I've been reading the Star Wars SAGA book Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide. I'm up to the equipment chapter. It lists short swords and double swords as simple weapons. Where they are martial and exotic respectively in D&D. Now, I realize that SW has energy blasters and light sabers. So non-powered melee weapons need some sort of balance. But D&D has magic spells and class abilities that easily emulate energy blasters and magic items that can emulate light sabers.

   So, why aren't non-powered melee weapons and ranged weapons all considered simple in D&D? I don't think the percentage of people engaging in martial activities is much different between the SW universe and D&D. Most people are going to be commoners regardless of which world you are in.

   Any thoughts?

Quote from: Tetsubo;318385Any thoughts?

I could kill Jedi's all day with a shotgun.

I coulda swore short swords were simple weapons in D&D...  but really I'm not the guy to ask, D&D's 'proficency' system only highlights the way the entire Feat concept fell flat on its face and no one noticed.

Love the idea, hate the execution.

Quote from: Tetsubo;318385I've been reading the Star Wars SAGA book Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide. I'm up to the equipment chapter. It lists short swords and double swords as simple weapons. Where they are martial and exotic respectively in D&D. Now, I realize that SW has energy blasters and light sabers. So non-powered melee weapons need some sort of balance. But D&D has magic spells and class abilities that easily emulate energy blasters and magic items that can emulate light sabers.

   So, why aren't non-powered melee weapons and ranged weapons all considered simple in D&D? I don't think the percentage of people engaging in martial activities is much different between the SW universe and D&D. Most people are going to be commoners regardless of which world you are in.

   Any thoughts?

My first thought is, I wouldn't say that the Star Wars weapon proficiency rules should set what weapon proficiencies should be like for a game where non-powered weapons are a more integral and common part of the setting.

Based on my (very humble and limited) real world experience with martial arts and weapons, I'm pretty okay with double swords being an exotic; short swords could go either way on simple or martial; its not rocket science to pick one up and stab with it, but a real swordsman or soldier is going to outclass an amateur.  But that last is partly covered with BAB, levels and feats, so yeah, you could make a case for making more melee weapons simple.

Simulation-wise, you can argue for weapon proficiency by a group or class of weapon over individual weapon.  (Possibly with weapon focus and specialization being limited to specific weapons.)  I also think non-proficiency penalties for non-exotic weapons are a little high.  Those are the changes I would make if I was bothered enough to houserule anything.

The whole idea of "simple" and "martial" and "military"  and the rest weapons stinks worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's ass.

(Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)

Quote from: Spike;318396...D&D's 'proficency' system only highlights the way the entire Feat concept fell flat on its face and no one noticed.

Could you explain your thoughts on this in more detail?

I have here in the past but I'll try to cover it again tonight once I get home, just fer you, sweetheart.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318481Could you explain your thoughts on this in more detail?

The problem with Feats is that you get locked into a pattern. Each feat has to be better than the last to keep up. So a fighter taking a group of related feats gets a better one every level until he reaches the best one, and then stops. So around 9th or 12 level when everyone else is getting a badass spell or power, you have to start over and take something that is fair for a first level character.

It also opened up the ability to take powers that are exponentially better with your class than they would be with someone else's.

Quote from: Old Geezer;318473The whole idea of "simple" and "martial" and "military"  and the rest weapons stinks worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's ass.

(Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)

I have to agree. I feel like there is an awful lot of material to learn if you want to hurt someone in armor with a light stick... which a wizard apparently can manage on occasion, while it is almost impossible to hold a bastard sword in one hand and stab someone according to d&d.

um, never mind.

[edit] To add something of substance: Weapon Groups are a reasonable alternative. You might want to try them. [/edit]

Quote from: Cranewings;318497So a fighter taking a group of related feats gets a better one every level until he reaches the best one, and then stops.

Oh, is that what was being referenced? I am well aware of the failure in design of the fighter in 3.5, given how feats work, but it sounded like Spike had more ideas about it than just that, specifically in regards to the proficiency system.

Sorry it took so long to get back. I was about half way through a long post essentially covering old ground and I realized that between the DVD I was watching, my splitting headache and assorted other factors that I really wasn't up to rehashing it from scratch.

Without further ado, the link

Quote from: Spike;318602Without further ado, the link

Danke!

Spike,

  I read your posts in your link above and have a question.

  You said you hate feat chains but what is the alternative when you want to get better at something specific ( like two-weapon fighting )?  Once you choose your 'two-weapon fighting' feat, where do you go from there if you want to remain on the path of two-weapon fighting?

  Are you saying there should be additional higher level feats that pertain to two-weapon fighting but aren't part of an actual chain ( with a ton of pre requs )?  Give some examples of what you would like to see feat-wise in a fictional high level 'two-weapon fighter' build.

I did cover it in part, but I don't mind bringing it out again.

First there is an idea that you could have feats scale automatically to the level of the character (several of my amended feats in the linked thread do this very simply to establish a 'floor concept model'), or if you don't mind the extra book keeping based on the length of time (in levels) you've had that feat.

Two weapon fighting would do this naturally:  Instead of making a seperate set of rules for the number of extra attacks you are allowed based on feats, you just naturally add the appropriate number of extra attacks, regardless, for using a second weapon.

However, to build an 'expert' two weapon fighter one does not need to look much further than, say, the 3.0 Forgotten Realms guide, and to a lesser extent the 3.5E PHB.  

There you have feats like 'two weapon defence', giving you the 'benefit' of a shield to represent your ability to use the off hand weapon defensively.  At least one 'Complete' book included 'combination' feats, if you were using the right two weapons (ax and hammer was one, I believe... I hated the various combinations but that's merely personal...) you got a specific 'cool special move' based on your fighting style...

These are, of course, all predicated on using two weapons, and... of course, are feats, yet they are not part of the traditional 'two weapon chain', and are canon.

Further adoption of feats might come from adapting the class abilities of the Tempest prestige class (I think that was the one...), where you gain abilities like... using both weapons when making a normal (rather than a full) attack as part of a charge, or the ability to use weapon focus for one weapon with a second, different weapon as long as you are two weapon fighting... sort of like taking weapon focus a second time, certainly, but with the additional flexibility of not having to use a specific type, in return for having to use it as an off hand weapon...

A varity of different feats, with different effects, built around a single thematic element without being required or chained allows for more flexible, interesting character building while providing much the same overall effect.