TheRPGSite

3.5 weapon sizing is a badly done.  Here's the new system.

All weapons have a size that corresponds to size categories (primarily Small, Medium, and Large).  Characters can wield weapons of their size category in one hand.  They can wield weapons one size category smaller in their off-hand (as a light weapon).  They can wield weapons one size category larger in two hands.

For instance:

Dagger - Small - 1d6 damage.
Longsword - Medium - 1d8 damage.
Greatsword - Large - 1d10 damage.

A gnome could wield a dagger in one hand or a longsword in two hands.  He could not wield a greatsword.  A human could wield a dagger and longsword in one hand and a greatsword in two hands.  A troll could wield a greatsword and longsword in one hand, but he could not wield a dagger.

With ranged weapons, it's a little trickier (bows always take two hands while crossbows take one or two hands) but overall works better.  In theory.  Your thoughts?

Hmm, looks like you've reinvented 3.0 weapon sizing.

I did prefer it since there's less "Oh an ogre-sized longsword, into the trash", since a PC could use it as a greatsword.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;508242Hmm, looks like you've reinvented 3.0 weapon sizing.

I did prefer it since there's less "Oh an ogre-sized longsword, into the trash", since a PC could use it as a greatsword.

I always thought it was weird when humans used ogre weapons. I mean, a long sword and a great sword have similar handles. I imagine an ogre long sword would have a really meaty handle.

Maybe. At least some swords had a hilt separate to the main blade though, didn't they? In which case, unplug the ogre hilt and get a smith to make you a new one (assuming the magic is in the blade).

That's a problem not applicable to all weapons, either (e.g. this discussion has been had previously at the Gaming Den with the Orcish Shotput getting an honourable mention - since it comes in varying sizes but is literally a featureless sphere).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;508242Hmm, looks like you've reinvented 3.0 weapon sizing.

I'm a genius.

Plus two handed weapons in all rpgs (save for GURPS) are underpowered and a little too fast.

So, make the strength bonus for any 2H wielded weapon (which can be any weapon you can wield 2H for your size and the weapon) doubled.

Every round you use a 2H wielded weapon, drop the initiative for that character by a small amount, say 1d6 or 4 minus strength bonus (yes 4--1 is 5). This simulates the slowing down effect of keeping that 2H weapon swirling all the time.

Bows are tensioned for the user's strength, so I'd leave them be. In effect if you can't pull it, you can't pull it. If it's too weak then you can pull it, but you can't overpull it without breaking it.

Mind you, bows are too slow in most rpgs, but let's not go there. Shit, let's an have the opposite. I'd say if you use a bow then every round you add to your initiative your Dex bonus plus 4, which simulates the faster cycling of a bow.

But on the other hand, it's just a game.

Fleshing this out a little more...

Weapon (size) damage - crit range - weapon properties.  Also, we need a way to make graphs on this site.  Weapon properties include:

Finesse: Can use Dexterity for attack and damage rolls with the weapon.
Reach: Extends wielder's reach by five feet, attacks against adjacent enemies take a -4 penalty.
Defensive: When wielding the weapon, gain a +1 bonus to AC.
Reload: Weapon must be reloaded after each shot with the indicated amount of time.  Reload (move) is a move action, reload (free) is a free action, etc.
Thrown: The weapon can be thrown with a range increment of 20 feet.
Heavy: Heavy weapons reroll their damage if the die roll comes up as a 1.  If rolling more than one die for damage, you may reroll each die that comes up as a 1.  Once you reroll, the result is final, even if another 1 comes up.

No, I'm not bothering doing weapon ranges, prices, weights, or anything of the sort in this yet.

Simple Weapons: Melee
Dagger (small): 1d6 dmg - 18-20 crit - finesse, thrown.
Club (medium): 1d8 dmg - 19-20 crit - none.
Mace (medium): 1d8+1 dmg - 20 crit - none.
Shortsword (small): 1d6+1 dmg - 18-20 crit - finesse.
Spear (medium): 1d8 dmg - 19-20 crit - reach.
Quarterstaff (large): 1d8 dmg - 20 crit - defensive.

Simple Weapons: Ranged
Dart (small): 1d4 dmg - 18-20 crit - none.
Crossbow (medium): 1d8 dmg - 19-20 crit - reload (move).
Shortbow (small): 1d6 dmg - 19-20 crit - reload (free).

Martial Weapons: Melee
Axe (medium): 1d8 dmg - 19-20 crit - heavy, thrown.
Battleaxe (large): 2d6 dmg - 20 crit - heavy.
Greatsword (large): 1d12 dmg - 19-20 crit - none.
Longsword (medium): 1d8+1 dmg - 19-20 crit - none.
Morningstar (medium): 1d10 dmg - 19-20 crit - none.
Polearm (large): 1d8 dmg - 19-20 crit - reach.
Rapier (medium): 1d8 dmg - 18-20 crit - finesse.
Scythe (large): 2d4 dmg - 18-20 crit - heavy.
Scimitar (medium): 1d8+1 dmg - 19-20 crit - none.
Spiked chain (large): 1d10 dmg - 19-20 crit - reach.
Warhammer (medium): 1d10+1 dmg - 20 crit - heavy.

Martial Weapons: Ranged
Longbow (medium): 1d8 dmg - 19-20 crit - reload (free).
Sling (medium): 1d8+1 dmg - 19-20 crit - reload (move).
Heavy crossbow (large): 1d10+1 dmg - 19-20 crit - reload (move).

Sizing rules: if you need to increase the size of a weapon, you go from 1d4 - 1d6 - 1d8 - 1d10 - 1d12 - 2d6 - 2d8 - 2d10 - 2d12 - 3d6 and so forth.

Unarmed strikes: a melee attack that does a base damage of 1d4 for small critters.  Increase accordingly to the size of the creature attacking (1d6 for medium, 1d8 for large, and so on).

Uhm why is there's just a battle axe? Not all battle axes are monstrously huge?

I mean seriously...

Because this is D&D and this is what battleaxes look like in D&D:

(http://www.danscottart.com/Images/BeyondTheSeal.jpg)

If you don't like it, use the normal axe.

This might be D&D but not all axes are the same

Hand axe:

(http://mmxz.zophar.net/rpg/mana3/handaxe.jpg)

Battle Axe:

(http://jensettiman.webs.com/photos/Medieval/Double%20Edged%20Battle%20Axe.jpg)
Greataxe

(http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/6360363/images/1256087858445.jpg)

Seems to me they're different, don't you?

Yes, but not so different that I feel that there need to be three different kinds of axes.

Why not? I mean you have short swords and longswords? Why shouldn't axes have more than one?

Well, mostly OK.
"Heavy" is one of those things that looks good on paper, but adds slightly less than half a hit point of damage per die, on average.

"Finessable" is something that's realistic better run off relative size rather than being an inherent property - so the halfling can't finesse a sword it can barely lift - although if you want to do it the way you're doing it for balance reasons, then whatever. Not sure Dex giving bonuses to damage with light weapons isn't slightly gay though.

I think if we're arguing over what weapons go where, there's little to no reason we need to worry about weapon sizing BECAUSE there's no agreement here.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;510653Well, mostly OK.
"Heavy" is one of those things that looks good on paper, but adds slightly less than half a hit point of damage per die, on average.

"Finessable" is something that's realistic better run off relative size rather than being an inherent property - so the halfling can't finesse a sword it can barely lift - although if you want to do it the way you're doing it for balance reasons, then whatever. Not sure Dex giving bonuses to damage with light weapons isn't slightly gay though.

Actually the idea of giving Dex bonus as damage isn't that bad, actually - I'd say that it's something to give to the Fighters in general.

"You are a brute, or a fencer?"

Even perhaps combining the 2 at some level.

Seriously, no one is concerned there's just ONE kind of axe?! I mean why that and not Just ONE kind of sword? Seriously?

Quote from: Rincewind1;510656Actually the idea of giving Dex bonus as damage isn't that bad, actually - I'd say that it's something to give to the Fighters in general.

"You are a brute, or a fencer?"

Even perhaps combining the 2 at some level.

I find it difficult to describe exactly why this bugs me, but its one of those things that I hated about 4E.
Basically in D&D how well you place your attack is represented by the attack roll. So its weird when a character rolls and hits just barely, then claims they get a + to damage because they're so amazingly accurate from their high Dex.

(I sort of like systems where Dex gives bonus to hit, then how well you hit adds to damage, although for D&D I think its too much extra subtraction, what with the d20).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;510671I find it difficult to describe exactly why this bugs me, but its one of those things that I hated about 4E.
Basically in D&D how well you place your attack is represented by the attack roll. So its weird when a character rolls and hits just barely, then claims they get a + to damage because they're so amazingly accurate from their high Dex.

(I sort of like systems where Dex gives bonus to hit, then how well you hit adds to damage, although for D&D I think its too much extra subtraction, what with the d20).

Well, I'd say that a bonus to hit from high STR isn't that sensible neither ;). I like it though. It's just the wild idea I had, BSJ - what if we use Dex for all the Attack Bonus stuff (like quite a lot of system do), and STR Bonus for damage?

Or combine the two, or allow the player to choose one. The idea that Fighter can have Attack Bonus from Intelligence or Dex or STR in 4e I actually liked - it's such nonsense as "Razor Wit" from the bard that were painful.

Quote from: B.T.;510639Yes, but not so different that I feel that there need to be three different kinds of axes.

Quote from: NightfallSeriously, no one is concerned there's just ONE kind of axe?! I mean why that and not Just ONE kind of sword? Seriously?

Geez, we use 13 different axes (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955320/Axes).

Quote from: LordVreeg;510675Geez, we use 13 different axes (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955320/Axes).

Good grief, what system is that for?

LordV,

Yes but that's YOU. Apparently I'm supposed to accept that there's only ONE axe all the time.

Quote from: Rincewind1;510678Good grief, what system is that for?

mine, silly.
I like options and differential in my system.

And since you were mentioning it, it allows for a formula that does what you asked for with ST and Dex (called coordination here, but still...)

Quote from: Nightfall;510679LordV,

Yes but that's YOU. Apparently I'm supposed to accept that there's only ONE axe all the time.

Lol.

Not me, man.
I like my choices.

Quote from: LordVreeg;510697mine, silly.
I like options and differential in my system.

And since you were mentioning it, it allows for a formula that does what you asked for with ST and Dex (called coordination here, but still...)

Too much crunch for me, I'm afraid. But good for you on the latter ;).

Quote from: Rincewind1;510699Too much crunch for me, I'm afraid. But good for you on the latter ;).

that IS the hard part always.  Always.

Quote from: Rincewind1;510674Well, I'd say that a bonus to hit from high STR isn't that sensible neither ;). I like it though. It's just the wild idea I had, BSJ - what if we use Dex for all the Attack Bonus stuff (like quite a lot of system do), and STR Bonus for damage?

Or combine the two, or allow the player to choose one. The idea that Fighter can have Attack Bonus from Intelligence or Dex or STR in 4e I actually liked - it's such nonsense as "Razor Wit" from the bard that were painful.

Well on the Str bonus to hit, D&D is almost the only system where armour makes you harder to hit -  so I don't mind Str-based attack bonuses in D&D since it represents Str helping with armour penetration. 3E did make it more silly by inflating the original bonus a  (a normal 18 was only +1 to hit in 2E, IIRC, and even an 18/00 was only +3).  Dex still makes sense to hit in 3E, at least to me - aiming at weak spots instead of trying to cut through the armour.  

In other games where armour absorbs damage or uses a separate bypass roll, I usually like Dex though other stats are OK, whatever floats your boat.

Quote from: Nightfall;510657Seriously, no one is concerned there's just ONE kind of axe?! I mean why that and not Just ONE kind of sword? Seriously?

There are two axes: an axe and a battleaxe.  For swords, there are longswords, greatswords, and scimitars.  What other options do you want?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;510653Well, mostly OK.
"Heavy" is one of those things that looks good on paper, but adds slightly less than half a hit point of damage per die, on average.

What would you suggest changing it to?

Sorry this is going to be boring...
 
With Heavy I guess I'd be inclined to use more dice (like going from d8 to 2d4), or just a + to the roll.
 
I know you can get 1s on the reroll, but this is going to happen fairly rarely, so I'm just going to cheat and just use the values for if 1s on the reroll weren't possible.
 
i.e. d8, always reroll 1s would be a range of 2-8, average 5;
same range and average as rolling 2d4. The distribution does differ (v-curve vs. linear) but shouldn't matter unless you have some specific reason to prefer one over the other.
 
The scythe, at roll 2d4, reroll 1s gets twice as much benefit from Heavy, a whole extra point of damage almost, but you end up rerolling a dice almost half the time (actually 7/16ths of the time). It has a range of 4-8 points, average 6. Comparatively rolling 2d4+1 would give you 3-9 damage, slightly more at maximum and less at minimum, but still average 6.
 
The greataxe that did 2d6, reroll 1s is 4-12 damage, average of just under 8 damage; using 3d4 would give you 3-12 and average 7.5, but maybe just 2d6 without the heavy property is big and bad enough already. Even without heavy its already slightly better than the greatsword (d12 being average 6.5, rather than 7).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;510753Sorry this is going to be boring...
 
With Heavy I guess I'd be inclined to use more dice (like going from d8 to 2d4), or just a + to the roll.
 
I know you can get 1s on the reroll, but this is going to happen fairly rarely, so I'm just going to cheat and just use the values for if 1s on the reroll weren't possible.
 
i.e. d8, always reroll 1s would be a range of 2-8, average 5;
same range and average as rolling 2d4. The distribution does differ (v-curve vs. linear) but shouldn't matter unless you have some specific reason to prefer one over the other.
 
The scythe, at roll 2d4, reroll 1s gets twice as much benefit from Heavy, a whole extra point of damage almost, but you end up rerolling a dice almost half the time (actually 7/16ths of the time). It has a range of 4-8 points, average 6. Comparatively rolling 2d4+1 would give you 3-9 damage, slightly more at maximum and less at minimum, but still average 6.
 
The greataxe that did 2d6, reroll 1s is 4-12 damage, average of just under 8 damage; using 3d4 would give you 3-12 and average 7.5, but maybe just 2d6 without the heavy property is big and bad enough already. Even without heavy its already slightly better than the greatsword (d12 being average 6.5, rather than 7).

we do need to talk more.  while I take this to extremes, this is thge way my mind works.

Quote from: B.T.;510749There are two axes: an axe and a battleaxe.  For swords, there are longswords, greatswords, and scimitars.  What other options do you want?

What would you suggest changing it to?

Really?

curved
Short Sabre
Manople
Sabre
Scimitar
Falchion
Great Shamsheer
Whizzle (2 blade sword)
Grand Shamsheer


straight
Short Sword
Patar
Gladius
Broadsword
Bastard Sword
Great Sword/Claymore
Two Handed Sword
FlameBurg

dress swords
Sword Cane
Foil
Epee
Rapier


but that's just me....

Quote from: LordVreeg;510787we do need to talk more. while I take this to extremes, this is thge way my mind works.

:)
I can PM you my email, if you want to send me anything you want thoughts on, or you could always put up a section of your RPG here for discussion...

Quote from: LordVreeg;510788Really?

curved
Short Sabre
Manople
Sabre
Scimitar
Falchion
Great Shamsheer
Whizzle (2 blade sword)
Grand Shamsheer


straight
Short Sword
Patar
Gladius
Broadsword
Bastard Sword
Great Sword/Claymore
Two Handed Sword
FlameBurg

dress swords
Sword Cane
Foil
Epee
Rapier


but that's just me....

Not to sound like a douche (which I am), but do you really need different stats for all of those weapons?

Short sword should cover short swords, gladiuses, and patars.  Rapier (which I have) should cover epees and foils.  Greatswords should cover two-handed swords, claymores, and flamberges.  Yes, they're all slightly different, but do you really need mechanical distinctions between all of them?  

I mean, if you really wanted to do so, you're looking at dozens of different weapon properties to distinguish them...or you're looking at stats that are near identical.  It just seems redundant to me.

QuoteWith Heavy I guess I'd be inclined to use more dice (like going from d8 to 2d4), or just a + to the roll.

I know you can get 1s on the reroll, but this is going to happen fairly rarely, so I'm just going to cheat and just use the values for if 1s on the reroll weren't possible.

i.e. d8, always reroll 1s would be a range of 2-8, average 5;
same range and average as rolling 2d4. The distribution does differ (v-curve vs. linear) but shouldn't matter unless you have some specific reason to prefer one over the other.

The scythe, at roll 2d4, reroll 1s gets twice as much benefit from Heavy, a whole extra point of damage almost, but you end up rerolling a dice almost half the time (actually 7/16ths of the time). It has a range of 4-8 points, average 6. Comparatively rolling 2d4+1 would give you 3-9 damage, slightly more at maximum and less at minimum, but still average 6.

The greataxe that did 2d6, reroll 1s is 4-12 damage, average of just under 8 damage; using 3d4 would give you 3-12 and average 7.5, but maybe just 2d6 without the heavy property is big and bad enough already. Even without heavy its already slightly better than the greatsword (d12 being average 6.5, rather than 7).

Nah, it's not boring.  I love math discussions in RPGs.  I considered allowing Heavy weapons to add their wielder's Constitution bonus in damage in place of rerolling dice (hey, there's gotta be a reason that dwarves love axes and hammers, right?).

Rapier is nothing like foil, I'm afraid.

(http://fencing-sword.invisiblefences.co.uk/images/name-of-fencing-sword-1.jpg)

(http://getasword.com/970-2008-thickbox/solingen-rapier-sword-hanwei-sh2205.jpg)

I'm just not seeing the necessity of differentiating between one kind of long, thin fencing sword and another long, thin fencing sword.

Rapiers were usually

A) Short
B) MUCH, MUCH thicker and heavier
C) You could actually slash with a rapier, while foil is only good for poking.

Basically, Rapier was a weapon designed with an idea that your potential foe could still be wearing armour, while foil was a weapon designed mostly for ceremonial duels, and combat against melee opponents without armour.

I'd say that you could distinct the weapons rather easily - give them bonuses against certain armour types, specific crit ranges, and rerolls on low scores - or rerolls on high scores, if the weapon isn't great design.

Hrm, I might ponder about this myself.

Quote from: Rincewind1;510991I'd say that you could distinct the weapons rather easily - give them bonuses against certain armour types, specific crit ranges, and rerolls on low scores - or rerolls on high scores, if the weapon isn't great design.

Hrm, I might ponder about this myself.

Infinite rage.

Tis a poor day for trolling, B.T, when I have to quote your post to see the image you tried to insult me with, as thee hath failed thy "Insert Imageth Into Post" check.

As to the bolded part - well, a greatsword or greataxe'd be much better against armour generally, because little armour could stop it ;p. Heck, if in DnD you don't roll to hit, but to puncture armour (It's called TO HIT ROLL, dammit, but sod it), bonuses to AB on specific weapons are perfectly reasonable.

Yeah, we play with a bunch of CSA types and 2 people who fence pretty seriously.
Part of the peeps I bounce my shit off of.  Trust me, shields in our system are much, much more powerful and meaningful than in most.  Most PCs find that they have a lot of one and two hand options in our system, and don;t look past that for a whiel...then they discover shields...and that a fighter with weapon and shield and skill with armor and shield realy is a friggin fortress...

but I digress...

the stats for the different dress/town swords (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955508/Dress%20Swords)...and please note, in many towns and cities, without a very special license, in most of Celtricia carrying anything but a dagger or a dress sword can get you thrown in the gaol.
Remember to toss in the dividing die when looking at damage, it changes the normal bell curve to a tailed probability curve...  I tend to use in my game the slightly earlier, 2 edged heavier version...or in other words, rapiers are very fast and are not totally suck in Guildschool...
and for those who think them the same...

"Despite the rapier's common usage in the 16th–17th centuries, many films set in these periods (many starring Errol Flynn) have the swordsmen using épées or foils. Actual rapier combat was hardly the lightning thrust and parry depicted. Director Richard Lester and fight choreographer William Hobbs attempted to more closely match traditional rapier technique in Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers.[10] Since then, many newer movies, like The Princess Bride and La Reine Margot have used rapiers rather than later weapons, although the fight choreography has not always accurately portrayed historical fencing techniques. Rapiers are also often featured in various video games, in particular Role-playing games set in the medieval and Renaissance periods."

Quote from: B.T.;510983Nah, it's not boring.  I love math discussions in RPGs.  I considered allowing Heavy weapons to add their wielder's Constitution bonus in damage in place of rerolling dice (hey, there's gotta be a reason that dwarves love axes and hammers, right?).

4E sorted of tried doing that in places  - there's a couple of fighter axe or hammer powerz that do that IIRC, along with feats that deal damage equal to CON mod on a miss. They tried to encourage crossbows for dwarves as well with feats like Steady Shooter (+3 bonus to damage if you don't move, requires 15 Con).
It could have worked, except that 4E half-elves got a Con bonus as well, making them also super hammer fighters.

I'd have liked a system that gave dwarves a reason to use hammers and things but never got that far with designing one...I have a Lord of the Rings weapons book at home, and a couple of other documents that goes into some of the physics involved: basically force of a blow is based on the mass of weapon * radius of the swing. For a dwarf your radius is smallish (arm length = about half of height) unless you have a particularly long lever to amplify it. Swords and the like are also long of course, but the mass is distributed  across the weapon rather than being at the end, so the leverage increase  is less.
Without a long weapon, the dwarf is also probably going to be at a reach disadvantage.
Halflings have sort of the same problems, but presumably don't have the muscle to try to swing the big axes or hammers.

I think dwarves build is going to hamper their Dex also, making swords and things harder to use.

Something I've also considered is doing weapon damage and properties based on the level of the attacker, somewhat in the vein of the 1e weapon proficiencies.  Ignoring for a brief moment the mess of iterative attacks and feat interactions in 3e, let us consider how this might work with the longsword:

Level 1: 1d8 dmg, 19-20 crit (x2).
Level 4: 2d6 dmg, 19-20 crit, bleeding.
Level 8: 3d6 dmg, 19-20 crit.
Level 12: 3d10 dmg, 19-20 crit; disarming.
Level 16: 4d8+4 dmg, 18-20 crit (x3).
Level 20: 4d12+4 dmg, 18-20 crit.

The warhammer, on the other hand, might have the following progression:

Level 1: 1d10 dmg, 20 crit (x2).
Level 4: 2d8 dmg, 20 crit, stunning.
Level 8: 3d8 dmg, 20 crit.
Level 12: 3d12 dmg, 20 crit; crushing.
Level 16: 4d10 dmg, 19-20 crit (x3).
Level 20: 5d8+4 dmg, 19-20 crit.

To elaborate on the properties:

Bleeding: on a crit, the opponent must make a Reflex save or take damage on his next turn equal to your base weapon damage.

Crushing: on a crit, the opponent is bull rushed.

Disarming: on a crit, the opponent is disarmed.

Stunning: on a crit, the opponent must make a Fortitude save or lose his next action.

Thoughts?

Quote from: B.T.;510619Because this is D&D and this is what battleaxes look like in D&D:

:::image removed from reply for Pundit:::

If you don't like it, use the normal axe.

Holy crap.

I wish your whole post could be my signature. That's awesome.

Quote from: B.T.;511297Something I've also considered is doing weapon damage and properties based on the level of the attacker, somewhat in the vein of the 1e weapon proficiencies. Ignoring for a brief moment the mess of iterative attacks and feat interactions in 3e, let us consider how this might work with the longsword:
 
Level 1: 1d8 dmg, 19-20 crit (x2).
Level 4: 2d6 dmg, 19-20 crit, bleeding.
Level 8: 3d6 dmg, 19-20 crit.
Level 12: 3d10 dmg, 19-20 crit; disarming.
Level 16: 4d8+4 dmg, 18-20 crit (x3).
Level 20: 4d12+4 dmg, 18-20 crit.
 

Basic D&D did that with weapon mastery and 2E had something similar in Combat & Tactics.
As an idea it looks OK. A character I guess only needs one of the damage values on their character sheet which works, but obviously it adds more complexities since each weapon (or related set of weapons) needs one of those stat block thingies in the rulebook.
Most systems will I guess add extra damage to characters somehow; your system at least is giving roughly proportional increases based on weapon damage (unlike say +10d6 sneak attack) so two weapon fighters don't get crazy bonuses. As a way of adding damage to fighters its perhaps less complicated than Power Attack as well. Also good for keeping special weapon-based damage relevant with level (the bleeding was a good example, it'd also be good for stuff like rending).
 
It might end up slightly overcomplicating things in places since you need to specify if e.g. stuff like spear traps scale with level, and if yes to that spear traps need a defined level to determine their base damage. You may also need to think about how weapon size increases (e.g. Giant warhammers) increase the damage ranges?
 
Most of the special effects seem OK. Dunno that increasing critical threat ranges or crit multipliers is a good idea (particularly at the same time). Would disarming do damage as well as disarming? The bleeding works well with the increasing base damage.
 
 
Of course if you want weapon damage to stay relevant to characters, its much simpler to have fixed weapon damage & fixed hit points than to have both scale separately.

QuoteIt might end up slightly overcomplicating things in places since you need to specify if e.g. stuff like spear traps scale with level, and if yes to that spear traps need a defined level to determine their base damage. You may also need to think about how weapon size increases (e.g. Giant warhammers) increase the damage ranges?

I was considering this and that is what struck me as problematic: monsters need to have their damage values increase.  There are a couple of ways I thought of dealing with it.

1. Just give monsters more attacks (not my favorite solution but fairly easy to implement).
2. Create a simple scaling system that monsters and PCs use so that there aren't individual entries for each weapon (my preferred solution but more difficult).

The first solution does have its merits--allowing the NPCs to have four attacks doing 2d6 + 2 damage rather than a single attack doing 5d8 + 10 damage allows them to split up the damage among the party, for one, and iterative probability ensures that they are more likely to hit with their attacks (and score critical hits).  However, the goal is to speed up combat rounds so that one character isn't making seven attacks and thus slowing the game down.

I'm thinking on it now.