Would removing Superior Weapons open the game up more?

[AbdulAlhazred]

My variant on this would be to make it weapon specific. So the bastard sword is just a more exepensive, heavier long sword until you take the feat that makes it brutal 1, gives d10 dmg two handed and lets you pull out and arm your sheild as a minor (or free) action...can easily imagine whip feats (we actually have some!) flail feats...can also do this by group, like the later expertise feats, but maybe not quite so good.

One way to do it would be something like you get proficiency in a weapon group, so my character can be good at using 'heavy blades'. This makes sense, most swords are at least roughly similar. You could then pick up some element that would let you do something especially clever with a specific type of sword. You could pick up ANY sword and have good competency. When you use that one type you are expert with, then you get the special sauce.

 

[Mirtek]

One way to do it would be something like you get proficiency in a weapon group, so my character can be good at using 'heavy blades'. This makes sense, most swords are at least roughly similar. You could then pick up some element that would let you do something especially clever with a specific type of sword. You could pick up ANY sword and have good competency. When you use that one type you are expert with, then you get the special sauce.

Which once again causes the player to cling to that type of sword in exclusion of all others.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

fix for bastard swords

I have a pretty easy fix for bastard swords :

d10 +2 prof when used one handed,
d10 +3 prof when used two handed.

No feat required, no versatile bonus two-handed. Just remove versatile from the game, or make versatile property increase to-hit by +1, rather than +1 damage. However, here's the kicker. Rangers can treat these versatile weapons as double weapons instead of gaining the +1 when using them two-handed. Aragorn build using a bastard sword, FTW. Rangers with TWF style would have the same benefits they do now. That is, if you are a hybrid you can use a single bastard sword with Twin Strike with +2 prof, but if you take TWF talent you can use two longswords instead. Perhaps a new talent / ranger build option could capitalize on using bastard swords or battleaxes two-handed, like Two-Handed combat style, making them d10 +3 and usable with Twin Strike. In builds where hybrid talent is available, it's still a tradeoff, making you specialize in a certain combat style (two single weapons, or one versatile). Straight up rangers would of course, also need to pick, but they could retrain it at each level if they wanted to. Let's say the Two-handed style skips out on Toughness, to avoid it being strictly better than TWF style.

Battle Axe would be the same. The only mechanical difference between a bastard sword and a battle axe would be the feat support. Mastery should be available to any class if their main attack stat is good enough.

Both greatswords and greataxes would be +3 1d12, but one would have high crit and the other brutal 1.

This makes Bastard swords fit between long swords and two handed swords, given that you've removed superior weapon training from the game. If you need +3 for a one-handed weapon, use a longsword. If you want more damage two-handed, use a greatsword. +1 to hit is always better than +1 damage, which is why axes got the shaft in 4e and are almost universally panned, except for dwarves. The extra damage can't keep up with the penalty of missing your hit entirely. This will make Axes useful / optimal again. Also, axes should be cheaper. If you really want to go the full mile, use inherent bonuses and have items break ala Dark Sun as someone else suggested. When you roll a 1, if you roll another 1-2 it's broken. I don't like that in 4e everything feels perfect, permanent and unbreakable.

Fullblades and Dwarven Waraxes would be rare masterwork items (love it!) requiring no feats to use other than martial proficiency. Keep them in the game, just not available to buy because they are too rare / precious and only for the top generals made with special care by their wizards.

So, basically, you find one when the DM gives it to you, or you quest for it. Like a vanguard weapon for the rest of us who don't charge, it's just extra damage or high crit or brutal. Makes treasure fun again.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which once again causes the player to cling to that type of sword in exclusion of all others.

So what? There are a million reasons PCs will stick to one weapon. The idea is to make it so they can stick to ANY GIVEN weapon and have equivalent capabilities. Once a character has a magic weapon or finds the particular sort of weapon that works well for them they aren't going to switch often anyway. Really, a mace and a longsword simply aren't enough different that there's a reason to go back and forth between them.

I have a pretty easy fix for bastard swords :

d10 +2 prof when used one handed,
d10 +3 prof when used two handed.

No feat required, no versatile bonus two-handed. Just remove versatile from the game.

Battle Axe would be the same. The only mechanical difference between a bastard sword and a battle axe would be the feat support. Mastery should be available to any class if their main attack stat is good enough.

This makes Bastard swords fit between long swords and two handed swords. If you need +3 for a one-handed weapon, use a longsword. If you want more damage two-handed, use a greatsword.

Fullblades and Dwarven Waraxes would be rare masterwork items (love it!) requiring no feats to use other than martial proficiency. Keep them in the game, just not available to buy because they are too rare / precious and only for the top generals made with special care by their wizards.

So, basically, you find one when the DM gives it to you, or you quest for it. Like a vanguard weapon for the rest of us who don't charge, it's just extra damage or high crit or brutal. Makes treasure fun again.

Yeah, I never liked the whole 'masterwork' concept. Why do we need 2 different types of what are both basically 'magic' weapons? Save yourself extra rules clutter and just call them all magic.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

whatever we call them

Masterwork, rare, preciousses.

I think regardless of the value, stuff should be breakable. That means, you will go out of your way to collect the shards to reforge Narsil into Anduril in between adventure pit stops, if the BBEG dark lord breaks your sword under his heel. (good to keep a backup weapon, or to grab whatever's lying around). It would be a crushing moment to have your rare fullblade broken at a pivotal rush. Stuff can be repaired, but that's ok too. Let artificers or crafters actually do something with their feats, now that you can't make worthwhile enchantments due to the uncommon rules.

Then again, since we are far, far into house rule territory here...stuff really needs to be thought out. If it makes the game more fun, more stream lined, less "gamey" and more story while making the game aspects less pigeonholed by your feat choices locking you in. (I will only use my preferred weapon, waaaah).

I really like versatile builds, but really, is there a good reason right now for anyone to use Axes over Heavy Blades? Or to switch between the two. I mean, Headsmans Chop is compatible with both. There just isn't enough "special sauce" for a lot of the options. Make them equivalent with extra control or side-effects, and you will see people swapping between their bastard swords and battle axes, or even using one in each hand like Conan did in Conan the Barbarian.

 

[Herschel]

One way to do it would be something like you get proficiency in a weapon group, so my character can be good at using 'heavy blades'. This makes sense, most swords are at least roughly similar. You could then pick up some element that would let you do something especially clever with a specific type of sword. You could pick up ANY sword and have good competency. When you use that one type you are expert with, then you get the special sauce.

oooo, 2E handbook weapon group proficiencies make their triumphant return. I like it actually.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Which once again causes the player to cling to that type of sword in exclusion of all others.

A way to fix that (assuming you want to) is to make special abilities apply to multiple groups of weapons, but be careful about which abilities go where. The effect is that you can't focus solely on a single weapon (or group) without picking up a few things that are useful with other weapons. Sure, you'll still have a preference--something you are best at--but it is no longer all or nothing:

Feat Weapon Special A: Nifty thing with axes and swords.
Feat Weapon Special B: Nifty thing with axes and maces.
Feat Weapon Special C: Nifty thing wth 2-handed weapons of any group.

The guy with the great axe is eventually going to get all three of those. It's expected. But in the process, he ain't too shabby with a great sword or maul, either.

To make this work, though, you really do have to nail down the weapon groups hard, and then parse out the specials rather evenly. Better think through all the weapons that will be represented.

 

[keterys]

One other benefit of removing superior weapons is that you excise Brutal from the game, pretty much. And good riddance

 

[DracoSuave]

So, basically, you find one when the DM gives it to you, or you quest for it. Like a vanguard weapon for the rest of us who don't charge, it's just extra damage or high crit or brutal. Makes treasure fun again.

If treasure isn't fun, removing superior weapons and just making them drops isn't gong to magically fix the treasure fun issue.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A way to fix that (assuming you want to) is to make special abilities apply to multiple groups of weapons, but be careful about which abilities go where. The effect is that you can't focus solely on a single weapon (or group) without picking up a few things that are useful with other weapons. Sure, you'll still have a preference--something you are best at--but it is no longer all or nothing:

Feat Weapon Special A: Nifty thing with axes and swords.
Feat Weapon Special B: Nifty thing with axes and maces.
Feat Weapon Special C: Nifty thing wth 2-handed weapons of any group.

The guy with the great axe is eventually going to get all three of those. It's expected. But in the process, he ain't too shabby with a great sword or maul, either.

To make this work, though, you really do have to nail down the weapon groups hard, and then parse out the specials rather evenly. Better think through all the weapons that will be represented.

I like it, at least in a way. I'm not sure how you would fluff these things, but they certainly would be a nice way to be able to swap around, which is not a bad thing. I suspect enhancement bonus will generally push people to using one weapon all the time though. I can remember how this went in AD&D too. You could use any old weapons equally well in 1e (pretty much) but if I had a +3 bastard sword and a regular old mace and I ran into some skeleton type undead it STILL wasn't worth switching to the mace, half damage with a +3 (or usually +1) weapon beats out full damage with a non-magical one every time. Still, choices are good. I guess you could fluff them as fighting styles.