D&D 4E Weapon variety in 4E

[Will]

In RL, bodkin arrows penetrate armor but do less damage. There's balance for you.

Say, bodkin arrows gave you +1 to hit so long as the target is wearing armor, but only 1d6 damage. Or +2/1d4...

 

[Mirtek]

In RL, bodkin arrows penetrate armor but do less damage. There's balance for you.

According to wikipedia they actually aren't better at penetrating armor, so let the historical RL discussions begin

Say, bodkin arrows gave you +1 to hit so long as the target is wearing armor, but only 1d6 damage. Or +2/1d4...

And natural armor? Only metal armor or also hardened leather (maybe even soft leather? hide? fur armor? Or maybe softarmor plays against the "less damage" thing and it becomes -1 to hit against anyone wearing soft armor)? All in all just again one minor bonus you have to remember (when people are already constandly forgeting a +1 from a bard song that aids against everything)

 

[Will]

Well, if you don't want to track it, don't use it.

And according to wikipedia, apparently they were better at range. So there you go, it does that, instead.

 

[Pbartender]

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.

I agree.

It makes sense, especially when you consider that, if you add in the bow & arrow, swords, axes and spears make up practically all of the legendary weapons of classic heroic mythology... Even when the weapon itself isn't legendary on its own, any given mythological hero will be seen using one of those four types of weapons nine times out of ten.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

And according to wikipedia, apparently they were better at range. So there you go, it does that, instead.

That's what 2E had, "flight arrows" and "sheaf arrows." One had longer range and d6 damage, the other had shorter range and d8 damage.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

According to wikipedia they actually aren't better at penetrating armor, so let the historical RL discussions begin

I'll just say that that's patently ludicrous from the point of view of basic physics. Force/area, and as the bodkin head impacts on any armour it's going to apply the same force over a smaller area. Of course how much better it'd be than a leaf-head or other kinds of arrow is either debatable or something for Mythbusters or a similar show but come off it...

 

[Will]

The article in question (well, the reference it links to) points out that bodkin arrows were apparently made of relatively soft metal (iron rather than hardened steel), which performs poorly at penetration. This suggests they weren't built to penetrate.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My experience with 3.5 has given me a deep and abiding hatred of special arrow types. Zombies? Oh, I'll use my serpent tongue arrows. Skeletons? I'll use my blunt arrows. We want to take him alive? I'll use my non-lethal arrows. Rather than being a cool and interesting thing, they instead turned into a remedy for every situational disadvantage that a bow might have.

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?

 

[JDJblatherings]

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?

Because bodkins do less damage?

 

[Nightchilde-2]

I just hope we finally get stats for sword-chucks.

If not, I'm writing a sourcebook on 'em.