I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.

- William Blake

Thursday, September 05, 2019

Simple scaling weapons and armor (ability overflow edition)

I've written about this before: here and here.

This is just a simplification, but I think I like it better than using tables. It is meant for 5e, but it was originally imagined for another system I'm writing (which is a simplification of 5e).

For the purposes of this post, we're using the expression "ability surplus" to mean ability-10. 


Score Surplus
10 0
11 1
12 2
13 3
14 4
15 5
16 6
17 7
... ...etc.


We have two sample PCs to test this system.

Joe has Strength 13 and Dexterity 16 (i.e., an ability surplus of 3 for Str and 6 for Dex). 

Jane has Strength 18 and Dexterity 12  (i.e., an ability surplus of 8 for Str and 2 for Dex). 

Let's go!

Weapons

Most weapons add 50% of ability surplus (Strength or Dexterity) to damage. This is practically identical to what 5e does.

Weapons that use both Strength and Dexterity may add a combined 60% (minimum 20% each).

Composite bows, for example, might add 30% of each to damage. Both Joe and Jane would get a +3 bonus:

Joe: 30% of 9 = 2.7
Jane: 30% of 10 = 3.

Lets say heavy slings use 40% Strength and 20% Dexterity instead. Joe gets +2, but Jane gets +4:

Joe: 40% of 3 plus 20% of 6 = 2.4
Jane: 40% of 8 plus 20% of 2 = 3.6.

Turn the nobs a bit here and there and you'll realize you have endless possibilities. For example:

- Two-handed weapons has a maximum of 70% instead of 60%. They usually add +10% Strength.
- Versatile weapons used with two hands may add 10% Dexterity instead (I'm thinking quarterstaves, spears...).
- Off-hand weapons add up to 40% instead of 50%, and must use at least 10% Dexterity.
- Thrown weapons always need more Strength, ranged weapons more Dexterity.
- Magic weapons may add some Intelligence, Charisma or Wisdom to the mix.
- etc. etc.

Art by Rick Troula

Armor

Remember this system?

Here is something that can be even simpler. And more granular at the same time.

You add 100% of your Dexterity surplus to AC. Unarmored Joe has AC 16, unarmored Jane has AC 12.

However, that assumes you're carrying nothing. If you are carrying 20% of your encumbrance limit*, you can only add 80% of your Dexterity surplus to AC.

(*your encumbrance limit depends on what rules you're using... slots, pounds, etc. But you can think of it this way: you have a number of slots equal to Str, and +1 to AC takes one slot. So, if you have Str 15, you could carry three pieces of armor [+3 AC] and still add 80% of you Dexterity surplus to AC, but only if you're carrying nothing else).

Here is where things get interesting. Joe, who is quicker, gets more benefits form travelling light. Jane, who is a lot stronger, would benefit more from armor, since it would be less encumbering.

Natural armor is probably exempt, and magic armor is lighter.

The system only "breaks" if you're very agile and very weak: armor will actually hinder your AC. But this already happens in 5e. And, well, sounds quite sensible.

Of course, you do not have to recalculate AC every time you pick up a new item... But when you do, players will quickly realize that encumbrance matters.

UPDATE:

Here is another way to do it: use a table. This one, for example. So, if Jane has an "Strength B, Dexterity F" Greataxe, she adds +7 to damage.

A B C D E F
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2
12 2 1.6 1.2 1 0.8 0.4
13 3 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.6
14 4 3.2 2.4 2 1.6 0.8
15 5 4 3 2,5 2 1
16 6 4.8 3.6 3 2.4 1.2
17 7 5.6 4.2 3.5 2.8 1.4
18 8 6.4 4.8 4 3.2 1.6
19 9 7.2 5.4 4.5 3.6 1.8
20 10 8 6 5 4 2

11 comments:

  1. Yeah, too much math for my tastes. Looks a bit of dark souls tabletop.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Could well be... I find sigle digit multiplication easier than, say, double-digit addition, but that might be far from universal. Maybe I should try a table instead, os some fractions (1/4, 1/3, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maths is not a problem. Turn them into matricies, and have character sheets designed to take the matricies when required.

      Me? I love this system. If I start running 5e again, I after a few runs suggest this idea. My table already keeps a lot of notes due to playing 3.5, so free styling a character sheet isn't a new idea.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Sean, it's great to hear you liked it! Yeah, a matrix could work. Maybe going from "A" (100%) through "F" (20%), seems intuitive enough and still lots of detail.

      You know what, I'm adding a matrix to this post.

      Delete
  3. If you create a "Weapon Builder" process (pick X or Y of one group of properties with prereqs and all), I feel you can "hide" most of the maths. I would have to think on how exactly I would do it though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's another cool idea. Wouldn't be that hard to do with weapon properties in 5e...

      Delete
    2. I had some rough musings about using an Item Size system with your slot encumbrance in one of your posts. Have item size take up so many slots, like your regular system, but the creature's size modifies slots with every category larger or smaller than medium doubling or halving the number of slots. You then base how a creature handles a weapon (Light, Normal, or Heavy) based on if it takes up 10%,20%, or 40% of your slots (1, 2 or 4 slots on STR 10*).

      The maths sound complicated, but it's a continuation of the halving and doubling of 5e system. And you only have disadvantage on weapons that are beyond the Heavy category for you personally.

      What this means is that your STR 24 halfling barbarians can use a Great Axe without disadv., but the Goliath Barb (24*2 = 48), views a Great Axe as a Light weapon...


      *I would specify that for weapon and armour pieces, there is a difference between a bundle of knives for example, and the same bundle of knives distributed on your person for combat use. If you are just transporting the arms and armour
      , quarter the encumbrance cost.

      Delete
    3. Adding onto this, you would probably have items classified as Light, Medium, and Heavy, along with Small, Medium, and Large. For the slot system, the "greater" of the two properties determines the number of slots it takes up (eg: a cannonball is Small and Heavy, an Upright base is Large and Light-ish).

      Where the distinction matters is that Heavy weapons count towards GWM style abilities, even if it doesn't hinder you as much.

      Yes this does give a lot of damage potential to high STR high DEX characters, but frankly I consider this a feature, not a bug.

      Delete
    4. I like the idea, and the image of a goliath barbarian carrying two great axes looks awesome (unlike the idea of an ordinary guy using a quarterstaff and shield, like 5e does RAW...). I also like the fact that allows halflings to use heavy weapons but only if they are exceptionally strong.
      I agree that giving more damage to high STR high DEX characters is a feature, not a bug. Fighting types should be encouraged to have both STR and DEX, IMO.

      Delete
    5. I am glad you like it. I know my approach to weapon and martial game design may frontload abilities (most feats end up as just weapon properties), so having a Light Cleaving weapon (swing through a group of enemies on a crit, then swing again), but I think it _feels_ better than the current system.

      Delete