Speculation on Weapons

[Gloombunny]

I believe it was mentioned some time ago that fighters could use weapons in ways other classes could not. I'd like to hear some confirmation on that... and if that's the case... some elaboration would be great.

We've already seen that a fighter can use a shield in ways other classes can't - Tide of Iron lets a fighter push an enemy backwards with each hit, if the fighter has a shield to shove with.

 

[kerrybrn]

We've already seen that a fighter can use a shield in ways other classes can't - Tide of Iron lets a fighter push an enemy backwards with each hit, if the fighter has a shield to shove with.

That's true... as well as Cleave allowing the fighter to damage two opponents at once. I guess the unique weapon abilities will be tied to exploits more so than to the weapons themselves.

I wonder if certain exploits will require specific types of weapons to perform, such as a "stunning strike" that can only be performed with a bludgeoning weapon or a "make 'em bleed strike" that requires a bladed weapon...that type of thing.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I really don't understand this "accuracy" business. A dagger gets a +3 proficiency bonus, and a sword gets a +2. How is this explained by "accuracy?" I'm actually personally "proficient" with both weapons, and I just don't get it.

Fitz

 

[HeinorNY]

Where is it? where is it?? it's about time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edit: ha... there it is.

 

[Torchlyte]

Style requires that in order to use a dagger effectively you have to be more precise.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Notice that the wording appears to indicate they've done away with weapon size. Now may be a misinterpretation but it would fit with the design philosophy where its all exception based and NPC damage would be level based instead. Still I don't like this if it's so, where are the rules for reducing damage based on size if you want to give something really little a weapon, or increasing it if a PC gains the means to become temporarily much larger?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Style requires that in order to use a dagger effectively you have to be more precise.

Yes, I would agree. However, anything you "have" to do would make a weapon more DIFFICULT to use, and in my mind would therefore make the bonus due to proficiency LOWER rather than higher.

Unless you are basically saying that in order to qualify as "good" with the given weapon, you actually have to be MORE SKILLED with it than something like, say, a club, where you "just swing it" at your opponent. So the advanced training is reflected in the higher bonus given by the proficiency... yeah okay, I think I get it.

Fitz

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I really don't understand this "accuracy" business. A dagger gets a +3 proficiency bonus, and a sword gets a +2. How is this explained by "accuracy?" I'm actually personally "proficient" with both weapons, and I just don't get it.

Fitz

Find a tree and mark it or visualize a target. Stab with the sword at the tree. now stab with the dagger. You will notice that you hit your mark more often with the dagger. The weight of the sword makes it slightly more encumbering then the dagger. it requires extra effort to maintain marksmanship. The dagger is almost as accurate as a punch.

At least thats the way i see it.

 

[Surgoshan]

How long does it take for your shoulder to get tired from lifting a sword? A dagger?

 

[rkanodia]

Personally, I just see proficiency bonuses as a balancing mechanism to make weapons more comparable in power, and that's good enough for me. Also, the way that proficiency bonuses are allocated seem to show that the optimal weapon choice for a non-skilled combatant is to grab the biggest, heaviest thing he can hold and start swinging, and that works for me.