D&D 4E Weapon variety in 4E

[Spatula]

I liked the concept behind the weapon group feats in the UA, but the execution was poor. Why on earth would EVERY class not choose "swords" (or whatever it was with most of the best weapons in it - I forget the specific groupings).

Because there are no "best" weapons in 3e? Which is better, an axe or a sword? They both do the same damage over time.

 

[Keenath]

Yes, this is what I was boggled by. The dwarf isn't using other weapons as well as he could his axe.

Well, maybe, assuming he has weapon focuses or whatnot -- which isn't guranteed, he could just as well be a pally or a ranger or something and lack the necessary feats.

However, that's not the point. The point is that a guy who has no logical reason to have trained with a rapier is proficient with it. I'm all for fighters having a broader weapon knowledge than others, but "all martial weapons" is a little too broad.

Figuring out good weapon categories is fiendishly difficult, especially if you also aim for some general game balance in these categories...

That does't mean that the 4E designers shouldn't try, and I suspect that they did...

It's not THAT bad. You aim for four or five weapons in each group and one or two exotics.

For example:
Axes (Throwing axe, Handaxe, Battleaxe, Greataxe, Dwarven Waraxe)
Polearms (Spear, Halberd, Guisarme, Ranseur, Glaive)
Hammers & Picks, AKA "Impact" (light hammer, warhammer, light pick, heavy pick)
Swords (scimitar, falchion, longsword, bastardsword, and greatsword)
Light blades (rapier, shortsword, dagger, kukri)

And so on.

It may take a little work, but it's hardly "fiendishly difficult".

 

[pukunui]

It's not THAT bad. You aim for four or five weapons in each group and one or two exotics.

For example:
Axes (Throwing axe, Handaxe, Battleaxe, Greataxe, Dwarven Waraxe)
Polearms (Spear, Halberd, Guisarme, Ranseur, Glaive)
Hammers & Picks, AKA "Impact" (light hammer, warhammer, light pick, heavy pick)
Swords (scimitar, falchion, longsword, bastardsword, and greatsword)
Light blades (rapier, shortsword, dagger, kukri)

And so on.

It may take a little work, but it's hardly "fiendishly difficult".

And considering that this work has already been done in the form of the aforementioned Weapon Group feats from Unearthed Arcana, it would more likely be "fiendishly easy".

 

[Imp]

It also may make sense to have weapon groups overlap, possibly with setting-specific content, for example:

Martial Proficiency: Hoplite (shortspear, spear, longspear, short sword, dagger, shield)

 

[mach1.9pants]

It also may make sense to have weapon groups overlap, possibly with setting-specific content, for example:

Martial Proficiency: Hoplite (shortspear, spear, longspear, short sword, dagger, shield)

This I like, and you should be able to apply WF, WS etc to the entire group. Sweet!

 

[pukunui]

This I like, and you should be able to apply WF, WS etc to the entire group. Sweet!

I agree. Sweet as!

 

[Spatula]

Well, maybe, assuming he has weapon focuses or whatnot -- which isn't guranteed

But your example was "A dwarf fighter who's focused on axes."

I don't have a problem with someone trained in the arts of war having basic proficiency with common weapons of war. Previous editions emulated this in their own way by giving martial classes the smallest penalty for wielding weapons they weren't trained in - -2 for fighter-types, vs -5 for magic-users, as I recall. 3e removes that particular table-based mechanic, removes tracking individual proficiencies, and keeps the same intent. It's a good example of how to abstract in such a way that doesn't get in the way of gameplay, IMO.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, maybe, assuming he has weapon focuses or whatnot -- which isn't guranteed, he could just as well be a pally or a ranger or something and lack the necessary feats.

However, that's not the point. The point is that a guy who has no logical reason to have trained with a rapier is proficient with it. I'm all for fighters having a broader weapon knowledge than others, but "all martial weapons" is a little too broad.


It's not THAT bad. You aim for four or five weapons in each group and one or two exotics.

For example:
Axes (Throwing axe, Handaxe, Battleaxe, Greataxe, Dwarven Waraxe)
Polearms (Spear, Halberd, Guisarme, Ranseur, Glaive)
Hammers & Picks, AKA "Impact" (light hammer, warhammer, light pick, heavy pick)
Swords (scimitar, falchion, longsword, bastardsword, and greatsword)
Light blades (rapier, shortsword, dagger, kukri)

And so on.

It may take a little work, but it's hardly "fiendishly difficult".

But do these grouips make sense? Are pick and hammers really so similar in use? Or Spear and Guisamre? Rapier and Dagger? Scimitar and Greatsword?

(But for the record: I like this grouping)

 

[Aenghus]

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

I think early on in 4e coverage Sunder was named as a bad 3e mechanic. It sucks for PCs as they destroy their potential loot, and it's too effective for NPCs designed to use it - 3e melee PCs are so dependent on expensive magical weapons that destroying them really hammers their combat ability (backup weapons don't work as they will be inferior and be as easily broken as the first weapon).

With few fighters, no PC in my campaign ever took sunder. I seldom used sunder myself, and when I did it was ludicrously easy to smash weapons, and just made the PCs leave to get stuff replaced as soon as possible.

I doubt Sunder will be a big part of 4e. As they are making fighters if anything more dependent on a particular weapon to use their powers, rules to destroy that weapon would be counterproductive to the experience, and just look mean. Carrying more than one spare weapon never felt right to me for fantasy heroes, anyway.

 

[smetzger]

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.

Reach weapon works good with the monk. You don't sacrifice the closest 5 ft, because the monk can use unarmed kicks at this range.