PDA

View Full Version : [Weapon] Short, Light, Long, Heavy and Great



Matthew
2006-08-09, 09:41 PM
A preamble:

So, D&D 3.x made a good effort at simplifying the weapon lists, which I was certainly in favour of, but I'm still not happy. They gave us Short Spears and Long Spears, then changed it to Spears and Long Spears, designating the 'Old' Half Spear the 'New' Short Spear (Why oh why? It's about as logical as renaming the 'Short Sword,' 'Sword', which, interestingly, is exactly what 'Gladius' means).

Anyway, there is a clear, if bizarre, progression through the Sword and Axe categories ('Short Sword, Long Sword, Bastard Sword, Great Sword' and 'Hand Axe, Battle Axe, Dwarven War Axe and Great Axe'). At each stage they cost more, get heavier, do more Damage and increasingly require two hands to use.

For the purposes of this post, assume that I'm following this progression and that I regard the Bastard Sword and Dwarven War Axe to be the true Great Sword and Great Axe, respectively, of D&D, this ought not to impact the rules one jot, but it did influence my thinking.

So, here are some 'Great' weapon additions to the current list:


Great Bow [Also known as the 'Elven War Bow']

Proficiency: Exotic Ranged Weapon
Cost: 175 GP
Damage: 1d10
Critical: ◊3
Range: 140 ft.
Weight: 4 lbs.
Type: Piercing
Arrows: As Usual

The Great Bow requires a minimum Strength of 14 to use.

You need at least two hands to use a Bow, regardless of its size. A Great Bow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If you have a bonus for high Strength, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a Composite Great Bow (see below) but not a regular Great Bow.

Elves treat Elven War Bows as Martial Weapons.


Composite Great Bow [Also known as the 'Composite Elven War Bow']

Proficiency: Exotic Ranged Weapon
Cost: 200 GP
Damage: 1d10
Critical: ◊3
Range: 150 ft.
Weight: 4 lbs.
Type: Piercing
Arrows: As Usual

The Composite Great Bow requires a minimum Strength of 14 to use.

You need at least two hands to use Bow, regardless of its size. A Composite Great Bow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. All Composite Bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is less than the Strength rating of the Composite Bow, you canít effectively use it, so you take a -2 penalty on attacks with it.

A Composite Great Bow can be made with a high Strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage, up to the maximum bonus indicated for the bow. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 200 gp to its cost.

For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a Composite Great Bow is treated as if it were a Great Bow.

Elves treat Composite Elven War Bows as Martial Weapons.


Great Spear [Also Known as 'The Pike']
Proficiency: Martial Two Handed Melee Weapon
Cost: 10 GP
Damage: 1d8
Critical: ◊3
Range: -
Weight: 12 lbs.
Type: Piercing

The Great Spear requires a minimum Strength of 12 to use.

A Great Spear has 'extended reach.' You can strike opponents 15 feet away with it, but you canít use it against an adjacent foe or one 10 feet away. If you use a ready action to set a Great Spear against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging character.

This weapon is mainly useful for the serried ranks of a Pike Phalanx


Great Cross Bow [Also known as the 'Really Heavy Cross Bow']

Proficiency: Martial Ranged Weapon
Cost: 100 GP
Damage: 1d12
Critical: 19-20 ◊2
Range: 160 ft.
Weight: 12 lbs.
Type: Piercing

You draw a Great Cross Bow back by turning a large winch. Loading a Great Crossbow is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. You must use two hands to shoot a Great Cross Bow.


Great Hammer [Also Known as the Bastard Hammer]

Proficiency: Martial Two Handed Melee Weapon
Cost: 30 GP
Damage: 1d10
Critical: ◊3
Range: -
Weight: 8 lbs.
Type: Bludgeoning

The Great Hammer requires a minimum Strength of 12 to use.

For Dwarves who don't know when to quit and people who like two handed hammers; it's alternate name does not refer to it's capacity to be used in one or two hands by expending an exotic feat, but rather refers to the most common response upon seeing one "That's one big [insert]", or so it has been claimed.


Great Mace [Also Known as the Cleric's War Mace]

Proficiency: Martial Two Handed Melee Weapon
Cost: 20 GP
Damage: 1d10
Critical: ◊2
Range: -
Weight: 8 lbs.
Type: Bludgeoning and Piercing

The Great Mace requires a minimum Strength of 12 to use.

Back in the days when Clerics had a lot of prohibitions on what they could and could not use, due to some sort of conquest tapestry misinterpretation, one Brother Odric proposed the War Mace. The response of his superior was reportedly: 'Don't forget the Spikes'.

Clerics treat the Great Mace as a Simple Weapon.


Great Pick (also known as the Dwarven War Pick)

Proficiency: Two Handed Martial Weapon
Cost: 20 GP
Damage: 1D8
Critical: x4
Range: -
Weight: 8 lbs.
Type: Piercing

"Any Pick I can use in one hand isn't big enough yet"


Great Scimitar (also known as the alternative to the Falchion)

Proficiency: Two Handed Martial Weapon
Cost: 35 GP
Damage: 1D8
Critical: 18-20 x3
Range: -
Weight: 6 lbs.
Type: Slashing

75 GP and 2D4 Damage? No thanks.

I find the current Hammer options to be a little lackluster, so...


Throwing Hammer

Proficiency: Light Martial Weapon
Cost: 8 GP
Damage: 1D6
Critical: x2
Range: 10
Weight: 2 lbs.
Type: Bludgeoning

It was Olaf Raedason who first realised that if he could make a Hammer with a more limited range it might be more able to kill his opponents


Hammer (also known as the Battle Hammer)

Proficiency: Light Martial Weapon
Cost: 6 GP
Damage: 1D6
Critical: x3
Range: -
Weight: 4 lbs.
Type: Bludgeoning

Eventually Olaf made a Hammer that was no longer suitable for throwing

Kukri never quite sat right with me, too specific a name, so:


Light Scimitar

Proficiency: Martial Light Melee Weapon
Cost: 10 GP
Damage: 1d4
Critical: 18-20 x2
Range Increment: -
Weight: 2 lbs.
Damage Type: Slashing

"Is Nepal south or north of the Dragon Spear Mountains?".

And because I never understood why it wasn't in the list:


Light Flail

Proficiency: Martial Light Melee Weapon
Cost: 4 GP
Damage: 1d6
Critical: x2
Range Increment: -
Weight: 3 lb.
Damage Type: Bludgeoning

With a flail, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).

You can also use this weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the flail to avoid being tripped.

Death_McMuffin
2006-08-09, 09:53 PM
Actually "gladius" was also a slang term (in the roman era) for penis due to the swords phallic qualities. *nvm *You do have a point about the renaming though.

BakerOfBedlam
2006-08-09, 10:27 PM
Actually "gladius" was also a slang term (in the roman era) for penis due to the swords phallic qualities. nvm You do have a point about the renaming though.

Going OT for a second here, but what interests me, in cases like these, is how the hell people find these things out.

I just pictured some old, gray-bearded scholar, sitting at a desk with a mountain of old texts, searching days and nights on end for ancient slang terms for a man's giggle-stick.

Going back on topic. I like the weapons, except for maybe the greatspear/pike. It just seems like the niche that the pike fills is allready filled by the longspear. Unless, of course, you mean this kind of pike (the fish, not the guy): http://www.allanwater.com/_photos/pike-04b.jpg

Matthew
2006-08-09, 11:02 PM
Actually "gladius" was also a slang term (in the roman era) for penis due to the swords phallic qualities. *nvm *You do have a point about the renaming though.

Well, indeed, but only in the sense, as far as I know, that we may use 'Sword' as a slang term for 'Penis' in modern usage. My intention was to indicate that 'Gladius' was used generically for 'Sword' in Latin, equally able to describe longer and shorter varieties, which goes also for the Latin 'Hasta' with regard to the modern English 'Spear' [i.e. both are general terms that ocassionally refer to specific types].

Baker of Bedlam:

I think it was probably a case of some scholar coming across the analogy and it becoming widely popularised afterwards, as people are inevitably interested in such things, especially students.

You don't like the 'Pike'? Oh well, I suppose I had better make some attempt to defend it; basically it allows for three ranks of defenders to strike an attacker before he comes in range of striking himself, whereas the Long Spear only allows for two.

Fizban
2006-08-09, 11:34 PM
Hmmm, point by point:
Great bow: has been made, it's in Cw, deals 1d10
Great spear: there is a great spear, but it doesnt have any extended reach. I like your idea, but no one would use it with low damage, which shows it's balanced! :)
Great Hammer: has been made, usually called the Maul (also try CW)
Great Mace: the war mace idea has been done many times, all of them badly. I don't like your "clerics are special" approach, clerics don't need any more.
The great mace, following the weapon point like system, should be:
two handed simple: 1d10, x2
or
one handed exotic: 1d12 or 2d6, x2
CW desided to give it an arbitrary AC penalty, making it suck. Ignore the AC penatly, and wallah.
Great crossbow: been done, was exotic, dealt 1d12, sucked. The whole point of the crossbow is that it's simple, execpt for the hand crossbow for some dumb reason, and the repeaters, again for no reason (they arent any better than a bow, what's the deal?)
And there's my synopsis.

Matthew
2006-08-10, 06:41 AM
Well, I don't have access to the Complete Warrior. Tell me, how similar is the version of the Great Bow found there to my own version? [This is something of a dig at the Dwarven War Axe, if it wasn't already clear]

Glad you like the Great Spear.

Yeah, I have heard of the Maul, but that was in the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide where it had 'reach' or some such thing. What are the similarities / differences in the Complete Warrior version?

Actually, I don't agree with regard to the Great Mace. Note that the Club and Great Club are Simple and Martial respectively. Giving the Cleric access to it was desirable for me and adding it to their Class Weapon list seemed a viable option [Also, this is something of a joke about Maces and Clerics]. I have no desire to see this weapon used in one hand, personally, but I don't see why it couldn't be mechanically. I may well add that option in.

That's why the Great Cross Bow is Martial and not Exotic.

Thanks for your synopsis.

martyboy74
2006-08-10, 07:43 AM
When you use "Short Haft" with a Great Spear, do you have to pick a range (5' OR 10' OR 15'), or does it just switch between 15', and 5' and 10'.

4Dsheep
2006-08-10, 07:46 AM
A nice name for the Great Crossbow would be Arbalest, because it was, you know, a bloody big crossbow. Arbalests could have up to 5000 pounds strength and be accurate up to 500 meters. Fun fact: crossbows were at one point in history banned by the pope because an inexperienced crossbowman with one of these babies could kill a fully armored knight from afar with a single shot. A skilled crossbowman could shoot two bolts per minute.


Going OT for a second here, but what interests me, in cases like these, is how the hell people find these things out.Another fun fact: it was actually written all over the bloody walls in Rome.

Closet_Skeleton
2006-08-10, 08:08 AM
I'm afraid to tell you, but there isn't a Short, Long, Bastard, Great progression for every weapon because.

Nobody ever named weapons like that!

Come on, they were try to use official naming. Great bow? Longbow is the english term for a large bow, they don't make weapons larger than neccesary. Great bow would be a literal translation of the Japanese Daikyu, which isn't really any bigger than an english longbow.

Nobody would make a light flail, there doesn't need to be a light flail. It surves no purpose, you could never finesse a flail, so why make a lighter one. I'm not sure single handed flails even ever existed. You already get mauls. Maul also happens to be term usuable to describe a large mace, so you don't need a seperate Great Mace. What's a Bastard Hammer? The illegitimate son of MC Hammer?

The crossbow ban actually applied to most ranged weapons apparently.

Fax Celestis
2006-08-10, 01:45 PM
Nobody would make a light flail, there doesn't need to be a light flail. It surves no purpose, you could never finesse a flail, so why make a lighter one. I'm not sure single handed flails even ever existed.It's called a "horseman's flail". Or, conversely, ask an Egyptian.

Fhaolan
2006-08-10, 02:34 PM
I'm afraid to tell you, but there isn't a Short, Long, Bastard, Great progression for every weapon because.

Nobody ever named weapons like that!

Come on, they were try to use official naming.

Now, now. The naming convention is just a convienient starting point. D&D does not match official naming conventions, because there isn't any official naming conventions. There are several different popular conventions, but there's no central authority that enforces them. For example, the D&D long sword. Which has no resemblance to the historical weapon normally labeled 'long sword'. The historical long sword is also sometimes called 'bastard sword' or 'hand and a half sword'. What D&D calls a 'long sword' is most similar to the arming sword. Then we can get into the Okeshott typology, which is generally accepted (but not universally)...


Great bow? Longbow is the english term for a large bow, they don't make weapons larger than neccesary. Great bow would be a literal translation of the Japanese Daikyu, which isn't really any bigger than an english longbow.


The welsh longbow is somewhat longer on average than the english longbow, by a foot or more. I'm not sure that is a significant difference, but there you go. I was under the impression that the Daikyu, while not that much larger than a longbow, was structurally quite different. Such as the grip point being off-center enough to make it possible to use it mounted.


Nobody would make a light flail, there doesn't need to be a light flail. It surves no purpose, you could never finesse a flail, so why make a lighter one. I'm not sure single handed flails even ever existed.

One handed flails, sometimes called horsemen's flails, were very common in knight vs. knight duels during tournaments. I disagree with the idea of them being finessable, having handled them on occasion, but they *did* exist.


You already get mauls. Maul also happens to be term usuable to describe a large mace, so you don't need a seperate Great Mace. What's a Bastard Hammer? The illegitimate son of MC Hammer?


Oversized maces did exist, but I'm under the impression they were 'display-only' kinds of things. Used in parades and processions to be a visible symbol of authority. My wife had one made to historical parameters. While it is technically usable, it wears you out right quick.

The big hammers... I'm not going to comment. I've had people come up to me wanting to use sledgehammers as a weapons and I just get to laugh as they try. :)

Of course, this is all fantasy so RL rules don't necessarily apply. Matthew seems to be attempting to make the rulestructure consistant with respect to weapons, which is what I was thinking about doing myself at some point but I just haven't gotten around to it. He's chosen a different naming convention than what I would have, but that's just names. I'm sure he's more interested in critiques of the crunch, not the naming convention. :)

Now, as to my crunch analysis. I'm a bit twitchy about the 'great bow'. I think this niche is already covered in regular strength bows, but I might be convinced otherwise. For purposes of making the weapon sizing consistant, I'd leave out the bows for now, myself.

Matthew
2006-08-10, 04:59 PM
I'm afraid to tell you, but there isn't a Short, Long, Bastard, Great progression for every weapon because.

Nobody ever named weapons like that!

Come on, they were try to use official naming. Great bow? Longbow is the english term for a large bow, they don't make weapons larger than neccesary. Great bow would be a literal translation of the Japanese Daikyu, which isn't really any bigger than an english longbow.

Real life weapon designations and D&D weapon nomenclature simply don't mix. I assure you, I am well aquainted with the difficulties of weapon classification in real life, but this is D&D, where there is a clear progression, which, as Fhaolan points out, is what I was getting at.
I make no claims about real life weapons here. At first, it appears, the designers of D&D did try to use the 'official' naming conventions, but they soon found themselves lost in a sea of disagreements and contradictions, which has led to the dropping of things like Gladius, Drusus, Claymore, Bardiche Axe and so on... all of which had fairly arbitrary stats in 1.x and especially 2.x. Just check out the Arma website for a discussion of Sword nomenclature:

http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm#Medieval%20&%20Renaissance%20Sword%20Fo rms%20and%20Companion%20Implements

Apparently, the Great Bow actually exists in the D&D Complete Warrior, of which I was previously unaware; it was actually something of a cross thread joke concerning Greater and Lesser Elven War Blades:

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=homebrew;action=display;num=11544623 73;start=

Fhaolan is probably right that its too much, but I couldn't resist, finding out there really was one was the icing on the cake. Nonetheles, I think it may be worth the exertion of starting a seperate thread concerning revising the Bow at some point in the near future.


Nobody would make a light flail, there doesn't need to be a light flail. It surves no purpose, you could never finesse a flail, so why make a lighter one. I'm not sure single handed flails even ever existed.

What if you wanted to use one as an off hand weapon? Fhaolan may well be right, and he knows better than me since he actually has some experience, but I imagine that a Flail requires a fair bit of Dexterity to use in general, so as to avoid hitting yourself and being able to judge distance and such; I might well be wrong. Still, you could always make it non finesseable and bar it from Grapples if you think it's a big deal. I doubt Hand Axes and Light Maces are much good in that situation either.


You already get mauls. Maul also happens to be term usuable to describe a large mace, so you don't need a seperate Great Mace. What's a Bastard Hammer? The illegitimate son of MC Hammer?

Well, frankly there's a lot of disagreement over whether a Maul is a Hammer or a Mace or what. The last time I saw it, it was in the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide, where it was a Mace with Reach or something.
It didn't suit my idea of a Two Handed Hammer or Two Handed Mace, so I made my own. I prefer to differentiate between the two, otherwise you might as well do away with Light Maces, Heavy Maces, Light Hammers and War Hammers; you could just have a Light Maul and Heavy Maul; not to my taste, but whatever. Bastard Hammer? Well, I think you'll find that's a joke about D&D nomenclature, as are all the alternative names provided. Sorry if it wasn't funny.


The crossbow ban actually applied to most ranged weapons apparently.

Check out the Wikipedia entry concerning Talk: Cross Bows to learn about Papal Bans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crossbow

It all depends how you translate it, but the up and down of it is that the ban applied to the use of projectile weapons against fellow Christians. It's basically the same complaint made by the Spartans after their near annihaltion and surrender during the Peloponisian War, as reported by Thucydides. Too random, not a proper test of strength (and therefore the will of God). There are plenty of other interpretations, but it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with deadliness of Cross Bows.


When you use "Short Haft" with a Great Spear, do you have to pick a range (5' OR 10' OR 15'), or does it just switch between 15', and 5' and 10'.

Not sure. I think, probably because you can't already do something similar with the Long Spear, not. If you wanted to change the rules to do that, that would be up to you.


A nice name for the Great Crossbow would be Arbalest, because it was, you know, a bloody big crossbow. Arbalests could have up to 5000 pounds strength and be accurate up to 500 meters.

True, but for self evident reasons, I'm trying to keep away from Real Life designations. 5,000 lbs is quite a lot. I think you might be confusing Lbs with N, but maybe not. I can't say I have ever heard of such a high estimate before, though.
I have a few ideas for revising the Cross Bow altogether elsewhere.



The welsh longbow is somewhat longer on average than the english longbow, by a foot or more. I'm not sure that is a significant difference, but there you go. I was under the impression that the Daikyu, while not that much larger than a longbow, was structurally quite different. Such as the grip point being off-center enough to make it possible to use it mounted.


I believe you're generally right Fhaolan, but I think he only had the translation in mind here. However, 'Big Bow' would be just as literal a translation. Bows came in many different sizes, designs and compositions, as did Swords and Spears and pretty much any other weapon you care to generally name. For the moment, I'm happy to go with short, Long and Great, otherwise a significant revision of Bows and Cross Bows generally is probably in the works...

Thanks for your interest; I look forward to any further comments.

Fhaolan
2006-08-10, 05:35 PM
What if you wanted to use one as an off hand weapon? Fhaolan may well be right, and he knows better than me since he actually has some experience, but I imagine that a Flail requires a fair bit of Dexterity to use in general, so as to avoid hitting yourself and being able to judge distance and such; I might well be wrong. Still, you could always make it non finesseable and bar it from Grapples if you think it's a big deal. I doubt Hand Axes and Light Maces are much good in that situation either.


In game terms, I can see a light, finessable flail. When you start to bleed into RL, flails become a bit odd. You're very right that it takes a fair bit of dexterity to use a flail effectively. In the same way it takes a lot of dexterity to steer a hovercraft.

I know, that sounded weird... It's all vector forces and that kind of garbage. Because of the higher level of dexterity needed to use the flail effectively in the first place, adding more to make it finessable... I'm just having trouble picturing it. I'm willing to accept it though, for game purposes.

In the same way I'm willing to accept the dire flail for game purposes, even though it's the silliest thing ever envisioned. ;D

Closet_Skeleton
2006-08-10, 06:44 PM
In game terms, I can see a light, finessable flail. When you start to bleed into RL, flails become a bit odd. You're very right that it takes a fair bit of dexterity to use a flail effectively. In the same way it takes a lot of dexterity to steer a hovercraft.

Yes, you do get light, finessable flails.

They're called nunchaku.

The PhB has a one handed flail which could represent those Egyptian flails already. Duel-wielding flails just has too many problems to think about. It would turn into 1 flail for the enemy 1 flail for yourself.

I should stop using bold. I'm not actually that angry.

If you're trying to make weapons more realistic, you should create a decent one-handed spear. Those are way more common then the PhB would make it seems.

I would say that a "maul" is a weapon you maul people with, whether the shape of the head is more mace-ike or hammer-like is mere individualisation. A two-handed warhammer, unlike a mallet, would would have a much smaller surface area on it's head than a maul and probably have a spike on the back. Since DnD doesn't have differant armour penetration for differant weapons, why anyone would bother using a hammer in DnD is purely for stylistic reasons.

Just call it a Pike okay, great swords don't have higher reach than longswords, so if you're trying to have better nomeclature don't confuse things yourself.

Dancing_Zephyr
2006-08-10, 08:16 PM
An Arbalest was in fact a crossbow reinforced with iron or steel. I very much doubt that it could get up to 5000lbs of pressure. If it did it would be able to hold up two compact cars and would have been near impossible to reload. I doubt that catapults got 5000lbs of pressure.

I like the weapons Matthew.

Peregrine
2006-08-10, 11:20 PM
Yes, you do get light, finessable flails.

They're called nunchaku.
You know, all through reading this thread I was planning to say something like this, and hoping it wouldn't be redundant. Then two posts from the end this pops in. ::)

Actually what I was going to say was that I once proposed renaming the nunchaku to 'light flail' as part of an effort to westernise the monk and monk weapons. Therefore, my idea of a light flail is light, martial (or maybe even simple; just, not exotic anymore), 1d6 bludgeoning, +2 to disarm, no tripping.

On the whole, though, from a gaming perspective I like your list, Matthew. :) Disregard anyone who says 'it's already been done in this US$29.95 supplement', unless they offer to send you a copy for free!

Closet_Skeleton
2006-08-11, 04:41 AM
Actually what I was going to say was that I once proposed renaming the nunchaku to 'light flail' as part of an effort to westernise the monk and monk weapons. Therefore, my idea of a light flail is light, martial (or maybe even simple; just, not exotic anymore), 1d6 bludgeoning, +2 to disarm, no tripping.

Hey, if you're doing that you should remove Kama entirely. It's just a sickle. Replace that awful Direflail with a three section staff. If you want you can call Chakram quoits. Lajatang is such so much easier to say than "staff with a cresent blade on each side".

I was never sure what a great axe was actually supposed to represent. A Handaxe is a Hatchet/Tomohawk sort of thing, a battleaxe is simple enough but what is a greataxe supposed to be? A Danish Long-Axe? A Poleaxe? An Executioner's Axe? I just never was sure about that weapon.

Actually, hand axe annoys me as well, whilst I know what the dnd hand axe represents, a hand axe is actually a paleolithic axe with no haft. As in, you hold the axe head in your hand.

Calling a Bastard Sword "the true Greatsword" is unfair, since a Greatsword is supposed to be a claymore/bihander sort of thing, which could never be used one handed. Despite historical debate about whether or not those weapons were ever used; in a fantasy game they should be included.

4Dsheep
2006-08-11, 06:18 AM
An Arbalest was in fact a crossbow reinforced with iron or steel. I very much doubt that it could get up to 5000lbs of pressure. If it did it would be able to hold up two compact cars and would have been near impossible to reload. I doubt that catapults got 5000lbs of pressure.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbalest): "The strongest windlass-pulled arbalests could have up to 5000 lb strength (2267.5 kg) and be accurate up to 500 m." It could be wrong, of course, I'm not an expert so I wouldn't know. It does seem somewhat plausible given the fact it takes at the very least 30 seconds to reload using a windlass, also according to Wikipedia of course.

Matthew
2006-08-11, 08:56 AM
Yes, you do get light, finessable flails.

They're called nunchaku.

The PhB has a one handed flail which could represent those Egyptian flails already. Duel-wielding flails just has too many problems to think about. It would turn into 1 flail for the enemy 1 flail for yourself.

What are you talking about? I don't understand what you mean. The 'Light Flail' is no better or worse than pretty much any other Light Weapon, as far as I can see.



I should stop using bold. I'm not actually that angry.

I would encourage you to do that.



If you're trying to make weapons more realistic, you should create a decent one-handed spear. Those are way more common then the PhB would make it seems.

What on earth gave you that impression? This thread is about introducing some new balanced D&D Weapons, my thinking was influenced by my perception of D&D weapon designations.
The One Handed Spear is fairly easily implemented; just allow PCs to use the Spear in one hand, job done. There are further permutations, but I'll leave that for another thread.


I would say that a "maul" is a weapon you maul people with, whether the shape of the head is more mace-ike or hammer-like is mere individualisation. A two-handed warhammer, unlike a mallet, would would have a much smaller surface area on it's head than a maul and probably have a spike on the back. Since DnD doesn't have differant armour penetration for differant weapons, why anyone would bother using a hammer in DnD is purely for stylistic reasons.

You appear to be missing the difference between the Great Hammer and Great Mace proposed here; they both follow the progression of their type [i.e. Light Mace 1D6 x2; Heavy Mace 1D8 x2; Great Mace 1D10 x2; War Hammer 1D8 x3; Great Hammer 1D10 x3]. The differences between them are Critical Multiplier and Damage Type.
The Great Mace is mechanically slightly different than the Great Club (i.e. combined Damage type), but also available to Clerics as a Simple Weapon. I have no idea what the Complete Warrior Maul is like, but the 3.0 Arms and Equipment version sucked.


Just call it a Pike okay, great swords don't have higher reach than longswords, so if you're trying to have better nomeclature don't confuse things yourself.

Erm... no. Pike is the alternative name already provided. The Great Sword may not grant Reach, but that is because it is not a Spear or related to the Spear family. The difference between the Spear and Long Spear is Reach, so the difference between the Long Spear and Great Spear proposed here is Extended Reach. It's a logical progression, if you don't agree that's your perogative.


An Arbalest was in fact a crossbow reinforced with iron or steel. I very much doubt that it could get up to 5000lbs of pressure. If it did it would be able to hold up two compact cars and would have been near impossible to reload. I doubt that catapults got 5000lbs of pressure.

I like the weapons Matthew.

That was my understanding; glad you like the weapons.




According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbalest): "The strongest windlass-pulled arbalests could have up to 5000 lb strength (2267.5 kg) and be accurate up to 500 m." It could be wrong, of course, I'm not an expert so I wouldn't know. It does seem somewhat plausible given the fact it takes at the very least 30 seconds to reload using a windlass, also according to Wikipedia of course.

I did check out that Wikipedia entry; it appears to contradict the Cross Bow entry. I'm no expert, so I couldn't say for sure, but it looks like this might be an overestimation on the part of someone a little over enthusiastic about Cross Bows. It's certainly an interesting find, but I'd be wary of it until some corroborating evidence appears.



You know, all through reading this thread I was planning to say something like this, and hoping it wouldn't be redundant. Then two posts from the end this pops in. ::)

Actually what I was going to say was that I once proposed renaming the nunchaku to 'light flail' as part of an effort to westernise the monk and monk weapons. Therefore, my idea of a light flail is light, martial (or maybe even simple; just, not exotic anymore), 1d6 bludgeoning, +2 to disarm, no tripping.

On the whole, though, from a gaming perspective I like your list, Matthew. :) Disregard anyone who says 'it's already been done in this US$29.95 supplement', unless they offer to send you a copy for free!

Monks and Exotic Weapons are another topic, that's for sure (what he hell is the definition of exotic? Foreign?). Light Flails should probably be Martial to fit in with the 'Flail' and 'Heavy Flail'. Glad you liked the list.



Hey, if you're doing that you should remove Kama entirely. It's just a sickle. Replace that awful Direflail with a three section staff. If you want you can call Chakram quoits. Lajatang is such so much easier to say than "staff with a cresent blade on each side".

I take your point on this, but I think if Flail and Heavy Flail are not exotic themselves, why should a 'Light Flail' be? The chief benefit of the Nunchaku is that it can be used in combination with certain Monk Class Features. I see no problem in having a Light Flail that cannot.



I was never sure what a great axe was actually supposed to represent. A Handaxe is a Hatchet/Tomohawk sort of thing, a battleaxe is simple enough but what is a greataxe supposed to be? A Danish Long-Axe? A Poleaxe? An Executioner's Axe? I just never was sure about that weapon.

Actually, hand axe annoys me as well, whilst I know what the dnd hand axe represents, a hand axe is actually a paleolithic axe with no haft. As in, you hold the axe head in your hand.


D&D weapons are not meant to represent any particular Real World Weapons; they are generalisations for convenience. There was an article on it once, can't seem to find it, though.



Calling a Bastard Sword "the true Greatsword" is unfair, since a Greatsword is supposed to be a claymore/bihander sort of thing, which could never be used one handed. Despite historical debate about whether or not those weapons were ever used; in a fantasy game they should be included.

This is pretty much a matter of personal preference.

Peregrine
2006-08-11, 12:21 PM
Hey, if you're doing that you should remove Kama entirely.
Did that. :) Considered dropping shuriken for darts. Wondering if calling a siangham a 'hand-spear' would work -- which really kinda fits in with the aim of this thread.

(The problem with the siangham, and shuriken for that matter, is that the only thing they have in common with the other monk weapons is being from East Asia. I'm trying to play up the martialised-farm-implements angle, and those two don't fit so well.)


What are you talking about? I don't understand what you mean. The 'Light Flail' is no better or worse than pretty much any other Light Weapon, as far as I can see.
I think he means that trying to swing a flail in each hand is a recipe for disaster. This is addressed in Chapter 9: Realism in your DMG. :)


Monks and Exotic Weapons are another topic, that's for sure (what he hell is the definition of exotic? Foreign?).
Yeah, not a fan of that definition, hence my merrily moving monk weapons to the Simple section.


I take your point on this, but I think if Flail and Heavy Flail are not exotic themselves, why should a 'Light Flail' be? The chief benefit of the Nunchaku is that it can be used in combination with certain Monk Class Features. I see no problem in having a Light Flail that cannot.
I'm not sure Closet Skeleton was suggesting that any of them should be exotic, necessarily. And I see no problem with having a simple light flail that can be used with monk features. I just don't get why monks have to have weapons that other classes don't use. (They only get the same staff because the writers realised there was no way to make the 'bo' mechanically any different, I reckon.)


D&D weapons are not meant to represent any particular Real World Weapons; they are generalisations for convenience. There was an article on it once, can't seem to find it, though.
You know, I've sometimes thought about cutting down the list and explicitly turning the 'weapons' into 'categories'. The current 'dagger', for instance, would have flavour text saying it covers all manner of daggers, knives, stilettos, poniards, and so on: short edged blades with a stabbing point. There may no longer be a need for clubs and maces and hammers to be separately statted when they're all bludgeoning weapons of certain sizes.

But I guess people are attached to their minor variant weapons, and I do confess to enjoying some of the little gimmicks they come up with myself. :)

Fhaolan
2006-08-11, 12:53 PM
You know, I've sometimes thought about cutting down the list and explicitly turning the 'weapons' into 'categories'. The current 'dagger', for instance, would have flavour text saying it covers all manner of daggers, knives, stilettos, poniards, and so on: short edged blades with a stabbing point. There may no longer be a need for clubs and maces and hammers to be separately statted when they're all bludgeoning weapons of certain sizes.


That was my thought, but again, I haven't gotten around to it yet. :)

To be technical, though, I would still differentiate between hammer and club/mace. A mace is really just a fancy club (especially if you look at some indian maces which are smooth, as opposed to gothic flanged maces). A hammer, however, is just different enough I think. The hammer concentrates it's bludgeoning down to a smaller surface area (the 'poll') while a club tends to spread that out over a larger surface area (flanged maces notwithstanding.) Basically, that's how I explain the increased critical damage to myself. It may be a silly justification, but there you have it. :)

Matthew
2006-08-11, 02:40 PM
I think he means that trying to swing a flail in each hand is a recipe for disaster. This is addressed in Chapter 9: Realism in your DMG. :)

Ah, so he does. I didn' have Dual Wielding two Flails in mind there, but it seems to me no less silly than Dual Wielding Nunchaku.


I'm not sure Closet Skeleton was suggesting that any of them should be exotic, necessarily. And I see no problem with having a simple light flail that can be used with monk features. I just don't get why monks have to have weapons that other classes don't use. (They only get the same staff because the writers realised there was no way to make the 'bo' mechanically any different, I reckon.)

Well, nor do I. What I meant was that unless you introduce something like the 'Light Flail', then your only equivalent option the 'Nunchaku', which is Exotic, if you see what I mean.


You know, I've sometimes thought about cutting down the list and explicitly turning the 'weapons' into 'categories'. The current 'dagger', for instance, would have flavour text saying it covers all manner of daggers, knives, stilettos, poniards, and so on: short edged blades with a stabbing point. There may no longer be a need for clubs and maces and hammers to be separately statted when they're all bludgeoning weapons of certain sizes.

But I guess people are attached to their minor variant weapons, and I do confess to enjoying some of the little gimmicks they come up with myself.

The thing is, I suspect this is largely what the 3.0 Game Designers had in mind in the first place. Indeed, the lack of a Knife entry suggests exactly that. However, I imagine this might have been superceded in expansions to the game.

Matthew
2006-08-16, 04:47 PM
I have added some extra weapons to the original list. Now, I know some of these already exist, what I would like to know is where and how they compare.

So far:

Great Bow: Complete Warrior
Great Scimiter: Sandstorm

Dancing_Zephyr
2006-08-16, 06:19 PM
@ 4Dsheep
While i usually believe wikipedia, it is user written and i have serious doubts about both the range and the strength of the arbalests listed, though i could be wrong. Stephen Colbert makes the problems with wikipedia abundantly clear.