Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[kennew142]

Ah, thank god for that. I hated with a passion the complexity that was introduced with 3.5.

Halflings do not warrant an entire category of weapon size specifically for them, especially if they're not a dominant race with there own cities and culture.

Second dumbest rule in 3.5.

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

 

[Shroomy]

Weapons, Sneak Attack, and Multi-Classing - There's got to be a nice synergy with the rogue and one of the other martial classes, since sneak attack works with the light blade and crossbow group. Now, I'm assuming that the short sword is probably close to the top of the light blade group, can you imagine a fighter multiclassing into the rogue using a heavy crossbow to sneak attack!

 

[Sir Brennen]

So what's the disadvantage to reach weapons? .

No shield.

Probably lower damage than a two-handed sword or axe without reach.​

 

[Makaze]

Who says the halberd will have reach?

I'm simply assuming based on the fact that it's a polearm which traditionally has indicated reach.

Well, its a two-handed weapon and I bet access is pretty much restricted to the fighter class without feats.

Then (assuming it's overpowered, we honestly don't know yet) it only becomes the defacto weapons for fighters and anyone else serious enough about melee combat to spend feats on it. No brainers suck, even limited scope ones.

Also, assuming its a reach weapon, you can only inflict opportunity attacks and flank against targets in adjacent squares, so those rules have been modified from 3.5e.

But reach weapons can now attack adjacent squares unlike in 3.5 (well except for the spiked chain which is why it was so broken) which more than makes up for the lack of reach AOOs in my opinion.

 

[Rechan]

In the old 4e articles, they mentioned how weapon had certain properties innately, like hammer using con in some fashion, and swords being faster.

No, I think that is still present - they've talked about that in interviews.

It's just that those properties are integrated into the weapon's stats. A sword is said to give you a +3, while an axe only has like a +1 to attack, but does more damage.

 

[jaelis]

I'm simply assuming based on the fact that it's a polearm which traditionally has indicated reach.

It doesn't in 3e, though.

 

[Mad Mac]

Pretty underwhelming really. Especially the part about two weapon fighting...

We'll have to see how hard it is to pick-up two weapon powers. I can't imagine they'd make it overly difficult...

Still, I could definately see something like a Fighter/Rogue using a longsword in his right hand for Cleaving and Brutal Strikes while using the dagger in his off-hand for stabbing people in the kidneys.

 

[Rechan]

Well, I think this excerpt won't generate a 500+ post thread.

(But this is the internet. It could prove me wrong...)

 

[Rechan]

Still, I could definately see something like a Fighter/Rogue using a longsword in his right hand for Cleaving and Brutal Strikes while using the dagger in his off-hand for stabbing people in the kidneys.

As it should be.

 

[Shroomy]

I'm simply assuming based on the fact that it's a polearm which traditionally has indicated reach.



Then (assuming it's overpowered, we honestly don't know yet) it only becomes the defacto weapons for fighters and anyone else serious enough about melee combat to spend feats on it. No brainers suck, even limited scope ones.



But reach weapons can now attack adjacent squares unlike in 3.5 (well except for the spiked chain which is why it was so broken) which more than makes up for the lack of reach AOOs in my opinion.

Well, I'd assume that their maybe other drawback relative to other weapons (less accurate, maybe no high crit, its two handed, etc.).

BTW, I really like the rules changes to reach weapons; I like the simplicity.