D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[pawsplay]

my desire is less about scaling damage(although that does contribute) and more about establishing another distinct 'grade' of weaponry, i feel that the current weapon options are all a bit, well, there's not a ton of diversity in the weapons used (i've seen a flowchart meme for what weapon you're going to pick based on your stats and build), both in the sense of the damage dealt and how characters fight with them.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around what that looks like, fictionally. A really good longsword is a really good longsword. And D&D doesn't lend itself to the fineness of distinctions of, say, GURPS, which already is too granular to represent a lot of the reasons people have historically picked one weapon or another.

 

[James Gasik]

out of curiosity, what did you end up swapping it for?

honestly i think if the armour tables had been distributed differently chain shirt could've actually 'served a purpose', so if we'd had:

Medium Armour	AC	Strength	Stealth
Hide	12+DEX(+2)	-	-
Ring Mail	14	STR 11	Disadvantage
Chain Shirt	13+DEX(+2)	-	-
Scale Mail	14+DEX(+2)	-	Disadvantage
Chain Mail	16	STR 14	Disadvantage

then shirt would've been 'the best' available medium armour that doesn't impose stealth disadvantage, while the other four armours provide STR and DEX options for medium starter armour and later progression, each armour in this table has it's own 'niche', and then maybe for heavy armour...

Heavy Armour	AC	Strength	Stealth
Spiked Armour	13+DEX(+3)	-	Disadvantage
Breastplate	14+DEX(+2)	-	-
Splint	17	STR 13	-
Half Plate	15+DEX(+3)	-	Disadvantage
Full Plate	18	STR 15	Disadvantage

now here's where i've made a few minor tweaks, i bumped spiked's base AC down one but increased it's and half plate's DEX bonuses which can now go up to +3, and i've removed splint's disadvantage on stealth, again providing an array of options for STR and DEX builds and if you prioritize stealth, then to round it off my shield table.

Shields	AC	Strength	Stealth
Buckler	+1, Hands Free*	-	-
Shield	+2	-	-
Tower Shield	+3, Versatile(+4)	STR 14	Disadvantage

*if you have shield proficiency you can equip bucklers, they do not take up a hand slot so are a passive AC boost but they do prevent you from equipping other shields while worn, they count as having a shield equipped for any feature that requires that.

This looks pretty good. There's an armor from Kobold Press I allow that I'd slot onto here, Brigandine, AC 13+Dex light armor that has disadvantage on Stealth.

(I also allow a hands-free shield, the Manica, that provides +1 AC, similar to your Buckler).

As for what I exchanged it for, I went with a Mithral Breastplate. The Cleric was still using it when the game went on hiatus.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around what that looks like, fictionally. A really good longsword is a really good longsword.

i'm not talking about simply 'a better made longsword' but in the same way that martial weapons deal bigger damage amounts, have more properties and imply to require more training than simple weapons have a category above martial weapons, if that hobgoblin's 'somehow 2d8' longsword was instead a 'standard 2d8' zweihander.

alternately bring back special materials, maybe that longsword as made of mythril or adamantite which doubled it's base weapon damage (although that grade of equipment would be too good to be given to random mooks for the party to loot).

And D&D doesn't lend itself to the fineness of distinctions of, say, GURPS, which already is too granular to represent a lot of the reasons people have historically picked one weapon or another.

we don't need a ton of granularity but IMO there's a bit of a dearth of defining traits for the current array of weapons, masteries help a little but longsword, warhammer and war pick are still all versatile 1d8/1d10 STR weapons, just add a few things like [expanded crit range], [lunge] or [accurate] to let them play into different playstyles.

 

[James Gasik]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around what that looks like, fictionally. A really good longsword is a really good longsword. And D&D doesn't lend itself to the fineness of distinctions of, say, GURPS, which already is too granular to represent a lot of the reasons people have historically picked one weapon or another.

You'd have to introduce more weapon properties most likely, which is what Pathfinder 1e did.

 

[James Gasik]

While 3e messed up exotic weapons, by having both "weird, unusual weapons" and "better than Martial weapons" co-existing in the same category, there were some great ones. The original Fullblade, which did 2d8 damage but required 17 Strength to wield as a Medium character (basically a Large Bastard Sword), I recall a d12 mace that lowered your AC, and who can forget Mercurial weapons, lol.

Traits I'd like to bring back from 4e are Brutal (where you can reroll any result of a weapon's damage die less than it's Brutal rating) and the one (name escapes me) that lets a weapon deal additional critical damage.

Too often, I find critical hits underwhelming on the player side of the table. I had a monster crit for 52 damage a few months back, which was just insane. Meanwhile, unless you're a Rogue or a Paladin, a critical hit is just "wow, I did another 3 damage. Yay."

 

[Clint_L]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around what that looks like, fictionally. A really good longsword is a really good longsword. And D&D doesn't lend itself to the fineness of distinctions of, say, GURPS, which already is too granular to represent a lot of the reasons people have historically picked one weapon or another.

I go in the opposite direction: I think the game should just have generic weapon and armour classes, along with a list citing some representative examples, and then let players fill in the blanks. If it is important to you that your two handed weapon is a naganata or your medium armour is brigantine, then go for it. Basically, I think those details are cosmetic and part of character design, so best handled by the players.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I go in the opposite direction: I think the game should just have generic weapon and armour classes, along with a list citing some representative examples, and then let players fill in the blanks. If it is important to you that your two handed weapon is a naganata or your medium armour is brigantine, then go for it. Basically, I think those details are cosmetic and part of character design, so best handled by the players.

i can agree with this, i'm less intent on every weapon being represented specifically so much as there being a mechanical templates for every archetype of weapon.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i can agree with this, i'm less intent on every weapon being represented specifically so much as there being a mechanical templates for every archetype of weapon.

See, I like every weapon individually modeled in most cases, especially in a PC-granular game like most forms of D&D. More in keeping with the style IMO.

 

[pawsplay]

See, I like every weapon individually modeled in most cases, especially in a PC-granular game like most forms of D&D. More in keeping with the style IMO.

For a good bit of D&D's history, "sword" (or perhaps "sword, normal") did a lot of work. AD&D gave us the long sword, broadsword, and scimitar, but not a lot of fine distinctions outside the realm of polearms.

It was 3e that introduced inaccurately described longswords, bastard swords, and bucklers, as well as a deep bench of exotic weapons that strained the concepts of game balance, historical weaponry, and being exotic.

Like, if a standard "longsword" can look like such and such, and an elvish longsword can look like that, and an orcish longsword looks like this other thing, it's quite a stretch to say a katana needs a unique stat block.

 

[Clint_L]

For a good bit of D&D's history, "sword" (or perhaps "sword, normal") did a lot of work. AD&D gave us the long sword, broadsword, and scimitar, but not a lot of fine distinctions outside the realm of polearms.

It was 3e that introduced inaccurately described longswords, bastard swords, and bucklers, as well as a deep bench of exotic weapons that strained the concepts of game balance, historical weaponry, and being exotic.

Like, if a standard "longsword" can look like such and such, and an elvish longsword can look like that, and an orcish longsword looks like this other thing, it's quite a stretch to say a katana needs a unique stat block.

I also think that listing a ton of different flavours of weapons with unique stat blocks, mostly just subtle tweaks, ironically encourages homogeneity, rather than the reverse.

We see this in 1e. There is a huge list of different weapon options, all with subtle differences, but players inevitably identify the ones that are generally best and ignore everything else. So only a fraction of all those exotic weapons got chosen by the majority of players. Like, if you were going to use a two handed weapon, you should probably just grab a two-handed sword or maybe a halberd.