TL;DR: What do you think of this idea: weapons like swords or halberds could have multiple types of damage and you could choose which one you want to do?
From what I understand, the arms-race between weapons and armour during the late middle-ages produced those amazing Swiss-army-knife halberds (and other weapons) in an attempt to combat the myriad of equally-amazing armour and defensive measures that were being utilised at the time. As I understand it, a lot of their value was in their versatility.
Thoughts? Would this break the game?
My initial thoughts tell me that it would be a minor addition that would enrich the weapons list significantly but without effecting this nicely-balanced game too much.
Additionally, different types of armour could have various properties. For example, heavy armour could provide resistance to piercing and slashing but receive normal damage from bludgeoning. I suspect this could have more of an impact on the game so would have to be done carefully.
Oh wow, I remember playing in a campaign where the DM used those tables!
That did NOT make for a good roleplay game experience - it was very clear back then that the roots of the game were in tabletop wargames, where there were often charts and more charts to try to model how people thought something should work.
"I attack the necromancer's henchman"
"He's in platemail, with a shield for a total of AC 1. Which weapon are you using?"
"My +2 Battleaxe and I rolled a 10. I have +4 to hit, so that's a total of 14"
"Ah, ok, let's see..... you're a 7th level fighter, right?"
"Ok you needed a 13 or better to hit"
"Awesome, that's a hit then!"
"Wait ... I need to reference the weapons vs armor types."
"His base armor before adjustments is plate with shield, so that's AC 2 - that means the Battleaxe is at -3 to hit"
"So I actually missed?"
"I .... think so?"
tl;dr - I like the current 5th edition weapon system. There's enough variation that selecting a different weapon can actually feel different, but not enough that we need to get into crazy shenanigans of tables like above.
Ah that's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking!
I actually find that very appealing so I probably need to check out war games rather than D&D! I suppose, if you have access to fireballs and holy smites then weapon particulars aren't so important.
Ah that's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking!
I actually find that very appealing so I probably need to check out war games rather than D&D! I suppose, if you have access to fireballs and holy smites then weapon particulars aren't so important.
Thanks guys!
you don't need wargames just first adaition AD&D dm's guide, it's all in there, either that or the phb
I love historical accuracy for arms & armour in my RPGs, but I have played during those AD&D days with different weapon types and ... I think trying to match weapon types with armour types will slow down combat & make it too complicated to shuffle all the mods and possibilities.
My DM rewards "historical" fighting and combat descriptions with a situation bonus like +1 or an attack roll with advantage. e.g. "Seeing my enemy wearing plate armour, I use my longsword with a half-swording technique, trying to stab the point between the plates of his cuirass and right pauldron." => He did not expect that move, take advantage on that attack."
@Stormknight oh man, those were the bad old good old days.
@The_Brown_Chef current wargames aren't quite as crunchy as you might think. You best bet would be something along the lines of HERO games, more detail than D&D, less crap than RoleMaster or Star Fleet Battles.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
As much as I like 5e, I do feel as if they went too far in simplifying things while not making any effort to incorporate interesting factors. B, P & S are almost entirely pointless designations and so weapons feel very samey. In other words, I say go for it and allow B, P or S to be done by any weapon. Fact of the matter is that weapons of all types throughout history had this functionality. Even special purpose weapons like the small sword could be used to slash or bludgeon. It wasn't very good at either, but that's aside from the point.
The real issue with introducing any level of verisimilitude in weapons forms and how they interact against armours, is complexity through granularity. The more granular, i.e. the more if, then, and, or conditionals you incorporate, the exponentially more complex the system becomes and that in turn slows down play commensurately which in turn can impact player engagement and enjoyment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
@Stormknight oh man, those were the bad old good old days.
@The_Brown_Chef current wargames aren't quite as crunchy as you might think. You best bet would be something along the lines of HERO games, more detail than D&D, less crap than RoleMaster or Star Fleet Battles.
how dare you diss stumble over an unseen imaginary deceased turtle lose a turn as crap, it has to be the unlimate in critical failure description
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All plans turn into, run into the room waving a sword and see what happens from there, once the first die gets rolled
The main problem with weapon type vs armour type mods is the basics mechanic of D&D using AC as a "stat that does determine whether you reach a damaging spot" (one factor) and not if you hit the target AND defeat armour (two factors). Historically swords became more thrust orientated to pierce mail or stab at gaps in plate armour. Slashing at a man at arms in full plate does no damage (the percussive force of swords is really bad). That's why percussive weapons like the mace or weapons with the ability to punch through plate like a warhammer (in D&D terms more likely a pick) and poleaxes often replaced the sword in armoured fighting.
In terms of armour types, D&D carries its legacy of late seventies "I am a fantasy fanboy" and have no clue about actual armour to this very day (e.g. studded leather, which is a fantasy creation, most likely because people looked at pictures of a coat of plates or a brigandine and never realised that the "studds" are rivets that show on the outside of a fabric, fastening the steel plates on the inside).
I like the idea of different types of armour having different effectiveness, but I never felt it worked at the table. Too much to lookup.
It could be simplified if you just have different AC values, but with 13 types of damage, as well as attacks that don't involve damage at all, there are a lot of numbers to write down (and a lot of numbers to come up with in the first place).
After all, it seems OK that plate armour protects better against slashing than bludgeoning so you could say it is AC 18 vs bludgeoning and piercing and AC 19 vs slashing. However, what about necrotic and cold and force and so on. What about plane shift and dispel evil?
This would need to be seriously play tested because allowing player to choose between 2 or more types of damage, would create even more difficulty for the DM to create balanced encounters.
Basically, what you are saying here, is that all attacks that beat the AC do damage of some kind, regardless of any armour type the oponant is wearing.
Meaning that an average party of 4, is going to get through an encounter much easier and more quickly.
More encounters needed?
Harder encounters needed?
This was my initial thought. I haven't thought about it on any great detail but off the top of my head, that was what I thought
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
One thing that the older rules helped emphasize was the clerical restrictions on weapons. It also led to some really funny moments when your cleric suddenly realized that the "Lucerne Hammer" he had been wielding for 5 levels was actually a Bladed Pole Arm. Newer editions don't showcase that restriction as much and from a personal perspective lost some of the flavor the classic cleric.
This would need to be seriously play tested because allowing player to choose between 2 or more types of damage, would create even more difficulty for the DM to create balanced encounters.
No it really really doesn't. D&D doesn't have a rule set to properly simulate what you're looking for. That is part of the beauty of the system. Yes, it is "simpler" there is nothing wrong with an easy to understand system. If you're going to try and shoehorn in a bunch of rules, you might as well play a game that has these thing already built in - like GURPS or Fantasy HERO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Like swords do multiple types of damage that the player can choose between. So like a sword does:
Bludgeoning
Slashing
Piercing
Instead of just slashing. From what I understand from the OPs question, is that they wanted to be able to choose their damage type. So, if the armour that their oponant is wearing them makes them immune to slashing or piercing damage, they would choose bludgeoning.
Then when you add in magical effects that certain items might have, or poison blades that rogues or assassins might have (though anyone could have one of these,) you literally have one weapon that can potentially do five types of damage that the player can choose between.
Bludgeoning
Slashing
Piercing
Poison
Magical
Granted, DMs can just ask what type of damage the player wants to do before they roll, but now the DM has to remember to ask what kind of damage the player is doing. They also have to take into consideration that no matter what enemy they throw out during an encounter; unless that enemy is just immune to all kinds of damage, or immune to damage from certain types of weapon (like bladed,) that enemy is going to be taking damage from all party members no matter what.
This messes with the DMs ability to use enemies as part of interesting puzzles. It also messes with a DMs ability to encourage the players to act strategically - because if you can just kill everything with a sword, whats the point in having a strategy - you might as well just throw the Barbarian with the Greatsword up front every time, and let them kill the damn thing, no strategy needed.
That is unless I have misunderstood what the OP meant.
Like swords do multiple types of damage that the player can choose between. So like a sword does:
Bludgeoning
Slashing
Piercing
Instead of just slashing. From what I understand from the OPs question, is that they wanted to be able to choose their damage type. So, if the armour that their oponant is wearing them makes them immune to slashing or piercing damage, they would choose bludgeoning.
Then when you add in magical effects that certain items might have, or poison blades that rogues or assassins might have (though anyone could have one of these,) you literally have one weapon that can potentially do five types of damage that the player can choose between.
Bludgeoning
Slashing
Piercing
Poison
Magical
That is unless I have misunderstood what the OP meant.
The OP was looking specifically at the longsword being able to do piercing damage, in addition to slashing as an or option... through being thrust into an opponent. I can see this as a non-improvised form of attack with a longsword, but using the flat side of the blade or pommel to deal bludgeoning damage is wholly outside of the scope of the weapons design. Using the flat side of the blade on a longsword runs a real chance of damaging or breaking the weapon. A Bokken, or wooden sword, could be stat'd as a longsword that dealt bludgeoning damage instead of slashing, though an argument could be made that slashing damage could also be possible if the wood was magically hardened or petrified and the edge was properly shaped. That would be more debatable though. Musashi refused to us a real katana later in his career, and his most famous duel was with a wooden sword he is said to have carved from a boat oar. He stated that the bokken was just as lethal when used properly.
Few weapons are designed to deal all 3 physical damage types, but some were or could, such as spears or glaives for example, as the blades were capable of being thrust for piercing or swung for slashing, while the lower end of the haft could be used to smite like aquarterstaff for bludgeoning. Some weapons, like the lance or pike, were too awkward and unwieldy to be used in any way to deal damage other than the way they were specifically design to, and that is piercing.
As to the poison and magical damage in your reply, those have NOTHING to do with the weapon itself and are WHOLLY separate damages which do not factor into this particular topic which is the damage type dealt by the weapon itself.
As to the charts of different weapons vs different armor types... That is going overboard IMO and why most DM's back in the early days of AD&D didn't use them, though there was more use of weapon speed factors, but that is another subject as well. Where I believe the OP was headed was touched on to a small extent in 3/3.5 edition, and more so in Pathfinder 1E (which I count as D&D 3.75), where some weapons were listed RAW with up to 2 damage types, because of the design of those particular weapons.
I see no issues with this, as many weapons will do a single physical damage type, some will do 2, while a FEW would be capable of all 3... Yes this could be abused by Munchkin Min/Max'ers but that is being done now with particular builds, AKA Sorcadins and Sorlocks, just to name to 2 most popular, but not the only ones out there. Some of these builds are nearly, if not flat out, BROKEN.
So making such a minor change would not in any way break the game, but I would prefer that the player discuss with their DM about making these minor changes as house/table rules as opposed to RAW, as I prefer RAG and RAI (Rules as GuidelinesandRules as Intended)
TL;DR: What do you think of this idea: weapons like swords or halberds could have multiple types of damage and you could choose which one you want to do?
From what I understand, the arms-race between weapons and armour during the late middle-ages produced those amazing Swiss-army-knife halberds (and other weapons) in an attempt to combat the myriad of equally-amazing armour and defensive measures that were being utilised at the time. As I understand it, a lot of their value was in their versatility.
Thoughts? Would this break the game?
My initial thoughts tell me that it would be a minor addition that would enrich the weapons list significantly but without effecting this nicely-balanced game too much.
Additionally, different types of armour could have various properties. For example, heavy armour could provide resistance to piercing and slashing but receive normal damage from bludgeoning. I suspect this could have more of an impact on the game so would have to be done carefully.
This was done in early D&D, there were also differences in how each weapon performed against each armor. It was seldom used and difficult to track.
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersOh wow, I remember playing in a campaign where the DM used those tables!
That did NOT make for a good roleplay game experience - it was very clear back then that the roots of the game were in tabletop wargames, where there were often charts and more charts to try to model how people thought something should work.
"I attack the necromancer's henchman"
"He's in platemail, with a shield for a total of AC 1. Which weapon are you using?"
"My +2 Battleaxe and I rolled a 10. I have +4 to hit, so that's a total of 14"
"Ah, ok, let's see..... you're a 7th level fighter, right?"
"Ok you needed a 13 or better to hit"
"Awesome, that's a hit then!"
"Wait ... I need to reference the weapons vs armor types."
"His base armor before adjustments is plate with shield, so that's AC 2 - that means the Battleaxe is at -3 to hit"
"So I actually missed?"
"I .... think so?"
tl;dr - I like the current 5th edition weapon system. There's enough variation that selecting a different weapon can actually feel different, but not enough that we need to get into crazy shenanigans of tables like above.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Ah that's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking!
I actually find that very appealing so I probably need to check out war games rather than D&D! I suppose, if you have access to fireballs and holy smites then weapon particulars aren't so important.
Thanks guys!
you don't need wargames just first adaition AD&D dm's guide, it's all in there, either that or the phb
All plans turn into, run into the room waving a sword and see what happens from there, once the first die gets rolled
I love historical accuracy for arms & armour in my RPGs, but I have played during those AD&D days with different weapon types and ... I think trying to match weapon types with armour types will slow down combat & make it too complicated to shuffle all the mods and possibilities.
My DM rewards "historical" fighting and combat descriptions with a situation bonus like +1 or an attack roll with advantage.
e.g. "Seeing my enemy wearing plate armour, I use my longsword with a half-swording technique, trying to stab the point between the plates of his cuirass and right pauldron." => He did not expect that move, take advantage on that attack."
@Stormknight oh man, those were the bad old good old days.
@The_Brown_Chef current wargames aren't quite as crunchy as you might think. You best bet would be something along the lines of HERO games, more detail than D&D, less crap than RoleMaster or Star Fleet Battles.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
As much as I like 5e, I do feel as if they went too far in simplifying things while not making any effort to incorporate interesting factors. B, P & S are almost entirely pointless designations and so weapons feel very samey. In other words, I say go for it and allow B, P or S to be done by any weapon. Fact of the matter is that weapons of all types throughout history had this functionality. Even special purpose weapons like the small sword could be used to slash or bludgeon. It wasn't very good at either, but that's aside from the point.
The real issue with introducing any level of verisimilitude in weapons forms and how they interact against armours, is complexity through granularity. The more granular, i.e. the more if, then, and, or conditionals you incorporate, the exponentially more complex the system becomes and that in turn slows down play commensurately which in turn can impact player engagement and enjoyment.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
GURPS had definitive rules regarding the difference between P, S, B, but their hit and damage rules were slightly different.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
how dare you diss stumble over an unseen imaginary deceased turtle lose a turn as crap, it has to be the unlimate in critical failure description
All plans turn into, run into the room waving a sword and see what happens from there, once the first die gets rolled
The main problem with weapon type vs armour type mods is the basics mechanic of D&D using AC as a "stat that does determine whether you reach a damaging spot" (one factor) and not if you hit the target AND defeat armour (two factors).
Historically swords became more thrust orientated to pierce mail or stab at gaps in plate armour. Slashing at a man at arms in full plate does no damage (the percussive force of swords is really bad). That's why percussive weapons like the mace or weapons with the ability to punch through plate like a warhammer (in D&D terms more likely a pick) and poleaxes often replaced the sword in armoured fighting.
In terms of armour types, D&D carries its legacy of late seventies "I am a fantasy fanboy" and have no clue about actual armour to this very day (e.g. studded leather, which is a fantasy creation, most likely because people looked at pictures of a coat of plates or a brigandine and never realised that the "studds" are rivets that show on the outside of a fabric, fastening the steel plates on the inside).
I like the idea of different types of armour having different effectiveness, but I never felt it worked at the table. Too much to lookup.
It could be simplified if you just have different AC values, but with 13 types of damage, as well as attacks that don't involve damage at all, there are a lot of numbers to write down (and a lot of numbers to come up with in the first place).
After all, it seems OK that plate armour protects better against slashing than bludgeoning so you could say it is AC 18 vs bludgeoning and piercing and AC 19 vs slashing. However, what about necrotic and cold and force and so on. What about plane shift and dispel evil?
This would need to be seriously play tested because allowing player to choose between 2 or more types of damage, would create even more difficulty for the DM to create balanced encounters.
Basically, what you are saying here, is that all attacks that beat the AC do damage of some kind, regardless of any armour type the oponant is wearing.
Meaning that an average party of 4, is going to get through an encounter much easier and more quickly.
More encounters needed?
Harder encounters needed?
This was my initial thought. I haven't thought about it on any great detail but off the top of my head, that was what I thought
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
One thing that the older rules helped emphasize was the clerical restrictions on weapons. It also led to some really funny moments when your cleric suddenly realized that the "Lucerne Hammer" he had been wielding for 5 levels was actually a Bladed Pole Arm. Newer editions don't showcase that restriction as much and from a personal perspective lost some of the flavor the classic cleric.
THe classic cleric was a rediculous narrow definitions of cleric and made whichever deity they worshiped irrelevant
All plans turn into, run into the room waving a sword and see what happens from there, once the first die gets rolled
No it really really doesn't. D&D doesn't have a rule set to properly simulate what you're looking for. That is part of the beauty of the system. Yes, it is "simpler" there is nothing wrong with an easy to understand system. If you're going to try and shoehorn in a bunch of rules, you might as well play a game that has these thing already built in - like GURPS or Fantasy HERO.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Isn't that basically what the OP wanted?
Like swords do multiple types of damage that the player can choose between. So like a sword does:
Instead of just slashing. From what I understand from the OPs question, is that they wanted to be able to choose their damage type. So, if the armour that their oponant is wearing them makes them immune to slashing or piercing damage, they would choose bludgeoning.
Then when you add in magical effects that certain items might have, or poison blades that rogues or assassins might have (though anyone could have one of these,) you literally have one weapon that can potentially do five types of damage that the player can choose between.
Granted, DMs can just ask what type of damage the player wants to do before they roll, but now the DM has to remember to ask what kind of damage the player is doing. They also have to take into consideration that no matter what enemy they throw out during an encounter; unless that enemy is just immune to all kinds of damage, or immune to damage from certain types of weapon (like bladed,) that enemy is going to be taking damage from all party members no matter what.
This messes with the DMs ability to use enemies as part of interesting puzzles. It also messes with a DMs ability to encourage the players to act strategically - because if you can just kill everything with a sword, whats the point in having a strategy - you might as well just throw the Barbarian with the Greatsword up front every time, and let them kill the damn thing, no strategy needed.
That is unless I have misunderstood what the OP meant.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I think people are looking for this:
http://captainjoy.chunkyboy.com/GURPS_Star_Trek/House_Rules/pdf_files/chrisjapow_Combat_Guide.pdf
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The OP was looking specifically at the longsword being able to do piercing damage, in addition to slashing as an or option... through being thrust into an opponent. I can see this as a non-improvised form of attack with a longsword, but using the flat side of the blade or pommel to deal bludgeoning damage is wholly outside of the scope of the weapons design. Using the flat side of the blade on a longsword runs a real chance of damaging or breaking the weapon. A Bokken, or wooden sword, could be stat'd as a longsword that dealt bludgeoning damage instead of slashing, though an argument could be made that slashing damage could also be possible if the wood was magically hardened or petrified and the edge was properly shaped. That would be more debatable though. Musashi refused to us a real katana later in his career, and his most famous duel was with a wooden sword he is said to have carved from a boat oar. He stated that the bokken was just as lethal when used properly.
Few weapons are designed to deal all 3 physical damage types, but some were or could, such as spears or glaives for example, as the blades were capable of being thrust for piercing or swung for slashing, while the lower end of the haft could be used to smite like a quarterstaff for bludgeoning. Some weapons, like the lance or pike, were too awkward and unwieldy to be used in any way to deal damage other than the way they were specifically design to, and that is piercing.
As to the poison and magical damage in your reply, those have NOTHING to do with the weapon itself and are WHOLLY separate damages which do not factor into this particular topic which is the damage type dealt by the weapon itself.
As to the charts of different weapons vs different armor types... That is going overboard IMO and why most DM's back in the early days of AD&D didn't use them, though there was more use of weapon speed factors, but that is another subject as well. Where I believe the OP was headed was touched on to a small extent in 3/3.5 edition, and more so in Pathfinder 1E (which I count as D&D 3.75), where some weapons were listed RAW with up to 2 damage types, because of the design of those particular weapons.
I see no issues with this, as many weapons will do a single physical damage type, some will do 2, while a FEW would be capable of all 3... Yes this could be abused by Munchkin Min/Max'ers but that is being done now with particular builds, AKA Sorcadins and Sorlocks, just to name to 2 most popular, but not the only ones out there. Some of these builds are nearly, if not flat out, BROKEN.
So making such a minor change would not in any way break the game, but I would prefer that the player discuss with their DM about making these minor changes as house/table rules as opposed to RAW, as I prefer RAG and RAI (Rules as Guidelines and Rules as Intended)
So that is my 2 cents for whatever it's worth.