Simplify Weapons and Armor?

[Altamont Ravenard]

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 get this sentiment.

Say they do something like this:

Generic Term: Axe
Type: slashing
Damage:

1H: 1d8
2H: 1d12​

Crit: 20 / X3
Possible weapon names:

1H: Axe, Hatchet, Tomahawk, Throwing axe, Hand axe
2H: Greataxe, Halberd, Waraxe​

Generic Term: Sword
Type: slashing
Damage:

1H: 1d8
2H: 2d6​

Crit: 19-20 / X2
Possible weapon names:

1H: Cutlass, Scimitar, Machete, Katana, Longsword
2H: Greatsword, Flachion, Bastard Sword​

Generic Term: Mace
Type: bludgeoning
Damage:

1H: 1d8
2H: 1d10​

Crit: 20 / X3
Possible weapon names:

1H: Mace, Warhammer, Morningstar, Club
2H: Warclub, Maul, Great Mace​

Wouldn't it make it more fun? I mean, you decide which kind of generic weapon you use, but you get to describe it as you want, and you wouldn't be mechanically disadvantages for making a sub-optimal choice for a signature weapon.

You could call your weapon a Fangblade, describe it as the ancestral weapon of your tribe, a long, flat, serrated blade with a crocodile-bone guard and have it behave mechanically the same as your buddy Björn's Viking Sword.

AR

 

[Wormwood]

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.

I'm not lobbying for either of those systems, but I don't think they're any less *exciting* than rolling a d20 followed by a d8.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Wouldn't it make it more fun? I mean, you decide which kind of generic weapon you use, but you get to describe it as you want, and you wouldn't be mechanically disadvantages for making a sub-optimal choice for a signature weapon.

You could call your weapon a Fangblade, describe it as the ancestral weapon of your tribe, a long, flat, serrated blade with a crocodile-bone guard and have it behave mechanically the same as your buddy Björn's Viking Sword.

AR

No, that wouldn't make it more fun; at least not for me. That would be a flavorless game. If I enjoyed abstraction on that level, I'd play FUDGE or something. As another poster said, what if spells were described that blandly? Hell, what if we just described monsters that way? "Generic level-three monster, humanoid type. HD 3, AC 15, BAB +4. Possible names: Goblin, Orc, Hobgoblin, Gnoll, etc."

Awful.

No thanks.

 

[The_Gneech]

Well yeah ... the latter system I described (both parties roll and loser takes the difference) is pretty much Tunnels and Trolls, which can be a very fun game with a good GM. But it also lends itself to everyone on either side just rolling a bucket of dice and counting. At least differentiated attack/damage rolls give you more fodder for adding cool description.

I'm not necessarily against the OP's "standardization of weapon type" model either, but I think it should be something with a lot of wiggle room. I don't like systemizing things just for the sake of having them systemized, if you see what I mean.

-The Gneech

 

[Belorin]

I don't get this sentiment.

Say they do something like this:

Generic Term: Axe
Type: slashing
Damage:

1H: 1d8
2H: 1d12​

Crit: 20 / X3
Possible weapon names:

1H: Axe, Hatchet, Tomahawk, Throwing axe, Hand axe
2H: Greataxe, Halberd, Waraxe​

Generic Term: Sword
Type: slashing
Damage:

1H: 1d8
2H: 2d6​

Crit: 19-20 / X2
Possible weapon names:

1H: Cutlass, Scimitar, Machete, Katana, Longsword
2H: Greatsword, Flachion, Bastard Sword​

Generic Term: Mace
Type: bludgeoning
Damage:

1H: 1d8
2H: 1d10​

Crit: 20 / X3
Possible weapon names:

1H: Mace, Warhammer, Morningstar, Club
2H: Warclub, Maul, Great Mace​

Wouldn't it make it more fun? I mean, you decide which kind of generic weapon you use, but you get to describe it as you want, and you wouldn't be mechanically disadvantages for making a sub-optimal choice for a signature weapon.

You could call your weapon a Fangblade, describe it as the ancestral weapon of your tribe, a long, flat, serrated blade with a crocodile-bone guard and have it behave mechanically the same as your buddy Björn's Viking Sword.

AR

Then what happens to non-generic weapons like tiger claws, chakram, latajang, three section staff and other exotic/racial weapons?
You're system is fine for a computer game but flavor is one of the reasons frpg's exist, otherwise we's still be playing table-top war games.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I would love this sort of simplification. Actually, I would love it if equipment joined alignment and elements on the 'list of things whose only mechanic is to add a descriptor to a character or action.' Let players define their weapons as whatever they like, without mechanical impact.

But, for D&D, I don't think this would fly; in my experience, it seems unpopular even among fans of vastly lighter and more free-form games.

 

[GreatLemur]

No, that wouldn't make it more fun; at least not for me. That would be a flavorless game. If I enjoyed abstraction on that level, I'd play FUDGE or something. As another poster said, what if spells were described that blandly? Hell, what if we just described monsters that way? "Generic level-three monster, humanoid type. HD 3, AC 15, BAB +4. Possible names: Goblin, Orc, Hobgoblin, Gnoll, etc."

Hell, I could absolutely dig that. I prefer to come up with my own flavor, anyway. What difference does it make at the table whether or not there were any serial numbers to file off first?

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Mercifully, it looks like we'll be spared any such nonsense if the Star Wars Saga Edition rules are any indication of what 4th Edition D&D will be like. They didn't drastically simplify the armours/weapons/spells/etc. there, so I think we're safe...

 

[The Human Target]

I would love this sort of simplification. Actually, I would love it if equipment joined alignment and elements on the 'list of things whose only mechanic is to add a descriptor to a character or action.' Let players define their weapons as whatever they like, without mechanical impact.

But, for D&D, I don't think this would fly; in my experience, it seems unpopular even among fans of vastly lighter and more free-form games.

Yeah, I find that too.

I guess most people who talk up roleplaying and fluff over crunch advantages still secretly get their rocks off on rolling greatsword damage.

 

[Jhaelen]

No, that wouldn't make it more fun; at least not for me. That would be a flavorless game. If I enjoyed abstraction on that level, I'd play FUDGE or something. As another poster said, what if spells were described that blandly? Hell, what if we just described monsters that way? "Generic level-three monster, humanoid type. HD 3, AC 15, BAB +4. Possible names: Goblin, Orc, Hobgoblin, Gnoll, etc."

Awful.

For weapons: terrible! I don't mind if they create weapons groups of some kind, but the weapons within those groups should still have individual advantages & disadvantages. Since combat is such an important part of D&D this is not something that should be abstracted away.
We already have a sufficiently high degree of freedom when it comes to describing specific weapons. Not all heavy maces need to look exactly alike.

For monsters: Actually, that wouldn't be that bad. Instead of simply listing the names there should be separate entries for each of the humanoids that share these stats. Each should have a paragraph about their culture and have something that makes them distinctive, e.g. one or more racial abilities or even just a different list of recommended skills/feats.

This would be similar to the format currently in use for subraces (which hopefully don't exist in 4E).