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

[KidSnide]

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.

I partially agree with you, in that I think there should be good choices for light, heavy and maybe medium armor. And, similarly, there should be several good weapons for PCs to choose. But I disagree with the assertion that 2nd rate weapons and armors are bad for the game. They serve two useful purposes.

First, bad weapons and armor give the PCs someone to shoot for in the early levels without having to find magic weapons and armor. Forcing the fighter to start with split allows equipment advancement into plate and full plate without having to provide +1 magic armor at 2nd level. Not everyone like counting copper pieces, but it's an important part of certain styles of low-level play.

Second, bad weapons and armor are useful indicators for NPCs. PCs can react to an orc in plate armor differently than an orc in hide or ratty chain. Similarly, it allows DMs to give crappy equipment to NPCs without worrying that the PCs will cart it back to town for an inadvertent humongous payday.

-KS

 

[NotZenon]

I like the flavor of weapons and armor being different, but i do agree that its annoying that there are certain "optimal" builds. And i also agree a fighter with a dagger or whip should be more deadly than a non-combat oriented character with a greatsword. Trailblazer had some interesting rules allowing a fighter to modify the properties of the weapons he was specialized in, and i would like to see this taken a little further, but at the same time it would be nice to see some of the weapons retain a bit of there unique flavor.

Its probably just me, but it always bugged me that weapons and styles that sucked in real life are always better in fantasy games. Like the double axe for example... anyone who's ever swung an axe knows how retarded this weapon is.

 

[Sunseeker]

I tend to think of it this way: weapons and armor are part of an inverse package. The heavier the armor you wear, the more restricted your list of useful weapons is. The lighter armor you wear, the less restricted your list of weapons is(with respect to class). To this end, I think dexterity needs to play a larger role in to-hit(or damage). Perhaps the lighter armored you are the better you can place your shots(hit bonus), or the armor doesn't slow down your movements so you can hit harder(damage bonus).

But armor and weapons should be a "meet in the middle" sort of package. We can replace "weapons" with "magic" and apply the same to wizards similar to the arcane spell failure penalties. Perhaps wearing heavy armor is exhausting, and reduces the number of spells you can cast per day(no need for spell failure percentiles), or reduces the number of spells you can prepare(for all you non-spontaneous casters).

In this regard, we don't even need to give classes armor or weapon prescience except as a bonus deal. Fighters are "Focused" in all armors and weapons, granting them a +1 benefit. Wizards are not, but there's no penalty for choosing an armor type outside your Focus, and the benefit to choosing one within your Focus would be small enough to ignore without severely hampering your effectiveness.

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, I think the thing is, armor was made for a reason - it works.

Someone in full plate is going to have a massive advantage against a guy in nothing.

Typically the only reason not to wear the best armor is you simply couldn't afford it.

 

[Grabuto138]

How about adding additional factors beyond damage and attack to differentiate weapons? I liked weapon speed factor in principle if not in practice. There may be an initiative effect depending on weapon choice. We could also incorporate a modified weapon versus armor rule like in 1e. Weapon catagories could have static benefits, for example, a crossbow can overcome damage reduction to compensate for the loading time.

 

[Mattachine]

Well, I think the thing is, armor was made for a reason - it works.

Someone in full plate is going to have a massive advantage against a guy in nothing.

Typically the only reason not to wear the best armor is you simply couldn't afford it.

Heavy armor makes good sense for a warrior on a horse, who isn't going to slog through an unknown forest, cave, or swap. It also makes sense if you are facing imminent combat, and little else.

D&D has decreased armor penalties through the editions, and each edition typically gives a way for magic armor to ignore most or all penalties. I was never a fan of that.

In my own campaign, all armor, even leather, gives some skill penalties. Most armor gives a movement penalty, and I use a more realistic encumbrance limit (5 pounds/str point). In this game, some of the warriors keep two sets of armor: a light set for adventuring, and a heavy set for warfare.

Light armor (or no armor) makes sense if you are traveling, exploring, or facing the unknown and might need to flee.

 

[Zireael]

I think additional factors to weapons (such as hammers and daggers being useful against full-plate, but most other stuff isn't as good) are a good idea. Weapon speed might also return in some form.

Regarding the above post: I like encumbrance being a factor, but I don't think massive armor penalties are good. That is, let the weight of the armor be important, not just the fact that you're wearing it.

A man in plate-armor can do cart-wheels (believe me, I've seen it) but can't climb or jump too high nor swim due to its weight.

 

[Minigiant]

I think something like this could be done. No one says every one has to use the same base. A fighter's AC, damage, and attack value could start higher than other classes. We already accept this for HP, why not everything.

Fighter types
AC: 16 + Dex Mod + Armor + Shield
Melee attack: Str Mod +3
Ranged attack: Dex Mod +3
Unarmed/Nonproficient damage: 1d10

Cleric and Rogue types
AC: 12 + Dex Mod + Armor + Shield
Melee attack: Str Mod +1
Ranged attack: Dex Mod +1
Unarmed/Nonproficient damage: 1d6

Wizard types
AC: 10 + Dex Mod + Armor + Shield
Melee attack: Str Mod
Ranged attack: Dex Mod
Unarmed/Nonproficient damage: 1d4


So by default, a fighter has a good AC of 16 even when armorless. Wearing heavy armor just raises his AC to the stratosphere at a Heavy mobility penalty. The fighter may choose to use the Dexterity route but that would be expensive (point buy) or use one of his good rolls (roll for stats). But overall, the fighter would not bound by his ability scores and equipment choice to be a good warrior. Instead it just tweaks them to offense, defense, or support.

At a contrast, non warrior classes will be very dependent on weapon choice, armor choice, and ability scores. A cleric will have poor AC and attack without her hammer and full plate.

 

[Li Shenron]

Most 3.0 weapons had their own reasons actually, there wasn't really a "winner weapon". Was the greatsword better than longsword? Depends if you want to have a free hand for something else. Weapon sizes & proficiencies made most weapons meaningful choices for a character, although there certainly were some weapons which overlapped. Then 3.5 accidentally caused some damage with the updated size rules which in fact rendered several smaller weapons useless.

I think the problem existed rather for armors. In the different armors categories there was in fact usually half of the armors that were just worse than the other half.

Anyway... weapons only as a style choice is practically OD&D/BD&D. I am not against it in a low-complexity game, but for a full game I would actually rather have more differences between weapons. I'm not sure I'd be in for trying weapon speeds, but at least I'd be interested in weapon vs armor tables and additional differentiation in critical hits.

 

[Mattachine]

I think additional factors to weapons (such as hammers and daggers being useful against full-plate, but most other stuff isn't as good) are a good idea. Weapon speed might also return in some form.

Regarding the above post: I like encumbrance being a factor, but I don't think massive armor penalties are good. That is, let the weight of the armor be important, not just the fact that you're wearing it.

A man in plate-armor can do cart-wheels (believe me, I've seen it) but can't climb or jump too high nor swim due to its weight.

The person doing cartwheels in plate armor could do more and do them more easily without armor, though. There should be a skill penalty. In the service, we didn't have plate armor, but we had body armor and helmets. It was easier to run, jump, swim, climb, and fire my rifle without body armor and helmet. Also, it was easier to trek stealthily through the woods without armor, helmet, and gear.

In most works of fantasy (movies, shows, books), the heroes are not heavily armored and they are not heavily encumbered. If you want to enforce that trope in your game, then there has to be a disincentive to carrying 100 lbs of gear and wearing 40 lbs of metal armor. Fourth edition is the worst offender in this regard--armor provides almost no penalty. AD&D got it closest to being right (at least for movement/penalties)--until you got "weightless" magic armor.


As far as weapons go, I like the idea of weapons offering choices (damage vs. accuracy, helping with trip, option to throw, better with a feat, etc.), but I don't think we need to have a long list. OD&D is too simple for my taste, but 4e got it about right.