How do you guys prefer your weapons to be in TTRPGS? I'm trying to design my own right now and I'm not sure if its better to have more simple weapons that are really just aesthetic choices, or a super defining choice. I'm worried that if weapons do to much, players will carry several weapons and it'll end up being a lot of stress on the GM.

>>95943212 (OP)
What do you have in mind for your system in general? The best way to handle weapons, or even just my own personal preference, depends on the context. Do you want there to be more importance on character abilities or on preparation and bringing the right tool for the job, or do you want to strike a balance between these two? Are you going for gritty realism, high-flying action movie shenanigans, something else?

>>95943212 (OP)
Depends heavily on the sort of game you are trying to make. If combat is a centerpiece of the game, and there is an emphasis on equipment; then it would make sense to have a number of weapons with unique statlines and properties. If just equipment is important, its probably better to have weapons differentiated on a scale of practical but unimpressive to impractical and very deadly. If just combat is important, it'd probably be best to just do the bare minimum of differentiating them from each other. If neither is important, it'd probably be best to just leave them unstated.

>>95943212 (OP)
Honestly, I would love for me system if players consider carrying several different weapons with them for tactical reasons, and if there are equally reasons to focus on a specific weapon type and become extremely skilled in it.
I think there should always be a limit on how many weapons you can carry on yourself, and switching to a different weapon should cost something in the action economy. Even if your system wants to be rather abstract, pulling shields suddenly out of your arse while you were previously smacking someone with a two-handed weapon will always bother me.

>>95943318
>>95943338
>>95943353
I'm trying to make a more gritty system that is a bit more of a "bulked up" 5 torches deep/OSR system. The current big mechanic I have is "contested attacks", before you attack the GM describes the monsters intent (He's holding his hand under his cloak and looks ready to strike), from that the player says their intent (counter, feint, assault). Player rolls to attack, monster rolls to defend, if the rolls are within 5 of each other the winner of the intent hits. (Its rock paper scissors, counter beats assault, assault beats feint, feint beats counter). If you roll outside of that 5 then you just hit the enemy, the range expands based upon feats you get. I have yet to actually try it so it might fucking suck, but we'll see.
I wanted weapons to have some kind of interaction with this, but I'm not sure how to go about it. Maybe certain weapons have buffed intents, like axes do better with assaults but can't feint well.
My overall goal with the system is to have meaningful choices in combat with every turn, and avoid hp bloat. Most TTRPGs I've played (Godbound, 5e, 5 Torches Deep, Cy_Borg) have combat that takes to long and feels pointless. You know who's going to win on the first turn, everything else is just a meatslap fest or a oneshot spree.
Some last notes: Combat is intended to never have more than 12 people total (Players included), and the highest hp will get to is around 20. Most attacks will deal around 1d6.

>>95943212 (OP)
>I want a lot of weapons
>They all do 1d6 damage
Lame.

>You get one weapon
>It's damage scales with character growth representing your proficiency with it
Good shit.

Bonus for the GM with the second option. When the PC weapon breaks or gets stolen it's a REALLY big problem.

>>95943542
In a system like that, one hit kills better be extremely common place for player characters and NPCs alike otherwise you are just slowing shit down.

>>95943542
I think different stances/guards are much more important in this context than weapons themselves. Different guards could give you bonuses and also if you have a PC experienced with a certain stance, it could give them advantage in combat so it doesn't feel too much RNG

>>95943542
Alright. Well, for a system like that I think weapons being more than aesthetic choices would be good, though I'm not basing this on anything more than that it just feels about right to me. I'd not fiddle around a lot with numerical bonuses to damage and such, as I kind of feel like that easily leads to there just being some mathematically superior weapon choice. I mean, a big two-handed sword hitting harder than a knife or a fist makes sense, but I'd rather have some kind of broad size categories for weapons and base damage on that than to have this weapon + 1 damage more than that one. If you have a clear idea of a central combat mechanic, weapons interacting with it makes sense, though I'd think that a specific weapon having a buff for a specific intent might guide player choice a bit too much, make the intent a bit too predictable. But, I dunno, maybe letting big weapons assault well, light weapons feint well and 'balanced' weapons counter well might be enough distinction? I think that nerfing one intent in addition to buffing one isn't necessary and might constrain choices in practice a bit too much.

>>95943542
I suppose I would agree with your idea of having certain buffed intents depending on the weapon for the system. Maybe have more direct combat oriented characters have effects like how >>95943625 suggested.

>>95943612
That's the idea. I would like the players to feel that combat is dangerous no matter the enemy, and taking down large creatures like Minotaurs is a real feat.
>>95943625
>>95943701
I was considering adding this too, just not sure how to go about it, or write it well. My first thought is to have weapons give bonuses if your trained in them, and at character creation you select 2-3 that you can gain a bonus from, from there you can adopt that weapons stance and adjust combat. Daggers get a big + to their if attacking from behind or something, or swords gain a + to their contested attack number if your fighting someone 1 on 1.
>>95943625
I'm trying to make the RNG of these games feel more interactive. I was also contemplating increasing the DC of your contested attack for every turn that has gone by to make combat go faster.
>>95943693
I was thinking of putting every weapon into a size category that basically determines its damage die, going from a 1d4 dagger -> 1d10 Guts sword.

Limit the ammount of weapons a character can carry. Classify them as primary and secondary.
Bow and arrow - Primary
Sling - Secondary
Longsword - Primary, but could be secondary
Spear - Primary
Rapier - Secondary
Dagger - Secondary
Greataxe - Primary

>>95943212 (OP)
>I'm worried that if weapons do to much, players will carry several weapons
That's a good thing.

>and it'll end up being a lot of stress on the GM.
How so? How would having different options stemming from weapon choice be any different from having different options from any other source?
Also, you can limit that by limiting how many weapons a character could feasibly wield or swap from.

>>95943542
sounds clunky anon

>>95943818
Stealing this. Thanks.
>>95943987
And applying it to this
>>95946334
Its certainly going to be at first but I want to iron it out and at least try the idea. Most systems just stick to "roll to hit lol" which bores me.
Thanks for replying gentlemen. If people are interested I'll post my system, I'm also working on a magic casting system that I think is dogshit but whatever

>>95943212 (OP)
The focus would be on different weapons abilities.

There would be general abilities that apply to most weapons and specific ones that you can gain through specalization.

ranged weapons have fixed ammo because being physically stronger only means you can use a bigger weapon not make the bullet hit harder or go faster.

Daggers and shields would be secondary weapons but also benefit from abilities and specialist abilities

>>95943212 (OP)
What does "how do you like weapons to be" mean? Which properties are you asking about?

>>95943212 (OP)
It depends on what kind of game you and your players want to run. If you just want to murder hobo it up, crazy weapons are great. If you want to work through insanely complicated plots and solve puzzles, make them a bit more mundane.
One weapons design I really like is in Call of Cthulhu. The weapons are secondary to most pre written missions, but they are OP as hell and it takes forever to recover HP.
Kind of the opposite of that is GangBusters. The weapons are a big part of it, the do moderate damage and the core rules basically prevent a PC from being killed while healing fairly quickly.
Good luck OP.

Create different weapon tiers, each one stronger than the last.
eg. Common < Uncommon < Rare < Legendary < Godly

Have different weapon types.
eg. Dagger, Sword, Axe, Bludgeon, Claw, Pickaxe, Polearm, Spear, Unarmed, Whip, Bow, Crossbow, Gun, Thrown.

And since it's a TTRPG, make each weapon unique with different flavour texts and attributes(enemies can have generic one just for easier loot-selling, unless it's a boss).
eg. Rare Redvenom Blade, made from a mixture of poisonous blood and demon blood, deals 1d4+4 damage and grants a +4 agility bonus.

>>95947155
AI wrote this post

>>95947800
NPC wrote this post

Yep struck a nerve lol

>>95943542
>Maybe certain weapons have buffed intents, like axes do better with assaults but can't feint well.

That's probably how I'd do it, given the combat you want.

And to keep PCs from carrying a whole armory, either make chargen encourage a character to focus on a few intents, or...tell your players no more than 1 major and 1 minor weapon each (or whatever). One of the biggest advantages of TTRPGs is that you can try treating your players like grown-ups and ask them cooperate with you.

>>95943212 (OP)
Depends on the system, or the tone and "feel" that the system or campaign is trying to go for. Narrative or rules-lite games probably don't need long weapon lists. Players can just pick a generic weapon and give it their own flavor. Although, I tend to find that narrative/rule-lite games end up being more stress on me as a GM because I end up having to reinvent the wheel by homebrewing stuff that a crunchier system would have rules for anyways.
Crunchy systems that emphasize customization and all the subtle nuances between different types of weapons probably need long weapon lists (if going the historical or "realistic" route), or at least a simple list with countless options for further weapon modifications that can endlessly combined for any permutation you can think of (for a game set in fantasy or sci-fi).
As a player, I like the hyper-customization route best. I love customizing weapons to give them their own unique feel and make them truly "mine". As a GM, I appreciate long weapon lists with lore/descriptions for each that suggest this weapon's place in the world, who would have access to this weapon, for what type of enemy or situation is the weapon best to fight against, and so on; which saves me some of the trouble of customizing my own weapons for NPCs. If a system has both, then that's fantastic.

>>95943542
>Player rolls to attack, monster rolls to defend, if the rolls are within 5 of each other the winner of the intent hits. (Its rock paper scissors, counter beats assault, assault beats feint, feint beats counter)
Rock paper scissors is the opposite of meaningful choices because you're just blindly guessing, and adding rolls into it means your choice never mattered to begin with.

You're better off trying to emulate certain aspects of real fighting that make for actual tactical decision making. In real life, combat isn't typically a matter of 'Igougo' and taking turns between offense and defense, it's a matter of seizing the initiative and putting yourself in a position where you'll win, while the defender desperately tries to turn the tables.

Start with three concepts:
1. Damage should be dependent on relative vulnerability and advantages. If you're both on your feet, clad in armor, wielding swords, you can't really hurt eachother. If your opponent is on the ground and disarmed, you can probably kill him with some effort. If he's got a dagger and you've got a spear, he should be fucked. If he's up close though, now it's you whose fucked.
2. The attacker keeps attacking. In a real fight when someone punches you in the face, they don't stop and wait to see what you do, they keep punching you until they think the fight's over. You don't get a turn if you can't stop them from punching you in the face.
3. The defender is reactive but should have options on how he's going to try and take the initiative/end the attack. He might tuck his chin and roll under a punch, shove the guy away, pull a knife and force him away, go for a risky counterpunch that leaves him open, or just hope he can curl up and let the other guy's stamina run out and give him an opening, but give him ways of trying to turn the fight around.

And remember: Real, 'gritty' fights aren't fair.

>>95950398
Its not quite just rock paper scissors. The GM describes the situation, so you get your chance to guess. It makes intelligent creatures more threatening because they can psych you out. An example:
You go to attack a thief. The GM says "He has one hand behind him, the other is tightly gripping something in his jacket." From there I was thinking of adding a limited use roll to get more information, something like [PC 1d20+int vs Target 1d20 + cha], if the PC wins they get more information. Its going to end up being a guessing game, but that seems cool to me. Obviously the opposite of this is mindless monsters like a minotaur that is going to often just attempt to beat your head in.
Making fights realistic is retarded. Combat would be something the players fear, and often avoid. I still want my players to want to go out into the dark and explore, but just know that risk exist. At least that's my take on it.
>>95949054
Like this guy said, I can ask players to work with me on it. I know for a fact this system wont be for everyone.

>>95943212 (OP)
>How do you guys prefer your weapons to be in TTRPGS?
I prefer systems where characters are skilled with "Swords" or "Polearms" rather than "Longswords" or "Spears." However, AD&D's weapon proficiency system was fine. I never used the weapon specialization in UA so I can't speak on it.
>I'm worried that if weapons do to much, players will carry several weapons it'll end up being a lot of stress on the GM.
Then don't make it that complicated. Make a system and simplify it as you play.
>>95943542
I'm kind of struggling to imagine your system, so I came up with my own. Steal it if you want.

Rather than having a turn system (my turn, your turn), you have a flat round system where combatants square off and declare intent simultaneously. They then roll a d20 contest and whoever rolls higher wins that round.
Fighters add their level to their roll, clerics and thieves add half rounded down, MU's quarter, Paladins add half level rounded (double Lvl VS evil), Rangers add half level (Double Lvl VS Favoured Enemy).
If your Intent beats theirs, you get a +5 bonus to this roll.
The winner subtracts the opponents roll from their own to get a Margin of Success (MoS) for the round. 19 VS 24 = 5 MoS
No matter who wins, both sides roll damage. The winner can either add their MoS to their damage or subtract it from their opponents damage in any proportion.
Armour reduces damage rather than hit chance in this system.

Weapons are modular with numerous "tags"
Something like;
>Axes Maces and Hammers: +1 to Assault, -1 to Counter
>Long Weapons: +1 to all at long range, -1 to all at short range
>Elven Weapons : +1 to Feints
>Magical +X Weapons give +X to all.
So an Elven Pole-Axe+1 would have: +3A, +1C, +3F at long range, and +1A, -1C, +1F at short range.

1 / ?

>>95955259
So here's an example.
Ayen, 4th Lvl Fighter with an Elven Pole-Axe+1: +3A, +1C, +3F at long, +1A, -1C, +1F at short. We'll say this fight is at long range to keep it simple.
VS
6HD Troll with a big wooden club: +5, +1C, -3F
>Round 1
Troll declares Assault, Ayen declares Counter.
Troll rolls 1d20 + 6 (HD) + 5 (Weapon). He gets 18
Ayen rolls 1d20 + 4 (Fighter Level) + 3 (Weapon) + 5 (Counter beats Assault). She gets 16.
Trollwins with MoS of 2
Both roll damage, troll puts all his MoS into increasing damage.

>Round 2
Troll (more cunning that it seems) declares Feint, Ayen declares Counter.
Troll rolls 1d20 + 6 (HD) + 5 (Weapon) + 5 (Feint beats Counter). He gets 26
Ayen rolls 1d20 + 4 (Fighter Level) + 3 (Weapon). She gets 27 (I actually did roll an epic natty 20 as I'm writing and demoing this)
Ayen wins with MoS of 1
Both roll damage, Ayen puts all her MoS into reducing damage.

and so on until the rest of the party help her out.

I don't know about class HP and weapon Damage values. That's the boring numbers part that playtesting will reveal. Come up with some values and see how it goes.
D20vsD20 was just an example since it's the D&D die, but anything could work. Maybe 2d6 or 3d6 would be more appropriate...
Maybe strength adds to Damage and Assault, Dexterity adds to Feint, the higher of Intelligence or Wisdom adds to Counter?
As an aside, you could have an optional fourth Intent called "Defend" where it gives you a +10, +15, +5 against Assault, Counter, and Feint respectively, but affords you no damage roll. It's an option for holding out where you need to survive for a long time rather than kill the enemy. Like holding a doorway so your Magic User can cast that


2 / 3

>>95955297
Players of course decide on their Intent, but for monsters it's either GM fiat or a random table depending on your style. I'm sure you could make some tables like this if you need
>roll 1d10
>Mindless Monster (golem): Assault 1-10
>Aggressive Monster (orc, wolf, demon): Assault 1-7, Counter 8, Feint 9-10
>Defensive/Fleeing/Cowardly Monster: Assault 1-2, Counter 3-5, Feint 6, Defend 7-10.
and so on...
For fights where you're engaged with multiple opponents, perhaps you roll against each opponent individually, but you get a penalty to ALL of the rolls the more opponents there are. So against 2-3 opponents you get -2 on your checks. Against 4-5 you get -3. Against 6+ it's a nasty -4. Something like that? So it's a very good idea for everyone to crowd the troll and kill it, even if the individual party member aren't themselves contributing much damage. Getting swarmed by Goblins by yourself would be pretty harsh unless you're a Fighter in Plate and that seems about right to me.

Anyway, just an idea. Take it if you want.

One more thing I forgot to mention in response to the OP, I'm not a fan games where weapons are equal. It's actually okay for a greatsword to outperform a dagger 99% of the time and I prefer that. "I'm the Dagger Guy, so I can stand toe-to-toe with the Greatsword Guy in a fight" is gay to me.

3 / 3

Yikes.

>>95943212 (OP)
I just try to go for simple weapons that have semi-specific end-uses. I usually do this by having tags or special qualities, even on mundane stuff. Just off the top of my head:
>Armourbane: Weapon either ignores armour or reduces it.
>Fast: Can attack twice, or goes first in initiative order.
>Flexible: Ignores bonus provided by shields and/or blocking/parrying.
>Defensive: bonus to block/parry/armour.
>Slow: strikes last.
>Deadly: higher crit chance, or re-roll damage dice, or roll twice pick best.
>Reload: can only be used every other round.
>Reach: can attack 1 space away/5ft away
>Nimble: add dex/speed to damage/hit roll instead of strenght
>Fragile: breaks on a 1-in-6 after combat ends.
>Impact: can be used to smash doors/chests, or bonus to knock down enemies.
>Clumsy: penalty to hit roll
>Versatile: damage increase if two-handing

>>95955259
>Fighters add their level to their roll, clerics and thieves add half rounded down, MU's quarter, Paladins add half level rounded (double Lvl VS evil), Rangers add half level (Double Lvl VS Favoured Enemy).
>If your Intent beats theirs, you get a +5 bonus to this roll
Good luck with that. Find it interesting, but alternative takes on initiative systems always seem to fall flat.