Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[Falling Icicle]

Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.

Give me a break. This is the worst rule in 4e so far.

 

[Khaalis]

Unarmed is apparently both an improvised weapon and it's own group. Make up your mind guys...

I am willing to bet the difference is that anyone can punch something. however, only someone with the correct training has unarmed attacks that are considered truly "weapons".

The versatile property seems gimpy. A whole +1 damage? Be still my beating heart.

Remember that the damage scale is very different in 4E than 3E. From everything I have seen a +1 damage is much more significant in 4E than it was in 3E.

The weapon groups are a useful idea, but I agree than some of the categories seem arbitrarily narrow. A mace, a hammer and a pick are all very similar in shape and usage.

On the surface I would tend to agree. However, we have no idea what kinds of Feats and Powers there are that trigger off these weapons. In a detailed review, a Pick is very different from a hammer in what it is capable of doing, if nothing else simply in the types of damage (bludgeoning vs. piercing). I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that the feats and powers relating to these groups will make the distinction between them become much more clear.

The new Spiked Chain is... not exactly a well designed weapon, but it's far less egregiously stupid than the 3e spiked chain.

Actually, there are a lot of real world Chain Weapons that are very similar. Basically look at any of the "Flexible / Soft Weapons" used in Chinese Martial Arts.

I'm surprised to see a Katar in the lineup.

OOC - why? They were in 3E too (see "Punching Dagger").

I'm not sure what the weapon in the upper left is supposed to be but it looks a damm sight like the ones the elves were using in the last alliance battle in the LotR movies.

Upper Right? It looks like some fantasy form of a Two-Handed Turkish Scimitar.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Actually I like this, since well first there will be powers that allow two attacks. Also by having two different weapons you can pull off different powers with each, and different affects based on what the weapon is.

Now there is a actual difference between using a dagger or a hand axe in your off-hand.

I personally can't wait to use a stunning-blow with a hammer, then move, use a action point to then use a sneak attack and another power that builds off that with a dagger in my off-hand.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

The "common" way of looking at these weapons(which may or may not be actually correct in reality) is different. The way the "average" person thinks of these weapons is as follows:

Axes are weapons designed to be heavy and cut things. They have a large striking surface, so they do a lot of damage. They chop off limbs and pierce deep into someone when they hit.

Hammers are heavy, but they are blunt. They stun people and knock them around.

Maces are light and blunt. They don't have the massive hitting power to knock people around. They are used by clerics or other people without military training.

Flails have chains so they can be used to wrap around things, disarm, and trip.

Picks are piercing, but low damaging. They have a small striking surface but they pierce extra deep.

They are categories by their game effects. In the case of Whip and Scythe, you simply need to see what gave effect the average person expects them to have(hint, flail and axe).

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Upper Right? It looks like some fantasy form of a Two-Handed Turkish Scimitar.

It be interesting if perhaps that was the Heavy Blade Scimitar and there is another Light Blade Scimitar (or call it a Saif).

 

[Ximenes088]

Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.

Two attacks at a penalty as a basic attack screws with the hit math. It gives fighters de-facto two-weapon combat skills, since their basic attack is very good, being Strength-based, and makes two-weapon combat much more attractive for ensuring hits- and the ensuing marking- than any single-weapon combat. You know all those OAs fighters get to make? The ones that force you to make a basic attack? Now make each of them twice. The to-hit or damage penalty would have to be enormous for it not to be an overwhelmingly superior choice over a two-hander.

Now let's add in conditional targeting determinations each round. You pick your first target, roll to hit, determine damage, and if you drop them you have to then decide on a secondary target, roll to hit, and determine damage. You've basically doubled your round's time-to-complete. That's all right as an encounter power, but on every single round? Even a wizard's AoE effects only require him to make one decision- who he's targeting.

 

[mach1.9pants]

ISo a character can't even dual wield longswords anymore? Thanks WotC, for not letting my fantasy hero do what can easily be done in real life

ROFL

 

[Darth Cyric]

Really?

I played AD&D 1e/2e for years and never once came to the conclusion that TWF was the be-all and end all.

How is one full attack per round in 2e NOT the be-all, end-all? Remember that in 2e, there weren't bonuses to damage for wielding weapons two-handed. Two-handed weapons only did an extra die-level's worth of damage, and that wasn't nearly enough to offset the advantage you get from a second weapon. Also, unlike 3e, extra attacks came at a premium in 2e.

Plus, there was the fact that to dual-wield effectively, you only needed a high DEX (or be a Ranger). No feats, no sacrificing character development resources. If your DEX score was an 18, you dual-wielded. PERIOD.

I also thought 3.x had an elegant and simple solution and mechanic for it.

I dare you to go over to the Character Op boards at WOTC and say that. Seriously.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I guess it's part of the whole "no suboptimal choices thing".

This baffles me. You say this as though TWF *must* be a suboptimal choice. It doesn't have to be.

You want to know what's suboptimal? For a non-Ranger (without ranger MC feats) to fight with two-weapons in 4e. You give up the protection of a shield and the damage of two-handed weapons ... for what? The ability to choose which one you attack with. With no damage reduction in this edition, there isn't even a point in doing that anymore.

I'm amused that you're saying this is overpowered, and Torchlyte in another thread is saying the feat which does a similar thing is an utter waster of time.

It's about an extra 1 point of damage per hit, per tier, not exactly a "ridiculous advantage".

That's some interesting math you have there, but whatever. They justified the new crit rules (you just do max damage, no doubling) because the old way was "too swingy." How are these high crit weapons not "too swingy?"

Because out of every attack we've seen, all except one have the same stat for attack and damage?

I've never liked that either. But I'm one of those crazy people that actually thinks MAD is a good thing.

 

[Falling Icicle]

ROFL

Replying to someone with nothing more than laughter leaves the obvious impression that you are mocking them. Not only is that extremely rude, it adds nothing to the conversation.