D&D 4E Weapon variety in 4E

[AFGNCAAP]

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

Whoops... forgot about those.... Pay no attention to the weapons behind the black book cover....



However, IMHO, I still think that going for a simpler weapons list may be beneficial overall. Granted, I'd prefer a bit broader list of weapons than the one that appeared Basic/Expert D&D rulesets, but I wouldn't care to see a return to the extensive list of weapons of 2nd ed. AD&D (along with the limited proficiency choices for weapons).

I also agree that there should be the option for a generalist fighter as well as a specialist. However, I wonder if the sword-wielding fighter will qualify as a generalist due to the diversity of combat options with the weapon (compared to other weapons, from what's been mentioned so far).

But, with fighters gaining special options when using a particular/preferred weapon, I wonder if this means that the 4e fighter hasn't only killed the knight & took its stuff (and shared with the paladin), but possibily did the same to the swashbuckler, samurai, and other such warrior classes as well.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I really want to know how they shall classify weapons in-terms of whether or not they will have exotic-weapons.

Since it always felt like a waste of a feat, and there wasn't really any point in my eyes to take it.

 

[Jhaelen]

If you have a magic battleaxe... you're going to want to use that magic battleaxe, and aren't going to waste the money on also having a magic glaive.

I'd much rather have most warriors go for variety. After all, flexibility should be useful. The fact that my fighter can use a glaive, toss it aside and use a longsword and shield, drop the shield and wield the longsword two-handed, should be a virtue.

Yeah, I'd like that, too. The Pendragon RPG is great in that regard.

In a way the different materials and damage reduction types in D&D make up for it (at least in the low to mid level ranges). My player group's fighter is pretty set on using his favorite weapon, but when it proves ineffective against a foe, he'll drop it to use a silvered, cold-iron or adamantine weapon instead. Since funds are limited these weapons are often of different types (looted from foes who use a great variety of different weapons).

In 4E we'll also see weapon groups, I expect, so there'll be more built-in variety.

 

[Crashy75]

Double post

 

[Crashy75]

This is actually something I also dislike about the magic item system.

If you have a magic battleaxe... you're going to want to use that magic battleaxe, and aren't going to waste the money on also having a magic glaive.

I'd much rather have most warriors go for variety. After all, flexibility should be useful. The fact that my fighter can use a glaive, toss it aside and use a longsword and shield, drop the shield and wield the longsword two-handed, should be a virtue.

This is the thing that worries me about weapon specific powers. Will my fighter be able to diversify without feeling gimped? I'm thinking in terms of 3.x feats though. Perhaps fighters recieve so many powers at a given level that they have to diversify at least a little. That might work for me.

 

[Mirtek]

Anyway, I hope whatever 4E does, it gives an option for a more general path. I like the idea of a fighter who is simply great at fighting, as opposed to a fighter who is king with longswords--and only longswords--while being merely adequate with other weapons.

I guess the mechanical implication of this would be to allow "Weapon focus: swords", or something similar. If it's got a sharp edge and you can swing it, then this guy can use it to great effect.

[...]

Here's the big reason why: in 3e if you build a fighter with WF: scimitar and WS: scimitar, then that character will only *ever* use a scimitar in battle. The DM is terribly constrained; he can't place a cool axe in the tomb of the dwarf king because the player will just sell it and use the proceeds to get a new scimitar. You can't blame the player; if he uses the axe, his two precious feats will have been wasted.

That's so boring.

Well, that is one way to see it. For me it's the other way round:

I build a fighter with WF (longsword) and WS (longsword) because I think longswords are cool and I want my fighter to use a longsword. And because this is how I love my fighter to be, I want to option to be better with my beloved longsword than with anything else.

I wouldn't take the axe even if there were absolutely no mechanics allowing me to specialize in the longsword. I wouldn't take the axe even if the axe would give me +2 hit and +4 damage more than my longsword, I just wouldn't take it.

 

[Crashy75]

Well, that is one way to see it. For me it's the other way round:

I build a fighter with WF (longsword) and WS (longsword) because I think longswords are cool and I want my fighter to use a longsword. And because this is how I love my fighter to be, I want to option to be better with my beloved longsword than with anything else.

I wouldn't take the axe even if there were absolutely no mechanics allowing me to specialize in the longsword. I wouldn't take the axe even if the axe would give me +2 hit and +4 damage more than my longsword, I just wouldn't take it.

I wonder about sunder rules in 4e. What if your sword gets smashed?

 

[Rel]

I wonder about sunder rules in 4e. What if your sword gets smashed?

Don't feel bad. I'm sure it happens to a lot of guys.

Not ME of course but you know.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I really want to know how they shall classify weapons in-terms of whether or not they will have exotic-weapons.

Since it always felt like a waste of a feat, and there wasn't really any point in my eyes to take it.

IIRC the weapon stats we've seen have proficiency numbers associated with them. I'm guessing you get a certain number of proficiency points to spend and different weapons cost different numbers of points to become proficient in.

Just a guess on my part.

 

[Talislan]

IIRC the weapon stats we've seen have proficiency numbers associated with them. I'm guessing you get a certain number of proficiency points to spend and different weapons cost different numbers of points to become proficient in.

Just a guess on my part.

I've missed this somehow but really like the theory if its happening. Have always hated spending an extra feat to get my beloved Katana or dual Kukri wielders into play.