Simplify Weapons and Armor?

[Abstraction]

Should 4E simplify weapons by abstracting them a little more?
For instance, have Small, Medium and Large sizes, then Bludgeon, Pierce, Slash, then Simple, Martial and Exotic?

Couldn't every weapon be described in both form and bonuses this way? A longsword is Medium. It slashes, so threat is 19-20. It's martial, so damage 1d8. Something along that line?

Armor could be even simpler: None, Light, Medium or Heavy. Light, Medium or Heavy Shield. All the other ways of describing a particular set of armor is fluff. So armor could provide +2, +4 or +6 and also come with the drawbacks of wearing heavier armor. Shields could be +1, +2 or +3 and should have a small drawback for using heavier.

Well?

 

[WayneLigon]

You certainly could. I wouldn't hate it, but there needs to be a bit more variation for weapons, at least. It looks like there will be several weapon tricks in 4E and those tricks, hinted at, seem to depend on the weapon itself. A spear is used differently than other medium thrusting weapons, so probably deserves it's seperate entry. I wouldn't mind seeing a few of the swords go away; scimitar is just in there for the druids, really. Same with Bastard Sword (which should not require a feat to use properly).

 

[Kunimatyu]

I'd rather have weapons differentiated by more interesting things then damage die or critical range.

 

[SteveC]

I think this idea has merit, largely because in the current system there are some weapons that are just plain better than others, so we effectively have a simple system because players choose the best weapons.

I'd like to have a cool weapon customization system (say like in Black Company) but if we can't have that, simple is better than the appearance of choice which basically breaks down into three or four optimal choices.

--Steve

 

[A'koss]

In my IH game, I've abstracted weapons and armor for customization purposes and it's worked out rather well. Armor is broken down by weight (Very Light, Light, Medium, Heavy & Very Heavy) and weapons by size (Very Small, Small, One-Handed, Two-Handed), type (Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing) and special features (disarm, charger, thrown, set, reach, etc.).

Armor is obviously the easiest to handle and has the benefit of being of whatever style the PC can imagine. Want a very light scale-mail shirt? - check. Want a suit of very heavy dragonscale armor? - check.

Weapons require a little more effort though, especially if they have special features. For D&D it's probably easier to have specific weapons, especially if each is now going to have their own unique abilities as they've hinted at in the early previews.

 

[The Human Target]

They aren't going to do that, but I'd like it if they would.

I hate seeing the same weapons and armor being chosen all the time because some are clearly far better than others its kinda silly not too.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I could understand this simplification for armor, but I would dislike having such a simplification of weapons. There is just too much of a difference between a sword and an axe, even if they are both slashing weapons.

Regardless, the guys at WotC are hinting that the differences between weapons is even more important now, with the new Fighter weapon-path things they mentioned a while back, so I seriously doubt this will happen.

 

[JDJblatherings]

simplificationof weapons weould be AWFUL. It is a a Fantasy game why not embrace the fantastic over the generic? Part of the flavor of the game is the weapons. Sure not muchh worryign about hte usefulness of the galaive-guisarmevs the glaive-glaive-guisarme but the different weaposn add to the attmosphere of the game. Heck I'd love to see them include pixie darts, troll swords, frost axes (for frost gieants) and other fantasy race weapons into the mainstream rules. More flavor please even in small doses.

Sense of wonder not sense of generica.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am ambivalent about this...

I've recently read something about OD&D, and I don't dislike that approach at all, even if it's quite extreme.

I think that there is a time to play it simplest and filling in with only flavor description, and a time to complicate stuff ad lib and get better realism and more tactical complexity.

 

[erf_beto]

I dont think 4E will have too many specific weapons, but there'll be Weapon Groups and abilities/feats/talent trees that needs them as prerequisite. I mean, for simplicity's sake, a shortsword and a longsword will always be 'swords', thus allowing for use of the same Sword-ability - only damage output will be different. Also, every weapon in a group might have a similar property for free or with small penalties or bonuses, like all spears have reach and can be set against charges, all daggers are finesseable, axes can do whirlwind attack better, hammers do power attack, swords can cleave, chains can trip, etc...