D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Micah Sweet]

What is a benefit of intnetionally annoying mechanic?

Verisimilitude if you care about sim, obstacles if you care about challenge, narrative circumstance to dramatically overcome if you care about storytelling.

It's win-win-win!

 

[Hussar]

I would suggest that discussion of 2nd edition also belongs on the Older Versions forum. Clearly, people's experiences varied, as did their interpretation of the rules.

Sorry for the derail. Like I said, the whole "uphill both ways in the snow" myth of earlier edition play just makes me rather shirty.

 

[Hussar]

Spears, Slings, and Flails should be considerably better than they are.

This has long been a bugaboo of mine in the game. But, you smack right into the romanticism of the sword. Spears just aren't sexy. The image of shield and sword, or the samurai with his katana or Conan with his honking big sword is just far, far too ingrained into the minds of fantasy fans. The fact that a sword was almost always the weapon of last resort gets largely left by the wayside when you have to wade through a thousand years of King Arthur stories.

Never minding the inherent classism here as well. Spears are peasant weapons. Swords are a symbol of knighthood and wealth and status. Again, the romanticism of fantasy will trump any attempt to make spears considerably better than they are. Same as slings. The weapon of peasants and the conquered, they will never be considered even remotely on par with longbows.

It's just the nature of fantasy.

 

[Lanefan]

What is a benefit of intnetionally annoying mechanic?

Same benefit as any other restriction in a game: it adds to the game's challenge.

That a bishop in chess can only move on the diagonals is an intentionally annoying game mechanic that every chess player has to deal with. But would chess be a better game were that annoying restriction removed such that bishops could move anywhere? Not in the slightest.

Same goes for tracking ammo and other resources in D&D.

 

[loverdrive]

This has long been a bugaboo of mine in the game. But, you smack right into the romanticism of the sword. Spears just aren't sexy. The image of shield and sword, or the samurai with his katana or Conan with his honking big sword is just far, far too ingrained into the minds of fantasy fans. The fact that a sword was almost always the weapon of last resort gets largely left by the wayside when you have to wade through a thousand years of King Arthur stories.

Never minding the inherent classism here as well. Spears are peasant weapons. Swords are a symbol of knighthood and wealth and status. Again, the romanticism of fantasy will trump any attempt to make spears considerably better than they are. Same as slings. The weapon of peasants and the conquered, they will never be considered even remotely on par with longbows.

It's just the nature of fantasy.

I'm playing Elder Scrolls RPG, where spears are just straight up better than all other weapons. The only thing better than a spear is a pike, and the only thing better than a pike is pike formation.

Benefit of swords is that they are easy to carry and are pretty defensive, which, unsurprisingly, is pretty important for adventuring.

We are delving into a dungeon next session and I'm unsure if I'm going to take my spear and shield with me — yeah, combat effectiveness is great, but what the hell I'm supposed to do if I need to climb a wall?

 

[Hussar]

Same benefit as any other restriction in a game: it adds to the game's challenge.

That a bishop in chess can only move on the diagonals is an intentionally annoying game mechanic that every chess player has to deal with. But would chess be a better game were that annoying restriction removed such that bishops could move anywhere? Not in the slightest.

Same goes for tracking ammo and other resources in D&D.

Umm, you do realize that Chinese chess exists right? There's like a billion or so people who play it? Shogi in Japanese. Dunno what it's called in Chinese. But, in any case, it's chess without bishops.

 

[Hussar]

We are delving into a dungeon next session and I'm unsure if I'm going to take my spear and shield with me — yeah, combat effectiveness is great, but what the hell I'm supposed to do if I need to climb a wall?

Umm, if you can carry a sword and a shield while climbing, why couldn't you carry a spear? It's not like spears are harder to carry than swords.

 

[loverdrive]

Umm, if you can carry a sword and a shield while climbing, why couldn't you carry a spear? It's not like spears are harder to carry than swords.

You can sheathe the sword and free up both hands

It's going to dangle a bit annoyingly, but nothing major, but with a spear I see no other way than to climb up and have someone else pass you the spear afterwards, but only if the climb is short enough for that

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The weapon of peasants and the conquered, they will never be considered even remotely on par with longbows

That one isn’t a good comparison, the yew longbow was a serf’s weapon (which is why in myth, Robin, a knight, took it up to champion the poor) and the weapon of the conquered Welsh.

But that’s an exception.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Same benefit as any other restriction in a game: it adds to the game's challenge.

That a bishop in chess can only move on the diagonals is an intentionally annoying game mechanic that every chess player has to deal with. But would chess be a better game were that annoying restriction removed such that bishops could move anywhere? Not in the slightest.

Same goes for tracking ammo and other resources in D&D.

Chess is a complex game with elegantly simple rules. If you know what a piece is, you know how it moves. Through the centuries people have made many attempts to make them more complex, but most (aside from some timing rules used in tournaments) have not stuck.

As for ammo, I learned to handwave this years ago. There are far more interesting things for players to do than count arrows. And if there isn't, there is something wrong with your game.