[D&D] Weapon Jazz
I've always had a problem with "weapon optimization" in D&D 3E. I think it creates boring play. Weapon optimization occurs when a player selects weapon skills and equipment based on optimum damage rather than role-playing and story concerns.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of tactics and strategy in D&D play. I love optimizing characters for combat.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are only a few decent weapon choices and too few "trade-off" variables to give players meaningful choices. If you're a melee fighter, you probably want a bastard sword (with the exotic weapon proficiency to use it). There are a handful of similar choices, but you'll see a lot of fighters with bastard swords and very few with short swords or hand axes. If you're a rogue, you'll probably scan the equipment list for a weapon that does maximum damage. Rapier is a good choice because it has a good damage rating and a wide critical threat range. You're not gonna select a knife, except as a back-up.
This means that players are unlikely to create the kinds of characters you see in fiction. Where's the rogue with a dagger in each hand? Where's the barbarian leaping into combat with a stone axe? There's just no profit in it.
Why does D&D 3E do this? Well, it all ties into what weapons each class may use. Fighters can use just about anything. Clerics and Rogues have their lists. Wizards have very few choices. This is because Fighters have their damage-dealing niche protected and Wizards are supposed to stay out of melee and use spells. The designers apparently didn't want a Wizard to use a bastard sword any time they wanted (without spending the extra feat for it). Trade-offs. But if every Fighter ends up with a bastard sword and every rogue has a rapier, there's really no trade-off. There's no meaningful choice for players. The same goes for ranged weapons, really.
Here's my "fix."
Really, the designers want to say, "Fighters deal the most damage in combat, and wizards deal the least." Get rid of individual damage ratings for weapons and assign damage by class.
DamageClasses
d4Wizard, Sorcerer
d6Rogue, Bard
d8Cleric, Druid, Monk, Ranger
d10Fighter, Paladin
d12Barbarian
"Hey," you notice, "the damage ratings are exactly the same as the classes' hit dice." Yes, very astute. This makes the system easy to extend to other base classes (like psion) or prestige classes.
"Isn't a bit weird," you ask, "that the Ranger and Monk do d8 damage?" Rangers probably should get d10 damage with their favored weapon. Monks probably should just use their unarmed damage (by level) instead of d8 across the board.
"What about two-handed weapons and fighting with two weapons and all that crap?" It all goes away. If you want your rogue to fight with two daggers, fine. He rolls once without penalties for fighting with two weapons and does d6 damage when he hits. Want your barbarian to wield a giant hammer in each hand? Okay. Roll one die to hit and do d12 damage when you succeed. Want your fighter to fling a barrage of throwing stars into the skulls of goblins? Sure. The barrage is one to hit roll and it does d10 damage.
"What about criticals?" Yeah, that's a problem. All weapons have a critical threat range of 20. When you acquire a weapon that has a wider threat range (say, 19-20) on the equipment lists, you have the option to widen your critical range by 1, but only at the cost of a die size of damage. Say you're a ranger (d8) who buys a rapier (18-20 x2). You can choose then that it's a d8 rapier (threat 20), a d6 rapier (threat 19-20), or a d4 rapier (threat 18-20). Feats that increase critical threat ranges still apply, of course. This rule isn't entirely satisfactory but the point of the damage system was to get rid of false trade-offs and to allow characters to be awesome with non-traditional weapons. Another potential solution is to allow wider threat ranges and critical multipliers to be like masterwork bonuses or enchantments (they occur only on special items).
"What about special weapon abilities," you wonder, "like a ranseur's 10' reach and disarming bonus?" Yeah, all that still applies. This is one area where having the right weapon is cool. Now your fighter can pick up a ranseur off a weapons rack and actually use it without feeling he's giving up increased damage.
Another opportunity within this system include retooling weapon specialization to increase damage by two dice sizes rather than a damage bonus (d8 to d12 changes the maximum from 8 to 12 and the mean from 4.5 to 6.5, so this is roughly equivalent to a +2 damage bonus). A d10 increases to d6+d8 (max 10 to 14, mean 5.5 to 8.0), and a d12 increases to 2d8 (max 12 to 16, mean 6.5 to 9.0). I haven't done the Expected Value calculations for the d6+d8 / 2d8 rolls vs. d10 / d20, so the upgrades might be a bit stingy. You can always just go d10 to 2d8 and d12 to 3d6, like the upgrades from Medium-size to Large-size weapons do.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of tactics and strategy in D&D play. I love optimizing characters for combat.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are only a few decent weapon choices and too few "trade-off" variables to give players meaningful choices. If you're a melee fighter, you probably want a bastard sword (with the exotic weapon proficiency to use it). There are a handful of similar choices, but you'll see a lot of fighters with bastard swords and very few with short swords or hand axes. If you're a rogue, you'll probably scan the equipment list for a weapon that does maximum damage. Rapier is a good choice because it has a good damage rating and a wide critical threat range. You're not gonna select a knife, except as a back-up.
This means that players are unlikely to create the kinds of characters you see in fiction. Where's the rogue with a dagger in each hand? Where's the barbarian leaping into combat with a stone axe? There's just no profit in it.
Why does D&D 3E do this? Well, it all ties into what weapons each class may use. Fighters can use just about anything. Clerics and Rogues have their lists. Wizards have very few choices. This is because Fighters have their damage-dealing niche protected and Wizards are supposed to stay out of melee and use spells. The designers apparently didn't want a Wizard to use a bastard sword any time they wanted (without spending the extra feat for it). Trade-offs. But if every Fighter ends up with a bastard sword and every rogue has a rapier, there's really no trade-off. There's no meaningful choice for players. The same goes for ranged weapons, really.
Here's my "fix."
Really, the designers want to say, "Fighters deal the most damage in combat, and wizards deal the least." Get rid of individual damage ratings for weapons and assign damage by class.
DamageClasses
d4Wizard, Sorcerer
d6Rogue, Bard
d8Cleric, Druid, Monk, Ranger
d10Fighter, Paladin
d12Barbarian
"Hey," you notice, "the damage ratings are exactly the same as the classes' hit dice." Yes, very astute. This makes the system easy to extend to other base classes (like psion) or prestige classes.
"Isn't a bit weird," you ask, "that the Ranger and Monk do d8 damage?" Rangers probably should get d10 damage with their favored weapon. Monks probably should just use their unarmed damage (by level) instead of d8 across the board.
"What about two-handed weapons and fighting with two weapons and all that crap?" It all goes away. If you want your rogue to fight with two daggers, fine. He rolls once without penalties for fighting with two weapons and does d6 damage when he hits. Want your barbarian to wield a giant hammer in each hand? Okay. Roll one die to hit and do d12 damage when you succeed. Want your fighter to fling a barrage of throwing stars into the skulls of goblins? Sure. The barrage is one to hit roll and it does d10 damage.
"What about criticals?" Yeah, that's a problem. All weapons have a critical threat range of 20. When you acquire a weapon that has a wider threat range (say, 19-20) on the equipment lists, you have the option to widen your critical range by 1, but only at the cost of a die size of damage. Say you're a ranger (d8) who buys a rapier (18-20 x2). You can choose then that it's a d8 rapier (threat 20), a d6 rapier (threat 19-20), or a d4 rapier (threat 18-20). Feats that increase critical threat ranges still apply, of course. This rule isn't entirely satisfactory but the point of the damage system was to get rid of false trade-offs and to allow characters to be awesome with non-traditional weapons. Another potential solution is to allow wider threat ranges and critical multipliers to be like masterwork bonuses or enchantments (they occur only on special items).
"What about special weapon abilities," you wonder, "like a ranseur's 10' reach and disarming bonus?" Yeah, all that still applies. This is one area where having the right weapon is cool. Now your fighter can pick up a ranseur off a weapons rack and actually use it without feeling he's giving up increased damage.
Another opportunity within this system include retooling weapon specialization to increase damage by two dice sizes rather than a damage bonus (d8 to d12 changes the maximum from 8 to 12 and the mean from 4.5 to 6.5, so this is roughly equivalent to a +2 damage bonus). A d10 increases to d6+d8 (max 10 to 14, mean 5.5 to 8.0), and a d12 increases to 2d8 (max 12 to 16, mean 6.5 to 9.0). I haven't done the Expected Value calculations for the d6+d8 / 2d8 rolls vs. d10 / d20, so the upgrades might be a bit stingy. You can always just go d10 to 2d8 and d12 to 3d6, like the upgrades from Medium-size to Large-size weapons do.