[D&D] Weapon Jazz

[adamdray]

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

Comments

[tittergrrl]

Wait I thought they changed that... that you could be a wizard with a Bastard sword if you wanted to. Or am I imagining something... maybe I'm thinking that wizard got a proficiency or something.

I totally agree with you... if D&D can have hobbits as halflings, god damnit you can have a wizard carry a sword like Gandalf.

Indeed, I DEMAND IT

[zoatebix]

Any wizard can use one (or several) feat(s) to become proficient in more weapons in 3.X - you're not imagining anything.

That said, I totally dig how this proposal addresses some other issues. It's similar in spirit to the melee weapon rules published in Grim Tales, which is one of the best books to reference when messing around with the d20 system. Grim Tales gave the three vanilla d20 weapon categories - simple, martial, and exotic - different base damages, and one could lower the base damage done in exchange for stuff like reach or critical threat range.

[adamdray]

A sword-wielding Gandalf-type wizard was always possible in D&D, but very unlikely.

No wizard ever spends the feat to pick up a martial weapon proficiency. It just doesn't happen because it's a bad tactical choice. Either you burn a feat to get proficiency or you take the non-proficiency penalty for using it.

[zoatebix]

Or you get penalized by being a level behind on spells by taking a level in a class with martial weapon proficiency already.

I didn't mean to say that wizards with swords is less of a problem than the other things your idea addresses, just that tittergrrl was right in remembering that they did change something (unsatisfactory as that change is) to address the wizards with swords thing.

Also, a more complicated but similar system appears in this old EN World thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=103168

[the_tall_man]

As for two-handing and barrages of throwing stars.... I gots two words for you:

Stunting System

Puts the tactical choices into gameplay instead of creation.

[adamdray]

Exactly.

[animadversio]

Nicely conceived, although I don't know that it's worth the effort you've put into it :-) D&D's combat system has more problematic holes than the standard wheel of Swiss cheese, I think, primarily because the various design teams have yanked it around in a nasty tug-of-war twixt abstraction and realistic simulation over the years, that we have the cobbled hodge-podge today that is 3.5

[adamdray]

I think you're missing my point.

BAB doesn't address my weapon optimization concerns at all. My problem is that D&D encourages players to make optimizations that are boring while I want to encourage players to make that dual-dagger-wielding fighter and that glaive-wielding rogue. The only way to do that is to level the playing field with regards to damage, which is an artificial "choice" anyway, since there are only a handful of good weapon choices for each class, unless you want to burn a precious feat or take a non-proficiency penalty.

My solution opens up weapon choice so that all weapons do the same damage for any given character, yet it still honors the spirit of the niche protection provided by the old weapons-by-class rules.

[animadversio]

Gotcha. I did, in fact, miss your point.

I guess I'm too wedded to the idea that everyone has an equal shot of doing the same amount of damage with a particular weapon, but the chance to hit *effectively* with the weapon should remain at the "to-hit" resolution. That is probably something worth un-learning.

In re: where 4e is going, I'll have to go back and find the specific blog entry that inspired my generalization. I've actually been somewhat intrigued by the overall overhaul of the system, in that I like what they've done with Star Wars Saga Edition (which is for all intents and purposes "4e Lite"), but there was a niggling discussion about the relationship twixt feats and classes that really threw me in re: their desire to bring more of a cinematic approach to the game as opposed to the tactical simulation that 3.5 (arguably) mired itself in.

That, and I'm still not a fan of the AoO rule as it is. But I also voted for Nader once, so perhaps my ability to judge reasonably is suspect. :-)

[animadversio]

Would the damage done by monsters (or more specifically, anyone or anything without class levels) remain the same?

[jessypi]

Completely off topic, but is that Merc in your icon picture?

[adamdray]

Yep! As a kitten.

[sadrx]

There is still the issue of two-handed vs. with shield vs. light weapons (usable only in grapples). And if dual wielding is taken away, rangers need to be fixed somewhat

[adamdray]

I prefer the simplicity of my system but yours does have its merits.

There is still the issue of two-handed vs. with shield vs. light weapons (usable only in grapples). And if dual wielding is taken away, rangers need to be fixed somewhat.

I can see the point you're making about shields. Choosing to wield a one-handed weapon with two hands means you can't use a shield, so there's a meaningful choice there. I'd just let the two-handed wielder get the normal 1.5x Str bonus to damage, as usual. No new rules necessary.

Grapples aren't such a big part of the game, so I'd just remove the light-weapon-only restriction.