modifier from ability scores, for the record) or AC. You may select it twice to add it to both AC and attack rolls.
Dexterity adds to AC normally.

The original form of the feat only applies to one weapon, but that seems excessive.

[SiggyDevil]

Hm. That might be even better, but IMO ideally there should be no cost of a feat to most players.

The stat availability should be ingrained in to the weapons themselves.

[Elennsar]

Not at all. Your idea includes damage being dealt by the attribute picked. This is merely attack or AC.

Don't bash yourself for the fact your idea isn't as unique as you thought.

[JaronK]

My one worry about the free finesse thing is that while it makes sense, Dexterity is already a REALLY useful combat stat.  AC, Reflex Saves, and Initiative are all important.  Strength is only to hit and damage.  If Dex is also to hit, and one feat makes it damage as well, it's too obvious of a choice unless you're power attacking.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

One thing that has to be done with Strength.

Encumbrance -has- to count for something, or even with Power Attack, half of the benefit of Strength dies.

Yes, I realize this is partially about Dming and not rules, but it kind of has to be pointed out. Ignoring it smacks "I am strong" and makes weaklings able to tote anything they can BS.

[JaronK]

Encumbrace is already an issue, if you've ever tried playing a low level Halfling Rogue.  It REALLY comes up until you can get a Haversack, and even then it's an issue.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

It's an issue that does need to be pointed out firmly to players, not casually ignored, however.

If you've had DMs actually check the weight of the things you're carrying, then good. It should be encouraged for other DMs to do the same.

As stated, Strength if just as "I can hit better and I can do more damage" is simply not potent enough. If encumbrance is a big deal, it might be alright.

Not precisely equipment related, other than that if it is treated seriously, all things need to be at the correct weight or what it would be if they existed (there is no alchemist's stone of transforming lead to gold in real life, but there may be one in the game.)

[SiggyDevil]

Not at all. Your idea includes damage being dealt by the attribute picked. This is merely attack or AC.

Don't bash yourself for the fact your idea isn't as unique as you thought.

Haha, all right I'll stop that.
It really is a concern of mine though. Originality, even if one has never heard of an older and more successful identical concept, is a rare commodity.

Regardless, providing versatile option for assigning custom stats to both attacks and defenses should be available, but never stacked.
It should remain an option for removing undesirable stat referencing (when a mechanic points to an ability score, but the score is lacking such as a 'dump stat') for minor costs such as a feat or two.
... but not a means to send the combat bonuses skyrocketing.

[Elennsar]

Quite. Bonuses may be high or low compared to Normal Humans and who gives a *bleep*, but two 15th level characters should have roughly equal bonuses.

+25 vs. +30 (in some circumstances), fine. +25 vs. +40 (most of the time), not so fine.

[SiggyDevil]

Also, on the issue of encumbrance those magic items such as the Handy Haversack and Bag of Holding could actually just say "Character ignores all encumbrance" and nothing would be different.

Fucking cheap magic. Ruins everything.

[JaronK]

Not really.  As someone who's played a number of Halfling Rogues, I assure you that's not the case.  Just try putting a 10 into strength (thus ending up with 8 ) and trying to carry a Haversack, a weapon (Rapier, usually), and armor.  You're now at your limit, just about.  Now add in clothing (you DO count that, right?  You should!) and a few magic items.  Bam, over the limit.

It's REALLY annoying.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

Quite. Cheap magic like that ruins a great deal, some of which is a lot cooler than encumbrance.

What's the point of having a ranger who can survive (food, shelter, water) in the harshest environments when 0 level spells handle two of those three needs?

Strength 10 becoming 8 (I presume the smiley is meant to be an eight?) with the fact that halfling gear is half the weight of human sized gear and it really isn't quite that heinous.

Note: No, I haven't played a halfling (or gnome). I do know that "all gear is half weight" is a nice advantage compared to "-2 to Strength", unless your strength really sucks.

[JaronK]

Strength 10 becoming 8 (I presume the smiley is meant to be an eight?) with the fact that halfling gear is half the weight of human sized gear and it really isn't quite that heinous.

Note: No, I haven't played a halfling (or gnome). I do know that "all gear is half weight" is a nice advantage compared to "-2 to Strength", unless your strength really sucks.

Once again, you're making assumptions based on the fact that you haven't actually tried it.  Note that Halflings, as small creatures, have 3/4 carrying capacity.  Try building one with strength 8, make it a rogue, and gear it appropriately.  Even with the Haversack there's issues.  Heck, I tend to get mules for my rogues for this reason.  They have to disguise as peasants.

And yes, that was supposed to be an 8, and has been fixed.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

3/4 carrying capacity, -2 Strength, and half weight for gear.

Strength 8 (small): 3/4ths of 26, or 19.5.

Strength 10 (medium): 4/4ths of 33, or 33.

However, my gear weighs twice as much as yours.

So you have a slight advantage...effectively Strength 11.


Note: For treasure, which is generally medium sized, yes, you do have a disadvantage. But "weight of gear" is in your favor, which is the sole "Smaller has an advantage" point I intend to make in regards to encumbrance.