As much as I like what I read about 5E, I'm sorry to see that the differences in weapons continued to be watered down.
Remember back in the 1E AD&D days? One of the attractive aspects of the dart was that it had a rate of fire of 3, meaning that you could make three attacks with the weapon in a single combat round. The dart only did 1d3 damage to S/M creatures, but if you hit all three times, the damage would add up. That's 3-9 points, skewing towards 4-5 points (because you're rolling 3 dice), with a high minimum damage throw. Your 1st level Magic User, with darts, could potentially do as much damage with his darts as the party's fighter with his longsword.
Of course, the mage would not hit as often as the fighter. And, if you recall, 1E AD&D also used modifiers for different types of armor. If the target was wearing AC 5 chain, then the longsword has an edge because it's +0 vs. AC 5. Darts are -2 vs. AC 5.
But, do you see what I'm getting at? In 1E AD&D, there were reasons to use weapons other than just, "Well, how much damage do they do? I want the weapon that does the most damage."
Take the hammer vs. the longsword. Why would any fighter ever use a hammer? The hammer does 1d4+1 vs. S/M creatures, where the longsword does 1d8. But, look at the Armor Class Adjustments for the hammer. Against most armor types, the hammer is going to hit more often than the longsword.
What do you think is the better weapon against a target in plate and using a shield (AC 2), the hammer or the longsword?
It's the hammer! The longsword is -2 to hit vs. AC 2 while there is no modifier with the hammer. So, would you rather hit more often (10% more often), doing 2-5 damage with the hammer, or would you rather hit less often and have the potential to do both more and less damage (2-5 for the hammer, 1-8 for the longsword).
See the trade off?
When you selected your weapons in 1E AD&D, you had to consider the enemies that you would likely fight. You didn't just go for the weapon that did the highest damage. You had to consider how often you would hit, as well.
I really miss that--the picking of the right tool for the job.
(And....I didn't even talk about the obvious...that weapons in 1E AD&D had TWO damage ratings: One for S/M targets, and one for Large targets. This gave the wielder even something else to consider. "How does the weapon perform against large targets?")
FLASH FORWARD TO AD&D 2E.
Here, there is still some differences to consider about weapons, but it's been watered down quite a bit. Now, instead of armor modifiers specific to a weapon, the modifier is tied to the basic damage a weapon does: Slash, Blunt, Pierce.
In AD&D 2E, the hammer (now called a warhammer), a blunt weapon, has no modifier against a foe wearing plate mail. The longsword (an edged weapon), however, is -3 vs. that same foe in plate mail.
This made for easier-to-use rules, I guess, because you didn't have a string of modifiers for every weapon against several AC types as you did in 1E AD&D (I never found them hard to use), but you lose a little something when comparing like weapons--like two edged weapons.
What was added in 2E AD&D, though, was a re-purposing of the Speed Factor. This sometimes used mechanic in 1E AD&D (it was used to break d6 initiative ties in 1E AD&D) became an every-combat-used mechanic in 2E AD&D as a weapon's Speed Factor directly influenced a character's initiative. The SF became a modifier to the character's initiative throw. So, if a character was using a wand (SF +3), a creature was using a breath weapon (SF +1), and a fighter was using his longsword (SF +5), with all other factors being equal, it was likely that the creature's breath weapon would happen first, followed by the wand, followed, lastly, by the swing of the longsword.
And, a weapon's SF (as well as the weapon's damage vs. Large targets) became the primary means to weigh the advantages of like weapons. For example, the battleaxe and the longsword both do 1d8 damage. Both are slashing weapons, so the armor modifier is the same for both weapons. The difference between the two is in what the weapon does against Larger foes (battleaxe does 1d8, longsword does 1d12), and also the weapon's Speed Factor (How quickly can the weapon be used--how bulky is it?). The battleaxe has a Speed Factor of +7, where the longsword has SF +5. Which means....the longsword is a much better weapon to use overall (faster, plus much more damage vs. Large).
FLASH FORWARD, AGAIN, TO D&D 3E
For all of the crunch used in the third edition of the game, all of this neat weapon comparison stuff was erased! Gone. No more!
The only real difference between weapons is...how much damage do they do? (And, of course, there's the class restrictions--or Feat restrictions--, but that has been true in each of the D&D editions).
Why would you ever use a dart under the 3E rules? Answer: You wouldn't! And, in no way can the 3E dart ever hope to rival the longsword (as it did in 1E AD&D, as I explained above).
Weapon selection in 3E D&D is based on class (what can I use?) and roleplaying (I think it would be neat for my barbarian to carry a battleaxe). But, many players are just going to default to the usable weapon with the highest damage.
Sure, you've got some basic comparisons, like one-handed vs. two-handed. And, maybe something special about a certain weapon (this one can be used to trip; that one can't). But, gone are the various weapon statistics that made weapon selection so interesting in the earlier editions (at least, from my point of view).
I don't want to say that there's no means of weapon comparison besides damage in the 3E game. There's a couple of factors: one-handed vs. two-handed, reach weapons, finesse weapons, Critical Threat Range.... But, as a whole, I don't think that 3E does near as good a job making differences in weapons as either 1E AD&D or 2E AD&D.
VARIANTS - THE HOPE FOR WEAPON SELECTION
So, what happens is, that weapon selection stats can be added again to the game through optional rules or variant rules. For example, the CONAN RPG (published by Mongoose) is based on the 3.5 d20 set of mechanics. But, in that game, armor does not make a person harder to hit as it does in standard D&D. Armor absorbs damage when a character is hit.
Weapons are graded with a new stat called Armor Piercing. This rates the weapon's ability to deliver damage to armored foes. The higher the AR rating, the easier it is to damage foes wearing armor.
For example, a cutlass is rated at AR 2. That's low. The weapon is not a good weapon to use against armored foes. Yet, the cutlass does 1d10 damage in this game.
Compare that to the warhammer. It only does 1d6 damage. But, it's Armor Piercing rating is AR 7. That's pretty good. The weapon will bash through most types of armor.
If your foe is wearing a mail shirt, would you rather do 1d10 -5 damage with the cutlass (hitting, but scoring 0 damage on half your hits, and 1-5 points of damage the other half of the time when you hit), or would you rather do 1d6 -2 damage with the war hammer (hitting, but scoring 0 damage a third of the time, and 1-4 points of damage two thirds of the time when you hit).
Obviously, the warhammer is the better weapon against that foe.
But, Pirates typically go up against seamen on other vessels--and those sailors are usually not armored or only lightly armored. Against a non-armored or lightly armored foe, the cutlass is the superior weapon. It's AR 2 rating is enough to do some good damage against lightly armored foes, and damage will average much higher than that of the warhammer.
So, in the Conan RPG, you've got a real, mechanical reason to see cutlasses often used by Pirates, and the warhammer will typically be seen only on large battlefields where knights in heavy armor fight to win the day.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IN 5E D&D
From what I've seen of 5E, weapons are rated very much as they were in 3E. That is to say that the neat weapon comparison stats like those in 1E and 2E AD&D have been watered down as they were in 3E D&D.
I'd like to see a Variant rule that will do for the game what the Conan RPG did for 3.5 D&D. I'm not saying that the Conan RPG should be copied. 1E and 2E AD&D show that there are many different ways to skin a goat. But, whatever it is, I'd like to see some weapon stats/rules that make the choice of weapon something more than just picking the weapon that does the most damage from the lot a character can choose from.
Am I the only one who would like to see this?
Remember back in the 1E AD&D days? One of the attractive aspects of the dart was that it had a rate of fire of 3, meaning that you could make three attacks with the weapon in a single combat round. The dart only did 1d3 damage to S/M creatures, but if you hit all three times, the damage would add up. That's 3-9 points, skewing towards 4-5 points (because you're rolling 3 dice), with a high minimum damage throw. Your 1st level Magic User, with darts, could potentially do as much damage with his darts as the party's fighter with his longsword.
Of course, the mage would not hit as often as the fighter. And, if you recall, 1E AD&D also used modifiers for different types of armor. If the target was wearing AC 5 chain, then the longsword has an edge because it's +0 vs. AC 5. Darts are -2 vs. AC 5.
But, do you see what I'm getting at? In 1E AD&D, there were reasons to use weapons other than just, "Well, how much damage do they do? I want the weapon that does the most damage."
Take the hammer vs. the longsword. Why would any fighter ever use a hammer? The hammer does 1d4+1 vs. S/M creatures, where the longsword does 1d8. But, look at the Armor Class Adjustments for the hammer. Against most armor types, the hammer is going to hit more often than the longsword.
What do you think is the better weapon against a target in plate and using a shield (AC 2), the hammer or the longsword?
It's the hammer! The longsword is -2 to hit vs. AC 2 while there is no modifier with the hammer. So, would you rather hit more often (10% more often), doing 2-5 damage with the hammer, or would you rather hit less often and have the potential to do both more and less damage (2-5 for the hammer, 1-8 for the longsword).
See the trade off?
When you selected your weapons in 1E AD&D, you had to consider the enemies that you would likely fight. You didn't just go for the weapon that did the highest damage. You had to consider how often you would hit, as well.
I really miss that--the picking of the right tool for the job.
(And....I didn't even talk about the obvious...that weapons in 1E AD&D had TWO damage ratings: One for S/M targets, and one for Large targets. This gave the wielder even something else to consider. "How does the weapon perform against large targets?")
FLASH FORWARD TO AD&D 2E.
Here, there is still some differences to consider about weapons, but it's been watered down quite a bit. Now, instead of armor modifiers specific to a weapon, the modifier is tied to the basic damage a weapon does: Slash, Blunt, Pierce.
In AD&D 2E, the hammer (now called a warhammer), a blunt weapon, has no modifier against a foe wearing plate mail. The longsword (an edged weapon), however, is -3 vs. that same foe in plate mail.
This made for easier-to-use rules, I guess, because you didn't have a string of modifiers for every weapon against several AC types as you did in 1E AD&D (I never found them hard to use), but you lose a little something when comparing like weapons--like two edged weapons.
What was added in 2E AD&D, though, was a re-purposing of the Speed Factor. This sometimes used mechanic in 1E AD&D (it was used to break d6 initiative ties in 1E AD&D) became an every-combat-used mechanic in 2E AD&D as a weapon's Speed Factor directly influenced a character's initiative. The SF became a modifier to the character's initiative throw. So, if a character was using a wand (SF +3), a creature was using a breath weapon (SF +1), and a fighter was using his longsword (SF +5), with all other factors being equal, it was likely that the creature's breath weapon would happen first, followed by the wand, followed, lastly, by the swing of the longsword.
And, a weapon's SF (as well as the weapon's damage vs. Large targets) became the primary means to weigh the advantages of like weapons. For example, the battleaxe and the longsword both do 1d8 damage. Both are slashing weapons, so the armor modifier is the same for both weapons. The difference between the two is in what the weapon does against Larger foes (battleaxe does 1d8, longsword does 1d12), and also the weapon's Speed Factor (How quickly can the weapon be used--how bulky is it?). The battleaxe has a Speed Factor of +7, where the longsword has SF +5. Which means....the longsword is a much better weapon to use overall (faster, plus much more damage vs. Large).
FLASH FORWARD, AGAIN, TO D&D 3E
For all of the crunch used in the third edition of the game, all of this neat weapon comparison stuff was erased! Gone. No more!
The only real difference between weapons is...how much damage do they do? (And, of course, there's the class restrictions--or Feat restrictions--, but that has been true in each of the D&D editions).
Why would you ever use a dart under the 3E rules? Answer: You wouldn't! And, in no way can the 3E dart ever hope to rival the longsword (as it did in 1E AD&D, as I explained above).
Weapon selection in 3E D&D is based on class (what can I use?) and roleplaying (I think it would be neat for my barbarian to carry a battleaxe). But, many players are just going to default to the usable weapon with the highest damage.
Sure, you've got some basic comparisons, like one-handed vs. two-handed. And, maybe something special about a certain weapon (this one can be used to trip; that one can't). But, gone are the various weapon statistics that made weapon selection so interesting in the earlier editions (at least, from my point of view).
I don't want to say that there's no means of weapon comparison besides damage in the 3E game. There's a couple of factors: one-handed vs. two-handed, reach weapons, finesse weapons, Critical Threat Range.... But, as a whole, I don't think that 3E does near as good a job making differences in weapons as either 1E AD&D or 2E AD&D.
VARIANTS - THE HOPE FOR WEAPON SELECTION
So, what happens is, that weapon selection stats can be added again to the game through optional rules or variant rules. For example, the CONAN RPG (published by Mongoose) is based on the 3.5 d20 set of mechanics. But, in that game, armor does not make a person harder to hit as it does in standard D&D. Armor absorbs damage when a character is hit.
Weapons are graded with a new stat called Armor Piercing. This rates the weapon's ability to deliver damage to armored foes. The higher the AR rating, the easier it is to damage foes wearing armor.
For example, a cutlass is rated at AR 2. That's low. The weapon is not a good weapon to use against armored foes. Yet, the cutlass does 1d10 damage in this game.
Compare that to the warhammer. It only does 1d6 damage. But, it's Armor Piercing rating is AR 7. That's pretty good. The weapon will bash through most types of armor.
If your foe is wearing a mail shirt, would you rather do 1d10 -5 damage with the cutlass (hitting, but scoring 0 damage on half your hits, and 1-5 points of damage the other half of the time when you hit), or would you rather do 1d6 -2 damage with the war hammer (hitting, but scoring 0 damage a third of the time, and 1-4 points of damage two thirds of the time when you hit).
Obviously, the warhammer is the better weapon against that foe.
But, Pirates typically go up against seamen on other vessels--and those sailors are usually not armored or only lightly armored. Against a non-armored or lightly armored foe, the cutlass is the superior weapon. It's AR 2 rating is enough to do some good damage against lightly armored foes, and damage will average much higher than that of the warhammer.
So, in the Conan RPG, you've got a real, mechanical reason to see cutlasses often used by Pirates, and the warhammer will typically be seen only on large battlefields where knights in heavy armor fight to win the day.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IN 5E D&D
From what I've seen of 5E, weapons are rated very much as they were in 3E. That is to say that the neat weapon comparison stats like those in 1E and 2E AD&D have been watered down as they were in 3E D&D.
I'd like to see a Variant rule that will do for the game what the Conan RPG did for 3.5 D&D. I'm not saying that the Conan RPG should be copied. 1E and 2E AD&D show that there are many different ways to skin a goat. But, whatever it is, I'd like to see some weapon stats/rules that make the choice of weapon something more than just picking the weapon that does the most damage from the lot a character can choose from.
Am I the only one who would like to see this?
