Potential Rule Changes

[Dead Greyhawk]

Here's some potential rule changes to consider.

1. I'd like to change the damage on a light crossbow to that of a heavy crossbow and that of a heavy crossbow to 1d10/1d8.

2. I'd like to give halflings +3 to hit with sling and short bow as in the Monster Manual.

3. I'd like to change the movement rates on demihumans to match those in the Monster Manual. This would reduce the movement rate of short races.

4. What do you think of using the weapon vs. AC charts against armor-clad opponents?

5. What do you think of going to individual initiative, modified by DEX, and reinstating casting times?

6. What do you think of going to standard initiative (a la the DMG) and reinstating casting times?

7. What do you think of using the space required to wield rules from the PHB?

[venger]

Jun 26, 2008 21:09:11 GMT -5 Dead Greyhawk said:

Here's some potential rule changes to consider.

1. I'd like to change the damage on a light crossbow to that of a heavy crossbow and that of a heavy crossbow to 1d10/1d8.

Yay! Any other improvements to crossbows would be welcome. Do the weapon vs. armor rules make them more worthwhile?

Bow specialization makes crossbows seem useless. 3/1 compared to 3/2 attacks... I know crossbows are slow, but maybe they could be 3/2 to at 1st level and 2/1 at 7th.

Jun 26, 2008 21:09:11 GMT -5 Dead Greyhawk said:

4. What do you think of using the weapon vs. AC charts against armor-clad opponents?

As long as it isn't really confusing and doesn't bog down combat it sounds good to me. The chart is intimidating.

As it stands now there's no reason to pick any but the most damaging weapon that can be double-specialized in. Bastard sword or longsword. It would be nice if there was a reason besides being a cleric to use a hammer or a mace.

Also more consideration might be taken in armor selection.

Jun 26, 2008 21:09:11 GMT -5 Dead Greyhawk said:

5. What do you think of going to individual initiative, modified by DEX, and reinstating casting times?

If we change initiative this sounds like a better option than 6. Initiative right now is fun though. I like the "critical initiative."

Jun 26, 2008 21:09:11 GMT -5 Dead Greyhawk said:

6. What do you think of going to standard initiative (a la the DMG) and reinstating casting times?

See above.

Jun 26, 2008 21:09:11 GMT -5 Dead Greyhawk said:

7. What do you think of using the space required to wield rules from the PHB?

I like those rules. They make sense. Always carry a dagger.

[Ginger]

They sound ok to me, except for the combat based ones, which I'm up in the air about. I think individual initiative could be a lot of fun. I presume we would roll each round, and not just at the beginning of combat?

As to the Weapon vs armor table, I'm not sure what I think. It would greatly mitigate the penalty to multi- and dual-class fighters who cannot specialize. (It was my recollection that dual classed fighters cannot specialize, is that right?) It would also help ranged weapon specialists, since they could have several weapons to chose from when the bad guys close. Supposedly it really helps monks, but I doubt anyone is planning to play a monk.
I think I'd have to look more closely at the table to figure it out.

[Dell]

1. A good change that I think would be bad for the party.

2. I still wouldn't play one.

3. Fine with me.

4. Again, I worry that this hurts the party more than it helps. Also, I'm in general opposed to the golf bag of weapons that this encourages.

5. Is this the D10 2nd edition method? I'm fine with that.

6. This too.

7. And also this.

[Ginger]

Jun 27, 2008 10:10:54 GMT -5 Dell said:

4. Again, I worry that this hurts the party more than it helps. Also, I'm in general opposed to the golf bag of weapons that this encourages.

I think I agree. It's hard to see us actually carrying around multiple weapons. Encumbrance is always an issue, especially for low level characters who can't use magical tricks to lighten the load. I think that, in practice, you just end up with a character having a preferred weapon he/she always uses and a seemingly random bonus/penalty to hit against creatures based on their armor. I'm sure someone could come up with a table showing what kind of penalty makes the specialization bonuses less advantageous. I think you're probably better off with the +1/+2 (in addition to the extra attacks) from specialization until the weapon vs. AC modifier is greater than -3. Once that jumps to +3/+3, I can't imagine ever switching weapons.

Of course, I still hope there's some good way to mitigate the fact that swords of various types are the superior choice in almost any circumstance.

[Mr. Trommer]

I would prefer individual initiative rolls. It will change spell casting a lot since higher level spells will go off later than before. I have played with this rule before in second edition. Knowing where everyone is starting from there individual intiatives alows spell casters to think about what level spell can fit in the combat without toasting to many allies.

Standard initiative would generally mean that fighters would rush into combat before spell casters could get off their area effect spells. The individual intiative with DEX adjustment allows for the spell casters to have that opportunity.

I've never played with the weapon-armor adjustment rules so I don't know how it would affect the speed on gameplay. I would be willing to give a try.

All the other suggestions are fine by me.

[venger]

HP and Death
Characters who go from positive to negative hit points through a single attack have zero hit points at the end of the attack, and are unconscious.

I know we were just TPK'd, so maybe it's not necessary, but any thoughts on modifying the above rule?

I'd be for a more lethal campaign, with a higher mortality rate.

Fewer survivors, fewer treasure splits, more glory.

And of course I'm fine with what we have now if everyone else is.

[Dead Greyhawk]

I'd also like to make battle axe a 1-handed weapon.

[venger]

I thought about it some more and the DMG Initiative was fun.

Combat was much more interesting.

I liked how if you were quicker you could kill an opponent before they had a chance to strike back. High dexterity really pays off.

And how multiple attacks occured over different segments. It made the combat round seem like everything was all happening at the same time.

Having to spend the round closing to melee or charging without a dexterity bonus gives a fighter more tactical options. Considing the reach or weapon speed of an opponent.

Setting for charge makes sense.

Declaring your actions and then waiting for your segment will take getting used to, but overall I enjoyed this combat more than the old system.

[Dell]

I had a question about the retrieval of items in combat. How long does it take to draw a weapon, retrieve a potion, scroll, or dig an item from your backpack?

I think it should be free to draw something from your belt and use it, and 5 segments to get something from your back or backpack.

[Ginger]

I really liked the initiative changes as well. I think it will add a lot of new dimensions to combat. I always thought that we defended and set for charge less frequently than we should have, and this will really make those defensive options very useful.