Weapons

Thats a pretty good way of doing it, combine player customisation with mechanical complexity

I would love to have a system where each weapon has a different effect and unique play style. However, on the condition that
A) this system allows players to add any weird, rule-of-cool, custom weapon they want without having to worry about mechanical downsides.
B) this system doesn't get in the way of players easily understanding the game and us actually PLAYING.

So yeah, until this utopian system has been designed, I'll stick with the second option. I like my roleplaying games to be about playing a role, mostly through creative storytelling. And broad mechanical categories work best for such games. But I'd be happy to see new and different approaches.

Legend. Sure, there's example equipment to give you an idea of what you're looking at, but in the end you're constructing your weapons out of a list of weapon properties.

Pic related

I like broad weapon categories that are mechanically unique, and then have the specific weapons fall into one or more.

That is, if weapons/equipment are important enough to have unique stats to begin with. The person using the weapon is usually more important than the weapon itself, unless the weapon itself is unique (in which case it's fine to just have rules for that one weapon instead of 20 different type of pointy metal bits).

What I like in how weapons are handles in many PbtA games and applies to that too, that the differences are simple and clear.
This penetrates better, this is big and does lots of damage, this is small and easily concealable.
Everything has it's use and it's easy to see what it is.

I like a hybrid system, like Legends of the Wulin uses.

The system has a set of default weapon tags, each of which can be used to describe a broad spectrum of weapons and fighting styles- Flexible, Massive, Paired, Ranged, Saber, Staff, Spear, Sword, Unarmed.

However, the clever thing is that you can combine up to two of these tags into a Special Weapon, getting all the bonuses and using it to represent the various weird an interesting martial arts weapons that turn up in Wuxia fiction. Or simple things like Massive/Saber being a great fuckoff axe.

The point of massive weapons list was always to give the fighter something special he could do, but surprise like everything else fighters do it's only useful in a megadungeon. On the other hand, players are dumb and quick references are nice. So in the end I like tables that quickly reveal the advantage/disadvantage calculus they're built from combined with an acceptance of refluffing.

I just have weapons inflict different damage types: slashing, crushing -and piercing damage.

Sharp, serrated weapons, like sabres, scimitars etc. cause a lot of slashing damage, but nothing else. Blunt weapons, like clubs or hammers cause crushing damage but nothing else.
Projectiles, like arrows, bolts etc. and spears cause piercing damage but little to no slashing damage. Most weapons, such as swords and axes, deal a combination of slashing -and crushing damage and some weapons, like halberds or poleaxes cause all three type.

Slashing damage causes bleeding and is thus effective against unarmoured or lightly armoured targets. Crushing damage negates armour and is good against heavily armoured targets. Piercing damage has a critical hit multiplier that makes most succesful hits instantly lethal, ie. getting a bolt to your uncovered forehead usually means instant death unless something goes seriously wrong.

(this pear enough for you OP?)

Problem with that is, that player can end up in situation where they are complitely useless. Unless they carry with them one of each type of weapon in which case whole system becomes moot.

I prefer different mechanics for weapons, but different mechanics for weapons necessitates different mechanics for armor in order to have meaning. A sword doing piercing damage has zero value if there is not an armor type that is either resistant or weak to piercing damage. Doing this kind of thing necessarily increases crunch, but not in a bad way I think.

A good for instance: I see a lot of complaints about how 5e combat is very deadly early on for both sides of the equation, but I also see a lot of players and DMs ignoring damage and armor types wholesale. I've personally noticed that ensuring we take account of those things, and building my encounters accordingly, makes 5e combat a bit more manageable in pre-5th level territory.

A way to control that is to tie all of your weapon stats to character stats (think Arms warrior back before 3.2 WoW, wherein talents gave swords better critical ratings, maces better arpen, and axes a flat damage boost), but removes a dimension of flexibility in enemy/monster design. When you tie all of the stats to the character, you start to get enemies that are only topically different.

You have to the mechanical weight you want the system to have when you decide things like this, and how much interactivity you want between all components of your game.

It should be like every game and the 3 weapons you listed should have 3 separate damage types, but against a vanilla target they should all do about the same damage on average.

how is this even worth discussing?

>player can end up in situation where they are complitely useless

That's the point. That's real life.

>Unless they carry with them one of each type of weapon in which case whole system becomes moot
>becomes moot

whaddaya mean?

>Do you like weapons in your system to all be unique and have different effects
Absolutely. Besides being pure gamist fun, it accentuates the characters by showing how they interact with the tools they are given or what tools they pick to begin with. I'm personally a sucker for swordsmen with a couple throwing knives on their belt.

The

>player can end up in situation where they are complitely useless.
Only if the person playing the character is also completely useless.
For a decent player a situation like this opens up the possibility to change up their game play.
>brought a slashing weapon to a fight against enemies that are slash resistant.
Whelp time to sneak around them or see if you can use the environment to take them down. You are only as helpless/useless as you allow yourself to be.

Mood

Side question to OP, but it's weapons related and I'm not making a seperate thread for this shit.

If I wanted to make a warlord, blademaster style character with a sword for every opponent, what would be the bare minimum he should have?
So far I'm thinking rapier, saber and maybe zweihander or some greatsword for the least number of swords to have an appropriate answer. Admittedly I'd prefer to have a pike or halberd as an anti-cavalry and anti-monster pick than rely on the hollywood 'zweihander beats cavalry' myth but the idea behind the character is a sword master, not a master of all weapons.

China did what they considered as anti-cavalry sabers ranging from around three-hand to eight-hand, peaking in use during the Song dynasty. Obviously the higher end of grip length would be considered by western standards as a short glaive, but on the flip side the shorter size is extremely close in design to earlier Japanese sabers.

Seven or eight is a pretty iconic number of swords for various reasons in various regions, so i'd be inclined to end up with:
Zweihander - vs. light infantry
Zhanmadao - shorter grip side, used both as itself unmounted vs. cavalry and as a tachi when mounted
Arming sword - Sidearm, sword-and-board vs. ranged
Cutlass - Cramped interior or forest environments, significant use to set up attacks via clearing or creating hazards
Rapier - Formalized dueling
Stiletto - Concealed sidearm, coup de grace
... and a shotel isn't particularly justifiable, but shotels need more love and the hooking motion gives him a shield wall cracker + opportunity for rule of cool hijinks.

I want things to either be real simple or autistically complicated.

So things are either small, average, or big and slashy, smashy, or stabby nad besides that you can fluff it as whatever makes sense.

Or every reasonable variation of a weapon having pros and cons without anything just flat out being better than everything else

There should be different damage types when it comes to weapons. Slashing, piercing, crushing etc. zombies should have resistance to slashing skeletons should be damn near immune to piercing shit like that can make melee as fun as magic

In my mind weapons are either one handed or two handed, melee or ranged. A greatsword, a warhammer, a pike, a rifle, and a magic staff might all differ in how they fight but they're all two handed weapons.

what a brainlet, probably never even played monster hunter which is why he has no idea how different those weapons are

I think DnD 5e had good idea about this - weapons itself are pretty much the same, but you can take feat to learn unique technique.

That way, weapon itself is boring (and simple mechanics-wise) but can became interesting in hand of character to show their skill.

Isn't the entire point of proficiency that you are skilled in said weapons? And especially in a system like 5e, feats are a high price to pay to be good at a thing your class is supposed to be good at to begin with

jesus fucking christ dem hips

is there more of her?

>Isn't the entire point of proficiency that you are skilled in said weapons?
Proficiency is not binary, it's a spectrum. I mean, it isn't in 5e, but it is in real life.

>price to pay to be good at a thing your class is supposed to be good at to begin with
That's why fighters get two bonus feats, huh.
Also, martials in 5e ARE pretty good in hitting things even without feats.

Anyway - OP is about uniqueness of weapons. I think most characters concept's are not tied with particular weapon, neither are most of DnD classes. Hence it doesn't really matter what kind of weapon are they using and no reason to differ them.
If your character concept is tied to particular weapon for some reason (i. e. dwarven noble wielding family axe or traveler from far country using exotic weaponry), you might pick these, but they should add flavor and options, not "+1 to hit, +2 to damage".

Also note i didn't praised 5e's execution of the idea, just idea itself. In my opinion most of 5e's weapons feat are broken or boring.

>tfw someone saved your shitty meme

>That's why fighters get two bonus feats, huh.
That they need to use to continue being good at hitting things and not dying. ABIs are a bitch and shouldve never been rolled into feats

Give em the Tiger Hook and like a Zhanmadao (lit. Horse cutting knife. Hilarious) which will cover just about anything the Tiger Hook can't. One of the techniques of double Tiger Hooks is hooking both swords to double your reach.

Depending on how much leeway you have, make a mechanical monster out of double Tiger Hooks and a scabbard that can form the core of a Zhanmadao. "One" sword to take care of nigh anything you'd want.

You already are skilled in said weapons. 5e's weapon feats are for specialization, not competency

>One of the techniques of double Tiger Hooks is hooking both swords to double your reach.
What?

youtube.com/watch?v=Fgxj-KGWL2U#t=1m

This is probably the best short video on Tiger Hooks. Lots of condensed and useful information.

youtube.com/watch?v=b62H8NZlAn0

>I like my roleplaying games to be about playing a role, mostly through creative storytellin
Ye-
>And broad mechanical categories work best for such games
Wait, what, no. Broad mechanical categories make it harder to properly roleplay, because mechanics are how you roleplay and the more your weapon is mechanically unique, the easier it is to make it a part of your character.
In real life there's various things you can do to compensate. Half swording, mordhau &c. It's not as good as using an actual pollaxe, but it doesn't seem represented by your system.

>Wait, what, no. Broad mechanical categories make it harder to properly roleplay, because mechanics are how you roleplay and the more your weapon is mechanically unique, the easier it is to make it a part of your character.

This is what simulationistfags honestly believe.

bump while I write a longer reply

So, I thought about this today at work for use in my own system/setting. I like the idea of weapons being mechanically different, but not so much that the crunch takes the players out of the immersion of combat (my system is fast paced).

How bout this, tell me what you think: So if you have a sniper rifle, and you are using it to kill a boss or enemies in general, you can just use an action/turn to shoot it. Might hit the target might not. BUT! If you take a turn to steady your breath and scope, "line up a shot", then your next turn is your actual shot, you get a +5 modifier to your roll, which, since the system uses d100, is in the sweet spot for sinking a critical hit. It wouldn't add damage, that number is always just your weapons dmg. You could maybe even take two turns to line up a shot for a total of +10 modifier to your roll, but I'm trying to come up with a penalty for trying to line up a shot with 3 turns, maybe its just not viable and you end up dropping the rifle but I'd like to add some risk to the mechanic.

Furthermore, I would love to be able to do something like that for each weapon type, but sniper rifle is all I thought of today. Thoughts?

Appears to be WoWs doing.

>I'd like to add some risk to the mechanic
Isn't the risk that the players turn was used to steady and interruption would make the shot fail, thus wasting an action? Since the character is currently focused on steadying, it leaves them vulnerable and increasingly less aware of their surroundings (growing penalty to any other action taken before the current one completes and maybe for a turn after?

Yes, I did think of this. But I kind of want it to be realistic as to how long a PC can hold up a sniper, maybe I should attach how long they can line up a shot with their strength core stat?

>but I'm trying to come up with a penalty for trying to line up a shot with 3 turns, maybe its just not viable and you end up dropping the rifle but I'd like to add some risk to the mechanic
How about just not giving any further bonuses while taking full turn of concentration to keep modifier from previous turns?

Simulationist best GNS classification.

That said, heavily narrativist games like Burning Wheel agree.

Cocks

Also, what did you mean by this:

>(growing penalty to any other action taken before the current one completes and maybe for a turn after?

>How about just not giving any further bonuses while taking full turn of concentration to keep modifier from previous turns?

So, no personal modifiers besides the aim concentration one while aiming? What about external ones, (I'm not sure my system has any yet, I'm just reviewing it again nowadays)?

i have different weapons do different attack styles that have advantages and disadvantages against certain armour or enemy type
>Mace is blunt, extra damage against heavier armour
etc

I have reached G4 rank twice in 3U and 4U. I actually played through Generations until the end game until I decided I didn't want to grind on Dreadking Rathalos for the rest of my life, and I've dabbled in most weapons. HH and Bow being two exceptions. My favorites are Hammer, HBG and IG. I've tried my damndest to like GL but I just can't get into it.

I would probably never try and make Monster Hunter as a tabletop, and would be wary of any system that claims to be such a thing because most of what makes Monster Hunter fun is how it plays as an action game. Video games do some things well, tabletop does other things well, and it's better that these two modes of gaming stick to their wheelhouse.

What I originally said is still ultimately true: weapons are either handled in one hand or two, and can be considered either melee or ranged, with certain weapons that can be handled by one or two hands changing class depending on how they're currently held. I consider it as good starting point to organize weapon system development as any. There's still enough design space to make weapons unique and exotic in this framework, although not to the extent a video game can. More importantly, there's space to allow the player to define their own style, even when certain groups of weapons handle similarly in the end.

I'd disagree. MH is about positioning and timing (as well as on-the-spot decision making re: those exact things), and these are all very well represented by tabletop RPGs.
>What I originally said is still ultimately true: weapons are either handled in one hand or two, and can be considered either melee or ranged, with certain weapons that can be handled by one or two hands changing class depending on how they're currently held
This is an absolutely useless way of looking at weapons. A rapier is handled COMPLETELY differently to an early medieval arming sword, and a pollaxe is handled completely differently to a zweihander, and a crossbow is completely different from a longbow.

Separating weapons into these categories is arbitrary. Yes, you can do it, if you want, but there's no REASON to. You may as well separate them into "poke, hack, bludgeon, shoot". In fact, that would be better.

Hopefully this is clearer:
-If the concentrated action is broken for a reaction, the reaction would suffer penalties.
-Actions taken after the completion of the concentrated action suffer penalties.

>I'd disagree. MH is about positioning and timing (as well as on-the-spot decision making re: those exact things), and these are all very well represented by tabletop RPGs.

Depends on the game. If you don't have a grid and are using theater of mind positioning is usually quite loose. And you don't do on-the-spot decision making in a turn based game. You absolutely need real time for that.

>Separating weapons into these categories is arbitrary.
how many weapons can you name that aren't melee or ranged?

stat blocks mostly depending on the size class of the weapon + having a tactical effect or enabling special actions depending on the type.

Yeah, so it wouldn't be an actual recreation of a videogame, but the basic conceit would work well.
>how many weapons can you name that aren't melee or ranged?
Huh? The point isn't that you can't separate weapons into these categories, it's that there's no reason to. You shouldn't develop separate rules based on each of these categories, because e.g. many one-handed weapons will be used wildly differently.

>You absolutely need real time for that
Not that guy, but simultaneous actions could get pretty close. And if you use some sort of action conveyor with tells, which could be learned by the players (not percentages), then you have encounter knowledge, which I'd argue is the last variable in the MH holy trinity.

the point would be to define all weapons at once and then fill out the individual properties as need be. Player A wants a big hammer, so that would be a TWO handed HEAVY MELEE weapon that does BASHING damage primarily. Player B wants a Rapier, which is a ONE handed weapon that does THRUST damage primarily. Player C wants to swing a rat around by the tail as a weapon. This would be a ONE handed weapon and so he could swing two rats at once, and as a MELEE weapon it is beholden to MELEE rules. If he wants to fling the rat that makes it a ONE handed RANGED weapon and is now beholden to RANGED rules. If he decides to TWO hand the rat it is now beholden to TWO handed rules.

I'd like them to be unique mechanically, but that causes a ton of headaches and can lead to rollplaying types trying to eke out as much damage out of their unique weapon as they can.
I mostly stick with refluffing, the weapons lie in their categories (dagger, shortsword,battleaxe) but can be anything that is similar to the original classification (Glass Shard, Baton, Large Pickaxe).
I do change the damage type if appropriate, since that's not a huge deal if your enemy types are varied.

I'm So, is the justification for this grouping that it is a known convention and easier for players to grasp? Would the categories each come with innate abilities or is it simply a weapon sorting scheme?

A pollaxe is two-handed and can slash and pierce and bludgeon. A longsword is two-handed and can slash and pierce and bludgeon. But they are two completely different weapons.

How many hands you use isn't even necessarily all that important. A rapier is one-handed, but to a large extent it may as well be two-handed -- you can pull some shenanigans with a parrying dagger, but it's nowhere near as impactful as carrying a tulwar and shield.

>Would the categories each come with innate abilities or is it simply a weapon sorting scheme?
It helps for me to sort weapons but yes the point is that there's rules for each tag, with possible "special" properties depending on the weapon. The rat might have a chance to poison on each hit for instance that might even be its own tag

A Poleaxe would have the THRUST, BASH and SLASH property as well as the LONG property, and the longsword would either have the MEDIUM property or it just wouldn't have the SMALL or LONG property. It would also need some property to allow it to be halfsworded to do full bludgeoning damage, maybe a a feat or some kind of class feature.

As an addendum Longsword would have the ONE handed and TWO handed property as well.

>maybe a a feat or some kind of class feature
Locking default options like this behind walls of feat economy or classes is simply idiotic. It's not personal criticism of you as much as it's of all the systems which do it.

Fair enough. How about:

REVERSIBLE - This weapon can be held from either end and has different damage tags depending on which end it is held on. See the weapon for the tags.

A longsword is usually a more specialized weapon anyway, so flipping it around just have it deal the damage of a club or crowbar, or a mace if you're feel generous. A proper warhammer would still be better sure, but there's no real reason why somebody can't gie up their extra hand to just change damage types

>This weapon can be held from either end and has different damage tags depending on which end it is held o
In this grip sword still has access to all its damage types. It can cut but badly, it can do blunt damage via mordhau, it can do piercing damage as better control of the blade at closer distance was it's primary function.

>Locking default options like this behind walls of feat economy or classes is simply idiotic
It is inherent to the weapon, but not the user. Maybe he and all those systems are trying to systematize the learning curve toward mastering a weapon? I don't approve of the text bloat which is inherent, this would be a fun problem to solve via crowdsourcing ideas.

>but not the user
The concept of grabbing the sword by the blade and using it in different manner isn't hard to grasp. It's not worth a feat or special class to do simple stuff like this.
>Maybe he and all those systems are trying to systematize the learning curve toward mastering a weapon?
They are doing it very poorly and in the process jump through so many hoops and layers of abstraction to appear simple. Systems which use skill progression for weapon mastery do it in less convoluted way (characters know lots of actions by default but fencers and swordsmasters perform them better due to their increased weapon skills) and the end result is less complex.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, so maybe you are simply further explaining your position, but I don't quite understand your point as I never advocated for the solutions you're critiquing.
For examining systems, I'll use the hilt bludgeon example. In the abstract, it is always an option, but in practice there are reasons it wouldn't occur to one wielder when it could another. Overconfidence, panic, competence, the systems goal determines this. In one it may be an easy to grasp concept, in anther system, it may not. Now, I sort of considered this paragraph redundant as I hoped to immediately delve into constructive ideas which avoid what plagues current systems. Could you define skill progression? That is too vague for me.

>Could you define skill progression?
Weapon mastery is treated as any other skill under the system. Characters invest their skill poins or exp or what else form of skill improvement system uses. If character doesn't invest in skills with weapon, he doesn't get better.

>I'll use the hilt bludgeon example. In the abstract, it is always an option, but in practice there are reasons it wouldn't occur to one wielder when it could another. Overconfidence, panic, competence, the systems goal determines this
Of course these reasons affect character's actions in combat but these reasons are outside feat economy I argued against.

>It would also need some property to allow it to be halfsworded to do full bludgeoning damage, maybe a a feat or some kind of class feature.

Actual snipers can stay motionless and monitor for up to days.

The opportunity cost of doing nothing but lining up a shot should be balance enough.

This is me I am not him

user, I recognize it.
>Maybe he and all those systems are trying to systematize the learning curve toward mastering a weapon?
> but I don't quite understand your point as I never advocated for the solutions you're critiquing.
As to your post I've already said that this way of systematizing the learning curve isn't good at all. Besides that I honestly don't understand what do you want to hear from me.

The gameplay appeal of MH is about reading animations and making predictions based on the immediate future, which just like Dark Souls, is very hard to mimic in tabletop. The best way I see it working is having continuous tick initiative where you declare actions before hand and they only resolve at the end (like a cast time). In addition you'd probably want a method to interrupt a declared action with something like a dodge with limits on exactly how soon you can interrupt (to mimic animation cancels). Its one thing to use a setting or theme from video games, but another to replicate the feel of a game. If a large part of the appeal is from the feel, it'll be difficult to properly represent the game without nailing the feel.

The first greentext isn't an endorsement, it is my interpretation of those systems goals.
I think you have been arguing against a contention I never held (I have stated I agree that those systems fall short) while I've been trying to leave the topic of feats and artificially gating abilities behind to discuss possible solutions to what plagues current systems. You did mention point schemes, but promptly returned to the topic of feats.
If I have misunderstood the purpose of those two greentexts, this exchange has grown loo laborious and may as well end here.

This is what I've done with a homebrew project. The rules also fit dnd with minimal changes.

I defined weapons by Handles and "Damaging parts" (the part you actually strike with). Melee handles come in Hilts and Hafts each with 1 handed and 2 handed versions. Damaging portions come in Small, Medium, and Large sizes and can deal Slashing, Piercing, and Bludgeoning damage. So, 1h hilt with a medium slashing blade is a longsword. A 1h hilt with a medium bludgeoning blade would be a club or baseball bat. A 2h haft with a slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning head would be a greataxe, longspear, and maul respectively.

Now each of these pieces has what I call a "complexity score" that determines the damage it deals, from 1d4-1d12. So when you combine everything together, you can not only recreate nigh every common medieval weapon, but you can also make it fit neatly into a DnD weapon table. Extras like crit multipliers or "enhances tripping" are separate things you can add as an additional component.

It's easy to conceive, but most ideas fail in practice. Have any examples?
X of Glory games are based around programmed movement and prediction of your opponents. The WoW miniatures game uses a universal clock to determine priority, but it quickly degenerated into winning comps exclusively focusing on gaming the clock.
What are you defining as feel? Mastery of a system, porting a set of mechanisms, copying an aesthetic?
So the abstraction is supplemented by the additional components to create each weapon. How are the components implemented and what are the limitations?

I like them to each have legitimate strengths and weaknesses.

For instance: axes hitting harder, spears being awkward outside combat but having reach advantage and hurting cavalry, swords being durable while more easily dealing alternate damage types, mauls and maces doing better against armor, daggers being concealable and great at hurting unaware/defenseless enemies, and so on.

>Unless they carry with them one of each type of weapon
Yes, that's the idea. Weapons are tools; if you don't know what the situation will demand, then you should be prepared for anything.

>Yes, that's the idea.
Seems good for an rpg since it is cooperative and every character should have a chance to shine, but awful for army or empire scale games.

No examples because I haven't seen any games that have really tried. I've seen plenty of people work homebrew who say it's supposed to be based on Monster Hunter or whatever else, but none actually try to capture the feel of the game.
>What are you defining as feel?
I guess in large part, the experience. Porting of mechanisms is a part of it, but doing nothing more than porting will fall short. It's more translation than transfer, because you still need to be mindful of the medium you're translating to. Because it's on my mind, Fire emblem heroes is a fantastic translation from console to mobile, which is markedly different than final fantasy 6's mobile port, or Roller Coaster Tycoon 4. The former was too literal while the latter wasn't good enough.

So when it comes to porting video game to tabletop, you need to be able to capture the mimic the original editor as best as possible while keeping in mind how the new format inherently functions. Just playing 5e in a Monster Hunter setting isn't good enough to say you have a Monster Hunter game, nor would playing a PbtA game with a Monster Hunter setting qualify either. Neither rule set adequately represents the total appeal of the Monster Hunter series from a mechanical standpoint. You would need a custom system that can recreate it translate the experience of Monster Hunter on tabletop. And in order to do that, you'd need to identify what exactly makes Monster Hunter compelling and engaging, which admittedly is a bit subjective.

I don't really know what the point of having separate weapons is if they're not different in some way, even if it's a small way.

If games are about interesting choices, then it's almost always better to have more pros and cons to any kind of choice than it is to have less. And if you're not going to have many real options in a particular category, you at the very least shouldn't highlight that by making a big table which has three meaningful options and then a bunch of completely pointless ones that suggest padding that section out or just being too lazy to do anything with it (I'm looking at you 5e).

T H I C C

Excuse me, but halfswording is grasping the blade for more precise piercing, typically used to stab at the joints in armor.

What you're probably referring to is the mordhau/mortshlag, where you grasp the blade with both hands and use the hilt as a bludgeon.

So, this?

You'll have to clarify on what you mean by implementing components. I don't quite know what kind of answer you're looking for.

As far as limitations, the most noticeable is essentially a martial stat. The higher your martial stat, the more attacks you can make and the more complex of weapons you can make. Higher complexity equals higher damage die or the option to dual wield, so its basically an exponential increase before leveling off towards the cap. Stats range from 0-20, with an extra attack being granted every 5 points, and weapon die size increase about every 4. In any case, maximum damage per round is effectively capped at 5d12 or equivalent (10d6, 5d8+5d4). So all in all, you could summarize my main limitations as bounded accuracy and opportunity cost.

+5 modifier on a d% is a terrible waste of action.

>As an addendum Longsword would have the ONE handed and TWO handed property as well.
Stop polluting serious threats with D&D crap. A longsword is a two-handed weapon.

This is how I handle it in my system. You go down the chart for the weapon type you select. If you pass up an ability, you can't go back and select it later. All sales are final.

>the longsword would either have the MEDIUM property or it just wouldn't have the SMALL or LONG property
That's not the main difference between the two.
>It would also need some property to allow it to be halfsworded to do full bludgeoning damage, maybe a a feat or some kind of class feature.
At this point, you're creating a whole new system so that the longsword can be used as it was used -- in a way appreciably different from the pollaxe. And that's exactly my point.

As I said before, your tags aren't impactful enough to justify their broadness. That is, a one-handed weapon can be similar to a two-handed weapon -- for example, an estoc is similar to a rapier.
That wasn't really a thing IIRC. People with longswords wouldn't be using their other hands for anything much anyway...

youtu.be/SqWVOY40oBw