Weapons and how I handle combat.

[Cheomesh]

To preserve formatting, I present it as another PDF .

If you're unfamiliar with my myriad of house rules, here are some excerpts:

I have included in my setting an expanded weapon system.  Each weapon now comes with a number representing a length.  It is called a length category.  This affects combat in a very simple way:
A character attempting to attack another character with a weapon with a higher length category provokes an attack of opportunity.
This means that a character attacking with a dagger against a player with a sword provokes an attack of opportunity.  This mechanic was included to allow a greater diversity between weapons and to represent the benefits of possessing a longer weapon.

The player with the longer weapon loses this ability when he is denied a dex bonus (even if it is 0), possesses a dex bonus of -2 or lower, or if flanked and wielding a weapon of a natural RC 4 and above.

File: 1239428605_878_FT0_weapons.pdf

[Stargate525]

So strength only goes towards damage, now?

And I fail to see the benefits of a short-reach weapon. Under this, there's no disadvantage of being 'inside the guard,' so to speak. For instance, a dagger vs. a spear, even if the dagger man gets an attack in (meaning he's in under the guard of the spear, making the weapon a hindrance), he seems to, under your system, BACK OUT AGAIN before making another attack. I am confused.

[Cheomesh]

Ah, that's one of the not-so-clear bits.  It's less that I "back out" again than you, the spear man, backing away from *me*.

If you get inside the "Guard" of a spear, you should grapple, both in reality and in this system.

Short reach weapons have some bonuses.  That spear you have, for example, can't be used for those attacks of opportunity if you're flanked.  I'm not coming at you head on all the time.

Short weapons are always usable, even when flanked, as well as being more concealable.  Additionally, part of it is balanced by story, where several important population centers don't allow weapons over RC2 (Short swords).

I've also updated it a bit; there were several flaws, and I cleared up the 'weapon granting AC' bonus.

M.

[Ra-Tiel]

[...] Additionally, part of it is balanced by story, where several important population centers don't allow weapons over RC2 (Short swords). [...]

Just my two coppers: DnD 3.5 showed us that NEVER EVER you should use fluff to balance crunch. This paradigm is what gave birth to horrible things like Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil or Radiant Servant of Pelor or Frenzied Berserker.

[Cheomesh]

Well, that's just a secondary thing; remember you can use a lot of the shorter weapons in the grapple, as well.

M.

[Superfluous Crow]

Just another perspective on the range thing: tRoS also used range, but made it so that the long weapon started with an advantage, and when the short weapon got an attack through the advantage turned around.
Seems odd that you have to grapple to maintain short weapon supremacy. What if you are fighting a spear with a long sword? You'd get AoO and couldn't grapple. Leaving one of the most versatile weapons worse than a dagger vs. a spear. Or what?

[Cheomesh]

In that case, trip, disarm, flank, or feint.

M.

[Stargate525]

So in other words do anything but what allowed him to get in there in the first place?

[Cheomesh]

In other words, don't try to "swing" away at a guy with a better weapon.

M.

[Superfluous Crow]

trip and disarm don't seem like especially effective counters against a spear. A two-handed grip on a long stick isn't flung out of the hand easily with a twist of the wrist. and longswords can't even trip as far as i remember. But you're just listing special attacks.
Feint could work. Just seems like it adds a lot to the rules that really just comes down to details and therefore takes up uneccessary amounts of time. but your choice i guess

[Cheomesh]

Nah, we've played with it and it works fairly well.

Remember, flanking isn't exactly the hardest thing to pull off, and it removes the AoO from anything longer than the arming sword.

M.

[Ra-Tiel]

So strength only goes towards damage, now? [...]

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Earthdawn did that too, and it worked quite well. In fact, DnD is one of the few systems I know that applies Strength to the attack roll, too.



But anyway... one major gripe I have with such a system is that it is too onedimensional. What about the other myriad situations where the length or (un)wieldyness of your weapon would be decisive? What about swinging a greatsword in a 5ft wide corridor? Or firing a longbow in a staircase? Or swinging an axe while climbing a ladder? Imho such a system would be more fitting for GURPS or Rolemaster, but not DnD.

Also, this mechanic doesn't cover one very important thing: weapon speed. While the size of the weapon is often important, more important is the speed with which you can bring the weapon to bear against your opponent. A massive greataxe you have to swing around in wide, slow arcs won't help you agains the guy with the dagger who tries to cut your throat. In movies you always see the combatants thrusting and hitting with the weapon's grip or other non-weaponhead parts, but the DnD combat system lacks the flexibility to simulate this.

Additionally, granting AoOs is incredibly powerful. How about a monk carrying around a longstaff just to get AoOs from almost anyone attacking him just to trip or disarm them? Or how about the guy with the greatsword who has all the nifty feats relating to AoOs granting him special attacks and bonus damage? Perhaps an alternative mechanic would be more appropriate, perhaps granting the difference of the combatants' weapons' size modifiers to each as a circumstance modifier on their respective attack rolls: combatant A with heavy mace (size 3) vs combatant B with dagger (size 1) == A gets a (3-1)=+2 bonus on attack rolls against B, while B suffers a (1-3)=-2 penalty on attack rolls against A.

If you really wanted a system that explores this aspect of weapon combat, you'd have to do much more than a simple weapon size thing. I'd probably go with something like this:

* Each weapon has a weapon speed rating used in normal combat. The speed rating is used to determine the penalty of iterative attacks. This was used in the EQ1 d20 system and worked out pretty well. For example, with a BAB of +10 and a very fast weapon (dagger, speed 3) you could get 4 attacks (+10/+7/+4/+1) while with a slow weapon (greatsword, speed 6) you would only get two attacks (+10/+4).

* Each weapon has a weapon size rating used for readied actions and AoOs. The size rating is applied as a circumstance bonus to all attacks made as readied actions or AoOs. Further, if the available space for the character at any time was less than the weapon size, all attacks would incur a -5 circumstance penalty. For example, a character with a large weapon (greatsword, size 7) was fighting in a 5ft wide corridor would suffer the penalty, while a character with a medium weapon (shortsword, size 5) would not - if the fight was happening in a 3ft wide corridor, the longsword would also incur the penalty but someone fighting with a small weapon (dagger, size 2) would not.

[Stargate525]

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Earthdawn did that too, and it worked quite well. In fact, DnD is one of the few systems I know that applies Strength to the attack roll, too.

Wasn't saying it was, it just makes dex very, very powerful.

[Cheomesh]

The attack roll was my original approach.  Dropped it because I was leaning towards the AoO approach.

How about making these "interrupt" attacks an option to:
*Strike with a single melee attack (At a reduced attack bonus, perhaps?)
*Flee, or otherwise move away
*Disarm
*Trip with a trip weapon, but not a non-trip weapon

Realistically, if you are proficient with a weapon and know what you're doing with it, it doesn't take more than a second to "get it in place".  Weapon speed is, IMO, the wrong direction.

M.

[Stargate525]

Perhaps a bonus to AC?