Community

Sep 20, 2012 -- 2:52PM, Drycanth wrote:

If we use your idea then you will have more min/max from weapons. If you don't care about that then that is fine. 

If you don't want min/max then the only way I can see how to avoid this is to go with different stats for every weapon ala 1E/2E method or to go super simple chart kinda like mine.

Sep 20, 2012 -- 3:29PM, Vikingkingq wrote:

What about a third way, a la WFRP 2nd Edition Old World Armory, where every weapon did 1d10 + SB(+/- a bit, but most are SB), but each weapon has different qualities? A bit better suited to a gritty, high lethality style of play, but it's still an example that you don't have to memorize a huge chart of weapon qualities to have each weapon be flavorfully and mechanically distinct. 

I'll be honest lads, I'm not sure any of these approaches will do. The simplistic chart is too generic. The 1st/2nd edition version of a weapons is too modifier heavy and chart dependant. The Warhammer Fantasy approach is, well, Warhammer. D&D would never go for it. If the past two editions have taught us anything, WotC likes to create their own mechanics (even if we can recognize their origins from other games).

The Weapon Properties by Group is still a work in progress by my way thinking. They are fifteen different properties whose memorization will largely be shouldered by the players for their specific weapons. It wouldn't be a burden for the dungeon masters. Even so, I'ds hazard to guess that we have more precise recall of D&D rules than anything we learned during high or college. I don't think a list of even fifteen weapon properties will create an undue strain on our capacity to learn D&D rules -- provided the design of each property is intuitive to the weapon and straightforward.

Axe: Can reroll weapon damage once after a minimal result and add the amounts together.

I think axe is one of the most straigthforward weapon properites and good template for simplicity.

Dagger: While keeping one hand empty, add Strength and Dexterity modifier to weapon damage.

The same can be said for dagger.

Bow: Gain advantage when you spend one turn aiming.

I recently simplified this property to remove the interruption rule.

Crossbow: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents.

Also extremely straightforward. Feel free to disagree.

Flail: Gain advantage on attacks against opponents with shields when wielding a flail two-handed.

This property needs improvement in my opinion. During 3rd edition, flails were good for disarming and tripping. Maybe the mechanic for knocking opponents prone can be transfered from the staff weapon group to flails?

Hammer: Can stun opponents on a critical hit for one turn, but only if a confirmation attack also succeeds.

I like the special effect on a critical mechanic, but I am not crazy about the confirmation roll. Is it really needed?

Mace: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents when wielding a mace two-handed.

It's been suggested that the two-handed requirements are excessive. What about halve damage against armoured opponents on any hit that misses by an amount equal to the armour bonus?

Pick: Can roll weapon damage on a critical hit and add the total to maximized damage.

This rule needs to change now that I have watched the latest D&D live game and glimpsed how critical hits might work. That being said, having seen those rules, I think high critical weapons would be preferable.

Shield: Can push opponents back 5 feet instead of dealing damage, but take disadvantage for that attack.

I really like how this property incorporates shield rushing. Alternatively, what about simply granting the push back on critical hit?

Sling: Can knock opponents unconscious on a critical hit for one turn, but only if a confirmation attack also succeeds.

A have a soft spot for slings. A well placed sling bullet can drop you. I imagine the critical hit being a head shot. Again, is the confirmation roll even needed?

Spear: Gain 5 feet to reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack.

Knowing that this 5 feet is in addition to any reach a spear 'already' has, is disadavantage for the 'extra' reach fair? I'm inclinded to say yes.

Staff: Can knock opponents prone instead of dealing damage, but take disadvantage for that attack.

Alternatively, what about giving the extra reach property to staves instead of spears?

Sword: Can disengage or coup de grace as a move action when wielding a sword.

Swords are best when continually sharpened and good at keeping opponents at a distance. I thought to represent those qualities by making the disengage and coup de grace actions faster to perform with swords (a move instead of an action). How does that sound?

Unarmed: While holding nothing in either hand, can make two unarmed attacks, but only add Strength modifier once.

It never made sense to me that only one punch could be thrown per round in D&D. That said, I restricted the Strength modifier damage even if both unarmed strikes hit. Does anybody think that both unarmed strikes should benefit from the Strength modifier instead? Moreover, should an improvised one-handed weapon be interchangeable with these unarmed attacks?

Whip: Can restrain opponents on a critical hit for one turn, but only if a confirmation attack also succeeds.

Again with the confirmation roll. Is this even necessary? Also, whips in 3rd edition were used for disarming and tripping. Should that be represented here instead of the restrained condition?

I'm with angrygodofmilk on this one - DMs might not like memorizing weapon properties, but they're doing the same thing now with damage types, and the downside is that players find weapon damage types a meaningless distinction because they're passive and reliant on enemy immunities/resistences. 

I'd much rather have active qualities like those suggested above, because then the player can feel immediately and first-hand what their weapon choices mean when they play. 

Sep 20, 2012 -- 9:55PM, Drycanth wrote:

That is quite a bit for a DM to look through for one attack.

Again, the burden of memorization is more on the player than the dungeon master. A typical player will choose their favoured weapon and stick with that damage dealer for their adventuring career. As such, they thoroughly know what their weapon does without ever involving the dungeon master. On the DM side, most monsters fight with their natural weapons, which requires no additional game knowledge whatsoever.

If, as a dungeon master, you throw a lot of villains at the characters who wield manufactured weapons, then you can either use the special properties or not. The players won't forget them, but the DM might. Fortunately none of them make or break game balance if forgotten. That being said, if you are a dungeon master who uses a lot of manufactured weapons, then you are probably invested in knowing the properties by group. Well, to make that learning curve easier, I have tried making each proposed property intuitive to the weapon group.

As for memorizing a list of fifteen special properties, we already do that now with D&D 3rd and 4th edition, except those are individualized weapon properties (not a single property for an entire group of weapons).

Sep 20, 2012 -- 3:29PM, Vikingkingq wrote:

What about a third way, a la WFRP 2nd Edition Old World Armory, where every weapon did 1d10 + SB(+/- a bit, but most are SB), but each weapon has different qualities? A bit better suited to a gritty, high lethality style of play, but it's still an example that you don't have to memorize a huge chart of weapon qualities to have each weapon be flavorfully and mechanically distinct. 

I'd be in favour of this too, because to me, weapons are about more than just damage. It'd have to be reworked, though, because D&D doesn't have an attack/parry mechanic (well it does, but having a property only affect one class seems a bit silly).

But most people aren't going to want that anyway, because "omg it slow teh game down too much!!11!". I suggested a similar system once, where different weapons would be better against different opponents; swords would ignore one point of dex AC, blunts would ignore 1 point of armour AC and axes would ignore 1 point of shield AC etc, but people didn't like that. They just want "roll to hit, roll damage, job done."

Besides, you won't need to memorise it, because you would have a copy of the weapons list within easy reach! It's amazing what a resourceful GM can do.

Sep 20, 2012 -- 11:11PM, Vikingkingq wrote:

Also - it shouldn't be very difficult to add it right onto the monster stat bloc from straight out of the DMG, requiring no memorization.

Here's an example:

Bugbear

Medium Humanoid (Goblin)
Armor Class 14 (leather, shield)
...blah blah blah...
ACTIONS
Melee Attack—Large Morningstar: +2 to hit (reach 5 ft.; one creature). Flail: advantage against opponents with shields when used two-handed. 
...blah blah blah>>>

Indeed. The more we have this discussion, the more Weapon Properties by Group (rather than individualized weapon properties like every previous edition of D&D) makes the most sense. Also, it still feels like D&D rather than burrowing too much mechanic from other game systems.