Weapons, armor, & gear: More or less?

[Keith]

Er...was that off the top of your head, RangerW? Sounds interesting.

Anyway, I agree that lots of flavor is nice, and also that the less fussing with stats the better. You are a sea ranger wearing shell armor? Great, sure. It works like studded leather (stat part over) and looks super cool.

So, I think that makes me a “less” supporter. Certainly, I would not buy any equipment books. I’ve never found it that hard to think of...you know, stuff...

Cheers

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.
Similarly, weapon damage would be based just on how you are using the weapon, not on what the weapon looks like.
Concealable (1d4) Standard (1d6). Full (1d10).

Great Ghu, remind me to never be in your games. My inner anal-retentive engineer wants the complicated system but the pragmatic GM says reasonable speed & balance. (FYI: I build computer simulations of hydraulic systems in my day job)

Reality is great as long as it doesn't get in the way of the fun. Vice versa, get too far from what one professor called "caveman phsyics" (the stuff people intuitively understand) and the game ceases to be fun because they spend so much time double-thinking.

Truth is, 3.x shouldn't have any more mechanical gradations; some would say several items are already unnecessary but there are specific conditions that make them worthwhile to a large enough group of people to be worthwhile. But the tasty flavor provided by wrapping rules in various doughs & spice and deep frying is something 3.x could use.

However you must realize, I've had PCs spend weeks getting a non-magical romanesque brush helmet that matches the nifty bronze armor they found.

 

[Verdigris]

I doubt that details like "rivited" or "smooth" can be accurately modeled. Plus, whats the major difference between one sword or another? They are hunks of sharp metal that chop, poke and crush.

There is another reason not to "stat" too much variety: many people won't roleplay with a really cool, exotic sword if its slightly worse than another, similar sword. You end up having to add odd rules to make each item unique enough to fill a niche.

Personally, I don't like "fantasy" weapons: I don't think in real life a double bladed axe or a "hooked hammer" is markedly superior to a regular one. If the weapon is balanced and heavy and sharp, it will be deadly in the proper hands.

So...give me flavor but not too many rules.

Just my opinion, though.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I doubt that details like "rivited" or "smooth" can be accurately modeled. Plus, whats the major difference between one sword or another? They are hunks of sharp metal that chop, poke and crush.

Oh, it can be modeled but it's not worth it. And there can be a *big* difference from relatively minor changes, assuming the usage adjusts. There's a big knife community out there that is very performance oriented. Comparisons between knives of the same base design can show significant differences in cut depth or penetration, excluding things like factory sharpness or durability. Make the cross section too wide and the blade wedges; too narrow and it flexes. I went looking up info on Kukris and found a lot. IIRC, the url was knifeworld.com

There is another reason not to "stat" too much variety: many people won't roleplay with a really cool, exotic sword if its slightly worse than another, similar sword. You end up having to add odd rules to make each item unique enough to fill a niche.

This falls into the "not worth it" heading. Too much variety does little good since everyone gravitates to the best weapons anyway. Better to limit it to distinctive functions (piercing, slashing, bludeoning, etc) and move on with life.

 

[Umbran]

Keep It Simple, especially for combat gear. The D&D combat system is abstract enough that it doesn't need half a bazilion minor variations. Keeping track of picayune details that have little effect on game play is tedious, and slows the game down.

 

[tetsujin28]

I remember way back in the Dragon there was an article that had rules for weapon damage based on class. (I believe the main point of the article was letting clerics use edged weapons, but that's neither here nor there for our discussion.) So a mage using a 1-handed melee weapon (whatever it was) did a d4, cleric/rogue d6, and fighter d8. Warhammer FRP follows a similar route, with all 1-H weapons doing the same damage, all 2-H doing a bit more, &c. Me, I like all those different dice. Granted, the DM has to be careful not to unleash any uberweapons that the PCs will grab once they have the dosh (mercurial weapons, anyone?), but the current system seems fairly balanced.

 

[tetsujin28]

Keep It Simple, especially for combat gear. The D&D combat system is abstract enough that it doesn't need half a bazilion minor variations. Keeping track of picayune details that have little effect on game play is tedious, and slows the game down.

Gold star for use of "picayune"

 

[Numion]

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

But that doesn't keep you from trying`, huh?

 

[Theron]

I admit a fondness for the old multi-box/Cyclopedia version of D&D's approach to weaponry.

Sword: short, normal, bastard, 2 hand.

Covered all the bases in my book. Everything else was stage dressing.

 

[Liolel]

Keep the rules simple, weapons and armor are used so much that the last thing needed is to have to look up some complex rule like what the to hit bonus of a peircing weapon vs plate. Thankfully in the core rules theres nothing like that.

However I do not mind lots of non combat mechanical details, as long as they aren't the type that bogs down games. So no you have to oil this armor 3 times a day or its armor check penelty increases by 1. That I assume is done in the backround and there shouldn't be rules requring it. But I do like descriptions of the craftsman ship, details on how hard it would be to find a smith that could make one. These add roleplaying without rule compexity.