A new terminology for D&D weapons (and using WEIGHT for speed, length, and armor)

Same subject, different take. 

I thank to Roy Fizzbin for the comment in that post, which inspired the bit about weapon weight.

The problem

Weapon terminology is confusing, both in D&D and in history.

In AD&D, a footman's mace is apparently longer than a horseman's, while history (and common sense) would say the opposite; you need longer weapons to fight on horseback.

You might assume you need 2h to use footman's (since it deals more damage), but that is unclear too.

Is a battle axe in D&D two-handed? Probably, but we can't tell. In B/X, if the battle-axe is two-handed it would make it strictly worse than the (one-handed) sword. No one would ever carry an axe (not even dwarves) - except that it is a bit less expensive and lighter.

Why is the one-handed sword heavier than a 2H-axe? Again, history and common sense would say otherwise.

I tried learning historically accurate names for weapons, but that is hard too. Distinguishing a "sword" from a "large sword" is much easier than defining what a broadsword actually means.

One thing I learned from historical swords is that D&D weights, if converted to pounds, are exaggerated, especially for swords, especially 2H-swords when compared to heavy axes and long polearms.

The solution

Here's my terminology for medieval weapons; the first time I used something similar was in Dark Fantasy Basic, but of course I can't be the first to think about this.

Tiny weapons (T): 1d4 damage. 1 pound. Basically, daggers and knives.

Small weapons (S): 1d6 damage. Weight 2-3 pounds. They always include an adjective indicating its diminished size/mass: short sword, hand axe, light spear, light mace, smallsword, etc.

Medium weapons (M). 1d8 damage. One-handed weapons, weighting 3-5 pounds. No adjectives needed: sword, mace, axe.

Large weapons (L). 1d8 damage - thus very similar to medium weapons, but add 1 or 2 pounds, and +1 damage if held with both hands. They always include an adjective indicating its increased size/mass: long sword, broad sword, heavy spear, long spear, battle axe, heavy mace.

Great weapons (G). 1d10 damage, weighting 6-10 pounds. Greatsword, great axe, great mace, great spear, etc., plus all polearms.

Cheap wooden weapons: clubs, staves, etc. Any size from S to L., but reduce damage by one step. A greatclub deals 1d8 damage, for example.

Another possible uses of weapon weight

Weight is a good indicator of size, speed, effectiveness against armor and large opponents, even if not perfect.

The fact that 1-10 pounds is a reasonable range for weapon weights is perfect for our decimal-oriented minds (there are heavier weapons, specially long polearms, probably more suitable for war than small duels).

For example, we might use weight as a speed factor, giving a -4 penalty if you want to attack twice with your 4-pound sword. When fighting someone with a 3-pound sword, we already know which weapon is longer, etc.

We could even allow the player to choose a weapon's weight (within reason), knowing that heavy weapons have pros and cons (AD&D hints at this whit spears).

To find a weapon's weight, use the order: spear, sword, axe, mace. Length is the opposite. This means a large sword weight 3-5 pounds, and a greatsword weights 6-7. A greatmace weights 10 pounds.

I'm tempted to use the same reasoning for defeating armor and large opponents; heavy weapons are better at both. 

There is still room for more detail; a mace is better against armor, and a sword against large foes, if the weight is the same. But a heavy mace is better than a light mace in BOTH situations. Likewise, a 5-pound spear probably has more reach than a 10-pound mace.

The problem is that the exceptions start to be so numerous that we start to wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just use extensive tables such as the ones found in AD&D.

Anyway, I've considered that possibility too; here is what I've got so far.

One day I might write a PDF about that... I certainly spent enough time thinking bout it. I could probably write 100 weapons in this format.

I'd love to hear some feedback on the table - or these ideas in general!

Special weapon maneuvers

Another quick idea on how to differentiate weapons. in old-school D&D - somewhat simpler than AD&D, but potentially more varied than B/X:

Give each weapon a Speed Factor (SF) or a Defeat Armor (DA) rating, maybe both.

This is entirely optional for players; it is only relevant when they decide to use a special maneuver.

Here are some maneuvers.

---
Quick attack.
Make two attacks instead of one, each with a penalty equal to SF. If attacking with a different weapon in each hand, you can add +2 to your main hand. This replaces the usual two-weapon fighting rules from AD&D.

Armor bash.
Make an attack with a +4 bonus against an opponent wearing armor (chain or better), but the damage gets reduced (this can be expressed in a percentage; not sure yet).

---

Other maneuvers can be added as needed: forceful attack (-4 to-hit, +4 damage), defensive attack (-4 to-hit, +4 AC against one single opponent), ignore shield (+1 to attack but -2 damage unless using a flail, etc.) etc.

Maybe all numbers default to 4, leaving other stats optional.

For example, you could have:

Mace, 1d6, SF 6, DA 80%, Parry 2.

Long-sword, 1d8, SF 6, DA 30%, Parry 5.

Battle-axe, 1d8, SF 7, DA 50%, Parry 4.

And either use each stat as appropriate, or ignore all stats and use +4/-4 to all maneuvers.

So the mace is good against armor, but only when you choose to use it this way (+4 to-hit, 80% damage).

Alternatively, just remove all weapon details (except damage) and leave this to the (optional) maneuvers section. 

These would give fighters more options both when picking weapons and during combat, but also allow you to ignore weapon stats whenever desired.

Weapon speed, size and force: simplifying AD&D

"Forget weapon speed factors. I must have been under the influence of a hex when I included them in the bloody rules." - attributed to Gary Gygax.

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you might know I'm a bit obsessed with this stuff.

So, I was taking YES another look at AD&D weapons... and, again, I'm torn.

On one hand, I love the idea of certain weapons being awesome when dealing with heavy armor, or large opponents, or tight spaces... OTOH I think the tables as written are almost unsalvageable.

Take the two handed sword, for example.

* It makes attacking someone in leather armor easier to hit than someone who is unarmored. 

* It ignores your shield if you are unarmored, but NOT if you are in leather armor.

* It weights 250 coins. The awl pike (length: 18’+) weights 80 coins.

There is nothing here I want to use. But it also has a few interesting aspects I like:

* It is a decent weapon against MOST  types of armor and shields.

* It is a great weapon against large opponents.

AD&D doesn't tell you this, but it shows this is true with many tables and more than a dozen digits. Here is a radical simplification that would still give me everything I want from 2H-sword:

- The 2H-sword has +2 to hit against any armor, and double damage dice (2d10) against large opponents.

Now, instead of analyzing several tables, the player can choose this weapon for clear reasons. 

We could extrapolate this further; maybe ALL swords deal double damage against large foes, and ALL two-handed weapons get +2 to hit (thus balancing the loss of a shield).

In order to create these extrapolations/generalizations, I compiled this table (right click to open in a new tab):

The columns are:

- Weights.

- Damage (minimum plus maximum, so "1-4" becomes 5).

- Speed factor (the lower/red, the faster).

- Attack (the sum of all attack bonuses, from AC 9 to AC 2), meaning the weapon hits more often.

- Armor spread (which is the AC 2 bonus minus the AC 9 bonus), meaning the weapon is particularly bad against heavy armor if the number is low/red. Ignore this last column for now.

The colors help us visualize some patterns. 

There is a clear tendency of lighter weapons being faster, but weaker against armor and dealing lower damage. 

When there is a visible shift in color, we can notice outliers. For example:

- The awl pike is much slower than other weapons of a similar weight, while the lance (heavy warhorse) is significantly faster.

- The bastard sword is very good against large opponents, even in its weight class.

- The short sword is fast for its weight class; in fact, all swords are kinda fast for their weights.

- Some weapons (2H sword, heavy lance, flail, morningstar) hit more often, while others (sticks, fauchard, guisarme) have a harder time hitting ("attack" column).

- The "bec de corbin" and "axe, battle" are both bad against large opponents.

Now, the last column deserves further explanation. 

A positive/green number means the weapon gets to partially ignore armor, while a negative/red number means the weapon is particularly weak against heavier armor.

This column has a bit less correlation to "weight class". But there are some rules that seem easy to generalize:

- Picks, flails, maces and heavy lances/2h-swords are good against heavy armor.

- Axes, daggers and swords are bad against heavy armor.

- Sticks/staves are terrible against heavy armor.

So... I still don't know what to make of this. I guess my desire is to make a series of small affirmations that could be easier understood and applied ("picks, flails and 2h-swords get +2 against armor", etc.).

An earlier effort resulted in this, which was good but still not quite what I'm looking for.

My next guess is that we could play with the idea of "combat maneuvers" or "special attacks", with some weapons being better doing a "ignore armor" maneuvers, others with a "fast attack", etc.

Another idea is making clear certain weapons are better against giants, other against undead, oozes, etc.

But I'll leave that to another day. This exercise was interesting but a bit frustrating; it almost seems like any effort to streamline this stuff is in vain, and we'd be better off consulting tables.

Where AD&D is better than 3d6 in order

Being a fan of basic D&D, I always thought that rolling 3d6 in order was the cleanest, fastest way to generate PCs. Also the most fair, so PCs start, on average, as a normal person.

In addition, the -3/+3 modifier spread is beautiful and intuitive, while in AD&D you need to consult lots of tables to fill your character sheet.

In comparison, the AD&D methods were not only more complex - involving more dice rolling, sometimes to ridiculous lengths - but also made starting PCs stronger than average humans (but they could still be knocked out and maybe dying from a 10-foot fall).

In addition, this added complexity, redundantly, often got you to the same modifiers you'd get in B/X. 

For example, in B/X you get abilities of 10.5 on average, while you needed 13 Strength to get a +1 bonus to damage. 

In AD&D the average is 12.24... But you still get +0 to damage even with 13! 

So what is the point?

Well, the point is that despite these things, AD&D got a few things better than B/X here.

- The default modifier is +0, like in B/X, despite higher abilities.
- However, the bell curve in 4d6 is "higher" - averages (12, 13) are more likely and negative results are a lot rarer, which makes the game a bit faster since subtraction is uncommon (addition is quicker).
- Maybe PCs should be a bit stronger than the average human? And, specially, avoid PCs that are extremely weak in any area (e.g., PCs that can barely speak).

In short, this 4d6 methods was adopted in subsequent editions for good reasons - and there are plenty of B/X players using it too.

However, in B/X this makes PCs a bit too strong for my taste.

There are several methods to combine the advantages of both systems. In B/X, these are some of my favorites:

A) Roll 2d6+4 to each ability score. This avoids extreme results and gives you an average of 11.

B) 3d6 in order, but replace one result of your choosing by 15.

C) Some standard array to make things even faster (for 3d6, it could be 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7 or 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8; add 1 point to each to get an average of 11.5). 

I'd let the players swap two attributes to play the PCs they want (or assign to taste in "C").

[One thing to note is that I use feats and ability scores improvement, so that eventually you can raise your ability scores. If I didn't, I'd probably use "B" - leaving the possibility of 3s and 18s and also allowing you to play basically any class you want].

Notice that this is quite close to the averages in the D&D B-series pregens - who have average ability scores around 11-12 or a bit higher, as explained here.

This range looks satisfying to me.

Of course, it is ultimately a matter of taste - do you want PCs to be ordinary, a bit better, or heroic form the start? 

But for my B/X(ish) games, this average of 11.5 - just a bit above a normal human - is what I like.

A wizard of Earthsea

A wizard of Earthsea is an old favorite of mine. I've read it in more than two decades ago. Seeing a new edition illustrated by Charles Vess and in hardcover, I thought it was a good idea to revisit it, especially in the context of the Appendix N (the book is not on Gygax's list, but in Moldvay's).

Well, the illustrations were a bit sparse and not particularly awesome, but the story is still worth reading again.

The book was written for "young adults", but it does not feel juvenile. It is a good "coming-of-age story" that portrays the upbringing of a wizard, from childhood to maturity - and what that entails. Still, a good book for young teenagers - easy, short, no sex and little violence, but carrying a deep message.

The main character is Sparrowhawk, a child who discovers magical powers and then starts an apprenticeship before going to "wizard school". While trying to prove his worth to his peers (and, maybe, trying to impress a girl - but that's subtle), he foolish unleashes a being that will haunt him for years. While re-reading the book, this was my favorite part, because it subtly shows the character's immaturity and insecurity against offenses that might be small or partly imaginary.

The Earthsea books are famous in D&D fandom for its magic system, which focus on learning the true names of things and maintaining balance. There are a few suggestions of spell mishaps that are very interesting - for example, the book mentions that many dolphins are wizards that forgot they had to shape-shift back to human form!

The archipelago setting looks decent for adventuring. There are dragons of varying size and power and a shadow monsters, both of which might have been used as inspiration in D&D. Other than that, the book does not have many monsters or magic items, but still feels like decent inspiration for D&D games - including an interesting mysterious castle...

While I am usually a fan of dark fantasy, this is "light fantasy" at its best. It is not pulp action in the vein of Burroughs and Howard, nor Lovecraftian horror (although it contains nameless things and being older than humanity) or the dark fairy tales of Dunsany. It is somewhat reminiscent of "The Hobbit" but for older readers, or Piranesi for younger ones - but not quite. The author deliberately tried to subvert some fantasy tropes, avoiding war almost entirely. It contains little parody or humor, and the horror is almost entirely metaphysical. It is reminiscent of fairy tales, in a way, but also more "serious".

It is, in some ways, a melancholic, sensitive book (and setting). 

There are no epic battles (except one brief encounter with dragons) and few great heroes. The people  of the archipelago are mostly peasants and fishermen, some having little knowledge of anything except their own island (in the saddest part of the book, this is a very small island, and almost no knowledge at all). Beyond the archipelago, there seems to be a vast expanse of sea and nothingness. The protagonist also spends a lot of time wounded, sleeping, or escaping, which reinforces this feeling. But it is not a sad book, necessarily - on the contrary, it has a hopeful bend, a light tone, and a mythic/archetypal truth to it that mimics the hero's journey without being clichéd. 

In any case, it is a classic and a short read. Definitely recommended to anyone with interest in fantasy and D&D.

[BTW, after finishing this one I immediately started re-reading The Tombs of Atuan, who centers around a labyrinthine dungeon and the cult of  the "Nameless Ones"... I don't remember the details of ths one, but should be fun!]

Read more about the Appendix N and other fantasy books HERE.

How big is an (6-mile) hex?

I've been thinking of hexes in abstract terms, but I think something more complete would be useful.

I default to the proverbial "6-mile hex" describe here.

Apparently, the area is about 31 square miles (correct me if I'm wrong).

This is bigger than Manhattan (23 square miles).

The Isle of Wight would cover about 2 hexes.

Siena - plus about 20 towns and monasteries - would cover one hex.

The City of London, within the walls, is HALF a square mile - so it covers about 1/60 of the hex.

Notice how thin the Thames would look in a six-mile hex map! It is about 0,16 miles wide near London.

Rivers such as the Danube, Rhine, and Mississippi have an average width of less than one mile.

In short, this means that crossing an hex will not necessarily allow you to see every relevant site. In the plains you are likely to see the entire hex in a clear day, so a village is not difficult to find - especially because there are roads etc. But the village is not hard to AVOID, either.

Anyway, there is no way you can picture every village in a six-mile hex (which I used to do - I marked the hex with a small house).

At this level of detail, it would be better to use 3-mile hexes, which are four times smaller than the original hex - and have their own advantages. 

A 3-mile hex is enough for a village with countryside, or maybe a very large city surrounded by 4-6 hexes of countryside and villages.

In a 1-mile hex, river thickness may start to vary in the map (and maybe even change from season to season). 

Traveling becomes less abstract - you do not cross "the mountains", but choose specific paths.

This is probably too much detail for me. Too much choice with little consequence. I'll stick to 6-mile hexes for now.

---

Additional reading:

http://steamtunnel.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-praise-of-6-mile-hex.html

http://steamtunnel.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-ergonomic-3-mile-hex.html

https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2019/06/osr-sienas-6-mile-hex.html?m=1

https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2017/07/osr-fast-mapping-part-3-barony-terrain.html

https://silverarmpress.com/down-with-the-6-mile-hex-a-modest-proposal/

https://ruprechtsrpg.blogspot.com/2020/01/6-mile-hexes.html

https://the-robgoblin.blogspot.com/2024/04/it-takes-village-to-stock-hex.html

Character death in RPGs, war-games, and storygames

I've tried to differentiate the three perspectives here.

There is one aspect or issue that I´d like to emphasize: the death of a player character.

The  RPG experience requires first person perspective.

But in this perspective, the death of a character is THE END.

No one sees himself as disposable or easily replaceable.

(This is even more of a problem in a TPK. If you send waves after waves of PCs to fight the Tomb of Horrors, you've playing a puzzle, not necessarily an RPG).

The wargame solution is replacing the PC for an NPC or hireling. Easy. The storygame solution could be simply saving the PC or letting death be a relevant plot point.

But, from the perspective of the PC, death means it is over.

So PC death might be a bigger problem in RPGs than even in storygaming (in wargaming, it is not even a problem). 

A story with many characters can easily continue after one death (think Game of Thrones, etc.)

Let's think videogames for a minute. 

In videogames with a single character, death usually requires a "do over". Go back to your most recent level (or saving point) and go from there, otherwise the game has to end.

In Warcraft, on the other hand, nothing happens if an "unit" is destroyed, as long as you have other pieces. This is the wargaming perspective (Darkest Dungeon is another great example - it really feel like an old-school RPG due to its proximity to wargames).

I felt more "character immersion" in Resident Evil than Darkest Dungeon or Warcraft (although FUN can be found anywhere). This is part of the reason I think a wargaming perspective is not ideal for RPGs.

Are there computer storygames? I am not sure. My first instinct is compare storygaming to cutscenes - certain things just happen because they are important to the plot, including the death of a player character. But storygames have mechanics that are difficult to translate to videogames - shared narratives, story tokens, etc.

There is a tension in there I cannot quite resolve right now: if there is no risk of PC death, immersion/simulation is ruined. But if you can simply replace a dead PC, his life has little value and therefore there is no real risk.

My instinct says the death of a PC should be possible but meaningful. This requires balancing RPGs with some wargaming and maybe storygaming perspectives.

But this certainly requires more reflection.