Abstract weapons

[Yakk]

This is just an idea.

Instead of buying weapons from a menu, what if the player built his weapon (or weapons) and his choice of combat style with it using some kind of system?

The player could spend points on making their weapon do more damage, hit more accurately, have reach, be effective at tripping, critical hit damage, how much protection it gives, and if it is more or less concealable.

The weapons used, instead of helping to define the character's combat abilities, would be how the character's combat abilities are expressed.

[Neon Knight]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31817

Is this something like you wanted?

[Matthew]

Unlikely, Yakk posted on that thread quite a bit. I think he is after something a bit more 'out there'...

[Roderick_BR]

Maybe add an "advancement" system to that Custom Builder could work.

[Yakk]

For a pedestiran example:
One person using a long sword might have a 1d6 damage with a 18x3 critical.
Another might do 1d8 damage with a 19x2 critical.

The same item -- the long sword -- is wielded by two different people using a different style.

This means that the characters visual style -- are his swords curved? rapiers? Does he use axes? -- is seperated from the crunchy mechanics of the damage he deals.

Now, you'd need to factor in how dangerous his weapons look, how bulky they are, and how easy they are to hide into the equation (and no, one person can't have an easy to hide non-dangerous looking longsword, while another considers the same sword to be bulky, hard to hide, and dangerous looking...)

A point system like the one mentioned would be acceptable -- except you don't tie it to the weapon, but rather to the weapon and the wielder.

[Peregrine]

I've thought of something (at least vaguely) like this before... :smallsmile:

The difficulty that immediately strikes me is that the mechanics are currently heavily tied to what sort of weapon you have. Let me read this again... okay, I'm getting a better idea of what you're saying. (It's not really anything like my own 'generic weapon' idea, after all.) Now, the problem is, a dagger (say) would still have to be weaker than (at the very least, different to) a longsword (say). And there are various other properties that really must be tied to the weapon type, not merely its visual style. In other words, the shape of a weapon does have crunchy effects. (There's also one fundamental problem with any weapon-system-simplifying ideas: people get a lot of fun out of, and put a lot of time into, coming up with new weapons with special benefits.)

Still, I like the basic idea. And you could abstract the 'degrees' of weapon into something like the existing simple/martial divide.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

For a pedestiran example:
One person using a long sword might have a 1d6 damage with a 18x3 critical.
Another might do 1d8 damage with a 19x2 critical.

The same item -- the long sword -- is wielded by two different people using a different style.

This means that the characters visual style -- are his swords curved? rapiers? Does he use axes? -- is seperated from the crunchy mechanics of the damage he deals.

Now, you'd need to factor in how dangerous his weapons look, how bulky they are, and how easy they are to hide into the equation (and no, one person can't have an easy to hide non-dangerous looking longsword, while another considers the same sword to be bulky, hard to hide, and dangerous looking...)

A point system like the one mentioned would be acceptable -- except you don't tie it to the weapon, but rather to the weapon and the wielder.

Although I always specify if my characters' swords are single- or double-edged, you're probably looking for something more complex. Are you looking for custom equipment creation rules, or are you looking for combat styles that modify how a character wields certain types of weapons?

The first could probably be a point-based system, while the second could simply be done by different feats. I think it's the second one...

Yakuza Style
Prerequisite: Weapon Focus (longsword)
Benefit: You may wield a longsword with intent to thrust and stab at your opponents and parry with the blade, dealing 1d6 points of piercing damage with a x3 critical modifier, and granting you a +1 shield bonus to AC. You must declare whether you wield a longsword in this manner or in the traditional manner at the beginning of your turn, and its effects last until the beginning of your next turn.
A fighter may take Yakuza Style as a bonus feat.

Improved Yakuza Style
Prerequisite: Weapon Focus (longsword), Yakuza Style
Benefit: When using Yakuza Style, you deal 1d8 points of piercing damage.
A fighter may take Improved Yakuza Style as a bonus feat.

Greater Yakuza Style
Prerequisite: Weapon Focus (longsword), Yakuza Style, Improved Yakuza Style
Benefit: When using Yakuza Style, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC. This stacks with the benefit of Yakuza style, for a total of a +2 bonus.
A fighter may take Greater Yakuza Style as a bonus feat.

[Daracaex]

Maybe something along those lines, but they are style proficiency feats? Make it so that certain classes start out with one or two, depending on the class, and they can pick which ones to take? Then the improved and greater feats mentioned would be the equivalent of Weapon focus and Specialization for the styles.

As an unrelated benefit, this would pump melee classes a bit more as many people believe they are grossly underpowered.

[Yakk]

The dagger and the longsword are fundamentally different.

One has greater reach, is heavier, and is a single-use threatening weapon.

The other has lesser reach, is lighter, and can be (depending on how it is designed) either a single-use low-threat weapon or a dual-use weapon, and is easier to hide.

The fundamentals of a weapon -- how long it is, how heavy it is, if it looks like a weapon or not, how easy it is to hide, does it have a cutting/bashing/piercing option, etc -- should not change. But lots of the crunchy bits in between can change without changing the essece of the weapon.

I'm not certain if D&D's d20 is good for this kind of thing, honestly.

[Daracaex]

...Huh? Isn't that what we just did with those feats? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.