Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)
- Thread starter jaelis
- Start date
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Wow. I disappear for 10 hours, and look what happened: a weapons article from WotC, followed by sixteen pages of commentary. I love the internets. 
I've just spent the last half-hour reading this thread, and here are my thoughts.
Weapon Categories: Mostly a vocabulary change; they moved a few weapons around but that's about it. I can take it or leave it. (+0)
Weapon Groups: Where are the clubs? I suppose that they would be filed under the "mace" category, but that seems a little too generous. IMO, the category should be called "club," and maces should be shoehorned into it instead...but whatever. (-1)
Weapon Properties: Good idea...I like how one little word carries tons of information. (+1)
Thrown Weapons: I really like the distinction between light and heavy thrown weapons. Well done. (+1)
High Crit: I like this, too. Makes a lot more sense than high-level characters attempting to jack their crit range with feats and magic properties. I predict there will be tons of feats in the future which allow a character to make any weapon "high crit." Sort of like the 4E answer to the Improved Critical feat. (+1)
Load: I like this, too. It will revolutionize the way firearms will work in my 4E house rule. (+1)
Off-Hand: You know what? I like the new TWF rules...I've always thought that dual-wielding weapons should give you tactical options, not free attacks. A rogue fighting with a longsword in one hand and a light crossbow in the other has the option to make ranged or melee attacks, for example. Now, I'm sure that many people will hate this rule, but it is rather easy to house-rule (just add a feat, for example.) (+2)
Reach: I like it...mechanically sensible, with just the right amount of nerf. (+1)
Small: I think this is an over-simplification. I like to think that halflings are industrious enough to create "small-sized" versions of anything that humans use, from tea cups to greatswords. So it looks like I will have to write a houserule for this...probably something along the lines of a uniform damage penalty for smaller versions of weapons, instead of creating a whole new dice range. (-1)
Versatile: I'd rather see this bonus as "+ 1/2 your Strength modifier" instead of a flat "+1," but it's not a deal-breaker for me. (+0)
Proficiencies: I would have liked to see this as a skill....Weapon Training (Simple), Weapon Training (Military), etc. The more ranks you invest in these skills, the higher the bonus you get when using weapons in that category. Oh well. It's more fun this way, apparently. (-2)
Overall opinion: Pretty good. There is plenty of stuff in here that I'll have to tweak and modify to suit my particular gaming style, but IMO the good outweighs the bad (+3).
I've just spent the last half-hour reading this thread, and here are my thoughts.Weapon Categories: Mostly a vocabulary change; they moved a few weapons around but that's about it. I can take it or leave it. (+0)
Weapon Groups: Where are the clubs? I suppose that they would be filed under the "mace" category, but that seems a little too generous. IMO, the category should be called "club," and maces should be shoehorned into it instead...but whatever. (-1)
Weapon Properties: Good idea...I like how one little word carries tons of information. (+1)
Thrown Weapons: I really like the distinction between light and heavy thrown weapons. Well done. (+1)
High Crit: I like this, too. Makes a lot more sense than high-level characters attempting to jack their crit range with feats and magic properties. I predict there will be tons of feats in the future which allow a character to make any weapon "high crit." Sort of like the 4E answer to the Improved Critical feat. (+1)
Load: I like this, too. It will revolutionize the way firearms will work in my 4E house rule. (+1)
Off-Hand: You know what? I like the new TWF rules...I've always thought that dual-wielding weapons should give you tactical options, not free attacks. A rogue fighting with a longsword in one hand and a light crossbow in the other has the option to make ranged or melee attacks, for example. Now, I'm sure that many people will hate this rule, but it is rather easy to house-rule (just add a feat, for example.) (+2)
Reach: I like it...mechanically sensible, with just the right amount of nerf. (+1)
Small: I think this is an over-simplification. I like to think that halflings are industrious enough to create "small-sized" versions of anything that humans use, from tea cups to greatswords. So it looks like I will have to write a houserule for this...probably something along the lines of a uniform damage penalty for smaller versions of weapons, instead of creating a whole new dice range. (-1)
Versatile: I'd rather see this bonus as "+ 1/2 your Strength modifier" instead of a flat "+1," but it's not a deal-breaker for me. (+0)
Proficiencies: I would have liked to see this as a skill....Weapon Training (Simple), Weapon Training (Military), etc. The more ranks you invest in these skills, the higher the bonus you get when using weapons in that category. Oh well. It's more fun this way, apparently. (-2)
Overall opinion: Pretty good. There is plenty of stuff in here that I'll have to tweak and modify to suit my particular gaming style, but IMO the good outweighs the bad (+3).
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
The idea seems to be that the last big Empire was human, but it broke down after some kind of invasion or cataclysmn. But this means that a lot of the weapons and armor still running around are probably human-based. There isn't a new established Empire yet. (It might be the PCs job to create one, or stop the creation of one.drjones said:
)
DandD
First Post
Never. The greatest Gnoll Despot to ever embrace the world, the Ruler of Ruin, shall never allow the rise of humans again. All shall bow down to the servants of Yennoghu, king of ghouls and gnolls.Mustrum_Ridcully said:The idea seems to be that the last big Empire was human, but it broke down after some kind of invasion or cataclysmn. But this means that a lot of the weapons and armor still running around are probably human-based. There isn't a new established Empire yet. (It might be the PCs job to create one, or stop the creation of one.
GoodKingJayIII
First Post
Ok, read the article and waded through this long thread. I feel no need to rehash the arguments about main-hand/off-hand weapons or 3.0's weapon sizing rules.
I think this is, more or less, what I expected coming down the road for weapons. As far as previews go, this is not the most interesting, but then I find equipment one of the least interesting aspects of DnD, and with only 30 days left til release, I think we're starting to run low on meaty previews without giving away the books.
Anyway, I share a lot of the same concerns about the TWF stuff. My feeling is that wielding two weapons is going to have some benefit other than access to Two Weapon Powers. But there's really know way to know until I have all the rules. Who knows, maybe they screwed the proverbial two-weapon-wielding pooch. It'd be an unfortunate blemish on a system I otherwise adore.
One thing that seems clear to me is that attacking more than once with a standard action is very good, no matter who's doing it. Being able to do it all the time probably belongs in the Paragon or Epic realms of play. Wizards will get AoE effects that can hit many targets, but these are going to be limited to Encounter and Daily powers... much like a Ranger's TWF abilities.
As others suggested I think there are going to be some passive benefits to fighting with two weapons (easy access to multiple weapon Encounter powers, for instance). But at this point, all we can do is wait.
I think this is, more or less, what I expected coming down the road for weapons. As far as previews go, this is not the most interesting, but then I find equipment one of the least interesting aspects of DnD, and with only 30 days left til release, I think we're starting to run low on meaty previews without giving away the books.
Anyway, I share a lot of the same concerns about the TWF stuff. My feeling is that wielding two weapons is going to have some benefit other than access to Two Weapon Powers. But there's really know way to know until I have all the rules. Who knows, maybe they screwed the proverbial two-weapon-wielding pooch. It'd be an unfortunate blemish on a system I otherwise adore.
One thing that seems clear to me is that attacking more than once with a standard action is very good, no matter who's doing it. Being able to do it all the time probably belongs in the Paragon or Epic realms of play. Wizards will get AoE effects that can hit many targets, but these are going to be limited to Encounter and Daily powers... much like a Ranger's TWF abilities.
As others suggested I think there are going to be some passive benefits to fighting with two weapons (easy access to multiple weapon Encounter powers, for instance). But at this point, all we can do is wait.
Last edited:
My opinions:
On two weapon fighting: I approve of the idea that holding a weapon in each hand does not get you an extra attack per round. An "attack" is just an abstraction of everything your PC is doing to try to land a blow on an opponent anyway. However, this means that there's no good reason to restrict PCs to using a light weapon in an off-hand. If they're not getting an extra attack with it, who cares? Any powers devoted to two-weapon fighitng can specify that one weapon must be light, if it seems important for balance reasons. If I'm running a game and a player tells me they're going to use a longsword in each hand, I'll shrug and tell them it's fine with me. If they have some sort of power that gives them two longsword attacks per round... that I might have to address.
I do think that there should be some sort of general bonus to fighting with two weapons. Maybe it gives +1 to your AC or something, to represent the ability to parry.
On Small/Medium/Large weapons: I approved of the change in 3.5, because it gave small races access to all weapons. In 4E, where many powers will be weapons-based, removing weapon size seems to impose an unfair restriction on Small PCs. They have less powers to choose from. Still, it's not that big a deal. It might possibly be interesting to introduce some weapons that are too small for medium-size races to properly wield down the road.
On two weapon fighting: I approve of the idea that holding a weapon in each hand does not get you an extra attack per round. An "attack" is just an abstraction of everything your PC is doing to try to land a blow on an opponent anyway. However, this means that there's no good reason to restrict PCs to using a light weapon in an off-hand. If they're not getting an extra attack with it, who cares? Any powers devoted to two-weapon fighitng can specify that one weapon must be light, if it seems important for balance reasons. If I'm running a game and a player tells me they're going to use a longsword in each hand, I'll shrug and tell them it's fine with me. If they have some sort of power that gives them two longsword attacks per round... that I might have to address.
I do think that there should be some sort of general bonus to fighting with two weapons. Maybe it gives +1 to your AC or something, to represent the ability to parry.
On Small/Medium/Large weapons: I approved of the change in 3.5, because it gave small races access to all weapons. In 4E, where many powers will be weapons-based, removing weapon size seems to impose an unfair restriction on Small PCs. They have less powers to choose from. Still, it's not that big a deal. It might possibly be interesting to introduce some weapons that are too small for medium-size races to properly wield down the road.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
CleverNickName said:
do we know that using a weapon in two hands doesn´t automatically give you 1.5 times your strength modifier to damage?
+1 damage is just like increasing the damage die by one category (except d12 to d20 of course)
Longswords: Are really 1.5-handers. They are not the classic Viking or Arming swords, which are called "Viking" and "Arming" swords respectively (and sometimes not represented on the D&D weapon tables). There's probably no way to effectively use 2 of those things at once. Which brings me to...
Two Weapon Fighting: Funnily enough, though I can hold a spade in each hand with little difficulty, I can only dig one hole at a time. As for "taking two kitchen knives and swinging them both"... OK, you can make two attacks but each one only does 1/8 regular damage. The real advantage of two weapon fighting is that you have a larger variety of strikes that you can make (but still only one at a time), and therefore could theoretically find more openings. But you won't be hitting twice as often, and you won't defend as well as you could with a shield. It's an advanced technique that affords some advantages while making some trade-offs. I expect that in 4E, it will allow some moves that you couldn't otherwise pull off.
Weapon Size:
"You find a Large Dagger."
"Oh, you mean a shortsword?"
"No, it's a large dagger."
"Oh, a shortsword then."
"NO. It's a dagger. It has a blade roughly the length of..."
"A shortsword?"
"Yes. It is a dagger the size of a shortsword."
"Ah. So you mean it's a shortsword, then?"
'NO. It's a dagger. It is a blade the size of a shortsword that you use for thrusting."
"Oh, I get it. We find a shortsword."
Two Weapon Fighting: Funnily enough, though I can hold a spade in each hand with little difficulty, I can only dig one hole at a time. As for "taking two kitchen knives and swinging them both"... OK, you can make two attacks but each one only does 1/8 regular damage. The real advantage of two weapon fighting is that you have a larger variety of strikes that you can make (but still only one at a time), and therefore could theoretically find more openings. But you won't be hitting twice as often, and you won't defend as well as you could with a shield. It's an advanced technique that affords some advantages while making some trade-offs. I expect that in 4E, it will allow some moves that you couldn't otherwise pull off.
Weapon Size:
"You find a Large Dagger."
"Oh, you mean a shortsword?"
"No, it's a large dagger."
"Oh, a shortsword then."
"NO. It's a dagger. It has a blade roughly the length of..."
"A shortsword?"
"Yes. It is a dagger the size of a shortsword."
"Ah. So you mean it's a shortsword, then?"
'NO. It's a dagger. It is a blade the size of a shortsword that you use for thrusting."
"Oh, I get it. We find a shortsword."
Kwalish Kid
Explorer
Let's forget all of the other misconceptions in the post and use this one as a good example. From the article, it's clear that the "two handed" keyword means that a small character can only use the weapon if the weapon also has the "small" keyword. So the short bow can be used by a small character because it has "small two handed" but the great sword cannot be used by the small character because it only has "two handed". This makes sense.Falling Icicle said:
JohnSnow
Hero
Irving said:
Wow...just...wow.
I'm going to restrain my personal opinion of how well the SCA fighting style simulates real swordplay and point out a few things:
1) In SCA fighting, people are, essentially, fighting for points. As such, they make attacks that open themselves up for serious (read: lethal) injury in order to inflict a devastating strike to their opponent's head. This is the same problem that's faced by modern sport-fencing. While people go full speed, the cost-benefit of lethal combat is absent.
2) The SCA fights (for obvious reasons) with rattan sticks. This should be obvious, but I'll mention it anyway - a stick has no cutting edge. Many of the around the shield "rap-shots" used in an SCAdian fight would actually strike with the flat of the sword, not its edge. That's no fault of the fighters - nobody could actually tell at the speed they're going. The only way to develop that sensibility is to try some of those strikes with real swords, at slow speeds, and observe what happens. Then recognize that the mechanics of angles don't change just because you swing faster.
3) Most medieval fighters were probably in far better physical shape than the people who recreate medieval combat today. As such, even though most SCA fighters kinda waddle around in their armor, there's no reason to believe medieval fighters were that immobile. A highly-trained soldier (U.S. Marine, Green Beret, British SAS, etc.) used to carrying heavy (60+ pound) loads, once they become familiar with armor, is surprisingly agile in it (ducking, dodging, even, in some cases, rolling). That level of agility changes the combat style substantially from "waddle out and stand still."
More generally, there are plenty of two weapon styles out there in the real world. Most, but not all, utilize a lighter weapon in the offhand than in the primary hand. Typically, fighting styles would range from single sword (either thrusting, cutting, or cut-and-thrust), sword and shield, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, longsword (a "hand-and-a-half" - what D&D has traditionally called a "bastard sword"), two-handed sword, and quarterstaff. Fighting with a polearm or spear (other than a true pike) generally uses a style that's a variant of the latter. Except of course in pre-medieval times, when spear and shield was a unique style of its own.
Actual two-sword styles (Note 1) were developed in Europe, although in practice, they were very rare. Why? Because in order to fight effectively with two swords, you must follow the following training method. Learn to fight with a single sword in your primary hand. Learn to fight with sword (primary hand) and dagger (offhand). Learn to fight with single sword in your off-hand. Learn to fight with sword (off-hand) and dagger (primary hand). Then, and only then, do you stand a reasonable shot at actually benefitting from wielding paired swords.
With shorter weapons, or those lacking a cutting edge, this isn't quite as true. It is much easier to use two-small short swords, two scimitars, or to bludgeoning weapons (such as sai, tonfa, or escrima sticks (Note 2). Interestingly, this goes back to the lightsaber example and was referenced as its inspiration by Star Wars fight choreographers. A lightsaber doesn't have "a cutting edge." The whole blade is a cutting edge. As such, maneuvers which are singularly ineffective with a sword (because you'd be hitting with the flat) work perfectly fine with a lightsaber. As such, the "windmilling" technique so common to people swinging two swords actually works with a lightsaber. As such, the fighting style is closer to escrima than to the various forms of swordfighting.
Overall, from the perspecitve of someone who's studied historical martial arts, the 4E system looks good, if slightly fantasized. I fully expect there to be various feats and powers that enhance various combat styles. And I don't have a problem with their being certain classes that are intended to be the experts in the use of certain styles and others that are not.
Note 1: Referring to two-weapon fighting as "Florentine" is an SCAism. The period terms are simply "sword & dagger," "rapier and dagger," or, in the case of two rapiers, "case of rapiers" - case in this instance meaning "pair."
Note 2: "Escrima" (the Filipino martial art) is a name derived from the Spanish word for "sword." It evolved from rapier and dagger fighting, as introduced to the east by the Spanish. However, since it uses sticks, or short blades, instead of a long blade and a short one, the fighting techniques gradually evolved over 4 centuries into the art we know today.
