|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 7:30PM
#1
|
|
|
With the ubiquity of weapons in this playtest, I'm starting to think we could almost do without weapon charts.
Weapons could just have a damage based on their category and a few examples of this category listed. A two handed weapon just seems to increase the die type one step and reach seems to drop it one.
Assign your weapon a damage type (if we're insistent on going back down that track), clear it with your DM and away you go.
It would get rid of wierd, historical inconsistencies (katanas and spiked chains in Medieval fantasy) and it's pretty much what the chart's doing anyway.
Of course, without weapon charts, is it really D&D?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 7:33PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
At least it doesn't have a separate line for every single polearm known to humankind.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 7:50PM
#3
|
|
|
'Historical inaccuracy' is meaningless in a game that does not take place in our history. Just because the real world didn't have katanas or spiked chains doesn't mean Faerun, Eberron, or Greyhawk doesn't.
but, yes, something like the Gamma World system where the player can define his own weapon however he likes would be pretty cool.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 8:02PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 14, 2012
|
Yeah, I'll have to disagree with 603. Without clear mechainical differences between a Glaive/guisarme and a Guisarme/Glaive and a Guisarme/voulge and a Glaive/guisarme/voulge, it just doesn't feel like D&D.
I kid, I kid.
It's a great idea to simplify the weapon list. I don't see anything at all wrong with having Small, Medium, and Large weapons (if you want to be more complicated, add simple/finesse/martial to that) and calling it a day.
A similar thing could be done with armour. Just have light/medium/heavy categories. Put two types of armour in each category, one with lower AC and higher dex bonus, and one with higher AC and lower dex bonus.
Then everyone picks a weapon and some armour that's mechanically appropriate to their character and describes it however they want. There should be guidelines in the book like "A Knight's sword is likely to be medium, martial" and "A rogues dagger is likely to be small, finesse", or even a list of historical weapons that fit into each category.
That caters to the "I have plate mail and a long sword, I am a fighting-man" crowd and the historical accuracy crowd and the "My black iron armour glimmers with the fires of the forges of moradin" crowd.
Edit: On the historical thing... I don't think I'd like to play a game with any sort of actual historical accuracy, but some people do like to play that way. Catering to everyone wouldn't be that hard, especially if your solution is to simpllify mechanics and allow people to decide for themselves exactly what their gear looks like and is called.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 8:15PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
'Historical inaccuracy' is meaningless in a game that does not take place in our history. Just because the real world didn't have katanas or spiked chains doesn't mean Faerun, Eberron, or Greyhawk doesn't.
but, yes, something like the Gamma World system where the player can define his own weapon however he likes would be pretty cool.
oh, the real world had katanas, they were just useless against heavy armour.
the spiked chain is full potato, but ther are actual chain weapons out there that were very effective against heavy armour
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 8:19PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
why not have both? people who want to pick a weapon from the table can do so, and people who would rather make up their own can use some guidelines from a sidebar.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 8:49PM
#7
|
|
|
Yeah, I know that historical accuray isn't (and shouldn't) be a major concern in D&D, but it does seem a little wierd to me that katanas and spiked chains are included in a list that's mostly pseudo-European. I'm suggesting that doing away with weapon lists altogether would be preferable.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 9:06PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2010
|
Yeah I'd prefer the Gamma World system and leave the min-maxing hobbyists to an optional inclusion. Then add customisation based upon weapon damage types instead of damage die differences. Maybe they'll include a Gamma World type system as optional (more likely than the reverse).
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 11:01PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 14, 2012
|
weapon damage types
I still can't understand why these are a thing.
So I can bludgeon with my quarterstaff, but not with the haft of my spear/axe/polearm, or back of my axe, or pommel of my sword? A heavy two handed axe doesn't bash armour in like a small mace and is only good for slashing? My shortsword can't slash? I can't cut with a rapier? My longsword or katana can't stab people?
It appears that weapon damage types were in earlier editons because of a misguided attempt at realism and in later editions because they were in earlier editions.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 21, 2012 - 11:11PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Misguided attempts?
D&D?!
No. Really?
|
|
|
