Weapon Differentiation

[jacar]

...or why I would use a certain weapon.

After reading some thoughts about damage, I am pretty well sold on humans doing a D6 + bonuses. However, someone will always go back to the question, "why should I buy myself a sword?"

This is a problem in the one damage fits all. After all, it only follows that some weapons are better than others.

we can break weapons down into some broad categories...

Cutting - Swords and daggers really.
Chopping - Axes.
Bashing - Hammers, maces and clubs.
Impaling - Pole arms of all sizes as well as some swords.

On top of that, we can have two handed versions of any of the weapons above. This point can easily be addressed first. At the cost of not being able to use a shield, you can get more damage from a two handed weapon. +1? Double damage? Whatever you decide.

I am stumped on coming up with a fairly non-fiddly was of weapon differentiation. So I pose this question to you? What are the pros and cons of each weapon? Why would I want one over another?

Thanks for the help!

John

[kesher]

Well, some are just practical, like you can hide daggers, or throw a spear or a hand axe. Otherwise, imc, two-handed weapons always go last, but get to roll two d6s and choose the best roll for damage (cribbed from Philotomy, I believe...) Also, some DMs make certain monsters (skeletons, etc.) suffer less damage from edged weapons, so that's another differentiator. Oh, and I also let characters with a DEX of 13 or higher use two one-handed weapons. They can choose, round to round, to roll 2d6 and choose the best for damage, or cause their opponent to suffer a -1 to hit, due to active defense (defacto shield).

[Thorulfr]

For what it's worth, I go into weapons at length in THIS thread.

If you are going with the "1D6 damage" rule, then the choice of a weapon is really just for characterization.
Historically, the choice of a weapon depends on a lot of factors - availability of good metal, social class, cultural biases, expected battlefield conditions, probably weapons/armor of opponent, physical size/strength/skill, etc.

If good metal is at a premium, then weapons like spears and axes will be common. An axe is heavy and slow (well, slowER), but with the weight concentrated at the end of that moment arm, a tremendous amount of force is focused on the edge - it tends to break bones even if it didn't cut through the maille. (The SCA first used wooden axes - until someone was seen using one to split real-life firewood.)

Swords were the mark of nobility, mainly because they were so difficult and expensive to make. A GOOD sword could last for generations - the bad ones broke. As technology improved, the 'common man' had access to longer and longer knives/swords, until by the 17th century they were commonly issued to men-at-arms.

Clubs, and their technological descendants, maces, are cheap, easy to make, and very effective, even against armored opponents. Bishop Odo used a club at the Battle of Hastings. A mace, like the axe, will break bones and batter armor into unusability without having to actually penetrate it.

If the fighting is going to be at close quarters, shorter weapons tend to be more useful. Also, if your main weapon is something longer, like a pike or a bow, you often have something like a shortsword or falchion as a backup.

As armor covered a soldier more and more completely, swords shifted from the shorter, slashing swords of the early middle ages, and became longer, with narrower tips. These were used - often gripped in two hands, either with a longer hilt or by grabbing the middle of the blade with an armored hand - to accurately slip between the plates of the armor. Some swords like the Estoc (one of the ancestors of the Rapier) even did away with the edge altogether and had a stiff, diamond- or triangular- cross-section blade.

Then there are cultural factors - a Ghurka would probably not even step outside their front door without their khukri - a weapon that in skilled (and strong) hands can quite literally split a person from the crown of the head down into the chest cavity...and that is from a one-handed weapon less than 18" long. I've seen a photo of a German solder from WWI, neatly decapitated from one blow.

Then you can get into all sorts of factors that are not covered in the rules - a longer weapon is usually slower, unless you make it a lot lighter and flimsier, which makes it more vulnerable to being broken. A longer weapon can hit an opponent farther away, perhaps even keeping that opponent at bay, unable to effectively counter-attack...until they manage to dodge past the longer weapon's effective range, and now the shoe is on the other foot. One of the reasons later swords had basket hilts or knucklebows, aside from the protection they afforded the hand, was that you could more effectively punch and pummel your opponent if the press of the fight got too close.

[jacar]

Taking what you guys have said so far (nice list of weapons Thorulfr!)

Dagger half damage. concealable.
Sword can use either Dex or Strength bonuses to hit. Some significant limitations based on target type (half damage vs skeletons etc)
Axe The jack of all trades. No significant bonuses. It cuts. it chops. It bashes.
Mace +1 damage against hard metal armor
Short spear can be thrown. +1 damage when set or when charging
The downside of the wooden weapons is that they break on a natural hit roll of '1'

I like the idea of throw 2 dice and take the best for two handers.

Any others?

[vladtolenkov]

In Pendragon Axes are effective against shields.

In OD&D try this if an Axe hits someone with a shield:

Roll a 1 on a 1D6 and the shield is broken (and the target still takes 1/2 damage).

[thegreyelf]

This is why I use Chainmail combat

[capheind]

Apr 12, 2010 13:33:33 GMT -6 Thorulfr said:

Swords were the mark of nobility, mainly because they were so difficult and expensive to make. A GOOD sword could last for generations - the bad ones broke. As technology improved, the 'common man' had access to longer and longer knives/swords, until by the 17th century they were commonly issued to men-at-arms.

See I've always thought that with swords the social reaction would be a bit like openly visible firearms. Unless your nobility you'll be treated like your planning violence of some sort, and even if you happen to be nobility the town guard may request you identify yourself if they aren't familiar with you.

Also some weapons may be illegal for certain reasons. Due to their ease of use, and their popularity with Peasant revolutionists crossbows were often illegal to own/make/use.

[kenmeister]

Apr 12, 2010 20:46:15 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

This is why I use Chainmail combat

Or you can use the Greyhawk weapon vs armor mods, even if you don't want to use the Greyhawk varying damage.

[thegreyelf]

Indeed, another valid solution.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 13, 2010 5:19:46 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

Or you can use the Greyhawk weapon vs armor mods, even if you don't want to use the Greyhawk varying damage.

I love the idea of differentiating weapon types, but I find the weapon versus armour table quite fiddly in play, and I also prefer to stick to six sided HD and damage dice. So here's how I handle it (you can see all this in action in my current play by post game here)...


Variable Damage

Damage Dice are always six sided but are called as "dd" rather than "d6" to distinguish "3dd" from a regular "3d6". Man-like creatures (including PCs) cause damage according to the type of weapon employed, while other monsters throw damage dice equal to their hit dice;

• Light weapons (such as daggers, hand axes, slings, short bows, etc.) typically cause 1dd.
  
• Normal sized weapons (such as axes, swords, maces, longbows, etc.) typically cause 2dd.
  
• Heavy, two-handed weapons (such as pole axes, war hammeres, crossbows, etc.) typically cause 3dd.
  
• A 4 HD Ogre will throw 4dd.
  
• A 10 HD Giant will throws a terrifying 10dd!!
  

Roll all the damage dice and sum like faces – the highest sum is the overall result. Thus a 2dd roll of 3, 5 is a result of 5 (because 5 was the highest result). A 3dd roll of 3, 3, 5 is a result of 6 (because 3 + 3 = 6, which is higher than 5).

Additionally, fighters add half their level (rounded down) and monsters add half their number of HD (rounded down) to the result.

Thieves throw one additional damage die per level when striking from behind or with surprise with a melee weapon.


Weapons versus Armour

	Shield	Leather	Mail	Plate
Weapon Type
Light Weapon	-1	--	--	--
Missile Weapon	-2	--	--	--
Wrapping Weapon	+1	--	--	--
Damage Type

[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Slashing Damage[/td][td]--[/td][td]+1[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Piercing Damage[/td][td]--[/td][td]+1[/td][td]+1[/td][td]-1[/td]
[/tr]

[tr]
[td]Bludgeoning Damage[/td][td]--[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]+1[/td]
[/tr]

[/table]

The modifiers versus shield and versus armour are cumulative, so a piercing dagger would attack at -2 versus an opponent equipped with plate armour and shield, for example.

"Wrapping" weapons include all those that can "warp around" a shield, such as flails, bolas, lasso, chains and whips.

As a trade off for the extra damage potential, large or heavy weapons usually suffer a -2 penalty to initiative in melee.

[kesher]

That's a nice system, w.o.e---it makes a good use of hit dice, and the "fiddlyness" is minor.

[jacar]

Both chainmail and greyhawk require table lookups, something I am trying to get away from. WOtE has a good system there, even pretty interesting but not quite as simple to my taste. I like vladtolenkov's idea for chopping shields and will probably include it as the axe weapon effect.

Great ideas still whether i use them or not. keep em coming!

[aldarron]

Apr 12, 2010 13:00:44 GMT -6 jacar said:

... After all, it only follows that some weapons are better than others.

Depnds entirely on what you mean by better. If by better, you mean that in a few specific cases some weapons are better against some armors or other weapons or lack thereof then yes. There are narrow point arrows, for example that will penetrate chainmail better than the broader point ones, which will in turn do more damage against unarmored opponents. Sword and daggar blade design also varies according to the type of armor worn. So, one could, in some cases, work out a bonus chance to penetrate certain types of armor.

That doesn't translate into doing more damage though. The deadliness of a given weapon is highly dependant on the familiarity and fighting ability of the user andshould really only translate in a damgae difference of heavy versus light weapons.

Apr 12, 2010 13:00:44 GMT -6 jacar said:

...
we can break weapons down into some broad categories...

Cutting - Swords and daggers really.
Chopping - Axes.
Bashing - Hammers, maces and clubs.
Impaling - Pole arms of all sizes as well as some swords.

As broad categories, you are really only looking at two: Incision (cutting, chopping, impaling) and Bashing, and there are a good bit of differences in effect there as you point out. One trouble is that many of the incision weapons also bash. Getting hit with a two pound iron stick is pretty messy whether it is sharp or pointed or not.

So I'm thinking there's really only two realistic ways to go, and that is to really get hyper specific with weapons, armor, training, etc. or keep it fairly broad with only one or two categories of difference if you like.
[/quote]

[capheind]

I like the idea of weapons being classed more by how your using them than what they are. Maybe have a base damage die per class, with bonuses and special effects for using different features of a weapon. For instance on a pole axe would grant damage bonuses as a two handed weapon when cleaving, provided you had room to swing it, allow dismounting attempts, and act as a spear if its spiked, also allowing it to be set against a charge.

[jacar]

So a friend of mine came up with a simple mechanic to go with the sundering effect of axe. Basically if you roll a natural 6, you destroy the shield or whatever the effect of the weapon is. Damage for 2 handers then are roll 2 and take the best. This makes it more likely that you will sunder a shield.

So...
Swords Can dex or strength based attack
Maces Hammers Stun opponent on a 6 damage roll. Lose next round.
Axe destroys shields on a 6 damage roll.
Spears +1 damage when charging or defending against a charge

2 handers roll 2D6 and take best as well as weapon specific effect
2 handed sword 2D6 and take the best and add +1 damage (2H sword is not a light weapon!)
Staff Like mace but can parry two attacks instead of one attack per turn

Bow 2 attacks per round D6
X-Bow 1 attack per round D6+1
Long Bow 2 attacks per round D6 (longer range)
Sling 1 attack per round. D6 Can stun on a 6.

[piper]

I don't know, a 17% (okay, 16.67%) chance of having one's shield busted every time one takes a hit seems a bit too frequent.

Maybe it would be good to allow the shield a saving throw? Modified for pluses, if any?

One idea you may like is to make any attack that misses by 1 be a hit on the shield and then roll the d6 for splitting?

[jacar]

Apr 16, 2010 14:09:07 GMT -6 Piper said:

I don't know, a 17% (okay, 16.67%) chance of having one's shield busted every time one takes a hit seems a bit too frequent.

Maybe it would be good to allow the shield a saving throw? Modified for pluses, if any?

One idea you may like is to make any attack that misses by 1 be a hit on the shield and then roll the d6 for splitting?

Couple of things to point out.

(1) Weapons broke more often in battle than DnD allows. Wooden weapons especially.
(2) The shield is being attacking by a weapon that, by definition, chops things to pieces.
(3) Lets say, after modifiers, you have a 50% chance to hit. That means, in a given attack, you have something like a 8.5% chance of splitting the shield.
(4) Not all creatures have shields.
(5) It is a wooden shafted weapon. I am giving a significant chance it will break on a natural 1. 50% + strength bonus.

That 1 in 6 is not that great. Needs play testing though. It could be that all my writing was wrong and you were right!

[piper]

Apr 16, 2010 14:54:22 GMT -6 jacar said:

(1) Weapons broke more often in battle than DnD allows. Wooden weapons especially.

True, but the primary concern behind the D&D rules was fun over simulation. There is a lot about the general milieu that is anywhere from a little off to wildly inaccurate. Especially in the area of combat.

(4) Not all creatures have shields.

But most players do. Would this rule apply to them, too? I would assume it does.

That 1 in 6 is not that great. Needs play testing though. It could be that all my writing was wrong and you were right!

I wouldn't try to say right or wrong, I think the rule is a good one and very likely reasonably accurate. I'm just trying to highlight some nudges that may (or may not) increase the fun factor over historical accuracy.

[capheind]

As far as weapon damage I'd say that on a fumble the weapon is rendered unusable (I love games with big parties, that include lots of porters, and squires carrying extra weapons).

[piper]

Apr 16, 2010 16:08:59 GMT -6 capheind said:

As far as weapon damage I'd say that on a fumble the weapon is rendered unusable (I love games with big parties, that include lots of porters, and squires carrying extra weapons).

Another fine idea.

Keep in mind I don't use critical hits or fumbles so this suggestion may not be balanced, but here goes. How's about also having a chance of the weapon breaking on a perfect hit, as well as a perfect miss?

Have you ever watched some movie combat where the hero delivers a killing blow that shatters his weapon at the same time? The perfect hit would presumably deliver so much force that most mundane weapons couldn't stand the stress.

[jacar]

Apr 16, 2010 16:08:59 GMT -6 capheind said:

As far as weapon damage I'd say that on a fumble the weapon is rendered unusable (I love games with big parties, that include lots of porters, and squires carrying extra weapons).

This is what I was going for initially. That would be 5% that you shatter a weapon. Maybe a metal weapon gets a 50-50 save? Applies mainly to blades.

[jacar]

Apr 16, 2010 16:26:27 GMT -6 Piper said:

Apr 16, 2010 16:08:59 GMT -6 capheind said:

As far as weapon damage I'd say that on a fumble the weapon is rendered unusable (I love games with big parties, that include lots of porters, and squires carrying extra weapons).

Another fine idea.

Keep in mind I don't use critical hits or fumbles so this suggestion may not be balanced, but here goes. How's about also having a chance of the weapon breaking on a perfect hit, as well as a perfect miss?

Have you ever watched some movie combat where the hero delivers a killing blow that shatters his weapon at the same time? The perfect hit would presumably deliver so much force that most mundane weapons couldn't stand the stress.

Usually those movies involve the sword of infinite power. Once the enemy is smited, the sword melts, or burns up or disapears or something.

My concern with this is that it penalizes success. Not really a good game move. I would consider stuck weapons for some extra detail. Roll a natural 20. 50-50 that the weapon is stuck and must be readied on the next action.