| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Neconilis |
Posted - 21 Feb 2014 : 18:36:30
Long story short, I've been working on a houserule for my AD&D 2E game that simulates Power Attack/Deadly Aim. Below is what I've come with. I keep coming back to it and rethinking ideas as I can't decide on whether or not it's good as it stands, so I've decided to bring it here to get some opinions from other DMs. Let me know if you like it, hate it, or fall somewhere in between. Also, if you'd change it how would you? The biggest change I've currently been mulling over is reducing attacks per round by 1 instead of halving them, but I think that opens too wide a door for missile weapons experts/specialists. Anyway, I have no doubt I am overthinking things, so what say you all?
"Before rolling initiative for a round, a character may choose to subtract a number from all melee or ranged attack rolls and add the same number to all commensurate damage rolls. This number may not exceed [(20 – base THAC0) / 1.5] rounded up. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until the character's next turn. Characters halve their available attacks per round when using this ability. Available attacks can not be reduced below 1 per round in this manner and if already lower than 1 they remain unchanged; the additional attack granted by attacking with two weapons is factored in after all other modifiers. For each 4 points (or fraction thereof) subtracted from attack rolls the character's initiative is modified by +1." |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 06 Mar 2014 : 06:27:47
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I apprehensively offer yet another option, found in the 2E stats for Drizzt. He has a (normally rule-breaking) unique and unexplained advantage when using his preferred weaponry: a small % chance to simply slay an opponent outright.
Not unexplained, as he's supposed to be a weaponmaster, it's just that kit mechanics was as bad as PrC mechanics, in different ways... and, if given to PC, half of them would end up this munchkin. 
As to the rules - yeah, it should be comparable to the closest counterpart: Kensai from Oriental Adventures. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Mar 2014 : 23:23:24
Perhaps look to the Berserker kit for comparison. I doubt one can get much more wild and aggressive than that. Note that the bonuses for Berserk aren‘t as spectacular as your preliminary Power Attack rule - they‘re fixed at +1 to-hit and +3 damage.
If you lack PHBR1 Complete Fighter‘s Handbook, then you could easily use the flat +2 to-hit and +2 damage suggested for Berserkers in the Monster Manuals and other places. Again, these numbers are pretty conservative and unexciting.
There‘s also Dwarven Battleragers, which are somewhat like double-crazed Berserkers.
I would almost be inclined to argue that these Power Attack / Deadly Aim bonuses are already factored into the most developed Weapon Specialization/Mastery rules. They might (likely do) abstract the effects of unbelievably refined skill/precision multiplied by sheer power and practiced aggression.
I apprehensively offer yet another option, found in the 2E stats for Drizzt. He has a (normally rule-breaking) unique and unexplained advantage when using his preferred weaponry: a small % chance to simply slay an opponent outright. |
| Neconilis |
Posted - 05 Mar 2014 : 02:23:28
quote:
Originally posted by Cbad285
quote:
Originally posted by Neconilis
Long story short, I've been working on a houserule for my AD&D 2E game that simulates Power Attack/Deadly Aim. Below is what I've come with. I keep coming back to it and rethinking ideas as I can't decide on whether or not it's good as it stands, so I've decided to bring it here to get some opinions from other DMs. Let me know if you like it, hate it, or fall somewhere in between. Also, if you'd change it how would you? The biggest change I've currently been mulling over is reducing attacks per round by 1 instead of halving them, but I think that opens too wide a door for missile weapons experts/specialists. Anyway, I have no doubt I am overthinking things, so what say you all?
"Before rolling initiative for a round, a character may choose to subtract a number from all melee or ranged attack rolls and add the same number to all commensurate damage rolls. This number may not exceed [(20 – base THAC0) / 1.5] rounded up. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until the character's next turn. Characters halve their available attacks per round when using this ability. Available attacks can not be reduced below 1 per round in this manner and if already lower than 1 they remain unchanged; the additional attack granted by attacking with two weapons is factored in after all other modifiers. For each 4 points (or fraction thereof) subtracted from attack rolls the character's initiative is modified by +1."
Alright first off. Why the division by 1.5? I would assume it is to mirror the ability as it exists in 3e, which is sortof a moot point. now your using 3e to explain 2e which is the wrong way around this. secondly, 'may not exceed +20'?!? really, when are you ever going to exceed +20? 'may not exceed +5 or something like that is abit more reality based. even still, 2e is inherently broken considering anything over +10 and if you breach that limit you either accept the ups and downs of the high end stats or you cap them. The bit about attacks not going lower that 1 is also moot. if you have less than 1 attack, you aren't attacking ie you can't use this ability. and if your # of attacks is not able to be divided in half, you can't use this attack, as you've described it. Thirdly, if you grant them an additional attack after they just halved their attacks, and lets say the character has two attack's per round...what was the point in halving their attacks in the first place? What you are essentially describing here is a called shot which already exists and has it's own rules. btw the specialized archer already has a 'aim' ability' if he devotes one round of actions to actually 'aim'. I would suggest using those rules found in the combat guide and just translate it into melee attacks. Also the -4 from attack to +1 to initiative is ****ing lax. That is almost zero cost as a pc. My suggestion is be way more strict.
A possible solution could be this...
You can aim your attack, sacrificing any additional attacks that round. All of your attack bonus's are applied to your inititive roll, making you attack slower. However if the attack is successful you can cause a critical damage roll and then whatever additional rules you have set for crits can be applied...loss of limbs ect ect.
---------- this is my opinion and in no way is meant to be offensive :)
Thanks for the response, definitely appreciate it. Now, to answer your questions, the 1.5 division is easy. Dividing by 1 seemed like too much to me, and dividing by 2 seemed like too little, so for the time being I set it in the middle. There was some math involved in this, but I will in no way pretend that I went through numerous probability calculations, more me putzing around in excel for an hour or so until things didn't seem utterly borked in the scenarios typical for my game. For the attack confusion, I'll attend to my wording as it definitely appears to be easily misconstrued considering. However, the general idea behind the attack reduction was to somewhat alleviate the 3.X scenario of "I power attack all the time for as much as I can because it almost always makes sense to do just that." As to the initiative penalty, I know it matters next to naught in the grand scheme of things, and I more included it to match up in my mind to the typical called shot penalty.
Anyway, for your suggestion, first off what missile weapon "aim" rules are you referencing exactly? The way you describe them I don't believe that I'm familiar with them, though I may simply not be remembering them either. For your actual rule idea, I like it in the sense that it's essentially a you're going last, but if you hit you're going to crit, so consider whether that's worth it to you as a player. Definitely given me food for thought and reminds me of some house rules I had years ago.
Thanks again for the help. |
| Neconilis |
Posted - 05 Mar 2014 : 02:05:07
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Neconilis
Keep it as I wrote it, but make it a 1 WP fighting style? I honestly hadn't considered that, and it also opens up the door of a player modifying it further with additional WP slots spent on the ability.
Build in the image of the existing styles from Complete Fighter or C&T (Two-hander, Weapon-and-Shield...). Call it something like "Wild Swing style", compatibility - Slashing and Bludgeon types only, list weapon groups (I doubt it would do well with knives, while use of two-handed poleaxes kind of already implies a good swing), and so on.
Plain bonuses/penalties would be better than complicated form of THAC0 calculations, though. Using "warrior class level" or "warrior class level +1" - practically it equals attack bonus anyway. And maybe some cap for high levels? E.g. damage bonus up to 1/2 (round up) weapon's max base damage. A more correct version would be to adjust strength for such attacks, but in 2e it's a mess.
First off, thank you for the comments, definitely appreciate them. Also, yes 2E is without a doubt a mess, but in some strange (and perhaps sadistic way) that's why I like it.
Anyway, the ability you suggested instead is almost identical to the rules I made up way back in the day, before 3E was even a thought in the head of myself or my players. As I picked up 2E again and dug through my old stuff I decided to change it because it just didn't seem to work for me anymore, especially as I didn't want to tie this particular ability to a WP/NWP requirement, so I started making things up. Regardless, some thoughts to take back to my brainstorming, so thanks again. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 23 Feb 2014 : 12:46:44
quote:
Originally posted by Neconilis
Keep it as I wrote it, but make it a 1 WP fighting style? I honestly hadn't considered that, and it also opens up the door of a player modifying it further with additional WP slots spent on the ability.
Build in the image of the existing styles from Complete Fighter or C&T (Two-hander, Weapon-and-Shield...). Call it something like "Wild Swing style", compatibility - Slashing and Bludgeon types only, list weapon groups (I doubt it would do well with knives, while use of two-handed poleaxes kind of already implies a good swing), and so on.
Plain bonuses/penalties would be better than complicated form of THAC0 calculations, though. Using "warrior class level" or "warrior class level +1" - practically it equals attack bonus anyway. And maybe some cap for high levels? E.g. damage bonus up to 1/2 (round up) weapon's max base damage. A more correct version would be to adjust strength for such attacks, but in 2e it's a mess. |
| Cbad285 |
Posted - 23 Feb 2014 : 08:13:09
quote:
Originally posted by Neconilis
Long story short, I've been working on a houserule for my AD&D 2E game that simulates Power Attack/Deadly Aim. Below is what I've come with. I keep coming back to it and rethinking ideas as I can't decide on whether or not it's good as it stands, so I've decided to bring it here to get some opinions from other DMs. Let me know if you like it, hate it, or fall somewhere in between. Also, if you'd change it how would you? The biggest change I've currently been mulling over is reducing attacks per round by 1 instead of halving them, but I think that opens too wide a door for missile weapons experts/specialists. Anyway, I have no doubt I am overthinking things, so what say you all?
"Before rolling initiative for a round, a character may choose to subtract a number from all melee or ranged attack rolls and add the same number to all commensurate damage rolls. This number may not exceed [(20 – base THAC0) / 1.5] rounded up. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until the character's next turn. Characters halve their available attacks per round when using this ability. Available attacks can not be reduced below 1 per round in this manner and if already lower than 1 they remain unchanged; the additional attack granted by attacking with two weapons is factored in after all other modifiers. For each 4 points (or fraction thereof) subtracted from attack rolls the character's initiative is modified by +1."
Alright first off. Why the division by 1.5? I would assume it is to mirror the ability as it exists in 3e, which is sortof a moot point. now your using 3e to explain 2e which is the wrong way around this. secondly, 'may not exceed +20'?!? really, when are you ever going to exceed +20? 'may not exceed +5 or something like that is abit more reality based. even still, 2e is inherently broken considering anything over +10 and if you breach that limit you either accept the ups and downs of the high end stats or you cap them. The bit about attacks not going lower that 1 is also moot. if you have less than 1 attack, you aren't attacking ie you can't use this ability. and if your # of attacks is not able to be divided in half, you can't use this attack, as you've described it. Thirdly, if you grant them an additional attack after they just halved their attacks, and lets say the character has two attack's per round...what was the point in halving their attacks in the first place? What you are essentially describing here is a called shot which already exists and has it's own rules. btw the specialized archer already has a 'aim' ability' if he devotes one round of actions to actually 'aim'. I would suggest using those rules found in the combat guide and just translate it into melee attacks. Also the -4 from attack to +1 to initiative is ****ing lax. That is almost zero cost as a pc. My suggestion is be way more strict.
A possible solution could be this...
You can aim your attack, sacrificing any additional attacks that round. All of your attack bonus's are applied to your inititive roll, making you attack slower. However if the attack is successful you can cause a critical damage roll and then whatever additional rules you have set for crits can be applied...loss of limbs ect ect.
---------- this is my opinion and in no way is meant to be offensive :) |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 22 Feb 2014 : 21:33:31
I'll PM it to you and thanks. |
| Neconilis |
Posted - 22 Feb 2014 : 16:03:00
I'd be happy to share my house rules .doc with you. I recently started running 2E again about a year ago and I've been loving it ever since. I know a lot of that reason is certainly nostalgia, but it's definitely been more than that, not the least of which being modifying the rules and such.
But yes, if you can give me an email address I'd be happy to send the file your way. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 22 Feb 2014 : 01:24:38
Neconilil, I'd be interested to see what else you've done in modifying 3e rules for 2e. I'm currently working on returning to 2e play myself. |
| Neconilis |
Posted - 22 Feb 2014 : 01:02:07
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Just make it a style and allow as WP.
Keep it as I wrote it, but make it a 1 WP fighting style? I honestly hadn't considered that, and it also opens up the door of a player modifying it further with additional WP slots spent on the ability. That's something to consider; thank you for your input. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 22 Feb 2014 : 00:48:21
Just make it a style and allow as WP. |
|
|
