Weapons, armor, & gear: More or less?

[AFGNCAAP]

Great responses! Keep `em coming!

As for MHO:

Personally, I'm all for less detail & variety (IMHO, less = more). My experience (a negative one at that) has been that players who want more variety & detail are seeking to gain some sort of advantage. Whether it's increased damage, bonuses to attack, an improved critical, use as a double-weapon, faster reaction time, or some other tangible, in-game machanical benefit, it's the reason why may of the players choose weapon XA over weapons XB, XC, or XD, even though they're in the same "class" of weapons (X). The best and most common example of this can be seen in the variety of sword stats, but this can occur with any weapon.

Whether it's from a "more historically accurate/realistic" argument, or a "it's a fantasy game" argument, or even a "but it was done in this book/comic/movie/TV show/etc." argument, the end result is all the same--some sort of in-game mechanical advantage.

Personally, I'm happy that a lot of different weapon (& armor) varieties are covered by one weapon type in 3E/3.5E D&D. It makes things a lot simpler (no more massive plethora of various weapon proficiencies, not to mention being meticulous about whether or not feats or abilities would apply to said weapon).

I still shudder when I think about the number of 2nd ed. thri-kreen rangers wielding a katana in each hand that appeared in past campaigns. Or the plethora of 2nd ed. characters with katanas who weren't from an OA-like setting at all. All due to the "better stats."

I do like some of the additions from the Arms and Equipment Guide, like the new materials, as well as some of the new weapon & armor varieties (because they are, for the most part, very different from what's in the PH). But, my favorite part of the book was the table that lists different weapons from different cultures, and what that weapon's equivalent in D&D would be, stat-wise.

It's pretty much how I deal with things IMC, too. Arwyn's saber from LotR: FotR--scimitar, stat-wise. The long-handled, two-handed curved swords that the elves used in LotR: TTT & in the prologue in LotR: FotR--falchion, stat-wise. Gimli's double-bladed axe--greataxe (or possibly, dwarven waraxe--don't recall seeing him use it 1-handed, though).

To tell the truth, I was bothered a bit when 3.5 changed weapon classifications (a Small longsword vs. a Medium longsword, etc.). However, the table in the 3.5 DMG that deals with weapon "equivalents" (a Large shortsword = a Medium longsword = a Small greatsword) eliminated any concerns that I had. However, my 3.0 halfling wizard can't run around with a dagger anymore & do a d4 damage. No more halfling wizards using human daggers (aka halfling shortswords) for free anymore. Oh well--I'll cope.

However, one of the things I don't like, despite what edition it's in, is the "high-fantasy" weapons--the double axe, the double sword, double flail, etc. These weapons, esp. those with a flail attached, seem to be to promise to harm the wielder and his/her opponents equally from its use (reminds me of Mark Twain's comments on a multi-barreled pistol in Roughing It, which I can't recall at the moment).

That's my spin on things.

 

[Aaron L]

Henry has the exact same idea about it that I do. I'd like to see a list of weapons, with illustrations, grouped by D&D weapon type. And armor types done the same way.

 

[tetsujin28]

I don't have a problem with the exotic weapons, since they require the expenditure of a feat to use properly.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm bumping this because I plan to playtest the rules I posted.

 

[Xavim]

I'm bumping this because I plan to playtest the rules I posted.

Considering that in China they actually have double bladed spears and glaives the two-bladed sword is not far-fetched at all. Such weapons actually existed and are not 'high fantasy' in the sense that they are nonsensical. I prefer the simple because with the current core weapons, any balde or doo hicky in the world can fit in as one of the weapons already listed. Saves us DMs a lot of agrivation. They had a weapon type vs. Armour in 2e, but I never bothered with it.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I like the current D&D level of detail. If I had my way, I'd add a few weapons (a pike or similar weapon with 15 or 20 foot reach, possbily chinese hook swords (if they came up in game--they seem suitably unique to merit their own exotic weapon entry), and some kind of polehammer), remove some weapons that strike me as silly (dire flail, double axe), and rename a few more (I'd rename a falchion "great scimitar" and stat a falchion as either a steel bladed handaxe or a scimitar).

The warhammer approach is appropriate to a large scale battle game but breaks down when applied to smaller scale conflicts (in Mordheim, for instance, swords allow a parry roll, axes give a -1 on armor saves, hammers and maces stun on a 2-4 instead of a 3-4, morning stars give +1 strength in the first round of combat but can't be used with a second weapon, and spears allow a character to strike first regardless of initiative. And they added more special rules weapons in the later journals--rapiers with a special flurry rule, etc. By that point in time, you might as well just have different damage dice and critical ranges instead). In smaller conflicts I think it's reasonable for people to want there to be a mechanical difference between the fighter wielding a flail and the fighter with a battle axe.

On the other hand, I don't want to go back to the 1e days of differentiating spetums from Fauchard Forks and having a different attack bonus for every different kind of armor and every different weapon. (Although if I were doing a 3.x computer game, I definitely would dig up the old 1e weapon vs. armor table--a computer can handle cumbersome calculations much better than a human). I'm quite happy to say that the chinese warrior with a Dao and shield is mechanically identical (except for the kind of armor he wears and his feats) to the moorish warrior with a scimitar and shield and the Polish Hussar with a shield and cavalry sabre.

 

[FoxWander]

Hey RangerWickett, got any more of those ideas? Please! I'm definitely in the less detail more flavor camp and I'm already thinking of ways to add the things you posted (and more) to my game. So please- more of the same.

Now here's my 2 pence on the subject- Well, alot of it has already been said by AFGNCAAP. In my experience, and I must admit I was guilty of it myself at one point, the REAL motivation behind wanting "more realism" was to eke more bonuses and damage out of combat. I too remember the days of everyone weilding katanas, and speaking of thrikreen, how about those lovely "throwing wedges" (good damage, range AND it returns if you miss!!) of thiers that non-thrikreen seemed to have a never-ending supply of. I personally never had a "wedge" thrower, but I do have far too many non-oriental characters that somehow have a katana worked in to thier background. [hangs head in shame icon]

With a simple weapon/armor system like RangerWickett proposed you could have all the flavor you want without it all boiling down to min/maxing. Not to mention some cool concepts that seem classic (like the dual knife fighter, or the tomahawk throwing ranger) but are just unplayable in the current system without sacrificing alot of your character's effectivity.

Honestly, one of the things I love about 3E D&D is the wonderful simplicity of it- standardized named bonus types, clear definitions for special attack types and combat conditions, and (best of all) the core d20 mechanic itself! With all that simplicity and ease of use, I was quite disappointed that the weapon and armor tables weren't revised along the same lines. It still has the same problem it always had- put all the stats into a bowl, shake, and one or two weapons/armors come out on top- so that's what everybody uses. I do it myself!! I love the flavor of a dual knife-wielding, leather-clad thief but... I don't have the feats to pull it off... even if I did I'd suck in combat... a short sword does better damage anyway... why wear leather when I can get a MW chain shirt... etc. How can you get out of the trap?

-EDIT (remembered another thing I wanted to mention)
As for the new "fantasy" weapons- mercurial swords, double axes/swords, gnomish hook hammers (?!?!), etc. Gimme a break! Can someone explain how the heck you would MAKE a mercurial sword in the first place? How about how you would use a hook-hammer without hurting yourself? Or a sword-flail? (That idea works with some specialized martial arts weapons only because the thing the chain is attached to is a small one-handed weapon and the chain is quite abit longer to be used for entangling- not so much as a flail. Anyway, i'll stop now.) Even a double sword seems a little silly (but I guess the 3E design team has some Darth Maul fans) but it's vaguely workable. The double axe is stretching it though.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, I've been quite impressed with the variety of viable D&D 3.x weapons from a min-max point of view. Among one handed martial weapons, longsword, battle axe, and warhammer are all equally viable (being mathematically identical) and light flails, scimitars, rapiers, and heavy picks aren't far behind (in fact, they're ahead for some characters). Among two handed martial weapons greataxes and greatswords are the obvious choices but, with a high enough damage bonus, a falchion or scythe is better and there are good reasons to take glaives, guisarms, and heavy flails as well. The exotic weapons (bastard sword, waraxe, spiked chain, doublesword) are often but not always worth spending a feat on.

And among light weapons, there's good reason to pick shortswords, handaxes, sai, light maces, and throwing axes. And light picks and kukris are reasonable options.

Again, among simple weapons, the morning star and longspear probably compete for the title of the "all around best" weapon but heavy maces and spears are close enough that there's little temptation to always choose the morning star or longspear. Even the quarterstaff is quite competitive if wielded by a specialized two weapon fighter.

Choice of armor is much clearer in D&D 3.x with the chain shirt and fullplate putting everything else out of the running (except the occasional breastplate or suit of studded leather if mithral armor isn't commonly available and the mithral breastplate if it is) but if you use the encumberance rules and skill checks are a significant part of your game, there are reasons to wear leather armor, studded leather armor, and a few others as well. Then again, nearly every armor type is viable for starting characters. It's only once money ceases to be a factor that the field narrows down.

It still has the same problem it always had- put all the stats into a bowl, shake, and one or two weapons/armors come out on top- so that's what everybody uses. I do it myself!! I love the flavor of a dual knife-wielding, leather-clad thief but... I don't have the feats to pull it off... even if I did I'd suck in combat... a short sword does better damage anyway... why wear leather when I can get a MW chain shirt... etc. How can you get out of the trap?

 

[Wombat]

On the basic question, I have dealt with armour and weapons rules as simple as are found in Over the Edge and as complex as found in Harnmaster; given that specturm, I prefer the OTE end of matters. Too many details, although visually interesting if you are dealing with an artist as talented as Angus McBride, tend to just lead to a lot of needless complications.

In the end, yes, there is a difference between butted and rivetted mail, but how much practical difference is there for a game, especially with a randomizing scale of 1-20? Equally, if you are going to get that complex with arms and armour, are you going to get complicated with other equipment?

Game example: I was playing Cyberpunk about a dozen years ago. I was working for an engineering firm at the time and so decided to play a gearhead as I had lots of realworld brains to pick. Two of the guys started arguing about different types of guns -- precise types of ammo, handling capabilities, targetting, minutiae of range under differing conditions, etc.

I got really, really bored with this continuing conversation, so I started asking about my mechanical kit. "It's just a kit," I was told. "But what type of pliers to I have? How many gauges of wire and in what lengths? Resistors? Plugs? What?"

I slapped down on of the catalogs from my job.

It was 5" thick. It only dealt with wires and solder.

I said, "I see your guns, and I raise you. Remember -- guns are made from parts. So if we are gonna argue about tiny details regarding handguns, I am going to do the same with my mech and elec kits."

After that we went back to something closer to "Big gun, small gun" and the game moved much more quickly and smoothly.

Just food for thought.