Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[Lord Nat]

What I really want to see info on is Tri-Welding >.>

Hm... *starts to think about a Paragon Path*

ok really, I have been a fan of keyword systems for a long time so happy to see that.
It's nice to see that reach fix, I was tired of having to stand 10 feet away from my target ALL the time when using a long spear. I'd like to see what they are going to do for throwing weapon powers.

It looks like that each weapon type are going to have (if not in the PHB then in the powers book later this year) power based around the it's style. I'd like to think that those will come from feats or at least feats that open combat styles.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Because people whined about it. Endlessly and at length. It was too hard it was too unrealistic, etc. It looks like they ended up caving to the whiners.

I'm glad they got rid of the 3.5e weapon sizing rules - it stood out like a proud nail in attempting to be extra-simulationist when sitting alongside hit points and all the other abstract mcguffins we know and love in D&D.

 

[Edwin_Su]

which wepons can be used by halflings in 4.0

i think a lot of it is contained in :
Small: This property describes a two-handed or a versatile weapon that a Small character can use in the same way a Medium character can. A halfling can use a shortbow, for example, even though halflings can’t normally use two-handed .wepons

a versatile weapon that a Small character can use in the same way a Medium character can.

So the norm woeld be that a halfling used a versitile wepon in a difrent way then a medium size creature.
So i guess medium creatures can chose to wield these with 1 or 2 hands, and that halflings MUST wield them with 2 hands.

It also sais halflings can't wield weapons that MUST be used 2 handed by large cratures

This might lead to :

Medium / Halfling

2handed / -
versitile / 2 handed
main hand ? / versitile
Off-Hand / main hand
- / special small off hand weapon (off hand wapon with small weapon property)

or somthing like that

 

[Ravhin]

I can say from what little experience I have had fighting with two weapons the counter argument of opening yourself up for attack stands pretty strong. A buckler makes a much better friend then a second weapon in reality.

Actually if you know what you are doing, fighting with one or two weapons will always be focused on defense. No matter what you do you must never leave openings, doing so with one weapon is just different from what you do with two and obviously different to what you do with a shield. Using a shield may seem the best option, but in a duel, you are cutting your offensive ability, a sword can deflect and parry marginally worse but has the added affect that you can threaten your adversary more effectively. He won't attack you if he senses the danger of a counter.

Anyway this sort of discussion is useless since DnD doesn't base it's combat rules from anything reality based. If they where most one hit would spell death to any character and we don't realy want that do we ?

 

[Blue]

Not quite: a halfling can sneak attack with a shortsword, but a human can't sneak attack with a longsword.

That's an interesting point. And the flip side, where you get things like a halfling warlord can't get into the paragon path that requires heavy blades.

But just look at the subtle effects of what you pointed out. Many of the total armed halflings you meet will be armed with weapons that can do sneak attack. Their thrown weapons will most likely be light, both because they are more likely to be Small and because they have a good dex. While there will be two handed weapons for them so their shield use won't be more or less then average, they probably have a lot less access to reach weapons.

The weapon categories might be balanced very differently once you take out the weapons they can't use.

I wonder how they deal with tiny- and large+ creatures. Even in 3.0 ogres had large spears, all 3.5 did was apply only one set of rules instead of two.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

 

[Klaus]

Not a bad idea, but that might be too powerful. Who knows, I suppose?

That spiked chain picture is dreadful. Do people really think a chain is wielded by holding onto those two "grip" sections and nowhere else, like a He-Man action figure or something?

 

[Edwin_Su]

Originally Posted by klaus

That spiked chain picture is dreadful. Do people really think a chain is wielded by holding onto those two "grip" sections and nowhere else, like a He-Man action figure or something?

the picture coeld also be a new incarnation of the dual flail dual weapon.
But where woeld you grip the old spiked chain except for the rings ?


http://www.dragonquestfrontiers.com/images/chain.JPG

and yes a chain is gripped in multiple places but i don't recomend gripping on the spiked part of a spiked chain.

 

[Propheous_D]

Actually if you know what you are doing, fighting with one or two weapons will always be focused on defense. No matter what you do you must never leave openings, doing so with one weapon is just different from what you do with two and obviously different to what you do with a shield. Using a shield may seem the best option, but in a duel, you are cutting your offensive ability, a sword can deflect and parry marginally worse but has the added affect that you can threaten your adversary more effectively. He won't attack you if he senses the danger of a counter.

Anyway this sort of discussion is useless since DnD doesn't base it's combat rules from anything reality based. If they where most one hit would spell death to any character and we don't realy want that do we ?

It all ways fun to partake in. Also, don't be so quick to dismiss a shields offencive capabilities. In War EVERYTHING is a weapon.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ok, does that mean i am totally wrong in that case?

But i can´t interpret that picture...

so please enlighten me...

 

[Irving]

It all depends on what you want to simulate, folks.

The "best" (as in, the one tested by the most people) system of "real" combat tested so far would be the SCA. In the SCA, shields rule. Two-weapon fighting is for suckers. In the LARPs I play... shields rule. With the exception of Japan, shields dominated the field of war for a long time (although tools like the flail, the pick, and other weapons evolved to counter them, and shields shrunk as armor improved.) There's an argument to be made that "real" samurai, as it actual professional warriors, didn't use two weapons in combat either - the samurai was a horse archer first and foremost.

However... none of that is, in the end, truly relevant. D&D emulates D&D. No more, no less. Ideally, it should permit you play just about any concept you like - sword and board or dual fighting - and enjoy yourself without feeling cheated.

I strongly suspect that we're going to toss all our assumptions out when we see the rules. We're probably underestimating the value of pushing enemies around, forcing them to slide, and otherwise controlling their board position. Heck, forget about real life combat at all - we're talking about a board game like chess. It's going to be a big deal to be able to put an enemy in range for your ally's ranged attack, or incapable of reaching a target he marked. There's no such thing as line up and hit them anymore. There are going to be so many more things to do other than just swing and do damage. TWF just to land the blows may well end up looking like a weak choice for a fighter when we're all done.