In my last few Labyrinth Lord / AEC games, we finally did a switch I had ben discussing for a long time. Getting rid of the “optional damage per weapon” tables and replacing them with a set damage based on the wielder instead of the weapon. The upside of this system is anyone can wield anything, and there’s no mechanical advantage / disadvantage to it. So if a warhammer is your style, go with the warhammer without having to deal with how sucky they are in basic D&D. The downside of this system, however, is that it opens up the sword to all the classes. In my games this is fine, since swords aren’t any better than the other weapons in the game. However, in classic old-school D&D, most magic weapons are swords, and swords tend to be significantly better magic items than the other magic weapons (they have a lot more options, and come with higher “plusses”).
So, in effect, this does strip away that last vestige from the fighter and thief who at least didn’t worry that they had to compete with the cleric and magic user for the cool magic swords. In exchange, I’ve included a portion of magic weapons in my game that were class-specific – aimed particularly towards fighters and their kin.
So, how does this system work?
One Handed Weapons are stuff like long swords, one-handed battle axes, scimitars, flails, maces and so on. Missile weapons in here are spears, longbows and light crossbows.
Two Handed Weapons are greatswords, two-handed battle-axes, warhammers and any of the hundred or more varieties of polearms. Missile weapons in here are heavy crossbows.
Light Weapons are weapons you can use in your off-hand for two-weapon fighting – hand axes, daggers, short swords and their ilk. Missile weapons in here are shortbows, slings and javelins.
Fighters & Dwarves
- One Handed Weapons: d8 damage
- Two Handed Weapons: d10 damage
- Light Weapons: d6 damage
Clerics, Elves, Thieves & Halflings
- One Handed Weapons: d6 damage
- Two Handed Weapons: d8 damage
- Light Weapons: d4 damage
Magic Users
- One Handed Weapons: d4 damage
- Two Handed Weapons: d6 damage
- Light Weapons: d3 damage
I like the elegance of how James Raggi handled this in his Lamentations of the Flame Princess rpg. All classes can use all weapons, but only the fighter gets any better at fighting as they advance. So the mage can use a broadsword, but they’ll use it as effectively at first level as they will at tenth.
Similar to what I use from the B/X Companion. In that version, thieves do a d6 with every weapon, even daggers, which is quite flavorful. There’s also a chart for missile weapons as well.
That’s so old school to be new. In fact that’s how weapons work in the new Gamma World Edition. ^_^
This is absolutely the way to go. Weapon fiddliness is one of the more annoying parts of D&D and where character concept meets min-maxing too frequently. Feng Shui was like this; basically S/M/L weapons did STR+1/+2/+3 damage, you’re done.
So, in effect, this does strip away that last vestige from the fighter and thief who at least didn’t worry that they had to compete with the cleric and magic user for the cool magic swords. In exchange, I’ve included a portion of magic weapons in my game that were class-specific – aimed particularly towards fighters and their kin.
No reason why you can’t restrict the magic in magic swords in general to fighters. It’s possible to interpret the class descriptions in Men & Magic in a very literal fashion to imply that magic-users can use any weapon, but magic weapons other than daggers don’t provide any benefits.
Don’t know if stripping rulebooks of 2 pages regarding weapons is really a big improvement. Choosing a weapon is something you do once in a while and then stick with your choice for some time. The weapon table is not a table you consult every session… Labelling weapons as 1H LIGHT, 1H HEAVY and 2H and associating to every group one or more classses able to use it is enough for me to “open swords to everyone” whitout sacrificing a little bit of flavor as in unifying weapons in my game as you (and Gamma world) suggest.
A different matter is in games where the quickness of the character building is really important. I think about introductory RPGs. there probably your approach is a winning one.
The issue is one of mechanics. As it stands, specific weapons are head-and-shoulders better than others. In B/X D&D using the optional variable weapon damage rules, the longsword wins out every time for a one-handed weapon because it is the only one that deals d8 damage. Sometimes it would be cooler to have a character wielding a flail or an axe, but by the rules that character is going to be less effective in combat.
This is an attempt to bring back the awesome of all weapons being equal (so wielding an axe or a morning star is a viable option without gimping your fighter) without going so far as to switch back to the classic non-variable weapon damage rules (all weapons deal 1d6 damage).
Ok, i see your point. Why do you separate One Handed Weapons from Light Weapons? Doesn’t that make light weapons always useless compared to One-handed?
Light weapons are weapons that can be wielded in your off-hand when you are two-weapon fighting by the rules in AD&D1e or the Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion. They need to be less “awesome” than regular weapons, otherwise you end up dual-wielding d8 damage weapons.
Why not make it 2H, 1H and off-hand for the damage types? that way a dagger can still be as dangerous as an axe…
Cheers, Rusty
Mostly because most of the players I have don’t like the idea of a short sword or dagger being exactly as deadly as a longsword.
I really like this variation. I had talked about going to the more basic approach of just using 1d6 for everything, again treating weapons as cosmetic. Here’s my original post in case you’re curious: http://cinderellamanjj.blogspot.com/2010/04/cutting-edge-weaponry.html
I might have to scare up an old school game to try this out. Thanks!
Hey Dyson I had a quick question if you ever see this, why did you lump ranged weapons in with light weapons? Seems strange to me that a bow in an elf’s hands does less damage than a fighter. Maybe just have ranged weapons do a flat d6 except for magic-users?
same reason that I made Long Swords deal less damage for an elf than for a fighter or dwarf – game balance based on the power of the characters and their weapon training. So a long sword or a bow in an elf’s hands deals slightly less damage than in a fighter’s hands because fighters need something to make them more awesome, and elves… don’t.
Thanks just wondering.
Also sorry if I came off sounding snarky I really like these rules and was just wondering about some of the decisions as that went into them.
I like this. Reminds me of an old Dragon magazine article I read a million years ago that basically made weapon damage be based on class.
I think I like how ACKS has done it (keeps the normal class weapon restrictions which is a bit ‘meh’ but all lt weapons do d4, one handers do d6 or d8 if wielded with two hands, and two handed weapons do d10). Fighters get a static bonus to all damage based on level, and can cleave 1 time per level upon dropping a target. Makes fighters hell on wheels versus low hp opponents!