I recently wrote a Minimalist/expanded B/X weapons list.

The idea is to take some cool ideas from AD&D and port it to B/X (e.g., damage against large, armor defeating weapons, etc.), but in a VASTLY simplified manner - i.e., B/X levels of simplicity when compared to AD&D.

There is still some tinkering to do, but I'm somewhat satisfied with the result... EXCEPT that I couldn't add a meaningful distinction between axes and maces. Are there any obvious solutions I'm missing? I could give maces +1 to hit against armor but I did that for picks...

Any ideas?

EDIT: I cannot seem to reproduce the table here but swords/axes/maces all do 1d8 damage, 1d8+1 in two hands. Click the link for more detail.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/minimalistexpanded-bx-weapons.html

Here is my revised B/X weapon list.

The goals is to make it simpler (fewer words/entries, also clearer), expanded (more weapons), more balanced (no useless or flawless weapons), varied (distinctions between weapons) and easier to use (pick your weapon size/style before choosing a particular weapon). Weights are a bit more sensible but not entirely realistic.

This is somewhat similar to Dark Fantasy Basic, but adapted to B/X. It also incorporate some AD&Disms such as speed, reach, defeating armor, and damage against large creatures, but keeps them extremely simplified. 

----

CLASSES

Clerics can only use blunt weapons: hammers, maces, clubs, some polearms, slings. Mages can use  daggers and staves (optional: can use other weapons, -4 to hit). Dwarves and halflings need two hands to use medium weapons (no bonus damage) and cannot use large ones (or longbows).

---

WEAPON TYPES

Every melee weapon can be taken in small, medium, or large size unless indicate otherwise.

Axes, hammers, maces deal +1 damage on a natural 20 in melee (but not thrown). They are also good at breaking down doors, etc.

Clubs are cheap (1 sp) medium weapons that deal 1d4 damage.

Crossbows need one round to recharge after fired and deal +1 damage on a natural 20.

Javelins are cheap (1 gp) small spears that can be thrown (90') but not used in melee for more than one single hit (as they may bend when they hit).

Lances are just heavy spears made to be used one-handed when riding a horse (1d6 damage). They deal double damage on a charge.

Picks get +1 to-hit against heavy armor (chain or better), unless the opponent is large. A pick can be added to a axe/hammer/mace for 5 gp.

Polearms are "combination" weapons - either a sword on top of a long pole (naginata/halberd/etc. - +1 damage against large foes AND +1 on a critical 20), or a combination of one or two other large weapons (spear and hammer, hammer and axe, pick and axe, etc.). They are always as long as large spears and if they include a spear they can be used to brace against a charge (1d8).

Spears are cheaper (half price), lighter (-10 weight) and deal less damage (1d4, 1d6, 1d8), but can be thrown (60'). Large spears cannot be thrown, but are very long. Medium and large spears deal double damage when bracing against a charge.

Staves (e.g., quarterstaff) are cheap (2 sp), light (40) large weapons that deal 1d6 damage.

Swords deal +1 damage against large enemies; they cannot be thrown. Fencing swords are medium, weight 40, cost 15, can only be used one-handed, and have no benefit against large foes, but get +1 to-hit against unarmored targets.
---

HOUSE RULES

Critical hits (on a natural 20): +2 damage; +4 for large weapons (+3/+5 for certain weapons as seen above).

Initiative: on ties, when both sides are attacking, the weapons will indicate who attacks first. If you are not engaged with your foe, the longest (or better range) weapon attacks first. If you are already engaged, the quickest weapon attacks first.

[For now, it is up to the GM to decide which is which, but should be obvious most of the time - larger weapons are longer and slower, and within the same size axes and maces are shorter and slower while spears are the opposite. A polearm is always slower].

(Thanks again Sleeper for the idea).

Dual wielding: if holding one weapon in each hand, you can make an attack with the other weapon when you roll a natural 2. On initiative ties, you choose which weapon to use. If holding two identical weapons (e.g., two shortswords), they are considered both faster and longer against an opponent using a single identical weapon (shortsword).

Range: you can double the maximum range (-2 penalty) or triple it (-3 penalty), but not more.

I'd definitely put maces in the d6 dmg +1 vs armour camp w hammers and picks, not the d8 dmg camp w swords. There's a continuum of warhammer/pick-mace-ace-sword, the further to the left you
go the more it's a specialised armour penetrator. To the right, more damage vs unarmoured but less good vs armour.

Maybe hammer d4/+2 vs armour, mace d6/+1, axe d8/+0, sword -1/d8, +1 to hit & dmg vs unarmoured. Or keep swords baseline by adding +1 to hit numbers.

From here
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Equipment%20Rev%202.pdf

I looked at how medieval weapons were used and the tactics associated with them. As a result I felt the most OD&Dish way of handling was to give weapons a special ability when warrented.

Axe, battle 50d/ea. 8.0/lbs.
Damage: 1-Hand, 1d8
This is a single head axe between 24 to 36 inches long. Like the throwing axe, the head is shaped longer from the blade to the butt of the axe. At the attacker's option you can use this to pin an opponent's weapon or shield. After making a successful to hit roll, the opponent needs to make a saving or the weapon or shield is pinned. The attacker can't use the axe to attack with while pinning a weapon.

Hammer, war 8d/ea. 3.5/lbs.
Damage: 1d4+1
The spread of plate armor in the last few centuries has seen the adoption of the war hammer as a weapon. This version is designed to be used by one hand. It is 18 to 24 inches long, with a hammer-shaped lump of metal affixed to one end. It gets +1 to hit when used against plate armor and creatures with natural plate like armor. It is usable in the off-hand when dual wielding.

Mace, small 9d/ea. 3.0/lbs.
Damage: 1d4+1
Used since the beginning of recorded history, maces became a popular battlefield weapon when chainmail became common a millennia ago. It is still a popular choice despite the spread of plate armor and war hammers. This weapon is between 18 to 24 inches long and has a ball of metal affixed to the end. It gets +1 to hit versus opponents wearing chainmail or gelatinous creatures like ochre jellies or black puddings. It is usable off hand when dual wielding.

Dual Wielding
One-handed weapons can be used in the off hand in lieu of a shield. Contrary to popular belief, this doesn't allow a combatant to make more attacks. It acts much like a buckler, granting +1 to the character's AC versus one opponent. In addition, the character can choose which weapon to attack with when making their attack roll.

It's never a good idea to invite the argument about which weapons are better against different types of armor. That argument is endless and has few proven answers. 

I also don't care for those kind of conditional modifiers. I'd rather not have my players have to keep asking what kind of armor the enemy is wearing before they roll their attack. The attack roll is probably the most commonly made one in D&D, so it benefits the most from the players being able to internalize their modifier and then not think about it for a while.

I've always liked the way that 3.x and the larger d20 system differentiated weapon types by changing their critical rules. Since you're not using multipliers for your criticals, you can't bring over the d20 rules, but you might take some inspiration from the "weapon effects" system used in the 2d20 systems. Here are some possibilities off the top of my head:

Axes - Bleeding wounds: target must make a death/poison save or take 1d6  (1d8 for large weapons) additional damage at the beginning of their next turn.
Maces/Hammers - Concussive force: target must make a paralysis save or be stunned/knocked prone
Cutting swords - Fast attacks: Immediately make another melee attack at the same target.
Dueling Swords -  Debilitating blows: The target makes a spells, rods and staves check or else suffers -2 to its attacks until healed.
"Anti-Armor" weapons (picks, estocs, etc.) - Sundering: The target makes a Devices save, or suffers -2 to its AC until the damage is repaired.   
Polearms - Sweeping: enemies adjacent to the target make a breath-weapons save, or also suffer damage from the critical attack.

delete

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 15, 2023, 01:38:52 PM
I also don't care for those kind of conditional modifiers. I'd rather not have my players have to keep asking what kind of armor the enemy is wearing before they roll their attack. The attack roll is probably the most commonly made one in D&D, so it benefits the most from the players being able to internalize their modifier and then not think about it for a while.

Also, if some weapons are better against some armor, then unless they have weapon specialization, fighters will have a set of weapons in a draw bag and pull out the right one to fight with based on the enemy. Do you want to encourage this as behavior? It is logical tactics.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 15, 2023, 01:38:52 PM
I've always liked the way that 3.x and the larger d20 system differentiated weapon types by changing their critical rules. Since you're not using multipliers for your criticals, you can't bring over the d20 rules, but you might take some inspiration from the "weapon effects" system used in the 2d20 systems. Here are some possibilities off the top of my head:

Axes - Bleeding wounds: target must make a death/poison save or take 1d6  (1d8 for large weapons) additional damage at the beginning of their next turn.
Maces/Hammers - Concussive force: target must make a paralysis save or be stunned/knocked prone
Cutting swords - Fast attacks: Immediately make another melee attack at the same target.
Dueling Swords -  Debilitating blows: The target makes a spells, rods and staves check or else suffers -2 to its attacks until healed.
"Anti-Armor" weapons (picks, estocs, etc.) - Sundering: The target makes a Devices save, or suffers -2 to its AC until the damage is repaired.   
Polearms - Sweeping: enemies adjacent to the target make a breath-weapons save, or also suffer damage from the critical attack.

This is great. I am redoing 5e weapons for my setting (because the setting doesn't have iron), and I might use this to help differentiate some weapons.

Quote from: jhkim on July 15, 2023, 04:39:03 PM
Also, if some weapons are better against some armor, then unless they have weapon specialization, fighters will have a set of weapons in a draw bag and pull out the right one to fight with based on the enemy.

That's how it worked IRL. One weapon, like one costume, is more a movie trope.

May not fit the direction you are going, but what I did was make a distinction between slash/bash/pierce damage in heavier armors and a modest but notable set of creatures and spells.  It doesn't always come up, but when it does, having the right weapon helps.  Slash weapons tend to do slightly better base damage but get reduced the most often by those special cases. The bash/pierce distinction is about even. 

Then I made maces/clubs do all bash, hammers do bash/pierce (assuming a pick on the reverse end), and small axes do straight slash.  Battle axes and pole axes do bash/slash.  Small axes are also very handy tools, and my system has strict enough encumbrance that a side weapon also serving as a tool matters. 

Originally, I was going to do bash, pierce, slash, and cut, with axes and heavy swords getting the "cut" type as an option.  Turns out, the heavy swords already had enough going for them that they didn't need that edge, and it didn't make sense to keep "cut" for a few axes.  So I compromised and just said that a battle axe coming at a skeleton's head or a guy in banded armor gets to count as bash when it matters, despite having an edge.  All of that replaces any weapon vs armor to hit adjustment.

Quote from: jhkim on July 15, 2023, 04:39:03 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 15, 2023, 01:38:52 PM
I've always liked the way that 3.x and the larger d20 system differentiated weapon types by changing their critical rules. Since you're not using multipliers for your criticals, you can't bring over the d20 rules, but you might take some inspiration from the "weapon effects" system used in the 2d20 systems. Here are some possibilities off the top of my head...

This is great. I am redoing 5e weapons for my setting (because the setting doesn't have iron), and I might use this to help differentiate some weapons.

I'd be curious to hear how it works out for you. In general, I do think that the critical hit is an underexplored part of the D&D design. The fact that they only turn up in 1/20 rolls means you can introduce a lot of variety in them without it being game-breaking or introducing too much cognitive load at the table. I'm surprised more OSR games don't give the different classes each their own critical multipliers/tables, the way DCC does.

Quote from: S'mon on July 15, 2023, 06:20:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 15, 2023, 04:39:03 PM
Also, if some weapons are better against some armor, then unless they have weapon specialization, fighters will have a set of weapons in a draw bag and pull out the right one to fight with based on the enemy.

That's how it worked IRL. One weapon, like one costume, is more a movie trope.

Up to a point. The basic loadout of a main-battle weapon, a sidearm and a dagger/knife is surprisingly consistent for soldiers across history. But then, a soldier is not only expecting to go into battle, but usually has a reasonable idea of what they're going to be fighting. What travelers (who are not expecting to fight, but might have to) carried historically is less well documented, but probably just the sidearm and a knife was most common. D&D adventurers are expecting battle, but usually have no idea against what. Maybe they'd be more like Victorian-era big game hunters, and go around followed by a bunch of porters to carry the fantasy equivalent of an elephant gun for them. This is an old Lindybeige gag, but the idea of a knight's squire going around with a golf caddy's bag full of axes and swords is a funny one.

Quote from: jhkim on July 15, 2023, 04:39:03 PM
Also, if some weapons are better against some armor, then unless they have weapon specialization, fighters will have a set of weapons in a draw bag and pull out the right one to fight with based on the enemy. Do you want to encourage this as behavior? It is logical tactics.

That basically what happen in life. Not in a draw bag but carrying multiple weapons.

For example, a mounted knight would carry his lance, a sword, a dagger, and some type of impact weapon (mace, hammer, etc.) other types of combatants had different kits through the ages. They did this because a sword wasn't a one size fit all type of weapon. But they didn't carry an armory around either.

Quote from: estar on July 15, 2023, 08:21:42 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 15, 2023, 04:39:03 PM
Also, if some weapons are better against some armor, then unless they have weapon specialization, fighters will have a set of weapons in a draw bag and pull out the right one to fight with based on the enemy. Do you want to encourage this as behavior? It is logical tactics.

That basically what happen in life. Not in a draw bag but carrying multiple weapons.

For example, a mounted knight would carry his lance, a sword, a dagger, and some type of impact weapon (mace, hammer, etc.) other types of combatants had different kits through the ages. They did this because a sword wasn't a one size fit all type of weapon. But they didn't carry an armory around either.

Yes, but it's not like he's carrying all that on his back while he goes spelunking. He has a horse, and a squire, to carry that crap. If he's going in a cave he'd maybe have a shield and 1 hand weapon.

Verisimilitude.

Quote from: estar on July 15, 2023, 08:21:42 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 15, 2023, 04:39:03 PM
Also, if some weapons are better against some armor, then unless they have weapon specialization, fighters will have a set of weapons in a draw bag and pull out the right one to fight with based on the enemy. Do you want to encourage this as behavior? It is logical tactics.

That basically what happen in life. Not in a draw bag but carrying multiple weapons.

For example, a mounted knight would carry his lance, a sword, a dagger, and some type of impact weapon (mace, hammer, etc.) other types of combatants had different kits through the ages. They did this because a sword wasn't a one size fit all type of weapon. But they didn't carry an armory around either.

This depends on the region and historical period, but I basically agree. As I said, it is logical tactics.

The question is whether you want players doing this in game. It's definitely more of a fantasy trope for a character to have their signature weapon. Even aside from fantasy inspiration, it changes the feel of the game for PCs to have a more extensive kit.

I use D6 as the base for all weapons in my OD&D with +1/-1 modifiers for various things. A long time ago, I did a breakdown for weapons vs armor and noted the most significant standouts so they fit within the -1/+1 scale.

The BIG problem of course is Monster ACs. Unless you're using 3e based AC's - aka where the monster's armor vs dex vs other AC modifiers are noted, it's challenging for some DMs to decide which weapons gain what bonus vs. what monsters.

As for the "bag of weapons", that can be mitigated with ENC - but that's an entire other can of wyrms.

Quote from: jhkim on July 16, 2023, 12:54:44 AM
The question is whether you want players doing this in game. It's definitely more of a fantasy trope for a character to have their signature weapon. Even aside from fantasy inspiration, it changes the feel of the game for PCs to have a more extensive kit.

Given the OP tone and tenor it looks like he is opting to run something more grounded and already made that decision.

As for me.
My Majestic Wilderlands is a more grounded setting so the NPCs do this.

I run sandbox campaigns, not genre emulators and players are free to approach adventuring however they like. The only consideration is handled in-game based on the limits of what an individual can carry.

Yes that at times means if you were standing there witnessing the PCs would come off as 21st folks visiting a fantasy medieval setting. That is not a problem because the point is to have fun, and I roleplay the NPCs as if they live in a fantasy medieval setting. Learned how to do that without bludgeoning them over the head with it. The experience is much like visiting another country and getting to know the local customs.

For D&D specifically, the consequence of whacking creatures and people with various metal objects tend to overshadow the details of how weapons work given its level of abstraction. This is why I don't bother to try to include everything only one or two elements that would stand out. In contrast, GURPS has the details coupled with a good system that make those detail matter. But like in life, you quickly find that most of them matter only in specific situations. The reason various "kits" exist is because they account for the most common situations the warrior is likely to encounter without weighing them down too much. For example, Romans carry a brace of pilums because they are great at fouling your opponent's shield.

Quote from: ForgottenF link=topic=46529.msg1259020#msg1259020
Up to a point. The basic loadout of a main-battle weapon, a sidearm and a dagger/knife is surprisingly consistent for soldiers across history.

As estar/Rob has said, the main addition is that mounted knights would carry both a lance (primary weapon) and a percussive weapon (mace or warhammer) as well as sidearm arming sword, and a rondel dagger (for finishing off fallen man-at-arms who won't yield or not worth a good ransom).

I expect a fair number did leave the arming sword in the tent though; it's mostly good for killing fleeing peasants, and you can always do that with lance or mace at a pinch.