Weapon Equivalencies

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
1

A thing I want to suggest we use in the BRCS is weapon equivalency: a person who is proficient in the use of a dagger should be able to use a main-gauche as if he actually used a dagger (that is, he gets all benefits of feats he has that somehow affect his fighting capacity with the dagger as if had them for the main-gauche), unless he tries to use the main-gauche in a way a dagger cannot be used, whereupon he gets the usual penalties. This should also apply to such weapon groupings as the club and sap (for example, Weapon Focus (club) should grant a +1 bonus on attack rolls with the sap).

Any questions and/or objections to that? Mind you, the list will be quite restricted: I can tell you from experience that a single-hander sword (D&D longsword) is very different from a long sword (~ D&D bastard sword) and, thus, most weapons won’t be affected by this ruling, unless any of you also use Unearthed Arcana’s weapon group feats.

2

This is a pretty large change from the core D&D rules.

PHB II required some higher level feats to accomplish this.

My point would be that this is not a setting specific issue but rather a issue with the core rules.

I feel pretty strongly about not using this (BRCS) as an opportunity to change the core rules. People can house-rule those as they choose.

3

I agree with irdeggman. Seems not vital to the setting. Although Im sure someone in the community might like to see your houserules on this.

4

Fair enough; the reason I suggested it here is that many weapons have a regional feel that pretty much makes their separate proficiency a little silly (a common example being the main-gauche - which you should be able to use as a normal dagger without a penalty). If you feel that this is outside the scope of BR, even the Atlas, I conceide.

Still, since there seems to be some interest, I expect to post an article (as well as further post here) on this site. :slight_smile:

5

Some weapons seem to be nothing more than subtle varients on others. This is especially true when the same weapon changed a bit over time and place. The number of pole arms in the 2nd edition was way over the top, especially for a class of weapons that were not terribly popular in the first place.

In the Swashbuckling Adventures (Seven Seas) setting, they generally describe two situations. One is the character has a light weapon on their off hand, sometimes its a small blade. It seems to me that this kind of restriction makes more sense than distinguishing between a dagger and a main gauche.

But I would just eliminate weapons which are for all intents and purposes, identical weapons. If I couldn’t do that I would learn to write “dagger or main gauche” when ever I meant one or the other.

6

Personally, i’ve always preferred using a weapons-group system, where you don’t become proficient with a single weapon, but a group, based on similarity. Bows, crossbows, light swords, heavy swords, axes, etc. That way you take familiarity into account automatically.

-Fizz

7

There are reasons I prefer weapon equivalency over weapon groups: some weapon groups are true, others are not.

Using real life terminology for a while, there are many two-handers, just as a long sword is a much different weapon from a single-hander or arming sword, and you definitely cannot compare a(ny sort of) gladius to a rapier - which, in fact, where very long swords, unlike the weapons we commonly have in mind, the epée, and foil, also known as smallswords - or a cut-and-thrust sword…

On the other hand, other weapons are truly a little different; I generally don’t expect someone who can use a poleaxe to be unable to use a halberd, unless he tries to use it as a spear or to trip an opponent - which you cannot normally do with a poleaxe and, should you ever try that, would not have proper knowledge of.

Weapon equivalencies work thus: each weapon belongs to one or more groups; whenever a weapon may be used in the same or a similar manner as another weapon in the same group, that weapon can be used thus as if you were using that other weapon, but with all benefits applied to this weapon.

For example, a person who is proficient in a polearm that allows you to trip another can use any similar polearm to trip (and, presumably, attack, if the are similar enough - bladed and slashing, for example) another with no penalty on the attack roll.

Another example is the use of the Black Strike technique; one should be capable to employ it with any of these base items: a sword, dagger or knife in the main hand, and a dagger, knife, buckler, club, gauntlet or cloak in the off hand. All similar weapons can be thus used. :slight_smile: Note that the above weapons are mentioned in the Havens sourcebook and, generally, are historically accurate. Actually, the weapons of choice would be a rapier or cut-and-thrust sword in the main hand, and a dagger, main-gauche, buckler, or gauntlet in the off-hand.

8

Yeah, it depends how finely you want to divide things up. Swords are the group that could have the most sub-divisions.

But your system should work just fine too.

-Fizz

9

BRCS by decision has no Black Strike technique.

The 2nd ed version was very specific on using a Maine Gauche, even though at the time Player’s Option: Combat and tactics was out (with “similar weapons” which basically halved the penalties for using similar weapons. Combat and Tactics paralleled several BR specific things (like cross bow armor penetration for one).

IMO this use of a specific weapon for the style had to do with the additional defensive properties of the weapon, which a dagger did not have.

10

I am referring to the Black Strike technique in the form of a feat I will put up in a couple of days tops on the forum here (possible in the Royal Library or so); note that it feats the theme of a feat very nicely.

Klauenstrichen is, in fact, employed by using the rapier and a secondary weapon, as mentioned in the Havens of the Great Bay campaign expansion; the book also gives a rundown of such common weapons, starting with “the dagger or main-gauche” and wrapping up by saying that: “Tallented fencers sometimes learn multiple secondary weapons such as cloaks or small clubs.” and later: “even small shields or bucklers are sometimes used.” The book simply puts it as follows: “The secondary weapon must be no heavier than the rapier and must be useful for parrying.”

There is some difficulty in actually employing Black Strike, but I feel it’s an interesting part of Brecht flavour and want, if not for the BRCS, to at least adapt it for people to see if they find fitting for their campaigns; since inclusion in the BRCS does not seem probable, can I request that this topic is moved to the Royal Library? :o

Note that I didn’t start this discussion in order to refer to Klauenstrichen, it just is a fitting mechanic to showcase how weapon equivalency affects play.

11

You should check out the WotC book Unearthed Arcana as it has a whole bunch of awesome alternative rules. One such rule is the weapon group proficiencies. Instead of your class being proficient with all simple or martial weapons right away, you get to pick a certain number of “weapon groups” such as swords, axes, clubs, daggers, etc. depending on your class. Usually you end up with a much narrower range of proficiencies, but it also makes the exotic weapons a little more accessible. I think this works great for style of play, as you won’t have characters constantly switching out their weapons for the new magical ones they find in adventures, especially if they are not proficient with them.

12

:wink: :rolleyes:

I was going to point out something similar in the 2nd edition where broad based weapon groups would allow for the use of similar weapons. There is a proficiency cost of course, but then you have access (without penalty) to the whole group of weapons. The Complete Fighter is the source.

Later

:wink:

13

Also Player’s Option: Combat and Tactics.

That also introduced differnet levels of “specialization” and ways for non-fighters to get weapon specialization.

But, like I pointed out much earlier - this is not a BRCS (re: 3.5 Birthright) issue but rather a broader view point of general gameplay and should thus be handled via house-rules (even thought those may only be including some “optional” rules from other source books).

14

A lot of distinctions between weapons are artificial as weapons vary in many different ways and were often custom built for the user -
Unless a weapon is massproduced for an army - a master weaponsmith would specifically design a weapon depending on the users desires. They would also take into account Height, reach, strength and size of limbs (+ hand span).

Therefore many weapons thrown into a “category” eg shortsword would vary considerably - balance, reach weight etc. Some weapons considered to be long Daggers (eg elvish longknife ) could overlap with this category.

A weapon used by someone as part of a unit has to be standardised and specific skills would be used in Mass fighting and Unit to unit fighting that are particular to formation fighting. eg Roman Legionaires. Greek Phalanx. Stabbing with Gladius between shield walls.

Once a formation breaks down fighters are able to move and use techniques with the same weapon that they cannot use in a formation (without endangering themselves and others.) - This becomes dueling - more D&D style broken combat. Of course a formation almost instantly destroys any broken formation - something D&D never accounts properly for - but that allows heroics so thats all good.

A weapon master picking up a weapon would adjust most quickly to a weapon that suits their style of fighting best. Dagger to a Halberd would be a big shift but watching serious martial artists adjust to new styles and weapons is scary as they adjust very quickly - however they are not at their best - they do not have the full range of “tricks” and skills available to them.

D&D has always allowed your THACO to be used for any weapon. This is in itself not that realistic as you can pick up any weapon never having touched one in your life and swing it at you full THACO.
A circumstance modifier -2 could be given as a temporary penalty - lost in any time the weapon is trained with and used from 10 minutes to a couple of weeks.

Using a weapon focus or specialisation with another weapon no matter how close shouldn’t be allowed.

You could use a bell hilted main gauche as a dagger but its not actually suited to flicking from hand to hand - the blade tends to be thicker, it is heavier and suited for parrying - not quite as nice for sliding into someone ribs. - The style of fighting is quite different when using one. - a dagger can also be used in the off hand as a parrying weapon but its more likely to snap - or the blade being parried to slide up, over the hilt and into the hand of the user.

So how much do you want to adjust for circumstance and style - lack of familiarity with a weapon or technicalities of balance weight reach?

15

At the risk of sounding obvious, in 2nd Edition (the last time THAC0 was used), there were hefty attack penalties for using a weapon you weren’t familiar with.

Even in 3.X, there are still non-proficiency penalties, even if the list of known weapons is much greater now (and BAB is used rather than THAC0). You could always use the weapon group rules from Unearthed Arcana if you feel that that brings greater verisimultude.