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