Simplify Weapons and Armor?

[vagabundo]

Should 4E simplify weapons by abstracting them a little more?
For instance, have Small, Medium and Large sizes, then Bludgeon, Pierce, Slash, then Simple, Martial and Exotic?

Couldn't every weapon be described in both form and bonuses this way? A longsword is Medium. It slashes, so threat is 19-20. It's martial, so damage 1d8. Something along that line?

Armor could be even simpler: None, Light, Medium or Heavy. Light, Medium or Heavy Shield. All the other ways of describing a particular set of armor is fluff. So armor could provide +2, +4 or +6 and also come with the drawbacks of wearing heavier armor. Shields could be +1, +2 or +3 and should have a small drawback for using heavier.

Well?

I can see something like this being in the DMG and used as the basis for weapons in the PHB. But each weapon in the PHB will have an associated special ability or trait.

Ideally, smashing things with a war ax should be different to fighting with a sword.

 

[Intrope]

The *main* reason this should not happen: Endless Blunt Jokes.

Hell, I just made one--and I was trying to be serious!

Whether Drug or Sex references, they'd be a terrible nuisance!

 

[Abstraction]

The main reason I see FOR simplifying weapons is that the ever-increasing number of weapons available with splat books make things worse for fighters, not better. Who needs to find a +5 flaming orc double axe? Glad I spent all my feats specializing in halberd.

 

[Midknightsun]

I have mixed feelings. I could see the benefits to some degree of abstraction, but too much makes the point of different weapon listings nearly moot. My primary concern is that they attempt to balance weapons a little better, so that any one (I'm looking at you Greatsword) doesn't look so much more appealing than everything else that its a near no-brainer. And weapon size adjustments need to be rethought, if they're going to reintroduced into 4e.

But I would prefer more clearly defined weapons, even if fewer, than more generic types, that aren't just differentiated by damage dice, but other minor special abilities (trip, reach, etc)

 

[GreatLemur]

I like the idea of having a mechanically-solid weapon construction system in the DMG, and a set of sample weapons that follow those rules in the PHB. I'm all but certain that's not going to happen, though. From what we've heard about 4e Fighters, each kind of weapon is going to have certain feats/talents/maneuvers associated with it, making balancing weapons a more complicated issue than just trading off damage dice vs. crit ranges vs. disarm bonuses.

But, to echo Midknightsun, I'm really, really hoping for an end to the deliberate mechanical imbalancing in favor of certain "iconic" weapons. The whole Magic: The Gathering-esque design ethic behind creating little prizes for the min-maxers who bother to run the numbers just disgusts me.

 

[Stalker0]

The designers have already said that weapons will be differentiated by more than just stats. Now people will get to do different abilities with each weapon. So with that in mind, no I wouldn't want a generic table.

 

[Belorin]

Should 4E simplify weapons by abstracting them a little more?
For instance, have Small, Medium and Large sizes, then Bludgeon, Pierce, Slash, then Simple, Martial and Exotic?

Couldn't every weapon be described in both form and bonuses this way? A longsword is Medium. It slashes, so threat is 19-20. It's martial, so damage 1d8. Something along that line?

Armor could be even simpler: None, Light, Medium or Heavy. Light, Medium or Heavy Shield. All the other ways of describing a particular set of armor is fluff. So armor could provide +2, +4 or +6 and also come with the drawbacks of wearing heavier armor. Shields could be +1, +2 or +3 and should have a small drawback for using heavier.

Well?

I don't know. "I attack the orc with my +2 medium slashing weapon and slice thru his medium armor for 6 points of damage."
Doesn't quite do it justice, does it.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I don't know. "I attack the orc with my +2 medium slashing weapon and slice thru his medium armor for 6 points of damage."
Doesn't quite do it justice, does it.

Well, it wouldn't be hard to still list all kinds of weapons and armor with names, but instead of a table with each weapon or armor having its own line with weight, damage, crit, AC bonus etc. it just lists the type it is. A separate table could then show the types and the combat values for that type.

That said, I don't find the current system all that complicated and am fine with the way it is right now.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I'd like to have a cool weapon customization system (say like in Black Company) but if we can't have that, simple is better than the appearance of choice which basically breaks down into three or four optimal choices. --Steve

The weapon (and armor) customization system in the BCCS is probably my favorite part of it. It's almost worth buying the book for.

I hope that, if not in the 3 core books, this becomes a viable, WotC-published option in the future. Reason why I say WotC-published is that some people are really anal about Wizards stuff = official, non-wizards stuff =/= official. It's silly, but oh so true.

 

[Imp]

There should be some better distinctions, but I think the current weapon system is more or less fine.