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

[Goobermunch]

A Gnomish Swordchucker.

How many swords would a swordchucker chuck if a swordchucker could chuck swords?

--G

 

[Grazzt]

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

How about the voulge, lochaber axe, or glaive-guisarme??

 

[Darkwolf71]

How many swords would a swordchucker chuck if a swordchucker could chuck swords?

--G

Indeed. ipe:

 

[delericho]

Seriously, Racial weapons and Weapon Familiarity act as a kind of balance to the whole free feat Humans get in 3e.

Nice in theory. The problem is that the Dwarf, probably the most powerful race in 3.0e, gained two weapon familiarities in the 3.5e revision, while the Half-orc, probably the least powerful race in 3.0e did not gain the weapon familiarity that might be expected.

Besides, the effect of weapon familiarity was to move all Dwarf Fighters to using either the urgrosh or the waraxe, and all Gnome Fighters to using the hooked hammer. The careful balancing of the weapons that was done for 3.0e, so that Fighters had a real choice of weapon rather than a single optimal choice, was cast aside.

 

[Gloombunny]

Rather than a slew of different weapon entries, I'd like to see a sidebar explicitly suggesting that you adapt existing weapon stats to cover any weapon not listed. e.g., using handaxe stats for a machete, or scimitar stats for a katana, or whatever. And unless they come up with a better way for it to work, no more bastard-sword-type weapon stats. A regular longsword in D&D3 is already a hand-and-a-half weapon, since you can put two hands on it and deal increased damage. All the EWP does is add a point of damage.

A proper 2H hammer/mace would be nice, though. And make the stupid greatclub simple like it should be.

 

[Aristotle]

I started cobbling together some basic weapon design tables a while back for a homebrew. The setting had a long, bloody, history of warfare and I thought it made sense for weapon designers to have come up with all sorts of tools of war over the decades.

Basically you picked a base group (i.e. edged blades, thrusting blades, bludgeons), A size (i.e. one handed, two handed), and a handle (i.e. hilted, hafted, poled, chained, etc.) After you made your picks you would have your damage dice, threat range, damage type, and any special rules like reach or setting for charge. Any existing weapon was buildable, as were some more exotic ones.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Nice in theory. The problem is that the Dwarf, probably the most powerful race in 3.0e, gained two weapon familiarities in the 3.5e revision, while the Half-orc, probably the least powerful race in 3.0e did not gain the weapon familiarity that might be expected.

Besides, the effect of weapon familiarity was to move all Dwarf Fighters to using either the urgrosh or the waraxe, and all Gnome Fighters to using the hooked hammer. The careful balancing of the weapons that was done for 3.0e, so that Fighters had a real choice of weapon rather than a single optimal choice, was cast aside.

4E sounds like weapon choice optimization will be a fighter class feature, so the race shouldn't matter. However, I'd imagine that say and dwarven fighter will have the option of taking a "racial level" to gain benefits with certain dwarven weapons if they so choose. I do think, however, that these choices will be balanced with the dwarven fighter who chooses to stick with "standard" weapons.

Also, I do like the idea that there are certain weapons which are unique to each fantasy race, giving them each a little more cultural flavor. But, as you've said, from a mechanical standpoint such weapons shouldn't always be the obvious choice for the min-maxer.

I do disagree with the OP that each weapon "spot" needs to be filled. Just because there's a "hand-and-a-half" dwarven waraxe, that doesn't mean there needs to be an equivalent version of each of the other damage categories (which feels a bit gamey and system-driven to me - "I need to fill in these spots on the weapons matrix!")

 

[Gort]

I hope the crossbow gets some love in 4e. Those things were more powerful than longbows, way easier to use, and the only disadvantage was low rate of fire. There was a reason you had professional mercenary units using them all over Europe. So why, if they're more powerful than the longbow, is their damage so piddly, and they're reduced to the status of "level 1 wizard weapon"? That stinks.

I hope the crossbow gets a lot more powerful in 4e.

 

[Celebrim]

Just for the record, a Lucern Hammer isn't really a hammer. It's not blunt and isn't really designed to bludgeon something. It's more of a 'pole-pick', only with a multi-pronged spike. It's more like a can-opener than a hammer.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I started cobbling together some basic weapon design tables a while back for a homebrew. The setting had a long, bloody, history of warfare and I thought it made sense for weapon designers to have come up with all sorts of tools of war over the decades.

Basically you picked a base group (i.e. edged blades, thrusting blades, bludgeons), A size (i.e. one handed, two handed), and a handle (i.e. hilted, hafted, poled, chained, etc.) After you made your picks you would have your damage dice, threat range, damage type, and any special rules like reach or setting for charge. Any existing weapon was buildable, as were some more exotic ones.

I did exactly this in Grim Tales.

The various weapon types follow some very clear rules, if you take the time to pick the tables apart.

The OP is correct, though, about most of the holes in the existing set.