Simplified Weapons, Part 2

Previously... Part 1
See Also... Revised

Without preamble, the weapons:

Elements in orange have been changed in the newest version.
Elements in blue have been removed in the newest version.

Improvised Weapons

Type	Range	Damage	Properties
Melee
Off-Hand Melee	1	1d4	—
Main-Hand Melee	1	1d6	—
Two-Hand Melee	1	1d8	—
Ranged
Off-Hand Thrown	5	1d4	Load draw
Main-Hand Thrown	3	1d6	Load draw
Two-Hand Thrown	2	1d8	Load draw
One-Hand Ranged	5	1d4	Load move
Light Ranged	10	1d6	Load move
Heavy Ranged	10	1d8	Load move

Melee Weapons

Type	Range	Damage	Properties
Axes
Off-Hand Axe	1	1d6	High crit
Main-Hand Axe	1	1d8	High crit
Two-Hand Axe	1	1d10	High crit
Polearm Axe	2	1d8	High crit
Bludgeons
Off-Hand Bludgeon	1	1d8	—
Main-Hand Bludgeon	1	1d10	—
Two-Hand Bludgeon	1	1d12	—
Polearm Bludgeon	2	1d10	—
Flails
Off-Hand Flail	1	1d8	Backlash 1
Main-Hand Flail	1	1d10	Backlash 1
Two-Hand Flail	1	1d12	Backlash 1
Polearm Flail	2	1d10	Backlash 1
Picks
Off-Hand Pick	1	1d6	Brutal 2
Main-Hand Pick	1	1d8	Brutal 2
Two-Hand Pick	1	1d10	Brutal 2
Polearm Pick	2	1d8	Brutal 2
Heavy Blades
Main-Hand Heavy Blade	1	1d8	Accurate 1
Two-Hand Heavy Blade	1	1d10	Accurate 1
Polearm Heavy Blade	2	1d8	Accurate 1
Light Blades
Off-Hand Light Blade	1	1d4	Accurate 2
Main-Hand Light Blade	1	1d6	Accurate 2
Two-Hand Light Blade	1	1d8	Accurate 2
Spears
Off-Hand Spear	1	1d6	Defensive
Main-Hand Spear	1	1d8	Defensive
Two-Hand Spear	1	1d10	Defensive
Polearm Spear	2	1d8	Defensive

Ranged Weapons

Type	Range	Damage	Properties
Bows
Light Bow	15	1d8	Accurate 1, Load minor
Heavy Bow	20	1d10	Accurate 1, Load minor
Crossbows
One-Hand Crossbow	10	1d8	Load minor
Light Crossbow	15	1d10	Load minor
Heavy Crossbow	20	1d12	Load minor
Firearms
One-Hand Firearm	10	1d8	Backlash 1, High crit, Load move
Light Firearm	15	1d10	Backlash 1, High crit, Load move
Heavy Firearm	20	1d12	Backlash 1, High crit, Load move
Slings
One-Hand Sling	10	1d6	Load free
Light Sling	15	1d8	Load free
Heavy Sling	20	1d10	Load free

Continued... Part 3

Simplified Weapons, Part 1

See Also... Revised

Alright, so I have this file I've been working on for a while now. Every once in a while I go back into it and tweak something and I'm starting to wonder why I'm bothering to type it out at all. So I figured I may as well put it out there for people to maybe take a look at so it's not just me stewing in my own juices. I will state outright that I cannot claim complete credit for this, a lot (if not all of it) was inspired by other sources that I'll try to hunt down and post links to once I've gotten a chance. What I'm posting here is simply my idealized way in which I think weapons should be framed in 4th Edition and maybe some future thing as well.

What's the Big Idea?
At the core of this post is the idea of making things a little more structured, and a little more freeform both at the same time. How do we do that? Well we do that by generalizing the labels on different weapons. What weapon do you want to fight with? You say you want to use a big sword? Well what kind of big sword, we have several to choose from? So instead of having a greatsword and a fullblade and a falchion, we will simply have a two-handed sword which covers all of those distinct yet thematically similar weapons.

That covers the idea of more generalized, but what do I mean by more structured. Well in 4E we have these nifty little things called weapon properties. When you look at weapons that fall into the same group, you'll notice that there seems to be a pattern to how some of those properties are assigned; axes are more likely to have high crit than other weapons, and blades, both heavy and light, often have a +1 bonus to the attack roll written into the proficiency bonus. What I've done below is simply to regularize the assignment of properties and weapon group. So all axes now have high crit and all heavy blades have accurate 1.

The Proposal
In my system, there are three basic groups of weapons: melee weapons, used in hand-to-hand combat; ranged weapons, used to fire a projectile from a distance; and thrown weapons, which are basically melee weapons that are balanced to be thrown at a target a short distance away.  For basic attacks melee weapons use strength by default, ranged weapons used dexterity by default, and thrown weapons use a mixture: off-hand use dexterity, two-hand use strength, and main-hand can use either of the two.

Within these groups there are three types each. Melee and thrown weapons are broken down into off-hand weapons, main-hand weapons, and two-hand weapons. Melee, but not thrown, weapons also include polearms, which are two-hand weapons that give the wielder greater reach. Ranged weapons are broken down into one-hand weapons, light weapons, and heavy weapons, the latter two of which both require two hands. One-hand and light ranged weapons, as well as off-hand and main-hand thrown weapons, can be used while mounted, but heavy ranged weapons and two-hand thrown weapons cannot be used effectively while mounted.

Weapons no longer have a proficiency bonus; instead if you use a weapon you are not proficient with, you treat it as if it were a comparable improvised weapon. This also applies to using weapons other than how they were intended, such as hitting someone with the butt of your crossbow, or tossing an axe that isn't balanced for throwing.
Note: The lack of proficiency bonuses is meant to mesh with an altered system where attacks against AC instead primarily target Reflex. If you are not using such a system, all weapon attacks should gain a +2 bonus.

For ranged and thrown weapons, there is an additional rule for long range. Weapons no longer have a short and long range, they now have a regular range; you can still use the weapon beyond that range, but your chances of success drop quickly. Using a weapon at double its regular range incurs a -5 penalty to the attack roll, triple the regular range incurs and -15 penalty, and quadruple the regular ranged incurs a -25 penalty. This means that using a weapon at extremely long range is now theoretically possible, but very difficult. You might be able to hit someone from 400 feet away if you're very lucky, but probably only on a natural 20, and it will not be a crit.

The Properties
Accurate: You add the specified number to your attack rolls.
Backlash: You deal additional damage per die rolled equal to the specified number. If you miss, you deal this damage to yourself and it cannot be reduced in any way.
Brutal: You reroll any damage dice that display the specified number or less.
Defensive: You add the specified number to your Reflex defence.
High crit: When you score a critical hit, you deal 1[W] extra damage per tier.
Load: You must spend the specified action to reload your ranged weapon after firing it before you can attack with it again. Powers than allow you to make multiple attacks with the same action take this extra time into account with Load free, Load minor, and Load draw weapons, but Load move weapons must be primed with a move action first.

Continued... Part 2|Part 3

On the Subject of Dice

This past week, I’ve been thinking about dice. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about dice-based resolution in role-playing games, i.e. determining success or failure through a dice roll. I’ve recently played a few sessions of Dragon Age, which uses 3d6 as the resolution dice rather than 1d20, and I’ve been led to question the relative merits of different assortments of dice. I even went so far as to create an Excel document to compare probability curves.

The d20 system

I like using a d20; there’s a beautiful simplicity to just rolling a single die and adding a bonus. Another feature of using a single die is that there is an equal chance of getting any individual value. I say feature, rather than benefit, because I’m not really convinced that it is a benefit. I’ve read a lot of criticism about the idea that 5% of the time, you just fail completely. Now this is not a huge problem in a system where the penalty for crit failing is just that you fail; it becomes a more complicated issue if you play in a group that has decided to implement any kind of critical fumble rule.

On the other hand, people don’t seem to mind that they are making a critical hit an equal amount of the time, but it makes you think nonetheless. Should characters who are well trained in combat have an equal chance of complete failure (natural 1) as they have of simply performing well (natural 10 or 11)? And it was this thought that led me to do a survey of different options and compare them.

Other Options

I mentioned Dragon Age above, which uses 3d6 as the resolution dice. Now 3d6 does have more difference than just its probability curve, it also has a higher minimum result and a lower maximum result. While 1d20 can roll anything from 1 to 20, 20 possible results, 3d6 is restricted to 16 possible values from 3 to 18. Those details are not irrelevant, but in the context of this discussion I’m going to push them aside for the moment. As a note, the percentages I give in the rest of this post are not all exact; I’ve rounded them to one decimal place for simplicity’s sake.

The more relevant consequence of using multiple dice is that the probabilities of getting different values form a curve rather than a flat line. With 1d20, each possible result has a 5% chance of being rolled. With 3d6, the extremes of 3 and 18 have a 0.5% chance of being rolled, while the middle results of 10 and 11 each have a 12.5% chance of being rolled. This happens because there are more possible combinations of numbers that add up to those values. All this means that spectacular failure and spectacular success are both less likely to happen.

But 3d6 isn’t the only possible option; approximations can be made with any size of die. 2d12 and 3d8 are perhaps poor options because their maximum result is 24, which might have further ranging effects than are intended for this change. With 2d12, the extremes (2 and 24) each have a 0.7% chance, while the middle value of 13 has an 8.3% chance. With 3d8, the extremes (3 and 24) each have a tiny 0.2% chance of occurring, while 13 and 14 in the middle each have a 9.4% chance each. The two other options have a more useful maximum of 20, with minimums of 2 for 2d10 and 5 for 5d4. 5d4 might also prove to be more extreme than desired, as 5 and 20 each have a miniscule 0.1% chance of appearing, and 12 and 13 in the middle combining for a whopping 30.2% (15.1% each) chance of being rolled.

The 2d10 system

This all leads me to the last option that approximates 1d20 while giving a more middle-weighted probability curve; replacing 1d20 with 2d10. There are quite a few things I like about this option. While there is slightly more adding involved than with a single die, it is still simpler than using 3 (or 5) dice, and so there is still some of that clean simplicity that I like about the d20 system. The maximum (2o) is the same as a d20, and the minimum (2) is only 1 higher.

While the extremes of 2 and 20 are far less likely than they are with 1d20, they still seem like very real possibilities at a 1% chance (down from 5%). On the flip side, the middle result of 11 (and it is actually the middle now rather than 10.5) has a 10% chance of occurring (up from 5%). While this adjustment makes the middle more likely and the ends less likely, the less likely values still seem possible.

If you were to implement this house-rule in 4th edition, a few smaller adjustments would need to be made as well. Saving throws currently succeed on a result of 10 or more, which means an unmodified roll has a 55% chance of success. With 2d10, however, you have a 64% chance of rolling a 10 or higher on an unmodified roll. This is easily compensated for simply by raising the target number from 10 to 11, which would give you the same chance (55%) of success as with 1d20.

The critical hit system might also need adjustment, as rolling a natural 20 (two 10’s) now has only a 1% chance of occurring. This might suit your purposes, but if you want to stay closer to the current chance, you can extend the crit range down to 19 (for 3%) or 18 (for 6%). Another option takes a cue from Green Ronin’s system for Dragon Age, where rolling doubles gives you a boost. Since there is a 10% chance of rolling doubles on 2d10, rolling doubles wouldn’t always be a crit; rather, doubles would only count as a crit if the roll hits. In this system crits do not count as auto-hits but instead just as damage-maximizing hits. If you want double 10’s to be extra special, you can have that result maximize crit dice as well (from high crit and magical weapons).

In Conclusion

I’ll finish this off by saying that none of these suggestions have yet been playtested, but doing so is my next mission. If you choose to use my suggestions, I would love to hear feedback and comments that I can use to further refine the house-rule. I can be contacted at fedosu@gmail.com.

The State of the Game

If you pay attention to the community, particularly the Wizards boards, you’ll know that the fandom, or at least a vocal few are in turmoil over the future of 4th edition. Some books have been cancelled, the magazines are being changed, the minis are cancelled, and this is all on top of the new online character builder and essentials and the strong reactions that those evoked. Much of the furor seems to centre around WotC’s ability to communicate effectively with the community, or rather the lack of it. At the very least, they have handled the past six months... poorly, in terms of communication.

What’s Happening?

While reactions to the online Character Builder and Essentials were decidedly mixed, the majority of the reaction to the current events has been negative. In fact the matter of dispute doesn’t seem to be whether things are going down the drain, but rather how far down and how fast it is going. The problem with all of this is that it is still all just speculation. Wednesday's announcements in Ampersand and the FAQ that came shortly after told the community very little that they hadn’t already worked out themselves. That is, that the primary minis line was now over, with only occasional special releases such as the recent Beholder set and the slightly less recent Orcus; as well as the fact that Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium, Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell, and Hero Builder’s Handbook are not going to be released in print.

So then... what is happening going forward? Heroes of Shadow has shifted to hardcover and been pushed back a month, and the Dragon and Dungeon magazines will no longer be compiled into a single PDF at the end of each month. And what else? Well... we don’t know. We don’t know because Wizards hasn’t told us, which naturally has led to speculation. And also there’s been speculation. Finally, some people have chosen simply to speculate. In short, Wizards isn’t telling us anything, so people have fallen back on wild mass guessing and paranoia.

The Theories

Much of the speculation revolves around three basic theories. The first is that 4th Edition is over; some people say that essentials fell flat on its face, or alternatively that it did well but that Wizards needed it to do spectacularly. The solution is to do the simplest thing possible to encourage people to buy new books, which is to start over from the beginning again. Oddly, much of the speculation in this vein suggests that Wizards will simply expand on the core concepts of Essentials for the next edition. This seems logical at first, but remember that many of the advocates of this theory blame Essentials for the edition’s downfall, so why would Wizards continue with the product that killed the last edition when starting a new one? We are left only to wonder.

The second theory is that Wizards is planning on going all digital with 4th Edition, or as far as they reasonably can. Some even say that they’re planning on going the MMO route so that in order to maintain access to anything you have to continue to pay your monthly subscription. With the recent shift in tack with the character builder, the ongoing beta testing of the virtual table, and an online version of the monster builder expected this theory is not entirely without merit. At first glance it doesn’t seem a horrible notion; Blizzard is able to make a significant amount of money by squeezing their player base each and every month, but many other MMOs are taking the lesson of the Battle.Net of Blizzard’s previous RTS games and charging for the content but not the access to actual play. The question Wizards would have to ask itself if this were the route they were planning to take is “How committed are the fans to D&D?” In other words, is it D&D that people like, or would they be just as happy or happier playing Pathfinder, or Dragon Age, or Earthdawn? This would be a dangerous route to take, and if the edition isn’t on its way out already, such an action could very well be the final nail in the coffin. On the other hand, great reward often comes from taking great risks, and this potential shift to a primarily digital format might just be the realization of all the promises that Wizards failed to fulfill with D&D Insider in the past few years.

The third theory seems to be that Wizards, or perhaps Hasbro, has decided that they don’t know how to make money from Dungeons & Dragons and so are going to cancel the game, either literally or effectively. This may simply be a down-time of a few years until the franchise can be revitalized with a new vision (ie 5th Edition) like Star Trek had following the failure of Enterprise, or it could mean that they plan to get what they can out of D&D by publishing board games and other tangential products before selling it off to someone else. Many people have cited similarities between what appears to be happening to 4th Edition and Wizards’ treatment of Star Wars: Saga Edition before they let go of their license agreement, suggesting that it heralds the end for D&D.

And So...

All this of course is ultimately just guesswork. I find myself concerned by the state of the game, and worried about the fate of the game in these uncertain times. It would certainly be nice if Wizards were to let us all in on the secret, whatever it may be. But perhaps the secret is that they have no more idea where they’re going than we are and letting that out of the bag would be potentially even more damaging to the game and the community. Hopefully at the D&D Experience, coming at the end of this month, we’ll learn more.

I’ve said very little about what I actually think so far in this post, and the truth of it is that I’m not entirely certain myself. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised at any of the theories being correct, but the truth could just as easily be something we don’t know about, perhaps something brilliant and revolutionary that will make everyone sit up and say “Oh”. I’d like to hope that maybe there is some insane and brilliant new path they’re going to take, but I’m not really expecting that to be the case.

What I really think is that to Wizards, publishing D&D isn’t really about making a great game, it’s about making a great deal of money, and in a world that is changing as quickly as ours, they’re having a difficult time figuring out how to actually accomplish that goal. The cost of publishing physical books are high, especially when compared to publishing PDFs, but a PDFs strengths are also its weaknesses, it is easily copied and redistributed, and even pulling PDFs of their books from online vendors hasn’t stopped pirates (at best it has slowed them.)

People always point out that corporations are... well... corporations, and that their main goal is to make money, but perhaps that’s putting the cart before the horse. Wizards might have been banking on the strength of the D&D brand to hold onto their customers, but with so many other RPGs out there, and PDFs making it easier than ever for newcomers to publish and distribute their own products, the brand may not be enough to keep the game alive. I think that money has become too much of a focus, and that the focus should, even must, be shifted back toward making a high-quality game that bolsters the strength of the brand rather than sapping it. As the line goes, “If you build it, they will come.” Maybe that’s naive of me, maybe it’s foolish to ignore that a company exists largely to make money, but Wizards became the company it is by making quality games, maybe it would do them well to focus on what makes the game good, rather than just what makes the game profitable.

Announcement

Alright, so here's the thing. I greatly enjoy writing this blog, it has resulted in me writing over 30 000 words about the Frozen Over setting. Frankly I'm impressed with myself. I have, however, found it to be quite taxing to write three posts a week. In addition, I have other thoughts and ideas about D&D that I'd like to share. Notions of other campaign settings, adventures I've run, papercraft constructions I've made for my games, or just editorial thoughts on D&D. This is really two problems, the first being that writing 3 times a week is often tiring, and the second being that focusing just on one narrow topic can also be tiring. So I have made a decision, this blog will be changing.

As of today, this blog is now being opened up to other Role-Playing related topics that I wish to write about, and it's name will be changing. Along with this change is a change in address. I don't want to just change the name and address though and make it difficult for people to find me, so this blog will remain in place, and I've set up a second one with the new name and address. The other shift is that there will only be one regularly scheduled post each week, will be appear on Friday. On the other hand, I will be putting up other posts whenever I see fit, so some weeks might only have one post, while others might have many more. I hope these changes don't put readers off and that they'll continue to visit and hopefully enjoy my posts.

The new form of this blog is called Corriver's Lantern and can be found at http://corriver.blogspot.com you're already on it.

Thank you for bearing with me, and I hope you continue to enjoy the blog in it's new form.

~Sincerely, Colin B. Schaeffer