Ditch Weapon And Armor Lists

[BobTheNob]

Shields in D&D have never been done right. Ther's a reason nearly everyone on the ancient/medieval battlefield used them! +4 for a large shield sounds about right to me. More might even be better/more 'realistic'.

Its true, there was good reason to have a shield on the ancient battlefield. But as much as that is true if you make shield too good then everyone ends up using them and there ends up being no point in having 2-handed weapons, which becomes a "numeric pigeon-holing" effect.

I want that when players are trying to make a decision of sword'n'board vs two-handed vs dual weapons, that it is a decision and not a forgone conclusion. Historical accuracy be damned. +4 on a d20 scale is a bit too much for my tastes

 

[BobTheNob]

My thinking follows this train as well, but I suggest some caution in going too far in weapon/armor uniqueness. Players will only need to track the special abilities of armor and weapons for their own characters - we're talking between 1 to 3 items here. But DMs will likely be rolling through all sorts of foes with all types of armor and weapondry. It shouldn't be so diverse as to drive a DM insane, or worse, stick to only a handful of weapons/armor.

Yes, that is a danger.

Interestingly though, mechanical differentiation is probably more of an important feature for players that monsters. To know that my mace gets a bonus vs certain armors make it cool and unique to me as a player.

As a DM, do I need to play there special rules for my monsters? It doesnt really concern me that my monsters dont have that cool factor going for them...I dont have any personnel investment in them. As far as monsters are concerned, I could happily just forget the extra mechanics and fall back on damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My thinking follows this train as well, but I suggest some caution in going too far in weapon/armor uniqueness. Players will only need to track the special abilities of armor and weapons for their own characters - we're talking between 1 to 3 items here. But DMs will likely be rolling through all sorts of foes with all types of armor and weapondry. It shouldn't be so diverse as to drive a DM insane, or worse, stick to only a handful of weapons/armor.

One possibility is to do it the way 4E did... where Hammers open up different tactical options to Spears... but only if you've spent the feat on being Hammer Guy. Deadly Axe, Hammer Rhythm, Heavy Blade Opportunity, Light Blade Precision, etc. It means the weapons can be tactically distinct, but if the DM doesn't want to deal with it, he just doesn't give the NPCs the feats...

-Hyp.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One possibility is to do it the way 4E did... where Hammers open up different tactical options to Spears... but only if you've spent the feat on being Hammer Guy. Deadly Axe, Hammer Rhythm, Heavy Blade Opportunity, Light Blade Precision, etc. It means the weapons can be tactically distinct, but if the DM doesn't want to deal with it, he just doesn't give the NPCs the feats...

-Hyp.

This is the kind of stuff I would like to avoid (at least in the core) having to pick through fiddly bits and choose all the right doo-dads to get the real benefits of using a certain weapon only does one thing- turns a fighter into someone who only does one thing.

Having different weapons employed using different tactics with unique applications is a fine thing in itself. A fighting man should be able to switch up and use the best tool for a given job, and have some idea of what the best tools should be. Specialization too often leads to one-trick ponies who only use their favorite toy because doing anything else is sub-optimal, thus leading to the boring fighter who just swings the same weapon during his/her whole career.

So by all means, please make weapons different and interesting and let those whose martial training is the greatest make use of all of them as needed.

 

[Stormonu]

One possibility is to do it the way 4E did... where Hammers open up different tactical options to Spears... but only if you've spent the feat on being Hammer Guy. Deadly Axe, Hammer Rhythm, Heavy Blade Opportunity, Light Blade Precision, etc. It means the weapons can be tactically distinct, but if the DM doesn't want to deal with it, he just doesn't give the NPCs the feats...

-Hyp.

I did like that but that presents its own problems - if you've specialized in a given weapon and a different weapon with magical/superior qualities shows up (the player specialized in spears and a bastard sword of sharpness shows up) the player snubs it because it would be an inferior option or the DM has to mutate it to the appropriate weapon (not my favorite choice, or the "isn't it funny how we keep finding all these magic spears?" or residiuum conundrum). Hopefully there is some middle ground where you can bake individuality into a weapon without locking down player choice nor burdening the DM with details.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is the kind of stuff I would like to avoid (at least in the core) having to pick through fiddly bits and choose all the right doo-dads to get the real benefits of using a certain weapon only does one thing- turns a fighter into someone who only does one thing.

Yeah, I agree - how about an alternative that still allows the DM to ignore it?

Let's say weapon groups or individual weapons have their own schticks that provide different tactical options... but it requires someone who's familiar with the subtle differences between smacking someone with an axe and smacking someone with a mace to take advantage of those schticks.

Give the average wizard a spear or a rapier, and he knows the basic rule - stick them with the pointy end. Give the fighter a spear or a rapier, and he knows how to keep opponents at bay with the spearhead or trip them with the butt, how to find the vulnerable points in armour with the rapier... the two weapons behave very differently in his hands.

So it could be either a feat or a Theme that opens up the tactical options associated with weapons. Instead of being Hammer Guy, you take the feat that lets you be Weapon Guy.

That way, the dedicated weapon masters can get the best performance out of their tools, while the dilettantes just know how to bash or stab. And if the DM doesn't want to deal with the ramifications of arming his angry mob with clubs instead of spears, he just (again) doesn't give them the feat.

-Hyp.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So it could be either a feat or a Theme that opens up the tactical options associated with weapons. Instead of being Hammer Guy, you take the feat that lets you be Weapon Guy.

Call me a loon if you will but 'Fighter' to me says weapon guy in big neon letters. The performance level gap with weapons between fighters and other adventurers should be significant.

The cleric, thief, and magic user should be able to use weapons competently. The fighter should go far beyond that. Fighters should be the ones that know all the secret teachings, and when to employ them to best effect. It is something that I feel needs to be baked into the class, not a feat or a theme that anyone can pick up. Being a true master of arms should be reserved for fighters in the same way as arcane magic spells are reserved for wizards.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Call me a loon if you will but 'Fighter' to me says weapon guy in big neon letters. The performance level gap with weapons between fighters and other adventurers should be significant.

The cleric, thief, and magic user should be able to use weapons competently. The fighter should go far beyond that. Fighters should be the ones that know all the secret teachings, and when to employ them to best effect. It is something that I feel needs to be baked into the class, not a feat or a theme that anyone can pick up. Being a true master of arms should be reserved for fighters in the same way as arcane magic spells are reserved for wizards.

I wouldn't object to that.

But I could see arguments either way. I think if it were a Theme, it's the sort of theme that is most likely going to be taken by a Fighter anyway... but I'm sure there are concepts that would be nicely realised by a different class taking that Theme.

But I could get behind the idea of it behing a Fighter Class Feature as well. My only concern, I guess, is that "master of all weapons" is the sort of thing I'd like to be able to overlay on a fighter, not have it automatically assumed. So if it's Fighter-specific, maybe it could be the equivalent of a Rogue Scheme or Cleric Domain - one class feature option out of a set of possible Fighter options.

-Hyp.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But I could get behind the idea of it behing a Fighter Class Feature as well. My only concern, I guess, is that "master of all weapons" is the sort of thing I'd like to be able to overlay on a fighter, not have it automatically assumed. So if it's Fighter-specific, maybe it could be the equivalent of a Rogue Scheme or Cleric Domain - one class feature option out of a set of possible Fighter options.

-Hyp.

That I could totally get behind.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd like the "Master of All Weapons" thing to be the Fighter class' schtick, not all warriors or warrioroids (clerics of war gods, etc.).

Let the other warriors be as good as or better than Fighters at certain styles, yes, like raging Barbarians with greatswords, mauls & 2hd Axes, or Rangers with 2wf or ranged attacks, but let the Fighter be capable of adapting his modes of attack and defense to the situation at hand and be equally competent in all of them- truly the always dangerous man...

And I could see that as one of 2 main paths for the Fighter, the other one being one who is hypercompetent with one very small selection of weapons.