Elvin thinblade: Cool racial weapon or Exploited Powergamer Ploy?

[rrealm]

Actually, I just took a closer look at both the rapier and the elven thinblade, and I noticed something...

Rapiers are not light weapons ...

From the SRD:
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.​

A rapier's weapon size is the same as the intended weilder - Medium in the case of a typical medium sized elf - which is why the rapier is not a light weapon but a short sword (small) or dagger (tiny) is.

 

[Malin Genie]

I'd never actually use this system.

Just out of curiosity - why not? I don't know that I'd use it for a 'normal' campaign, but the whole 'functional equivalence' of different weapon types/styles kind of appeals to me...

 

[Drifter Bob]

The idea of attacking 'without caring about being hit' is a bit absurd...


DB

 

[RangerWickett]

Just out of curiosity - why not? I don't know that I'd use it for a 'normal' campaign, but the whole 'functional equivalence' of different weapon types/styles kind of appeals to me...

A few problems.

Magic weapons. I'm dual wielding a flaming sword and a wounding sword. Do both effects apply? Do the enhancement bonuses from them stack or not?

Whips, and all those other weapons that should help with nifty tricks. It's not as fun if you can't pull out your newfangled weapon that's got its nifty trick. Sure, it's nice that these rules encourage people to have nifty styles, but it can be a little bland. It reduces the granularity of the rules, and wouldn't really fit in D&D's style of rules.

Now, if you also made the combat system, and the movement system, and magic system, and the class system all be more loose like this, sure, it'd work. But you wouldn't be playing D&D, and in D&D, all the nifty tricks appeal to me.

Especially as a rules writer. If we didn't have all these rules, it'd be harder to attach new things to the existing rules.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

A few problems.

Magic weapons. I'm dual wielding a flaming sword and a wounding sword. Do both effects apply? Do the enhancement bonuses from them stack or not?

Whips, and all those other weapons that should help with nifty tricks. It's not as fun if you can't pull out your newfangled weapon that's got its nifty trick. Sure, it's nice that these rules encourage people to have nifty styles, but it can be a little bland. It reduces the granularity of the rules, and wouldn't really fit in D&D's style of rules.

Now, if you also made the combat system, and the movement system, and magic system, and the class system all be more loose like this, sure, it'd work. But you wouldn't be playing D&D, and in D&D, all the nifty tricks appeal to me.

Especially as a rules writer. If we didn't have all these rules, it'd be harder to attach new things to the existing rules.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately with my OGL campaign setting. I like the idea of forcing style over crunchy and think you might be onto something. I also, however, think that there needs to be a *little* bit more variety in your proposed system. I would say handle it more like we do now in 3.5 but make the following changes:

1) do away with all the different damage die of weapons and come up with a sytem like you were proposing but focused on weapon size rather than combat intent. maybe tiny = 1d4, small = 1d6, medium = 1d8, large = 1d10.

2) make two overal classes of wepaons: Might and Finesse. Anyone can use might weapons but you must have weapon finesse in order to use Finesse weapons. Might weapons use Str and Finesse weapons use Dex. Might weapons are your standard weapons, finesse weapons to not add damage but do add threat range.

3) Use the weapon group idea from UA. Each class gets to select a certain number of groups.

4) If you do not have prof with a weapon you still take -4 to attack (or maybe you just can't do as much damage and treat the weapon as one step below its normal place, ie. a short sword would do 1d4 instead of 1d6).

5) Various feats have to be taken in order to increase the damage multiplier, threat range further. Maybe a feat which allows you treat the damage you deal as one step higher in the chain (a longsword does 1d10 instead of 1d8).

6) special rule weapons could be treated in special ways still. You could still have the rules for a whip, say. Treat it as a small weapon that does tiny damage but grants you +4 to trip attacks and has reach.

just an idea, very rough right now, point out the flaws so I can tighten it up please

 

[Hypersmurf]

A rapier's weapon size is the same as the intended weilder - Medium in the case of a typical medium sized elf - which is why the rapier is not a light weapon but a short sword (small) or dagger (tiny) is.

You're getting a couple of designations mixed up.

A Medium rapier - a one-handed weapon - is an object one size smaller than its intended wielder, ie a Small object.

A Medium shortsword - a light weapon - is an object two sizes smaller than its intended wielder, ie a Tiny object.

A Medium dagger is a light weapon, which are generally objects two sizes smaller than their intended wielder, ie a Tiny object... but depending on just how long the dagger in question is, it might be closer to Diminutive.

In 3E, daggers were indisputably a size category smaller than shortswords; shortswords were Small weapons (and therefore Tiny objects), and daggers were Tiny weapons (and therefore Diminutive objects).

In 3.5, they are both 'Light' weapons, which means the resolution isn't as fine for determining their size as objects. A DM could rule a given Medium dagger in 3.5 to be Tiny, or Diminutive, on a case-by-case basis.

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I see plenty of dwarf bashing especially after 3.5 decided to make their new best race even better.

I have seen a couple of complaint posts and that's about it.

Yeah so in other words only dwarfs and elves are fancy enough to have a prestige class in the core

Well, they were the two chosen back in 3e. You don't suppose they should have cut AA and DD in order to get other classes in?

and the rest have to wait for some likely unbalnced splat book to come out.

That's a huge assumption, and as far as I can tell, not founded. I don't think the other racial PrC's are unbalanced.

And heck there still aren't 1/2 race prestige classes, because I guess they'd never develop anything that focused on the strenghts of their two races they come from, and they'd never develop a society for outcasts like them either in plain view or more of an 1/2 elf or 1/2 orc underground.

Well, they can use the PrC's of their parent races...

And heck there are no human prestige classes(maybe red wizard I don't no if thay = human) because humans despite ruling vast tracts of the world apparently don't have a culture to go along with it.

Red Wizard is surely a human - or rather thayan - PrC. AFAIK only Mulan Humans, the ruling class in Thay, can become red wizards.

Than, there's the Hathran of Rashemen, who has to be a female Rashemi human. The Eye of Horus-Re must be Mulhorandi (a region only for Humans and some Planetouched, which are basically humans with a divine bloodline). Purple Dragon Knights can be from a region other than Cormyr, but it's much easier for a Cormyrean human to enter the Knights. Shaaryan Hunters must be Shaaran (and wemics make no sense for that class). Then there's Speciality Priests of "human" deities, which make most sense for humans (personally I prefer to have elves, dwarves, halflings, whatever with patrons of their racial pantheons, I wouldn't play a halfling justiciar of Tyr).

That's the way it should be done if its done at all.

I'd rather give them all the familiarity for free. The Feat presented doesn't make much sense: "Hey, I can either get a feat that gives me proficiency with the waraxe, or one that gives me waraxe and urgrush. Since I don't intend to ever use the urgrosh, I can as well get the Exotic Weapon Proficiency".

 

[frankthedm]

The larger threat range is the twinkish part, but thats for all weapons, not just the so called 'elven' thinblade. 18-20 Makes damage bonuses too good as characters gain levels.

 

[Staffan]

The larger threat range is the twinkish part, but thats for all weapons, not just the so called 'elven' thinblade. 18-20 Makes damage bonuses too good as characters gain levels.

Well, comparing the rapier or scimitar against the longsword, you need a damage bonus of +19 to do more damage with the low-damage/high-crit weapon on average (solve 1.15 * (3.5 + x) = 1.10 * (4.5 + x), where x is the damage bonus), or +9 with a threat range enhancement (Improved crit or keen). I don't think that's particularly broken. The thinblade, of course, has the same base damage as a longsword, but on the other hand it's an exotic weapon so it's supposed to be better. If you compare it to the bastard sword, you'll find that the thinblade is better when you have a damage bonus of +18 (+8 with Improved Crit/Keen).

Also, remember that there are quite a lot of foes where your increased threat range won't help you - undead, constructs, plants, as well as people wearing Fortification armor.

 

[LostSoul]

Here's an idea that you might care for:

What if the "Elven Thinblade" doesn't exist, but is just a simple (martial) Rapier combined with a different form of comabt training that comes from Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Thinblade)?