Aside from spears being able to set against a charge, or reach from the second row, do you have any special D&D house rules about particular weapons being able to do particular things other weapons can't?

It isn't DND but the game I run has an entire rules set dedicated to "ancient maneuvers that have been passed down through the ages" that can only be performed with specific weapons.

Among the most entertaining:

The Feint of Jarnac: which may only be performed while prone with an arming sword. This maneuver cuts the opponent's Achilles tendon.

Finger Soup: for maces. Essentially, you trick the opponent into exposing his hand so you can smash it.

Hats Off: using a rapier, you stab your opponents hat off, and embarrass him in front of an audience.

The Great Comet: for a meteor hammer, you swing it in such a way as to hit you opponent past his shield block.

Lots of fun things like that.

Not D&D, but in GURPS, most of the weapons are different from each other not just in damage amount&type, skill used, and strength required, but in what sorts of attacks they can do at what reach, and with what side-effects (e.g. if you're using a bastard sword one-handed, you can thrust at reach 2 and parry with it on the same turn (unless you have quite high strength), but if you swing with it one-handed (at reach 1 or 2) then you can't also parry with it that turn).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038539Aside from spears being able to set against a charge, or reach from the second row, do you have any special D&D house rules about particular weapons being able to do particular things other weapons can't?

Given the amount of virulent hatred that 3.x's Book of Nine Swords got, I avoid doing that.

Not D&D, but my game, Homunculi, focuses heavily on equipment to differentiate characters so I do have maneuvers (called weapon arts) for each of the weapon types.

Back in the day, I constantly used polearms that disarmed, driving my DM crazy.

The D&D Companion rules (and RC) had weapon mastery rules that gave special stuff to every sort of weapon.  That's a bit too fiddly. And the disarming from 1e is too overpowering since it's so easy to do. So I keep it pretty simple - lighter weapons like dagger and rapiers can use dex instead of str for to hit/damage (essentially 3.x's finesse). Flails ignore shields.  And the reach thing for spears, pole arms

I give a +2 damage to 2-handed weapons.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038581Given the amount of virulent hatred that 3.x's Book of Nine Swords got, I avoid doing that.

Which I always found silly. It's a setting where people can store magic inside them and release it by reciting the proper words, performing specific gestures while holding the right materials in their hands and rip holes in the universe, but God forbid a fighter have rules that let him leap 20 feet, swing his polearm around and knock everyone around him prone in a single turn. THAT would be immersion breaking and unbalanced.

3e is one of the only game systems I've ever seen where banning the core classes and allowing only splat classes actually improves the quality of the game immensely.

We've always used maneuvers for weapons. I'd never play in 3e where Tome of Battle isn't an option (and much prefer games where only tier 3-4 classes are allowed). For 5e I highly recommend adding the weapon maneuvers from the Midgard Heroes Handbook; they add some nice style elements to weapons without going overboard (each weapon gets two maneuvers).

Generally speaking, I'm in favor of making meaningful differences between any two pieces of gear that exist as separate items in a game, including making sure no two weapons are identical. And I enjoy games with combat maneuvers (provided they are written by someone who understands a little about fighting). That said, It's pretty tough to introduce fiddly rules about things like this in D+D, which is only a little less abstract than the war game from which it is descended.  There is a lot of violence in most sessions of D+D, but if you play with an original-ish rules set, and haven't crufted the thing up with a billion extra bolt ons, you don't actually spend that much time resolving fights. Because they are so profoundly abstract that it doesn't take long to grind through a few rounds and figure out who won. There are wonderfully detailed skirmish and duel games that turn a sword fight into a game within a game. And they do well with all sorts of tricksy maneuvers. But I've never seen a version of D+D that did this in a serious way without pretty much trashing its core combat system.

I like using the simple/martial/exotic categories with the same weapon as a gateway for unlocking new maneuvers. For example:

Spear (simple): Pointy end goes in the other guy. It does piercing damage and it has reach but you can't use it on someone right next to you because they're too close to stab.

Spear (martial): It has reach and stabs, but it's not just a dagger with a super long handle. You can use the shaft to bash like a staff, using the middle or the butt end, and it works against adjacent targets too.

Spear (exotic): You can use a spear like a fighter in a kung fu movie. Piercing with the point, bludgeoning with the shaft or butt, and slashing with the tip. You can choke up your grip or lunge while holding it by the end so your minimum range is reduced and maximum range is extended.

Quote from: Chris24601;1038635Which I always found silly. It's a setting where people can store magic inside them and release it by reciting the proper words, performing specific gestures while holding the right materials in their hands and rip holes in the universe, but God forbid a fighter have rules that let him leap 20 feet, swing his polearm around and knock everyone around him prone in a single turn. THAT would be immersion breaking and unbalanced.

I'll be honest, I LOVED that book.  I would have used it to death, if it wasn't for the hatred that it got and infected my then group of players.  Only one of which was a Wizard player.

Quote from: Chris24601;10386353e is one of the only game systems I've ever seen where banning the core classes and allowing only splat classes actually improves the quality of the game immensely.

According to the base system, as written, you don't need anything other than Druids, Clerics and Wizards.  The best party is two Druids (with shape shifting into the right animals), two Clerics (with the right self-buffing spells) and a Wizard (with all the utility and save or 'Die' spells.)  That's core system though, anything else is house rules and they fix everything (And I'm serious, that's the point of the house rules.)

Quote from: Chris24601;1038635We've always used maneuvers for weapons. I'd never play in 3e where Tome of Battle isn't an option (and much prefer games where only tier 3-4 classes are allowed). For 5e I highly recommend adding the weapon maneuvers from the Midgard Heroes Handbook; they add some nice style elements to weapons without going overboard (each weapon gets two maneuvers).

The issue I've found is that players stick to the 'optimum' maneuvers, all the time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038539Aside from spears being able to set against a charge, or reach from the second row, do you have any special D&D house rules about particular weapons being able to do particular things other weapons can't?

Swords get +1 Parry
Axes chop wood better than other weapons, aka hacking down doors.
Maces / Hammers smash locks better than other weapons
Flails get +1 vs. Shields, but don't fumble with one.
Daggers are easiest to hide and hardest to spot.
Crossbows get +2 vs. heavy armor (plate equivalent), but take a round to reload.

Thats a common problem with lots and lots of games where the designer was aiming for 'interesting' and instead turned the combat system into a puzzle with only one answer, which everything then figures out and executes over and over again. If you can find a game that has some tactual nuance but most of the options remains more or less balanced when averaged across all common situations, stick with it because its rare.

Quote from: JeremyR;1038597Back in the day, I constantly used polearms that disarmed, driving my DM crazy.

The D&D Companion rules (and RC) had weapon mastery rules that gave special stuff to every sort of weapon.  That's a bit too fiddly. And the disarming from 1e is too overpowering since it's so easy to do. So I keep it pretty simple - lighter weapons like dagger and rapiers can use dex instead of str for to hit/damage (essentially 3.x's finesse). Flails ignore shields.  And the reach thing for spears, pole arms

Partizans are one of my favorite Polearms for exactly that reason. If the attacker states a disarming attempt as well as an attack during a round with a Partizan, defender must make a Dexterity save or lose their weapon. if the attacker gets a crit, and the defender fails the dex save, then the weapon that the defender was carrying is broken as well.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038763The issue I've found is that players stick to the 'optimum' maneuvers, all the time.

Certainly true in Pathfinder.  Instead of "I hit" every round, I say "I power attack" every round.

Whee.