D&D 4E Weapon variety in 4E

[Spatula]

One of the problems with 3.x, and really every edition to this point, has been that there are really only a small handful of weapons that are worth using from a mechanical perspective.

In 3.x at least, they attempted to address that by creating feats for the use of specific weapons to bring them up to par, but even that doesn't work because then you have to take a feat to make a weapon as good as another one that works "off the rack."

One of my big hopes for 4E is that they ensure a wider variety in weapons that are worthwhile to use.

Axe, hammer, spear, mace, dagger, and more should be just as worthwhile weapons as a sword - even if maybe they are better in some situations and not as good in others. That's the whole reason we have so many different weapon types in reality. You have different tools for different jobs.

3e already equalized weapons - swords, axes, hammers (and most other 1H martial weapons) all do the same average damage. Those that do less damage or have poor crits have bonuses elsewhere to make up for it, like the flail, or reach weapons. You're not going to see an actual case for using a mace (for example) over another weapon without either making all weapons exactly the same, or adding in levels of complexity that no one will ever use (see: 1e weapon vs AC tables, 2e weapon type vs armor tables). I don't see 4e going down either path.

From what we've seen so far, Fighters at the least get special maneuvers with their chosen weapons, and different weapons have different maneuvers. Which is functionally similar to taking weapon-specific feats, really, except that not everyone can take them.

 

[Spatula]

I agree that 3E's weapons were fantastic. Enough variety to be interesting, but close enough that the differences weren't extreme.

That said, I didn't like how a scimitar was as different from a longsword as it was from a longbow. Meaning, not at all (they all counted as "martial weapons") AND as different as can be ("Weapon focus: scimitar" gave no benefit to longbow or longsword).

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.

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).

Yeah, and to go further I always thought the Martial Weapons feat (for that 1 in 100 character that takes it) should give proficiency with a group of martial weapons (swords, axes, etc.), rather than just a single one. But this has been an issue with all editions of AD&D. And in a way I feel that the introduction of weapon specialization rules in UA has started an unfortunate trend, where fighter-types will only use one particular kind of weapon because they're godly with it but merely mortal with anything else.

 

[howandwhy99]

Actually, this is interesting. I'm hoping they make every weapon unique in it's abilities. I mean, it why weapons are unique to begin with. Not that I think everyone should have a feat or power or something associated with it to Unlock it's abilities, but I think the case can be made in... er, some cases. (damn, that's twice today).

What is needed, IMHO, is an enjoinder that not every conceivable use of a weapon has been covered by the rules. I mean, a lead shot put is still great for diving. And metal staves are awesome levers when you can use an enemy's head as a fulcrum. I mean, something where the DM given room to adjudicate unusual uses that make sense from an in-world perspective.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

To be honest, part of me hopes for a "near-return" to the weapon type simplicity of the BECMI D&D (though the special abilities of certain weapons mentioned above would ensure all were valid choices). I'd like a bit more diversity than shown in the core BECMI D&D books (such as accounting for rapiers, sabers, poleaxes, etc.), but still have a rather KISS approach to weapon varieties.

Have you seen the Masters' Set?
Some great ideas, some lousy ideas, and more polearm varieties than you can shake a Fauchard-Fork at.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

There is actually a thread right now on the Wizards of the Coast 4E Classes forum asking people what weapons they plan on using if they play a Fighter in 4E. There is a surprising amount of diversity. Spears (both one-handed and two-handed) are easily at least 30% of the vote, with axes bringing in another significant portion.

I wouldn't be surprised if swords, axes, and spears are all about equally popular weapons.

The poll is meaningless until people see the mechanics associated with the weapons. Show me the powers that spears, axes, swords, etc get and I'll be able to give you a meaningful answer to that one. If one of the weapon types gets noticably stronger or weaker powers, you'll almost certainly see players flock to that weapon much like they did to the longsword (or worse yet, dual wielded longswords) in 2e.

 

[lukelightning]

During my time studying T'ai Chi Ch'uan

You lost us at "my." Your experience with T'ai Chi has very little to do with how fantasy warriors train.

 

[Will]

I was running numbers recently and found, much to my annoyance, that 3.5e weapons aren't as balanced as I thought.

Basically, regular damage is king. Crits add very very little to overall damage.

For example, looking at a falchion and greatsword, I found that falchions do equal damage to greatsword in the hands of a creature with Str 52 (or something on that order).

Woopdedoo.

I'm also annoyed that there are no feats to allow full attacks with slings.


Things I'd like to see in 4e:
Spears, slings, and other weapons be significantly more useful under some situations.

Bows perhaps become less powerful (make them more difficult at short range?)

Composite bows having a cost associated with their difficulty (composite bows take 18-24 months to construct!) and perhaps more power.

Bodkin arrows.

Shields more useful (their protective power is kinda light in 3.5e, though with CW feats a lot of cool shield maneuvers are in)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'm hoping that quote from early 4e is still relevant.

I'm hoping they do the same for armor, since its always been crappily balanced in every edition. 3rd had light armor and mithril BP's and full plate. When was the last time you saw anyone above 3rd level use scale mail, chain mail or half plate?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

IFor example, looking at a falchion and greatsword, I found that falchions do equal damage to greatsword in the hands of a creature with Str 52 (or something on that order).

Without Improved Crit, they do the same damage when the "flat adds" to damage are 39 (Str, enhancement, Power Attack, Inspire Courage, and a few other things). (So average damage without crits is 44 vs. 46.)
With Improved Crit, it's when the "flat adds" are 19 and average non-crit damage is 24 vs. 26.
You start seeing the latter case at about level 8, when Improved Crit is available. +2 Inspire Courage, +2 enhancement, +2 specialization, +7 Str, and +6 Power Attack.

 

[lukelightning]

Bodkin arrows.

I don't care for special arrows, I like generic ones. Yeah, they are cool in concept and realistic, but what happens is that they become the default arrow if they have any special advantage (e.g. piercing armor), so why not just assume that all arrows are bodkins?