3.X Weapon Size rework

[Blackhawk748]

So, Im working on an E6 style system and one of my goals is to make combat more... Simulationist? I suppose that's a fair description anyway and as such I've been looking to make each weapon stand on its own, instead of just having the giant pile of weapons that are basically useless like 3.5 and PF has.

Part of this is making sizes for them,and no not like it was in 3.0.

Weapon Size: Weapons come in four sizes, 1 contains the smallest weapons (Daggers, small Handaxes and Fists). 2 are all one handed weapons that are used as typical sidearms (Arming Swords and Battle-axes). 3 are two handed weapons that are as tall as the user or shorter (Greataxe, Spear or Bill). Size 4 are polearms and all of them have Reach (Longspear, Warscythe, Lance).

When in combat, the person with the larger weapon gains a +1 Circumstance bonus to Hit if they attack someone with a smaller weapon.

When welding a Size 1 weapon, the welder may make one extra Attack at their highest BaB but only with the Size 1 weapon. They may only gain one extra Attack this way.

Edit: Here's my Armor Rework for greater context of what is gonna be going on inside of this. Short version, all armor grants DR against the three major damage types (Bludgeoning, Slashing and Piercing) on top of AC. Armor Rework

And here's the weapons. Its not finished yet, but their Sizes are whats relevant here and I doubt I'll be changing those. Weapons Rework.

You'll notice that a bunch of normal weapons don't exist. That's for setting specific reasons, same with the armor.

[Maat Mons]

Okay, so if you want to use a shield, you need to use a smaller weapon. But if you use a smaller weapon, you're granting enemies a bonus to hit you. That kind of undermines the defensive value of shields, doesn't it?

Honestly, I think weapons in D&D could use a little more gameism. Take each weapon style (dual-wield, two-handed, weapon+shield, and weapon+free hand), and make sure it has a compelling mechanical niche. Right now, dual-wielding is only viable for a few specific builds, weapon+shield is underwhelming in many level ranges, and weapon+free hand has no real benefit.

If you want weapons to be more than a big table of slightly-different, but over all very same-y numbers, you might look into giving each major category of weapons (e.g. axes, swords, hammers, and maces) some special roll in the combat rules.

Or, for a lazier approach, you could just give damage types (bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing) an actual different effect outside of monsters with DR. I've given some thought, in my more simulationist moods, to having 3 separate ACs, one for each damage type. So some armors would just suck at dissipating bludgeoning damage, specifically, for example. (In a way, this could be viewed as a parallel for regular, touch, and flat-footed ACs.)

Sometimes I've even wondered if there exists any simple way of making it matter whether you try to defend by blocking, parrying, or dodging. But lord knows I can't think of any.

Switching armor so it penalizes AC but gives you damage reduction is another simulationist train of thought I've occasionally indulged.

I kind of like the tradeoff of speed vs reach you've got going here. But I'm not sure how you can implement 4 levels of it without adding a fair bit of complexity. And as it stands, the middle two tiers don't do much to distinguish themselves mechanically. The lightest tier is the fast tier. The heaviest tier is the reach tier. And the other ones provide no special benefit.

If you want, you could make larger weapons just generally better than smaller weapons, but make it so using them effectively requires strength and stamina. So instead of simulating the fact that greataxes are heavy by, for some bizarre reason, using Strength to determine accuracy, a greataxe could instead have a minimum Strength score required to use it effectively. And if you can work out a way to do it that isn't incredibly tedious, you could have combatants who use big, heavy weapons and big, heavy armor eventually grow tired as a fight drags on.

[Blackhawk748]

This is also getting paired with an armor rework I have (and I should have mentioned that but it slipped my mind) where all armor gives AC but also gives DR for Bludgeoning, Slashing and Piercing in varying amounts, with the goal there to make each armor actually have a proper reason to exist.

Shields are gonna get messed with too, the first step is making them automatically go to Touch AC so there's a benefit for the Size 2 weapons in that you're more resistant to more types of damage. The Size 3 weapons are in an odd space, in that they do solid damage, but they don't have Reach, leaving their biggest advantage is that they are smaller and so fit in smaller spaces better.

I feel like SIze 3 is the one that has the most problems to work out, as the Size 2s have niches for Sword and Board and Duel Wielding open to them, while 3 seems to clearly be overshadowed by 4.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel like SIze 3 is the one that has the most problems to work out, as the Size 2s have niches for Sword and Board and Duel Wielding open to them, while 3 seems to clearly be overshadowed by 4.

Some combination of "heavier == more damage" and "heavier == better against armor/shields". So the tradeoff between 3 and 4 is power vs reach. 1 vs 2 is more attacks (1) vs more power (2), while 3 and 4 are both more power/less defense than 1/2 but trade off (between themselves) reach and pure power/armor piercing.

[GeoffWatson]

With size 1 weapons giving extra attacks, they are the obvious choice. Hardly simulationist.

[Blackhawk748]

With size 1 weapons giving extra attacks, they are the obvious choice. Hardly simulationist.

Considering that they have the lowest damage dice and armor gives DR now, they aren't actually the obvious choice. They're a good choice for sure, but they aren't the best.

[GeoffWatson]

You should give the full rule changes then, if you want considered feedback.

[Blackhawk748]

Just added my WIP Armor Rework and the full list of Weapons in the OP. May add some more weapons but Im not positive.