Signature characteristics of different weapons

[yougi]

In old school D&D (and many other RPGs), you had to put skill points into your weapon proficiencies in order to use them. Many gave you numerical bonuses when you put many points into a single proficiency.

I want to build a similar system for a d20 game for which I'm entirely rebuilding the weapon system, but I want each weapon-type to have a different mid-level and high-level perk, something related to their characteristics. However, I guess I don't know medieval weaponry all that well!

Here's what I got so far, but nothing's set in stone:

- Sword: Higher crit range; 1/day, make two sword attacks with a single action.

- Axe: Bonus to damage: 1/day, make an attack on all adjacent creatures, but take AC penalty

- Archery: Fire more arrows/round; bonus to damage

- "Duelist weapons" (Rapier, main-gauche): Bonus to AC; Feint before attack (can make opponent flat footed)

- Polearms (Spears, halberds): Can attack adjacent squares; Always set vs charge

- Maces & Hammers: Chances to daze opponent; 1/day, knockback

- Staff: Bonus to AC/Reach, __________

- Dagger/Knife: ________, Bleed/Sneak Attack

- Thrown weapons: ____________, ____________

Comments, ideas? Any weapon type I'm missing that you'd go "What? X doesn't exist anymore?"

[qwertyu63]

You've forgotten the simple dagger. Other then that I think you're fine.

[Deathkeeper]

You also forgot close-range weapons like the cestus, gauntlet, punch-dagger, and maybe shield bash.

[yougi]

Good point. Any idea on what they could do, ability wise?

[Deathkeeper]

Bleed for daggers, maybe a free bullrush for Close?

[Arkhosia]

Maybe a dagger could get a 1/day bonus of accuracy: +3 to hit opponent.
After all, to take someone down with a dagger, you would need to strike key areas to cause a significant wound.
Sure, a sword can sever a arm, but the main danger of a dagger to the shoulder is death by infection or a severed blood vessel, and you have healing clerics.

[ZeroGear]

I would say free bull rush/trip attempt for shield bashes and club weapons, free disarm attempts for chain weapons (spiked chain, flail).

Personally, I would do focusses in weapon categories rather than single weapons as it saves time and gives players a slightly larger range of options.

Also, if your system features guns (ala pathfinder style), I would suggest larger range increment/piercing shot at a penalty.

[Ozfer]

I would recommend that you don't penalize axe-wielders for using their abilities, as none of the other weapons are penalized.

[Barsoom]

The dagger's only advantage is that it's small and easily hidden. I find it very difficult to envision a dagger-wielder having any actual advantage over the sword wielder - but the sword wielder might have his weapon confiscated by the guards, while the dagger will slip through.

The bow doesn't really need any advantages beyond the simple fact that you can attack outside of melee range. "I can hurt you while you can't hurt me" is quite sufficient.

[Stormageddon]

Daggers where also good for taking out people in heavy armor by slipping them in through weak points in the armor EI eye slits, arm pits ect... ect...

[Malak'ai]

I would recommend that you don't penalize axe-wielders for using their abilities, as none of the other weapons are penalized.

Axes and other unbalanced weapons (warhammers, maces etc) take more effort and time (even if it just a matter of a couple of heartbeats) to get back to a "readied" position after a powerful swing than a sword does. I think this is what the OP is trying to imitate with the AC penalty.

If you do give a minus to AC, mitigate it by Str, Dex and skill, because it is true that some warriors were able to wield axes (and maces, hammers etc) almost as quickly as those using heavier bladed swords.

[Brother Oni]

Perhaps staves could gain Reach, to represent their range bonus over non-polearm weapons, but still be able to attack adjacent enemies?

[Xuc Xac]

Axes and other unbalanced weapons (warhammers, maces etc) take more effort and time (even if it just a matter of a couple of heartbeats) to get back to a "readied" position after a powerful swing than a sword does. I think this is what the OP is trying to imitate with the AC penalty.

If that were true, people wouldn't have used them. Battle axes and war hammers were light and fast weapons. They were nothing at all like wood axes or sledge hammers. Real battle axes had bits (the "blade" part) about the size of the palm of your hand and as thick as a sharp kitchen knife. It was much faster than a wood axe because it was used to fight people. Unlike trees, people dodge and hit back. And the head of a warhammer was about the size of your thumb. Large, heavy, slow weapons were only used in desperation when a real weapon was unavailable (for example, archers forced into melee might grab a nearby mallet, but no one planning to go into melee would equip himself with a mallet if he can get a real warhammer or even a good club).

[Malak'ai]

If that were true, people wouldn't have used them. Battle axes and war hammers were light and fast weapons. They were nothing at all like wood axes or sledge hammers. Real battle axes had bits (the "blade" part) about the size of the palm of your hand and as thick as a sharp kitchen knife. It was much faster than a wood axe because it was used to fight people. Unlike trees, people dodge and hit back. And the head of a warhammer was about the size of your thumb. Large, heavy, slow weapons were only used in desperation when a real weapon was unavailable (for example, archers forced into melee might grab a nearby mallet, but no one planning to go into melee would equip himself with a mallet if he can get a real warhammer or even a good club).

The key part of the sentence was "after a powerful swing".

I know proper, real world battle axes and warhammers are far smaller than their fantasy counterparts, but they are still unbalanced weapons.
Quick, sharp attacks wouldn't be much different in effort than those made with a sword.

Now, I'm no expert, but for a crude example, take your basic ball or claw hammer, hold it in two hands and then swing it as hard as you can and see how quickly you can readjust back into a "ready" position. That's the sort of thing I was talking about. It wouldn't be much slower, but even that split second could mean a sword in your ribs/back or blocking the strike.

[Ashtagon]

I'm inclined to agree with the AC penalty for axes as a specific feature due to their being unbalanced. yes, they aren't anything like as unbalanced as a wood chopping axe, but they still aren't in the same league as a sword for being balanced. GURPS reflects this with the "Unbalanced" tag on certain weapons. And GURPS is about as grounded in research and realism as popular RPGs get, so I'm going to follow their lead.

[SinsI]

I'd give a bonus to AC to all finese weapons that are used in duelling - against those weapons only.

[Ossian]

For the dagger, I can easily think of how much damage you can do due to its being light and small (so, difficult to block in a sense...).

I would grant an extra +1d6 to damage on a surprise round or on a won initiative round, to anyone including non rogues (and better still if rogues).

A dagger might not take out badass seasoned warriors in chain mail, but for most people, a 1d4+1d+6+STR+enchantment (if any) is plenty to go kick the bucket, if you think that a commoner has 1d4 HP and even a warrior has just 1d8

[yougi]

Bleed for daggers, maybe a free bullrush for Close?

That's an idea.

Maybe a dagger could get a 1/day bonus of accuracy: +3 to hit opponent.
After all, to take someone down with a dagger, you would need to strike key areas to cause a significant wound.
Sure, a sword can sever a arm, but the main danger of a dagger to the shoulder is death by infection or a severed blood vessel, and you have healing clerics.

Hmmmm, I'm not too sure I like the accuracy bonus idea. But your last point kind of reinforces the bleed idea.

I would say free bull rush/trip attempt for shield bashes and club weapons, free disarm attempts for chain weapons (spiked chain, flail).

Personally, I would do focuses in weapon categories rather than single weapons as it saves time and gives players a slightly larger range of options.

Also, if your system features guns (ala pathfinder style), I would suggest larger range increment/piercing shot at a penalty.

Yes, I'm trying to focus on weapon classes rather than single weapons, but then I'm at a loss with what to do, for example, with staff and dagger (hence why they are on their own), and thrown weapons (are javelin throwing skills really transferable to axe throwing?).

Axes and other unbalanced weapons (warhammers, maces etc) take more effort and time (even if it just a matter of a couple of heartbeats) to get back to a "readied" position after a powerful swing than a sword does. I think this is what the OP is trying to imitate with the AC penalty.

If you do give a minus to AC, mitigate it by Str, Dex and skill, because it is true that some warriors were able to wield axes (and maces, hammers etc) almost as quickly as those using heavier bladed swords.

That's right. I mean, I'm not saying that axe wielders always would get an AC penalty, but I'm saying that those highly trained axe fighters can, if they're surrounded, try this technique that allows them to attack everyone around, but leaves their defense lacking. It's just an extra option.

Perhaps staves could gain Reach, to represent their range bonus over non-polearm weapons, but still be able to attack adjacent enemies?

Hmmmmm... Could be an idea.

I'd give a bonus to AC to all finese weapons that are used in duelling - against those weapons only.

Hmmm, that would make them rather useless... Their main advantage is to have an AC bonus against people who also have an AC bonus against you. That's not a very cool feature for masters of the craft...

For the dagger, I can easily think of how much damage you can do due to its being light and small (so, difficult to block in a sense...).

I would grant an extra +1d6 to damage on a surprise round or on a won initiative round, to anyone including non rogues (and better still if rogues).

A dagger might not take out badass seasoned warriors in chain mail, but for most people, a 1d4+1d+6+STR+enchantment (if any) is plenty to go kick the bucket, if you think that a commoner has 1d4 HP and even a warrior has just 1d8

Hmmmm, also an idea.

[Spiryt]

The dagger's only advantage is that it's small and easily hidden. I find it very difficult to envision a dagger-wielder having any actual advantage over the sword wielder

This one is actually obvious enough - grapple range, or any closer range in general.