Top 10 odd D&D weapons

[Dannyalcatraz]

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HURT YOURSELF?

I have no idea...I assume that those who believe you would are thinking of "porcupine" armor and a guy who is really klutzy.

That leaves the back, the buttocks (unless you want to sit down), the back/top of the head, and maybe the shins and backs of the biceps (tops of the biceps, and you might hit yourself in the head)

...and boot-tips, knees, & back of the gauntlet & forearm (a la Kerry King).

 

[Hussar]

And, let's not forget about spiked armor that we're not talking about 6 inch spikes here. A couple of inch, not terribly sharp, pointy bits rivetted all over the armor would not seriously impare the user.

It would, as mentioned before, make the armor less protective vs weapons, so it will depend on campaign. However, in many campaigns, which feature monsters, particularly lots of monsters with Improved Grab or Swallow, it's not a terribly far fetched idea that people would develop armor to deal with these problems.

Sure, the boots look anachronistic, but, then again, who cares? Can you honestly say that in a world where there are more than a few creatures that fight like this that no one would twig on the idea?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm thinking the Halflings and Gnomes, with their exposure to small, woodland creatures- heck BEING small, woodland creatures- would figure it out first.

If an asian monk can come up with "Mantis style" or "Monkey style" Kung Fu by observing animals, why wouldn't a Halfling or Gnomish armorer note that creatures tend not to attack porcupines more than once...

This probably would also explain an earlier adoption of stink grenades by FRPG cultures as opposed to RW ones.

 

[Hussar]

Looking at Big Dummy's list for making weapons more historical, I have to say that I agree with pretty much all his ideas. However, there are a couple of really big problems with making those ideas core.

1. It would massivly complicate combat. DnD combat isn't exactly speedy as it is and adding three or four more calculations to the pot would just result in glacial combat speeds. I've played enough GURPS and Rolemaster to know that I don't want my DnD combat to be that complex.

2. It would also be complicated to implement. THe old weapon vs armor tables were interesting, but, if a campaign featured monsters, which most camps do, then every monster requires the same table. After all, if a weapon is good against plate mail, is it good against a bullette? A dragon? A displacer beast? So many creatures have such different physiologies, that this would become very cumbersome.

Now, IMHO, there is a much easier fix for the whole lot.

Polearms now have a 19-20 crit range.
Swords have a x3 crit range.
All swords drop down one die in damage.

That, right there, would do away with the dominance of swords in the game. I'm a big fan of keeping it simple. Doing what BD says would have the same effect, but at a huge cost in complication. Yes, upping the effectiveness of a dagger might be realistic, since daggers are really effective against people, but, something to remember, is that the vast majority (or at least majority) of combats don't feature humanoids. While a dagger is a serious threat to a human, it's a minor threat to a bear, a non-existent threat to an elephant and a pin to a dragon. Again, adding complexity is not always the best answer.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Polearms now have a 19-20 crit range.
Swords have a x3 crit range.
All swords drop down one die in damage.

Problem is that if swords had an x3 crit range, that would reduce the effectiveness of axes.

(The trade off between swords and axes is that swords have a higher crit range, and axes have a higher crit damage. Look at your typical battle axe vs. longsword.)

The question is, do you really want a shortsword that is just as effective as a dagger? do you want daggers that do d3 damage? Few things make an allready melee-weak class like spellcasters happier than when their primary weapon has a die that needs to be devided in half for it's damage value. And i'm sure rogues would thank you as well.

When the longsword does shortsword damage, there goes the entire concept of a valiant knight riding into battle with a longblade. The only weapon that would be worthwile for taking is the newly 19-20 x4 critting polearms (since polearms crit HEAVY, and swords crit OFTEN). Each die-increment dropped drops the damage average / time of a weapon by 1 point. Not good, not good at all in a game that's all about hit points, not "internal hemmoraging". or "realistic physical spray".

 

[big dummy]

Looking at Big Dummy's list for making weapons more historical, I have to say that I agree with pretty much all his ideas. However, there are a couple of really big problems with making those ideas core.

1. It would massivly complicate combat. DnD combat isn't exactly speedy as it is and a

I really don't think adding a reach bonus and a defensive bonus to each weapon would complicae combat in the least. Why should it? The reach bonus is no different than a magical or masterwork to-hit bonus, and you already have shields which give you a defense bonus.

Now your wizard can have that staff which can actually keep monsters at bay, (especially with the defensive fighting option)


To equalize shorter weapons, rule that the reach bonus doesn't apply when in grapple. In fact you give short weapons a close-fighting bonus in grapple. That works for thieves.


If you do just those things, you are already differentiating weapons substantially, and you have already made combat more nuanced without complicating it really at all. And I know it doesn't slow anything down because I have houseruled this and we ran our campaign this way all last year. I have a couple of friends who have also tried this out with success.




As for monsters, they all have their natural armor (if any) listed seperately already in the Monster Manual.


There are a lot of other steps you can take (like armor as damage reduction as many D20 and oGL games already do), but like I said, thats a good start right there.

BD

 

[big dummy]

You can also give some weapons (pole-arms, military picks, stilettos, awl-pikes etc.) an armor piercing bonus which I think they are already going in Conan RpG and some other games.

BD

 

[Orius]

real boots, with real spikes. For sale. I don't think they'd sell spiked boots that could impale the wearer. But at (pound sign)89 per pair, i don't think i'll get any.

I think we found where Hennet buys his shoes...

 

[Hussar]

I really don't think adding a reach bonus and a defensive bonus to each weapon would complicae combat in the least. Why should it? The reach bonus is no different than a magical or masterwork to-hit bonus, and you already have shields which give you a defense bonus.

Now your wizard can have that staff which can actually keep monsters at bay, (especially with the defensive fighting option)


To equalize shorter weapons, rule that the reach bonus doesn't apply when in grapple. In fact you give short weapons a close-fighting bonus in grapple. That works for thieves.


If you do just those things, you are already differentiating weapons substantially, and you have already made combat more nuanced without complicating it really at all. And I know it doesn't slow anything down because I have houseruled this and we ran our campaign this way all last year. I have a couple of friends who have also tried this out with success.




As for monsters, they all have their natural armor (if any) listed seperately already in the Monster Manual.


There are a lot of other steps you can take (like armor as damage reduction as many D20 and oGL games already do), but like I said, thats a good start right there.

BD

Fair enough BD, but, as you say, you can find areas where you need to make more changes already - grappling for instance.

Also, maybe I was misunderstanding, but didn't you mean that particular weapon types would be more effective vs certain armor types not armor classes. That's what I meant by the Monster Manual getting more complicated.

After all, a creature might have +5 Natural Armor because it's like a rhino and has a really thick hide - making it susceptable to slashing weapons and resistant to bludgeoning - or it might have a chitinous shell like a bug - making it highly resistant to slashing but susceptable to piercing. Even though they both have the same armor bonus, the adjustments by weapon type are changed.

I'm certainly not saying it's impossible. And, as you say there are more than a few variants floating around that use this. I just would not personally want to see this in core rules. For many people, the difference between a 4 pound sword and a 3 pound sword doesn't mean anything. In the same way, they don't care that a dagger might be more effective vs plate mail than a longsword. It just doesn't add anything to the game for them.

And, I've a sneaking suspicion that "they" might be in the majority of gamers. Those who want historical accuracy in a fantasy RPG are quite possibly in a minority. If that is true, then having variant combat rules as an add on is a good idea.

In other words, BD, I agree with you 100%, but, I know for a fact that you will never see this in core DnD.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That would be like a return to 1Ed...we don't need that.