apesamongus
First Post
Of all the changes in 3.5 the fact that a whip now defaults to using Strength is the one that bothers me the most.reanjr said:
Weapon Equality
- Thread starter Kemrain
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
To a certain extent, that's kind of the point. At least as far as I can see it. The variety in weapons becomes more the special bonuses or special stats they give you.
The way I've been working with it is by making damage a class feature. So fighters deal 1d8 damage with melee or ranged attacks, clerics deal 1d6 damage in melee and 1d4 damage ranged, barbarians deal 1d12 damage in melee and 1d6 damage ranged, etc.
The difference between an "axe" and a "sword" is basically that the sword widens your crit range, the axe widens your crit multiplier. While the "hammer" deals bludgeoning damage, but is a simple weapon instead of a martial weapon. The "spear" gives you reach.
Though I think that "equalizing" the weapons is a bit of a futile mission. You can't measure the value of reach, crit multipliers, crit ranges, damage types, etc. in a vacuum. They are only as valuable as the campaign makes them.
Personally, I don't think weapons need to be "balanced," until and unless you're talking about fantasy weapons, like the Dwarven Urgosh, or those quicksilver swords.
RW weapons evolved for different reasons and for different purposes. They got used by different people. There are real world reasons why one person would chose a longsword over a axe, or vice versa.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the weapons and armor on the D&D equipment charts come from a lot of different cultures and developed over a lot of time. By the time the rapier became popular, the longsword and halberds were largely ceremonial weapons, and 2 handed axes were rare as hen's teeth- as was plate armor.
But D&D doesn't (and never has) accurately modeled the various weapons anyway. There was an article I read comparing the lethality of thrusting weapons (like rapiers) to slashing weapons (like longswords and katanas). Researchers compared the wounds found on various warriors bodies and experiments on body gels, and even examined the historical records of duels between Eastern and Western warriors when the West was opening up trade with Eastern powers. The conclusion was thrusting weapons were more lethal, but slashing weapons had more "stopping power." That is, much like a bullet, a slashing weapon sends hydrostatic shockwaves of energy throughout the body, and a single strike might disable a warrior from shock without actually killing him. Warriors fighting with slashing weapons tended to have multiple healed wounds and a lot of deep scar tissue. However, thrusting weapons penetrated several organs at once- rapier duelists who lost tended to have several wounds, any of which would be considered fatal, but, because of the lack of hydrostatic shock, didn't drop the opponent quickly. Because of this, they fought on after they were fatally wounded.
Ummmm...I guess that's my longwinded, tangential way of saying: Leave the weapons alone, and let players choose them for roleplay reasons.
RW weapons evolved for different reasons and for different purposes. They got used by different people. There are real world reasons why one person would chose a longsword over a axe, or vice versa.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the weapons and armor on the D&D equipment charts come from a lot of different cultures and developed over a lot of time. By the time the rapier became popular, the longsword and halberds were largely ceremonial weapons, and 2 handed axes were rare as hen's teeth- as was plate armor.
But D&D doesn't (and never has) accurately modeled the various weapons anyway. There was an article I read comparing the lethality of thrusting weapons (like rapiers) to slashing weapons (like longswords and katanas). Researchers compared the wounds found on various warriors bodies and experiments on body gels, and even examined the historical records of duels between Eastern and Western warriors when the West was opening up trade with Eastern powers. The conclusion was thrusting weapons were more lethal, but slashing weapons had more "stopping power." That is, much like a bullet, a slashing weapon sends hydrostatic shockwaves of energy throughout the body, and a single strike might disable a warrior from shock without actually killing him. Warriors fighting with slashing weapons tended to have multiple healed wounds and a lot of deep scar tissue. However, thrusting weapons penetrated several organs at once- rapier duelists who lost tended to have several wounds, any of which would be considered fatal, but, because of the lack of hydrostatic shock, didn't drop the opponent quickly. Because of this, they fought on after they were fatally wounded.
Ummmm...I guess that's my longwinded, tangential way of saying: Leave the weapons alone, and let players choose them for roleplay reasons.
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
reanjr said:
Maybe it's balanced, maybe not. It's still stupid.
Interresting thread going here, and I think reanjr's solution works well if you're going for a set of weapon build rules. I am curious as to why you chose 2-handed weapons to gain 3 build points by that method.
And I just have one other question: How do ranged weapons factor into all of this? Do they follow the same rules, require a different set of standards, or are they much more random?
And I just have one other question: How do ranged weapons factor into all of this? Do they follow the same rules, require a different set of standards, or are they much more random?
Similar Threads
