Weapons you wished you'd see sometimes.

VirgilCaine said:
Weight is not weight in D&D. Weight represents weight and relative bulkiness. Which is why 10' poles weigh 8 pounds.
Could you be so kind as to tell me where this is stated? According to the 3.5 SRD and my 3.0 PH, weight shown on the weapon tables is the actual weight of the weapon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

More improvised weapons: a razor stuck to a toothbrush handle with a rubber band, or a newspaper folded over so many times and sharpened. Even a sharpened bone from a steak snuck out of the mess hall would be nice.

You kids today with your prefabbed spiked chains and mercurial greatswords. Don't know how good you have it.
 


sjmiller said:
Could you be so kind as to tell me where this is stated? According to the 3.5 SRD and my 3.0 PH, weight shown on the weapon tables is the actual weight of the weapon.

It's a note in the back of the 1e DMG.
If it ISN'T so, then explain to me why the weapon weights are so off.
 



VirgilCaine said:
Weight is not weight in D&D. Weight represents weight and relative bulkiness. Which is why 10' poles weigh 8 pounds.

Where is that written in the rules?

The game writers have had four versions of the game to get the weapon weights correct. They have failed to do that four times. Don't mix weight with bulk. Weight is just that, weight. How much the object weighs in a one G environment. List the "bulk" elsewhere if you think it is important. Which it isn't. The game mechanics in D&D just aren't that "fine".

The rules writers have shown time and time again that they have no real knowledge of actual weapons. They don't seem to own any reference books nor have they ever actually held a weapon in their hands. If either of these were true we wouldn't have such things as Spiked Chains and Dire Flails... not to mention Mercurial ANYTHING...
 

Back in my day we didnt have fancy Bastard Swords, or Girly Rapiers... no we used

[sblock]Boomerangs and Caltrops![/sblock]
 
Last edited:

Andor said:
I think there should be a [Choke up] feat to allow you to switch ranges as a free action or at least a [Haft Strike] feat to let you threaten and attack your immediate area with (1d6 x2 b) damage.

Those things shouldn't cost a feat.

Elemental said:
it's just for some reason it's hugely more powerful than any other exotic weapon.

For many players I've known, it's the only exotic they feel comes close to being worth an XWP feat.

kenobi65 said:
IIRC, in the 1E rules, the broadsword was described as only having an edge along one side of the blade, while a longsword had edges on both sides. It makes the broadsword sound more like a cutlass or saber or something; I can't say I've ever heard the term "broadsword" applied to a weapon of that description anywhere else but 1E AD&D.

These days, then, I'd be tempted to call it a falchion. (Not what the 3e calls a falchion. What the rest of the world calls a falchion.)

Janaxstrus said:
I don't care what kind of weapons people use. The game is all about fun. If they decide it's fun for everyone to use a longsword, or a hand axe or a club, it's all good with me.

In my never humble opinion, why should people be forced to use non-standard or sub-optimal weapons? Just have the NPCs use them if you feel like the naginata being under-represented is hurting your game.

I think that's the point: Lots of people find it less fun for everyone to use only a handful of weapons. If you make all the other weapons use the stats for one of those optimal weapons, then you don't put players in the unfun position of having to choose between a sub-optimal weapon that fits their character concept or an optimal weapon that doesn't.

Plus, it doesn't preclude everyone using a longsword.
 

Nifft said:
Really. You'd like to see more bolos in D&D?

-- N
Ya know, I've spent my entire life believing that "bolas" were, in fact, called "bolos". Perhaps "bolo" is the American bastardization of the Spanish word "bola"? Dunno.
 

Remove ads

Top