I have a lil system I have been putzing with and was thinking about weapon size. Right now the basic system is 13 pages including magic system etc. Wanted to keep it fairly simple.

Right now it is a Skilled based system using a d10 that rolls and adds to skill to determine success.  So say average skill is 5 and so would be the average static defense. You can roll and add either as a skill. Multiple actions reduce the roll by 1 and divide the results.

Weapons have 3 sizes
Sml
Mdm
Lrg

Only real (Mechanical) difference is for every 5 points of success a small weapon does an additional pt, every 3 points of success a meduim weapon does an additional point and for heavy it is a 2 for one point damage ratio.

All weapons do a base d10 damage.

Damage is that number compared to the target's toughness which is also an average of say 4-5. each time you go over this number you do a wound, first 5 wounds are minor rest get nastier with penalties.

Is it worth the trouble to differentiate in the system?



Hope this is enoughto give your opinion on this matter, Thanks.

Needs work I think. If the only difference between Medium and Large weapons is that Large weapons do more damage, then who's going to use a weapon that isn't large?

I'd nitpick that the damage increase based off skill creates an incentive for characters as they level up to throw away the rapiers and pick up greatswords, except that there's no reason to ever use a rapier anyway.

OK this might be an over-simplification if large weapons are usually two-handed, if shields are good, though I imagine there's still going to be issues with small vs. medium weapons.

Agree with BSJ . If you are goign to differentiate weapons you need to make them mechancially varied and try to capture some of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Options might be

i. Speed, small fast weapons hit quicker and/or more frequently
ii. Damage, large weapons do more damage
iii. Reach, long weapons have more reach, this is double ended because in close a greatsword is Fucking useless, which means you need combat ranges
iv. Armour penetration, some weapons, picks for example are great for getting through armour
v. Special moves, some weapons are specially designed for or innately have special features, whether that means tripping with a whip, entangling a weapons with a flail, or whatever.
vi. Multiple use, small light wepaons can be used with one in each hand, at the top end some specialist martial arts enable you to use larger weapons in each hand.
vii. Vs shield, if shields are effective then how does the weapons stack with a shield, this relates to overall tech level as plate armour and render a shield superfluous enabling you to switch to a two handed weapon for example.

So if you don't have or want to have rules on this stuff in your game then weapon sizes are probably moot.
You could simply say
Large Weapons - can't use a shield but does more damage
Small weapons - you can use one in each hand for 2 attacks,

That might create some variation but you want to try and balance it so that there is some advange to each type

Valid points. I did include in the weapon descriptions about different sized weapons that though mechanically I didn't differentiate a lot that larger weapons had some obvious problems such as space needed to wield them, How threatened others were by them (dagger is not as scary as a huge word), Using a Shield etc. Just forgot to add that here.

I am avoiding weapon speeds due to the fact in my mind they balance out with reach. A dagger fighter is faster due to their weapon but has to be careful due to his reach against even a two hander. If they of equal skill then it is actually, in my mind, an even match.

I like the special moves Idea but would probably just deal with it on a case by case basis and apply logic (Even if that goes against RPG's in general ).

I am trying to avoid adding too much detail becuase then certain weapons become optimized as best, which though that may be realistic, I think limits some players choices. I want their weapon to be a choice of style as much as utility.


Bloody Stupid Johnson[/B]"I'd nitpick that the damage increase based off skill creates an incentive for characters as they level up to throw away the rapiers and pick up greatswords, except that there's no reason to ever use a rapier anyway."


Since it is a skill based system "Leveling up" is not an issue if they switched they would need the skills to back it up or it is a waste. A skill 7 dagger user has a better chance to hit and at least inflict damage than if he grabbed a greatsword and used it as a Skill 3 weapon. He could potentially do more damage with the sword but only by luck.


Thanks for the comments

Lay 'em out on the table and compare, folks!

I rate weapons for speed, defense, and Material Strength of weapons.

For speed, a weapon receives a letter rating from A ( unarmed, fist weapons ) , B ( light, flexible weapons), C ( standard hand weapons), D ( standard two- handed weapons ), and F ( heavy weapons that can only be used to attack every other round). The letter rating is combined with a character's Initiative ( so a character wielding a shortsword could have an Initiative of B9 while the same character using a Claymore would have an Initiative of D9). Initiative is then resolved from A to D in numerical order, with F acting on A every other round. Normally Initiative scores are static, although characters have the option of attempting to "seize initiative" , whereupon the difference in letter ratings provides a negative modifier ( frex, a combatant with an initiative of C7 who tries to seize initiative from an opponent with A6 would roll 1d10 + Wits - 2 against an opponent's roll of 1d10 + Wits).

Defense otoh is an an abstraction of a weapon's size, reach, expressed as a modifier to attempts to parry and certain maneuvers, such as keeping an opponent at bay. The modifiers flip in situations such as confined spaces.

Material Strength describes the maximum damage a blunt weapon can inflict, and the minimum damage an edged weapon will inflict.