Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[Mathew_Freeman]

I like the preview - not much to it but what's there is plenty informative.

I don't want to go over the same ground as a lot of other posters - but it strikes me that powers give you new abilities (including, I would imagine, the ability to strike with two weapons in the same round) and feats make those powers better (say, improving chances to hit, pushing opponents further etc).

I'm guessing TWF will be a Power (accessible by more than one character class, although Rangers will be best at it) and then various feats will affect exactly how good you are at it.

 

[lukelightning]

I agree. IMO the way 3.0 (and apparently 4e) handles weapons for small characters is vastly superior to 3.5.

The problem in 3.0 is that weapon proficiencies didn't mesh well with weapon size; by calling the differently-sized weapons by different names all sorts of weirdness could arise. My gnome druid could not use a scimitar and shield; she had to wield her scimitar in two hands. However, if you were to cast enlarge person on her, she'd be medium, and her scimitar would, what, become a falchion? In which case Nature would get pissed and strip her of all her magic.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One idea, and it's balance is a shot in the dark since we have seen only the stats for the pick:

Two-Weapon Fighting:
Prerequsite: Dex13+, Military Weapon Proficiency
Benefit: If you are wielding a melee weapon in your off-hand, you can use its proficiency bonus (if you are proficient with it) rather than your primary weapons proficiency bonus for attack rolls.

Basically, use a weapon with a lower bonus in your primary hand, and a weapon with a high bonus in your off-hand. I am assuming that most smaller weapons will grant a higher proficiency bonus.

 

[drjones]

(In real combat, the difference between a shield and an off-hand weapon is not so big as RPGs would have us believe.)

Defensively, not so much. If you are in formation facing missile fire and the guy next to you was planning on defending you with a dagger you would be pissed/dead. Offensively the shield was just as likely to have been used to bash in close combat as an off hand blade would have been used to stab.

But in dnd we have to factor in that hp != physical damage so an off hand weapon could theoretically be used to help wear down your opponents defenses so you can get a good strike with your real weapon finishing them off. It's a bit of a stretch but so is all dnd combat.

But I think it is pointless to think about it much, no dnd game has ever modeled using two weapons or using a board in a realistic way, which is fine, it is a fantasy game.

 

[Caliber]

The problem in 3.0 is that weapon proficiencies didn't mesh well with weapon size; by calling the differently-sized weapons by different names all sorts of weirdness could arise. My gnome druid could not use a scimitar and shield; she had to wield her scimitar in two hands. However, if you were to cast enlarge person on her, she'd be medium, and her scimitar would, what, become a falchion? In which case Nature would get pissed and strip her of all her magic.

I would instead posit that the problem here is the Druid's insane proficiency rules, and not any problem with how weapon's are sized.

Did anyone like the Druid's proficiency rule?

 

[tresson]

Actually, I believe Miyamoto Musashi developed a very effective two-sword fighting style back in the 1600s. I'm sure that wasn't the only instance of two-sword fighting in history.

It used a Katana(Longsword) and a Wakasashi(Shortsword) and was generally only used a) by him as it was a truly advanced. He was the only person to master it. The style that is now taught was passed done from his adopted son and is only an approximation of the Musashi's style. B) It was only used in duels and not on the battlefield.

 

[Klaus]

the picture coeld also be a new incarnation of the dual flail dual weapon.
But where woeld you grip the old spiked chain except for the rings ?


http://www.dragonquestfrontiers.com/images/chain.JPG

and yes a chain is gripped in multiple places but i don't recomend gripping on the spiked part of a spiked chain.

Which is why you only add spikes to the last few links of a chain (and even then use heavy gloves to grip it).

 

[drjones]

Humans outnumbered Halflings dramatically and Halflings are natural born traders and wanderers.

I don't have a link or anything but didn't I read in the preview books that they were toning down the 'humans run everything now' line that had been part of the previous editions? (I suppose taken from Tolkien) Sounded like they wanted the different races to be more on par to up the fantasy/adventure elements and make things less like earth.

But I don't see why any rp justification for this system is necessary. Fancylad Tutwillow halfling blacksmith hammers out a sword for the young adventurer to use. Does he know what damage dice it uses? What class it falls under? Keywords? No he just makes a sword that a halfling can use which happens to be a short sword under the game rules. other than not stocking many greatswords I don't see this as any different than a human smith or a dorf smith or an illithid smith.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Two weapon fighting?

Spiked Chains?

Yes.

 

[Shadeydm]

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.

It is worth noting that DnD in general and 4E specifically doesn't model the real world. One might assume there is a very good reason for this.