Battle Cleric Options is up

[bargle0]

In any case, 4e (and D&D in general) has such utterly ahistorical and inaccurate weapons to start with it rapidly gets difficult to even talk about which one should do what.

We play a game where elves throw fireballs. Being ahistorical is not a problem. Double weapons, Dark Sun weapons, and the modern D&D model for hammers as weapons are all completely wrong and make no sense, but D&D is not about modelling reality. Differentiating weapons makes the game more interesting and more fun, which to me at least, is the point.

I will concede that maces need some help in the feat department. I would like maces to be something that is useful and different then what you can do with other weapons, rather than something you could do better with a different weapon.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We play a game where elves throw fireballs. Being ahistorical is not a problem. Double weapons, Dark Sun weapons, and the modern D&D model for hammers as weapons are all completely wrong and make no sense, but D&D is not about modelling reality. Differentiating weapons makes the game more interesting and more fun, which to me at least, is the point.

I will concede that maces need some help in the feat department. I would like maces to be something that is useful and different then what you can do with other weapons, rather than something you could do better with a different weapon.

I agree as well, but there is a problem there. If a weapon doesn't correspond to something in the real world then I can't visualize what it is or how it works. Most players also work mostly on their knowledge of how things actually do work and not whatever arbitrary attributes the game may assign to things.

I'm not particularly interested in simulation for the sake of simulation or anything like that. The problem is when you create a detailed list of weapons with a variety of slightly different performance and utility and that list is entirely divorced from reality then it is just confusing and arbitrary. It would be FAR better to simply understand that 4e mechanics are fairly abstract and it isn't practical to make them reflect all the real world subtle trade-offs between weapon types. Thus the logical and superior solution would be to simply let them be abstract. So perhaps 'club like weapons' (group them in 'mace' or 'bludgeon' or whatever) do a bit more damage, light blades allow for quick accurate use, heavy blades provide other advantages, etc, give them a few characteristic names and call it a day. So you just don't need 6 different kinds of sword, 4 different kinds of spear, etc. Anyway, it is a discussion that bears little on the current topic at this point.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Actually, that's pretty much what I do with superior 4e weapons and exotic 3e weapons. Double weapons are out (with the noted exception of the Urgrosh). But the main difference between a greatsword and a fullblade is the technique and practice put in. And between a waraxe (or whatever the 2 handed martial axe is) and an executioner's axe. It's specialist technique focussing on that weapon (as opposed to the more general weapon focus).

There are a couple of exceptions, one obvious one being the superior crossbow. Now that thing's masterwork. Balanced, perfectly smooth, and with much better winding mechanisms.

That said, if someone wants to run with an anime inspired fullblade, I'm going to let them. Good luck finding treasure when I'm DMing (you'll probably have to beat up ogres and steal their greatswords) but if I'm playing it's fine. It's silly, but not silly enough to break my ability to visualise.

And no Dire Flails. Ever.