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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Never said it was "necessary". That phrasing is on you. I said I prefer it, it meets my desires and gaming sensibilities.

 

[James Gasik]

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 think you'll find AD&D (1e and 2e) were the first to introduce a lot of inaccurately described weapons that strained the concepts of game balance. Oriental Adventures for example, gives us everyone's "favorite" weapon, the Katana:

The Complete Fighter's Handbook brought back the Katana and gave us an option to wield it in both hands for damage superior to a greatsword (2d6 vs. M-size), as well as things like the Longspear (1d8+1 in one hand, 2d6 in two), which was reprinted in the Arms & Equipment Guide. The Complete Book of Dwarves has the "Two-Handed Battleaxe" which, despite it's name, is size M in the book (a problem shared with the two-handed bastard sword in the PHB which is also size M, which, by the rules, would let a Halfling wield one!).

 

[pawsplay]

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.

For instance, the only time I have ever seen a bec de corbin in play was when I was playing one of the Gold Box games, and it was the first +1 weapon available. It just doesn't have a purpose in play, despite being a popular and functional weapon in history. Contrast to, say, "Can my lucerne hammer/bardiche/whatever be flavored as a bec de corbin?"

 

[Lanefan]

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'd rather see much more granularity, ideally to the point where each weapon has something going for it that others don't and maybe also has a flaw that other weapons don't.

The first and probably easiest place to add variance is weapon damage. Instead of just d6 or d8 for most weapons, what about having some weapons do d7 or d5 or 2d4 or 2d3 as their base damage? I mean hell, we've all got all these dice in our bags, let's use 'em!

Another area to add variance is to-hit or damage based on reach, but that would mean making distance more granular than 5-foot squares. Example: a dagger or other very small weapon might get a bonus to hit if the foe is within 2 feet while any 2-handed weapon gets a to-hit penalty if the foe is that close.

Another area for variance is damage based on what you're hitting. Even the small-large damage differences in 1e (e.g. a longsword did d8 vs small-medium and d12 vs large) allowed for much more variability in weapon design - some were generally better against small foes, others better vs large, etc. 1e took this a step further and had a weapon's properties change based on the type of armour the target was in; that's perhaps a step too far in practice (most tables IME didn't use that system) but the underlying idea is sound. And this is before even looking at specific monster resistances, immunities, and-or vulnerabilities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd rather see much more granularity, ideally to the point where each weapon has something going for it that others don't and maybe also has a flaw that other weapons don't.

The first and probably easiest place to add variance is weapon damage. Instead of just d6 or d8 for most weapons, what about having some weapons do d7 or d5 or 2d4 or 2d3 as their base damage? I mean hell, we've all got all these dice in our bags, let's use 'em!

Another area to add variance is to-hit or damage based on reach, but that would mean making distance more granular than 5-foot squares. Example: a dagger or other very small weapon might get a bonus to hit if the foe is within 2 feet while any 2-handed weapon gets a to-hit penalty if the foe is that close.

Another area for variance is damage based on what you're hitting. Even the small-large damage differences in 1e (e.g. a longsword did d8 vs small-medium and d12 vs large) allowed for much more variability in weapon design - some were generally better against small foes, others better vs large, etc. 1e took this a step further and had a weapon's properties change based on the type of armour the target was in; that's perhaps a step too far in practice (most tables IME didn't use that system) but the underlying idea is sound. And this is before even looking at specific monster resistances, immunities, and-or vulnerabilities.

I would love to get more use out of my DCC dice!

 

[James Gasik]

The threads talking about studded leather grips for polearms mentioned a couple things that got me thinking. Of the (many) things D&D abstracts, it's the durability of gear and any actions or costs needed to maintain it. Oh sure, the rules talk about what it takes to outright destroy something, but you can wear a suit of armor from level 1 to 20 and probably never have to replace it (unless an upgrade becomes available). I remember an optional system in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook for armor durability, but I have to assume it was unpopular- I remember trying to use it in the 90's but giving up on the idea quickly as it was one of those things that was very punishing at the low levels, but higher level characters could afford more durable armors or have access to magic to repair things in the field.

The other thing is helmets. After all, outside of optional rules, D&D doesn't use a hit location system or called shots, so there's not much reason to wear a helmet. Again, the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook presented a variety of helmets, with their penalties (vision) and benefits (mostly to saves vs. various types of attacks). Because the PHB had costs for helmets, but didn't say what they were for. Oh and I recall the Thief's Detect Noise required you to not wear a helmet, which, as a rule, I don't think I ever saw a Thief wearing one.

And outside of called shots and "critical hit charts", there wasn't much reason to wear a helmet (unless you found a magic one). 3.x at least mentioned that some armor sets came with a helmet and/or gauntlets, but rules for not wearing one? Absent.

Official art hasn't helped much. It often seems you see as many people wearing headgear as not. Ditto for fantasy movies. Which I get from an artistic standpoint- you can't see as much of a character's pretty (or ugly) mug if it's obscured by a helmet, but I'm pretty sure that, as a result, if you ask if a PC is wearing a helmet or not (and they weren't immediately suspicious of your motives, lol, like what happens when I ask if someone is wearing gloves as a DM), they'd probably blink at you and say "uh, why?".

I can accept a lot of abstraction in my fantasy games, especially if the juice isn't worth the squeeze (like my recent experiment of making my players pony up cash for very abstract "supplies" when traveling- it took them til about 7th level, but they finally realized they could break the system and never need worry about it again, outside of something outright destroying their supplies, which happened once when they fought a black dragon, as it had a lair action to spoil foodstuffs, foul water, and corrode gear). So maybe there isn't a reason to track wear and tear to equipment, or worry about people wearing helmets, but it's also something I'm wondering about.

What would gear degradation look like? And is 5e granular enough to accept rules for helmets, so that there's a clear difference between wearing a chain coif or a great helm that isn't strictly punitive?

IE, something like "oh you're not wearing a helmet, ok, you can be crit on a 19-20. Oh you are wearing a helmet? Disadvantage on Perception checks!"- that seems harsh.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The threads talking about studded leather grips for polearms mentioned a couple things that got me thinking. Of the (many) things D&D abstracts, it's the durability of gear and any actions or costs needed to maintain it. Oh sure, the rules talk about what it takes to outright destroy something, but you can wear a suit of armor from level 1 to 20 and probably never have to replace it (unless an upgrade becomes available). I remember an optional system in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook for armor durability, but I have to assume it was unpopular- I remember trying to use it in the 90's but giving up on the idea quickly as it was one of those things that was very punishing at the low levels, but higher level characters could afford more durable armors or have access to magic to repair things in the field.

The other thing is helmets. After all, outside of optional rules, D&D doesn't use a hit location system or called shots, so there's not much reason to wear a helmet. Again, the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook presented a variety of helmets, with their penalties (vision) and benefits (mostly to saves vs. various types of attacks). Because the PHB had costs for helmets, but didn't say what they were for. Oh and I recall the Thief's Detect Noise required you to not wear a helmet, which, as a rule, I don't think I ever saw a Thief wearing one.

And outside of called shots and "critical hit charts", there wasn't much reason to wear a helmet (unless you found a magic one). 3.x at least mentioned that some armor sets came with a helmet and/or gauntlets, but rules for not wearing one? Absent.

Official art hasn't helped much. It often seems you see as many people wearing headgear as not. Ditto for fantasy movies. Which I get from an artistic standpoint- you can't see as much of a character's pretty (or ugly) mug if it's obscured by a helmet, but I'm pretty sure that, as a result, if you ask if a PC is wearing a helmet or not (and they weren't immediately suspicious of your motives, lol, like what happens when I ask if someone is wearing gloves as a DM), they'd probably blink at you and say "uh, why?".

I can accept a lot of abstraction in my fantasy games, especially if the juice isn't worth the squeeze (like my recent experiment of making my players pony up cash for very abstract "supplies" when traveling- it took them til about 7th level, but they finally realized they could break the system and never need worry about it again, outside of something outright destroying their supplies, which happened once when they fought a black dragon, as it had a lair action to spoil foodstuffs, foul water, and corrode gear). So maybe there isn't a reason to track wear and tear to equipment, or worry about people wearing helmets, but it's also something I'm wondering about.

What would gear degradation look like? And is 5e granular enough to accept rules for helmets, so that there's a clear difference between wearing a chain coif or a great helm that isn't strictly punitive?

IE, something like "oh you're not wearing a helmet, ok, you can be crit on a 19-20. Oh you are wearing a helmet? Disadvantage on Perception checks!"- that seems harsh.

Level Up makes use of helmets, and gear durability (although I might have gotten that from somewhere else, I use a lot of homebrew).

 

[GobHag]

What would gear degradation look like? And is 5e granular enough to accept rules for helmets, so that there's a clear difference between wearing a chain coif or a great helm that isn't strictly punitive?

More importantly, would the playerbase accept such a rule?

 

[mamba]

More importantly, would the playerbase accept such a rule?

no, I have never seen this as anything more than an unwelcome nuisance in CRPGs that have it, and a TTRPG makes it worse by making me track this

 

[Pedantic]

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

If you're going to really lean in to differentiation, I don't think you can do better than Fantasy Craft in a D20 base. 6 categories of proficiency broken into 4-6 specialty sub groups with 4 weapons each, all with distinct properties, plus an additional customization system.