PDA

View Full Version : Simple vs. Simple weapons



Tetsubo 57
2009-08-05, 11:35 AM
I've been reading the Star Wars SAGA book Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide. I'm up to the equipment chapter. It lists short swords and double swords as simple weapons. Where they are martial and exotic respectively in D&D. Now, I realize that SW has energy blasters and light sabers. So non-powered melee weapons need some sort of balance. But D&D has magic spells and class abilities that easily emulate energy blasters and magic items that can emulate light sabers.

So, why aren't non-powered melee weapons and ranged weapons all considered simple in D&D? I don't think the percentage of people engaging in martial activities is much different between the SW universe and D&D. Most people are going to be commoners regardless of which world you are in.

Any thoughts?

Siosilvar
2009-08-05, 11:50 AM
It's both game balance and the technology level.

"Simple" is subjective. If you're the typical D&D commoner/noble/whatever, a double-bladed sword is exotic simply because it is, circular logic notwithstanding. You're basically never going to see one unless you go to where they make them. The same applies for shortswords, but lesser. You're probably never going to get your hands on one.

In Star Wars, a double-bladed sword is simpler to use than a lightsaber, and probably easier to find, even, as typically only Jedi use lightsabers. But (especially in KotOR), double-bladed swords and swords of all types are fairly common. For later eras, vibroblades are fairly common.


Disclaimer: I have no experience with Saga.

AstralFire
2009-08-05, 11:54 AM
It's pretty much just for balance. There's no logical reason that a vibroblade is significantly harder to learn how to use than a normal weapon; it's not presented that way in the books, you use it exactly how you'd use a sword.