Promoting the use of simple weapons...

[Felnar]

if simple staves/clubs were as good as martial swords/axes,
no one would have bothered to invent swords

all weapons have their ups and downs, hence, different weapons
ie. i imagine staves are welcome in places swords arent
also,
he wouldnt be the first to put character-concept above min/maxing

- Felnar

 

[Quip]

Perhaps a feat to improve simple weapons would be a good idea? Something requiring martial weapon proficiency that increases the damage of simple weapons by one catagory.

 

[apesamongus]

he wouldnt be the first to put character-concept above min/maxing

Why should he need to?

 

[Bront]

Why should he need to?

Because not every person is min/maxed either. It adds character to a game.

Min/Maxing to a point is good. It shows interest, and it makes a character playable. Too much removes the character and it becomes simply a collection of numbers.

 

[Thondor]

Problem with allowing a step up on damage with simple weapons are just to great in my opinion. A dagger that does a d6 and has a range increment?
A light crossbow that does a d10
Obviously there's restrictions that can be put in place but you eliminate practicly everything if you do.
And then I would question why small characters can't take a feat that allows them one damage level up.

 

[Quip]

What it were just one simple weapon? I'm just thinking, the requirements would be about the same as an exotic weapon feat, which are generally two "steps" better than simple weapons. Even with improved damage, a simple weapon would be only about as effective as a martial weapon. The one other advanatge to it would be the weapon is cheaper and easier to come by. Seems about balanced

Or if it's a matter of a damage increase not making sense, how about a bonus to hit?

 

[General Barron]

Like Felnar said... if a dagger was just as good of a weapon as a longsword in a standard battle, then why would the longsword ever have been invented?

The combat rules in DnD are obviously a drastic simplification of what real-life combat would be like. So there are many differences between weapons that just aren't taken into account by the few statistics used. But the answer to making all weapons usable isn't to just make them all have similar statistics. You just need to emphasize the differences between the weapons that can't be reflected in those statistics (damage, critical, weapon size/type). This would depend on which weapon you are talking about:

Staff: A pretty respectable weapon in the hands of a trained warrior. And the mechanics reflect this, as already stated. Two-weapon fighting for the only realistic double-weapon in the game. Tripping with a stave is another great idea. Perhaps even pinning or a choke attack could be used if the character fought in an Eastern fighting style.
Also, staves are completely innoculous (sp?) weapons. It doesn't have to seem like a weapon at all, just an innocent walking stick. In countries or locations where weapons are prohibited, or where it would be unwise to be seen with them, this is perfect. Mechanically, you could give an initiative bonus to the staff wielder when his opponent doesn't suspect it to be used in that way.

Dagger: I wouldn't use a dagger in toe-to-toe combat vs someone with a longsword, but there are many other times when I would. Daggers are small and concealable, for one thing. They also can be used when there isn't room for swinging a sword around, like in a narrow passage.

Club: Okay, this weapon should suck. Why would you use a wooden stick, when you could use one with a metal head instead? (A mace that is) The only reason someone would really want to use one in combat is if they are from a place where metal is rare; or if they are poor or don't usually use weapons (but still want to join the mob to go lynch somebody).

 

[Talic]

I like Odysseus' idea of changing the MW price for the various classes of weapons. Not sure how the numbers work out, but it's a good thought. Of course, after a few levels, when cash isnt much of a problem, it probably doesn't matter anymore.

The simple weapons primary function for the PC classes is for those semi-martial classes like the Cleric, or the Sorcerer. Someone who needs to be able to defend himself, but isnt generally going to rely on it. Because of that, it isnt neccissary that they cary a weapon capeable of dealing 2d6 damage or a d12 with a x3 crit. These characters will often instead carry a crossbow, which as has been mentioned by several, is already on par with the average martial weapon. A class like Ranger or Fighter, while they can easily use the simple weapons, will often opt for a better weapon, something that not only deals damage, but is a mark of his character, and is just a little more menacing than the average simple weapon.

In terms of mechanics, there is of course the standard list of Weapon Focus and the like, but also look at the Style feats from Complete Warrior. They all depend on a specific weapon, or set of weapons to be used, some with the lowly simple weapon. You could even create your own similar feats, but do notice that each Style feat has a reasonable amount of prerequsites before it can be taken.

Any choice made comes with consequenses good and bad. The player knows this, he can weigh the benifits against the penalties.

 

[Testament]

Check out the Quick Staff combat style in Complete Warrior. Makes the staff a seriously good defensive weapon.

 

[S'mon]

If he really wants to be quarterstaff-focussed let him swap out proficiency in Martial Melee Weapons for Weapon Focus (Quarterstaff).