Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Open Discussion on all things C&C from new product to general questions to the rules, the laws, and the chaos.
Post Reply
User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Snoring Rock »

Here is my big complaint of the day...

Ok, I like rules light. That is what pulled me into C&C. I do not like "missing" rules however. Look at the list of weapons in PHB pg. 44.

The Bec De Corbin receives a +2 vs. chain, plate and scale armors. But the Lucerne Hammer does not. This is not a matter of a difference of opinion really. It is a complete miss. The weapons are identical, except for a sharpened hook on the hammer. They should both get the bonus.

My problem here is that I want to pick up the book and have it be consistent across the specrum. Yes, the short answer is, I am CK, so I can rule it that way. Ok, but there should not be a need for an ajudicatiuon on my part. I want to be able to hang my hat on the rules in the book. Looking closer, there are several pole arms that need some attention here as well. I like the old AD&D bounus vs. armors table to some extent. Some of these weapons should have a trip bonus as well. That is up to the CK, as he/she can be as detailed or simple as they see fit. My point here is, that the Troll Lords got sloppy.

People see these little mistakes and it turns them away, wondering where there may be even more oversights. Ok so now on to Castellans Guide to Arms and Armor; good stuff! Nice work; but incomplete. It would have been great to see ALL of the weapons in the PHB addressed. Furthermore, those weapon in the guide also have the same inconsistencies. Grrrr.....

How do I atttract more players to this game? I love this game, but the Troll Lords must clean this up. If there is a 6th printing for the PHB; may I suggest going after these little inconsistencies? I am going through the list and using the guide to arms and armor, and other sources like the ages old Palladuim Compendium, to construct a compehensive list of weapons, including use, picture, bonuses to hit, damage, types of armor, trip, reach, etc.

Has anyone already done this? Is this worth turing in once done, to be published? Second printing of Castellon's Guide?

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13866
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by serleran »

I'd rather they simply just made a list of weapons, something like 60 total, with weights, EV, and damage. Some pictures would be helpful, but all the "other details" should be ignored within the PHB... that's what "sourcebooks" are for. Or, call them "expansions." Or whatever.

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Snoring Rock »

serleran wrote:I'd rather they simply just made a list of weapons, something like 60 total, with weights, EV, and damage. Some pictures would be helpful, but all the "other details" should be ignored within the PHB... that's what "sourcebooks" are for. Or, call them "expansions." Or whatever.
Agreed, I dont want a pictorial for each weapon in the PHB. However, a consistent and comparable table for damage bonus, to-hit bonus, overbearing and/or diarm bonuses, would be in order. To have some inumerated and some not, is just "incomplete". If you do it for one or two weapons, but then leave others out, then you are better off not doing any of them. All or nothing.

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Omote »

The +2 vs this and that is silly. I have eliminated them.

~O
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

DMMike
Unkbartig
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:38 pm

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by DMMike »

In my defense, you'll note that the Castellans Guide is to Early Medieval Arms and Armor...that is why not all the PHB stuff is covered. I haven't (won't) do a Later Medieval Guide because that's not my area of study and I don't feel qualified to do Burgundian plate or Sabres. ;) Also, the Guide is limited by what the PHB gives. I can't very well contradict what is given (or isn't) in the PHB....AFAIK that's a standard rule for anyone writing supplements for C&C.

As for missing bits in the CGEMAA, apologies but obviously I missed it. Could you give me a few examples?

Mike
The Save for Half Podcast: Old School RPGs Reviewed
http://www.saveforhalf.com

Victorious: Steampunk Adventure in the Age of SuperMankind
http://www.victoriousrpg.com

User avatar
Rigon
Clang lives!
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Rigon »

Omote wrote:The +2 vs this and that is silly. I have eliminated them.

~O
What he said.

R-
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads
Monday Night Online Group Member since 2007

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Snoring Rock »

Mike, first, thanks for responding. Don’t get me wrong, I love your supplement and that is why I picked it up at GenCon. It also explains why it is rather dog-eared. I use it religiously!

And to that point, you are correct; the guide is for a specific time period. What is in the PHB however, should cover what-ever the CK deems to exist in his/her campaign. So it must cover the gammut. I will say this, perhaps Sir Omote is right; it is silly. I had not considered just dropping it altogether. Having a bunch of different "to-hit" tables for a plethora of weapons may take us back to a rules-heavy mash of more complications.

I hate the idea of having to go back and check a weapon bonus here or a damage bonus there. I had not considered just keeping it simple. Rules light right? On the other hand, if the Bec De Corbin gets that bonus, so should the “like” weapons. Consistency is important.

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Treebore »

As far as fixing it for yourself, I think you've already hit upon it. Take the 1E weapons versus armor tables and apply them how you see fit to the C&C weapons.

As for myself I also ignore them completely. I find there are more than enough modifiers given within the game with the spells, attribute modifiers, specializations, class skills, Evade, etc... that I do not want yet another batch of modifiers to keep track of.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

DMMike
Unkbartig
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:38 pm

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by DMMike »

<nod> If you're going to have an exceptional ability to a weapon its probably best to give it to the entire class of weapons. For the guide I'd originally toyed with the idea of a weapon vs armor table but figured its just too crunchy. ;) No problem, I'm glad for people to point out things I missed. That way, I know what to catch myself on for future writings I do.

What I did try to do in the guide is show why someone might've opted for weapon A over weapon B even though both did the same die of damage. Whether or not I was successful...that was the intent!


Mike
The Save for Half Podcast: Old School RPGs Reviewed
http://www.saveforhalf.com

Victorious: Steampunk Adventure in the Age of SuperMankind
http://www.victoriousrpg.com

User avatar
blackmote
Mist Elf
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:00 am
Location: Hiram, GA
Contact:

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by blackmote »

Rigon wrote:
Omote wrote:The +2 vs this and that is silly. I have eliminated them.

~O
What he said.

R-
what they said. ;)
"Nothing is so terrible that a huge red dragon can't make it just a hell of a lot worse."
-Dragon Magazine, issue #194, pg. 3

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5843
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Lord Dynel »

Yeah, in the end, it doesn't matter. If you don't want the bec de corbin to have that +2, don't let it have it. It's definitely not going to break the game.

I remember reading somewhere that the bec de corbin was better at tearing armor, but I could be misremembering. :?
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13866
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by serleran »

It might help to just classify the weapons into groups, such as "these are polearms. Polearms get first strike against shorter weapons the first round of combat and get a +1 bonus to hit heavily armored foes. They are at -2 to be disarmed."

But, this would result in "inaccuracy" and complaints.

It would be simple though and force consistency.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Arduin »

serleran wrote:It might help to just classify the weapons into groups, such as "these are polearms. Polearms get first strike against shorter weapons the first round of combat and get a +1 bonus to hit heavily armored foes. They are at -2 to be disarmed."
I do that. But if you are a lone polearm bearer, once the opponent gets inside you are in SOL land.

I'm reworking to give bonuses or penalties to groups of weapons vs. armour types.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Treebore »

Thats true. Pole arms are a weakness once it gets to on on one fighting. They are only really effective in unit formations, especially against mounted foes, who are usually more heavily armored than other foot troops (not always, just in general). So I'd only give any bonus' from pole arms before they are engaged in individual melee. Then you better switch or I will assign negatives to hit.

As it is, since I do not give bonus' I don't give negatives either. I just assume even in melee your competent enough with the pole arms to still be equally effective. Like maybe your doing some quasi martial arts looking moves where your using the pole to your advantage, much like you would staves and the like, and getting the business end of the pole arm into position to strike when its time to roll your D20.

Bottom line is I just prefer to assume that it all balances out in the end, so I don't need to mess with any more modifiers in the mean time.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Arduin »

Treebore wrote:
Bottom line is I just prefer to assume that it all balances out in the end, so I don't need to mess with any more modifiers in the mean time.
I don't give a negative mod. Once you're toe to toe you can't hit with the polearm. No space to use it. Just like if you are walking through a 5' high tunnel, you aren't using your 6' longbow...
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Treebore »

Arduin wrote:
Treebore wrote:
Bottom line is I just prefer to assume that it all balances out in the end, so I don't need to mess with any more modifiers in the mean time.
I don't give a negative mod. Once you're toe to toe you can't hit with the polearm. No space to use it. Just like if you are walking through a 5' high tunnel, you aren't using your 6' longbow...
If they were actually constricted by space I do that as well. But if they are outside, or have greater than 5 feet square of space available to them where they are at, I still allow them to use a pole arm, even in melee. Since I by no means know precisely what went into European pole arms training I assume they at least know to take a "short grip" on the staff section and are able to wield it effectively as a kind of combination weapon, in this case a staff and whatever type pole arm weapon is at the main working end.

I only go so far with my realism in my games, and since I have seen pole arms used very effectively in numerous martial arts movies, I consider that close enough to realistic for me to allow those kinds of assumed maneuvers in my games.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Arduin »

Treebore wrote:[ Since I by no means know precisely what went into European pole arms training I assume they at least know to take a "short grip" on the staff section and are able to wield it effectively as a kind of combination weapon, in this case a staff and whatever type pole arm weapon is at the main working end.
I actually studied that. Once man on man melee started they dropped the polearm and drew a sword (short). It wasn't possible to fight one on one against a person with a shorter weapon.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Treebore »

Arduin wrote:
Treebore wrote:[ Since I by no means know precisely what went into European pole arms training I assume they at least know to take a "short grip" on the staff section and are able to wield it effectively as a kind of combination weapon, in this case a staff and whatever type pole arm weapon is at the main working end.
I actually studied that. Once man on man melee started they dropped the polearm and drew a sword (short). It wasn't possible to fight one on one against a person with a shorter weapon.
That would definitely make the most sense. But like I posted above, I also consider martial arts flicks to be close enough to realistic to allow many things done in such movies to be considered as realistic assumptions in my fantasy games. So I make the assumption that the fighter class would know how to use a pole arm not only in the standard fashion, but to use it equally effectively in melee. Knights and Paladins as well. The other classes? Not so much, except maybe the monk.

Unless, of course, a player makes a point of their character using a pole arm as their preferred weapon. In that case I'd even make such an assumption for Wizards. In all such cases they would have to wield the weapon as their primary weapon for several levels, the less martial the class the more levels I would require.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Snoring Rock »

Ok, so I did the unthinkable....I dusted off my Pathfinder Core Rule book (shame) and what they did was listed these weapons with special abilities like "brace", "reach", and "disarm" and give bonuses to them. I am quite happy with that as it can be easily codified back to a simple rule.

So for reach, it works like this; you can reach an opponent 10 ft. away but not an adjacent target (unless you are Treebore and martial arts flicks count). Disarm gives a bonus to the disarm maneuver. I like it, perhaps I have my answer.

That was my original frustration, which this simple mechanic somehow did not shine through in the PHB. There are all these number notations, and not consistently used across the entire subset of weapons. It is just not complete. I speak of the Bec De Corbin and Lucerne Hammer example that started this post
.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Arduin »

Snoring Rock wrote: So for reach, it works like this; you can reach an opponent 10 ft. away but not an adjacent target. Disarm gives a bonus to the disarm maneuver. I like it, perhaps I have my answer.
I have used that (sans disarm) for a long time. Works well.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Snoring Rock »

Ok, the Hook Sword has a bonus to "overbear". I see no overbear mechanics in the game. This is the ONLY weapon with such an ability. I will ignore it, but this is what I am talking about. I assume overbear means to knock prone. I could not find it in Pathfinder but I remember reading it somewhere.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Arduin »

Snoring Rock wrote:Ok, the Hook Sword has a bonus to "overbear". I see no overbear mechanics in the game.
That's an SRD artifact that didn't get caught in editing.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
redwullf
Ulthal
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by redwullf »

Arduin wrote:
Snoring Rock wrote:Ok, the Hook Sword has a bonus to "overbear". I see no overbear mechanics in the game.
That's an SRD artifact that didn't get caught in editing.
Nope. The rules for Overbearing are on page 131 of the 4th and 5th printing of the Player's Handbook.
OVERBEARING
This type of attack is used to knock an opponent down. This is a tactic used in wrestling and other types of hand-to-hand combat, as well as when an animal charges and knocks someone over. The attacker rolls a d20 to hit and adds any strength modifier or other modifier that the Castle Keeper deems fit. The Castle Keeper may or may not deem the basic to hit bonus an appropriate modifier.

As with grappling, a defender without strength as a prime has a standard AC of 12, a defender with strength as a prime has a standard AC of 18. For overbearing, however, the defender’s strength, BtH or hit dice, and size difference modifies the standard armor class. For each size difference larger add +2, and for each size difference smaller subtract -2. In addtion the armor class is modifed by the defenders BtH.

Example: a large troll attacks a small 5th level rogue halfling and tries to knock him off a bridge and into a raging river. The halfling has strength as a prime and therefore a base armor class of 18, modified by a 14 strength (+1), and his BtH (+2) adds a total of +3 for a total of AC 21. But the troll is two sizes larger, so a -4 adjustment to the halfling’s armor class results in an AC of 17.

If a hit is successful, the defender is knocked prone for the remainder of that round. An attacker cannot knock over a defender two sizes larger. In addition, the defender takes 1-2 points of subdual damage.

An attacker attempting to overbear suffers a -2 penalty to armor class because they are more exposed than usual. The penalty remains to their armor class for the combat round.
Image
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities
for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own.” -- E. G. G.

--------------------------------------------------
Castles & Crusades Society Member

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Weapon Bonuses inconsistent

Post by Snoring Rock »

Ooh....I knew I saw it. Thank your Sir Redwulf!

Post Reply