Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[Gundark]

Agreed

Weapon powers might have worked. They just weren't willing to go all the way.

Legends of the Wulin does it, but there are only 8 types of weapons on the list (Sword, Heavy, Spear, Flexible, Ranged, Paired, Unarmed), with the options of buying special proficiency to combine the effects of two types. That certainly is manageable. If the list is as detailed as the D&D list... not so much.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Weapon powers might have worked. They just weren't willing to go all the way.

Legends of the Wulin does it, but there are only 8 types of weapons on the list (Sword, Heavy, Spear, Flexible, Ranged, Paired, Unarmed), with the options of buying special proficiency to combine the effects of two types. That certainly is manageable. If the list is as detailed as the D&D list... not so much.

IOW, "weapon powers might have worked, but not in D&D."

Sure, weapon types might be very cool in a game that doesn't have the same assumptions D&D does, but that's neither here nor their, is it? D&D does have a huge weapon list and it most likely always will. A long list of weapons with fiddly powers would have been overwhelming for many players. I like the idea of weapons powers, but it wasn't going to work for D&D as it exists now. Which I think is pretty much what MM was saying.

 

[DEFCON 1]

IOW, "weapon powers might have worked, but not in D&D."

Sure, weapon types might be very cool in a game that doesn't have the same assumptions D&D does, but that's neither here nor their, is it? D&D does have a huge weapon list and it most likely always will. A long list of weapons with fiddly powers would have been overwhelming for many players. I like the idea of weapons powers, but it wasn't going to work for D&D as it exists now. Which I think is pretty much what MM was saying.

Well, I'd say that depends on just how powerful those weapon powers were.

After all... we do already have "weapon powers" in a manner of speaking. There are plenty of weapons that have properties to them, which are basic weapon powers. Some weapons give you more damage when you use it two-handed. Some weapons let you attack 1 square further than others. Some weapons let you attack at range with it. Some weapons allow you to attack with your Dexterity.

Adding in extra properties of this sort so that every weapon has at least one property to call its own isn't going to be much of an issue. Picks and curved blades getting High Crit. Weapons with chains getting a trip attack. And most especially... actually making a weapon's damage type MEAN something. One of the very first things WotC talked about when they announced the game was the reintroduction of weapon damage type... but other than Skeletons being vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, does weapon damage type ever come up at all? Does it matter whether something is slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning? As far as I can tell... pretty much almost never. Which means its pointless re-addition to the game.

If you don't want weapon powers because they are too complex... then remove all weapon properties so that every 1d8 weapon is just like any other (and thus your choice truly just comes down to aesthetics.) Otherwise... every weapon should have at least one property so that it distinguishes it from any other, and thus weapon choice comes from both aesthetics, but also what you want (as a player) to be able to do with it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

IOW, "weapon powers might have worked, but not in D&D."

Sure, weapon types might be very cool in a game that doesn't have the same assumptions D&D does, but that's neither here nor their, is it? D&D does have a huge weapon list and it most likely always will. A long list of weapons with fiddly powers would have been overwhelming for many players. I like the idea of weapons powers, but it wasn't going to work for D&D as it exists now. Which I think is pretty much what MM was saying.

What if weapon types had powers

Example: sword all have a axes all have b

 

[Argyle King]

Well, I'd say that depends on just how powerful those weapon powers were.

After all... we do already have "weapon powers" in a manner of speaking. There are plenty of weapons that have properties to them, which are basic weapon powers. Some weapons give you more damage when you use it two-handed. Some weapons let you attack 1 square further than others. Some weapons let you attack at range with it. Some weapons allow you to attack with your Dexterity.

Adding in extra properties of this sort so that every weapon has at least one property to call its own isn't going to be much of an issue. Picks and curved blades getting High Crit. Weapons with chains getting a trip attack. And most especially... actually making a weapon's damage type MEAN something. One of the very first things WotC talked about when they announced the game was the reintroduction of weapon damage type... but other than Skeletons being vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, does weapon damage type ever come up at all? Does it matter whether something is slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning? As far as I can tell... pretty much almost never. Which means its pointless re-addition to the game.

If you don't want weapon powers because they are too complex... then remove all weapon properties so that every 1d8 weapon is just like any other (and thus your choice truly just comes down to aesthetics.) Otherwise... every weapon should have at least one property so that it distinguishes it from any other, and thus weapon choice comes from both aesthetics, but also what you want (as a player) to be able to do with it.

I like the cut of your jib.

 

[Bluenose]

IOW, "weapon powers might have worked, but not in D&D."

Sure, weapon types might be very cool in a game that doesn't have the same assumptions D&D does, but that's neither here nor their, is it? D&D does have a huge weapon list and it most likely always will. A long list of weapons with fiddly powers would have been overwhelming for many players. I like the idea of weapons powers, but it wasn't going to work for D&D as it exists now. Which I think is pretty much what MM was saying.

As compared to the (much) longer list of spells and/or magic items, which can't possibly be cut on the grounds they're too confusing for many players.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What if weapon types had powers

Example: sword all have a axes all have b

That's what much of 4E had on their weapon tables. The swords (of all sizes) got an extra +1 to their proficiency bonus. The axes/hammers all were a damage die bigger than the other weapons of a similar type. Picks and curved blades (scimitar, falchion) were High Crit. Polearms had reach.

For my money... I think all weapons should be charted so that weapon groups get a property and damage types get a property (so every weapon would have two properties). But that's just me.

 

[Minigiant]

I understand not doing weapon powers like how spells are. But there are many examples in D&D's history and tradition that could be used for a simple base system. You don't even have to let every class have access to them at first.

You can easily divide powers by weapon group or weapon damage. Any you can soft lock them much like proficiencies (assassin rogues only get dagger maneuvers from class). And you could easily do them like older editions where you needed a certian level of proficiency or focus to get them, this way everyone doesn't have to learn every power/maneuver/propty.

There are ways it could have been done. Just not the same level and style as spells.

 

[DMZ2112]

Otherwise... every weapon should have at least one property so that it distinguishes it from any other, and thus weapon choice comes from both aesthetics, but also what you want (as a player) to be able to do with it.

*choir of angels* Thiiiiiis!

 

[Dungeoneer]

As compared to the (much) longer list of spells and/or magic items, which can't possibly be cut on the grounds they're too confusing for many players.

The reason your sarcasm is ridiculous is because a player doesn't have to select spells from the entire spell list at once. And magic items are usually distributed in limited quantities by the GM. But the choice of weapon/power would be virtually unrestricted.

What's being proposed here, as I understand it, is that every halberd, flail and falchion has 2-3 'powers' associated with it. Which means that when a player is rolling up a warrior they are going to have spend ages agonizing over whether a great-axe with powers A & B is better or worse than a battle-axe with powers B & C. Since most martial classes have access to virtually the entire catalog if medieval weaponry from the start of the game, this is going to be a pretty overwhelming up-front choice.

If weapon types had to be 'unlocked' (perhaps with feats) that might be different, but again you are then starting to have a game that doesn't look like traditional D&D to most folks.