shonuff wrote:The main flaw that I see in your approach is that it seems to be fairly imbalanced. Axes and bludgeons seem to be greatly improved, the others not so much.
shonuff wrote:Basically, yeah, and especially in such minute quantities as +1. +1, IMO, won't make enough of a difference when a low level character is going to have a +5, and by level 10 could be at +9. Then, there are other classes with attack buffs.
The problem with the bell curve is also one of its strengths -- extremes are much less likely to be rolled. IIRC, someone figured out the a mid-level character would be hitting like 95% of the time, and that by increasing attack by 1 would only increase their percentage by like 1 or 2. In those cases, yeah, raw base damage (and penetrating/piercing damage) would trump attack.
Loswaith wrote:When playing around with weapons I tend to work with the damage unless it gives some decent bonuses on the side.
As an example of what I mean, a sword will be more average damage, an axe higher maximums but lower minimums too, a mace having good reasonable damage but some armour piercing.
Using a typical output for 2d6 the weapons may look something like this;
Mace: 1d6+2 with 2 Armour piercing.
This is some what harder to achieve without multiple dice to get the inherant variance but it give some variation without realy changing that all weapons do about the same amount of damage.
I do agree with Shonuff though for the most part a +1 to attack or the like just wont realy make much of a difference for most players at the higher end, though for lesser NPCs and creatures it may make a difference.
A while back I did something with stunts to allow for some weapon/style variations which could be a way to go too (you may want to go a simpler path than what I did). Here is a link if your curious; Stylised Stunts.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests