The Attack Skill

[brian c]

This is a spinoff of the thread " Proficiencies as a skill?"

The idea here is to introduce two new skill families, similar to Craft, Profession, Knowledge etc.

Attack(melee) and Attack(ranged). Each weapon has to be taken separately. Attack(melee) is keyed by Str, Attack(ranged) by Dex.

Attack is a class skill for all classes, but instead of having max ranks of level+3, it has max ranks = character level. If the weapon is exotic, then it counts as a cross-class skill for all classes (but see below for Exotic Weapon Proficiency).

Base Attack Bonus is gone; your skill ranks in Attack(weapon) are added to your attack roll with that weapon, just like any other skill check. To compensate for this new, important skill, classes get more skill points. For classes with full BAB progression (IE "as Fighter"), add +4 skill points per level. For classes with 3/4 BAB progression (ie "as Cleric"), add +2 skill points per level. For classes with 1/2 BAB progression (ie "as Wizard"), add +4 skill points at first level only, none after that.

Proficiencies:
When using a simple weapon "untrained", there is no penalty. No ranks means no bonus added to attack rolls.

When using a martial or exotic weapon untrained, there is a -4 penalty.

Feat-
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Prerequisite: none
Benefit: For the chosen exotic weapon, Attack is now a class skill. Ranks in Attack cost one skill point per rank, and the limit of ranks is equal to class levels.
Special: You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon. Proficiency with the bastard sword or the dwarven waraxe has an additional prerequisite of Str 13.

A fighter may select Exotic Weapon Proficiency as one of his fighter bonus feats.


Racial proficiencies/familiarity: For races such as Elf which grant proficiency in specific martial weapons, treat those weapons as class skills, but no ranks are given. For Racial weapon familiarity, such as dwarves with Dwarven Waraxes, the effect is as normal: the weapon is martial instead of exotic.

Other notes:

Attack(weapon) is not an allowable choice for Skill Focus, or for any other feat or ability that affects skills. Weapon Focus is still applicable. For all purposes, attacks are still attack rolls and not skill checks, and are thus not suitable targets for skill mastery or other abilities. Any feat, Prestige Class or anything else with a prerequisite of Base Attack Bonus is replaced by a prerequisite of that many ranks in any Attack skill. Attack(grapple) is a simple weapon skill; Attack(touch) is a melee skill for dexterity. Weapon Finesse changes Attack(melee) from a Str skill to a Dex skill.


If there's any glaring difficulties with this, please let me know.

[Baron Corm]

What is the point of this? Everyone will take at least one weapon (a 1/2 or 3/4 class might not even), and the extra skill points you give them will probably be used for something else. So, what does this accomplish?

Edit: Goddang I need to start paying more attention before I post. I just noticed that with this setup, 3/4 and 1/2 classes can get an attack bonus equal to their char level, just as 1/1 classes. Might want to limit that.

[brian c]

Goddang I need to start paying more attention before I post. I just noticed that with this setup, 3/4 and 1/2 classes can get an attack bonus equal to their char level, just as 1/1 classes. Might want to limit that.

I tried to set it up so a full BAB character can get attack bonus = char level for at least one weapon, and probably learn enough about other weapons to either have a solid second choice, or a ranged backup, or TWF, or just spread them out in case he loses his preferred weapon. For 1/2 BAB classes, they're going to suck at attacking, basically. So no change there.

One thing I hadn't considered was how this would affect CoDzilla; clerics because of spells like Divine Power changing BAB, and druids because of how it would affect monsters and natural attacks in general. Divine Power is overpowered anyway, so I don't care about that. I'd say that natural weapons count as simple (no untrained/non-proficiency penalty) and you can buy ranks in them as normal.

Also, iterative attacks: work the same way, but using your ranks in the attack, separately for each weapon. If a 20th level fighter has 20 ranks in Attack(Longsword), he gets 4 attacks at +20/+15/+10/+5. If the same fighter has 2 ranks in Attack (Morning Star) he only gets one attack.

Also also, the martial/exotic combo weapons like Bastard Sword. Using a Bastard Sword two-handed is always martial. Using it one-handed, you only get half your attack ranks, unless you have EWP in it.

[Kenbert]

I like it! But I have an issue similar to what flyingpoo22 brought up. There are definitely ways to just max out one weapon (so they get BAB equal to their character level) and use the extra skill points elsewhere. It isn't really a problem, just something you might want to consider. it implies much more versatility in character creation which, though I personally like, some have issues with.

[TheGrimace]

skill focus...

I think you need to add another clause to this...

I said it with love.

edit: now, let me quote flying poo

"Goddang I need to start paying more attention before I post. I just noticed that" the clause I mentioned has already been added.

*walks away with his tail between his legs*

[Nebo_]

Any feat, Prestige Class or anything else with a prerequisite of Base Attack Bonus is replaced by a prerequisite of that many ranks in any Attack skill.

That's three levels earlier.

I'd get myself a nice masterwork attack tool for 50gp, then I'd see a wizard about making me an item that boosts the attack skill. 2500gp for +5 to attack? Yes, Please!

[brian c]

That's three levels earlier.

I'd get myself a nice masterwork attack tool for 50gp, then I'd see a wizard about making me an item that boosts the attack skill. 2500gp for +5 to attack? Yes, Please!

Either people can't read today, or my style of writing is hard to decipher.


Attack is a class skill for all classes, but instead of having max ranks of level+3, it has max ranks = character level.

Also, though I didn't say it explicitly, no "skill boosting" items. It's still an attack roll.




I like it! But I have an issue similar to what flyingpoo22 brought up. There are definitely ways to just max out one weapon (so they get BAB equal to their character level) and use the extra skill points elsewhere. It isn't really a problem, just something you might want to consider. it implies much more versatility in character creation which, though I personally like, some have issues with.

Well, let's see. Full BAB get +4 skill points, that's the Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin in core. The only one of those that can be a halfway skilled character is Ranger. Even if you max out only one weapon, you generally get those +3 skill points for a class that doesn't have many to begin with, except of course Ranger; but rangers are either TWF or archery, so either way they're more likely to max two weapons (ranged +backup melee, or two melees). 3/4 BAB classes (in core) are Cleric, Druid, Monk, Bard, Rogue. Monks don't get many skills to begin with, but they can use the extra two to max out their unarmed attack bonus and their grapple, making them more competent with both. Rogues get an extra skill point if they max only one weapon, they have lots already so it doesn't matter. Cleric and Druid are unlikely to do much with skills either. Bard can be a skill monkey, so possibly an issue. For 1/2 BAB, only Wizard and Sorcerer. They get nothing and like it.

Bottom line, I just grouped them by BAB to make it easier. For a fairer system, how about the following

+4 skillpoints: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk
+2 skillpoints: Rogue, Ranger, Cleric, Druid*
+0 skillpoints: Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer

*Druid could be at +0 also

[Nebo_]

Either people can't read today, or my style of writing is hard to decipher.

My bad.



Attack(weapon) is not an allowable choice for Skill Focus, or for any other feat or ability that affects skills. Weapon Focus is still applicable. For all purposes, attacks are still attack rolls and not skill checks, and are thus not suitable targets for skill mastery or other abilities. Any feat, Prestige Class or anything else with a prerequisite of Base Attack Bonus is replaced by a prerequisite of that many ranks in any Attack skill. Attack(grapple) is a simple weapon skill; Attack(touch) is a melee skill for dexterity. Weapon Finesse changes Attack(melee) from a Str skill to a Dex skill.


Here's my problem with the system. You say it's a skill check, but then you go and add all of these caveats that take away everything that makes it a skill. What you've really done is made it so that you need to invest precious ranks into something you should get automatically.

[Kenbert]

Nebo_, I don't think it's being portrayed as a "skill." It's just making use of the skill system to make it all simpler. And to reflect the fact that skill with a weapon is just that -- a skill. It must be learned as a character would learn any other skill. And brian, I do agree with your assessment. I don't think the further modification (breaking up fighter, ranger, druid, etc) would be necessary. Oh, and your justification for each class just furthered your argument.

I like the system. I give it an A.

[brian c]

Nebo_, I don't think it's being portrayed as a "skill." It's just making use of the skill system to make it all simpler. And to reflect the fact that skill with a weapon is just that -- a skill. It must be learned as a character would learn any other skill. And brian, I do agree with your assessment. I don't think the further modification (breaking up fighter, ranger, druid, etc) would be necessary. Oh, and your justification for each class just furthered your argument.

I like the system. I give it an A.

Precisely the point. Thank you.

[Nebo_]

And to reflect the fact that skill with a weapon is just that -- a skill.

A skill that doesn't work at all like other skills. Just like BAB.

[brian c]

A skill that doesn't work at all like other skills. Just like BAB.

But BAB isn't bought with skillpoints; you can't choose to have a good or bad BAB, other than what your class is. Also, BAB is for every weapon the same; sure a fighter gets to attack 4 times with a sword that he's really good at, but if he's never used a mace before he gets just as many attacks? And unless you're extremely specialized in one weapon, the difference in attack bonuses between the two are pretty small.

[Nebo_]

But BAB isn't bought with skillpoints; you can't choose to have a good or bad BAB, other than what your class is.

That's what feats are for. The weapon focus tree covers that pretty well.

I can see what you're trying to do here and it really isn't a bad idea. I just think that the existing system does it better.

[Skjaldbakka]

The reason I don't like this option is because it breaks the implicit rules of the game. Skills are skills. How is making a seperate skill that doesn't follow the rules for skills any better than using BAB (which doesn't need fixing)?

If you want skill-based attack rolls, also get rid of AC. Change what armor and shield and natural armor bonuses do (perhaps change them to DR). Then have a skill for melee attack, parry, ranged attack, and dodge. Allow skill focus and skill-boosting magic items. Instead of flanking providing a bonus to attack rolls, have successive parry and dodge attempts in the same turn take a cumulative penalty. This encourages putting points into both parry and dodge, to reduce the rate at which your defence suffers. This in turn reduced the effectiveness of pumping the one at the expense of the other.

If you want to get more complicated, have a melee (weapon group) skill, instead of a general melee (attack) skill.

[brian c]

The reason I don't like this option is because it breaks the implicit rules of the game. Skills are skills. How is making a seperate skill that doesn't follow the rules for skills any better than using BAB (which doesn't need fixing)?

If you want skill-based attack rolls, also get rid of AC. Change what armor and shield and natural armor bonuses do (perhaps change them to DR). Then have a skill for melee attack, parry, ranged attack, and dodge. Allow skill focus and skill-boosting magic items. Instead of flanking providing a bonus to attack rolls, have successive parry and dodge attempts in the same turn take a cumulative penalty. This encourages putting points into both parry and dodge, to reduce the rate at which your defence suffers. This in turn reduced the effectiveness of pumping the one at the expense of the other.

I had thought of also doing Defense as a skill, with armor bonuses being converted to bonuses to that skill check. Then combat would just be opposed checks (as it is in many other systems that are not D&D). The way it is now stays truer to the "D&D-ness" of the combat system, but a Defense skill is certainly possible.



If you want to get more complicated, have a melee (weapon group) skill, instead of a general melee (attack) skill.

Perhaps this wasn't clear enough, but the Attack skill is listed separately for each weapon, not just as Melee(attack). I agree that it would be easier to do weapon groups, so consider that an official change of my idea, though I'm not writing it up yet because I'm lazy and it's late and I should be doing homework. Something like Attack(short blades), Attack(long blades), Attack(polearms), Attack(axes), Attack(thrown), Attack(bows), Attack(crossbows), and Attack(blunt) or something like that.

[Rigon]

this sounds like fun...
but it needs balancing (+4 skill ponts/lvl are too much)

and i have a question.
let us say i have a rogue lvl1.
and i take 2 ranks in weapon skill (katana) which is a non-class skill as katana is an exotic weapon. this costs me 4 skill points.

later i get levels with me rogue.
i get a bonus feat and i choose exotic weapon proficiency.
what happens to my already spent skill points?
"what happens if a feat promotes a (already trained) cross-class skill to class skill?"
i already have 4 skill points on the skill. the skill rank simply raises from 2 to 4? if yes, then what happens when my level is too low to have a skill rank that high? like i'm lvl2 with 3 ranks weapon skill (katana) and getting the exotic weapon proficiency feat, that would double to 6 but 5 is the maximum for my current level. the skill rank is lowered to 5 and i get a free skill point? the skill is temporaly limited to 5 and gets 6 automatically? or the skill remains at rank 3 and i lose my "cross wasted" skill points?

could we apply this to shield proficiency?
like an "opposed skill check" against the attacker to see if i can ADD the shield AC to normal (armor+natural) AC. how about that? maybe add the shields enchantments to the skill check.

or how about armor proficiencies?
like opposing rolls against arcane spell failure and EVASION checks.
like DC check against 10 + (chance of arcane spell failure/5%) or something.
like DC checks to see if you can ignore the dexterity penalty on your armor.

[brian c]

and i have a question.
let us say i have a rogue lvl1.
and i take 2 ranks in weapon skill (katana) which is a non-class skill as katana is an exotic weapon. this costs me 4 skill points.

later i get levels with me rogue.
i get a bonus feat and i choose exotic weapon proficiency.
what happens to my already spent skill points?
"what happens if a feat promotes a (already trained) cross-class skill to class skill?"
i already have 4 skill points on the skill. the skill rank simply raises from 2 to 4? if yes, then what happens when my level is too low to have a skill rank that high? like i'm lvl2 with 3 ranks weapon skill (katana) and getting the exotic weapon proficiency feat, that would double to 6 but 5 is the maximum for my current level. the skill rank is lowered to 5 and i get a free skill point? the skill is temporaly limited to 5 and gets 6 automatically? or the skill remains at rank 3 and i lose my "cross wasted" skill points?

My view is that you lose the points. In this sense, it's treated like a skill. If you're a human fighter and you've been buying ranks cross-class in UMD, then you take Human Paragon and get UMD designated as always a class skill, that doesn't give you any free ranks in it.

Why is +4 skill points too much?

I'll draw up some rules for defense skills this weekend maybe.

[Skjaldbakka]

You might want to look at the Weapon Groups variant from UA to get an idea of how to break down the weapons. You can pretty much just take straight from there.

[brian c]

You might want to look at the Weapon Groups variant from UA to get an idea of how to break down the weapons. You can pretty much just take straight from there.

True, true, I was just kinda doing that off the top of my head. I promise to put up revised rules with weapon groups and defensive skills soon, probably this weekend.

[Rigon]

i've thought about this "ammount of skill points" thing.
a fighter would definitely need them. but that would open a big shiny gate of abuse for players to walk through.

How about defining battle (only) skill points? skill points only to be used with weapon/armor/shield skills. i think this would help.

[Skjaldbakka]

I would highly recommend adopting Armor as DR instead of assigning a bonus to defence skills.

[Rigon]

I would highly recommend adopting Armor as DR instead of assigning a bonus to defence skills.

DR by skill would be bad and AC by skill would be bad. it would give ridiculously high bonuses on high levels (and it sounds illogical to me that armor reduces damage not because its qualities but because i'm skilled).
the armor skill would "allow the use of armor" and "lower the penalties of the armor". anything else would give way too much power.

[Skjaldbakka]

You misunderstand. Use armor as DR (not skill as DR).

Make opposed attack and defence skill rolls to determine a hit. AC by skill is no worse than attack bonus as a skill. I don't think attack rolls as a skill is a great idea, however, I am willing to help knock the kinks out of the system, as the OP thinks it is a good idea, and he is designing it for his campaign.

Having skill-based attack rolls almost requires skill-based defense. I would recommend a "parry" skill, and a "dodge" skill.

[brian c]

You misunderstand. Use armor as DR (not skill as DR).

Make opposed attack and defence skill rolls to determine a hit. AC by skill is no worse than attack bonus as a skill. I don't think attack rolls as a skill is a great idea, however, I am willing to help knock the kinks out of the system, as the OP thinks it is a good idea, and he is designing it for his campaign.

Having skill-based attack rolls almost requires skill-based defense. I would recommend a "parry" skill, and a "dodge" skill.

Honestly, I'm not sold on the idea myself, I'm just toying around with it because the previous thread about it got me thinking. If it doesn't end up working out nicely then I have no qualms about dropping it. I appreciate everyone's input though, even if you don't like the idea.

@Rigon: if there's a full system of opposed checks with weapons and defenses, then I think it would be best to keep track of those skill points separately. I still don't see how giving a fighter extra skill points could be abused; it's something that people suggest all the time, and I'm also giving him something he's pretty much forced to use some of them on. The only skill that can be "abused" generally is UMD, but that's still cross-class for fighters.

[Fiery Diamond]

This is a bad idea, in my opinion. Not only does it make things more complicated (which is always bad unless there is something positive to balance it out) but it also doesn't portray the mechanical aspect any better than BAB. I think that a homebrew that would be along the same fluff lines as this but would work better mechanically would be to just allow characters to choose which weapons they are proficient in, and use the class weapon proficiencies as the list to pick from. Maybe have full BAB classes pick 3 or 4 weapons, 3/4 BAB classes 1 or 2, and 1/2 BAB 0 or 1. This system still doesn't work as well as the core system, but it is better than the one you outlined.

- Fiery Diamond

[brian c]

Okay, so, as promised, here's a way to do Defense as a skill, turning all combat into opposed skill checks.

We make three new skills. Whenever you are attacked, choose one of the following skills and make an opposed roll. If the attack roll is higher than defense roll, there is a hit. In the case of a tie, no hit. If the defender is flatfooted, he may not choose to use Parry or Dodge. Monks may use Dodge when flatfooted, but lose their Dex modifier. Miscellaneous modifiers include any bonus to Armor Class other than natural, armor, deflection and dodge.


Defense (Dodge)- you attempt to avoid your enemy's blow. Add Dexterity modifier, Wisdom for monks, Monk AC bonus, and any Dodge or miscellaneous modifiers. Using Dodge while wearing Medium armor gives a -2 penalty, Heavy armor a -4 penalty.

Defense (Armor)- you take the hit and try not to be hurt. Add Constitution modifier, Armor bonus, Natural Armor, and any miscellaneous bonuses.

Defense (Parry)- you use your weapon or shield to redirect your opponent's weapon. May only be used against manufactured weapons (ie, no parrying a bite attack). Add your Dex or Str modifier (Dex if weapon finesse), synergy from skill in the weapon, shield AC, Deflection and miscellaneous modifiers (and weapon enhancement for a Defending weapon). A light weapon cannot be used to parry a weapon that is not light.


These are just introductory ideas; there can be room for improvement and balancing. What do you think?

[Nebo_]

The opposed roll should be 1d20 + AC -10. I've played in a game with that system before, and it worked pretty well. There was also Armour as DR and that sucked arse.

[brian c]

The opposed roll should be 1d20 + AC -10. I've played in a game with that system before, and it worked pretty well. There was also Armour as DR and that sucked arse.

My intent with this system is to make combat skill-based though. I think Dodge, Armor and Parry reflect three different ways to avoid an attack; different characters can use different defensive techniques also. The duelist or Sowrd&Board use Parry, the Monk and Rogue use Dodge, the Paladin uses Armor, or however you like. It also helps cut down on excessive stacking of AC bonuses and through Parry it makes shields more useful. I'll be adding a bit more information on the pros and cons of each technique later.

[Nebo_]

I think Dodge, Armor and Parry reflect three different ways to avoid an attack; different characters can use different defensive techniques also.

Isn't that what fluff is for? The Monk dodges an attack that misses his AC, the Barbarian just takes a hit that isn't powerful enough and a fighter deflects the blow with his own weapon.

[Skjaldbakka]

Being that fluff is irrelevant to a discussion of mechanics, I'm going to ignore that.

This isn't an attempt to improve on the existing rules, it is an attempt to replace them with another option.

I think it would be great to be able to counterattack with a sufficiently high parry roll (nat 20?). We need to come up with something cool for the other two things to do, to balance that.

Critical Parry: You get an immediate attack, which cannot be defended against with parry.

Critical Dodge: You get an immediate 5' step. This can negate the rest of the opponent's attacks for the round, if he can no longer reach you.

Critical Armor: The striker's weapon is damaged by the attack. The weapon takes damage equal to the attacker's strength modifier, ignoring the weapon's hardness.

[brian c]

Isn't that what fluff is for? The Monk dodges an attack that misses his AC, the Barbarian just takes a hit that isn't powerful enough and a fighter deflects the blow with his own weapon.

Shrug. I'd rather have an actual difference in-game between taking a hit and dodging. Let me elaborate though, the defenses are different based on what the attack is.

{table=head]Defense|vs Light Melee|vs One-Handed|vs Two-Handed|vs Ranged|Use Flatfooted?|Use vs Touch?

Dodge|
-|
+2|
+4|
-|Yes; no Dex mod |
Yes

Armor|
-|
-|
-2|
-|
Yes |
No

Parry(shield)|
+2|
-|
-|
-|
No |
Yes

Parry(light)|
-|
-2|
-4|
No|
Yes |
Yes; -2

Parry(One-Handed)|
+2|
-|
-2|
No|
No |
Yes

Parry(Two-Handed)|
+2|
-|
-|
No|
No |
No

[/table]

It's easier to Dodge a greataxe than it is to dodge a rapier; but it's almost impossible to use a rapier to Parry a greataxe. Make sense?

[Skjaldbakka]

So are you throwing iteratives out the window then? I propose using the mechanic for skill tricks instead of iteratives. It would fix the "move, or full-attack?", and it would make 2WF better, because the skill trick for 2WF would have replace the 2WF tree (after the first one).

There is a hard limit based on level for how many skill tricks you can know, and skill tricks are per encounter, so a fighter by 20th level would have 4 extra attacks, IIRC, per battle, which would not require a full-round action to take.

[Nebo_]

Shrug. I'd rather have an actual difference in-game between taking a hit and dodging. Let me elaborate though, the defenses are different based on what the attack is.

To each, his own. Seems needlessly complicated to me.

[Skjaldbakka]

Making combat more realistic inevitably does two things:

1) makes characters that rely on weapons to win battles weaker
2) makes combat more complicated.

You should add an Armor Type vs. Weapon Type chart. I don't know how to make a table, but:

Leather vs. Slashing -2
Chain vs. Slashing +2
Plate vs. Slashing +0

Leather vs. Piercing +0
Chain vs. Piercing -2
Plate vs. Piercing +2

Leather vs. Bludgeoning +0
Chain vs. Bludgeoning -2
Plate vs. Bludgeoning +0

[brian c]

So are you throwing iteratives out the window then? I propose using the mechanic for skill tricks instead of iteratives. It would fix the "move, or full-attack?", and it would make 2WF better, because the skill trick for 2WF would have replace the 2WF tree (after the first one).

There is a hard limit based on level for how many skill tricks you can know, and skill tricks are per encounter, so a fighter by 20th level would have 4 extra attacks, IIRC, per battle, which would not require a full-round action to take.

Sorry, not really sure how you're applying the mechanic from skill tricks here. Explain? It sounds intriguing.

[Skjaldbakka]

Skill Trick:

Extra Attack (long blades)

You may make an additional attack, at your normal bonus for the round, including any bonuses or penalties on attack rolls you have for the round. This attack is part of the action used to make your normal attack for the round.

In need of some fine tuning, maybe, but that is the idea. It would weaken the fighter, because he wouldn't get as many attacks at high level, but it would strengthen the fighter also, because the extra attacks he gets would be at a higher bonus, and not require a full-round action. The cap on skill tricks based on your level (which I don't remember aside from it being there, 1/4 levels, maybe?), limits the number of extra attacks you can get.

EDIt- I agree on the intriguing part. I may actually use something like this after I officially give up on 4th ed.

[brian c]

I see. I also like. What do you think of the defense skills? I'm considering adding modifier based on what type of weapon is used (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) but it's difficult to decide, and it would only make things more complicated

[Skjaldbakka]

Having weapon vs. armor type won't add too much complexity, but what it will do is clutter up the character sheet.

I would rework the system so that all the modifiers are on the attack roll, so that everything will fit better on a character sheet.

That way, your sheet can have:

Longsword

vs. Dodge -2
vs. Parry (Light Weapon) +2
vs. Parry (1&2-H) +0
vs. Leather +2
vs. Chain -2
vs. Plate +0

As opposed to:

Dodge:

vs. Light Weapons
vs. 1-H weapons
vs. 2-H weapons
vs. flatfooted
vs. touch

Armor

vs. light slashing weapons
vs. light piercing weapons


etc.

[Hawriel]

This is interesting and you would have to play test the extra skill points. Or here is another idea. Have the extra skill points be combat points that can only be used to raise the attack and ranged skills. I would not have a separate deffence skill. If you have defence menuvers like parrying or reposts ect then it should be based off of what ever attack skill is being used. I also recomend using weapon groups similar but way way more logical to the group list in UA.

Off the top of my head here are some examples. Weapons listed under the groupe are examples that might be under that heading. Also weapons may be apart of multaple groups.

light blades: dagger, knife, rapier, short sword, stileto, main gauche.

swords: Longswords, short sword, simitar, bastard sword.

two handed weapons: great sword, bastard sword, great axe, maul, pole axe.

Axe, hammers, picks: all weapons of this tipe, both one and two handed. warhammers, hatchets, battle axe, mauls ect.

simple blugioning: Clubs, maces, morningstars, quarterstaves.

pesant weapons: quarterstaff, spear, sythe, daggers, hatchets, some pole arms sickle maybe flails.

Whips, chains and flails. this would include the ball and chain. This to me would count as an exotic weapon group.

Pole arms: Spears, halberd, glave, pike, lucen hammer, ect.

Bows: all bows, short, long, compound ect.

crossbows: light, heavy, hand

Thrown and slings: knives, daggers, darts, sling, javalen, sling staves, hatchet ect.

Weapon forcus and specialisation could still apply to only one weapon with this. Or to a group then letting the greater versions apply to a spacifec weapon in that group.

[Skjaldbakka]

1)Using skills only for attack is inferior to using BAB in every conceivable way.

2)Using skills for attack in conjunction with skills for defense creates a completely new system which may or may not be an improvement on the existing one.

3)Since this is the hombrew forum, it follows that a willingness to experiment with the rules is the norm.

4)Therefore, using a combination of attack skill and defence skill is the best way to go about this.

Also, we weapon groups are readily available online, in the SRD.

I still think we should should just go with Skill Focus. It shouldn't present any difficulty since Skill Focus could also be taken with the defence skills.

[Hawriel]

The weapon groups made by WOTC make no sence. using an attack skill is no inferiore to a bab its just different. Also deffence skills are a dumb Idea. Its just a way to force players to burn skill points. If you learn how to attack with a sword you also learn how to parry with it, its the same skill.

[brian c]

The weapon groups made by WOTC make no sence. using an attack skill is no inferiore to a bab its just different. Also deffence skills are a dumb Idea. Its just a way to force players to burn skill points. If you learn how to attack with a sword you also learn how to parry with it, its the same skill.

If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I'm giving more skill points to most characters. That way, I'm not "forcing them to burn skill points", I'm actually giving them an option: they can neglect weapons/defense training and instead use those extra skillpoints for "normal" skills.

As for having defense skills, I like it because it adds more variety to defending yourself. It adds a little realism (not much, just a little) by making some attacks more effective against certain defenses (ie, it's okay to let a light weapon hit you and be unharmed, but if that greataxe hits you good luck). For parrying being related to skill with the weapon itself, you're absolutely right. I've been meaning to incorporate that, maybe something like this:

Attack and Parry Synergy: For every 2 ranks that a character has in Attack(weapon), he is treated as having 1 rank in Parry, but only with that weapon (or weapon group). This does not increase the maximum allowable ranks in the Parry skill.

Example: Regdar is a level 6 fighter who uses a greatsword. He has the maximum ranks in Attack(long swords), which is 6. He also has 3 ranks in Parry. Because of his ranks in Attack(long swords), he is treated as having 6 ranks in Parry if he parries using his greatsword (or bastard sword, or longsword, etc). If he is deprived of his weapon and has to use a mace, he has only 3 ranks in Parry. However, if Regdar has 2 ranks in Attack(maces) then that would increase to 4 ranks in Parry.

[Nebo_]

Synergy doesn't usually work that way. Usually it is 5 ranks gives a +2 untyped bonus.

[brian c]

Synergy doesn't usually work that way. Usually it is 5 ranks gives a +2 untyped bonus.

I'm aware. It's called homebrewing. I'm giving it the synergy that I feel is appropriate.

[Skjaldbakka]

In the interest of not breaking certain convetions, how about this instead:

A character may opt to use his melee (attack) skill ranks to defend agaisnt an attack when armed with an appropriate weapon, although he takes a -5 penalty on his parry roll when doing so.

Alternately, we could combine parry and melee attack into one skill, leaving us with ranged attack, dodge, melee attack/parry, and armor.

[brian c]

In the interest of not breaking certain convetions, how about this instead:

A character may opt to use his melee (attack) skill ranks to defend agaisnt an attack when armed with an appropriate weapon, although he takes a -5 penalty on his parry roll when doing so.

Alternately, we could combine parry and melee attack into one skill, leaving us with ranged attack, dodge, melee attack/parry, and armor.

Hm... yeah maybe just making them into one skill would be better, so it's opposed attack rolls just like Disarm is.


Edit: What about shields then? Would we have to keep a Shield skill, or can that be combined into armor somehow?

[Skjaldbakka]

In real combat, bashing someone with a shield is much more common than d20 game mechanics represents. I'd say keep shield as a melee skill.

How specific are we shooting for with weapon groups?

Are we looking at:

A) Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning?
B) Long Blades, Short Blades, Bludgeons, Polearms, Flexible Arms?
C) Longsword, Greatsword, Falchion, Morningstar, Mace, Longbow, Shortbow?