Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[FadedC]

An actual medieval broadsword would be more like a D&D bastard sword. A "longsword", as it is described, is much smaller. I have a sword like that hanging in my room, and it seems pretty easy to me to use. I don't think it would be very hard to use two at once. Anakin Skywalker used two lightsabers in the movie. Yeah, I know, it's a movie, but they did physically play out those scenes, with training and direction from professional sword fighters.

I shouldn't have used the word "easy," of course. I simply meant that, just as they admit anyone can pick up and swing a sword, anyone can pick up and swing two swords. It will obviously give penalties, but it can be done. And if it can be done at all by a normal person in real life, a fantasy hero should be able to do it with ease.

Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Side note - while the weapon groups kinda makes sense, I think there's going to be trouble with the light and heavy blades. There's no way you'd ever use a rapier like you would almost any other weapon. And a Zweihander, forgive the lack of happy face above that a, is a very different animal to handle then a simple longsword.

 

[WhatGravitas]

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).

Well, I don't like his art very much as well, but I think flat objects, like most weapons, ARE something he can draw. And not too badly (though I don't like the big knobs he always has to incorporate).

Cheers, LT.

 

[Cirex]

From the Paragon Paths article:

Paragon feat
Spear Push Str 15, Dex 13 Add 1 square to distance pushed with spear or polearm.

Polearms and spears push. A lance is probably qualified as 'spear'.

Ah, missed that, thanks!

By the way, there are no double weapons at the PHB...but at the art image there is a double weapon.

 

[FireLance]

Not for rogues, archery rangers, wizards, or warlocks, unless they've got shield proficiencies I haven't noticed. If you don't have shield proficiency, then adding some intrinsic benefit to dual-wielding makes it a no-brainer choice for a class to wield two weapons.

Good point. Perhaps the ability to mix-and-match could be the benefit of a Two-Weapon Flexibility feat or something.

 

[drjones]

The good:
-I dislike that it seems "DUAL WIELD IS FOR RANGERS ONLY."

I am not getting this from what I have read but I see it being repeated here as fact. Why should we assume that because rangers have access to powers which make TWF more effective that a thief or fighter can't take feats that improve TWF as well? I think the likelihood that upon release it is not possible to make a great twf thief is diminishingly small.

If nothing else it seems to me that a lucky fellow with two magic daggers or magic wands can trigger both of their encounter effects in a fight without any feat expenditure or accuracy hit. Sounds like a nice deal to me.

 

[HeinorNY]

Because someone wielding a weapon in each hand can (usually) strike with both in about the same amount of time that a person holding one weapon can. If you don't believe me, go pick up and hold two kitchen knives, and then tell me why you are somehow unable to stab with both of them at the same time.

I can also wield only one knife in one hand, and stab with that knife at the same time I punch someone. I could also make a front kick in conjunction.
But fighter wielding longsword don't get extra unarmed strikes, unless they have some special training. That's how the game works. Making 2 attacks per turn is more powerful than making one attack per turn, so it makes sense that the character need some sort of "special training" (power, class feature, feat) in order to take advantage of dual wielding.

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.

It's not always true. It depends on the class.
Rangers don't give up a shield because they are not even proficient with them, so it was not a optimal choice to begin with.
A dual wielding fighter would be giving up a shield, which he is proficient with, in order to fight in a way he has no special training. Why should he get any advantage at all?

That's how the game works, the d20 system works. A guy wielding a .38 revolver doesn't suddenly get 6 attacks per turn.

 

[HeinorNY]

I keep reading "only the ranger gets TWF" from various posts, but I have seen nothing in a WotC release that gave me that impression. Has WotC said that, or are we basing this supposition on the lack of seeing a TWF feat or power choice for any any other class. We have only seen a handful of feats, so it might be early to jump to such a conclusion.

Any character can get those multiclass/power swap feat and choose some TWF ranger powers.

I have a hunch that rogues will also have some TWF powers at their disposal.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ah, missed that, thanks!

By the way, there are no double weapons at the PHB...but at the art image there is a double weapon.

Double weapons are not inherently stupid... only the ability to use both ends at the same time.

The dwarven urgrosh is a weapon you usually use as a normal axe, but when locked in close quarters, the pointy end can come in handy.

Or a staff used as half staff can take advantage of holes in the defense on both parts of the enemy, as well as make a fast furry of blows, if the opponents lets his defense down (otherwise those flurries only hit your opponents staff and prepare a real hit)

So in 4e a double weapon could actually make sense...

 

[GnomeWorks]

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

Why should wielding one weapon automatically get you one attack per turn?

I am disappointed that they're going back to something non-3.5 regarding how creatures of differing size categories interact with weapons. 3.5's solution wasn't the most elegant, but it worked pretty well.

The versatile keyword seems a little disappointing, but I guess they didn't want to have to do the math of 1.5 x Str rather than just Str. I can understand the desire to tone that complexity, but I'm not sure they went the right way with it (1 point seems so minimal).

The keyword thing does seem like a pretty solid idea. Hopefully it has decent implementation throughout the system, and isn't left by the wayside later on, because it is definitely useful.

I like the heavy thrown/light thrown distinction. I don't know if that's the cleanest way to do it, but it definitely seems like a good place to start.