Weapon Uniqueness Done Right

[Thymos]

Ok, I'm late to the game but I saw a thread on weapon proficiencies, and felt like creating a topic for feedback on this idea.

First of all, weapon proficiencies are stupid, don't use them. Second, vertical weapon specialization is just as dumb, and shifts the same numbers but is even more exclusive (one weapon vs. all the ones your proficient in), don't use it.

How to do weapon uniqueness then?

Guild Wars 2 is the perfect example. We want to focus on horizontal power differences as opposed to vertical. Now in this case it's ok to say that certain classes can only gain skills from certain weapons, or that if they use a weapon they have different skill sets (a fire mage has different skills than an ice mage when using a wand, and the martial character doesn't gain anything from using a wand).

So the way this works is that when a player equips a weapon they gain certain skills related to that weapon. Let's say 2 for main hand, 1 for off hand, and two handed weapons give 3.

A sword user might gain strike which is the standard attack. They would also gain riposte which allowed them to counter an attack, and if they used a shield as their off hand they gain shield bash which deals less damage but stuns.

A fire mage using a staff gains fire strike, the standard attack. Also they gain fire blaze to set things on fire, and fire wall as their third which creates a line that moving through deals fire damage.

Apply this to all weapons, using variation as needed so that magic users gain different skills for staves than each other, and melee users gain more martial staff skills. Some weapons are not appropriate, non casters shouldn't use wands for example, but outside of that be liberal with who can use what.

[K]

As someone who has spent decades playing mages who use swords, I don't think I can support this idea.

[Username17]

I would like the weapons that characters are using to matter, but the point at which characters are literally defined by the thing in their hands is obviously way too computer gamey. Different characters can and will carry the same physical objects and they should nonetheless do different things because they are different characters.

Some Fire Mages will want to carry axes. Because it looks badass and it's on their proficiency list. This does not mean that they should necessarily have the same combat powers as a Berserker. Because that would be stupid.

Weapon uniqueness must necessarily take a back seat to character uniqueness. Because this isn't a fucking video game, and you're playing a character, not a collection of items.

-Username17

[Ancient History]

Is pinch hitter James Arthur King unique because he wields Excalibur reincarnated as a baseball bat, or because he can hit a home run with a zombie's brains using a piece of lightning-touched oak?

[hogarth]

My version of "weapon uniqueness done right" is the Champions/Mutants & Masterminds approach: you get whatever weapon powers you pay for, and you can assign your weapon whatever form you want, within reason. Then you don't have to worry about Thor having to carry a bow around with him as backup because he paid for a returning hammer instead.

[silva]

I see this having a place in more fighting-oriented games (like Wuxia or something), but Im not a big fan of the idea for other game styles.

[hyzmarca]

I have become a fan of the paradigm in which characters have bonuses and weapons have effects.

That is to say, there's no such thing as a +12 hackmaster. You can have a hackmaster, but it won't ever make your numbers bigger.

Instead, weapons have things that they do apart from causing damage and looking cool and this is where the variety comes in.

The World-Cutting Sword, for example, would have the effect Cuts planets in half. This is great as a McGuffin for a villain to have, but not so useful for the protagonists because they're standing on the planet. But they might get into a space campaign where it becomes very useful so it will probably go into someone's golfbag.

Your golfbag is going to be filled with weapons that have diverse effects, such as Ghost-touch, flametongue, acidic-driping, vorpal, teleports target into the sun (do not use against Superman), causes rain but only if you do the hokey pokey while holding it, and whatever.

All remain viable, just pick the right one for the right job.

[crasskris]

Different characters can and will carry the same physical objects and they should nonetheless do different things because they are different characters.

a fire mage has different skills than an ice mage when using a wand

Warriors in Guild Wars 2, for example, use greatswords to cut people (the extravagant bastards).
Mesmer (Illusionists) use greatswords, too, but as their standard attack they float them between their outstretched hands and use them as an implement to shoot pink butterfly lasers.
I think this is what Thymos was going for.


Concerning the topic, with three skills per weapon and a reasonable amount of possible weapons you easily have dozens of skills and configurations. That still might be a little bit overkill.

So I'd advise to group weapons more broadly, reduce the skills to rider effects on base action (so a magic Riposte with an axe is different from one made with a wand, but still has the same base mechanic), or reduce the amount to one skill per weapon.

Also, can we abandon the GW2 lingo and speak of abilities instead of skills?

[Lago PARANOIA]

I have become a fan of the paradigm in which characters have bonuses and weapons have effects.

That is to say, there's no such thing as a +12 hackmaster. You can have a hackmaster, but it won't ever make your numbers bigger.

Okay, quick terminology refresher.

Vertical Advancement: Game effects that increase your core competencies in a direct way, almost but not always reducible to a math equation. For example, extra attacks, +5 swords, and Weapon Focus are vertical advancement.

Horizontal Advancement: Game effects that, while making you an overall better character, don't increase your core competencies. For example, a Fighter learning how to use fireball or a Druid being able to read thoughts. While horizontal advancement doesn't have to be at the same power level as the character it's often implied for this to be the case.

Okay, so, there's this meme going around the boards that a lot of the problems we have with Vertical advancement (RNG pushing, over-specialization, etc.) can be solved with horizontal advancement, the idea that vertical advancement should go out of the game and be replaced by and large with it is incredibly short-sighted. For several reasons.

1.) The biggest one: Horizontal and Vertical advancement often recycle into one another. A lot of people would have no problem identifying Spider Climb Boots as horizontal advancement and a Ring Of Bow Master (+half-level to BAB using a longbow) as vertical. But when a paladin is using Spider Climb boots to fight from melee on the ceiling (giving them a direct and not-so-direct boost to attack and defense) and a wizard is using the Ring of Bow Master, what's the in-game difference between those items and Boots of Fireballs (shoot a fireball of CL = your char level X/day) or a Ring of Spider Dance (+1 to attack, +1d4-1 to AC per round)?

2.) Horizontal advancement, if meaningful enough to make people care, can piss into peoples' cheerios even more than vertical advancement. If a wizard gets a ring of +1 to DC of enchantment school spells, it creates envy among the other wizards. If a fighter gets a +12 Hackmaster, the other party fighter gets jealous. But when a rogue gets a ring of Telekinesis Mastery or a monk gets an amulet that lets them transform into various felines, that makes everyone jealous. More specifically, if a cleric gets a Ring of Detect thoughts that risks making the Psion upset. If a barbarian gets an Amulet of Longbow Spiritual Weapon that risks making the ranger upset for the same reason; assuming that the characters were already balanced in screentime, the cleric and barbarian's gains increased their own at the cost of making the psion and ranger's less meaningful.

3.) Oftentimes it's hard to make people care about horizontal advancement in the first place. You can do a lot of wild and wacky shit with a Lyre of Building, but if you give it to Little Trevor who is playing Krusk the Barbarian he'll just sort of stare at you blankly, write it down, then forget about it. It doesn't feel like a reward because it's not something that he cares about. And the really insidious thing is that this isn't because Trevor is an ingrate; everyone will reach a saturation point. Some people will actually really appreciate a stylish sweater for Christmas their grandma made them. Few people would appreciate five sweaters from two grandmas, an aunt, and two creepy uncles. And frankly from an overall game effect standpoint it's easier to excite people with vertical advancement than horizontal advancement. A +2 to melee attacks will generate about as much excitement as a flying carpet but if your game was already at a fairly sane level then the latter will have more of an impact--which may or may not be desirable.

So in my opinion since most games can absorb a fair deal of vertical advancement as long as things don't get too crazy and it's easier to get people excited about vertical advancement without breaking the game a successful system will use a hybrid of both. But you can't replace vertical advancement with horizontal advancement entirely.

Here's the original thread. Needless to say, I partly disagree with you. While I prefer a blend of cynical bonus items (vertical advancement) and new schtick-granting items (horizontal advancement), I think that a pure horizontal advancement system is actually worse for the game than a pure vertical advancement one.

[Thymos]

I didn't say no vertical advancement. I said weapon selection is horizontal, other parts of the game can definitely be vertical.

We can definitely have +1 and +5 swords, or whatever, as long as the goddamn characters can use most weapons. If your martial character has +4 to using swords and -2 to axes, shit is fucked (non bonus swords and axes). As a baseline weapons cannot distinguish between each other with shit like proficiencies and weapon focus.

As far as uniqueness, characters can definitely use weapons differently. Barbarian gains different great sword abilities than a Paladin, that's fine.

Personally I just get rid of weapon proficiencies and uniqueness wholesale, but with everyone talking about wanting axes to feel different from swords this is how to do it.

[TheFlatline]

I would like the weapons that characters are using to matter, but the point at which characters are literally defined by the thing in their hands is obviously way too computer gamey. Different characters can and will carry the same physical objects and they should nonetheless do different things because they are different characters.

Some Fire Mages will want to carry axes. Because it looks badass and it's on their proficiency list. This does not mean that they should necessarily have the same combat powers as a Berserker. Because that would be stupid.

Weapon uniqueness must necessarily take a back seat to character uniqueness. Because this isn't a fucking video game, and you're playing a character, not a collection of items.

-Username17

Weren't you just praising that Card Hunters did that with a WOF system?

[Foxwarrior]

Frank doesn't mind when his computer games are computer gamey, I guess.

[Koumei]

We accept and even expect totally different things in tabletop games and video games. For instance, I love, in Torchlight, loading up on random crap enemies drop and then searching through for magic pants that give +35% to Pet and Minion Damage as opposed to the current +25%. And in Atelier _____, I love searching the world for weird ingredients so I can play the alchemy games, exploring new recipes for things.

Neither of the above really works that well in a tabletop game (though admittedly, a variant of the first one, where the random crap includes "this horn generates obscuring mist at will" and "this candle makes nearby ghosts both visible and corporeal", is fine, it's just digging through for simple numerical upgrades that detracts from the fun).

I could perhaps see a system though where if you want to specialise, you take an option (Feat, Class Feature, whatever) that works like this:
*Name the group of weapons - imagine the game grouped weapons as "Bows", "Axes", "Swords" etc. This way it applies no matter which sword you happen to find.
*It's always a Magic Weapon in your hands
*When taking the feat, select the Weapon Ability. That always applies (so all swords are Flaming when you hold them, or whatever)
*Select a special manoeuvre from a list (either have an advancement system or try to make them scale in a manner that is vaguely level-appropriate). You can do that with the weapon type.

So now, you're notably better when using swords. But just because you don't have your favourite Cloud Giant Tin Opener with its 15-20/x7 Crit (or whatever - we understand that people pick weapons based on one specific numerical advantage, but when they're also obscure, that's a pain in the arse), you can still grab a longsword or scimitar and rock out with it. And you are awesome with it in a way that the other sword master isn't, so the individual characters are still different.

[Krakatoa]

I like the way some Fighter and Warlord exploits handle it: some powers have extra riders depending on the weapon. Not nearly enough has been done with it, IMO.

So, just for an example, you know how to do Whirlwind Attack. But lots of fighters took that feat. What differentiates them (in this case) is the weapon: sword and board fighters get a bonus to AC, pike fighters have an extra square of range, great weapon fighters get knock-back or knock down, while swinging a war pick hooks an enemy and pulls him close to you/away from the squishy ambassador you need alive.