|
Are there any other classic fantasy weapons that are missing from the current weapons lists?
I saw a thread that mentioned the lasso. I think that would be a good addition. It's a niche that's missing, but what would the lasso someone rules look like?
I wonder if there is a place for a knife, as opposed to a dagger? Slashing only, maybe only costs 1 gp?
A short sword-like slashing weapon might be useful. Would this be the old broadsword?
What about dirks, poniards, and stilettos? Just daggars?
Does "unarmed strike" adequately cover punches, kicks, head-butts, bites, eye-pokes, etc?
I'll end up cross-posting this, but I also think there might be a problem with the weights of light and heavy maces. A light mace is "light" and weights 4 lbs, twice as much as any other light weapon and twice as much as a light hammer. It's even finessible! And a heavy mace weighs 8 lbs (more than a warhammer) and is still a one-handed weapon. Maybe there ought to be three: a real "light mace" at 2 lbs, d6 damage, in the light category; a plain old "mace" at 4 lbs, d8, in the one-handed category; and a "heavy mace" that is a two-handed weapon, d10, and weights 8 lbs. Or just make both light and heavy maces one-handed weapon.
Great hammers/mauls?
Ball-and-chains?
Anybody like the orc shot-puts?
Thrown stones?
Any other "missing weapon" ideas?
Are there any other classic fantasy weapons that are missing from the current weapons lists?
This is an admirable endeavor...however you should know one basic facet of the original 3e weapons list.
The 3e weapons list did not arise from any sort of attempt to reflect historical reality.
The 3e weapons list is all about filling specific dice type/range and weapon type ranges.
These break down into:
Basic dice type/ranges: 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d4, 1d10, 1d12, and 2d6.
Basic weapon types: bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing. With the addition of ranged, reach, and increasing certain combat maneuvers (tripping, disarming, etc.).
An added category is threat range and critical effects: 19-20/x2, et. al.
Once the 3e designers determined which sorts of niches they needed to fill they then went about assigning "weapon names" to those niches. In most cases close enough was considered "good enough".
So a two-handed d10 slashing weapon was arbitrarily called a halberd.
A one-handed melee 1d8 slashing weapon was (pretty much) arbitrarily called a longsword.
So...in most cases flavor/fluff was an afterthought. While including all those familiar historical weapons that were left off the list is a really cool idea, do we really need another <insert dice range & type> weapon? If we do that is great -- please provide details.
CJ
|
Are there any other classic fantasy weapons that are missing from the current weapons lists?
I saw a thread that mentioned the lasso. I think that would be a good addition. It's a niche that's missing, but what would the lasso someone rules look like?
Man-Catcher should make a come back. It was very cool and VERY useful.
I wonder if there is a place for a knife, as opposed to a dagger? Slashing only, maybe only costs 1 gp?
A knife is a tool, that happens to be able to do damage. A dagger is a weapon.
A short sword-like slashing weapon might be useful. Would this be the old broadsword?
So rarely does DR or some other need necessitate slashing weapons. Not sure there is enough necessity to add, especially if the get short on space. And I am sure they will be short on space.
What about dirks, poniards, and stilettos? Just daggars?
They are all just variants of daggers.
Does "unarmed strike" adequately cover punches, kicks, head-butts, bites, eye-pokes, etc?
In a very old thread hidden somewhere on here, there was a debate about unarmed strikes. A player wanted to make his attack then punch, then kick, then head butt. I was adamant there was no way. Then someone found a FAQ from WOTC that said that yes these were all unarmed strikes and yes they could all be used in a round. Dang munchkins. I don't allow more than one unarmed strike if a player also uses a weapon to attack.
I'll end up cross-posting this, but I also think there might be a problem with the weights of light and heavy maces. A light mace is "light" and weights 4 lbs, twice as much as any other light weapon and twice as much as a light hammer. It's even finessible! And a heavy mace weighs 8 lbs (more than a warhammer) and is still a one-handed weapon. Maybe there ought to be three: a real "light mace" at 2 lbs, d6 damage, in the light category; a plain old "mace" at 4 lbs, d8, in the one-handed category; and a "heavy mace" that is a two-handed weapon, d10, and weights 8 lbs. Or just make both light and heavy maces one-handed weapon.
Weight is used as a measure of encumberenace. As such it doesn't reflect actual weight. I have suggested they used Load Units instead for better understanding, for capacity, and to make things make sense.
Great hammers/mauls?
Ball-and-chains?
Anybody like the orc shot-puts?
Thrown stones?
Any other "missing weapon" ideas?
Like all of those. I have long missed the Holy Water Sprinkler (Spiked ball and chain).
I'm a big fan of weapons consolidation, as opposed to proliferation.
For example, a kama is a sickle; the "sickle" entry should just say, "includes sickle, kama, etc." Likewise, a saber is a scimitar is a tulwar is a cutlass is a dao; no need for different weapon stats. Dagger, dirk, poniard, stiletto, cinqueada, etc. = dagger. Etc.
|
|
I'm a big fan of weapons consolidation, as opposed to proliferation.
Grouped around the different stat types? The light 19-20/x2 weapons are all "daggers," for example. That would make sense. It would make adding new weapons easier; if they were just a new name or look for an old weapon, they could just be listed as "equivalent to ..." and only weapons that added new functions or bonuses would need new stats.
A short sword-like slashing weapon might be useful. Would this be the old broadsword?So rarely does DR or some other need necessitate slashing weapons. Not sure there is enough necessity to add, especially if the get short on space. And I am sure they will be short on space.
Don't much disagree with you Krome on necessity, but I *loved* the Broadsword :) - this would be a decent niche to fill with it, though it did more damage (more than longsword vs. small & medium) in the past. Maybe a 2d4 19-20/x2 one-hander. Pretty tiny difference, and somewhat unfortunately automatically better than Longsword.
To me what Valeros has in his main hand is a Broadsword, but I'm not claiming any expertise on the matter.
To me what Valeros has in his main hand is a Broadsword, but I'm not claiming any expertise on the matter.
Looks like a one-handed d8 martial slashing weapon with a 19-20/x2 crit range. You could call it whatever you want really.
CJ
Exactly. Broadswords and Arming Swords appear in the PHB as "Longswords".
Longswords and "Bastard Swords" (One and a half sword) appear under the name of "Greatswords".
I thought about macking stats for a falx. But a falx is essentially what a scythe really looks like if you use it as a weapon, so we allready have that.
Exactly. Broadswords and Arming Swords appear in the PHB as "Longswords".
Longswords and "Bastard Swords" (One and a half sword) appear under the name of "Greatswords".I thought about macking stats for a falx. But a falx is essentially what a scythe really looks like if you use it as a weapon, so we allready have that.
Also some historic bastard swords were little more that broadswords with extended hilts, but they are the oddblls among the swords.
By the way, good point about the falx. It never occured to me to use the scythe to represent it.