3.25 / Tome weapon system

[CatharzGodfoot]

How much would having a more straightforward/streamlined/balanced weapon system benefit the game?
Is the abstraction of three 'sizes' of weapons used in 3.5 better than the more detailed 4 sizes of 3.0?
If coming up with a new system (either by removing chaff or improving) is worthwhile, do we want a toolkit or a list?


This is ground that has already been pretty well trodden, so there are a lot of ideas to draw on and the space has been reasonably well explored. Changing the weapon system (as long as you don't change the way they work in play) has little to no impact on backward compatibility, which makes it an attractive place for change. At the same time, there isn't a huge amount of gain to be had. For better or for worse, the system we have works. Sure, you can Min/Max. There are weapons that no one in her right mind would use. On the whole, though, it ain't broken.

---

Although it ain't broken, there are some annoying things about the current weapon system. For example, every sword that can be used for slashing damage should also be able to deal piercing damage.

---

The best argument for a toolkit, in my mind, is that it's so damn' easy.
[*]A weapon can have, at best, a critical range of 18-20.
[*]At best, a weapon can have a critical multiplier of 4.
[*]You can't combine the two: the best compromise is 19-20 x3.
[*]No simple weapon gets better than 19-20 OR x3.
[*]Improving either critical characteristic usually means reducing damage by one step.
[*]Exotic weapons get a free one-step damage upgrade.
[*]Reach costs the same as a damage or critical upgrade.

Unfortunately, other characteristics are less straightforward.

---

There's also the possibility of simply scaling size. This works well for most non-reach weapons. For example, the dagger is a 1d4 crit 19-20 piercing and slashing light simple weapon. Scale the damage up to 1d6 and it's a light martial weapon (and can no longer be thrown). Increase it again and it's one handed, then two-handed. There are your swords. You could do the exact same thing with axes, from a 1d4 damage simple hatchet on up to the great axe. Of course, we should probably come up with a reason why with the weapons being otherwise equivalent, the swords are slightly better (more consistent criticals and two possible damage types).

You could even try to do the same thing with rapiers (starting with a stiletto), although I'm not sure if you'd want to. In that case, there's no simple version, because you start at 1d4 crit 18-20 as a martial weapon.

---

This is something that worms its way into my head now and then. Just tossing ideas out there, hopefully to be sa[l]vaged.

[Judging__Eagle]

Axes deal bludgeoning damage. Sho' nuff'.

Seriously, think about an axe. Just typical, modern day, 5-10 lb axe head, on an axe handle.

Think about it holding that thing, and swinging in the air.

Think about it going for someone's knee.

The human knee breaks under 15 lbs of force.

You don't even need an edge to ruin that knee. Just force alone would break the bone.

I know 130 lb girls who could exert the 15 lbs of force needed to break a human knee. Their hulking barbarian PC can probably exert a lot more than 15 lbs of force.

TL;DR: Axes kill skeletons; Zombies too. There, balanced.

[CatharzGodfoot]

That works.

It also means that there are basically no weapons that deal only slashing damage, with the possible exception of a polearm which someone forgot to spike the end of.

So for basic weapons we have...
[*] clubs (simple, bludgeon only)
[*] hammers/picks (?, bludgeon OR pierce)
[*] maces/morning stars (?, piercing AND bludgeoning)
[*] axes (martial, bludgeon AND slash)
[*] swords (martial, piercing OR slashing)

Those are some (all?) weapons which can be scaled from light to two handed without adding reach or anything else weird.

---

The stranger weapons include spears/lances (which get you reach or throwing), staves (which are double weapons and might be double OR reach at the high end), polearms, shields, chain/rope weapons.

Unarmed strikes are pretty much fine (unarmed, bludgeon, subdual), along with gauntlets (simple, bludgeon) and spiked gauntlets/katars/cesti (simple, pierce).

And, of course, there are the bullshit exotic weapons with names like 'kukri', 'khopesh', and 'kama' that are really existing weapons but with an excuse to have different threat ranges or higher damage.

[mean_liar]

I've been trying to incorporate this into a home system where a "weapon" is merely a collection of stat modifiers to Speed, Maneuverability, Attack, Defense, and Force, where its simply a character generation process for the weapon with points to allocate into its categories.

I think the basic guidelines of the 3e weapon system is Frank's base premise anyway, they just abandoned them.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I've been trying to incorporate this into a home system where a "weapon" is merely a collection of stat modifiers to Speed, Maneuverability, Attack, Defense, and Force, where its simply a character generation process for the weapon with points to allocate into its categories.

Is the appearance of the weapon also procedurally generated based on the point allocation? 'Cause that would be pretty neat.

I think the basic guidelines of the 3e weapon system is Frank's base premise anyway, they just abandoned them.

I think they always assumed the use of the 3e weapon system, and never intended to dirty their hands with it beyond spot fixes like bows. Otherwise it would have been in Races of War.

---

exotic weapons.
Here are my current thoughts: almost every 'exotic weapon' is an 'exotic technique'. So you can have proficiency in 'buster sword style', which means that you can wield a great sword in one hand. You can also be proficient in 'vital thrust-and-cut', which means that your critical multiplier with swords is increased by one. You can't, however, use both at the same time.

So the basic exotic techniques are:
[*]Increase critical threat range by one
[*]Increase critical multiplier by one
[*]Count weapon as one size smaller for purposes of wielding
[*]Use as double weapon (appropriate weapons only)
[*]Use as reach weapon (appropriate weapons only)

This has the net effect of mostly improving the utility of EWP, because it no longer requires finding a lajatang in the dragon's horde, and because you can switch from using a spear as a 1-handed reach weapon to a crit 19-20 x3 two-hander.

A few weapons might exist as exotic techniques only. The chain and rope weapons come to mind; they would have all the benefits of a normal weapon wielded with an exotic technique (e.g. reach or double weapon) plus a small perk (say, a trip/disarm bonus) to make up for the lost versatility.

[RobbyPants]

[*]Increase critical threat range by one
[*]Increase critical multiplier by one

The thing is, these two are no where equal. +1 multiplier is a helluva lot bigger than a +1 threat range if you're starting at bigger than a 20/x2 crit.

19-20/x2 -> 19-20/x3 (10% of +100% damage -> 10% of +200% damage) is a bigger increase than 19-20/x2 -> 18-20/x2 (10% of +100% damage -> 15% of +100% damage).

You really have to double the threat range to keep the two the same.

[mean_liar]

Is that valid, though? I mean, yes they provide unequal results, but isn't that okay? How many of these are planned to be handed out?

[CatharzGodfoot]

[*]Increase critical threat range by one
[*]Increase critical multiplier by one

The thing is, these two are no where equal. +1 multiplier is a helluva lot bigger than a +1 threat range if you're starting at bigger than a 20/x2 crit.

19-20/x2 -> 19-20/x3 (10% of +100% damage -> 10% of +200% damage) is a bigger increase than 19-20/x2 -> 18-20/x2 (10% of +100% damage -> 15% of +100% damage).

You really have to double the threat range to keep the two the same.

With 18-20 you're more likely to get effects that proc on a crit. As with pretty much everything in 3e, it's a matter of choosing the right tool for your specialization.

[RobbyPants]

Good point. I wasn't really thinking about extra effects; just raw damage.

[Judging__Eagle]

Wider crit ranges are better for characters with already decent damage and to-hit; since it increases their 'average' damage per round a lot more.

Especially if you're attacking a lot of times.

Attacking 8 times with a 15% chance of adding +100% damage is going to be better than 5% chance of adding +300% more damage. Simply because you've got more swings, meaning that you'll crit much more often in a round.

[TarkisFlux]

Good point. I wasn't really thinking about extra effects; just raw damage.

If you write out the average damage math, the crit term comes out as a function of (crit range) x (crit mod -1). 19-20 x2 is equal to 20 x3 in terms of average raw damage. The former is more consistent, and the latter more bursty, but over a sufficiently large period they average out to exactly the same thing. For that matter, 18-20 x2 is the same, on average, as 20 x4. If they existed, 17-20 x2 would be the same, on average, as 20 x5. Really, as long as you only boost either the range or the mod, whichever of those was increased first, you can keep adding one to that term and it'll balance with doing the same thing to the other term on a different weapon.

You only run into trouble when you start increasing both of them, like getting improved crit with a 20 x3 weapon. Because the math works as a multiple, you can't just add 2 to the range of that weapon (making it 18-20 x 3) unless you wanted to balance it with an 15-20 x2 weapon, which you can not get by just adding 2 to the basic 19-20 x2 weapon that the original 20 x3 weapon was balanced against. You can get around that by multiplying threat ranges instead of adding to them (like ya do in 3.x) or by just boosting the modifier (which ya don't).

This also means that the OP's 19-20 x 3 has the best average damage of any weapon out there (average of 4 extra hits from crits to everyone else's 3), even if you can't boost those numbers further.

[RobbyPants]

Oh, I know all of that. That's why I pointed out that +1 threat range =/= +1 multiplier (unless you're starting from 20/x2).

[deathdealingjawa]

I know the system is not broke, but I would like to have all the mechanics on the table. Here is what I have been able to come up with.

Simple Weapon +0 property
Simple Weapons can only deal one damage type. i.e. clubs (bludgeoning), a stake (piercing), or a sickle (slashing)

Simple Weapon +1 property
Martial Weapons are like Simple Weapons with an additional property such as an additional damage type, bonus to doing a maneuver, double damage on a mount charge, die size increase, reach, improved critical range or multiplier.
i.e. Long spear (Stake + Reach), Short Sword (Sickle + crit range), Warhammer (Club + crit multipler) .

Simple weapon +2 property
Exotic Weapons are like Simple Weapons with 2 additional properties such as an additional damage type, bonus to doing a maneuver, die size increase, double damage on a mount charge, reach, improved critical range or multiplier.
i.e. chain (stake + reach + maneuver), full blade (sickle + crit range + die size),

If there is a desire for Weapon Specialization the player just picks a property that they specialize in and if the weapon has that property then all specializations apply.

The default weapon damage start out d6 for light, d8 for one-hander, 1d10/2d6 for two-handers (the math gets wonky in core martial weapons), with their crit being 20/x2. The weapon size can be reduced to give an alternative property. i.e. rapier (stake -die size + crit range + crit range), pick, heavy (stake -die size + crit multiplier +crit multiplier).

These weapon properties that I did not feel are worth counting as a weapon property so it may just be worth giving one of them for free to a weapon: an alternative/additional damage type, is a double weapon, settable against a charge, or thrownable.

I have no idea where attacking an adjacent foe with a reach weapon property would go since it only shows up in the chain, and the whip.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Worst case, characters will be increasing the multiplier of swords and critical range of axes (assuming we keep the existing base stats) to get basically equivalent 18-20 (they're keen) x3 weapons. Samurai will be increasing the multiplier of axes; a few status effect dealers will be increasing the critical range of swords.

---

Martial vs. Simple weapons
Clubs are pretty much the quintessential simple weapon. Putting spikes or blades on them makes them more dangerous to both the wielder and her enemies, which is why the axe (with the exception of the hatchet) and mace are martial weapons.

Swords change the focus from smashing to cutting and stabbing, which is a whole different game. That's why they're martial weapons (with the exception of daggers).

Spears are another simple weapon: you poke things with them. Not quite as straightforward as a club, but poking things is almost as natural to humans as hitting them. Throwing them and otherwise using them one-handed takes a bit more expertise.

---

[Edit]
In response to Jawa's comment on reach/adjacent: it's a reasonable exotic weapon technique; it's also an ability granted by a combat feat.
[/Edit]

[Draco_Argentum]

If you write out the average damage math, the crit term comes out as a function of (crit range) x (crit mod -1). 19-20 x2 is equal to 20 x3 in terms of average raw damage. The former is more consistent, and the latter more bursty, but over a sufficiently large period they average out to exactly the same thing.

This is only really true on a target with infinite hit points. The bursty weapons are more prone to overkill on real target though.

[IGTN]

If you write out the average damage math, the crit term comes out as a function of (crit range) x (crit mod -1). 19-20 x2 is equal to 20 x3 in terms of average raw damage. The former is more consistent, and the latter more bursty, but over a sufficiently large period they average out to exactly the same thing.

This is only really true on a target with infinite hit points. The bursty weapons are more prone to overkill on real target though.

The really big crit ranges (we're talking 3.0 stacking, here, so 12-20) are prone to missing even when the natural roll is enough for a threat. Of course, that doesn't show up on anyone that should be hitting things anymore.

[Username17]

Also remember that a coup de grace is an automatic critical, making high multiple weapons an absolute must on all wizards. My main 3rd edition Wizard seriously carried around a dwarven war axe that he wasn't proficient with. No Strength bonus, but 3d10 generates a coup de grace save DC of 26 (average) that enemies tend to not make. As opposed to using something he was proficient with like a quarterstaff - which would only average a coup de grace save DC of 17.

---

Anyway, there is exactly one thing wrong with the 3e weapon system: if you take the really small bullshit weapons like daggers and use the making bigger versions rules to create ones for gargantuan creatures that are therefore large weapons that humans can barely use - they end up having comparable stats to actual large weapons you'd use (like greatswords) only they are apparently still simple weapons.

Now, this is absolutely nothing compared to the fact that in 3.5 you end up with a penalty because a club is "made for a small character" (despite being literally just a piece of fucking wood that wasn't made at all), or that in 3.5 you can in fact fire Titan Longbows somehow despite them being larger than the house you live in (there are even reasons to do this), or the fact that in 3.5 a Storm Giant can literally stab with his trident farther than he can throw it. The one edge case of 3rd edition has an incredibly easy fix (jumped up weaponry is martial unless it grew with you, and suck it), and 3.5 introduced several completely pointless edge cases that make the game legitimately worse any time large or small characters enter the equation at all.

-Username17