Weapon Rules for a Gritty World

[Rogahn's Bluff]

For the current campaign I’m planning (Greyhawk with shades of Lovecraft and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay) I’m thinking of using the following. The idea is to make weapon choice more of a factor amongst characters. Needless to say I’d appreciate any thoughts or feedback you may have.


The following bonuses affect only those classes eligible for the weapons described.


Shield: +1 to AC. May use Shields Shall Be Splintered rule.

One-handed weapon only: +1 to hit

Two-weapon Fighting: +1 to hit, +1 AC, Roll both damage dice and divide by two. Off-handed weapons must deal d6 damage or lower.

Lances and spears: May be set against a charge. If a charging enemy has shorter reach roll to hit before they do. If their reach is equal or better roll simultaneously. A successful hit inflicts double damage.

Great Weapon: Maximum damage on a 19-20 if a successful hit is scored.

[Verdande]

I like it.

I generally use a system where you get a +1 to AC for shields, +1 to attack for two weapons (you only deal damage once, the other weapon grants a +1 bonus to whichever weapon you like) and two-handers do more damage (as per standard rules.) I hadn't included any sort of benefit for one-handed weapons, although maybe I ought to.

It seems to work well, but I like yours, too

[Rogahn's Bluff]

Thanks! I was aiming for something that made all choices seem somewhat attractive without any obvious picks.

That said there's scope for fighters mounting a pretty effective wall if they go the shield-and-spear route.

[Verdande]

That's what I was thinking. Rules that make real-life tactics work for the reasons you think they should without any shoehorning are generally the best kind of rules, especially when they're short.

[Rogahn's Bluff]

Agreed. Offering more tactical choice with minimal complications was one of my aims. I'll hopefully have the opportunity to playtest soon.

[petespahn]

I like the idea of adding tactical choices but I have to ask why anyone would bother using a shield when two weapons grants the same bonus without any chance of it being lost by the shield being splintered. Unless you're just looking at it from a character concept approach instead of a mechanical one. Then I can see it.

Pete

[petespahn]

Just to be clear what I mean is if you fight with a long sword 1d8 and a short sword 1d6. You get a +1 to hit and a -1 AC at the expense of only 1 HP of damage (potential of 7 damage instead of 8).

[Rogahn's Bluff]

I like the idea of adding tactical choices but I have to ask why anyone would bother using a shield when two weapons grants the same bonus without any chance of it being lost by the shield being splintered. Unless you're just looking at it from a character concept approach instead of a mechanical one. Then I can see it.

Pete

The Shields Shall Be Splintered rule negates all damage from a successful blow by sacrificing the shield; a real asset at low levels where survival can turn on a single roll.

Of course there's nothing to stop a shield-wielding character carrying a sheathed off-hand weapon also. Once their shield is gone they can rearm and enjoy the 2W bonus (or choose not to lose an action and gain +1 from a single hand weapon).

[Rogahn's Bluff]

Just to be clear what I mean is if you fight with a long sword 1d8 and a short sword 1d6. You get a +1 to hit and a -1 AC at the expense of only 1 HP of damage (potential of 7 damage instead of 8).

Yes.

That said, the bonus to hit and AC is the one thing I'm uncertain of. At the moment I'm running more off gut feeling than solid mathematical analysis.