WotC: Let's Improve the Weapon List, Shall We?

[Nyaricus]

Y'know, Wizbang Dustyboots' thread about a genuine Sea Drake Missing from the rules plus myself brushing up my Weapon Groups rules for an upcoming campaign got me thinking: There are quite a few seemingly basic weapons missing from the rules.

A brief brainstorm came up with the following:

BIG weapons:
** Greatbow ala English/Welsh longbow for bigger-then-big longbows (likely exotic, though really just martial)
** Maul for 2H hammers.
** Greatmace for 2H maces.
** Bolt-thrower for a big honkin' crossbow.
** Sarissa-style spear to fill in the "Greatsword" category of reach-spears (martial longspear with 15 foot reach)
** Boar Spear-style spear to fill in the "Greatsword" category of damage-dealing spears (martial Spear with more damage).

Hand-and-a-half weapons:
** Mace and Chain, ala the Dwarven Waraxe for those using hand-and-a-half flails.
** Dwarven Battlehammer, ala the Dwarven Waraxe for those using hand-and-a-half hammers
** Dwarven Combat Mace, ala the Dwarven Waraxe for those using hand-and-a-half maces
** Dwarven Military Pick, ala the Dwarven Waraxe for those using hand-and-a-half picks

** Light Flails. They appear to be missing.

** Throwing Daggers. Something like 30 ft. range with a 20/x2 crit and piercing/slashing, but useful because they can be concealed as with normal daggers.

** A Polearm which deals Bludgeoning damage - Long Hammers were indeed used in the Middle Ages.

** Harpoons. Not exactly a staple in Medieval Europe, they would still be useful in a fantasy campaign, and make a great addition alongside the very few entangling weapons the PHB has (the Net, the Whip and the Bolas).

** Mancatchers. On the same note as Harpoon, but decidedly more common in medieval Europe, Mancatchers would make a great addition to the entangling weapons in the PHB.

**Broadswords. A sword you can stab someone with.



Now, while I would hardly think that *all* of these weapons would ever make it into the 4E PHB (but one can hope!) They still all fill a curious rules-gap in 3e, one which I see no reason for being there, really. Anyone else feel this way? Any hopes of seeing a wider variety of weapons in the PHB? Anyone hope even a fraction of this will replace the crapfest of 3e's silly "double weapons"?

cheers,
--N

 

[wedgeski]

I think the weapon variety was just fine in the 3e RAW. In order to make each weapon an interesting and balanced choice, it has to stand apart from the other weapons in the list and still make the player consider whether it's a good option. The more weapons you add, the less room the designer has to achieve that unless he starts simultaneously expanding the options open in melee combat. I think 3e's middle-ground was a good one.

The alternative is that you have six different types of longbow, all of which do the same damage, have the same critical threat range, and the same range increment, and are differentiated only by the fact that they have different names. There's no real value in that IMO.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Enough of that, I want the Lucerne Hammer and the Bec De Corbin back in D&D!!

 

[Nyaricus]

The alternative is that you have six different types of longbow, all of which do the same damage, have the same critical threat range, and the same range increment, and are differentiated only by the fact that they have different names. There's no real value in that IMO.

I daresay that that does not take into account my Original Post at all. What of the throwing dagger, the Mancatcher or the Harpoon? Those weapons do not have a spot in the PHB - yet I would say they would add something to the game, rather then having "no value". And as a stanch hand-and-a-half weapon fan, including more hand-and-a-half weapons isn't a bad idea at all, IMO, whether you choose to use my dwarven-style flavour text or not.

You may have simply been exaggerating in the above quoted text, but my examples didn't even break the weapons down by damage, and of course the stats would all differ for the respective weapons - whether it be crit range, damage dice, range, damage type or what have you.

I also don't really see how adding in different weapons limits the "room the designer has to achieve". In fact, would you mind explaining that more, as that statement just really doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it's just the ealry hour

cheers,
--N

 

[Nyaricus]

Enough of that, I want the Lucerne Hammer and the Bec De Corbin back in D&D!!

Hey man, that Lucern Hammer might be a good fit for our missing "bludgeoning polearm", eh? I remember using the Lucern Hammer in AD&D when I first started playing, actually I remember thinking it was weird that there was a hammer named after the brand of milk my family drank.

cheers,
--N

 

[Baby Samurai]

I think they will have a lower number of weapons overall in 4th Ed, but weapon choice will mean a lot more.

 

[Xyl]

My pet peeve related to weapons is the kama. It does the same damage as the sickle, with the same threat range. The picture for the kama in the PHB shows an object that would have been called a sickle in Europe. Japanese "kama" means, literally, sickle. So why are there two different weapons, the sickle and kama, with one simple and one exotic?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

It's the "because it's Japanese, it must be better" mentality that some RPG designers have, that instantly make anything Japanese, better than it's European, Chinese, Arabian, Indian or African counterparts...

It's a fact that many martial arts weapons are based on farm tools, but they could be explained away as being different weapons based on their usage. The kama really is a sickle, because that's what peasants in Okinawa and other parts of Asia used as weapons, because they couldn't get real weapons.

One weapon they're missing that I really want to see, is yet another common farm tool. I want to see the machete as a viable weapon in D&D, the weapon that's been the staple of many forms of martial arts (Filipino martial arts comes to mind), angry peasants and horror movie serial killers. Because machetes are so cool to use.

 

[Aloïsius]

One weapon they're missing that I really want to see, is yet another common farm tool. I want to see the machete as a viable weapon in D&D, the weapon that's been the staple of many forms of martial arts (Filipino martial arts comes to mind), angry peasants and horror movie serial killers. Because machetes are so cool to use.

And as soon as you have machettes in the PHB, you WANT to make a jungle based scenario, with lost temples, Yuan-Ti tribes, malaria and mosquitos. And snakes, too, lot of snakes.

 

[Wepwawet]

I just wish they create good whips in 4e. A whip useable as a good weapon.

In 3e it's a kid's toy, doing only 1d3 subdual damage. Why can't it be a real weapon?

As I always play spellcasters I don't care much about weapons. Until as a DM I wanted BBEGirl wielding a whip (with the leather outfit and all that BDSM look). But that whip is just useless... Even a flaming whip, at the level she was supposed to come wasn't much of a threat.