|
Every weapon has a type assigned to it? But what use is the Weapon Type really used for? You have Bludgeoning, Slashing, Piercing or a combination of those three.
There are perhaps 5 monsters with DR overcome by Weapon types. Honestly I can't quite come up with a full 5 monsters. And not one that I can think of is susceptible to piercing.
For so little gain, why bother? Why not just make a note in the monster description that the DR is overcome by XYZ weapons.
I just can't imagine any reason to waste the ink on such a useless statistic.
Well, actually peircing is pretty important if you're fighting underwater, since that type doesn't take negatives. And the creatures that have DR against damage types seem to come up in our game all the time. So I find it very useful.
It is helpful to determine the type of damage inflicted by the weapon.
Even if not applied against a damage reduction, it adds some detail in the description, and thus for the immersion.
Some characters want to fight in some specific styles, in some situations. An acrobat might prefer slashing weapons to attack on the move (like a scout). A backstabber might want a piercing weapon. A swashbuckler might want to keep an opponent at bay from the tip of his rapier. A battledancer might want to whirl into a dance of death with his scimitars. And so on...
If you are using Weapon Groups, as per Unearthed Arcana (as i am), it helps to classify the weapons by type, in a more coherent way than basic/martial/exotic.
Some variants also use different critic effects, according to the weapon type (crushing, severing, impaling).
|
|
It is helpful to determine the type of damage inflicted by the weapon.
Even if not applied against a damage reduction, it adds some detail in the description, and thus for the immersion.Some characters want to fight in some specific styles, in some situations. An acrobat might prefer slashing weapons to attack on the move (like a scout). A backstabber might want a piercing weapon. A swashbuckler might want to keep an opponent at bay from the tip of his rapier. A battledancer might want to whirl into a dance of death with his scimitars. And so on...
If you are using Weapon Groups, as per Unearthed Arcana (as i am), it helps to classify the weapons by type, in a more coherent way than basic/martial/exotic.
Some variants also use different critic effects, according to the weapon type (crushing, severing, impaling).
All for Weapon Types instead of Simple, Martial, Exotic. They make a LOT more sense.
I suppose there is some use afterall.
Weapon Type would be useful more often if Armors had DR against certain types. Which would make more sense, but adds yet another level of complexity that I could live without.
As a matter of fact, there were armor bonus/malus vs weapon type in previous editions of Dungeons & Dragons.
But there rules were often ignored by most of the players, who considered they were uselessly complicated and slowing the game.
|
|
As a matter of fact, there were armor bonus/malus vs weapon type in previous editions of Dungeons & Dragons.
But there rules were often ignored by most of the players, who considered they were uselessly complicated and slowing the game.
yeah, I remember them... we ignored them :)
By no means am I suggesting going back to that level of complexity. :)
I was just commenting that I bet there are people out there who do use that though. *cough* *sickos* *cough
:)
|
As a matter of fact, there were armor bonus/malus vs weapon type in previous editions of Dungeons & Dragons.
But there rules were often ignored by most of the players, who considered they were uselessly complicated and slowing the game.
The bonus/penalty was applied to the attack roll for a specific weapon against a specific armor type, no more complicated than having to write down a set of numbers for each weapon used. Makes your choice of weapon mean more than which does more damage, it also affects your ability to do that damage. You can perhaps tell that I liked the rules and would prefer to use them again.
PS. Bring back spell component tracking and toss the non-magical pouch of infinite material into the void.
"Its not what you are doing, its how you look doing it that counts!"
The Unknown Bard
I'm not sure if it's "In the rules" at all,
but I've often played where when fighting in "constrained" environments (sewers, tunnels, etc)
Piercing weapons (i.e. Spears) suffered NO penalty, and other weapons (Slashing/Bludgeoning)
that were "Swung" suffered a penalty or were just impossible to use effectively (depending on the tunnel, I guess)
...If it's not important in YOUR game, then ignore it.
It only takes up, what, 1/2 cm? of width on the Weapons table, right?
|
All for Weapon Types instead of Simple, Martial, Exotic. They make a LOT more sense.
I suppose there is some use afterall.
Weapon Type would be useful more often if Armors had DR against certain types. Which would make more sense, but adds yet another level of complexity that I could live without.
2nd edition has something different anoptional rul in which armors offered less defense versus one or 2 types of weapons, butthis might incur to much work, its better to leave it in the old
but no DR, i like the idea that some weapons actually has more chance to hit foes in certain weapons... because armor was not onlycreated to protect against some weapons... but weapons WERE created to penetrate some particular armors
|
|
I am of two minds concerning Weapon Types.
First is forget them all together.
Second is, make more use of them. Have rules on Weapon Types for tight spaces, and have rules for weapons vs armors.
I do think they make for interesting ideas and can be interesting in play. I am designing an OGL game (for myself really) that converts d20 to 3d6, weapon feats to skills and armor feats to skills, and lots of whacky stuff. In that system I figure on having weapon types be important against armors.
I just am not sure how truly necessary they are for d20 3.x rules.
But it looks like they have a good use to some.
Actually I would like to see some more uses :) just for inspiration :)
Who knows maybe even I will start to use them in 3.x
|
|
mmm how useful is a d20 in 3.0?
well for one... its the name of the game :P d20 system :P no DnD or 3.0 system
but if it works for you its ok
the types of weapons for one give you flavor... how borring would be that everyweapon bethe same as the next, the only different how muchdamage it does.
if you want to givethem more functionality recheck 2nd edition rules on what armor wins against what weapon, and what weapons win vs what armor
give the weapon extra damage or DR to the armor, notmuch 1 or 2 points
that ios theonlything i can think of
|
|
mmm how useful is a d20 in 3.0?
well for one... its the name of the game :P d20 system :P no DnD or 3.0 system
but if it works for you its ok
the types of weapons for one give you flavor... how borring would be that everyweapon bethe same as the next, the only different how muchdamage it does.
if you want to givethem more functionality recheck 2nd edition rules on what armor wins against what weapon, and what weapons win vs what armor
give the weapon extra damage or DR to the armor, notmuch 1 or 2 points
that ios theonlything i can think of
\
I do prefer fluff over crunch for most things so this is an interesting way to use crunch to encourage fluff :)
What I like to do in regards to weapon type vs. armor is just assign a few circumstance bonuses to attack if it seems appropriate. Its a quick change which doesn't introduce any new rules to memorize.
|
As a matter of fact, there were armor bonus/malus vs weapon type in previous editions of Dungeons & Dragons.
But there rules were often ignored by most of the players, who considered they were uselessly complicated and slowing the game.yeah, I remember them... we ignored them :)
By no means am I suggesting going back to that level of complexity. :)
I was just commenting that I bet there are people out there who do use that though. *cough* *sickos* *cough
:)
HEY; I resemble that remark! :P
Well, actually peircing is pretty important if you're fighting underwater, since that type doesn't take negatives.
Here's one to wrap your mind around... Spiked Chain is "piercing" and therefore according to RULES it works underwater, even at reach! Uh huh. While I would find it wildly amusing, I would hope that all the DMs out there rule against this obvious undersight.
That rule also means a Morning Star would work underwater too, since it does not specify non-hybrid weapons, only if the weapon is piercing... somehow I doubt it.