Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[FireLance]

* Only light weapons can ever be used in the off-hand. The whole light-weapon for the off-hand thing has gone from being a way to reduce TWF penalties to an absolute requirement. So a character can't even dual wield longswords anymore? Thanks WotC, for not letting my fantasy hero do what can easily be done in real life (not to mention fantasy literature).

I'm a bit more optimistic. I see the potential for a feat that allows normal one-handed weapons to be used in the off hand. I'm not sure about the "easily" done in real life, though - I've handled the long sword that my brother uses in his sword fighting classes and I think I'd have serious trouble fighting with one in each hand. To be fair, it's probably closer to a bastard sword in D&D terms, though.

* Small characters can't use two-handed weapons. Um, what? Don't get me wrong, I was never a fan of the whole small version of every weapon thing in 3.5, but at least it made some sense. This, on the other hand, is just ridiculous. Thanks, WotC, for punishing small characters for being small, and for doing so in a way that doesn't even make sense.

Yeah, Small characters can't use a greatsword, just like in 3.5e. They can use a Versatile one-handed weapon in two hands, though.

* High crit weapons have a ridiculous advantage over other weapons, especially at higher levels. Thanks, WotC, I never thought I'd find myself wishing to have the 3e crit rules back.

It's an advantage that crops up 5% of the time, and it's possibly balanced by lower average damage (compared to a non-high crit weapon) the rest of the time. It swingier, definitely, but I'm not sure that the advantage is that significant.

* Light thrown vs heavy thrown. Why? Why not just have all thrown weapons use Dex for attack and Str for damage?

I guess the idea is that the some weapons rely more on finesse and precision, while others rely more on battering through defences.

* Lack of proficiency doesn't give a penalty. Apparently, we don't believe in penalties in this game, instead, we just put people at a disadvantage by denying them bonuses. It ends up being the same difference, but you feel better about yourself when you don't have a minus on something. *sigh*

Giving a bonus also adds an extra variable to differentiate weapons. You can have more accurate but less damaging weapons, or balance a property by reducing the weapon's proficiency bonus.

[edit] Oh, and versatile weapons? Weak. a *whopping* +1 damage is not in any way, shape or form worth giving up the protection of a shield.

Well, I personally would not give up a shield just for an additional +1 bonus to damage, but there may be powers and other abilities that key off versatile weapons that might make them worthwhile.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The good:

-No double weapons, at least from what we've seen so far. I never liked those.
-I like the designation between two types of throwing weapons. A lot. A lot.

The bad:

-Remarkably short blurb that...well, doesn't tell us a lot.
-I dislike that it seems "DUAL WIELD IS FOR RANGERS ONLY."

The not THAT bad looking in between:

-"Superior?" I'd much rather this be "exotic." Plus, I'm going to be considerably unamused if we see things like katanas in here that are labeled as "superior" for no reason other then "Dude, did you watch that samurai movie? Kickin' rad."
-I'm torn on the light weapons only for offhand. I can see why they would do it, and it certainly makes sense, but I would still much perfer people be ALLOWED to off-hand a weapon and merely take a big disability with it.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Unarmed is apparently both an improvised weapon and it's own group. Make up your mind guys...

Improvised weapon = weapon category.

Unarmed = weapon group.

There is a difference.

There seems to be no non-proficiency penalty, the philosophy being instead that you reward skill rather than punishing ignorance. If the proficiency bonus is too minor I suspect we'll see a lot of non-fighters wielding the exotic weapon-de-jour.

Considering that everyone's default "BAB", if you will, is that of a 3.x Wizard, I can see the reason for this. Weapons typically attack AC, which will typically be the highest defense of any given enemy. Proficiency bonuses in 4e mean that you're on your way to attacking AC as reliably as someone may attack a Fortitude, Reflex, or Will defense with a spell.

 

[Darth Cyric]

-I'm torn on the light weapons only for offhand. I can see why they would do it, and it certainly makes sense, but I would still much perfer people be ALLOWED to off-hand a weapon and merely take a big disability with it.

A feat may allow you to take a larger weapon in the off-hand. If not, it's easy enough to draft such a feat for house rules. This would make sense, as it would be more difficult to wield two longswords than the more common longsword/dagger.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Two attacks at a penalty as a basic attack screws with the hit math. It gives fighters de-facto two-weapon combat skills, since their basic attack is very good, being Strength-based, and makes two-weapon combat much more attractive for ensuring hits- and the ensuing marking- than any single-weapon combat.

If you're getting, say, a -4 penalty on both attacks, it isn't always a better option. You're less likely to hit with each attack, but you get two tries. Soemtimes it will be better, sometimes it will be worse.

You know all those OAs fighters get to make? The ones that force you to make a basic attack? Now make each of them twice. The to-hit or damage penalty would have to be enormous for it not to be an overwhelmingly superior choice over a two-hander.

TWF couldn't be used with opportunity attacks in 3e; there's no reason to assume they would work with OA in 4e. That certainly wasn't my intent.

Now let's add in conditional targeting determinations each round. You pick your first target, roll to hit, determine damage, and if you drop them you have to then decide on a secondary target, roll to hit, and determine damage. You've basically doubled your round's time-to-complete. That's all right as an encounter power, but on every single round? Even a wizard's AoE effects only require him to make one decision- who he's targeting.

And yet the rules in 4e require you to roll to attack each and every target seperately. That takes time. Alot of time.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

A feat may allow you to take a larger weapon in the off-hand. If not, it's easy enough to draft such a feat for house rules. This would make sense, as it would be more difficult to wield two longswords than the more common longsword/dagger.

We could also see feats that add certain benefits to TWF, say... Attack with off-hand base-attack when you are attacked on OA, or gain so much reflex to defence.

 

[HeinorNY]

Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.

Give me a break. This is the worst rule in 4e so far.

Why should anyone wielding two weapons automatically get two attacks per turn?

 

[mach1.9pants]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. That statement made me laugh out loud, the thought of seeing someone try to effectively wield 2 longswords (as in the real rather than DnD definition); I could see in my mind the long blades clattering together
So that was what I was laughing at, not you nor the possibility of using 2 one handed swords effectively (I wouldn't know if that were possible, are there any cultures known for using that?) but an image which jumped in my head. I should have stated but was l short on typing time

 

[FadedC]

That's some interesting math you have there, but whatever. They justified the new crit rules (you just do max damage, no doubling) because the old way was "too swingy." How are these high crit weapons not "too swingy?"

A high crit weapon that does d8 damage will do an average of 4.5 extra damage on a crit. That means every attack will do 4.5/20 extra damage or in this cases .22 extra damage on heroic or .66 at epic. That's rather underwhelming.

As for swingy, at epic level your crit will hit for an average of 13.5 extra damage to a target that often has over 400 hit points. Ooh swingy.

 

[FireLance]

Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.

I think the key issue is damage scaling. The damage from your wizard attack isn't going to scale very much as you go up in levels. Now, I'm not sure what magic weapons will look like, but if you get weapons that add significantly to damage, then that additional +1d6 damage for a second weapon that you get at 1st level is going to escalate at higher levels, perhaps by so much that the attack roll penalty looks paltry in comparison.

The balance issues will be clearer in a month, when the books are released.