Warrior Bonus Adds?

[Toad-Killer-Dog]

Well Machfront and Ragnorakk got me thinking of the different ways of doing a Warriors Adds bonus instead of / with the armor bonus.

I've been thinking of giving Warriors a +1 Add per level bonus on top of the armor doubling.

A nice little bit of help for Warriors at higher levels.

My question is how do you handle Warrior bonus Adds?

[Aramis of Erak]

In 5.5, just double armor.

However, I've long considered allowing burning armor adds for -1AV=-Level hits, in place of the doubling, and giving +Level to personal adds.

[zanshin]

I don't give them the armour bonus but instead give them an extra combat dice per level and treat them as having a bonus talent dice for all combat stunts.

I like buckets of dice and combat stunts, I am less keen on the armour stalemate.

[sligo]

In addition to the doubled armor, my warriors get to add their level to their combat adds.

[gaptooth]

Mar 18, 2011 7:58:02 GMT -5 sligo said:

In addition to the doubled armor, my warriors get to add their level to their combat adds.

By my reading, this is the standard for 7.5th edition warriors:

Simply put, the Warrior gets to increase his combat adds by his character level.

[Warrior Bonus, p13]

All Warriors gain twice the usual protection from any armor and shields worn.

[Armor Bonus, p14]

That's the way I play it too.

[Toad-Killer-Dog]

Hah, once again 7th has gone their before me.

I should have remembered that. ( of course there is every chance that I did read it and just THOUGHT I came up with the idea myself )

[gaptooth]

I was wary about the 7th edition before I picked it up, but I've very glad I did. I like it a lot.

[Hogscape]

In 6E I gave warriors +1 add per level so at level 1 the got +1 at level 2 they got +2 (total +3) and so on.

[machfront]

I've admittedly waffled on this quite a bit.
I don't like armor doubling (or burning) by itself, but I've never settled on whether I'm okay with it as long as there are warrior bonus adds, or if I prefer warrior bonus adds in addition to an armor bonus (rather than doubling).

Who knows? I may just have a Warrior Bonus that is both the armor bonus and adds bonus and allow the players to allocate whatever portion to armor or adds as they see fit. Sometimes a more all-out attack and sometimes more defensive.

But I've still never reconciled how, outside of missiles, having ten points to stave off a total amount dished out on you is any different than having ten points on the 'front end' to keep that from happening in the first place.

EDIT: Ragnorakk, this also serves as my response to you in the other thread, so we don't continue the thread jack.

[order99]

I've always used the 'Warrior adds Current Lvl to Personal Adds' approach, and allowed Berserking, Burning Armor(and Equipment)...between those and some creative SRs, all the Warriors in my games seem to do well enough without the Armor Doubling of 5th Edition.

Keep in mind that we play a modified 4th Edition however, and i've noticed that Berserking works to greater effect when all Weapon Damages are 1D lower-it results in slightly more matching numbers...

[Hogscape]

Order99, many of the weapons doubled in the transition to 5E, they didn't just gain an extra die.

I'm going back to basics with my 4E, taking out a few of the more outlandish changes (of mine) and making a few others optional.

[Toad-Killer-Dog]

I've often wondered about the dice inflation from 4th to 5th edition.

My only guess is that by increasing the number of dice they were able to have a wider variety of statistic combinations for weapons.

Maybe they thought almost all swords doing similar damage felt to generic?

Of course I've always kind of liked the way the original Warhammer FRP had one stat for one-handed weapons and another for two-handed weapons.

To be fair certain weapons did have modifiers ( knives & daggers had a small damage penalty and other weapons like spears, polearms and bolos had special rules ), but it certainly kept the which weapon is better debates to a minimum. ;D

[machfront]

Mar 20, 2011 3:11:16 GMT -5 Hogscape said:

Order99, many of the weapons doubled in the transition to 5E, they didn't just gain an extra die.

Well, you're both sorta right.
Some weapons gained 1 die and 1 add. Some, far more.
The broadsword went from 2+3 to 3+4. The gladius from 2 to 3+2. The great axe from 4+3 to 5+3. Longbows are difficult to compare because the longbow was just..well...the "longbow". In 5th, it was a class of weapons. But even the weakest longbow in 5th is 4+3, as opposed to the single longbow of 1st-4th ed. being 2+3.

Now, if you're talking about the generic list in 1st-4th vs. the full list in 5th, then there's a wider span of difference.

Mar 20, 2011 4:47:33 GMT -5 Toad-Killer-Dog said:

Of course I've always kind of liked the way the original Warhammer FRP had one stat for one-handed weapons and another for two-handed weapons.

The first time I read that, my classic D&D/AD&D-bred mind said: "Whhaa?!?", but I've come around to it. Even as recently as a couple of years ago, when I learned that all weapons did 1d6 damage in Original D&D I was taken aback. Now, I've really come around to it. I really like the idea that, mechanically, as in reality, a dagger is every bit as lethal as a pole arm.

I don't know that I'd go as far as having every weapon in T&T do, say, 2 dice of damage, but were I to start fresh right now, I'd probably write up a generic weapon chart on the order of: sword, dagger, axe, etc. as is similar to the 'default' in 1st-4th ed.

[mahrundl]

Mar 19, 2011 17:13:29 GMT -5 machfront said:

But I've still never reconciled how, outside of missiles, having ten points to stave off a total amount dished out on you is any different than having ten points on the 'front end' to keep that from happening in the first place.

In close combat, mach, it makes little or no difference. Any time that you're not generating a hit point total though (e.g. when that boulder just fell on your head), your skill with a blade isn't going to be nearly as helpful as a layer of steel / quilting / leather / French lace.

[Hogscape]

Mar 20, 2011 4:47:33 GMT -5 Toad-Killer-Dog said:

I've often wondered about the dice inflation from 4th to 5th edition.

My only guess is that by increasing the number of dice they were able to have a wider variety of statistic combinations for weapons.

Maybe they thought almost all swords doing similar damage felt to generic?

Of course I've always kind of liked the way the original Warhammer FRP had one stat for one-handed weapons and another for two-handed weapons.

To be fair certain weapons did have modifiers ( knives & daggers had a small damage penalty and other weapons like spears, polearms and bolos had special rules ), but it certainly kept the which weapon is better debates to a minimum. ;D

My understanding (and I'm usually wrong) is that everything got bumped up to account for unarmed fighters using one die. Crazy.

Inflation is my bugbear. The more dice you roll the more likely you are to get an 'average' result and get deadlocked. Don't even get me started on armour values.... Don't like it sir.