D&D 5E Basic 5E: Weapons and Armor as style choice...

[Ranganathan]

One of the things that's always bugged me about D&D and d20 games is the laundry list of weapons and armor. Some people really like them, I get that, but the way the lists are designed, there's clearly a "right" choice for each. The longsword with it's top dog damage and proficiency bonus in 4E, and plate + shield with it's top AC bonus and minor drawbacks.

What if in the basic core of 5E you have weapons and armor as a style choice instead of a laundry list of bad choices with one clear best choice? What about making damage and AC a class feature. Fighters get mid range damage and top tier AC, but the specific weapons and armor used is completely up to the player.

You want the loin cloth fighter, there you go. The AC bonus is explained as the character being able to maximized any armor he is wearing combined with a natural ability to avoid being hit. This works for clothie casters too, they're limited to their AC bonus (by class), even if they don "better" armor they're so bad at wearing it and so clumsy in the armor that they only get the same AC bonus as if the wore nothing.

A ranger with a pick? Either you instantly suck, you pick a half-dozen feats to compensate, or you have to make it a style choice. I think it should come down to style, personally. At the very least, it should be an option.

 

[Mattachine]

I would like choices to be more meaningful, too.

For weapons, offer categories, with examples--longswords, greatswords, shortswords. Then give benefits for each. Yes, some weapons won't be as good as others, but make several interesting choices. AD&D was terrible in this regard, and 4e did an alright job of making some improvement.

For armor, there are two things that have bothered me for ages: armor penalties to skills/speed are minimal in most versions of the game, and shields are not nearly good enough in any version of the game.

Yes, I am aware of the people about to write, "But I have my own suit of full plate that I can wear, run at full speed, and go deep sea diving in." Not interested. Really heavy armor provides really good protection with significant penalties to speed and agility.

Shields should be very important to protecting a warrior from melee and ranged attack, probably more important than heavy armor. In D&D, unless that shield is magical, it has a fairly marginal utility.

 

[BobTheNob]

Often had this exact same thought. I wont say Im a crusader for this approach, but I understand where you are coming from and agree with what you have said. Especially regarding armor. Fighters (historically) have always had best armor, therefore best AC (generally)...therefore high AC is, by proxy, a fighter feature. So why not treat it as such? Why not allow for the Conan image of the fighter? If we followed 3e and earlier design, walking around in a loin cloth (according to D&D rules) is tantamount to suicide = Conan would die in his first fight.

It is a two way argument, and I think the existing way of doing things still has its virtues. In addition, alot of the challenge of 5e is to preserve the "feel" of D&D and going against the way basic equipment works might be going a smidge too far into conceptualism, bit of sacred cow that one.

However, kudos for having raised the point.

 

[the Jester]

Except Conan often wore armor.

Regardless, I prefer better armor to actually be better. Making loot values reasonable and taking away the need for magic armor bonuses from the math both help in that a weapon or armor that costs more is actually a meaningful drawback. (Especially if your parties have to repair or replace equipment from time to time.)

 

[Frostmarrow]

I've often come to the same conclusion as the OP. Why load the game with 30 items when one item is clearly superior?
One way of getting around it is by disconnecting weapon names from weapon stats. Imagine the laundry list of weapons but instead of dagger, shortsword, longsword, and bastard sword you read "light", "well balanced", "weighted", or "master worked". Now, you can pick a quality that you are proficient in and just add the name of the weapon. Say, a "light" longsword does 1d4 damage (x2) and a "masterworked" dagger does 1d10 (19-20).
We end up with the same problem only no one is going to complain about masterworked being superior. Cuz it is, by definition.

 

[Croesus]

One of the things that's always bugged me about D&D and d20 games is the laundry list of weapons and armor. Some people really like them, I get that, but the way the lists are designed, there's clearly a "right" choice for each. The longsword with it's top dog damage and proficiency bonus in 4E, and plate + shield with it's top AC bonus and minor drawbacks.

What if in the basic core of 5E you have weapons and armor as a style choice instead of a laundry list of bad choices with one clear best choice? What about making damage and AC a class feature. Fighters get mid range damage and top tier AC, but the specific weapons and armor used is completely up to the player.

You want the loin cloth fighter, there you go. The AC bonus is explained as the character being able to maximized any armor he is wearing combined with a natural ability to avoid being hit. This works for clothie casters too, they're limited to their AC bonus (by class), even if they don "better" armor they're so bad at wearing it and so clumsy in the armor that they only get the same AC bonus as if the wore nothing.

A ranger with a pick? Either you instantly suck, you pick a half-dozen feats to compensate, or you have to make it a style choice. I think it should come down to style, personally. At the very least, it should be an option.

One obvious problem with this approach for armor is that there is again one right choice - no armor! Your character gets the same AC, without the cost of the armor, no extra noise, no extra weight, no maintenance, no waking up in the middle of the night without your armor, etc.

If, however, you give slight benefits to armor that balance the penalties, then players can decide based on style - if you want the best AC (or minor DR, or whatever), your fighter isn't as nimble or fast in his full plate. If you'll settle for a bit lower AC, then your fighter can run around in a loin cloth. I agree that most of the AC should be class-based, so armor becomes an option, not a requirement. I just don't agree that armor should have zero impact.

I really like the idea of separating weapon damage from the weapon and giving it to the class. A fighter with a dagger should be more dangerous than a wizard with a greatsword. In previous versions, this was partly modeled by the fighter having a better chance to hit, but it still puts far too much emphasis on picking the "right" weapon IMO. Basing weapon damage on class would also help address some of the prior issues with a cleric being too good as a fighter.

And such a system would still allow weapon choices to have meaning. The system could give weapons certain capabilities separate from raw damage - picks might be armor piercing (penalty to target's AC from armor), spears can be set vs. charge, blunt weapons might have a chance to stun the target, and so on.

My preference - weapon damage by class, with optional rules for giving weapon classes extra capabilities, and even optional rules for having all the dozens of weapons with different damage, as in previous editions. AC as a class feature, but with limited benefits and penalties to using actual armor.

 

[Mercurius]

In before the katana vs. longsword debate. Or worse, the no-dachi vs. zweihander debate.

 

[DogBackward]

It's not entirely suicidal to build a no-armor warrior in 3.5. In Pathfinder, at least, I have a pretty useful build using the Barbarian with a maxed out Constitution and an Archetype that grants half level as DR. It works rather well, without being too powerful. I do have to worry about getting too deep into things, but every warrior does, from time to time. And having 180+ HP at 11th level combined with DR 7/- is a great buffer when you don't have any armor... plus, unlike armor, my HP applies against energy damage as well.

That said, I agree with the overall idea, as Conan isn't the only character type that this could apply to. And some people would want dodgy-guy with low HP to be as viable a non-armored concept as guy-with-massive-HP-and-DR.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I liked that as D&D morphed from 1E to 3E to 4E the difference in weapon choices became more meaningful and distinct while still remaining relatively balanced.

At the simplest version of the game, yes -- weapon and armor should just be a flavor and visual choice without mechanical advantage or disadvantage (e.g. all fighters do 1d10 damage, all rangers do 1d8, all rogues and clerics do 1d6, wizards do 1d4 etc. regardless of weapon). As you add complexity, then the weapons choices should become mechanically distinct.

 

[Remathilis]

We could go old school and have all weapons do 1d6 damage irregardless of type...