Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[Fallen Seraph]

As it should be.

Actually you know, this could create a ton of interesting combos. Hell, we could start to see whole assortments of "fighting styles" based around different combinations of main-hand and off-hand weaponry.

 

[Rechan]

Actually you know, this could create a ton of interesting combos. Hell, we could start to see whole assortments of "fighting styles" based around different combinations of main-hand and off-hand weaponry.

I seem to recall that in an interview, a guy playing a fighter used a spear and an axe; his opening move was to throw the spear, and then he got into axe-usin'.

 

[Shroomy]

Here's a question that is puzzling me, what weapon group would the whip or spiked chain fall into? The flail? That doesn't seem right. Do all weapons fall into weapon groups?

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really like the idea behind the 4E Weapon Groups, but some of the specifics seem poorly thought out. Categories like Light Blade, Heavy Blade, Bow, and Crossbow are good, but many of the others are too specific.

Do we really need Axes, Hammers, Maces, Flails, and Picks all as their own whole category? Most of these weapons are just variants of "heavy weight at the end of a stick", and most are used in very similar ways. Heck, it is pretty hard to tell a proper Warhammer from a Pick in the first place. With that kind of specificity, I am surprised Scythe and Whip aren't their own categories. I could imagine that it should be pretty easy to simplify those categories a little without imbalancing anything.

I think similar things could be said about separating out Staff, Spear, and Polearm... If a shuriken and a rapier are both counted as the same weapon type, then why can't a spear and a glaive both be in the same weapon type?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well, they do say some weapons fit into more then one category, so a warhammer could fit into pick and hammer for instance.

 

[frankthedm]

Originally Posted by Makaze
So what's the disadvantage to reach weapons? .

No shield.

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

Two hander may have better weapon properties.

Reach players will have functions only on your own turn so no Op Attack as your foe waltzes over to a more squishy party member on it's turn.

Reach does not help flank.​

3.5's -2 to hit because of the wrong size was very realistic. A battle ready weapon has to have a certain shape and weight balance to it based on how it is supposed to be wielded. Doubling the size of a shortsword does NOT make an efficient longsword. But since this edition embraces the 'Girderblade' and warhammers with heads larger their wielder's, realisticly modeling properly weighted weapons was not a priority.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

That's a good point. Further, that fighter might use his longsword for brutal strike, as he wants big damage and he'll never lose the daily outright. However, when using a rogue's daily, he uses the shortsword, as that extra bonus to hit could make all the difference.

 

[frankthedm]

Here's a question that is puzzling me, what weapon group would the whip or spiked chain fall into? The flail? That doesn't seem right. Do all weapons fall into weapon groups?

I'd say whip.

 

[malcolm_n]

There just weren't enough letter q's in that article... WTH?

Really though, I found it very nice. Plenty of tidbits without giving us the chapter. We could very well pick up weapons from 3.5 now and piecemeal them together for 4e... In fact *scurries off to do just that*

 

[Darth Cyric]

There seems to be a very fine line between TWF being the be-all, end-all (2nd Edition) and being utter crap (3rd Edition). Hopefully, once we know all about 4e in a month, it will land right on the line.