3.X has done, in my opinion, a pretty mediocre job with weapons.

In previous editions, the weapons had a little more to them. In 1ed, the weapons actually received different bonuses to hit versus different armor types. That, honestly, struck me as the most realistic possible- as armors historically were actually meant to counter the weapons most likely to be seen. Earlier versions were clear about the fact that historically expensive armors were very rare. If you try to grab some class III body armor, you'll see that while you COULD afford it, you actually won't buy it- and this price difference would be far greater in the past. Because magical items were in many cases more powerful (a simple +2 enchantment could make armor that would be a fraction of the price of full plate equally effective), and for other reasons in older games, magical enchantments on armor were deemed to be expensive. Since the PCs do, of course, find such magical items over the course of their adventures, this became the defacto system.

In any event, 1ed's system was brought in some fashion into 2ed as an optional rule, and was erased entirely by 3ed.

2ed also had some other things going for it- rules related to the reach of weapons, and also an initiative penalty for using "slower" weapons. These weapons allowed for quite a bit of "design space", and gave the designers some wiggle room.

Another feature the older editions had is that they would deal different damage to different sizes of creatures. For instance, the designers assumed, out of nowhere, that a big weapon such as a greatsword would probably be even deadlier against a larger opponent. This is a bit of a stretch, but it's not out of nowhere. Meanwhile, a weapon with a small blade, such as a dagger, would likely be weaker against a foe whose organs could not easily be reached. These factors combined to make the weapons be pretty customizable, and left plenty of space if you found a halberd you wanted to convert (that wasn't already in the list, lol), or you wanted to create a fictional weapon.


There were many issues, of course. In addition to complexity (which I don't really consider a problem), there was a degree of prejudice. The katana is probably one of the best cutting swords throughout all of history- and certainly it continued in development long after swordsmanship in other countries had become niche due to gunpowder. This wasn't because guns were unknown in Japan- if you read The Book of Five Rings, written by Miyamato Musashi (it's centuries old, so you can find it many places, such as http://samuraiconsulting.ca/5rings/ ), he actually mentions guns, despite the book mostly being about swordsmanship (Miyamoto Musashi killed over 50 men in duels with his katana and sometimes his wakizashi)- they were around, but they didn't define wars in the way they later would. In any event, as you've probably noticed, there are people who have a HUGE hardon for all things Japanese. You'll also notice that the stock PHB doesn't really do enough with anything besides western culture- there's no rules for being an Indian Brave, no rules for being a Bushman, a Witch Doctor, or a Shaman. There also aren't rules on being a Samurai, or a Ninja. So whenever anyone adds the katana to the game, there's normally a problem where the katana is way too fucking good. Sure enough, when it was added to older versions, it essentially was the super sword of legend, being totally baller. While a great sword, other swords had plenty of other advantages. Claiming a cutting sword such as a katana was wholly superior to an equally advanced duelling sword such as a rapier in all circumstances wasn't just ludicrous- it was insulting. It reeked of fetishism.


Enter THIRD EDITION. With the initiative speed thing gone, and the ranges being something that got ignored (technically you can use a greatsword while squeezing into a narrow hallway, though your DM should, of course, houserule against this), the weapons were pretty limited on how to distinguish them. To address this, we have two things in modern play:

1)- Crit ranges. Instead of always critting for x2 on a 20, weapons were assumed to only THREATEN a critical- a second roll was now required. This also solved the problem of the biggest idiot in the world always critting 5% of the time, because a second roll versus AC was required to land a crit. So, the equivalent of the old long sword (crit x2 on a 20) was now (threaten x2 on a 19 or a 20). Some weapons could threaten x3 on a 20- this is the same on average, damage wise, but bunches the damage up on one hit. Weapons better at critting could threaten x2 on an 18, 19, or 20- 50% more critical hits. Alternatively, they could threaten x4 on a 20- 50% more critical damage than the x3 weapons. This created five classes of weapons, crit wise- weapons not good at critting (20x2), weapons average at critting (19-20x2, 20x3), and weapons very good at critting (18-20x2, 20x4). Weapons exceptionally good at critting could exist, but aren't in the tables anywhere, plus they can explode with synergy with class abilities and feats. These would be things like (17-20x2, 20x5, 19-20x3). Some of these have existed as misprints (and have been played), normally with pretty shocking results.

2)- Special shit. With the advent of combat maneuvers such as trip, disarm, and grapple, weapons could be created that allow these to be done, and give bonuses to them.

...and that's pretty much it. Weapons can have ranges and range increments, but since many melee weapons can't be effectively thrown, that is not a relevant balancing point for most (and is largely unexplored- most thrown weapons simply have a 10 foot range increment, and all have a max increment number of 5).


Some weapons, considered "exotic", require a feat to use properly. Without the feat, a -4 penalty is assessed (this is the standard nonproficiency penalty). In fact, a hierarchy of weapons exists: Exotic > Martial > Simple. The martial classes were granted proficiency with martial weapons, which tend to have more "budget" than the Simple class of weapons. Exotic weapons in the book include a lot of historical weapons that are odd to use (net), but also fictional weapons because Darth Maul, such as a "two bladed sword". Mechanically, this weapon is similar to wielding two longswords- a feat to wield two longswords without an additional penalty was NOT added in the base book, despite it being far more realistic (especially in the case of two weapon fighting using two rapiers, a thing with historical veracity) than some kind of sabre-staff. VRMMMMMMMMMMM. It is definitely a departure from historical weapons, and grants a lot of folks the idea that exotic weapons should be used for all kinds of horseshit!

4th edition, by the way, introduced some weapons having a +2 to hit. This is a bit different, because your chances at connecting in 4ed are pretty similar- attack bonus and armor class are largely washed away because everyone gains +attack and +AC at the same rate, so your odds at swinging at a 7th level guy when you are 5th level who is wearing some given type of armor, will be the same as when you are 22nd and he is 24th. Of course, you'll have more plusses on your sword by then, but he'll have more pluses to his armor in the same amount, so it's a wash. Hence, offering a +2 to hit in exchange for damage or something else remains a trade that you might strongly consider.


So now, in 3.X we live in a world where there is relatively little diversity. Exotic weapons generally fall into two categories: not worth taking a feat for, and way too fucking good. There's very little reason for a martial focused character to ever use a "lesser" weapon, and we can see whole real world weapons miscategorized just because they wanted to fill a gap.

Example:

The dagger is considered a "simple" weapon, and also "light". It does 1d4 damage, and crits 19-20x2. This means it has two "critical dots"- one above the 19, and one above the 20. Going up from "simple" to "martial" but staying in the same size category, we find the "short sword", a longtime ahistorical inclusion in D&D. In historical times, a blade of the length described here would be called a "dagger". In any event, this weapon is 1d6 damage, and crits 19-20x2. This makes it just like the dagger, but sized up one space, so it does one extra average damage. It is considered a piercing weapon, which is probably the appropriate attack method for a blade of such length. Up one from that, we have a martial "one handed" weapon. This is similar to a "light weapon", but the game offers additional penalties if it is dual wielded with another "one handed weapon" (but no such penalties if a "light weapon" is used instead). This is the longsword- 1d8, and 19-20x2, and is considered "slashing". Finally, we can upgrade this model to being "two handed"- at this point the damage is a 2d6, and the weapon still has a 19-20x2 crit range.

However, there are "enhanced crit" weapons as well. While the dagger has no equivalent, the short sword does. Instead of the shortsword at 1d6, the kukri (itself a type of dagger) is offered- this blade is curved, so the designers chose to reduce the damage on average by 1 point, so it deals 1d4, and offer a better crit range of 18-20 x2. This means it has there "critical dots"- one extra one above the 18. Sizing up to one handed, we find both the rapier and the scimitar at 1d6 with an 18-20x2 crit range, in the same spot as a longsword, and above that we find a 2d4 "falchion", ahistorically listed as a two handed weapon, in competition with the 2d6 greatsword. This is the only weapon that gives most players pause, as while an average of one hit point will often not make a difference in combat, an average of two is twice as likely to- additionally, the maximum of 12 can cause much more havoc than a mere 8, and getting 10 through 12 occurs more often than getting an 8 on the "two handed falchion".

At low levels, the extra hit point provided by the longsword and friends is, in fact, worthwhile. Since one assumes that the majority of the world IS low level, this could be viewed as insulting to cultures that historically favored curved weapons- as such are listed as less damaging. Meanwhile, at high levels, this flips around- the extra damage is trivial in comparison to the brutal results of an extra critical strike, telling us that a real life Lancelot (or any of the real life historical knights who were masters of their craft) would have been a lot better off with a scimitar.

The book then goes one further- it tells us explicitly that a Katana should be considered a masterwork bastard sword. This is interesting, mostly because the bastard sword is one of the few western weapons that we have historical documents on the use of- as the "German Long Sword", it was a duelling weapon even after its battlefield use faded, and many masters wrote books, offered classes, and were trained in the use of it both with and without armor. These books even offer illustrations, which means we know more about the historical use of D&D's bastard sword tha almost everything else in the PHB. Meanwhile, of course, we also know about the katana- because Japan continued to use the weapon, and many of the schools of swordsmanship still exist today, having been thought of as being of cultural importance for centuries, and having passed down the same learning techniques that men who dealt death with the blades did historically...

So what do we know, about these two weapons? A lot. The big thing that we know is that they are nothing alike. In construction, in use, in shape, in training... nothing alike. Certainly they are far more different than weapons that ARE in the book for mechanically convenient reasons, and are strangely different. For instance, the kukri, and the dagger, or the anomalous short sword.

So, what would I like? Why am I making this post?


Simply put, I'd like the weapons to have more differences. I'd like some to be harder to disarm, or have other mechanical advantages, and others to be weaker in some ways. I wouldn't be opposed to some having a small bonus versus armor types, or sizes of opponents. Some could have a plus to hit, though that is a SUBSTANTIAL bonus, it is not out of line with the damage die differences that we see. I would like a player to be able to consider that his longsword does, in fact, offer him advantages that the scimitar does not, even if said scimitar will, on average, outdamage the longsword. Etc. I'll post my ideas in here, but I'd like to see others who have such ideas!

Didn't we make a good start on this a while back? Why do I have a bad feeling neither one of us kept that stuff.

In the E6 campaign I definitely want some of this. The trick is that it needs to be simple. I like the idea of different AC for weapons. I wouldn't want to make it too complex like... DR against slashing, AC against piercing, and less chance of criticals against bludgeoning.

PS: This was time you could have spent on the loot list and recap.

Awwwwwww....




Anyway, on topic!

Yes, we did discuss it. And, it's in the game we are playing now. It just comes up less because I used the baseline as the "good crit" weapons, and that is all the PCs who actually attack things have selected. But your enemies get:

Axe (handaxe, battleaxe, greataxe at least):
+1 to hit with an axe while charging
+2 to sunder with an axe

Straight blades (shortsword, long sword, greatsword at least):
+1 to hit a larger creature
+2 to resist disarm attempts
+2 to resist sunder attempts

Hammers and clubs (Light Hammer, Warhammer, Greatclub at least):
Ignore armor based DR
+2 to sunder

I then nerfed the x4s in the book down to x3s.

The only change that your group MIGHT benefit from is the rapier:
+2 to feint attempts

So here's a fundamental question...

Let's say we tried to implement a difference in the interaction between weapon type and armor. I agree that was something that was removed that really added a cool flavor to it. How would we do this? I think it should come under Armor Class. You might have something like...


The attacker can just say what sort of weapon they are using. "I hit AC 21 piercing," for example. It is definitely more complicated, but the question is whether it is worth it.

The other option is to have the different attacks written out for each weapon, which I think would be too complicated. There are only 3 types of weapon damage, but there are more than 3 types of armor.

In addition to creating a world, I should remember to work on this sort of thing. The armor in the book will simply not do. The heavy armor is crap. I also need to play less Skyrim. Fortunately there won't be a guild yelling at me if I put it down for a while.

Well... While I think p/b/s is oversimplified, it is clearly meant to address this issue. This pushes the design space over to the armor, which REALLY FUCKING helps, actually.

For now, we should explore that idea- it is clearly the best thing going.

Of course, I still like the "weapon specials", and want to continue with them. The +1 to hit larger creatures thing, for instance.

Also note- while B>S>P is pretty normal, the "better than" is very slight. Mostly, weapon damage type is not something budgeted. Also note: a bite is B/P/S. claws are two types as well.

This idea gives us more ways to tune armor, especially the banded / splint shit.

Some options, aside from weapon type, would be a higher AC for confirming criticals or even halving sneak attack damage. I haven't put any more thought into it than the minute to write this post, but it seems like an option.

Just comparing chainmail and full plate. Full plate should be much more protective, but it has weak spots. Chain really doesn't. It's not as good protection, but there's no spot weaker than any other. Even if a rogue gets a sneak attack against chain, he will have to penetrate the chain. On the other hand, if a rogue gets sneak attack against full plate, he's going for an armpit where he will have to puncture chain instead of plate, or maybe he will find an unprotected seam. I'm not sure if this is worth capturing or even how to do it fairly. I'm thinking in writing.

I'll say this... ringmail is back, baby!

I'm going to have a ringmail made entirely from Rings of Protection, so that my AC is Texas.

Ignoring the stacking problem, I think that would be very expensive. Why not just buy Texas instead?

Does Texas exist to buy? That would be awesome. I'd be able to have my own army of rednecks, sort of like an army of raised zombies, except not as smart.

And I have a new sig.

Texas Texas, no. But there's always a place to which the morons flock.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! My existence is validated.

I'd be very careful messing with sneak attack damage. It's shitty enough in most campaigns as it is. A better way to model that would be to give a +AC versus sneak attack- or even give sneak attacks a baseline small + to hit, and then ignore it for certain armor models. The core issue here is that sneak attack is a class ability. If we go there, we might also want to model how armor works with spells. Hrm.

What you are saying about full plate / chain could be modelled as such, correct?
"Certain areas on a warrior clad in full plate will be just as weak as chain."

A higher AC for confirming criticals is a very good idea.

Yeah, I don't really want to weaken sneak attack. I was sort of looking for a way to improve it, but that definitely didn't come across.

What I mean is that if you have plate armor, then the odds are your armpits are covered simply by chain (possibly just leather). So if you're up against a barbarian, he's going to swing a club at your heavy armor and hope to swing hard enough to hurt you through plate. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that he's swinging against plate. With a sneaking rogue, however, he's going to target the armpit or the joint from the breastplate to the chastity belt. He's going to be trying puncture the chain that is under the plate. It won't be as easy as if the guy were wearing all chain, but he's not trying to drive a dagger through the plate itself.

Maybe the mechanic can simply be that a rogue gets a small bonus to hit while sneaking against "complex" armor? Heavy armor?

I bring back another dead topic.

So, I agree that 3rd make an inferior weapon system. While I like the weapon type vs certain armors it was a little to much to keep track of. Maybe I was just lazy. However, I really appreciated the weapon speed. The way I had my 2nd ed set up, not sure if it was stock, was that with multiple attacks you are the weapon speed - your dex bonus to a min of 1 and thats where your next attack came in. So, lets say that in a 2nd ed two 12 level fighters are hacking at each other. One has a dagger (speed 2) the other has a two handed sword (speed 10); neither has a remarkable dex. Lets say they both roll 10 on the initiative. The dagger goes 12 and 14 while the two handed sword goes on 20 and 30. Makes sense to me. I just dont see a fighter getting two, three, or four swings on the same segment.

This could be adopted in 3rd ed by using the same weapon speeds from 2nd ed. The only problem I see is adjusting casting time for spells to balance it out. That could also be remedied by adopting the casting speed from the equivalent 2nd ed spell, or simply using a 1 segment per level; a 5th level spell adds 5 to your roll, minus dex maybe to a min of 1. Some spells were designed to be more rituals and their casting time could be either an entire round or even ten rounds. In 3rd that would translate to one minute to ten minutes. Also, while the caster was casting you had a chance to ruin his spell by damaging him. I created a hacked Concentration that was loosely inspired by 3rd ed, but fortunately its now built in.

As far as natural attacks go it went something like a small creature was +1, medium +3, large +6, Huge +9, and so on. Of course it gets a little tricky for the DM to keep track of all those attacks, especially from a dragon, so often times I would just roll all their multiple attacks into one round. Bad for the PC's, but they never complained since they knew how much I had to keep track of. Now 3rd has the single attack and full attack which makes so much more sense.

The combats were sometimes a lot to keep track of since each new round demanded a new initiative, but it was much more rewarding to know it mimicked real combat much more closely. With this way a person with Improved Initiative actually has a nice advantage each round as it should be instead of just in the beginning of a combat.

Any thoughts? You guys seem good at tweaking things to make sense. What do you use now?

Weapon speeds are sadly nonviable in 3ed.

The optional rules that almost everyone used involved using weapon speeds. Supposedly there were optional rules involving weapon SIZES, but I never saw them. So the net effect was that a guy with a dagger got first strike against a guy with a spear. Now, I'm no expert with either weapon, but if I was in a lethal fight, I'd definitely want the spear over the dagger. I might still get stabbed, but I'd give myself FAR better odds. Since the spear is modelled with a different mechanic (reach), I'll say that I would also feel much safer with one of my or Zem's swords versus an opponent with a dagger, and I don't think there's much way he'll be getting first blood unless he's substantially more skilled.

That being said, about the biggest thing in favor is that you have the ability to add extra things to distinguish one weapon from another. 3ed leaves that to crit ranges and the occasional weapon special. My feeling is, add more weapon specials.

Additionally, 2ed normally had inits rolled each round, and ALSO had a "declare action" wave ahead of time. 3ed loses this realistic and pleasant thing in favor of a much smoother combat round, where you only decide what you want to do when it is your turn, and in MOST games, inits are rolled only once, and round robin follows.

Here is SKR on weapon speeds. He makes the points pretty well:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/r ... peeds.html




Right now, we use the stock 3.X initiative go-around, instead of the old 2ed / 3.0 optional thing with the reroll each round. I'm not sure how much more accurate to real world combat the inits being rolled each round are. I definitely feel the loss of realism with the "declare as it happens" 3.X model, because you as DM lose the ability to put each round into coherent narrative. Both Zem and I extend a combat round from 6 seconds to 10, both for realism, speaking, and narration, but while the one-minute 2ed D&D round was a bit long, even the 10 second seems a bit short.


While I miss weapon speeds, they made more mechanical sense than realism sense, and I'd like something else to work with to make things balanced. I do agree that losing the init penalty took a LOT out of game's strategy- for instance, a high level wizard often would use a low level spell to avoid getting interrupted by a fighter who had switched to a faster weapon (sadly and without houserules, this would be darts), whereas if the fighter didn't do that the wizard would wind up a +7 init spell and wail away with prismatic spray. Getting a spell off in 3.X is much easier, and that has probably shifted the balance towards the casters in the late game.

To add to the narrative: before the round goes, in 2ed, you know that the fighter is attacking the enemy witch, you know that the wizard is casting a fireball (at the ogres, but he gets to pick that later I think?), and you know that the ogres decided to rush the cleric, and you know that the cleric is healing the fighter. So YOU "move the characters", and don't need a map. You know that the ogres started far away and if the wizard goes first, they'll just eat the fireball, but if they move all around the fighter before the wizard goes, the wizard will probably have to aim at only one or two of them unless he's willing to scorch the fighter, or the fighter doesn't give a fuck. Also if they move last, you could probably give the wizard the option of hitting one ogre and the witch, if the fighter got over there first. So you don't need a super accurate map, and the narrative is PERFECT. Whereas in 3ed, you have a bunch of round-by-round contradictions, and sometimes intense events squished into the last tenth of a second. I mean, write down the actions in a 3ed combat, and try to reconstruct as a smooth narrative, the events after. It is much harder, and occasionally you may have to fudge a bit. That never happened in 2ed.


What we get in exchange is a much SMOOTHER combat round with MUCH less worry. I have 0 doubt that 3ed plays much smoother than 2ed. I don't think either is a BETTER solution- one emphasizes gameplay, the other emphasize reality. Personally, I think you give up a dash of reality for a pretty big helping of gameplay. I was initially negative on the 3ed combat round, but try it for several levels and you'll not want to import 2nd's. It also reduces the work YOU have to do as DM.


There are also balance issues with 2ed's that require some tweaking. Most you can do as a DM, but it becomes a problem if the players come across something that lets them get a zillion attacks. For instance, the combat round that goes rogue, fighter, evil dragon, cleric, wizard, ogres, tends to go like this:

Rogue attacks once out of two attacks.
Fighter attacks once out of two attacks.
Evil Dragon attacks once out of three attacks.
cleric casts
wizard casts
ogres attack once only
Rogue attacks the second time
Fighter attacks the second time
Dragon attacks the second time
Dragon attacks the third time

This means that the dragon actually "wants" to use his weakest attack first, and then follow up with his powerful burst damage at the end of the round. I never played 2ed like this: I gave everyone their attacks right then and there, an apparently popular house rule. I also made it so that a 3/2 guy would attack 3, then the next round 2- this was a straight buff to those characters (mostly martial guys at end game), because if they had something ELSE cool to do, I'd see:
Fighter triple attack
(next round)
Fighter drink potion
(next round)
Fighter triple attack

Instead of the strict rules, which would be double attacks both times.

I am experimenting with a houserule- if anyone has a BAB of +11 or higher, they can take TWO attacks when they take the "attack action" (attack is a standard action). The first is normal, the second at -10. If they are dual wielding or use two natural weapons, the second is only at -8- I figure it's easier to bring two weapons to bear in a small amount of time than to bring the same to bear twice.

The same rules apply on attacks of opportunity.

This houserule has been tested a TAD, because the fightery types all are also stealthers, so they JUST got to it. Mostly it has resulted in some misses thus far, but I suspect it will be better as time passes. The shocking difference between Mainhand Sword -2 / Mainhand Sword -7 / Mainhand Sword -12 / Offhand Sword -2 / Offhand Sword -7 / Offhand Sword -12, versus just "Mainhand Sword" makes cheesing the fighter types too important at high level, and honestly, if you can fit 8 attacks in 6 (or in our games 10) seconds, then your standard really should be more than one hit. We'll see how it plays out in the teens.