Weapons: What Are They Good For?

In my AD&D campaign, which ditches weapon vs. armor tables, but tries to recover some of the impact. The rules below are mostly AD&D core.

  • Spear/Polearm: Wins initiative on 1st round, x2 damage when set for charge. Great against dumb, weaponless monsters.
  • Light Sword/Dagger Gets first attack and sometimes an extra attack against heavy weapons, if initiative is tied (on a d6).
  • Heavy Sword/Axe Good damage, no special rules.
  • Mace/Axe: Mace gets +1 to hit vs. heavy armor.
  • Dagger: Slash or throw two/round. Use when grappled. See also light sword. Excellent backup weapon for all these reasons.
  • Bow: Rapid fire.
  • Crossbow: +2 to hit vs. medium or heavy armor, higher damage than a bow, can reach medium and long range in confined spaces.

This is a bit fiddly, but I liked it. I think 3E also did a pretty good job of differentiating the major categories, although it relied too much on threat range. Really, there's no significant difference between 20/x3 and 19-20/x2. What would have been more interesting is giving the weapon types different special effects on crits.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Two, it would synergize with another desire of mine, the move away from extreme weapon specialization/dependency, in which a fighter who puts down his magic longsword and picks up a fallen orc's axe suddenly loses almost all his combat prowess. I'd love to play a fighter who can use just about any weapon he finds without having to either take feats or lose effectiveness to do so. Actually, I think this should be the default, and fighters can choose to focus on one weapon but receive drawbacks in some other way. You can certainly argue that lack of flexibility is a drawback, but while that can work for specialist wizards (you can specialize, but you lose access to a few schools of magic, thus losing whole lists of spells) I've just found that moments when the fighter is without his gear are just too few and far between to be relied on as a balancing mechanism. Maybe if weapons could break, but then again, I hate breakage...

Absolutely agree. I get specialization both in game terms of allowing the fighter a little extra "schtick" and also in terms of real world use. Unfortunately its in game effect was to turn the fighter into a bit of one trick pony (at least pre 4e, which tackled the issue differently).

Take the long spear. Fantastic for receiving a charge and great vs bigger enemies (or at least, it should be) but oh, does your fighter pick it up even though its sitting there and the right weapon to use? No. Hes specialized in long sword, he is actually better off NOT adapting.

I would like to see weapons as very dynamic and I would like the fighter to be able to use them with equal skill in order that he can take advantage of this. I so prefer the fighter as being able to adapt to the terms of the conditions of the battlefield than a "focused" individual. I fully acknowledge that this is a personnel position and do emphasize that whist it would be nice, its not a deal breaker for me.
 

Just curiously, when did this bit about bows having "Rapid Fire" actually start. Have you tried shooting a bow? Its a long drawn out process which requires time to draw a bead if you want any hope of hitting anything. Sure, if you train you might get your speed up, but one might argue that if someone puts the same amount of training to a melee weapon, they would fair outstrip APR a bow would achieve.

Yea, a longbowman could have 5 arrows in the air, but that was just a combination of its enormous range with the fact that longbown were trained to hit an area, not a target! (The longbow was actually an indirect fire weapon, like a mortar)

I get this funny feeling that RPG's, with their turn based mechanics, never quite modeled correctly the fact that the melee'ist had to close with the ranged attacker, and that in that time, the ranged attacker had the opportunity for a couple of attacks. Doesnt mean the ranged guy had rapid fire, it meant he had time. This in turn lead to "Hey, lets give the 2 APR" (2e) and we have since envisaged the bow as a kind on medieval machine gun.

I could be wrong about this. Am I? Always been curious.
...

You're mostly right.;)

An English Longbow (like those used at Agincourt, etc., which were contemporarily called Warbows) had tremendous draw weights compared to average modern bows (not compound bows, though they did surpass most of them also). So yeah, a high rate of fire would be extremely tiring, extremely quickly. Something an archer would definitely endeavor to avoid for a long battle (as most were). A realistic rate of fire for an English Longbow (Warbow) is about six per minute (or about one per D&D round). However, in a pinch they could be fired faster, but probably no more that about two per D&D round (a dozen a minute), but again, this is during a long military battle. A D&D combat encounter, however, typically doesn't have the long duration of military battles. Even at 20 rounds, a D&D combat encounter is only two to three minutes. For such a short duration combat, where the archer doesn't have to ration their endurance as much, an archer would be able to really crank up the rate. I don't see why three per round would be inconcievable, though just as BAB's show (at least in 3.xE), successive shots suffer in accuracy.

However, Longbows were not only indirect fire. Yes, at long ranges (like at the beginning of a battle) they were indirect fire. But as the battle wore on and enemies drew closer (or were mixed in with friendlies), shorter ranged aimed-shots became the norm.

But, all the above is concerning the English Longbows (Warbows) of draw weights in the 100 to 200 pound range. In D&D terms, that would be a bow made for strength, and probably should be an Exotic Weapon.*

Non-strength longbows (plain-old regular self-bows) could be fired at the faster rates as the norm, without suffering the same drawbacks as an English Longbow Archer (with draw weights more in line with modern recurve and self-bows).

As far as the "Medieval Machinegun", relatively it was. It's contemporary was the Crossbow, which realistically had a rate of fire of about 1 or 2 per minute. So, the Longbow is called the Medieval Machinegun in comparison to the Crossbow.B-)



*The English Longbow (Warbow) wasn't really known in that form until the end of the 13th Century, but was more prominent in the 14th and 15th Centuries. Before this time, all that was common was regular self-bows with much more normal draw weigths. The English Longbow was derived from the Welsh Longbow, and took a a lifetime of training...which should have made it an Exotic Weapon and a bow made for Strength. Ironically, hand and repeating crossbows are exotic weapons, but probably shouldn't be. They may be exotic as far as commonality and availability, but are just as easy to fire as any other crossbow...which incidently is quite easy to train a common soldier to use and be effective (relatively easy to aim compared to a regular bow). They were likely classed as exotic weapons so that one would have to burn a Feat in order to gain the increased rate of fire - which is kind of unfair as they should have had damage higher than even English Longbows (Longbow made for Strength) from the start, just as they do in real life. But instead have the same damage as their regular bow counterparts. Heavy Crossbow = Longbow, Light Crossbow = Shortbow.:erm:
 
Last edited:

Just curiously, when did this bit about bows having "Rapid Fire" actually start. Have you tried shooting a bow? Its a long drawn out process which requires time to draw a bead if you want any hope of hitting anything.

I have a flat bow that I can shoot about once every two seconds or so and reliably hit a deer sized target at about 20 yards. And I'm not even very good. Anything farther away than that and it's a crapshoot with me, unless I take my time. I also couldn't keep it up very long. At 65 pounds draw, fatigue sets in very fast. After about 3 shots at that speed, maybe 6 if I've been practicing, my arm starts shaking and I couldn't hit a barn. The hardest part is actually nocking the arrow that fast. Of course, a short bow with say a 30 pound draw would be a lot easier to shoot repeatedly.
 
Last edited:

I would really like to see the type of differentiation mentioned by the OP.

One thing I would particularly like to see is giving more advantage to reach. If one guy has a dagger and the other guy has a longsword, it should be very difficult for dagger guy to close sufficiently to do any damage at all. A little reach actually makes a big difference.
 

Damage can be expressed in a three by three grid. On the y-axis you have no, soft or hard armor; and on the x-axis small, medium, and large size:

Code:
Dagger   Small   Medium  Large size
No armor   d6      d6     d4
Soft       d6      d4     d3
Hard       d4      d6     d4

It makes sense and if it's too time consuming depends on the players. But is it really worth it? I mean all damage is a variable anyway and the sign post says "Golf Course".

***

Another way of doing it is reserve certain magical qualities for certain weapons. You could find a boarspear of dragon slaying but not a dagger of dragon slaying. It does the same thing as above in a simpler way.
 
Last edited:

Rapid Fire Bows

Here's a good video on rapid firing a bow, we're not target shooting, we're not aiming for a bull's eye, we're not shooting 200 yards. We are shooting at a guy in bulky armor 40 feet away and we're okay with missing 30-50% of the time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI]Archery - Fast Shooting (Murmansk) - YouTube[/ame]
 

I have a flat bow that I can shoot about once every two seconds or so and reliably hit a deer sized target at about 20 yards. And I'm not even very good. Anything farther away than that and it's a crapshoot with me, unless I take my time. I also couldn't keep it up very long. At 65 pounds draw, fatigue sets in very fast. After about 3 shots at that speed, maybe 6 if I've been practicing, my arm starts shaking and I couldn't hit a barn. The hardest part is actually nocking the arrow that fast. Of course, a short bow with say a 30 pound draw would be a lot easier to shoot repeatedly.

I'll echo this. I am certainly not a great archer, but I'm alright.

With a good bow (in the 45-50 lbs. draw range) and reasonably straight arrows, I can drop arrows into a pretty tight cluster reliably out to about 20-30 yards. Beyond that, I need to take more time to aim. One mistake a lot of would-be archers make is choosing a bow that's the max they could pull as a shooting weapon. I'm not particularly fit at the moment, but I can manage a 70-pounder, although it wears me out fairly quickly. With a 45 or 50, I can keep it up for a LONG time.

When I was in practice, speedshooting at 20 yards or less, I could nock, draw, aim and shoot an entire flight (12 arrows) in about 30 seconds. So 2 arrows in 6 seconds? Totally doable.
 

I'm going to refer to weapon tables as attack tables, because the logical extension is applying the idea that each type of attack has different effects based on the target.

The thing is, attack tables imply defense tables. More variation means more time in combat, switching weapons? More time. Checking weapon tables? More time. Trying to figure out what your opponent is protected with? More time.

Also: this kind of stuff either requires access to the book(time) or memorization. So yay increased system mastery for even mundane playtime.

As neat as attack and defense, weapon and armor tables are, these are probably not something that are going to benefit most tables and should probably be kept to optional content.
 

Here's a good video on rapid firing a bow, we're not target shooting, we're not aiming for a bull's eye, we're not shooting 200 yards. We are shooting at a guy in bulky armor 40 feet away and we're okay with missing 30-50% of the time.
No, we're shooting at the small gaps and weak points in the bulky armour of the guy 40 feet away. And he might have a shield. The attack roll isn't simply getting your weapon to make contact with your adversary; it also entails getting your weapon around/past/through his protection and attempts to defend himself from harm. I'm completely cool with your arrow shot "missing" a well-armoured man 50% of the time. In fact, I think I'd like to see that arrow "miss" the well-armoured man 90% of the time.
 

Remove ads

Top