Weapons, armor, & gear: More or less?

[AFGNCAAP]

Here's something I'm a bit curious about:

Do you prefer more or less? detail, crunch, &/or variety when it comes to gear (especially weapons and armor)?

Would you rather see a lot of various kinds of gear statted out? Say, for example, rules on different styles of chainmail (butted vs. riveted)? Details and stats on various types of swords (gladius, seax, coustille, cinquenda, basilard, arming sword, hoplite sword, etc., instead of just lumping them all into the short sword category)?

Or, do you prefer a K.I.S.S. approach? A basic description, die used for damage, relative size/# of hands needed, weight, & cost for weapons? AC modifier, weight, & cost for armor? Generic categories for weapons? (E.G., "sword" covers any edged, one-handed weapon with a blade that's 2.5-3.5 feet long, such as long swords, broad swords, spathas, viking swords, Norman swords, sword-rapiers, katzbalgers, schiavonas, & even weapons like scimitars, sabers, tulwars, and falchions.)

Did you think that stuff in the Arms & Equipment Guide was too much or not enough?

Also, along the same lines, do you prefer more historically-based gear, or more fantasy-based gear? Weapons, armor, & gear that were actually made & are functional, or anything the mind & a drawing implement can come up with?

I'm curious to see what y'all think.

 

[Theron]

Put me down in the simple category. The interaction of armour and weapons just on humanoid targets is complicated enough to preclude realism beyond a certain point. Adding in all sorts of fantasy critters just makes it worse.

Thing is, I've been studying medieval ironmongery and its use for about twenty five years now. There's not much any game system can do to get things completely right in my book, so given that, I'd rather go with something that gets things approximately right without slowing down play too much. Even The Riddle of Steel, which has one of the more realistic combat systems out there abstracts armour to a large extent. Doesn't take away from game play in my experience.

 

[alsih2o]

more more more!!

i want info for wicker archery chields and quilted leapord skin armor, i want ac variances for 17 kinds of helmets and obsidian edged wooden cricket bats.

i want detailed feats for specialist mamaluk archers and halberdier breastplates.

i personally think ac should be d100 to account for all the great things one can do.

+5 ac for a helmet that gives a -4 on spit checks? cow hide shields that provide less ac in exchange for being aboe to use single ahanded weapons?

i want all of it, now!

great question....

 

[dagger]

I would honestly prefer all of it in one book.

 

[Henry]

My answer's complex: I want MORE flavor, LESS stats.

In Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, I loved the ideas of articulated place, chain-and-plate armor, Definitive Harnesses, etc. However, there really is not enough room for variation between the existing armors to make them worthwhile. Who in their right mind would choose Chain shirt (+4 ac, +4 max dex) to a leather coat (+4 ac, +6 max dex, lighter weight)?

It would be nice to see a supplement that said:

LEATHER
==========
here are variations in leather armor (text & pictures)

CHAIN
=============
here are variations in chain shirts (text & pictures)


and so forth. Stats are all right, but I like to know what else is out there descriptively besides "hauberk & vambraces." I could pick up historical texts with this in mind, but they would not be geared towards the distinctions in armor that are geared in gaming.

 

[Carnifex]

+5 ac for a helmet that gives a -4 on spit checks?

Yeah, I find it really hard to spit out of those heavy metal helmets too

 

[Rel]

My answer's complex: I want MORE flavor, LESS stats.

Agreed. I try to give items in my campaigns lots of flavor but don't feel like I need to alter the stats for every possible variation. I don't think the system is granular enough to accomodate that (nor do I want it to be).

So this conversation has happened around our gaming table:

Me: The barbarian leader, in appreciation for your help against the orcish horde, presents you with a beautiful bow. It's name is "Hawktalon" and it is fashioned of the hard but pliable Rosewood that grows on the foothills of the Blackpeak Mountains. The oils that have been applied to it really bring out the alternating bands of deep red and almost purple wood. The grip has been fashioned into the likeness of a hawks head with garnets for eyes.

Player: Sweet! And mechanically...

Me: Masterwork, Mighty +2 longbow.

 

[Eldorian]

Flavor is all and good, and MAYBE some small variations on stats, but anything too big and you get min maxers using all the same gear, like Henry said. It's important that the armors be balanced against each other. I remember the star wars arms and eq guide (not bought the dnd one, looked too bad) and it had some weapons that were obviously better than the others, so who would want to use the lesser weapons? I mean, for running an army, yah, you might pick a model that was slightly cheaper and slightly less damaging, but a player will happily spend that 100 creds or gold pieces for a +1 to hit or damage. So it became no contest as to what weapons you used. There are certian guildlines for arms and armor that the core rule book set out, and it's ok for new items to have different stats, as long as they follow those guidelines. But the core rulebook handled most of the good combinations.

Eldorian Antar

 

[RangerWickett]

Personally, I'd prefer simple. It reduces power-gaming potential, and focuses the session more on storytelling than statistics.

I would have three types of armor - light (+2), medium (+5), and heavy(+8). A shield requires a free hand to use, but gives an extra +2 AC.

• Light (+2). This armor lets you use your full mobility and Dex-based abilities.
• Medium (+5). This armor slows your base speed, and restricts you to a maximum of +3 Dex bonus for AC and Reflex saves.
• Heavy (+8). This armor gives you DR 1/-, but slows your base speed, restricts you to a +1 Dex bonus, and keeps you from using the Finesse Fighter feat. Sleeping in heavy armor has heavy penalties.

The specifics of your armor are up to you. Light armor could be leather, some sort of thin metal, kevlar, or even just your own hardened flesh. Heavy armor could be classic plate armor, or it might be heavy bamboo armor, or a suit of living flesh that absorbs damage for you but limits your movement.


Similarly, weapon damage would be based just on how you are using the weapon, not on what the weapon looks like.

• Concealable (1d4). A weapon deals this damage if you are using it in a grapple.
• Standard (1d6). A weapon deals this damage if you are using a shield.
• Full (1d10). A weapon deals this damage if you are fighting full with no shield.

You'd have three categories of weapons - Melee (can only be used in close combat), Reach (can be used at 10 ft., but not close), and Missile (range increment 50 ft., but using it incurs an AoO). Every melee and reach weapon can be thrown with a range increment of 10 ft.

We'd have a new feat, Martial Proficiency, that would increase your damage category by one step (all fighters and barbarians would have this feat for free). And then other feats would let you do nifty things, like Finesse Fighter, Disarm Mastery, Trip Mastery, or Reach Mastery. These would basically be the equivalent taking the appropriate exotic weapon proficiency for a normal D&D exotic item, except you'd be able to do nifty things with whatever weapon you want.

Finesse Fighter. You use your Dex bonus instead of Str bonus to attack rolls. Reduce your damage die per attack by one step.

Disarm Master. You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when trying to disarm an opponent. (note that size no longer matters; you can 'disarm' a giant of his club with your dagger by nimbly stabbing his wrist, if you roll well)

Trip Master. You do not provoke an AoO when tripping, nor can you be tripped in response.

Reach Master. If you use a reach weapon, you may use it in close melee combat. If you use a melee weapon, it gains reach out to 10 ft. Your threatened area is 10 ft. in all directions.

These would of course all have prerequisites so as to avoid being degenerate, but they let you focus more on your character's style, and less on the exact item he's fighting with.

You can create all kinds of crazy fighting styles, with a minimum of number crunching.

For example, say you want a knife-fighter who fights with a pair of knives and cuts his opponents to pieces with a frenzy of fast attacks. Now, in standard D&D, you'd need Two-Weapon Fighting and probably some sort of specialty feat to let you deal more damage or get more attacks, because, honestly, there's no statistical reason to fight with two knives. In this system, though, you just realize this is a 'Full' fighting style, because you don't have a free hand for a shield. You'd probably also have Martial Proficiency and Finesse Fighter. Thus, you'd make just one attack roll, and deal 1d12 points of damage per hit. Each individual dagger strike would probably just be a nick or small cut, but the overall effect is more important than the minutiae of each slash.


The revised fighter would get good base attack bonus and one good save (Fort or Ref). At first level he'd get three feats, at 2nd level he'd get two feats, at 3rd and 4th he'd get one each, and then he'd go on with the same progression of 1 per 2 levels.

So 4th level tank fighter could have light and medium armor, shield proficiency, and martial proficiency. He could fight with a spear just as easily as with an axe, or even a club. If he loses his weapon, he can grab any other weapon, and keep fighting just as well. He ends up losing style points for having to rely on someone else's weapon, and if his is magical then obviously he doesn't want to lose it, but now you won't need to worry about whether an adz is balanced with a hand-axe.

 

[Voadam]

Most new fanatasy weapons seem too unrealistic to be taken seriously, this includes ones from Dark Sun, Sword and Fist and Torn Asunder as well as the PH (double sword). Many can be unbalanced as well, (see the heavy greatsword in Torn Asunder or any of the weapons in Diablo Diablerie).

I like having new materials and new magical qualities, but most weapons I enjoy being under umbrella proficiencies and stats (sword covers lots of different sword styles).

I prefer the rules such as a cutlass using the stats for a scimitar instead of making a new martial proficiency or weapon stats for a cutlass.