Weapon vs Armour type modifiers

[knifespeaks]

For those folk who recall these from first, are you using them in 3.5?

I am endeavouring to prevent everyone using the same weapon - since I have also introduced specific weapon proficiencies. It's not a major change, but to 'even' it up, I am considering allowing specialisation and focus feats to stack.

 

[shilsen]

Let me be the first to provide a resounding, "Oh hell, no!" I hated those rules. The weapon vs. armor type modifiers are a great example for me of a degree of realism which does not help the game. It just adds unnecessary complexity and nothing else, IMO.

If you want to prevent everyone using the same weapon, use the weapon rules as written and just have NPCs use varied types of weapons and do so effectively. Once players see that in certain situations a reach weapon can be great, or the way a flail is helpful for tripping and disarming, or the effects of a weapon with a high crit modifier, and so on, suddenly they realize that there are a lot more options to choose from than may seem to be the case.

 

[irdeggman]

Knifespeaks,


Try the 2nd ed book Player's Option: Combat & Tactics.

It gave specific advantages that certain weapons had against certain armors including shields.

It seems to me that you are going throught the "crash course" in catching up with what 2nd ed did and then evolved into 3/3.5.

I would strongly recommend that you attempt to get a copy of the the 2nd ed Player's secrets books (they are on the AD&D Core Rules and expansion CD Roms by the way) to save some time in creating your house-rules. I say this because much of what you seem to want to do has already been done in 2nd and you have admitted never playing 2nd ed and just made the jump (light years by the way) to 3/3.5.

I have no idea why your player's are choosing to use the same weapon. Really there must be some reason they are inclined to do so based on your game. Magic weapon preference in occurance perhaps? Crossbows, being simple weapons are the most common ranged weapons for non-martial classes (and there are distinct differences between light and heavy versions). But melee weapons are a completely different subject. Bastard swords are good, bu so are long swords and rapiers have the advantage of being considered "light" weapons, my PC )fighter/cleric (of Kord)uses a greatsword (deity's preferred weapon) and it can be devasting in its damage.

I wonder if this is an offshoot of the "other" hose-rules you said you were going to introduce. As I said before a single apparently "small" change can easily result in drastic changes being made to balance things out.

 

[haiiro]

Let me be the first to provide a resounding, "Oh hell, no!" I hated those rules. The weapon vs. armor type modifiers are a great example for me of a degree of realism which does not help the game. It just adds unnecessary complexity and nothing else, IMO.

That's exactly what I was thinking, but you said it better. Weapon type vs. armor modifiers are one of the things about 2e that made me cringe (like speed factors), and I don't miss them one bit.

 

[knifespeaks]

Oh, no-one is using the same weapons Irdeggman! I just want to get in early

I like the idea - it adds a tactical element to the game without much work. Yeah, getting a crash course in 2nd ed might be an idea as well - but I have enough reading to do bewteen work, study and 3.5

 

[Eremite]

My first response is, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please note that this is delivered at a blood-curdling pitch....

I'm surprised to see your rationale that it's to stop your PCs from always using the same weapons. Thanks to reach, crit ranges and multipliers, light weapons and other such variables, I've been really pleased at the variety of weapons that have appeared in the groups I DM.

Something else to consider is that your players might also expect these rules to be extended to natural armours. Perhaps bludgeoning melee and piercing ranged weapons are best for penetrating a dragon's hide, for example?

A question for you: you mentioned that you're reintroducing specific weapon proficiencies. Does this mean you're increasing the number of feats allowed to facilitate this?

 

[Frostmarrow]

It's better to make all weapons do 1d8 damage if you want people to use the weapons they find cool rather than statistically good.

 

[Staffan]

I'd just like to note that IMO, 3e weapons are pretty well-balanced within the different categories (light/one-handed/two-handed; simple/martial/exotic). For example, the battleaxe and longsword are pretty much the same, only one crits more often and the other crits harder when it does. The rapier and pick do the same, but with less base damage and better crits. It's not like in 2e, where the longsword was just better than everything else.

 

[Zappo]

Weird, I have no problem at all with variety of weapons in play. In 2e, OTOH, everyone used long swords.

 

[diaglo]

Weird, I have no problem at all with variety of weapons in play. In 2e, OTOH, everyone used long swords.

weird, i have no problem with them using weapon vs armor type now.

but we are playing OD&D with the aid of Supplement I Greyhawk.