Simplify Weapons and Armor?

I think that the weapons should indeed be abstracted. Consider that a weapon is simply SFX for doing damage. Here's what I'm considering:

All weapons do damage equal to your current HD: if you're currently a barbarian, your dagger does 1d12; if you're currently a mage, your 2H sword does 1d4. Monks get an Insight bonus of +1 per 2 levels with their natural attacks. Rationale: no longer have to look up damage types or guestimate them for improvised weapons. KISS.

If you use your weapon 1 handed, you add 1x strength, no matter which arm. If you're using 2 weapons, each gets 1x Str. If you use a weapon 2-handed, you add 2x strength (or negate any Str penalty), even if it's a dagger. Think of the old woman stabbing someone with a stilletto held in both hands. Power Attack goes with Str. Rationale: simple!

Criticals: normal weapons do not threaten criticals. Masterwork weapons threaten a critical on a 20. Rationale: increases survivability of PCs because mooks won't be critting them (that minotaur with the maul won't be doing 80 HP damage), makes Masterwork weapons good treasure. Monsters may take the Improved Natural Attack feat to be able to threaten criticals with natural attacks. Monks have a threat range equal to their Ki Strike ability. Magic weapons have a threat range equal to their plus, so a +4 weapon threatens on a 17-20. All criticals do x2 damage (this is toned down from earlier). Characters can take the Improved Critical feat to do x3 damage. Rationale: restores somewhat the balance between spellcasters and combatants at high levels, makes higher plus magic weapons special again.

Example: Brod the Barbarian is wielding 2 +3 daggers and has Str 20 and the Improved Critical Feat. He does 1d12 + 8 damage with a 18-20/x3 crit with each weapon. Later Brod loses one of his daggers and becomes enraged (+4 Str) and Power Attacks for 10 points holding his remaining dagger in both hands. He does 1d12 + 37 on a successful hit; he would do 114-147 on a successful critical.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Quartz said:
All weapons do damage equal to your current HD: if you're currently a barbarian, your dagger does 1d12; if you're currently a mage, your 2H sword does 1d4. Monks get an Insight bonus of +1 per 2 levels with their natural attacks. Rationale: no longer have to look up damage types or guestimate them for improvised weapons. KISS.

Weapon damage as a function of HD is interesting and very symmetrical. Consider this concept stolen for my (very experimental) game---although I was considering using a BAB-based system (full BAB: 1d10, 3/4 BAB: 1d6, 1/2 BAB: 1d4).

I also will definitely be playtesting your crit system.
 

I absolutely do not want to see this come to pass. For me, half the fun of the game is the weapons and armour. Making them more abstract would be boring. I don't expect to see this happen either, since Star Wars Saga Edition does not feature "abstracted" weapons and armour.
 

Stalker0 said:
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.
Ditto.
 

I think the designers of 4e have been spending a lot of their thought process on how to make sure the game doesn't bog down into "routine" parts...

So abstracted weapons I think is a no go.

I also wouldn't like it either... I didn't like it when I saw it in my first D&D book, and still don't. :p
 

Quartz said:
I think that the weapons should indeed be abstracted. Consider that a weapon is simply SFX for doing damage. Here's what I'm considering:

All weapons do damage equal to your current HD: if you're currently a barbarian, your dagger does 1d12; if you're currently a mage, your 2H sword does 1d4. Monks get an Insight bonus of +1 per 2 levels with their natural attacks. Rationale: no longer have to look up damage types or guestimate them for improvised weapons. KISS.

"Current" HD?

That's potentially problematic based on your build.
"Oops, you just took a level of mage to qualify for Rage Mage. Sorry, Ragnar Deathskull, you're doing d4 with your Hammer of Thunderbolts."
"GRAH! Who knew that trying to qualify for a suboptimal prestige class would limit my damage?!"

Instead, use the highest level class. This may've been what you intended.

Otherwise, it's an interesting idea. The one problem I see is that, as you have it written, it means that there's no reason to use anything other than a dagger. Now, it does give the freedom to use a better weapon if one appears, and it could work with a system where the kind of weapon was important, too; like, yes, you can smack someone upside the head with a staff or a battleaxe, but to do the cool moves you've trained on, you want a sword.

Brad
 

As an example, here's what I've done in my own campaign to simplify armor:


Technically, the specific armor kind isn't even necessary (outside of flavor). Overall reduction of penalties, while highlighting the benefits of armor type, would be more simplistic and easier for newer players to reference (instead of recalling what AC brigandine or splint has off the top of your head). By averaging the armor values and modifying them slightly, here is what I have come up with:

Light Armor AC: 2
Max Dex = character level +3
Armor Check Penalty = -1
Movement Penalty = none

Medium Armor AC: 4
Max Dex = character level +1
Armor Check Penalty = -2
Movement Penalty = 1 square

Heavy Armor AC: 8
Max Dex = character level +0
Armor Check Penalty = -4
Movement Penalty = 2 squares

Light Shield AC: 1
Armor Check Penalty = -1

Medium Shield AC: 2
Armor Check Penalty = -2

Heavy Shield AC: 3
Armor Check Penalty = -3

Tower Shield AC: 4 or full cover
Armor Check Penalty = -4

Masterwork would allow an additional +1 Max Dex bonus and reduce the Armor Check penalty by +1
 

ArmoredSaint said:
I absolutely do not want to see this come to pass. For me, half the fun of the game is the weapons and armour. Making them more abstract would be boring. I don't expect to see this happen either, since Star Wars Saga Edition does not feature "abstracted" weapons and armour.


Could not agree with you more. Weapons should have their own individual flavor. I wonder how some people would feel if spells were simplified to the point where individual spells had no flavor? I'm sure some people would be up in arms.

Howndawg
 

You want abstract? How about "the number you roll over the target's AC is the damage you do?" Or maybe "You and your opponent both make opposed attack rolls -- whoever rolls higher damages the other for the amount the rolled over the other's attack roll. Ties indicate no damage that round."

Simple, yes. Fast, yes. Also boring as dirt. Nevermind.

-The Gneech :cool:
 

Howndawg said:
Could not agree with you more. Weapons should have their own individual flavor. I wonder how some people would feel if spells were simplified to the point where individual spells had no flavor? I'm sure some people would be up in arms.

Howndawg

Eh... They kind of are... The flavor of spells in a lot of ways comes from their text, not their rules... I mean 1d6 damage per level... Spells have a lot of the "routine" problems some of the weapons do. (Not to mention feats...)
 

Remove ads

Top