Implements of Destruction, part the second

Continuing the overview of my strange brew of weaponry lists from last post.

As explained previously, this is a continuous work-in-progress, keeping all of the existing weapon properties (revised where deemed necessary) and adding two handfuls of new ones. In a nutshell: I wanted the different weapons to have more than just stylistic/price/poundage differences. Could be that I’m obsessing too much over if a piece of iron on a length of chain causes that much more grief than one that’s stoutly affixed on the top of a pole.

I’m departing from the boxed game and previous editions, where the use of different weapon types usually became more fleshed out through the acquisition of feats, focuses, specializations, masteries and whatnot, turning it all ever more into the “singular weapon type use funnel” that I want to avoid. I do like the streamlining that 5E applied in this area in general (as opposed to, say, Conan d20), and want instead for the different weapons to have different applications in combat.

Looking at the properties from the last post even now, I realize that the descriptions are weighed down by notations relating to Charging, Parrying and Inventory use. I could have cleaned it up a bit for presentation, but this is the version the players will have in front of them come the first session. Any and all of these rules can be dropped like a depth charge later if their purpose isn’t adding to good gameplay and this goes double for the weapon properties themselves.

Now, the weapon list, while far from completist (lots of non-listed weapons can and should be treated as functionally “equivalent to weapon x”) takes the previously laid properties and passes them through the cocktail mixer, divvying them up along the entries so that some weapons find a new lease on life as exotic amalgamations of the primary properties coupled with a lower damage die.

The properties as they are allow for still a lot more mix-and-match, with lots of design space for growth, useful when conceiving weaponry used by other in-setting cultures or of a magic nature.

They *look* balanced from where I’m standing, though I doubt they’ll survive contact with some class features; we’ll get there when we get there. Other than that, I can’t really stretch my appreciation too much without proper playtest.

They also look intuitive to me, though that also is for the players to ultimately judge. Some entries (the ranged ones in particular) can get downright crowded with properties.

I tried to hew close to 5E’s weapon building logic, by which simple weapons are a d6 +/- positive and negative properties and martial are the same but with a d10 working basis. I made allowances for “weak valued” properties, such as Versatile, whereas Loading acquired a double-negative value.

Specials for Whip and Trident came from the OSR collective consciousness, Crossbows requiring a cranequin (costing a whole ‘nother item slot) and Bows having a Strength requirement was all me.

  

Changes from the original tables highlighted in yellow; yes, that’s a lot of yellow. Also, if you think the formatting and layout looks plebeian, I assure you that that is only because it is.

Without

Ado

Further

Implements of Destruction, part the first

In this short series I’ll be looking at the weapon properties and, later, the armoury list for my homebrew campaign.

 

As a rule, I’ve found that DnD emphasizes the special powers you employ while holding any given weapon rather than the weapon itself. Speaking from the dreary pit of 5th Edition weapon choices, most every character has the work cut out preemptively: it’s a bare matter of gunning for the platonic solid with the greater number of faces and take it from there. If you can dual-wield with d8s you don’t spare the d6s a glance, if you can wield a two-handed d12 you can’t be bothered with the d10. It’s all very linear and dry: a handful of properties that just could not be avoided, a couple of cornercase special rules and that’s it; the weapon list is rife with duplication and redundance. I would comment on the damage types, which seem equally redundant, but I don’t really have enough system knowledge to dwell on the issue. On the whole it seems like 5th edition was shot while traversing no-man’s land between OD&D's simplicity and gamist complexity.

I decided for a bit more granularity, aiming – for simplicity is a virtue – for a measure of complexity just a step above the current one, wanting just enough of the thing to drive players to make interesting and meaningful decisions.

The design choice came about while deciding that encumbrance and equipment breakage would both be things I’d implement. It is much more interesting to decide what weapons you will carry when the room you’ve got available is limited, when you know different weapons will come into their own against different types of opponent and the threat of equipment integrity failure looms above you.

The widest reaching effect that I’m seeking to put into place is the classic design triad of “rock-paper-scissors”, between chosen weapon and target armour class or, to put it another way, a triad of properties directed at low AC, generalist and high AC targets. To wit, versus light-armoured opponents the character will be better off using fleshbiting weapons such as a battleaxe while, against heavily-armoured ones, concussive weaponry like the warhammer will be the answer. Rending is left as the all-rounder face of the triangle, generally in the shape of swords. All of these properties imply, in a more overt or indirect way, an overall increase in damage output. I opted for this approach due to 5th Edition’s monsters possessing ample reserves of hit-points. I don’t yet know for sure how it’ll all interact with PC levels of Hp, accounting for the dismemberment table. Pilgrimages to playtestland are sure to abound.

The tally comes at twenty weapon properties (to the boxed game’s twelve). I’d like to shave down a couple, but don’t feel like it is utterly necessary. I believe they’re intuitive enough that they can be handily explained and assimilated by players, turning the campaign’s armoury into a toolshed instead of a one-stop-shop.

Knowing that only a trained fighter should be able to fully exploit certain capabilities of the weaponry, properties marked with an asterisk(*) require proficiency with the weapon to be counted as active.

The list of weapon properties and respective rationale:

Ammunition

Expended for ranged attacks. Drawing ammunition from a quiver costs the round’s free action. Treat as improvised in melee (a sling must be loaded to deal damage).

Pared down the bloated reminder text from the PHB and added the free action limitation clause.

Chargebreaker*

Prepared attacks against charging foes roll the weapon's damage die twice.

Allows you to receive charges in advantageous conditions; my heartfelt thanks to Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

Concussive

Attacks that hit just the target’s base AC (natural plus DEX) cause the weapon’s minimum damage, with halved positive modifiers (round down).

A way to bypass even the heaviest armour through sheer blunt force trauma. I mulled over this one the longest but I’m really happy with it. Enables bludgeoning well-armoured targets through attrition.

Finesse

Uses your choice of Strength or Dexterity for the attack and damage rolls. Must use the same modifier for both rolls.

Unchanged from the book.

Fleshbiting*

If the unmodified attack roll exceeds target’s AC roll additional d4 damage or d6 if the weapon is two-handed.

Here’s where heavy blades come into their own as light troop killers. I deliberately associated the property with the unmodified roll (and thus independent of to-hit bonuses) so as to both make it easy on the math and to not have this be the lone weapon of choice for high-statted/levelled characters.

Heavy

Unsuitable for Small creatures. Costs an extra encumbrance point to carry.

As per the book, plus encumbrance notation reminder.

Lashing*

Bypasses shields and may not be parried. On a fumble, suffer weapon's damage die in addition to any other consequences.

Somewhere in the DIY blogs (Last Gasp?) I found this concept of flails ignoring shields, spawning this property. It’s agressive but with a downside, which goes a bit against the “always positive” flow of 5th edition design.

Light

Small and easy to handle, ideal for dual weapon use. May not parry heavy weapons, unless used in tandem.

Straigthforward. Just added a small parrying notation.

Loading

For every damage die that the weapon deals, a full round is required to reload between shots.

This effectively differentiates Crossbows from Bows (which now have a Strength minimum to be used).

Minor

Easy to conceal, usable in a clinch and may be carried three to a slot. May only parry light or finesse weapons.

A little thematic something for the Rogues. Differentiates daggers & family.

Rending*

You may reroll odd results on the damage dice, accepting the second roll.

Got this from Last Gasp. A sweet way to spice up Swords in opposition to Hammers & Axes, turning minor gaps into major wounds. Probably the most powerful of the trifecta, as it is useful against all opponents.

Range (y/z)

Numbers in parentheses express normal and maximum range. Shots beyond normal range made at disadvantage. No shots possible beyond maximum range.

No changes, as I’m satisfied with the “normal-long” range duality.

Reach (r)

Has longer effective reach than normal. Disadvantage against adjacent enemies, unless weapon’s staff is used.

Deliberately codified a disadvantage that could well just have been a ruling, like one would do with tight enclosed spaces. I did this to underline the necessity of a side-arm.

Shield [s]*

Grants bonus to AC of 1 or as equal to the Strength bonus, capped by the number in brackets, this number is also used to determine AC bonus vs. missile attacks.

Read this somewhere in the DIY gestalt. Great idea, engaging an additional stat other than DEX for defense and preventing shields from being such no-brainer choices in tandem with finesse weaponry (pretty much the golden standard of offence + defence for a DEX-maxed character). It also nicely forces the high strength character to choose between fully exploring a two-handed weapon or being more defense-oriented about his strength bonus.

Special

Has unusual rules governing its use, explained in the weapon’s description.

Don’t tell me you’re not excited?

Swift*

May trade reaction for an additional attack at Disadvantage as bonus action.

Mined this one out of the Monster Manual. Trades shock power for sheer viciousness and enables differentiation between mid-sized weapons.

Thrown

Throwable. If a melee weapon, use the same modifier for that attack damage rolls that you would use for a melee attack.

Unchanged.

Two-Handed

Requires two hands to use.

Gee, thanks, WotC!

Versatile

Can be used with one or two hands. Damage in parentheses for two-handed use.

Unchanged.

Improvised

Any weaponizable object you wield or throw. Deals 1d4 damage; if thrown has a fixed Range of (20/60).

146 words to say that you basically deal 1d4, have 20/60 range and don’t get proficiency bonus. The PHB’s paid-by-the-word editing should have run by the DIY’s hands, this’ like shearing wool off new zealander sheep.

Part the second to follow...

Backgrounded

Like I mentioned in the last post, I’m not keen on backstory as a differentiator of characters.

In the new school of 32-bit gameplay, players as storytelling vectors can find themselves sinking a hefty investment prior to the beginning of play through elaborately backstoried characters, complete with whole-cloth manifest destiny, leading themselves to logically entrench against the idea of said character losing face, power, life or limb; essentially immunizing themselves against the lose conditions so dear to sustain the game’s tension at the table, undermining its outright viability as a game from the ground floor.

So, let us not do that.

Character generation is important as part of setting the tone for the whole game that follows. I’ve already voiced the opinion that players should, to a degree, be surprised by what character they’re getting to play. The olden days, you very much played the character your rolls gave you, complete with minimum attribute totals for unlocking certain classes. Not to advocate such extremes, there ought to be a middle ground between wish-fulfillment and what you actually get.

I’m going to use a dry husk of a word here, one that’s been devalued harder than the zimbabwean dollar by the internet culture: awesome. You should never start out awesome. Awesomeness is an aspiration, what you set out to become. New school gaming cut out the middleman and traded the destination for the journey, granting nothing but the ashen flavour of that which was not fought for and therefore has no value. This follows as corollary of respecting the level structure that’s been in place since the game’s inception: you’re allowed no exercises in futurology, your character starts out as barely-exceptional at best and is only as good as his present resourcefulness will allow, with no guarantee of ever getting better should the player’s input and fortunes not be up to snuff.

Once the player is forced to come to grips with what fate has given him, rather than his meticulously chosen and already accomplished ideation, he will feel challenged. This feeling of challenge will form the bonds of a relationship that will have the player exhibit greater creativity in order to have his character jump hurdles, even if (or, rather, especially if) the character’s somehow impaired.

Thus this brings us back to character backstory.

Backstory reads to me as a shorthand for telling and not showing, i.e. the sworn mortal enemy of organic character development.

The principle that I wish to stress is that you can’t hope for characters to be created fully formed (or for players to care about characters with a tailor-made prior history). It must all come about through shared experiences during the running.

I do have known some players who esteemed their imaginary figments to a fierce extent, no matter how derivative their origin and design, others who never seemed to connect to their avatar, lending it as much substance as a videogame representation. I’m not concerned with either of these oddities.

What concerns a durable campaign are players who etch characters without paying service to the two important drivers of character behaviour: endless ambition and an unreasonable gregariousness, the two things that ensure cohesion within a group, no matter how outlandish, dangerous and at-cross-purposes their set bearings happen to be.

"I'm sorry, fellow party member, my backstory/alignment dictates that I simply must do this!"

As long as you respect the conditions set above, it doesn’t really matter where you come from, who or what you are, for all that a functional campaign requires is that you stick by each other and have a neverending drive for conquest and acquisition with a minimum of in-fighting. These are the only two things of substance and neither come about through backstory. All the factoids that might have some bearing on the game’s play (geographical origin, languages spoken, any special skills or feats)  should be summed up in a single line of background, tidily and without any bells or whistles.

For all of the rest, backstory is just a venue for frontloading verbose answers to questions that haven’t been asked and to constrict organic character development as well as providing an entry barrier to new players and new characters alike – for once this or that character dies, it is of course expected that his replacement should have a proper backstory too, isn’t that right?