I'll just bring up old school. In OD&D all melee attacks do 1d6 damage, flat. Doesn't matter if you swing a sword, a dagger, or a fist. Very simple, and oddly probably more realistic than all the "small weapons do less damage, but you attack quicker" which is so utterly unrealistic it isn't funny and really has nothing else to recommend it. Give all weapons a weapon type and just use that to key in any advantages a specific PC might get (so if you are 'good with an axe' you might do a point of extra damage or something). Really though, nobody can tell me that being stuck in the kidney with a dagger is even the slightest bit less deadly than getting smacked in the side of the head with a 2.5 pound mace. They both kill you dead about 99% of the time. Nor can anyone convince me that some guy with a dagger has some sort of mysterious 'speed advantage' over a guy with a halbard, that's just dumb. Some weapons DO have advantages in terms of easy concealment or utility in unusually tight quarters, etc. Those are special rules though, not captured by 'damage dice' or whatever.
Agreed. I do want weapons differentiated, though. I'd actually consider making damage how you model weapons that have better precision, and are thus more likely to get the really well placed hit, if I were going to use damage to differentiate weapons.
Otherwise, I'm more interested in things like being able to trip and grab weapons and shields with an axe, and different armor types being better against different types of weapons (stabbing/slashing), various other stuff.
You could go that way, but honestly I think it all mostly comes out in the wash. I think some "mastery" things could exist, you can break a shield with an axe, you can tangle a weapon with a flail, you can wield a dagger even when you're 'squeezed' etc. Armor vs weapons could be an option of course, but PERSONALLY I think its just not that big a deal. I think mostly weapons should be fluff, like in OD&D.
I really don't want to play in that game, though. I don't want to play with weapons being mostly fluff. That actually sounds incredibly awful to me, and I've despised it in any game I've played that used it. I have no issue with a rules module that makes all weapons just be the same, but if I can't play Next with differentiated weapons, I probably won't bother. Too many of the characters I like use weapons, and it simply won't feel like I'm playing a user of a specific weapon if weapon differences are completely handwaved.
My issue is that most of the differentiation between weapons in every edition SINCE OD&D has been nonsensical or incoherent. Remember, D&D's combat system is fairly abstract. It doesn't model individual blows and parries, nor does damage represent even primarily physical punishment dished out by the weapon itself, and some of it is likely effects like damage to equipment, etc. Given all of that it seems to me that describing any specific weapon as doing more damage than another or attacking more often is at best breaking the abstraction and at worst just not modeling anything that needs to be modeled at the level of abstraction D&D uses. Beyond that every time there are significant mechanical distinctions between weapons we have a whole bunch of 'not very good' weapons, and a couple of 'best' weapons. We can see that plainly in 4e where every fighter ends up using one of a couple of weapons and special rules had to be invented to make things like daggers even relevant. I'd much rather people took daggers because they're useful in certain situations, light, easy to conceal, and cheap, not because "rogue weapon talent".
It isn't that I want weapons to be characterless, I am just darn tired of how if I decide I want to wield a mace as a fighter that I automatically suck.
I'm not sure you need all 7 families in all six categories.
I think you do. If someone wants to combine the benefit of a reach weapon with the benefit of the mace family, I see no reason why they shouldn't. Also, since I include staves in the mace family, the "reach mace" is the featherstaff. Maces are any long blunt instrument. Staves count.
Frankly I'd make as many of them as possible be just refluffs of basic stuff
I do that too. D&D has had hundreds of weapons. (Heck, it's had dozens of pole arms alone.) Reducing that to 60 or so weapons is a significant consolidation.
Is there really a half handed axe?
Hatchet.
even smaller axes don't seem terribly easy to use as an off weapon.
I don't see why not. We're going for cinema, not realism. I had an elven assassin NPC in 2e who used to dual wield small axes. She was kick-ass and the image of dual-wielding hatchets is worth keeping, "realism" be damned!
Version 3, incorporating ideas for axes, picks, and hand-and-a-half weapons...
This is an optional rules module for people who want more ways to distinguish weapons that do not depend on class features. In the "default" weapons rules, each weapon will be listed with "hands" and "families", but will not use those descriptors, except as follows...
WEAPONS BASICS Damage: Half-handed weapons inflict 1d4 damage, and increase that damage by one die for each increase of a hand, up to 1d10 for two-handed weapons (i.e., 1d4 > 1d6 > 1d8 > 1d10). In the basic package, "reach" weapons are treated as two-handed weapons, do not actually offer "reach" and inflict 1d10 damage. Thrown weapons inflict 1d6 damage.
Damage Type: Each weapon will have a damage type (bludgeoning (B), piercing (P), slashing (S)) associated with it. Damage inflicted by the weapon inflicts damage of the type listed.
Hands: People are assumed to have two hands. (Amputation may affect this. Also, at some point exotic creatures like mariliths and thri-kreen with muliple hands might be introduced.)
Range: Using the basic rules, a stone can be thrown up to 10', or 50' if you have a sling. All other thrown weapons may be thrown 50'. All other ranged weapons can be shot up to 150'. There is little functional difference between crossbows and bows under the basic system. Atlatls offer no benefit under the basic system.
Shields: These grant you a shield bonus to AC, beginning with +1 for half-handed shields and inceasing by +1 with each larger hand category. Although damage is listed for each shield, this only applies if you have a feature that lets you "shield bash".
Two handed/Reach: These weapons require two hands to wield. All other weapons require one-hand each. Bows and crossbows (other than hand crossbows) are considered two-handed for purposes of how many hands are needed to wield the weapon.
WEAPONS MODULE Every weapon has two qualities: hand and family. Hand represents how large the weapon is, and, not coincidentally, how many free hands a character needs to weild it. Family represents the type of weapon. Each quality offers the person wielding the weapon commensurate benefits and drawbacks.
Hands: The weapon hands are: half-handed, one-handed, hand-and-a-half, two-handed, or reach. In addition, some weapon have an additional quality called "thrown", which means the weapon is suitable for throwing. The rules for handedness applies whether or not you are traine with the weapon.
Families: The weapon families are: axe, blade, flail, hammer, mace, pick, spear, shield, unarmed, crossbow, and bow. A character can only gain the benefits associated with a weapon's family if they are trained in the weapon.
Hand Rules Here are the rules that are triggered by the hand of your weapons:
At Bay: If you hit an opponent with a two-handed or reach weapon, that opponent may not use its next action to attack you with a melee attack, and may not use its next move to move closer to you, or to pass you.
Buckler: This weapon (half-handed shield) lets you hold a thrown weapon in that hand as well, but not another melee weapon.
Close Quarters: If you are squeezed or there are five or more creatures or obstacles adjacent to you (whether friend or foe), this is called being in "close quarters". (For each size category larger than Medium increase by two the number of adjacent creatures or obstacles needed for close quarters; also for each size category larger than Medium treat that creature is if it were one additional creature for purposes of imposing close quarters on others.) In such a situation, you may only wield half-handed or unarmed weapons. Creatures smaller than Small are never in close quarters and do not count for purposes of imposing the close quarters condition on others.
Reach: These weapons allow you to attack from five feet away, which is beyond the reach of non-reach melee weapons. Attacks made against adjacent foes with these weapons incur a -3 penalty to damage (minimum damage of 1). When using this module, reach weapons inflict 1d12 damage.
Two-Weapon Fighting: If you wield two weapons, neither of which are larger than a one-handed weapon, you may designate which weapon you use for your weapon attacks. This weapon is called your primary weapon. If you hit with that primary weapon and you are trained in the use of that weapon, you may add 1d3 to the damage. This additional damage will have the damage type of another weapon you currently weild.
Versatile Fighting: If you weild a hand-and-a-half weapon, you may not use your free hand for two-handed fighting, but you may use it to hold a thrown weapon or a shield. With versatile fighting, however, you cannot hold both a buckler and a thrown weapon in the free hand. If you have a free hand that is empty when you attack, you add +1 to the damage you inflict.
Family Benefits Here are the benefits each weapon family offers:
Axe: Weapons in this family are "brutal". You gain a +1 bonus to damage for each damage die associated with a successful attack with a weapon in this family against a creature that is not resistant to slashing damage and that results in a natural "1".
Blade: Weapons in this family allow you to "deflect". If you hit an opponent with your blade, and their next action is a melee weapon attack against you, you reduce the damage inflicted by such an attack by your class level.
Bow: Weapons in this family are always two-handed (short bow) or reach (longbow) and can only be used by those proficient in its use. The range of the attack is 100'/hand. Attacks at more than 50'/hand incur a -2 penalty.
Crossbow/Pick: Weapons in these families allow you to "puncture". Any attack against an opponent wearing metal armor is made at a +3 to hit. At the DM's discretion, this bonus may also apply to creatures that are made of stone or metal (such as some golems), that have exoskeletons (such as giant insects), or that benefit from carapaces (such as turtle dragons). Crossbows are ranged attacks with a range of up to 50'/hand. Attacks at more than 25'/hand incur a -2 penalty.
Flail: Weapons in this family can be used to "grab". Any time you hit a target that is not resistant to slashing damage and is not larger than you, you may choose to forego damage and instead grab the target or one of its possessions. A grabbed foe cannot leave your reach, but may on its action, make an opposed Strength check to escape the grab. With an action, you can engage in an opposed Strength check. If you win, you can either cause the foe to fall prone, or disarm the foe of one object it holds. The disarmed object falls adjacent to the foe.
Hammer: Weapons in this family can be used to "push". Any time you hit a target that is not resistant to bludgeoning damage, you may choose to reduce the damage you inflict by two points and instead push the target five feet away from you. You must decide to invoke this quality before rolling to attack.
Mace: These weapons allow you to "penetrate". If you miss a foe that is not resistant to bludgeoning damage by less than double the number of hands the weapon possesses, you may choose to inflict half-damage on that foe.
Spear: Weapons in this family allow you to "pierce". If you hit a target that is not larger than you and is not resistant to piercing damage, you may choose to forgo inflicting damage, and instead immobilize it. The creature remains immobilized until the end of your next turn unless you use your action to maintain the condition. The condition ends immediately if you move (or are moved) out of reach of the target.
Shield: Tower shields (reach) extend the AC bonus to creatures adjacent to you if you use your action to wield your shield. You may not weild multiple shields. As set forth above, bucklers (half-handed) allow you to hold a thrown weapon in that hand, unless you also wield a hand-and-a-half weapon.
Thrown: Weapons in this family are treated as improvised weapons if used in melee attacks. They may be used for a ranged attack of up to 30 feet. but incur a -2 penalty for attacks at a range greater than 15 feet. Each category of thrown weapon also has a "launcher" -- usually an atlatl or sling -- that can only be used by those trained in its use. The launcher doubles the thrown weapon's range, and grants a +1 bonus to attacks and damage. However, a launcher is considered a two-handed weapon.
Unarmed: These weapons can always be used in close quarters. In addition, your fist cannot be disarmed, but a successful fist attack on any creature with a touch attack (such as most oozes) will also be treated as if the creature had successfuly touched you. A monster's attacks are always considered to be unarmed attacks, unless they are with a weapon. You can wield any weapon in a fist, but cannot wield a half-handed weapon in a hand wearing a cestus, and cannot wield a half-handed or one-handed weapon in a hand wearing a gauntlet.
WEAPON REFLAVORING If a player wants a character to wield a weapon that is not listed, simply determine how many hands and what family it should be in, and use that weapon as a base. Feel free to change the damage type it inflicts if appropriate.
There's only one issue. There is no benefit to wielding a one-handed shield over a hand-and-a-half shield. Any ideas?
Hmmmmm, maybe a hand-and-a-half shield can be wielded to protect an adjacent ally. Maybe it requires a special training, whereas the "2 handed shield/Reach shield" (I'd assume this is some sort of specialized pavaise or something) just works for anyone. I'd think of the hand-and-a-half shield as being like the scutum used by Republican era Roman Legionaries, the famous square design. They're not really ideal in single combat, but get a few people together using them and they're quite effective.
The problem isn't that the 1½ shield is too weak. The problem is the 1-handed shield is too weak.
I was assuming that if you use a hand-and-a-half shield you're forced to use a half hand weapon (IE like a Roman Legionnaire). That would make the one handed shield sort of the default ideal infantry shield for most characters, and then the larger shield needs some purpose.
My issue is that most of the differentiation between weapons in every edition SINCE OD&D has been nonsensical or incoherent. Remember, D&D's combat system is fairly abstract. It doesn't model individual blows and parries, nor does damage represent even primarily physical punishment dished out by the weapon itself, and some of it is likely effects like damage to equipment, etc. Given all of that it seems to me that describing any specific weapon as doing more damage than another or attacking more often is at best breaking the abstraction and at worst just not modeling anything that needs to be modeled at the level of abstraction D&D uses. Beyond that every time there are significant mechanical distinctions between weapons we have a whole bunch of 'not very good' weapons, and a couple of 'best' weapons. We can see that plainly in 4e where every fighter ends up using one of a couple of weapons and special rules had to be invented to make things like daggers even relevant. I'd much rather people took daggers because they're useful in certain situations, light, easy to conceal, and cheap, not because "rogue weapon talent".
It isn't that I want weapons to be characterless, I am just darn tired of how if I decide I want to wield a mace as a fighter that I automatically suck.
And I'm not arguing for weapon speed. I don't care, either, if damage is what is used to differentiate. In 4e, your fighting can use nearly any weapon published, and he doesn't suck, because the class doesn't depend on a good weapon to be worth playing. That's how the game should work. It should also have somewhat better balanced weapons, yes, but mistakes in weapon balance are much less of an issue with a balanced game all around. The idea that a fighter with a mace "sucks" is pretty much completely false, unless you only play in high end optimization games. outside of those, grabbing the scimitar because it's cool that it's curved blade and superior cutting abillity is modeled in a simple, easily grocked manner, is perfectly acceptable.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
The problem isn't that the 1½ shield is too weak. The problem is the 1-handed shield is too weak.
I was assuming that if you use a hand-and-a-half shield you're forced to use a half hand weapon (IE like a Roman Legionnaire). That would make the one handed shield sort of the default ideal infantry shield for most characters, and then the larger shield needs some purpose.
But then you have people using a large shield and nothing larger than a dagger. It's weird and it's inconsistent with the way large shields usually have worked.
Traditionally, the only drawback to a large shield has been a -1 on Dex checks, and nominal added weight and cost. I guess we could bring back the Dex penalty for 1½, 2 and reach shields.
My issue is that most of the differentiation between weapons in every edition SINCE OD&D has been nonsensical or incoherent. Remember, D&D's combat system is fairly abstract. It doesn't model individual blows and parries, nor does damage represent even primarily physical punishment dished out by the weapon itself, and some of it is likely effects like damage to equipment, etc. Given all of that it seems to me that describing any specific weapon as doing more damage than another or attacking more often is at best breaking the abstraction and at worst just not modeling anything that needs to be modeled at the level of abstraction D&D uses. Beyond that every time there are significant mechanical distinctions between weapons we have a whole bunch of 'not very good' weapons, and a couple of 'best' weapons. We can see that plainly in 4e where every fighter ends up using one of a couple of weapons and special rules had to be invented to make things like daggers even relevant. I'd much rather people took daggers because they're useful in certain situations, light, easy to conceal, and cheap, not because "rogue weapon talent".
It isn't that I want weapons to be characterless, I am just darn tired of how if I decide I want to wield a mace as a fighter that I automatically suck.
And I'm not arguing for weapon speed. I don't care, either, if damage is what is used to differentiate. In 4e, your fighting can use nearly any weapon published, and he doesn't suck, because the class doesn't depend on a good weapon to be worth playing. That's how the game should work. It should also have somewhat better balanced weapons, yes, but mistakes in weapon balance are much less of an issue with a balanced game all around. The idea that a fighter with a mace "sucks" is pretty much completely false, unless you only play in high end optimization games. outside of those, grabbing the scimitar because it's cool that it's curved blade and superior cutting abillity is modeled in a simple, easily grocked manner, is perfectly acceptable.
In 4e my character takes a very considerable and obvious penalty from using a mace. There are few useful feats for maces, almost no powers that benefit from a mace, and no class feature, PP, theme, etc that is in any way helped by one. It is a +2 accuracy weapon with a low W and no upgrade path to a superior version. There are no other little side benefits either, like some sort of exotic weapon or polearm that qualifies as being a mace. Indeed my character will FUNCTION but even in a normal game in my experience of 4e my character will be basically a couple feats behind because of that choice. A choice which should be entirely neutral and simply add color to the character.
It isn't that I want colorless weapons, I am just way sick of half of them being inferior and thus barely ever used for no reason either gamist nor simulationist whatsoever. It is nothing but bad design. As I've said, there are always ways to differentiate.
The problem isn't that the 1½ shield is too weak. The problem is the 1-handed shield is too weak.
I was assuming that if you use a hand-and-a-half shield you're forced to use a half hand weapon (IE like a Roman Legionnaire). That would make the one handed shield sort of the default ideal infantry shield for most characters, and then the larger shield needs some purpose.
But then you have people using a large shield and nothing larger than a dagger. It's weird and it's inconsistent with the way large shields usually have worked.
Traditionally, the only drawback to a large shield has been a -1 on Dex checks, and nominal added weight and cost. I guess we could bring back the Dex penalty for 1½, 2 and reach shields.
Yeah, I'll think about it. I guess the other option is just not to have a 1.5 hand shield at all. I don't think it is a bad thing to have one, but buckler -> kite -> tower -> pavaise seems rather adequate. You could certainly argue for a 'heater' in there between buckler and kite, but it isn't vital. I'm sure we can come up with something.
