Top 10 odd D&D weapons

[Agent Oracle]

Seriosuly, if you want to play 1e, go pick up a copy of hackmaster and enjoy rolling on the "random whores" table.

 

[big dummy]

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..

Any time you introduce any new elements to the game in any way you are facing a potential trade off between added complexity and added immersion and or nuance (in terms of giving the players more options in a gamist sense).

The scenario you describe would be too complicated to implement in terms of that tradeoff. IMO if you want armor piercing weapons you just assume all armor is handled the same way. After all, a military pick or an awl -pike is going to punch through leather just the same as it could punch through mail or plate-- any difference in resistance would be reflected in the quality of the armor (i.e. is it 2 point armor or 10 point). So the same, say +4 bonus could be applied to any attack.

This is no more complicated than say, a magic sword with +4 vs some type of monster, or a Rangers favored enemy bonus, or a Weapon Specialization bonus.

It also incidentally helps fighters weilding non-magical weapons gain an edge against monsters with a lot of Natural armor.

Further nuance than that on the armor issue I would only reccomend for a computer game
(where it could take place invisibly behind the scenes) or possibly with some expert players.



All of the changes which I would consider viable for a typical D&D game would have to balance well in the tradeoff between simplicity and game-enhacncement.

In the same way, they don't care that a dagger might be more effective vs plate mail than a longsword.

They may not, but it might be nice to have an option of being able to get an armor piercing dagger (i.e. a roundel for example, or even a stiletto)

It might be more fun if a sword got a reach advantage but a dagger worked better in grapple. Or a spear got a reach advantage over a sword but wasn't as good for defending.

And I think a lot of players would appreciate access to weapons like staves which could potentially help them keep dangerous enemies at bay through a defensive combat bonus.



Adding a Reach bous and a Defense bonus would hardly impact game play in any way at all, certianly no more than masterwork and magical weapons do. It would not mean a return to 1E D&D in any way. It would enhance the options and make the choice of weapons more of a strategic, and interesting choices that just didn't happen to rely on magic.

Similarly, IF you are using armor as damage reduction as many people already are, an armor piercing bonus for certain weapons wouldn't add much complexity at all.

There are actually a lot of simple things you can do to enhance combat and magic without disrupting the flow or balance of the game.

BD

 

[genshou]

Similarly, IF you are using armor as damage reduction as many people already are, an armor piercing bonus for certain weapons wouldn't add much complexity at all.

Piercing weapons ignore half (round up) of armour and natural armour DR bonuses. That's how I handle it. Makes longbows and crossbows both actually effective against armour.

 

[big dummy]

Piercing weapons ignore half (round up) of armour and natural armour DR bonuses. That's how I handle it. Makes longbows and crossbows both actually effective against armour.

Yep, another good way to handle it. And do you find this slows your game down to a crawl or throws it back in a timewarp to 1E?


I advocate this method as another good alternative, though since I'm a medieval weapons buff I personally like to pick and choose which ones get the armor piercing nod.

This also incidentally adds more fun options. Like you could have regular arrows which do D8 damage, and armor piercing arrows which do D6 but ignore half of the armor DR bonuses.



Heres something interesting about this: it gives you a nice new option, and it actually balances out because it emulates reality (however distantly) and in reality, you had arrows with different types of points, a war point did more damage but a bodkin could pierce armor. Thats actually pretty much the tradeoff of every armor piercing weapon out there, from icepicks to misericordes, estocs, awl-pikes, military picks etc etc..

If you add little bits of realism (I know it's a dirty word but bear me out) if you ad them carefully where they aren't going to impact on complexity you find that they add nuance, more options, and bring their own balance with them.

BD

 

[ceratitis]

BD

you said you've been using something similar in your game, would you mind posting a list or a word/pdf file with the various changes you made to weapons? would be nice to have such a list based on real weapon knowledge combined with play tested info.
Z

 

[big dummy]

BD

you said you've been using something similar in your game, would you mind posting a list or a word/pdf file with the various changes you made to weapons? would be nice to have such a list based on real weapon knowledge combined with play tested info.
Z

Well, the modifications in my game go a bit beyond the simple expedients I've gone over here, so the playtesting relfects other balancing factors. Also, regardless of whatver I think my knowlege level is obviously a table like this is subjective and my interpretation would be based on my opinion, other people might break it down differently. This is just how I would handle it.

That said here are a few examples, some D&D weapons, some not in D&D currently:

Weapon |Reach Bonus|Defensive Bonus|Armor Piercing?|Grapple weapon?|Damage
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knife |0 |0 | No | Yes | D6
Dagger |+1 |+1 | No | Yes | D8
Ice Pick | 0 |0 | Yes | Yes | D4
Roundel Dagger |+1 |+1 | Yes | Yes | D6
Main Gauche Dagger |+1 |+2 | Yes | Yes | D6
Short Sword |+3 |+1 | No | No | D8
Cutlass |+2 |+2 | No | No | D8
Light mace |+2 |+2 | No | No | D6
War Hammer / Pick |+2 |+2 | Yes | No | D6
Flanged Mace |+3 |+2 | Yes | No | D8
Heavy Mace |+3 |+1 | No | No | D10
"Long" Sword |+4 |+3 | No | No | D8
Battle Axe |+3 |+1 | No | No | D10
Greatsword |+5 |+4 |No | No | 2D6
Spear |+6 |+2* |No | No | D8
Awl-Spear |+6 |+3* |Yes | No | D6
Staff |+6 |+5 |No | No | D6
Halberd |+7 |+2 |No | No | D10
Lance |+8 |- |Yes | No | D8


*defense is improved if you have some feat which lets you use it like a staff.

Defense bonus of weapons would only count against melee attacks, not missiles.

Basic consideration would be, +1 per foot of reach for Reach, modified for really clumsy or really precise weapons, with a bonus for particulalry versatile weapons (like a sword which can chop, slash, or thrust). Defense is based on Reach, balance, extra protection (like the broad quillions on a main gauche, or the cup-hilt on a cutlass) and exra mass like on a mace. Also shape can effect this, curved sabers (arguably) don't seem to be as good at parrying as straite swords, even more so for inwardly curving weapons. some weapons

 

[big dummy]

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.

The thing is, based on knowing a bit of what armor is really like to wear, touch, be touched by etc., and some of the tests done on real or realisitc armor, if you are actually assuming something like a full plate harness I think this is actually going to be hard and painful to try to bite through or grasp for anything but the largest creatures. I mean, a 10 foot bull shark cant' even bite through (aluminum alloy) shark-proof chainmail gnawwing and gnawwing.

Given how strong we know plate armor was, how is even a Dragon going to bite through it without breaking his teeth. Given the physics of some longbow and crossbow test-firings I've seen done, I seriously doubt even a grizzly, a polar bear or a full grown tiger could bite or claw a man in full harness (the only way it could do damage would be blunt trauma of knocking yer knight down etc.) and I guarantee pouncing on a plate armored opponent would be damaging to the teeth / claws of the critter in question (unless they were themselves made of tempered steel or some imaginary magical metal like adamantium), not to mention to any other exposed flesh. Wrestling with an armored knight is a great way to break bones and abrade fur and hide in fact.

In other words, I really don't think you would need spikes even if they did make sense, which I don't think they do.

BD

 

[Hussar]

Not sure if comparing a dragon to a shark is fair. Dragon to crocodile might be much better, and crocs most certainy can shear through metal. Sure, they break a tooth, but, then again, who's to say they don't regrow?

Like I said, I can't say that I honestly care. I ignore all sorts of impossible things in DnD. Chucking out charts so that I can do combat quicker makes me happy.

My point about the armor though is in the same vein. If you want realism, where do you stop? Sure, a pike is just as effective against leather as plate (more or less) but, a slashing weapon certainly isn't. A mace is great against stuff with a hard shell, but, against elephant hide, it's much less effective.

Sure, you can just say, AC is AC, it doesn't matter, but, then, you are sacrificing "realism". My point is, why bother? Why do I gain by making the game more complicated?

It might be more fun if a sword got a reach advantage but a dagger worked better in grapple. Or a spear got a reach advantage over a sword but wasn't as good for defending.

This is already true. A dagger can be used in grappling and a sword can't be. A longspear has reach, a sword doesn't.

 

[big dummy]

Not sure if comparing a dragon to a shark is fair. Dragon to crocodile might be much better, and crocs most certainy can shear through metal. Sure, they break a tooth, but, then again, who's to say they don't regrow?

I'd really, really like to see a crocodile bite through about a 3-4mm tempered steel breastplate ...

If you want realism, where do you stop?

You stop where it starts to add complexity and / or it stops adding options and nuance to the game. Just as I did in the example above. There is no rule that says realism has to be all or nothing. After all, D&D uses all kinds of "real" things like people having to drink water or bows shooting arrows.

Sure, a pike is just as effective against leather as plate (more or less) but, a slashing weapon certainly isn't.

which is one of the reason there aren't any armor piercing slashing weapons that I know of historically. Every one I know of is a piercing or bludgeoning weapon.

A mace is great against stuff with a hard shell, but, against elephant hide, it's much less effective.

I disagree... I would bet you that a flanged mace would be just as good at breaking bones under elephant hide as it would be at breaking bones under mail or plate armor.

Again, I do not think the mods I suggested actually make the game more complicated. The fact is a lot of people already use a lot of these because they actually make the game feel more internally consistent and they add nuance, give more options to players and DM alike, etc. etc.

I doubt genshou's game is being slowed down any by his litle houserule.

This is already true. A dagger can be used in grappling and a sword can't be. A longspear has reach, a sword doesn't.

right, which is why it's only a baby step to add the features I mentioned.

D&D isn't a low-complexity game. The combat is actually fairly complex, it's just that a lot of the complexity is either in magic or in mechanics which frankly don't make all that much sense or don't flow well (grapple is a well known example of the latter)

All I'm talking about is adding a few features which do not necessarily make the game more complicated at all but do enhance it significantly by actuly give players and DM's more options, and to help things like the weapons and armor actually make a lot more sense (i.e. fit together in a more internally consistent manner).

BD

 

[lukelightning]

Remember that natural armor is not always just thick hide or a shell; it could represent tough muscle, etc.