Ditch Weapon And Armor Lists

[Greensnakedrex]

I propose we ditch ponderous and unbalanced weapon and armor lists. We can revamp weapon speed and shields to balance a simple 'type based' weapon and armor system.

Speed denotes the bonus threshold at which the user gains another attack.

4 weapon types.
Light= d4 (speed= +4)
medium= d8 (speed= +5)
heavy= d10 (speed= +6)
2 handed melee= 3d4 (speed= +7)


You start with 1 attack.
light weapons grant another attack at +4, +8, +12...
medium weapons grant another attack at +5, +10, +15...
heavy weapons grant another attack at +6, +12, +18...
2 handed weapons grant another attack at +7, +14, +21...

Couple this with simple crit and shield rules.
20= crit. Crit = double dice damage with exploding dice; a maxed die roll gets rolled and added again. (very nice for 2 handers)

2 shield types.
Small shields= +2 (can be used with all but 2 handed weapons)
Large shields= +4 (can only be used when wielding a medium or light weapon)

-Small weapons grant more attacks.
-Medium weapons afford the use of a large shield.
-Large weapons do more damage
-2 handed weapons do lots of damage (especially with exploding dice on a crit) but are slower and you cannot use a shield.

Set armor up thusly
light= +2 AC
medium= +4 AC
heavy= +6 AC

(Heavy armor and large shield still = AC 20 and you can still rock a longsword for d8 damage at a +5 speed threshold)

With this system, you can name and imagine your armor and weapons however you wish, removing FLAVOR choices from the influence of MECHANICS.

With multiple attacks determined by attack bonus/weapon speed, the flatter math makes every +1 VERY important and rewarding.

Allow backgrounds and or themes to modify some of these basic rules in some ways (i.e. specialized archers types do d8 damage at +4 speed threshold) and the possibility of special qualities (i.e. double damage with mounted lance charge) and I believe we can keep all of our players gruntled (opposite of disgruntled) with their weapon/ armor choices.

 

[Greensnakedrex]

Blatant self bump due to a healthy dose of editing and narrowing of subject.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I would prefer the core rules to fill in the details and the richness of the campaign world as best as they can. This means in terms of weaponry and armour, giving weird, irregular lists and descriptions of things some of which I may never have heard of. Use the descriptions and qualities of these individual weapons and armour as the starting point to then use your mechanics to effectively model. Inshort, I believe the in-game, campaign "thing" should come first with the mechanics subservient to these needs.

Giving bland descriptions of bland numbers representing bland categories completely removes all the colour of the fantasy world I am trying to imagine. While this may be efficient design, and give a certain level of freedom for players to come up with their own imaginings to inhabit these categories, it is far, far, far away from what I am looking for.

However, full points for going to the effort of detailing your thoughts and while I disagree with the foundation of your approach, there are many people on this forum who would like the direction you are going.

Welcome aboard EN World and keep posting your ideas. Hopefully focusing your original post will get a few more responses (and hopefully some responses more positive to your ideas than mine ).



Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mengu]

I propose we ditch ponderous and unbalanced weapon and armor lists.

I would prefer the core rules to fill in the details and the richness of the campaign world as best as they can.

I'm going to agree with both of you. One world might have rapiers and crossbows, another might have nun-chucks and shurikens, one might have agiels and dacras, yet another might have cutlasses and flintlocks, and why not, even lightsabers and bowcasters. The game system can't make distinctions for each. I can see baseline statistics for the expected game balance for a limited number of weapon types. But then I would like some relevant flavor and spice to go with what's expected of the world that these weapons will be used in. There are numerous approaches to the implementation. And if that flavor throws balance off here and there, then be it. If the baseline is solid, it shouldn't be too bad. If it makes certain weapons favored in a certain world, all the better.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For D&D, I'd prefer we keep the weapons & armor lists. Their removal would be a step too far in the direction of games like HERO- which IS my favorite system. I like HERO for its flexibility. I like D&D for its inherent character. Making the latter too much like the former would make me need it less. I already have and love HERO, why buy a clone of it?

 

[delericho]

I agree with fixing the balance of the weapon and armour types - there's no point in having long and lovingly-detailed lists if there are a handful of options that are clearly the best (for any definition of 'best').

However, I don't agree with removing those lists entirely. Although perhaps they could be moved to a module?

 

[Lanefan]

One quick thought: you're being awfully generous with the AC bonus from shields - +4 from a large shield is a lot!

That said, I don't mind the weapon and armour lists at all - loads of flavour and choice. Then again, in my preferred system you're only proficient in a few specific weapons that you choose (longsword, crossbow, dagger, 2-handed sword for example) rather than entire classes of weapons (small, large, ranged) so weapon specifics are somewhat more necessary.

Lanefan

 

[ComradeGnull]

I actually like the diversity of weapons. WFRP used the broad class-like system because of its wargame legacy (where it makes sense to not detail every variation in sidearm of every single soldier in a unit) and it also works well if you are making a generic system that is equally applicable to any type of setting- same stats & mechanics for Feudal Japan or Imperial Rome or 13th Century Europe or whatever.

However, one of the things I like about D&D is that you can have lots of different cultural or technological levels mixing it up. Orcs can use stone age weapons (axes, short spears, atl-atl, etc.), humans can fight like hoplites with long spears, bronze armor, and big shields, elves can be 14th century longbowmen, another culture of humans can fight like Mongol raiders (compound horse bows, light armor, scimitar-like swords)... etc.

I like those different weapons having some mechanics to differentiate one from another, even if they are minor. The diversity of weapons in the world exists for a reason- some were cheaper to make or required less technology, some countered specific defensive technologies or worked with certain tactics... I like, for instance, blunt weapons working better against skeletons and slashing weapons being able to de-limb someone on a crit.

Mind you, I don't insist that level of detail be baked into the basic version of the game. But I do like there being preferred weapon lists for different martial classes, damage types (B/P/S), varying damage, speed, etc.

Also: even if you remove the mechanical differences, weapons should cost different amounts. A longsword shouldn't have the same price tag as a club or mace, nor should a greataxe cost the same as a great club, and they shouldn't have the same encumbrance. Thus you end up with a big list of weapons anyway.

 

[jrowland]

What if in addition to the OPs suggestion, you add "properties" to weapons and armor such as "pierce, bludgeon, slash, disarm, defensive, off-hand, reach" etc?

So, e.g. you could pick Light weapon with Defensive and effectively be using a Main-Gauche. A table listing the more common weapons and their properties could be provided.

Longword: Medium Slashing
Shortsword: Light Piercing
etc.

Effectively you have the same standard D&D list of weapons, but you could easily model your own historic weapon. Weapons with multiple properties could require specific feats for proficiency (Halberd: Reach Slashing Piercing)

 

[Ahnehnois]

An interesting idea. Not sure that I'd use it, but worth considering.

Realistically, D&D doesn't really capture the diversity of weapons that could be used anyway; and many of them are mechanically quite similar. I could see advantages to simply saying I have a sword that is held in one hand and deals a d6 slashing damage and leaving the details as addons.

It would be a break from tradition, but it would save space, at it wouldn't be too hard to build the detail back in for people who care about these things.