D&D 4E Weapon variety in 4E

[FitzTheRuke]

The 4th ed use of keywords might make broader group training possible.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

All I hope is that I can use a polearm to be a badass.

I was all set to make the AOO-monkey in my first 3.5 game, using a glaive and Tumble. But the party needed a healer, so I switched to druid, have played that PC for 4 years. So I've never gotten to see how well the polearm fighter would have been in 3.5.

I imagine that the polearm fighter works great as a duelist if you have Spring Attack and your foe doesn't have a reach weapon. Trading attacks 2-for-1. It would be decently good against groups as well, since the greater reach allows for more Cleaves if you position yourself properly. And of course good against creatures with reach.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I hope your "Weapon Focus" idea is what they are going for. If they have specific Weapon Properties like: Pick.

Then why not have a Weapon Focus: Pick as well.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

Maybe what I'm looking for is basic "weapon focus" applying to all weps of a certain category (any sword, any impact weapon, any crossbow) and "greater weapon focus" applying to only a certain type of weapon (just scimitars, just flails, just heavy crossbows).

Ditto.

 

[Glyfair]

That's kind of silly. A longsword and a scimitar are both sharp one-handed blades. If you spend time learning how to be good at swinging a sword, it really should apply to any one-handed bladed weapon.

The problem with this sort of "simulation" is that the assumed facts aren't always right.

During my time studying T'ai Chi Ch'uan I studied both the sword (the two edged weapon) and the "knife" (the single edged sword). The two weapons used very different techniques, and the most effective techniques with either weapon wouldn't work with the other. They were both "swords" but only the most general techniques work with both (and you can find about the same number that work with the cane or any other weapon).

Yes, you can design a system that differentiates weapons based on "commonsense." However, given the number of people who get into medieval weapons that play D&D, it falls apart often. Remember, this is the game where people often learned the differences between a halberd and a glaive-guisarme (largely due to Gary Gygax).

Any sort of a system of grouping weapons is going to have significant drawbacks. The real decision is what sort of people do they want to hear the grumbling from (or which group don't they want to hear it from).

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think though the idea be, that with weapon focus is you have a basic-understand beyond the normal fighter on how this kind of weapon is to be used. So in your example, you have a more developed idea of how to use the sword and knife, but because it is more general your knowledge you have yet to develop a true edge with a certain weapon. With greater weapon focus you have learned to become truly proficient and developed a keen understanding with one particular weapon, so say your sword.

 

[Glyfair]

So in your example, you have a more developed idea of how to use the sword and knife, but because it is more general your knowledge you have yet to develop a true edge with a certain weapon.

My point is that they aren't that similar. Learning long sword (two edged bladed weapon) doesn't help broadsword (single edged bladed weapon) significantly more than staff. Oddly enough, learning longsword does give you the techniques that you start using in spear.

Groupings of weapons don't necessarily follow "commonsense." In my experience, "sharp one-handed blades" is not an appropriate weapon grouping. That's not necessarily relevant for game design. However, you really have to decide what approach, as a game designer, you want to use.

It seems that 4E is going towards the "individual weapons are different" direction. Each weapon will have it's own theme. Certainly they will have some weapon groupings (I doubt you'll have weapon technique paths for each of Gary's voluminous list of pole arms, for example). However, I don't think we've seen enough evidence of what these groupings will be to make a sensible stab at how they'll do it (and you better not be stabbing with the broadsword, since that's pretty ineffective ).

 

[Incenjucar]

My point is that they aren't that similar. Learning long sword (two edged bladed weapon) doesn't help broadsword (single edged bladed weapon) significantly more than staff. Oddly enough, learning longsword does give you the techniques that you start using in spear.

And, of course, this is going to be extremely different from other schools of fighting, especially when you factor in formations and vs. armor.

 

[Glyfair]

And, of course, this is going to be extremely different from other schools of fighting, especially when you factor in formations and vs. armor.

I agree (although I will argue the broadsword and longswords will be used very differently just on the construction of the weapon, regardless of fighting styles).

Like I said, the designers need to pick an approach. What approach they choose is going to be based on a lot of factors. I don't feel that "all swords are similar" is any better than most of the other options (and worse then several).

I suspect I will like the 4E approach based on what I've heard. The drawback I would be concerned with is whether there is too much micromanagement (the "every pole arm works differently" I mentioned above would be an extreme example).

 

[Hussar]

I'm a little disappointed that longsword will be "queen of the battlefield". I'm sick to death of swords. I want polearms to actually be par with longswords. 3e went a long ways towards this, but, polearms still suffer - sure you get reach but you can't attack adjacent. You crit bigger, but less often.

I'm hoping that splat books will include different weapon focuses that will bring other types of weapons on par with swords.