D&D 4E Was There A Mechanical Reason To Restrict Enchantments To Certain Weapons?

[b_took]

I'm not seeing a mechanical reason for why, say, an enchantment that gives a weapon bonus damage when you have combat advantage should be limited to light blades. Or why the traditional Holy Avenger was expanded to possibly be an axe or a hammer instead of just a traditional sword, but couldn't possibly be a mace.

Are there mechanical subtleties I'm missing, or is this mainly a flavor thing?

 

[Tigris]

I'm not seeing a mechanical reason for why, say, an enchantment that gives a weapon bonus damage when you have combat advantage should be limited to light blades. Or why the traditional Holy Avenger was expanded to possibly be an axe or a hammer instead of just a traditional sword, but couldn't possibly be a mace.

Are there mechanical subtleties I'm missing, or is this mainly a flavor thing?

Well the main reason is to make weapons feel different. Similar to how there are different feats for different weapons (like expertise feats) being different.


It also has to so with class fantasies being different. Light weapons being for the rogue (and similar characters) being more about being sneaky and getting advantage over enemies.


One part of making different classes in 4e feel more different is also over the different weapons.

 

[b_took]

That seems to be more of a flavor thing, then, precisely because the feats for weapon groups already do the job of differentiating the weapons.

 

[Tigris]

That seems to be more of a flavor thing, then, precisely because the feats for weapon groups already do the job of differentiating the weapons.

But many of the feats for the weapon groups where introduced later.

Initially there where not many of them like all the expertise ones came later. And enchantments did help to make different weapons feel more unique.


Also some enchantments are for balance reasons. Like the Vorpal Blade, dealing additional 3d12 damage is meant to mirror 3 weapon dice. And thats the damage of a two handed weapon.


In addition the 1d12 crit damage and rerolling damage dice is on a weapon rogues could not get because that would be really really strong with their sneak attack AND potentially enhanced crit rate on the rogue subclass.

 

[b_took]

It's not about what was introduced later, it's what was included at the start. Hammers vs axes vs heavy blades very much stood out in the PHB, with some light blade and polearm on the side.

Keeping certain effects away from Sneak Attack dice is interesting; that is indeed a mechanical reason for limiting certain enchantments to weapons a rogue can't Sneak Attack with. (I wouldn't say it's a very good reason offhand, but it is a reason. ) Though 1d12 crit was available with a Vicious weapon, anyway.

Given that items and magic items were one of the last things being worked on before the PHB came out, there may even be some slashing/piercing/bludgeoning legacy going on.

 

[Tigris]

Sure 1d12 crit was available, but not with other good effects on top.

For me the different weapons start to feel really different with the essential expertise feats. Its feats you want to get anyway, with every weapon, and makes them mechanically more different.


So for me having different effects on different weapon types does help.


Of course you can see some of these things being "flavour", but having the bludgeoning weapon having things like resounding weapon which can daze, and swords etc. not makes sense and does make them feel a bit different.

Duelists weapon plays into the "rogue" light weapon thing about wanting to have combat advantage, and its also something which is a lot easier in general to get on melee weapons (at least early in 4E), so it makes sense thats not also on range weapons (for balancing concerns).


Pact Blade is a weapon implement, and you dont necessarily want them on too strong weapons, so light blades only.


Berserker Weapon would be a lot stronger on a ranged weapon, because the bonus of being easier to hit will be a lot smaller disadvantage when you are not in melee range anyway.



So overall it is definitly a mix of flavour, making weapons more different (which partially is flavour) and some balance concerns.

 

[b_took]

I think you're on the right track with the class balance angle. Looking at the base PHB, the controller's in cloth, the strikers are in leather/hide, the leaders are in chain, and the two defenders have the two heaviest armors. Obviously, they started experimenting with later classes, but if they were that consistent with the armor groupings, they likely had the same outlook with weapons, and that would have included enchantment design.

Edit: yes, a classification of axes, hammers, and heavy blades almost completely rules out simple weapons (they may have forgotten about the scythe), which prevents clerics and warlocks from gaining access to the enchantment without a feat.

 

[b_took]

Another note: It's in the PHB2 that things start to get messy; the Invoker is a Chain-wearing Controller that uses the previously-only-for-warlocks rods and not holy symbols, meaning that when trying to find an appropriate rod, one has to painstakingly look at each description to make sure it's actually for the class in question. At the same time, they're restrained from being able to use the implement whose effects are pretty much guaranteed to work with divine classes.

The Druid did the something similar to hide as the Invoker did to rods, introducing several "while in beast form" enchantments that meant even if you were meant to wear hide, the enchantment would be functionally nonexistent.

And the Shaman introduced the possibility of a leader who wasn't expected to wear chain as the default (and the other build had to spend a feat to get it), creating a bunch of leather armors whose effects were nonexistent without a spirit companion, and, combined with Invoker getting chain, blurred that whole "chain is the assumed armor of leaders" thing that was going on. And so they added "when you use Channel Divinity" effects to chain, but that ruled out two of the divine classes (who would be in Cloth and Plate, respectively) from the ability and made the chain useless to the classes that would be accustomed to looking at enchanted chain.

(And, of course, Barbarian at-wills were mostly useless to Halflings and Gnomes. )

I'm not sure if this was the right direction to go, overall. It seems like beast form enchantments and spirit companion enchantments would have been better served being on totems instead of armors, while Chain could have remained focused on leaders (given the Divine class leader subtheme, Invokers in chain wouldn't be out of place). The PHB1 was scrupulous in avoiding armors that referenced specific class features. The contrast between Rods and Orbs (Warlock-specific and WIzard-specific, respectively) in the PHB1 also speaks volumes, with Rods very directly referencing a class mechanic, while Orbs provided class-neutral benefits with a control theme. Wands were restricted to power source (Arcane).