I have been working on a home brew class list template system.
When approaching the fighter, or Weapon Specialist, I had trouble narrowing down the number of different weapon styles.
Call them "weapon proficiencies" if you like.
My question is this:
If reducing the number of different types of weapons in a fantasy setting (largely without guns) what 7-8 difference kinds of weapons should there be?
Well, let's look at it in simple terms and see if it needs any expansion- Blades, Bludgeons, Two Handers, Spears, Ranged are five very broad categories. You could split Blades into Light and Heavy, Ranged into Thrown and Bows/Crossbows... That leaves you with a decent set of seven, all with distinct identities you can give mechanical weight?
As far as melee weapons:
>Slashing, Bludgeoning, Piercing
and
>One handed, 2 handed, Throwing, Reach
Should cover everything as far as useful weapon properties. Everything else is pretty much fluff.
Sorry, Polearms, not Spears. Mixed up terminology in my head while trying to keep the basic types broad.
Think about what effect you want weapons to have, and what effects you want weapon master to have access to, then group them up as such.
>>Slashing, Bludgeoning, Piercing
>and
>>One handed, 2 handed, Throwing, Reach
This is a great breakdown, but when you can cross the top list with the bottom: one handed slashing or two handed bludgeoning
It leads to more than 8 combinations.
>Light Blades, Heavy Blades, Bludgeons, Two Handers, Polearms, Thrown, Bows/Crossbows
Would Two-Handers covering blades and bludgeons fit with fighting style?
Where would a quarterstaff be?
Can we think of any weapons this doesn't cover?
>Think about what effect you want weapons to have, and what effects you want weapon master to have access to, then group them up as such.
This sounds like a sensible approach.
Are there effects (aside from elemental) not listed above that could be used?
Quarterstaff would fit in polearms, as general reach wepaons, while two handers covers both bladed and blunt varieties. This isn't super detailed/accurate, but it captures the general ideas of how the weapons are used, the basic movements and effects they can create in a way that's mechanically useful.
Whips, maybe? They don't seem to fall in any category. As well as various weird/exotic weapons. Then again, you could just have an 'exotic' category for miscellaneous stuff, like the one guy who wants to wield a fucking Urumi.
I'd copy Strike! personally, so it'd be something like this
Shields:
>A good defense is a good offense!
Passive: While using a shield, improve defense.
Attack: If you bash someone with a shield, improve your defense against him more.
Light blades:
>Float like a butterfly, sting like a motherfucker
Passive: Improve mobility
Attack: If you hit, dance around your opponent for free
Heavy Blades:
>Good for chopping off multiple heads at once!
Passive: Enemies ending their turn adjacent to you take X damage
Attack: A second enemy adjacent to you takes Y damage
Sickles/Scythes/Hooks:
>Edgy weapons that leave nasty wounds
Passive: Enemies that try to get away from you take X damage
Active: Enemies hit by you start bleeding and take Y damage / turn
Unarmed/Gauntlets:
>Your hand won't stay empty for long
Passive: While you have an enemy grabbed, improve defense.
Active: After an attack, you also grab enemies.
Flails:
>Stunningly intimidating
Passive: Adjacent enemies pay more attention to you
Active: If you hit, target is also dazed
Polearms
>Keep your enemies at arms length
Passive: reach +1
Active: If you hit, move the target
Some good effects.
>just have an 'exotic' category for miscellaneous stuff
I think that's hard to avoid, but it would be an exception to the rule.
Like improvised weapons for the player who wants to be Jackie Chan.
It's a little different, but Legends of the Wulin has a number of different abstract weapon tags, all with different stat modifiers and passive abilities that you can combine together to represent most things.
The list it uses is- Flexible, Massive, Paired, Ranged, Saber, Staff, Spear, Sword and Unarmed.
'Saber' basically covering any heavy, chopping blade.
Actually the problem is your approach. For example, a sabre and a grosse Messer are both very similar, but have different fighting styles entirely. So despite having the same form, weapons have different styles based on the period and location of their use.
If you don't care about those cases, my picks from a historical perspective would be:
1. Curved 1hand blades
2. Straight 1hand blades
3. Straight 2hand blades
4. Horse blades
5. Multi tool poles
6. Arcing 1hand bludgeoned
7. Personal/horse bows
8. Battle bows
Examples of each:
1. Kilij, falchion
2. Arming sword, rapier
3. Longsword
4. Tachi
5. Halberd, bardiche
6. Morning star, flanged mace, club
7. Recurve bow
8. Yumi bow
Bear in mind this list is extremely general, grouping only the most like objects. For example while there's a world of difference between rapier and an Oakeshott XII, they both basically cut and thrust. Personal and horse bows can be fired with extreme agility and acrobatics as well as an array of grip styles, but the longbow is pretty much only capable of delivering a barrage at very far ranges
>Flexible, Massive, Paired, Ranged, Saber, Staff, Spear, Sword and Unarmed
Where would a mace fall on this list.
Massive?
Massive, yeah. That covers general blunt instruments and is combined with other tags to create particularly large or brutal weapons. A fuckoff great axe might be Massive/Saber, for example.
>Actually the problem is your approach.
>Despite having the same form, weapons have different styles based on the period and location of their use
I completely agree, but I wanted to reduce the possible number of weapon types before applying fighting style, or it just gets exponentially more complicated.
I suppose crossbow would fit with personal bow.
Why do you feel that the horse blade deserves its own type?
>A fuckoff great axe might be Massive/Saber
That's another approach I hadn't consider.
A pc skilled in Saber could wield a fuckoff great axe, but if also skilled in Massive they could wield the axe that much better and wield a Mace too.
I may have to rethink this position:
>This is a great breakdown, but when you can cross the top list with the bottom: one handed slashing or two handed bludgeoning, it leads to more than 8 combinations.
Maces (also axes and other heavy warfare)
Swords (can parry blows, can be used with dex)
Reach (both light spears and whips, even throwing knives. Whatever a circus guy would use)
Brawl (fists and very small weapons. Nunchucks and daggers apply)
Bows (also slings)
Guns (also crossbows)
Whatever other, use your imagination but MUST FIT this table. In case of doubt, let the player decide.
>Slashing, Bludgeoning, Piercing
Is your system going to go into armors with different resistances to these?
No? Then entirely meaningless. Everything you put in your system should have a reason to be there.
Yes? Then it's probably a shitty overcomplicated "simulationist" system, but go ahead I guess. May as well add another axis "color" in case you fight Green Lantern, and "Metal/wood" in case you encounter Magneto or ... classic Green Lanter
It's probably better to cut the mechanical part of weapon proficiencies (unless your game is explicitly about that). Such a system often does nothing but pigeonhole the fighter even further.
Keep weapon gimmicks and let players purchase combat tricks for weapons AND improvise to use them with different weapons. Having 9000+ weapon skills is redundant and harmful from mechanical point of view.
>probably a shitty overcomplicated "simulationist" system
More or less.
Kinda why I'm trying to streamline it.
>"Metal/wood" in case you encounter Magneto or ... classic Green Lantern
Actually, I do.
I have a ten element system, but its more related to setting fluff than system crunch.
Everything dependent on elemental powers is old news and therefore relegated to history.
I take it you will not be RSVP-ing to join my game?
>It's probably better to cut the mechanical part of weapon proficiencies (unless your game is explicitly about that).
It isn't really.
>Such a system often does nothing but pigeonhole the fighter even further.
Really?
I suppose it could be seen as limiting, especially in systems where you are penalized for wielding the wrong weapon.
The idea here is getting a bonus for using your weapon of choice.
And by removing all variety and customization from the "fighter", aren't you actively discouraging interest in it?
>Keep weapon gimmicks and let players purchase combat tricks for weapons AND improvise to use them with different weapons.
It's a matter of letting a swordsman be good at fighting with a mace, but awesome with a sword.
>Having 9000+ weapon skills is redundant and harmful from mechanical point of view.
I agree!
I want limit and reduce as much as possible, but having a character who's thing is "expertly wielding and throwing knives" be equally good at using a polearm doesn't make sense, renders the character specialization useless, and reduces every "fighter" to "generic weapon guy".
Am I wrong?
Thanks for the advice, anons.
I just wish improvised weapons weren't complete garbage in like every RPG.
Well, an improvised weapon is never going to match a well designed weapon for delivering damage, but I could easily see it being as effective when used defensively.
Slower damage scaling than most weapons. Gets accuracy bonuses from being unexpected, but no damage bonuses for things like backstabs.
Depending on the improvised weapon, gain ONE attribute from the following: Stun(dense objects), Thrown, Reach(ladder).
Further mastery improves those attributes beyond what you normally see in weapons, like how ladders are longer than most polearms.
Blade
Bludgeon
Polearm
Arc(sharp trajectories)
Shot(mostly straight trajectories)
Improvised
Grab(unarmed, capturing tools, hooks)
Scratch(whips, jagged, beasts)
>And by removing all variety and customization from the "fighter", aren't you actively discouraging interest in it?
I'm not advocating for removal of customization, i just don't feel like pigeonholing fighter into a certain weapon is a good thing to do.
If you have to do it, make these specialization cost no [character creation resource], with additional weapons. The much better way to customize a fighter is to give him a larger set of skills he can work with and maneuvers that do not boil down to "i hit it with my sword".
I assume it's because they're fairly large weapons with unusually small range of attack, owing to the sheer force and speed given by the horse charge.
>owing to the sheer force and speed given by the horse charge.
I already opted to not include class templates with mount features.
The game does not have a focus on transport battles and having a class feature tied up with a mount you can't bring with you most of the time is poor design.
i liked how AD&D 2e did it.
they had everythign broken down and you took a weapon proficiency in a given weapon type (hammers, daggers, staffs, short sword, mace, club, sling, longsword, bastard sword, darts, ect.) similar weapons to your weapons you knew where easier to pick up and use if you had no training with it.
then they had weapon styles, (single weapon, weapon and shield, two handed, & 2 weapon)
>single weapon, weapon and shield, two handed, & 2 weapon
Add thrown, short ranged, long ranged and that could work too.
This is going to require more purposeful thought and decision-making than I was expecting.
Neat.