Weapons table issues

[slobster]

I think weapons should be stronger or weaker depending on the situation. Against goblins, you want a quick slashing blade (scimitar, longsword). Against an ogre, you want a weapon with plenty of reach (spear, pike). Against a stone golem, you want something that bashes good (mace, warhammer). Et cetera.

The tricky thing is figuring out how to implement this without making the rules monstrously complicated.

The second two are actually pretty simple. The ogre has reach, so you want to use a reach weapon against it to be able to attack without provoking an OA. Stone golems could simply have resistance vs. slashing and piercing.

As to the first example, swords may not be especially useful against goblins and such, but you can at least make a good argument for 1-handed, fast weapons. Most goblins are easily taken down in one hit. Thus, using a two-hander is overkill. Using a one hander is almost as effective at taking them down, but also allows you to wear a shield at the same time, improving your defenses. So one handed weapons win out. Against a huge enemy with a lot more hp, that heavy two-hander starts looking more attractive, though.

I'd much prefer D&D to reward fighting styles in such implicit ways, rather than write a mess of rules catering to specific situations which are easily forgotten and slow down the game. Basically what you said, but I think that the game is already most of the way there!

 

[MortalPlague]

In other news, my pet D&D weapon peeve of all time remains in the new system: MASSIVE SPEAR MISUNDERSTANDING.

You're absolutely correct about the spear. I really love this duel for showing a brilliant spear and shield fight.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ygRholyh5g"]Hector vs Achilles[/ame]