Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[Fallen Seraph]

Somewhat random... But I would love to see the Urumi as a weapon that counts for both Light Blade and Whip (if there is one, if whip goes into flail then flail).

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I thought it was a spiked chain.

If that's the standard of the weapon illustrations in the PHB I'll be happy.

Personally, I'm extremely displeased that they're still using Wayne England for this sort of thing. I sincerely hope he's not illustrating anything in the Monster Manual - I'm sick of his full-face reptilian creatures advancing towards the viewer, which is about all he seems capable of drawing (whether the monster is supposed to be reptilian or not).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

+1 Damage from versatile weapons is about the same bonus as using a longsword instead of a short sword in 3.5.

No big bonus, but stillit can make the difference between 0 and 2 hp left after two hits.

TWF: I think the idea of using the dagger to stab and a longsword as opportuity attack weapon seems ok for some builds.
We don´t know about powers which let you take advantage from an offhand weapon. (AC bonus, extra attacks, enounter powers)
I would maybe allow you to get a feat to use a minor action to make a basic attack with the offhand when you successfully hit with the main hand... or after you were missed in melee...

Using two weapons of the same size in mainhand and offhand could easily be a ranger feature... which has some tradition...

 

[small pumpkin man]

This baffles me. You say this as though TWF *must* be a suboptimal choice. It doesn't have to be.

I was refering to fighting with two longswords, which is possible, but incredibly suboptimal in 3.x. I don't say this much, but making it "impossible" is actually very videogamy, I see the point, but I'm not sure how I feel about it.

You want to know what's suboptimal? For a non-Ranger (without ranger MC feats) to fight with two-weapons in 4e. You give up the protection of a shield and the damage of two-handed weapons ... for what? The ability to choose which one you attack with. With no damage reduction in this edition, there isn't even a point in doing that anymore.

Probably, yes.

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?"

All math is interesting .

More seriously, going from "1d10+5" to "15+1d10" is only double, that doesn't even come close to 3.x scythes, or the possible silly builds which went higher. It's about making bonuses flat as opposed to innately scaling. Surely it's obvious how this results in less crazy corner cases?

I've never liked that either. But I'm one of those crazy people that actually thinks MAD is a good thing.

I just meant to point out that there is a rationale behind it . I'm going to try to not get into conversations about how good a rational it is, or indeed any similar conversation about MAD untill I see how stat generation works, specifically about how stat gain from levels works.

 

[Cirex]

You can’t use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon

There goes the old [inside] joke of using power attack with a bow or a crossbow.


I remember reading that lances pushed the opponent and stuff like that. I was hoping for more information on that.

 

[Rechan]

Somewhat random... But I would love to see the Urumi as a weapon that counts for both Light Blade and Whip (if there is one, if whip goes into flail then flail).

Hmm. Interesting. Though I was also thinking of a whip-sword (like the fellow in Brotherhood of the Wolf wielded).

I also like the Kusarigama.

 

[Ximenes088]

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.

Given that 4e normalizes equal-level enemies at about 50% chance of hitting for any given swing, it will always be better unless you're swinging at an enemy you have a low chance of hitting normally. Here's the table you use to decide, if it's -4 to each dual-attack roll:

Roll Needed
16+ 25% hit with one weapon, 10% hit with two.
15+ 30% hit with one weapon, 19% hit with two
14+ 35% hit with one weapon, 28% hit with two.
13+ 40% hit with one weapon, 43% hit with two.

Therefore, if you hit on a 13+, you always use two weapons, if the penalty is -4. There's no cunning decision involved, you just compare your hit roll and choose.

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.

Then it's not a basic attack. Sure, you can create "Attack with two weapons" as a special sort of action, but that layers on more complications- all in service of taking away a two-weapon ranger's unique talents.

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

Not in my experience. The real time cost comes in the decision of which power to use and where to direct it. The mechanical action of rolling a die and comparing it to an AC is comparatively trivial, especially against a homogenous group of enemies.

Ultimately, two-weapon fighting is balanced as a ranger shtick. No non-ranger will or should be capable of using two weapons as effectively. Anyone can carry two weapons around and choose which to use for their attack with impunity- there doesn't seem to be any attack penalty attached to it. If you want to get two-weapon goodness, you should be obliged to invest in a class that specializes in it- and in core so far, that's the ranger. If your character's concept is "I fight with two weapons" then you are a ranger. Want heavy armor? Buy the proficiency. Want to be a defender? Well, too bad. You don't get a Striker's level of offensive prowess and still get to fill a defender's role.

 

[FireLance]

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

You might not necessarily get two attacks per turn, but I think there should be some advantage to fighting with two weapons because you're giving up a shield.

Right now, there seem to be clear advantages for the sword and board style (AC bonus) and the two-handed style (more damage). One possibility is to allow the two-weapon style to make a single attack using the best characteristics of the weapons he is using, e.g. use the better weapon's proficiency bonus, the better weapon's damage dice, and the attack gains the high crit property if at least one of the weapons he is using has it. However, this would be trivially easy to min-max (pairing an accurate weapon with a high-damage weapon, for example) and doesn't seem to give any advantage to paired weapons (or maybe paired weapons get a flat +1 to hit and damage rolls).

 

[Rechan]

I was wrong. This MIGHT end up 500+ posts.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Regarding weapon sizes for small characters:

This solution is better. The way 3.5 handled it was more realistic, but it was very inconvenient to create appropriate treasure for all members of a mixed party.
I always allowed to rework the grip to make a small longsword from a shortsword (yes i know that the weapon would become a bit unbalanced...)