This makes more sense logically. Usually the game fantasy of crossbow is doing more damage and what people expect. But I don't think DC20 should necessarily be tied to that just because people expect that from other games.

Yes! 100% this. It pretty much addresses a narrative confusion for me.

This, this, this. Bows you can pull the string back farther to get more power behind it. Crossbows should only be a set damage

Sounds like a decent change. I wish there was something to make crossbows better for anyone behind cover. With crossbows, you can wait all day until someone pops their head from cover before you shoot, but not with bows.

Yes! Hope he sees this and more people agree

I imagine baseline armor class as your basic dodge. So any damage that misses because of the armor your wearing (11 and up) i imagine it as glancing or deflecting off the armor.

That is SO well said!!!

The only issue I have with that is that that’s what the physical damage reduction system is supposed to do already. Make armor to where it will actually mechanically stop the damage of a 1 or 2 damage weapon and give that to all creatures who would have it, baking it into the weapon system takes a piece away from the armor system that should be there while also making the bolas as shown in this video not a damage option at all while being in the weapons category. It seems to me that all most all weapons, defiantly the bolas and maybe the net to do at least 1 damage and if the creature has armor that negates that then he’s fine.

@@thekinglygamer6375Since the game has heavy hits, raising your AC effectively does negate extra damage. If one character has AC of 13 and another has AC of 18, and they take different damage from an attack roll of 20.

But if you can deal 0 damage, that doesn't in any way take into account whether the target is armored/padded. A skinny caster (or civilian) dressed in pajamas can be hit with an attack that normally deals 0 damage and if those heavy hits don't add any bonus, that's 0 damage to a pajama wearing caster for a hit. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Similarly I don't think it makes that much sense for a net attack to deal any damage through Heavy Hits. Unless the net edges are tied to some big rocks or something, this is an example of a game system that doesn't translate all too well to the physical realm. If you want to reflect this armor philosophy then you should separate dodge AC from armor AC. So small and nimble rogues can dodge around and avoid attacks altogether, and the big hulking Knight/Fighter cannot dodge around due to the bulk of his armor, but he cannot feel any or much damage from many weapon attacks, with the exception of bludgeoning damage. But perhaps he would get tired from being subjected to repeated bashes from various weapons. To be truthful to such a system you would basically need to break down damage from any source so every weapon or spell attack has some measure of X, Y, and Z damage. You could increase the complexity by adding an armor piercing stat. Parries could be separated into half-parry, where you lower the damage but still get hit, and full-parry, where you completely deflect/block the opponent's weapon swing and take no damage. You can do soooo much to design a damage/armor (or extended to combat) system that is more truthful to realism. And while it can be fun to engage in such a system if you really want to nerd it out, it becomes less fun for the less nerdy and more casual gamers who just want to see number against number, biggest one wins. Easy peezy, lets get going.

For nº 5 you could just put the "reload" property to a melee weapon. 1AP to "load" (lift the weapon) and another AP to strike

These are some great ideas to add. Hope he sees it

I'm cool with all of these except no. 4

Don't agree with all the ideas, but there are some good ones there.

@@lucasgoulart7856 Oh! That way if you have one "leftover" AP from the last round, you can use it to lift up your weapon, preparing to strike next round for only 1AP

Yea, it's funny how many people have similar ideas but the big brands are too stiff to change their stuff so now the fans are coming up with their own 😄

Makes sense actually, considering you have to lower your crossbow to reload (usually)

Agreed. I can grab an arrow from a quiver without taking my eyes off a target. Reloading a crossbow is a little more attention intensive, lol.

Issue might be that you get more attacks with the bow, so that passive is easier to activate.

@LevTheLurker will you should get more attacks with the bow. A trained bowman can release attacks faster than a trained crossbowman. The issue is that the bow is a professional weapon, whereas the crossbow can be used by peasants with little training historically. Also, the crossbow does more damage because of the AP cost.

Also to add: since the crossbow requires AP to reload, you can only get off 2 shots per round (on average). The crossbow passive requires attacking the same creature, meaning you'll only get the +1 damage bonus once per turn (again on average). If the target required to be Slowed (or some other condition), then that condition can be set up on a previous turn to then followup with 2 attacks (+2 damage) on your next turn. Rapid-fire with the bow (+1 dmg attacking same target) means you could get up +3 dmg if you hit will all attacks, but would likely be in the +2 dmg range. Anyways, excited for game and I love the constant tinkering!

I am very happy with the direction that DC20 is going. Absolutely.

I am going to screen shot this and show it to my team... I said the same thing! LOL :) But yea we will keep looking for clarity points on how to best present things across the board, so thank you!

​@@TheDungeonCoach great minds think alike my dude!

​@@TheDungeonCoach I had the same thought initially. However when I thought more on the topic two things occurred to me: 1. Weapon identity in this system heavily leans into the chosen style and subsequent properties. With the current style names, the style almost represents the weapon better than the actual given name for a weapon. This is reflected by the fact there are instances where multiple different weapons can fall into the same style and property combination. It's worth noting that I think this is fantastic for clarity and helps it stand out from other systems, where they list multiple named weapons in a table that practically share the exact same mechanical properties but are spread out because they are listed alphabetically and it just clutters the table and wastes space on the page/screen. 2. Part of the problem with this instinct/intuition stems from the visual alignment of the terminology used in the table. First of all, while "Style" is listed at the top (rightly so) because it is overall most important, but then you have "Melee Weapons" underneath it and "One Handed" underneath that, your intuition is that names of "One Handed Melee Weapons" will be in the same column. This is further exacerbated by the fact "Type" is the systems terminology for distinguishing "Melee/Ranged" but is then the header for the column above the given names of weapons. Once you realise what is going on though, it actually becomes easier to associate the important cells of the table with the weapon names because the important data is immediately left and right. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen players read tables incorrectly, (particularly when late night gaming and their tired) eyes look at the far left of the table for the object they need but then accidentally shift up or down a row when looking to the far right for the property. There's a couple solutions to this, but central to the problem is standardisation of terminology. By having One Handed, Versatile, Two-Handed for melee and then Bow and Crossbow for ranged as subheadings, particularly placed in the "style" column, it causes confusion and gives more weight to the terms as unique identifiers, distinguished from the same terms used in the properties column. Moreover One Handed isn't even a named property since it is the default for melee type weapons and the "type" label for a column undermines this further by stripping away the terms meaning from distinguishing melee and ranged weapons. I would recommend having title columns left to right as: Style | Examples/Weapons | Properties | Damage Then a title row underneath that reads: Type: Melee/Ranged/Special You could then further use sub-title rows for One Handed, Versatile and Two-Handed but the alignment should be over the Properties column, which may look bizarre but it will enhance clarity. Arguably you could just remove the sub-title rows entirely and just ensure that Versatile and Two-Handed are the first properties listed in their column so it is clear that the styles are sorted alphabetically but grouped by these two key properties. You also don't really need subheadings for the bow and crossbow weapons due to them being grouped by the styles. An alternative option is to move the styles to switch the style and example columns and then rename all of the styles, but that would not only be more work, it would probably also reduce clarity of the mechanics intent and reduce the importance of a weapon styles representation of the weapon.

In this case lowering the martials to be in line with the casters lol!

1.7 million achieved 😊

Casters in 5e get like 9 known spells/cantrips at level 1, I fail to see how this is overwhelming.

it is kinda expected that casters are a bit more complicated anyway but not all martials should be like that, and I agree that it was too many options for the people I tried to introduce to the system, so I made them select a few anyway and they still felt they had waaay more freedom to do stuff vs 5e

@@elneos6343 I believe the key here is optional limitation. For 5e you also get suggested spell selections for casters for those who just want to get moving. For those who can stomach it, they can browse, then choose and pick. I would rather the DC20 core book make some suggestions on the maneuvers to take (Expose, Hinder, Parry, and then Raise Shield/Trip - all being very well-rounded and good), and advice GMs to allow postponing selecting maneuvers until the player has had a little more experience with combat and the game system - they already have the Attack Maneuvers to try it out. That may also make clear for the player what they actually need/want for combat. Of course you shouldn't add new maneuvers during combat or anytime during action of a game session, but during rest or between sessions seems appropriate. Huh... I didn't actually realize how many weapons you're set to start with and expected it was similar to 5e where 1 type is common and 2 is possible, with 3 being near impossible - meaning Weapon Maneuvers would normally only add +1-2 additional maneuvers to take into account. For DC20 your martials are more likely to start with between 2 and 4 weapon types, with a weight towards the lower end. Regardless I find it okay to remove Weapon Maneuvers. However seeing how some are simply transferred to regular maneuvers, I would like to see the amount of maneuvers gained over levels (and possibly at level 1) increase. It is after all options and not bonuses, so it should be somewhat equated to spell repertoire where a level 1 caster starts with 3 cantrips and 4 spells and a bunch of level 1 class features (looking at you Druid).

@@ghoulkinggruul7345 casters in 5e only get to make 2 levelled spells per rest, the rest is cantrips. maneuvers are always available

This isnt 5e so not sure why you're comparing the two as they're different systems. ​@@ghoulkinggruul7345

I mean many also find dnd to be fun... I mean just look at like 1 billion players it has

​@@user-uv6qu3wb5dit's ok but what D&D really has going for it is brand recognition. People will call TTRPGs "D&D", like how Kleenex and Band-aid are brand names that are used more often than tissue or bandage. There are so many better TTRPGs out there but people only really hear D&D and probably assume it's either the best (because of popularity) or the only option.

@@user-uv6qu3wb5d it's also firmly established, its going to have lots of players.

​​@@user-uv6qu3wb5dbut which system has more engaging combat out of the box? Dc20 every day of the week. There is a reason every DNDtuber has a "how to speed up your DND combat" video. Engaging combat is THE thing players care about in these games. If you care more about story/narrative, there are far better games for that. A significant amount of 5e players are like Dragonball fans. They stepped to the entrance of the gateway to anime and will just stay there even if objectively better things are deeper inside because it's all they know.

@@user-uv6qu3wb5dnot saying it isnt fun but he has some room to be alot better and more fun. Plus look how long dnd has been around and how long it has dominated the scene. It’s time for something fresh and exciting and outside the box

Thought the same thing 😂 its very nice!!

Ooooo that is a GREAT point! Hmmmm well said!

@@TheDungeonCoach Seeing how the properties are actually used, I do like Impact for what you're going for, so renaming Heavy is the better move. Impact feels good, it feels solid, and it really evokes the idea of 'this weapon can sometimes hit harder. It has a good Impact.' I think a better word for the 'Heavy' property would actually be 'Strong.' Seeing 'Heavy' makes me think weighty, two-handed, unwieldy, etc. People coming from DnD will get tricked as well, because there it's a strictly negative property that gives disadvantage for Small characters. Everybody gets 'Strong' though. At a glance, you know that means this weapon is a good weapon. It's Strong. Why does it do 2 damage? Cause it's Strong.

​@@RyoWolf maybe weighted property.

@@RyoWolf perhaps 'Reinforced'?

How about hefty?

They should be “Thrown” and “Thrown Harder”. 😁

I absolutely love every part of this comment! Thank you for that

Also sais like what Raphael from TMNT uses, I do think "weapon lock" should be some kind of property.

I don't think so, it would be too much lol. Probably moved that general statement and made it a weapon property

@@GutisFive But what about ranged spell attacks then?

@@subterranean327 that's a good question, maybe they'll rephrase it that "When you make an Spell Check with at least 1 hostile creature adjacent you have DisADV..." or something of that spirit. We'll have to ask on their Discord

Yeah, I'd say blowguns should be the most silent weapon of all! I'd picture it as a less damaging kind of weapon as far as the projectile goes, but that could deliver debilitating poisons while staying unseen in the shadows. :)

@zTom_ I mean that's their current implementation in 0.7. It's Just annoying because the custom weapon thing is gonna make throwing knives the best because of the new sword style And the unseen part becomes ambiguous again

From my travels in the discord, they won't be in the core rulebook. It'll definitely come out in a later expansion, probably the same expansion that an artificer-type class is introduced. I'm not waiting though, my cauldron is already bubbling its brew.

@@noahtekulve2684 oh I see, thanks for the answer. I think that in a high fantasy setting, firearms definitely has a seat amongst the weapons and tools that we can use. I strongly believe that with a little tinkering, and with these "craft your own weapon" mechanic, it shouldn't be hard to think of some cool ideas. If you'd like to share your brew with the rest of us please let us know!

I just reread the rules on shove, you can basically shove a giant the size of a mountain down a hole without penalty as it stands for now,so ..... Yeah^^

THIS! I thought it was just me but I can't find any mention of the "capture" property anywhere! Granted I've only been looking for 10 minutes, but it's been an infuriating 10 minutes. Didn't know whether its because I'm late to the game or just blind. Glad I'm not the only one stuck