Figuring out the combat system for my fantasy heartbreaker turned out to be pretty easy compared to nailing down the particulars of the weapons and armor that characters will use in it. I want different types of weapons to have meaningful differences, but I don't want huge complicated tables with lots of messy modifiers to look up or remember. After a lot of false starts, I'm tentatively happy with what I have now.
Armor comes in three types: Light, medium, and heavy, giving a base AC of 12, 14, or 16, respectively. Light armor includes light, non-metallic, and relatively flexible options such as leather and padded armor. Medium armors are made of metal or other hard material, but in flexible forms such as mail, scale, brigandine, and such. Heavy armors are made of large rigid plates of metal or some other hard material. The exact type of armor a character gets in any of the three classes is determined by the player and GM, and has no further game mechanical effect.
Shields increase AC by 1, as usual. I'm considering making a shield a requirement to use the character's Combat Rating defensively, too.
Weapons come in broad categories: Axe, Blade, Bludgeon, and Stick, and further divided into light, medium, and heavy types.
Axes are chopping weapons which are good at breaking through armor, and so receive a +1 bonus to combat rolls. Damage is 4/6/8 for light, medium, and heavy types, respectively. Examples include the hand axe and tomahawk (light), battle axe (medium), and polearms* (heavy.) All axes use the wielder's Might modifier.
Blades are slashing and slicing weapons. They are among the hardest to master, but have the highest damage potential at 6/8/10. Examples include daggers and short swords (light), all of the various "normal" swords (medium), and great swords such as the bastard sword and two-handed sword (heavy.) Light and medium blades use the wielder's Agility modifier. Heavy blades use Might.
Bludgeons are blunt, smashing weapons. They are the easiest weapons to wield, and also good at delivering impact damage through armor, and so receive +2 to combat rolls, but also have the lowest damage potential at 3/4/6. Examples include the club/cudgel/shillelagh (light,) the mace and war hammer (medium), and the maul (heavy.) All bludgeons use the wielder's Might modifier.
Stick weapons are long, slender weapons used mainly for thrusting maneuvers. They gain a +2 bonus to Interpose actions. Damage is 4/6/8. Examples include the quarterstaff (light), the spear (medium), polearms* and lances (heavy.) All stick weapons use the wielder's Agility modifier.
*Since polearms typically feature both heavy chopping blades and spear points or spikes, they may be used as either axes or stick weapons, whichever is most advantageous to the wielder.
Most light and medium weapons (except the quarterstaff) may be wielded with one hand, and combined with a shield if desired. Most heavy weapons (except the lance from horseback) must be wielded two-handed.
Missile weapons are another can of worms with which I'm still grappling...
Showing posts with label armor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label armor. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The lightly armored adventurer
The fighter in plate armor is probably one of the most enduring tropes in D&D, and fantasy in general. The rules of the game are sometimes derided for a perceived bias toward heavily armored fighters, and all manner of "fixes" have been tacked on to rectify things. Sub-classes with special perks for going unarmored or lightly armored and arbitrary AC bonuses to make swashbucklers and barbarians the equal of their ironclad brethren are a common addition to the rules. There are probably, quite literally, dozens of iterations of those classes and others like them, both official and homebrew, floating around out there. Other times, gamers resort to cheesy Monty Haul assortments of magic items in their attempts at fighter parity - rings, bracers, and robes of protection, +5 leather armor, and so on.
In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too. I think that's a mistake, based upon a mistaken perception. With apologies to Errol Flynn and Conan aficionados, from a purely combat-oriented perspective, the fighter in plate is, and ought to be, superior. In a straight-up, toe-to-toe melee combat, the lightly armored swashbuckler and the barbarian in his furry speedo are not the equal of the armored knight. All the energy used by the lightly armored fighter in his flurry of parrying and nimble evasion may indeed look cool, but that's energy and attention that the armored knight need not expend just to keep from being skewered. His passive defense, in the form of armor, allows him to focus more of his active attention on hitting and dealing damage. Between combatants of similar skill and experience, the armored knight is always the odds-on favorite. That's as it should be.
Well then, what's the point of playing a swashbuckler or a barbarian? fans of those archetypes might ask. They have a historical and a literary tradition behind them, and they're interesting from a role-playing perspective, but the rules give them the shaft!
In point of fact, though, it isn't the rules that give them the shaft. It's the focus of a particular game or campaign. In a game that heavily emphasizes combat, the traditional melee tank owns the field. Again, that's as it should be - if combat is your emphasis. There are plenty of situations, though, when heavy armor is either not useful, or a hindrance, and playing up those scenarios a little makes the lightly armored fighter or cleric a viable character.
Polite Society
One of the primary factors in the rise of swashbuckler and duelist-type fighters was not the effectiveness of fighting unarmored, but social reasons. Besides being uncomfortable and noisy, it might be a serious faux pas to go stalking around town in plate or mail. The overall effect would be not unlike that of making a trip to the shopping mall with a shotgun over your shoulder - it looks like you're looking to start trouble. It frightens the peasantry and arouses the suspicion (at least) of the guard and the local ruler. Going unarmored or discreetly armored and wearing a dagger, short sword, or rapier or carrying a quarterstaff is a better choice for the adventurer who wants to be dashing and prepared rather than seen as a violent brute or a paranoid cad. For adventures in urban settings, or the king's palace, a character wearing plate is going to be at a decided disadvantage.
Exploration
Armor is great when you get into a fight, but for crawling about the dark depths of a dungeon or the wide wilderness, it can be quite a drag.
Time: Reduced movement rates are the most obvious handicap of heavily armored characters. Consider a lightly encumbered party with a movement rate of 120' per turn, vs. one with one or more characters in plate moving at 60' per turn. That's twice as long to explore 120' of dungeon corridor, and twice as many rolls for wandering monsters.
Fleeing or pursuing: If you want to run down a fleeing opponent, it helps if you're not carrying thirty pounds of metal wrapped around your body. And when you're fleeing from a combat that's too tough, well...the magic-user doesn't have to outrun the owl bear. He just has to outrun the fighter in plate.
Stealth and surprise: It's hard to sneak up on someone if you're clanking and jingling with every step. The standard chances for surprise - 2 in 6 - assume a typical party with typical equipment. If everyone goes in light armor, that could be bumped up to 3 in 6. Perhaps the chances of wandering monsters might be reduced as well.
Climbing, swimming, etc.: It should be nigh impossible to swim in metal armor, and it's not very good for scrambling over heaps of rubble, up or down cliffs and embankments, and into or out of pits and sinkholes either. Bogs and swamps are hazardous places, but even more so in armor. Full plate or mail in the desert or jungle is practically begging for heat stroke. That isn't to say that things can't be done in armor, but they may be more hazardous, make more noise, take longer, etc. Some places may be inaccessible, or nearly so, to heavily encumbered characters. (This obviously works best in a sandbox-style game, where there are no "plot essential" events or locations, only places that the PCs will have to come back to properly equipped if they wish to explore them.)
Carrying loot: It almost goes without saying that if you're lugging armor, it subtracts from your ability to lug gold and gems.
Skirmish combat: As I've already remarked, in a toe-to-toe fight, an armored fighter has a clear advantage, but there are tactical reasons to favor mobility over the protection of armor. Missile combatants, for instance, might find it more advantageous to use their unencumbered movement rate to stay out of melee altogether, and trust to cover for protection. A superior movement rate may be an advantage in cornering or surrounding a group of enemies. A fighter with a 40' per round movement rate can reach a beleaguered comrade 40' away in half the time it takes one with a 20' per round move to get there.
Conclusion
Once again, this is not to force any character not to wear plate mail, but merely to point out that there is, or at least should be, a downside as well as an upside to it. Does this diminish the special class advantages of the fighter and cleric? I say no. The thief and the magic-user are forced to use the light or no armor strategy. The fighter and the cleric can choose freely between heavy armor and light armor as the adventure demands. They can equip for stealth, exploration, and society, but the mage and thief can't deck themselves out for a melee-intensive grind. The ability to wear armor or not to is part of the fighter's versatility.
Tricking out swashbucklers and barbarians with AC bonuses and special abilities doesn't make them even with a traditional fighter; in a balanced campaign in which exploration and social adventures are on an even footing with combat, it gives them the unfair advantage.
In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too. I think that's a mistake, based upon a mistaken perception. With apologies to Errol Flynn and Conan aficionados, from a purely combat-oriented perspective, the fighter in plate is, and ought to be, superior. In a straight-up, toe-to-toe melee combat, the lightly armored swashbuckler and the barbarian in his furry speedo are not the equal of the armored knight. All the energy used by the lightly armored fighter in his flurry of parrying and nimble evasion may indeed look cool, but that's energy and attention that the armored knight need not expend just to keep from being skewered. His passive defense, in the form of armor, allows him to focus more of his active attention on hitting and dealing damage. Between combatants of similar skill and experience, the armored knight is always the odds-on favorite. That's as it should be.
Well then, what's the point of playing a swashbuckler or a barbarian? fans of those archetypes might ask. They have a historical and a literary tradition behind them, and they're interesting from a role-playing perspective, but the rules give them the shaft!
In point of fact, though, it isn't the rules that give them the shaft. It's the focus of a particular game or campaign. In a game that heavily emphasizes combat, the traditional melee tank owns the field. Again, that's as it should be - if combat is your emphasis. There are plenty of situations, though, when heavy armor is either not useful, or a hindrance, and playing up those scenarios a little makes the lightly armored fighter or cleric a viable character.
Polite Society
One of the primary factors in the rise of swashbuckler and duelist-type fighters was not the effectiveness of fighting unarmored, but social reasons. Besides being uncomfortable and noisy, it might be a serious faux pas to go stalking around town in plate or mail. The overall effect would be not unlike that of making a trip to the shopping mall with a shotgun over your shoulder - it looks like you're looking to start trouble. It frightens the peasantry and arouses the suspicion (at least) of the guard and the local ruler. Going unarmored or discreetly armored and wearing a dagger, short sword, or rapier or carrying a quarterstaff is a better choice for the adventurer who wants to be dashing and prepared rather than seen as a violent brute or a paranoid cad. For adventures in urban settings, or the king's palace, a character wearing plate is going to be at a decided disadvantage.
Exploration
Armor is great when you get into a fight, but for crawling about the dark depths of a dungeon or the wide wilderness, it can be quite a drag.
Time: Reduced movement rates are the most obvious handicap of heavily armored characters. Consider a lightly encumbered party with a movement rate of 120' per turn, vs. one with one or more characters in plate moving at 60' per turn. That's twice as long to explore 120' of dungeon corridor, and twice as many rolls for wandering monsters.
Fleeing or pursuing: If you want to run down a fleeing opponent, it helps if you're not carrying thirty pounds of metal wrapped around your body. And when you're fleeing from a combat that's too tough, well...the magic-user doesn't have to outrun the owl bear. He just has to outrun the fighter in plate.
Stealth and surprise: It's hard to sneak up on someone if you're clanking and jingling with every step. The standard chances for surprise - 2 in 6 - assume a typical party with typical equipment. If everyone goes in light armor, that could be bumped up to 3 in 6. Perhaps the chances of wandering monsters might be reduced as well.
Climbing, swimming, etc.: It should be nigh impossible to swim in metal armor, and it's not very good for scrambling over heaps of rubble, up or down cliffs and embankments, and into or out of pits and sinkholes either. Bogs and swamps are hazardous places, but even more so in armor. Full plate or mail in the desert or jungle is practically begging for heat stroke. That isn't to say that things can't be done in armor, but they may be more hazardous, make more noise, take longer, etc. Some places may be inaccessible, or nearly so, to heavily encumbered characters. (This obviously works best in a sandbox-style game, where there are no "plot essential" events or locations, only places that the PCs will have to come back to properly equipped if they wish to explore them.)
Carrying loot: It almost goes without saying that if you're lugging armor, it subtracts from your ability to lug gold and gems.
Skirmish combat: As I've already remarked, in a toe-to-toe fight, an armored fighter has a clear advantage, but there are tactical reasons to favor mobility over the protection of armor. Missile combatants, for instance, might find it more advantageous to use their unencumbered movement rate to stay out of melee altogether, and trust to cover for protection. A superior movement rate may be an advantage in cornering or surrounding a group of enemies. A fighter with a 40' per round movement rate can reach a beleaguered comrade 40' away in half the time it takes one with a 20' per round move to get there.
Conclusion
Once again, this is not to force any character not to wear plate mail, but merely to point out that there is, or at least should be, a downside as well as an upside to it. Does this diminish the special class advantages of the fighter and cleric? I say no. The thief and the magic-user are forced to use the light or no armor strategy. The fighter and the cleric can choose freely between heavy armor and light armor as the adventure demands. They can equip for stealth, exploration, and society, but the mage and thief can't deck themselves out for a melee-intensive grind. The ability to wear armor or not to is part of the fighter's versatility.
Tricking out swashbucklers and barbarians with AC bonuses and special abilities doesn't make them even with a traditional fighter; in a balanced campaign in which exploration and social adventures are on an even footing with combat, it gives them the unfair advantage.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Magical magic III - Arms and armor
Magic weapons - the stuff of legend, or the stuff of min/max munchkinism? It all depends on how you use it and portray them in the game.
There are two basic factors I can think of that would influence a player to choose for his character to use a particular weapon:
1) Effectiveness in combat. A 1d8 weapon is better than a 1d6; a +2 is better than a +1.
2) Because, in a role playing aesthetic sense, it's cool. It complements or expands his or her conception of the character, adds flavor and flair, and connects the character to the campaign world.
The first is built right into the D&D game, and in the absence of deliberate emphasis on the second, is probably going to be the criterion to which most players default. If that's how you enjoy playing the game, nothing else need be done. The truth of the matter is that combat stats are always going to factor into weapon choice. If you want them to be less of a factor, you just need to introduce some other factors that a player will have to weigh against the power of the attack bonus.
Two primary non-game mechanic ways to add color to weapons come to mind: physical description and backstory.
What does the weapon look like? Is it plain or ornate? Is it made of typical or exotic materials? Is it engraved or inlaid with designs or runes? Is it adorned with precious stones, feathers, shark's teeth? Is there a motif or theme to it? A google image search returns pages and pages of fantasy swords, maces, axes, daggers, or whatever other weapon you care to see, if you're in need of inspiration. If your players are fond of visual aides, print them off and paste them to 3x5 cards to hand out when the party finds the weapon. (If you're of a Lawful persuasion, you may want to stick to images labeled for re-use, but hey, I'm not here to judge.)
Who made it? For whom was it made? Was it made for a specific purpose? Where and how long ago? Who has owned it and what has happened to it since then? What notable deeds have been accomplished with it? Does it have a name?
Ideally, both of those facets should be linked together, and possibly linked with the basic weapon stats and powers as well. You can use any one of them as a starting point.
A few examples:
A sword+1 of charming commissioned by a dashing, romantic swashbuckler. A slender elegant weapon with engraved thorny vines wrapping around the hilt and running the length of the blade. In the pommel is a large ruby cut to resemble a rose blossom.
A mace+1, +3 vs. magic users, crafted by a church hierarch for a famous witch hunter. The haft is of plain, polished white oak with a sacred verse condemning the blasphemies of arcane magic carved along its length; the head is an elongated ball of cold-wrought iron plated in silver and engraved with runes of power.
A dagger+2 of holding commissioned by a master thief to assist her in daring robberies. The thin, straight blade is made of dull, non-reflective steel. The hilt is wrapped in fine wire in the pattern of a spider's web, with a round onyx set in the pommel.
A battle axe +2 made for a cruel warlord. A wickedly sharp crescent shaped blade of gleaming steel with ornate inlays of black metal depicting demonic fanged faces, topped with a long spike. The haft is of blackened ironwood.
It's not difficult to imagine players choosing or eschewing each of these weapons on the basis of its appearance and whether or not it harmonizes with the player's concept of his character. A brooding barbarian might despise the rose sword, while a noble knight might be reluctant to take up the warlord's axe.
It's even conceivable that players might become attached to a weapon that's become part of a character's signature style, and won't want to part with it even for a statistically superior one.
But wait, there's more! What if you never told players exactly what the combat bonuses of their weapons were? Just keep a record in your own notes, and apply them as needed. Surely that would tilt the balance of coolness vs. combat stats even further in the direction of the former.
Of course, you need to tell your player something about what effect his sword is having, which brings up another facet of description. Unfortunately, as far as I know, no rule book has ever really explained how magical arms and armor work in-world. They give bonuses to hit and damage or to armor class, but those pluses are completely disassociated from whatever in-game effects actually produce them. You'll need to have an in-world explanation of how they work, so you'll have something to describe to players without simply reciting numbers. Even if keeping weapon stats secret from your players isn't your style, I think being able to articulate what's actually happening when Cedric the fighter swings his enchanted sword at the dragon adds to the experience. Here are a few ideas that come to mind.
1) The weapon augments and synergizes with the combat skill of the wielder. Perhaps over years of being used by heroes of legendary skill, their combat techniques imprint upon the weapon. A new user finds himself moving more smoothly in combat, and reflexively using maneuvers he hadn't previously mastered, as if the weapon itself were guiding his hand. (This way has some awesome potential in what it implies about really powerful weapons. A sword+5 may very well have been used by not one, but several of the most renowned heroes or villains in the campaign world's history through the ages. Perhaps a non-magical weapon could even spontaneously become enchanted in this way.)
2) The weapon or armor may be unnaturally hard and durable, able to hold a keener edge or point (blades or piercing weapons,) pound through defenses (blunt weapons,) or resist those things (armor) better than those made of ordinary materials.
3) The weapon might discharge pure magical energy, similar to that of a magic missile, into the target on contact, breaking through defenses and causing more harm.
4) The weapon may be fortified with some substance that's anathema to a specific creature or class of creatures, like holy water for undead or wolfsbane for lycanthropes.
Of course, there doesn't have to be one way that all magic weapons in the campaign work. Some might be 1's, some 2's, some 3's, or something else entirely. The exact method is part of the flavor of a particular weapon.
And that's it for magical armaments. I didn't see much reason to rehash scarcity here, and I think I'll save the topic of applying conditions and costs to weapons for another post.
There are two basic factors I can think of that would influence a player to choose for his character to use a particular weapon:
1) Effectiveness in combat. A 1d8 weapon is better than a 1d6; a +2 is better than a +1.
2) Because, in a role playing aesthetic sense, it's cool. It complements or expands his or her conception of the character, adds flavor and flair, and connects the character to the campaign world.
The first is built right into the D&D game, and in the absence of deliberate emphasis on the second, is probably going to be the criterion to which most players default. If that's how you enjoy playing the game, nothing else need be done. The truth of the matter is that combat stats are always going to factor into weapon choice. If you want them to be less of a factor, you just need to introduce some other factors that a player will have to weigh against the power of the attack bonus.
Two primary non-game mechanic ways to add color to weapons come to mind: physical description and backstory.
What does the weapon look like? Is it plain or ornate? Is it made of typical or exotic materials? Is it engraved or inlaid with designs or runes? Is it adorned with precious stones, feathers, shark's teeth? Is there a motif or theme to it? A google image search returns pages and pages of fantasy swords, maces, axes, daggers, or whatever other weapon you care to see, if you're in need of inspiration. If your players are fond of visual aides, print them off and paste them to 3x5 cards to hand out when the party finds the weapon. (If you're of a Lawful persuasion, you may want to stick to images labeled for re-use, but hey, I'm not here to judge.)
Who made it? For whom was it made? Was it made for a specific purpose? Where and how long ago? Who has owned it and what has happened to it since then? What notable deeds have been accomplished with it? Does it have a name?
Ideally, both of those facets should be linked together, and possibly linked with the basic weapon stats and powers as well. You can use any one of them as a starting point.
A few examples:
A sword+1 of charming commissioned by a dashing, romantic swashbuckler. A slender elegant weapon with engraved thorny vines wrapping around the hilt and running the length of the blade. In the pommel is a large ruby cut to resemble a rose blossom.
A mace+1, +3 vs. magic users, crafted by a church hierarch for a famous witch hunter. The haft is of plain, polished white oak with a sacred verse condemning the blasphemies of arcane magic carved along its length; the head is an elongated ball of cold-wrought iron plated in silver and engraved with runes of power.
A dagger+2 of holding commissioned by a master thief to assist her in daring robberies. The thin, straight blade is made of dull, non-reflective steel. The hilt is wrapped in fine wire in the pattern of a spider's web, with a round onyx set in the pommel.
A battle axe +2 made for a cruel warlord. A wickedly sharp crescent shaped blade of gleaming steel with ornate inlays of black metal depicting demonic fanged faces, topped with a long spike. The haft is of blackened ironwood.
It's not difficult to imagine players choosing or eschewing each of these weapons on the basis of its appearance and whether or not it harmonizes with the player's concept of his character. A brooding barbarian might despise the rose sword, while a noble knight might be reluctant to take up the warlord's axe.
It's even conceivable that players might become attached to a weapon that's become part of a character's signature style, and won't want to part with it even for a statistically superior one.
But wait, there's more! What if you never told players exactly what the combat bonuses of their weapons were? Just keep a record in your own notes, and apply them as needed. Surely that would tilt the balance of coolness vs. combat stats even further in the direction of the former.
Of course, you need to tell your player something about what effect his sword is having, which brings up another facet of description. Unfortunately, as far as I know, no rule book has ever really explained how magical arms and armor work in-world. They give bonuses to hit and damage or to armor class, but those pluses are completely disassociated from whatever in-game effects actually produce them. You'll need to have an in-world explanation of how they work, so you'll have something to describe to players without simply reciting numbers. Even if keeping weapon stats secret from your players isn't your style, I think being able to articulate what's actually happening when Cedric the fighter swings his enchanted sword at the dragon adds to the experience. Here are a few ideas that come to mind.
1) The weapon augments and synergizes with the combat skill of the wielder. Perhaps over years of being used by heroes of legendary skill, their combat techniques imprint upon the weapon. A new user finds himself moving more smoothly in combat, and reflexively using maneuvers he hadn't previously mastered, as if the weapon itself were guiding his hand. (This way has some awesome potential in what it implies about really powerful weapons. A sword+5 may very well have been used by not one, but several of the most renowned heroes or villains in the campaign world's history through the ages. Perhaps a non-magical weapon could even spontaneously become enchanted in this way.)
2) The weapon or armor may be unnaturally hard and durable, able to hold a keener edge or point (blades or piercing weapons,) pound through defenses (blunt weapons,) or resist those things (armor) better than those made of ordinary materials.
3) The weapon might discharge pure magical energy, similar to that of a magic missile, into the target on contact, breaking through defenses and causing more harm.
4) The weapon may be fortified with some substance that's anathema to a specific creature or class of creatures, like holy water for undead or wolfsbane for lycanthropes.
Of course, there doesn't have to be one way that all magic weapons in the campaign work. Some might be 1's, some 2's, some 3's, or something else entirely. The exact method is part of the flavor of a particular weapon.
And that's it for magical armaments. I didn't see much reason to rehash scarcity here, and I think I'll save the topic of applying conditions and costs to weapons for another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)