D&D 4E Understanding 4e Weapons

[AeroDm]

I created a site with the eventual goal of developing a free system populated by user created content. In the lead up to that goal, it will mostly be general game design articles with 4e as the backdrop. The current top post discusses reverse engineering the system 4e designers used to develop weapons and various balance issues it reveals. It recreates most 4e weapons really well and helped me better understand the tradeoffs inherent in the system. Hopefully you find it interesting too.

The link for those interested

 

[P1NBACK]

Cool stuff man. Might belong in the 4E houserules section.

 

[AeroDm]

Appreciated. I posted it here because the primary goal was to understand the underlying system (although I acknowledge that it immediately begs for house rules).

For folks that would rather jump to the chase, here is the link at the end of the original post: View attachment Runeward_Weapons.PDF

 

[Colmarr]

Isn't it a little odd to be claiming to have divined the system behind 4e weapons while simultaneously admitting that a lot of the weapons in 4e don't fit the system you have reverse engineered?

Surely an alternate conclusion is that either 4e doesn't have a system for weapon values or that you haven't divined it?

 

[Matt James]

I'm not seeing the thesis of your claim or the results. I'll try to reread it later if I remember. I'm not understanding where you're concluding that any issue lies in the weapons themselves. What does reverse engineer mean in this instance? There's a lot of disjointed concepts and terms being tossed around.

 

[AeroDm]

I’m getting the idea that I chose poorly in using the term “reverse engineer” because it is implying things I didn’t want. Let me try again.

The goal of this post was to demonstrate that creating a system helps you better understand and balance a given sub-set of rules. To illustrate that, I attempted to create a system that would explain tradeoffs in 4e weapons. I don’t intend to imply that I cracked the secret 4e code.

As consumers of RPG content, we are typically only given a final product. The final product is a tangle of tradeoffs that we assume are balanced. It is challenging to go back into that tangle and conduct analysis. Organizing the tangle into a system makes it much easier to analyze and even helps you take the rules farther.

Because I wasn’t present during the designing of 4e, it is impossible to create a system that reflects their thought process. However, the fact that the system I developed reproduced so many of the 4e weapons perfectly increased my confidence in the overall balance of what I produced. With this confidence in hand, I then had the temerity to look at its output and make game-balance judgments.

The best example of that output was in showing that greatsword is underpowered (as discussed in the post). It is not the best example because it is the hardest to spot, but because it is the most concrete: it has the same potential output as a longsword with less flexibility. The system outputs a lot of little red flags like this and, in general, that is useful information.

I think the disjointedness stems from the fact that I bit off more than I should. I was covering a lot of ground but didn’t want it to be longer than necessary out of respect for people’s time. Clarity was lost for the sake of brevity. But I guess wasting a little bit of someone’s time really isn’t any better than wasting a lot. Duly noted, I’ll do better next time.

 

[Colmarr]

The conclusions you've reached are largely correct, the article was an entertaining and insightful read, and the comments you make about the value of systems from a design perspective are quite interesting.

Just be careful about implying things you don't mean to

 

[tiornys]

The best example of that output was in showing that greatsword is underpowered (as discussed in the post). It is not the best example because it is the hardest to spot, but because it is the most concrete: it has the same potential output as a longsword with less flexibility.

Actually, this isn't quite true (and I'm not talking about the slight difference on a critical). The greatsword has more impact than the longsword whenever you increase the number of [W] in a damage expression. That is, while it's basically correct that 1d10 = 1d8+1, it is also correct that 3d10 > 3d8+1.

t~

edit: which is not to say that your conclusion is wrong. Just that you are slightly overstating the underpoweredness.

 

[Destil]

A friend of came up with this, his desire to build a 4E modern and add more firearm support. I've been attempting to use it to round one a few of my own proud nails, slowly, by trying to come up with rules to make martial weapons work on par with superior via feats.

A simple 1 hander is built with 7-9 points.
A simple 2 hander is built with 9-11 points.

A military 1 hander is built with 10-11 points.
A military 2 hander is built with 13-14 points.

A superior 1 hander is built with 11-13 points.
A superior 2 hander is built with 15-16 points.

Each half point of average damage is worth 1 point, including average damage that comes from the brutal property. (2d4 and 1d8 Brutal 1 both cost 10 for example)
A +3 proficiency mod is worth 2 points.
The High Crit feature is worth 1 point.
Off hand is worth 2 points.
Thrown is worth 2 points. The range seems.. totally arbitrary and made up.
Reach is worth 3 points.
Versatile looks like it is free.
Belonging to more than one weapon group is free.

Ranged weapons require a LOT more speculation since there are fewer examples to work with.
Ranged weapons get, for free, load minor and a range of 10/20, 15/30, 20/40 depending on simple, military or superior.
Adding 5/10 to a ranged weapons range is worth 1 point.
Free reloads costs 2 points.
The reload of a repeating crossbow costs 1 point.
No real idea what small is worth, maybe 2 points?

Ranged weapons really are all over the place. I personally put the gouge in the 'overpowered' column, so I think I may charge 1 for multi-type weapons and drop reach down to two, myself.

 

[AeroDm]

Actually, this isn't quite true (and I'm not talking about the slight difference on a critical). The greatsword has more impact than the longsword whenever you increase the number of [W] in a damage expression. That is, while it's basically correct that 1d10 = 1d8+1, it is also correct that 3d10 > 3d8+1.

t~

edit: which is not to say that your conclusion is wrong. Just that you are slightly overstating the underpoweredness.

That's a good point and I admit that the analysis is a generalization. After all, high crit on a dagger is worth less than the same on a greatsword yet they both are "valued" at +1 point.

In general, though, the value is that it tosses up red flags and makes discussing tradeoffs easier. I can say that the system suggests that greatsword is missing 1 point vs longsword and you can counter that the reduced versatility is commensurate with the payoff during higher x[w] powers. We just communicated a tremendous amount of information and, in my opinion, having a solid foundation aided in doing so. Strong systems provide such a foundation.