# Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)



## jaelis (May 7, 2008)

*Excerpt: weapons*

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080507a


----------



## neceros (May 7, 2008)

*Excerpt: Weapons*

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080507a



> Weapons are an essential part of the D&D game. They’re the "sword" in "sword & sorcery".
> 
> Older versions of the D&D game allowed you to be proficient with a few specific weapons, growing in the number of such skills you advanced in level. When you weren’t proficient with a particular weapon, you took a penalty on attack rolls with it. Weapons had varying levels of effectiveness based on size, speed factor, damage against targets of different sizes, and even against differing sorts of armor.
> 
> ...


----------



## jaelis (May 7, 2008)

Weapons are an essential part of the D&D game. They’re the "sword" in "sword & sorcery".

Older versions of the D&D game allowed you to be proficient with a few specific weapons, growing in the number of such skills you advanced in level. When you weren’t proficient with a particular weapon, you took a penalty on attack rolls with it. Weapons had varying levels of effectiveness based on size, speed factor, damage against targets of different sizes, and even against differing sorts of armor.

In 3E, the game embraced an appealing level of complexity. It did away with some of the esoteric weapon systems of older editions, but it kept enough nuances to define each weapon as specifically as possible. Weapon categories—simple, martial, exotic, and improvised—became the major means of defining proficiency. As the game developed, new rules as well as rules resurrected from older editions played on the differences and similarities among weapons.

The 4th Edition D&D game took all these thoughts about weapons and considered them. For the new game, it was decided that weapons had to be complex enough to be interesting, as with 3E. But the rules also had to be easy to use in design, in character creation, and in play—even easier than in 3E.

Here are some of the ways concepts evolved into what you’ll see in 4E’s weapons:

    * Weapon Categories: Just like in 3E, weapon categories tell you how a weapon is used. We retained the 3E concepts of the simple to exotic gamut (albeit with different names), because they’re very useful concepts for defining the broad levels of proficiency most characters classes have. Whether a weapon is melee or ranged matters for using powers. We also used whether a weapon is one-handed or two-handed to help define how weapons function for Small characters. Size matters, but not enough to overcomplicate the weapon rules.


    * Weapon Groups: We created these broad groups, which also function as keywords, to interact well with other game elements. It’s easier if a designer can rely on a group keyword to say, “This feat does X if you’re wielding an axe,” or “If you’re wielding a light blade, this power also does X.” You’ll care about these groups when you’re selecting feats and powers. The preview tells you that some powers and feats require a weapon from a certain group. However, other powers simply function better when you’re using a weapon from the appropriate group. This fact helped us create thematic feats and powers based on how we imagine weapons functioning in heroic fantasy.


    * Weapon Properties: If you try throwing this melee weapon, what are the considerations? Can that weapon be used in your off-hand? How long does it take to load this projectile weapon? What happens when you use that one-handed weapon with two hands? We created weapon property keywords to help answer such questions at a glance. For instance, the thrown weapon properties allow a weapon to cross the line between melee and ranged. The words light or heavy defines whether you use Dexterity or Strength, respectively, to throw the weapon. All that information is stored in two words.


    * Proficiency: The truism that skill matters met the idea that just about anyone can swing a sword and hurt someone. These combined with the 4E philosophy (unlike older versions of the D&D) that—whenever possible—lack of skill doesn’t penalize your roll; skill enhances your effectiveness instead.

--Chris Sims




When you confront villains and monsters in their lairs, you often end up in situations that can be resolved only with arms and magic. If you don’t have magical powers, you had better have a weapon or two. In fact, you might want a weapon to back up or even augment your powers.

*Weapon Categories*

Weapons fall into four categories. Improvised weapons aren’t weapons you train with—they’re objects you pick up to hit someone with. Punching or kicking someone is also considered an improvised weapon. Simple weapons are basic, requiring little more skill than lifting and hitting with the business end. Military weapons are designed for skilled users. Balance and precision are important factors when using military weapons, and someone without the proper training can’t use them effectively. Superior weapons are even more effective than military weapons but require special training to use. You can learn to use a superior weapon by taking the Weapon Proficiency feat.

Weapons in all four categories are further categorized as melee weapons, which you use to attack foes within reach of the weapon, or ranged weapons, which you use to fire at more distant enemies. You can’t use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon. A melee weapon with the heavy thrown or the light thrown property counts as a ranged weapon when thrown and can be used with ranged attack powers that have the weapon keyword.

Finally, weapons are classified as either one-handed or two-handed. A one-handed weapon is light enough or balanced enough to be used in one hand. A two-handed weapon is too heavy or unbalanced to use without two hands. Bows and some other weapons require two hands because of their construction.

Some one-handed weapons are light enough for you to use in your off hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your other hand. Doing this doesn’t let you make multiple attacks in a round (unless you have powers that let you do so), but you can attack with either weapon. Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.

*Choosing Weapons*

If you belong to a class whose powers don’t include weapon keywords, just pick weapons that you’re proficient with and that you’d like to use. If you’re a fighter or a member of any other class that has powers linked to particular weapon groups, you care more about weapons than other characters might. Be sure to consider the powers you’d like to use when choosing your weapons, and vice versa.

You want to have an option for melee combat as well as ranged combat, even if you’re not as effective at one or the other. Be sure to choose at least one of each kind of weapon. When that flying monster makes its getaway, you don’t want to be left standing around with nothing to do but hurl insults at it.

*Weapon Groups*

Weapon groups are families of weapons that share certain properties. They’re wielded similarly and are equally suited to certain kinds of attacks. In game terms, some powers and feats work only when you’re attacking with a weapon in a specific group.

If a weapon falls into more than one group, you can use it with powers that require a weapon from any of its groups. For example, the halberd is both an axe and a polearm, so you can use it with powers that give you an additional benefit when you wield an axe or a polearm.

    * Axe
    * Bow
    * Crossbow
    * Flail
    * Hammer
    * Heavy Blade
    * Light Blade
    * Mace
    * Pick
    * Polearm
    * Sling
    * Spear
    * Staff
    * Unarmed

*Weapon Properties*

Weapon properties define additional characteristics shared by weapons that might be in different groups.

*Heavy Thrown*: You hurl a thrown weapon from your hand, rather than using it to loose a projectile. A ranged basic attack with a heavy thrown weapon uses your Strength instead of your Dexterity for the attack and damage rolls.

*High Crit*: A high crit weapon deals more damage when you score a critical hit with it. A critical hit deals maximum weapon damage and an extra 1[W] at 1st–10th levels, an extra 2[W] at 11th–20th levels, and an extra 3[W] at 21st–30th levels. This extra damage is in addition to any critical damage the weapon supplies if it is a magic weapon.

*Light Thrown*: A ranged basic attack with a light thrown weapon uses your Dexterity. Light thrown weapons don’t deal as much damage as heavy thrown weapons, but some powers let you hurl several of them at once or in rapid succession.

*Load*: Ranged weapons that loose projectiles, including bows, crossbows, and slings, take some time to load. When a weapon shows “load free” on the Ranged Weapons table, that means you draw and load ammunition as a free action, effectively part of the action used to attack with the weapon. Any weapon that has the load property requires two hands to load, even if you can use only one hand to attack with it. (The sling, for example, is a one-handed weapon, but you need a free hand to load it.) The crossbow is “load minor,” which means it requires a minor action to load a bolt into the weapon. If a power allows you to hit multiple targets, the additional load time is accounted for in the power.

*Off-Hand*: An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon.

*Reach*: With a reach weapon, you can attack enemies that are 2 squares away from you as well as adjacent enemies, with no attack penalty. You can still make opportunity attacks only against adjacent enemies. Likewise, you can flank only an adjacent enemy.

*Small*: This property describes a two-handed or a versatile weapon that a Small character can use in the same way a Medium character can. A halfling can use a shortbow, for example, even though halflings can’t normally use two-handed weapons.

*Versatile*: Versatile weapons are one-handed, but you can use them two-handed. If you do, you deal an extra 1 point of damage when you roll damage for the weapon. A Small character such as a halfling must use a versatile weapon two-handed and doesn’t deal extra damage.


----------



## Andur (May 7, 2008)

Pretty underwhelming really.  Especially the part about two weapon fighting...


----------



## neceros (May 7, 2008)

I like the weapon properties on each weapon. I disliked how 3e weapons were so similar to each other that it just came down to scimitar and rapier because they had better crit ranges.

I hope they git rid of that type of thing.


----------



## jaelis (May 7, 2008)

Looks like they're back to something like the 3.0 sizing system.  I kind of thought the 3.5 system was an improvement, but I guess we'll see.


----------



## MaelStorm (May 7, 2008)

Extremely light excerpt, not even a tiny weapon table.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (May 7, 2008)

I wanted to see some actual weapons,....ah but I guess it was nice to see the properties and proficiency info


----------



## Stalker0 (May 7, 2008)

In the old 4e articles, they mentioned how weapon had certain properties innately, like hammer using con in some fashion, and swords being faster.

I think that's gone away as the game has evolved. There may be powers and feats that enhance weapons, but I don't the difference between weapons will be as innately broad as we first thought.

The fact that high crit weapons scale with level is pretty cool.


----------



## Lizard (May 7, 2008)

Sigh.

Apparently, in the name of the Great God Simplicity. every Halfling blacksmith has been slain, forcing them to make do with human-made weapons.

A pity, since otherwise, the 4e weapons system is pretty nice.


----------



## Sojorn (May 7, 2008)

Huh. High crit weapons do more and more damage at higher levels.

Interesting.

There's pretty clearly alot of ways that damage jumps at the paragon and epic tiers that arn't obvious from power descriptions.

Edit: Ninjered?


----------



## Alkiera (May 7, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> Pretty underwhelming really.  Especially the part about two weapon fighting...



 I was hoping for at least a partial table... say, 3-5 weapons with whatever table data appears in the PHB.  It did answer a few questions, though.

Just because they said you can't TWF in one round without a power... we also know that some feats grant powers.  Why can't the Two Weapon Fighting feat in 4E grant an at-will power that lets you use both in one round?  I don't think it's been ruled out yet.


----------



## neceros (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> Apparently, in the name of the Great God Simplicity. every Halfling blacksmith has been slain, forcing them to make do with human-made weapons.
> 
> A pity, since otherwise, the 4e weapons system is pretty nice.



I wouldn't be surprised if there is more into weapon size categories they don't want out yet. I can't imagine a smaller person would make a normal sized weapon when they can't use them properly. Simplicity or no, that's just silly.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 7, 2008)

Boooo.

I wanted so much more from that excerpt.  

It's okay that they don't put in all the weapon proprties, but at least give us a handful of actual weapons!

And perhaps a list of what those superior weapons are?


----------



## neceros (May 7, 2008)

Alkiera said:
			
		

> Why can't the Two Weapon Fighting feat in 4E grant an at-will power that lets you use both in one round?  I don't think it's been ruled out yet.



Not a bad idea, but that might be too powerful. Who knows, I suppose?


----------



## Kitirat (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> Apparently, in the name of the Great God Simplicity. every Halfling blacksmith has been slain, forcing them to make do with human-made weapons.
> 
> A pity, since otherwise, the 4e weapons system is pretty nice.




The whole small and medium weapons thing always annoyed me a LOT.  I mean a halfling using a short sword is really using it as a long sword.  Yes hand sizes are different and one is primarily P type and the other S type, but they should both do about 1d6 damage.

The halfling blacksmiths are not gone, just the needless complexity of 2 nearly exact weapons being named differently for convience.

See ya,
Ken


----------



## Stalker0 (May 7, 2008)

Alkiera said:
			
		

> I was hoping for at least a partial table... say, 3-5 weapons with whatever table data appears in the PHB.  It did answer a few questions, though.
> 
> Just because they said you can't TWF in one round without a power... we also know that some feats grant powers.  Why can't the Two Weapon Fighting feat in 4E grant an at-will power that lets you use both in one round?  I don't think it's been ruled out yet.




I could see it as an encounter power, but I doubt it would be at will.

However, there may be some hidden power to the new TWF. First of all, we haven't heard any talk of an attack penalty with TWF now. It sounds like there's no penalty at all. Second, you can only take with one weapon at a time. But....since magic items have encounter powers that can actually be a big deal. If I wield two frost hammers for example, I could use my frost encounter power twice.


----------



## neceros (May 7, 2008)

Kitirat said:
			
		

> The whole small and medium weapons thing always annoyed me a LOT.  I mean a halfling using a short sword is really using it as a long sword.  Yes hand sizes are different and one is primarily P type and the other S type, but they should both do about 1d6 damage.



Well, a blade is a blade I suppose, but then why does a dagger do less damage than a longsword? Little characters have the same amount of hp, I suppose they should do the same amount of damage with their weapons.

I've never thought about it.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

I think I won some money 
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4125923&postcount=48



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> I'm ok with the following rule: If you wield two weapons, you still can attack only once in your turn, with one weapon or the other. You can only use both weapons if you are trained in 2WF.
> The principle for this rule is the same used for firearms. I could argue that If I'm wielding a pistol, I could pull the trigger very fast and gain multiple attacks. But I don't get them because... we all know why. The same could work for 4E dual wielding. You don't gain more attacks unless you have the "skillz". And in 4E the multiple attacks could come in the form of martial exploits.






			
				article said:
			
		

> Some one-handed weapons are light enough for you to use in your off hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your other hand. Doing this doesn’t let you make multiple attacks in a round (unless you have powers that let you do so), but you can attack with either weapon.
> 
> You can’t attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon.


----------



## Shroomy (May 7, 2008)

What I find the most interesting is the comments about weapon groups and powers, which immediately reminded me about the sneak attack power from the Rogue preview



> Sneak Attack
> Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.




So, the sneak attack weapon choices are not as limited as first they appeared since all three weapons mentioned in the powers are actually groups.  It also looks like the rogue is also proficient in at least one weapon from each group:  dagger (light blade), shuriken (light blade), hand crossbow (crossbow), sling (sling), and short sword (light blade).

My guess is that there would now be feats that allow you to expand the weapon groups used for sneak attack, and another set of feats that allow you get specific proficiencies with each weapon.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 7, 2008)

Yeah, it's still a Halfling Longsword, it's just the same crunch as a shortsword.

Fitz


----------



## NaturalZero (May 7, 2008)

Having different sized weapons, created specifically for creatures of a certain size, seems simpler and more believable than what they are proposing. Instead of remembering if a certain weapon can be used by a small creature or if they have to wield it a certain way without gaining a specific benefit some other character would, it would be easier if they just made weapons for different sized users that all followed the same rules (3.5 style).


----------



## neceros (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I think I won some money
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4125923&postcount=48



Hah. I don't see a problem with only allowing one attack a round: You're still wielding two weapons, you just only have time for one swing before the other person decides to attack you back.

Right?


----------



## Shroomy (May 7, 2008)

Alkiera said:
			
		

> Just because they said you can't TWF in one round without a power... we also know that some feats grant powers.  Why can't the Two Weapon Fighting feat in 4E grant an at-will power that lets you use both in one round?  I don't think it's been ruled out yet.




I don't think that TWF will be accessible via feats, unless you mean multi-classing feats.  We know the ranger has it, but who know about the other classes (I can see them being higher level powers so as not to step too much on the ranger's toes).


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> Apparently, in the name of the Great God Simplicity. every Halfling blacksmith has been slain, forcing them to make do with human-made weapons.
> 
> A pity, since otherwise, the 4e weapons system is pretty nice.




"*Small: * This property describes a two-handed or a versatile weapon that a Small character can use in the same way a Medium character can. "
Halflings blacksmiths create small weapons.


----------



## Novem5er (May 7, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> In the old 4e articles, they mentioned how weapon had certain properties innately, like hammer using con in some fashion, and swords being faster.
> 
> I think that's gone away as the game has evolved. There may be powers and feats that enhance weapons, but I don't the difference between weapons will be as innately broad as we first thought.
> 
> The fact that high crit weapons scale with level is pretty cool.




I had the same thoughts, but I think we weren't given the full information before. I'm thinking that it isn't the _hammer_ that uses Con, but rather a _power_ that uses Con has the Hammer descriptor. So there will be differences between a sword and hammer fighter, but it will be because of their power selection, which is dependent on the weapon they want to use.

Could be cool. Somewhere recently there was a post that mentioned certain feats or powers will allow a PC to "push" an enemy an additional square when using a spear. Likely that means there is a power with the Spear descriptor that pushes enemies.


----------



## The Sword 88 (May 7, 2008)

I was disappointed by the lack of info and the lack of weapon size categories.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Hah. I don't see a problem with only allowing one attack a round: You're still wielding two weapons, you just only have time for one swing before the other person decides to attack you back.
> 
> Right?



That's what I said back them, i'd have no problem with such a rule.
It came out to be the 4e rule afterall.


----------



## That One Guy (May 7, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> What I find the most interesting is the comments about weapon groups and powers, which immediately reminded me about the sneak attack power from the Rogue preview
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree. I feel like the post was filled with tiny goodies. I would've liked an example of more stuff... but it's enough to make me hopeful. I'm hoping that there's a feat that allows con to be used towards axe/hammer types. The whole... double grouping thing is really sweet. I also like that more full list of weapon properties.


----------



## DanChops (May 7, 2008)

Interesting article.  I'm a fan of weapon groups, so I'm happy to see them in 4E.  I'm kind of dissapointed that the preview didn't show the numbers for any actual weapons though.  I was hoping to see something like the earlier Pick preview, but with explanations for exactly what each column in the chart means, and maybe the flavor text that goes along with the weapon.

Oh well.  Only a few more weeks, right?


----------



## neceros (May 7, 2008)

Hah, jaelis, this wasn't even available at 9:00. It wouldn't show until 9:01. Sneaker.


----------



## Shroomy (May 7, 2008)

It looks like the effort to load a crossbow is not as bad as it was in 3.5e; a minor vs. move action for a light crossbow.  I'll take that.  Makes me want to use a crossbow more than once in a battle.

I also like that high crit weapons scale with level.


----------



## Makaze (May 7, 2008)

> Reach: With a reach weapon, you can attack enemies that are 2 squares away from you as well as adjacent enemies, with no attack penalty. You can still make opportunity attacks only against adjacent enemies. Likewise, you can flank only an adjacent enemy.




So what's the disadvantage to reach weapons? It would seem that between the halberd being both an axe and a polearm in one thus allowing access to a wide range of powers and the ability to attack 24 squares rather than just 8 that it posseses significant advantages that might make it the scimitar or spiked chain of 4e.


----------



## jaelis (May 7, 2008)

> Hah, jaelis, this wasn't even available at 9:00. It wouldn't show until 9:01. Sneaker.




Not true.  I promise on my honor, I saw the page and checked it really was about weapons before submitting.  

I've gotten a couple in at 12:00 before.  But the ENWorld clock and the WotC clock might not be exactly sync'd.


----------



## Korgoth (May 7, 2008)

Makaze said:
			
		

> So what's the disadvantage to reach weapons? It would seem that between the halberd being both an axe and a polearm in one thus allowing access to a wide range of powers and the ability to attack 24 squares rather than just 8 that it posseses significant advantages that might make it the scimitar or spiked chain of 4e.




It would be nice if the halberd were the most advanced weapon for once.


----------



## jaelis (May 7, 2008)

Makaze said:
			
		

> So what's the disadvantage to reach weapons? It would seem that between the halberd being both an axe and a polearm in one thus allowing access to a wide range of powers and the ability to attack 24 squares rather than just 8 that it posseses significant advantages that might make it the scimitar or spiked chain of 4e.



Who says the halberd will have reach?


----------



## Shroomy (May 7, 2008)

Makaze said:
			
		

> So what's the disadvantage to reach weapons? It would seem that between the halberd being both an axe and a polearm in one thus allowing access to a wide range of powers and the ability to attack 24 squares rather than just 8 that it posseses significant advantages that might make it the scimitar or spiked chain of 4e.




Well, its a two-handed weapon and I bet access is pretty much restricted to the fighter class without feats.  Also, assuming its a reach weapon, you can only inflict opportunity attacks and flank against targets in adjacent squares, so those rules have been modified from 3.5e.


----------



## Kzach (May 7, 2008)

> Size matters, but not enough to overcomplicate the weapon rules.




Ah, thank god for that. I hated with a passion the complexity that was introduced with 3.5.

Halflings do not warrant an entire category of weapon size specifically for them, especially if they're not a dominant race with their own cities and culture.

Second dumbest rule in 3.5.


----------



## That One Guy (May 7, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> It would be nice if the halberd were the most advanced weapon for once.



A 'superior weapon' if one will?

(Ohohoho...)


----------



## Torchlyte (May 7, 2008)

I was hoping for some tables, but I like the information we did get. I like how they made Halberds extra-interesting.


----------



## kennew142 (May 7, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Ah, thank god for that. I hated with a passion the complexity that was introduced with 3.5.
> 
> Halflings do not warrant an entire category of weapon size specifically for them, especially if they're not a dominant race with there own cities and culture.
> 
> Second dumbest rule in 3.5.




I agree. IMO the way 3.0 (and apparently 4e) handles weapons for small characters is vastly superior to 3.5.


----------



## Shroomy (May 7, 2008)

Weapons, Sneak Attack, and Multi-Classing - There's got to be a nice synergy with the rogue and one of the other martial classes, since sneak attack works with the light blade and crossbow group.  Now, I'm assuming that the short sword is probably close to the top of the light blade group, can you imagine a fighter multiclassing into the rogue using a heavy crossbow to sneak attack!


----------



## Sir Brennen (May 7, 2008)

Makaze said:
			
		

> So what's the disadvantage to reach weapons? .



 No shield. 

 Probably lower damage than a two-handed sword or axe without reach.​


----------



## Makaze (May 7, 2008)

> Who says the halberd will have reach?




I'm simply assuming based on the fact that it's a polearm which traditionally has indicated reach.



> Well, its a two-handed weapon and I bet access is pretty much restricted to the fighter class without feats.




Then (assuming it's overpowered, we honestly don't know yet) it only becomes the defacto weapons for fighters and anyone else serious enough about melee combat to spend feats on it. No brainers suck, even limited scope ones.



> Also, assuming its a reach weapon, you can only inflict opportunity attacks and flank against targets in adjacent squares, so those rules have been modified from 3.5e.




But reach weapons can now attack adjacent squares unlike in 3.5 (well except for the spiked chain which is why it was so broken) which more than makes up for the lack of reach AOOs in my opinion.


----------



## Rechan (May 7, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> In the old 4e articles, they mentioned how weapon had certain properties innately, like hammer using con in some fashion, and swords being faster.



No, I think that is still present - they've talked about that in interviews.

It's just that those properties are integrated into the weapon's stats. A sword is said to give you a +3, while an axe only has like a +1 to attack, but does more damage.


----------



## jaelis (May 7, 2008)

Makaze said:
			
		

> I'm simply assuming based on the fact that it's a polearm which traditionally has indicated reach.



It doesn't in 3e, though.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 7, 2008)

> Pretty underwhelming really. Especially the part about two weapon fighting...




  We'll have to see how hard it is to pick-up two weapon powers. I can't imagine they'd make it overly difficult...

  Still, I could definately see something like a Fighter/Rogue using a longsword in his right hand for Cleaving and Brutal Strikes while using the dagger in his off-hand for stabbing people in the kidneys.


----------



## Rechan (May 7, 2008)

Well, I think this excerpt won't generate a 500+ post thread.

(But this is the internet. It could prove me wrong...)


----------



## Rechan (May 7, 2008)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Still, I could definately see something like a Fighter/Rogue using a longsword in his right hand for Cleaving and Brutal Strikes while using the dagger in his off-hand for stabbing people in the kidneys.



As it should be.


----------



## Shroomy (May 7, 2008)

Makaze said:
			
		

> I'm simply assuming based on the fact that it's a polearm which traditionally has indicated reach.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, I'd assume that their maybe other drawback relative to other weapons (less accurate, maybe no high crit, its two handed, etc.).

BTW, I really like the rules changes to reach weapons; I like the simplicity.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 7, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> As it should be.



Actually you know, this could create a ton of interesting combos. Hell, we could start to see whole assortments of "fighting styles" based around different combinations of main-hand and off-hand weaponry.


----------



## Rechan (May 7, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Actually you know, this could create a ton of interesting combos. Hell, we could start to see whole assortments of "fighting styles" based around different combinations of main-hand and off-hand weaponry.



I seem to recall that in an interview, a guy playing a fighter used a spear and an axe; his opening move was to throw the spear, and then he got into axe-usin'.


----------



## Shroomy (May 7, 2008)

Here's a question that is puzzling me, what weapon group would the whip or spiked chain fall into?  The flail?  That doesn't seem right. Do all weapons fall into weapon groups?


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 7, 2008)

I really like the idea behind the 4E Weapon Groups, but some of the specifics seem poorly thought out. Categories like Light Blade, Heavy Blade, Bow, and Crossbow are good, but many of the others are too specific.

Do we really need Axes, Hammers, Maces, Flails, and Picks all as their own whole category? Most of these weapons are just variants of "heavy weight at the end of a stick", and most are used in very similar ways. Heck, it is pretty hard to tell a proper Warhammer from a Pick in the first place. With that kind of specificity, I am surprised Scythe and Whip aren't their own categories. I could imagine that it should be pretty easy to simplify those categories a little without imbalancing anything.

I think similar things could be said about separating out Staff, Spear, and Polearm... If a shuriken and a rapier are both counted as the same weapon type, then why can't a spear and a glaive both be in the same weapon type?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 7, 2008)

Well, they do say some weapons fit into more then one category, so a warhammer could fit into pick and hammer for instance.


----------



## frankthedm (May 7, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by Makaze
> > So what's the disadvantage to reach weapons? .
> 
> 
> ...



 Two hander may have better weapon properties.  

 Reach players will have functions only on your own turn so no Op Attack as your foe waltzes over to a more squishy party member on it's turn.  

 Reach does not help flank.​
_3.5's_ -2 to hit because of the wrong size was _very_ realistic. A battle ready weapon has to have a certain shape and weight balance to it based on how it is supposed to be wielded. Doubling the size of a shortsword does NOT make an efficient longsword. But since this edition embraces the 'Girderblade' and warhammers with heads larger their wielder's, realisticly modeling properly weighted weapons was not a priority.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 7, 2008)

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> We'll have to see how hard it is to pick-up two weapon powers. I can't imagine they'd make it overly difficult...
> 
> Still, I could definately see something like a Fighter/Rogue using a longsword in his right hand for Cleaving and Brutal Strikes while using the dagger in his off-hand for stabbing people in the kidneys.





That's a good point. Further, that fighter might use his longsword for brutal strike, as he wants big damage and he'll never lose the daily outright. However, when using a rogue's daily, he uses the shortsword, as that extra bonus to hit could make all the difference.


----------



## frankthedm (May 7, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Here's a question that is puzzling me, what weapon group would the whip or spiked chain fall into?  The flail?  That doesn't seem right. Do all weapons fall into weapon groups?



I'd say whip.


----------



## malcolm_n (May 7, 2008)

There just weren't enough letter q's in that article... WTH?

Really though, I found it very nice.  Plenty of tidbits without giving us the chapter.  We could very well pick up weapons from 3.5 now and piecemeal them together for 4e... In fact *scurries off to do just that*


----------



## Darth Cyric (May 7, 2008)

There seems to be a very fine line between TWF being the be-all, end-all (2nd Edition) and being utter crap (3rd Edition). Hopefully, once we know all about 4e in a month, it will land right on the line.


----------



## Shroomy (May 7, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I'd say whip.




I would too, but its not on the list of weapon groups.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 7, 2008)

Perhaps combination as well? Hmm... Flail/Unarmed for Whip (flail for the range and tripping, etc, and unarmed for quickness and non-lethal damage)? I dunno...


----------



## Serendipity (May 7, 2008)

Yet another of a string of fairly (by comparison) lackluster previews.  Nonetheless, I'm pretty happy about the lack of unnecessary complexity re: weapon rules.  
I dig it.


----------



## MindWanderer (May 7, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's still a Halfling Longsword, it's just the same crunch as a shortsword.



Not quite: a halfling can sneak attack with a shortsword, but a human can't sneak attack with a longsword.


			
				jaelis said:
			
		

> Who says the halberd will have reach?



The Human Guard from Escape from Sembia does.


----------



## drjones (May 7, 2008)

I also would have liked to see a sample weapon or two (if only to hear the screams of 'OMG my favorite/least favorite weapon is so obviously limited/overpowered even though I have not see any other weapons to compare it to WAY TO GO WOTC!!!')

But I still like the crunch, weapon classes are a great way to have an expandable weapon list without making old feats & powers irrelevant.  I alway s felt unenthused by chosing a weapon in 3.5 because there seemed to be a few 'good ones' and no particular benefit/texture to using anything else so I hope this system adds more depth, so far it is promising.

 Lots of interesting combinations possible with the different keywords.  I am already thinking of a light thrown dagger thief.  A very iconic type of thief to my mind but one that I could not make satisfactorily awesome in the past.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 7, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Here's a question that is puzzling me, what weapon group would the whip or spiked chain fall into?  The flail?  That doesn't seem right. Do all weapons fall into weapon groups?




The munchkiny, silly group?

Im sorry, I just hate spiked chains... I am normally not bothered about unrealistic fantastic stuff in my games (no one could accuse me of being overly simulationist), but to me, spiked chains just seem... wrong

...and the new picture definitely didn't change my mind about them


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 7, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> There seems to be a very fine line between TWF being the be-all, end-all (2nd Edition) and being utter crap (3rd Edition). Hopefully, once we know all about 4e in a month, it will land right on the line.




Lets pray it is so, my brother...

If the 4th edition design team managed to balance the sword&board, two-hander and two-weapon fighting styles in such a way that all three are viable and interesting options for melee characters, I swear I will paint myself Gleemax green and sing the praises of WotC at the next convention I go to...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 7, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> Lots of interesting combinations possible with the different keywords.  I am already thinking of a light thrown dagger thief.  A very iconic type of thief to my mind but one that I could not make satisfactorily awesome in the past.



Depending on what powers you pick, this could be even more affective with multiclassing as a Ranger, so your thrown daggers can use Ranger powers you pick. Or even just being a full-blown Ranger with Rogue multiclassing.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 7, 2008)

Anyone else catch the picture of the dire flail?


----------



## Rechan (May 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Anyone else catch the picture of the dire flail?



I honestly thought that was the new spiked chain.


----------



## bjorn2bwild (May 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Anyone else catch the picture of the dire flail?




looks more like a spiked chain to me.   

_edit: bah!  ninja'd!_


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (May 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Anyone else catch the picture of the dire flail?




I thought it was a spiked chain.

If that's the standard of the weapon illustrations in the PHB I'll be happy.


----------



## drjones (May 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Anyone else catch the picture of the dire flail?



I thought that might be the spiked chain.  Looks ridiculous enough, and compared to this it is actually restrained.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 7, 2008)

I am not very happy with this preview. I was excited by Paragon Paths and Tiers of Play, slightly positive on Multiclassing and neutral on races and racial feats. This preview, however, has me so disappointed that it's bordering on disguist. I doubt it would be enough to turn me off of 4e completely, but I found myself aghast at just about everything I read in that article.

* Two-Weapon Fighting is incredibly lame. I was afriad they were going to do it like this. So now, if you want to truly be able to fight with two weapons, you have to "multiclass" as a Ranger, which I think is extremely stupid. Great job, WotC, taking something that 3e made work pretty well and bringing us back to the contrived rigidity of older editions.

* Only light weapons can ever be used in the off-hand. The whole light-weapon for the off-hand thing has gone from being a way to reduce TWF penalties to an absolute requirement. So a character can't even dual wield longswords anymore? Thanks WotC, for not letting my fantasy hero do what can easily be done in real life (not to mention fantasy literature).

* Small characters can't use two-handed weapons. Um, what? Don't get me wrong, I was never a fan of the whole small version of every weapon thing in 3.5, but at least it made some sense. This, on the other hand, is just ridiculous. Thanks, WotC, for punishing small characters for being small, and for doing so in a way that doesn't even make sense.

* High crit weapons have a ridiculous advantage over other weapons, especially at higher levels. Thanks, WotC, I never thought I'd find myself wishing to have the 3e crit rules back.

* Light thrown vs heavy thrown. Why? Why not just have all thrown weapons use Dex for attack and Str for damage?

* Lack of proficiency doesn't give a penalty. Apparently, we don't believe in penalties in this game, instead, we just put people at a disadvantage by denying them bonuses. It ends up being the same difference, but you feel better about yourself when you don't have a minus on something. *sigh*

[edit] Oh, and versatile weapons? Weak. a *whopping* +1 damage is not in any way, shape or form worth giving up the protection of a shield.


----------



## Andor (May 7, 2008)

Observations: 

Unarmed is apparently both an improvised weapon and it's own group. Make up your mind guys...

Reach weapon rules are much improved. I like it.

Two weapon fighting... remains to be seen.

The versatile property seems gimpy. A whole +1 damage? Be still my beating heart.

The weapon groups are a useful idea, but I agree than some of the categories seem arbitrarily narrow. A mace, a hammer and a pick are all very similar in shape and usage. 

The new Spiked Chain is... not exactly a well designed weapon, but it's far less egregiously stupid than the 3e spiked chain. You could imagine a master of, say, Kalarippayatt using one.

I'm surprised to see a Katar in the lineup.

I'm not sure what the weapon in the upper left is supposed to be but it looks a damm sight like the ones the elves were using in the last alliance battle in the LotR movies.

There seems to be no non-proficiency penalty, the philosophy being instead that you reward skill rather than punishing ignorance. If the proficiency bonus is too minor I suspect we'll see a lot of non-fighters wielding the exotic weapon-de-jour.

I wonder if the weapon sizes aren't over simplified. For example it seems that we now only effectively only have the small, medium and large weapon catergories, now renamed to small, one handed, and two handed. This leaves open the question of what creatures outside the small and medium size categories use. Pixies? Giants? Are there no more shrinking or enlarging powers? Just how dumbed down is this game? :\


----------



## Edwin_Su (May 7, 2008)

wel for the spike chain i woeld think the flail group
especialy if you look at the art in the article 
and how difrent the spike chain looks compared to the old art 
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG119_WEB.jpg

it now looks more like 2 flails conected with a chain instrad of the strange contraption it was in 3.5


----------



## Kzach (May 7, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> There seems to be a very fine line between TWF being the be-all, end-all (2nd Edition) and being utter crap (3rd Edition). Hopefully, once we know all about 4e in a month, it will land right on the line.



Really?

I played AD&D 1e/2e for years and never once came to the conclusion that TWF was the be-all and end all.

I also thought 3.x had an elegant and simple solution and mechanic for it.

Care to explain what you mean


----------



## Gort (May 7, 2008)

Two-weapon fighting certainly wasn't crap in 3rd ed if you were a rogue.

Edit: Or took that dervish prestige class, man that was broken.


----------



## Sojorn (May 7, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Unarmed is apparently both an improvised weapon and it's own group. Make up your mind guys...



In the same way a longsword is both a military weapon and a heavy blade.

One is category, the other is group.


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I am not very happy with this preview. I was excited by Paragon Paths and Tiers of Play, slightly positive on Multiclassing and neutral on races and racial feats. This preview, however, has me so disappointed that it's bordering on disguist. I doubt it would be enough to turn me off of 4e completely, but I found myself aghast at just about everything I read in that article.
> 
> * Two-Weapon Fighting is incredibly lame. I was afriad they were going to do it like this. So now, if you want to truly be able to fight with two weapons, you have to "multiclass" as a Ranger, which I think is extremely stupid. Great job, WotC, taking something that 3e made work pretty well and bringing us back to the contrived rigidity of older editions.



Fair enough.


			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> * Only light weapons can ever be used in the off-hand. The whole light-weapon for the off-hand thing has gone from being a way to reduce TWF penalties to an absolute requirement. So a character can't even dual wield longswords anymore? Thanks WotC, for not letting my fantasy hero do what can easily be done in real life (not to mention fantasy literature).



I guess it's part of the whole "no suboptimal choices thing".


			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> * Small characters can't use two-handed weapons. Um, what? Don't get me wrong, I was never a fan of the whole small version of every weapon thing in 3.5, but at least it made some sense. This, on the other hand, is just ridiculous. Thanks, WotC, for punishing small characters for being small, and for doing so in a way that doesn't even make sense.



Pff, small characters do 1 die type smaller damage, like they always have. The details are just details.


			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> * High crit weapons have a ridiculous advantage over other weapons, especially at higher levels. Thanks, WotC, I never thought I'd find myself wishing to have the 3e crit rules back.



I'm amused that you're saying this is overpowered, and Torchlyte in another thread is saying the feat which does a similar thing is an utter waster of time. 

It's about an extra 1 point of damage per hit, per tier, not exactly a "ridiculous advantage".


			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> * Light thrown vs heavy thrown. Why? Why not just have all thrown weapons use Dex for attack and Str for damage?



Because out of every attack we've seen, all except one have the same stat for attack and damage?


			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> * Lack of proficiency doesn't give a penalty. Apparently, we don't believe in penalties in this game, instead, we just put people at a disadvantage by denying them bonuses. It ends up being the same difference, but you feel better about yourself when you don't have a minus on something. *sigh*



I actually like the way it gives weapons a bonus over magic and unarmed attacks, but hey, whatever.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 7, 2008)

Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.

Give me a break. This is the worst rule in 4e so far.


----------



## Khaalis (May 7, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Unarmed is apparently both an improvised weapon and it's own group. Make up your mind guys...



I am willing to bet the difference is that anyone can punch something. however, only someone with the correct training has unarmed attacks that are considered truly "weapons".



> The versatile property seems gimpy. A whole +1 damage? Be still my beating heart.



Remember that the damage scale is very different in 4E than 3E. From everything I have seen a +1 damage is much more significant in 4E than it was in 3E.



> The weapon groups are a useful idea, but I agree than some of the categories seem arbitrarily narrow. A mace, a hammer and a pick are all very similar in shape and usage.



On the surface I would tend to agree. However, we have no idea what kinds of Feats and Powers there are that trigger off these weapons. In a detailed review, a Pick is very different from a hammer in what it is capable of doing, if nothing else simply in the types of damage (bludgeoning vs. piercing). I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that the feats and powers relating to these groups will make the distinction between them become much more clear.



> The new Spiked Chain is... not exactly a well designed weapon, but it's far less egregiously stupid than the 3e spiked chain.



Actually, there are a lot of real world Chain Weapons that are very similar. Basically look at any of the "Flexible / Soft Weapons" used in Chinese Martial Arts.



> I'm surprised to see a Katar in the lineup.



OOC - why?  They were in 3E too (see "Punching Dagger").



> I'm not sure what the weapon in the upper left is supposed to be but it looks a damm sight like the ones the elves were using in the last alliance battle in the LotR movies.



Upper Right?  It looks like some fantasy form of a Two-Handed Turkish Scimitar.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 7, 2008)

Actually I like this, since well first there will be powers that allow two attacks. Also by having two different weapons you can pull off different powers with each, and different affects based on what the weapon is.

Now there is a actual difference between using a dagger or a hand axe in your off-hand.

I personally can't wait to use a stunning-blow with a hammer, then move, use a action point to then use a sneak attack and another power that builds off that with a dagger in my off-hand.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 7, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Do we really need Axes, Hammers, Maces, Flails, and Picks all as their own whole category? Most of these weapons are just variants of "heavy weight at the end of a stick", and most are used in very similar ways. Heck, it is pretty hard to tell a proper Warhammer from a Pick in the first place. With that kind of specificity, I am surprised Scythe and Whip aren't their own categories.



The "common" way of looking at these weapons(which may or may not be actually correct in reality) is different.  The way the "average" person thinks of these weapons is as follows:

Axes are weapons designed to be heavy and cut things.  They have a large striking surface, so they do a lot of damage.  They chop off limbs and pierce deep into someone when they hit.

Hammers are heavy, but they are blunt.  They stun people and knock them around.

Maces are light and blunt.  They don't have the massive hitting power to knock people around.  They are used by clerics or other people without military training.

Flails have chains so they can be used to wrap around things, disarm, and trip.

Picks are piercing, but low damaging.  They have a small striking surface but they pierce extra deep.

They are categories by their game effects.  In the case of Whip and Scythe, you simply need to see what gave effect the average person expects them to have(hint, flail and axe).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 7, 2008)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> Upper Right?  It looks like some fantasy form of a Two-Handed Turkish Scimitar.



It be interesting if perhaps that was the Heavy Blade Scimitar and there is another Light Blade Scimitar (or call it a Saif).


----------



## Ximenes088 (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.



Two attacks at a penalty as a basic attack screws with the hit math. It gives fighters de-facto two-weapon combat skills, since their basic attack is very good, being Strength-based, and makes two-weapon combat much more attractive for ensuring hits- and the ensuing marking- than any single-weapon combat. You know all those OAs fighters get to make? The ones that force you to make a basic attack? Now make each of them twice. The to-hit or damage penalty would have to be enormous for it not to be an overwhelmingly superior choice over a two-hander.

Now let's add in conditional targeting determinations each round. You pick your first target, roll to hit, determine damage, and if you drop them you have to then decide on a secondary target, roll to hit, and determine damage. You've basically doubled your round's time-to-complete. That's all right as an encounter power, but on every single round? Even a wizard's AoE effects only require him to make one decision- who he's targeting.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> ISo a character can't even dual wield longswords anymore? Thanks WotC, for not letting my fantasy hero do what can easily be done in real life



ROFL


----------



## Darth Cyric (May 7, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> I played AD&D 1e/2e for years and never once came to the conclusion that TWF was the be-all and end all.



How is one full attack per round in 2e NOT the be-all, end-all? Remember that in 2e, there weren't bonuses to damage for wielding weapons two-handed. Two-handed weapons only did an extra die-level's worth of damage, and that wasn't nearly enough to offset the advantage you get from a second weapon. Also, unlike 3e, extra attacks came at a premium in 2e.

Plus, there was the fact that to dual-wield effectively, you only needed a high DEX (or be a Ranger). No feats, no sacrificing character development resources. If your DEX score was an 18, you dual-wielded. PERIOD.



> I also thought 3.x had an elegant and simple solution and mechanic for it.



I dare you to go over to the Character Op boards at WOTC and say that. Seriously.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 7, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> I guess it's part of the whole "no suboptimal choices thing".




This baffles me. You say this as though TWF *must* be a suboptimal choice. It doesn't have to be. 

You want to know what's suboptimal? For a non-Ranger (without ranger MC feats) to fight with two-weapons in 4e. You give up the protection of a shield and the damage of two-handed weapons ... for what? The ability to choose which one you attack with. With no damage reduction in this edition, there isn't even a point in doing that anymore.



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> I'm amused that you're saying this is overpowered, and Torchlyte in another thread is saying the feat which does a similar thing is an utter waster of time.
> 
> It's about an extra 1 point of damage per hit, per tier, not exactly a "ridiculous advantage".




That's some interesting math you have there, but whatever. They justified the new crit rules (you just do max damage, no doubling) because the old way was "too swingy." How are these high crit weapons not "too swingy?"



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Because out of every attack we've seen, all except one have the same stat for attack and damage?




I've never liked that either. But I'm one of those crazy people that actually thinks MAD is a good thing.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 7, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> ROFL




Replying to someone with nothing more than laughter leaves the obvious impression that you are mocking them. Not only is that extremely rude, it adds nothing to the conversation.


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> * Only light weapons can ever be used in the off-hand. The whole light-weapon for the off-hand thing has gone from being a way to reduce TWF penalties to an absolute requirement. So a character can't even dual wield longswords anymore? Thanks WotC, for not letting my fantasy hero do what can easily be done in real life (not to mention fantasy literature).



I'm a bit more optimistic. I see the potential for a feat that allows normal one-handed weapons to be used in the off hand. I'm not sure about the "easily" done in real life, though - I've handled the long sword that my brother uses in his sword fighting classes and I think I'd have serious trouble fighting with one in each hand. To be fair, it's probably closer to a bastard sword in D&D terms, though.



> * Small characters can't use two-handed weapons. Um, what? Don't get me wrong, I was never a fan of the whole small version of every weapon thing in 3.5, but at least it made some sense. This, on the other hand, is just ridiculous. Thanks, WotC, for punishing small characters for being small, and for doing so in a way that doesn't even make sense.



Yeah, Small characters can't use a greatsword, just like in 3.5e. They can use a Versatile one-handed weapon in two hands, though. 



> * High crit weapons have a ridiculous advantage over other weapons, especially at higher levels. Thanks, WotC, I never thought I'd find myself wishing to have the 3e crit rules back.



It's an advantage that crops up 5% of the time, and it's possibly balanced by lower average damage (compared to a non-high crit weapon) the rest of the time. It swingier, definitely, but I'm not sure that the advantage is that significant.



> * Light thrown vs heavy thrown. Why? Why not just have all thrown weapons use Dex for attack and Str for damage?



I guess the idea is that the some weapons rely more on finesse and precision, while others rely more on battering through defences.



> * Lack of proficiency doesn't give a penalty. Apparently, we don't believe in penalties in this game, instead, we just put people at a disadvantage by denying them bonuses. It ends up being the same difference, but you feel better about yourself when you don't have a minus on something. *sigh*



Giving a bonus also adds an extra variable to differentiate weapons. You can have more accurate but less damaging weapons, or balance a property by reducing the weapon's proficiency bonus.



> [edit] Oh, and versatile weapons? Weak. a *whopping* +1 damage is not in any way, shape or form worth giving up the protection of a shield.



Well, I personally would not give up a shield just for an additional +1 bonus to damage, but there may be powers and other abilities that key off versatile weapons that might make them worthwhile.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 7, 2008)

The good:

-No double weapons, at least from what we've seen so far.  I never liked those.
-I like the designation between two types of throwing weapons.  A lot.  A *lot*.

The bad:

-Remarkably short blurb that...well, doesn't tell us a lot.
-I dislike that it seems "DUAL WIELD IS FOR RANGERS ONLY."

The not THAT bad looking in between:

-"Superior?"  I'd much rather this be "exotic."  Plus, I'm going to be considerably unamused if we see things like katanas in here that are labeled as "superior" for no reason other then "Dude, did you watch that samurai movie?  Kickin' rad."
-I'm torn on the light weapons only for offhand.  I can see why they would do it, and it certainly makes sense, but I would still much perfer people be ALLOWED to off-hand a weapon and merely take a big disability with it.


----------



## Darth Cyric (May 7, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Unarmed is apparently both an improvised weapon and it's own group. Make up your mind guys...



Improvised weapon = weapon *category*.

Unarmed = weapon *group*.

There is a difference.



> There seems to be no non-proficiency penalty, the philosophy being instead that you reward skill rather than punishing ignorance. If the proficiency bonus is too minor I suspect we'll see a lot of non-fighters wielding the exotic weapon-de-jour.



Considering that everyone's default "BAB", if you will, is that of a 3.x Wizard, I can see the reason for this. Weapons typically attack AC, which will typically be the highest defense of any given enemy. Proficiency bonuses in 4e mean that you're on your way to attacking AC as reliably as someone may attack a Fortitude, Reflex, or Will defense with a spell.


----------



## Darth Cyric (May 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> -I'm torn on the light weapons only for offhand.  I can see why they would do it, and it certainly makes sense, but I would still much perfer people be ALLOWED to off-hand a weapon and merely take a big disability with it.



A feat may allow you to take a larger weapon in the off-hand. If not, it's easy enough to draft such a feat for house rules. This would make sense, as it would be more difficult to wield two longswords than the more common longsword/dagger.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 7, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Two attacks at a penalty as a basic attack screws with the hit math. It gives fighters de-facto two-weapon combat skills, since their basic attack is very good, being Strength-based, and makes two-weapon combat much more attractive for ensuring hits- and the ensuing marking- than any single-weapon combat.




If you're getting, say, a -4 penalty on both attacks, it isn't always a better option. You're less likely to hit with each attack, but you get two tries. Soemtimes it will be better, sometimes it will be worse.



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> You know all those OAs fighters get to make? The ones that force you to make a basic attack? Now make each of them twice. The to-hit or damage penalty would have to be enormous for it not to be an overwhelmingly superior choice over a two-hander.




TWF couldn't be used with opportunity attacks in 3e; there's no reason to assume they would work with OA in 4e. That certainly wasn't my intent.



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Now let's add in conditional targeting determinations each round. You pick your first target, roll to hit, determine damage, and if you drop them you have to then decide on a secondary target, roll to hit, and determine damage. You've basically doubled your round's time-to-complete. That's all right as an encounter power, but on every single round? Even a wizard's AoE effects only require him to make one decision- who he's targeting.




And yet the rules in 4e require you to roll to attack each and every target seperately. That takes time. Alot of time.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 7, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> A feat may allow you to take a larger weapon in the off-hand. If not, it's easy enough to draft such a feat for house rules. This would make sense, as it would be more difficult to wield two longswords than the more common longsword/dagger.



We could also see feats that add certain benefits to TWF, say... Attack with off-hand base-attack when you are attacked on OA, or gain so much reflex to defence.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.
> 
> Give me a break. This is the worst rule in 4e so far.



Why should anyone wielding two weapons automatically get two attacks per turn?


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 7, 2008)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. That statement made me laugh out loud, the thought of seeing someone try to effectively wield 2 longswords (as in the real rather than DnD definition); I could see in my mind the long blades clattering together 
So that was what I was laughing at, not you nor the possibility of using 2 one handed swords effectively (I wouldn't know if that were possible, are there any cultures known for using that?) but an image which jumped in my head. I should have stated but was l short on typing time


----------



## FadedC (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> That's some interesting math you have there, but whatever. They justified the new crit rules (you just do max damage, no doubling) because the old way was "too swingy." How are these high crit weapons not "too swingy?"




A high crit weapon that does d8 damage will do an average of 4.5 extra damage on a crit. That means every attack will do 4.5/20 extra damage or in this cases .22 extra damage on heroic or .66 at epic. That's rather underwhelming.

As for swingy, at epic level your crit will hit for an average of 13.5 extra damage to a target that often has over 400 hit points. Ooh swingy.


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.



I think the key issue is damage scaling. The damage from your wizard attack isn't going to scale very much as you go up in levels. Now, I'm not sure what magic weapons will look like, but if you get weapons that add significantly to damage, then that additional +1d6 damage for a second weapon that you get at 1st level is going to escalate at higher levels, perhaps by so much that the attack roll penalty looks paltry in comparison. 

The balance issues will be clearer in a month, when the books are released.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 7, 2008)

Somewhat random... But I would love to see the Urumi as a weapon that counts for both Light Blade and Whip (if there is one, if whip goes into flail then flail).


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 7, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> I thought it was a spiked chain.
> 
> If that's the standard of the weapon illustrations in the PHB I'll be happy.



Personally, I'm extremely displeased that they're still using Wayne England for this sort of thing. I sincerely hope he's not illustrating anything in the _Monster Manual_ - I'm sick of his full-face reptilian creatures advancing towards the viewer, which is about all he seems capable of drawing (whether the monster is supposed to be reptilian or not).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 7, 2008)

+1 Damage from versatile weapons is about the same bonus as using a longsword instead of a short sword in 3.5.

No big bonus, but stillit can make the difference between 0 and 2 hp left after two hits.

TWF: I think the idea of using the dagger to stab and a longsword as opportuity attack weapon seems ok for some builds.
We don´t know about powers which let you take advantage from an offhand weapon. (AC bonus, extra attacks, enounter powers)
I would maybe allow you to get a feat to use a minor action to make a basic attack with the offhand when you successfully hit with the main hand... or after you were missed in melee...

Using two weapons of the same size in mainhand and offhand could easily be a ranger feature... which has some tradition...


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> This baffles me. You say this as though TWF *must* be a suboptimal choice. It doesn't have to be.



I was refering to fighting with two longswords, which is possible, but incredibly suboptimal in 3.x. I don't say this much, but making it "impossible" is actually very videogamy, I see the point, but I'm not sure how I feel about it.


			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> You want to know what's suboptimal? For a non-Ranger (without ranger MC feats) to fight with two-weapons in 4e. You give up the protection of a shield and the damage of two-handed weapons ... for what? The ability to choose which one you attack with. With no damage reduction in this edition, there isn't even a point in doing that anymore.



Probably, yes. 


			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> That's some interesting math you have there, but whatever. They justified the new crit rules (you just do max damage, no doubling) because the old way was "too swingy." How are these high crit weapons not "too swingy?"



All math is interesting .

More seriously, going from "1d10+5" to "15+1d10" is only double, that doesn't even come close to 3.x scythes, or the possible silly builds which went higher. It's about making bonuses flat as opposed to innately scaling. Surely it's obvious how this results in less crazy corner cases?


			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I've never liked that either. But I'm one of those crazy people that actually thinks MAD is a good thing.



I just meant to point out that there is a rationale behind it . I'm going to try to not get into conversations about how _good_ a rational it is, or indeed any similar conversation about MAD untill I see how stat generation works, specifically about how stat gain from levels works.


----------



## Cirex (May 7, 2008)

> You can’t use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon




There goes the old [inside] joke of using power attack with a bow or a crossbow.


I remember reading that lances pushed the opponent and stuff like that. I was hoping for more information on that.


----------



## Rechan (May 7, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Somewhat random... But I would love to see the Urumi as a weapon that counts for both Light Blade and Whip (if there is one, if whip goes into flail then flail).



Hmm. Interesting. Though I was also thinking of a whip-sword (like the fellow in _Brotherhood of the Wolf_ wielded). 

I also like the Kusarigama.


----------



## Ximenes088 (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> If you're getting, say, a -4 penalty on both attacks, it isn't always a better option. You're less likely to hit with each attack, but you get two tries. Soemtimes it will be better, sometimes it will be worse.



Given that 4e normalizes equal-level enemies at about 50% chance of hitting for any given swing, it will always be better unless you're swinging at an enemy you have a low chance of hitting normally. Here's the table you use to decide, if it's -4 to each dual-attack roll:

Roll Needed
16+   25% hit with one weapon, 10% hit with two.
15+   30% hit with one weapon, 19% hit with two
14+   35% hit with one weapon, 28% hit with two.
13+   40% hit with one weapon, 43% hit with two.

Therefore, if you hit on a 13+, you always use two weapons, if the penalty is -4. There's no cunning decision involved, you just compare your hit roll and choose.



> TWF couldn't be used with opportunity attacks in 3e; there's no reason to assume they would work with OA in 4e. That certainly wasn't my intent.



Then it's not a basic attack. Sure, you can create "Attack with two weapons" as a special sort of action, but that layers on more complications- all in service of taking away a two-weapon ranger's unique talents.



> And yet the rules in 4e require you to roll to attack each and every target seperately. That takes time. Alot of time.



Not in my experience. The real time cost comes in the decision of which power to use and where to direct it. The mechanical action of rolling a die and comparing it to an AC is comparatively trivial, especially against a homogenous group of enemies.

Ultimately, two-weapon fighting is balanced as a ranger shtick. No non-ranger will or should be capable of using two weapons as effectively. Anyone can carry two weapons around and choose which to use for their attack with impunity- there doesn't seem to be any attack penalty attached to it. If you want to get two-weapon goodness, you should be obliged to invest in a class that specializes in it- and in core so far, that's the ranger. If your character's concept is "I fight with two weapons" then you are a ranger. Want heavy armor? Buy the proficiency. Want to be a defender? Well, too bad. You don't get a Striker's level of offensive prowess and still get to fill a defender's role.


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Why should anyone wielding two weapons automatically get two attacks per turn?



You might not necessarily get two attacks per turn, but I think there should be some advantage to fighting with two weapons because you're giving up a shield.

Right now, there seem to be clear advantages for the sword and board style (AC bonus) and the two-handed style (more damage). One possibility is to allow the two-weapon style to make a single attack using the best characteristics of the weapons he is using, e.g. use the better weapon's proficiency bonus, the better weapon's damage dice, and the attack gains the high crit property if at least one of the weapons he is using has it. However, this would be trivially easy to min-max (pairing an accurate weapon with a high-damage weapon, for example) and doesn't seem to give any advantage to paired weapons (or maybe paired weapons get a flat +1 to hit and damage rolls).


----------



## Rechan (May 7, 2008)

I was wrong. This MIGHT end up 500+ posts.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 7, 2008)

Regarding weapon sizes for small characters:

This solution is better. The way 3.5 handled it was more realistic, but it was very inconvenient to create appropriate treasure for all members of a mixed party.
I always allowed to rework the grip to make a small longsword from a shortsword (yes i know that the weapon would become a bit unbalanced...)


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I'm a bit more optimistic. I see the potential for a feat that allows normal one-handed weapons to be used in the off hand.




True, I suppose that wouldn't be too bad. But without two attacks for TWF, it really isn't worth it unless you're a ranger. I don't like it when basic fighting options are specific class powers.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about the "easily" done in real life, though - I've handled the long sword that my brother uses in his sword fighting classes and I think I'd have serious trouble fighting with one in each hand. To be fair, it's probably closer to a bastard sword in D&D terms, though.




An actual medieval broadsword would be more like a D&D bastard sword. A "longsword", as it is described, is much smaller. I have a sword like that hanging in my room, and it seems pretty easy to me to use. I don't think it would be very hard to use two at once. Anakin Skywalker used two lightsabers in the movie. Yeah, I know, it's a movie, but they did physically play out those scenes, with training and direction from professional sword fighters.

I shouldn't have used the word "easy," of course. I simply meant that, just as they admit anyone can pick up and swing a sword, anyone can pick up and swing two swords. It will obviously give penalties, but it can be done. And if it can be done at all by a normal person in real life, a fantasy hero should be able to do it with ease.



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Why should anyone wielding two weapons automatically get two attacks per turn?




Because someone wielding a weapon in each hand can (usually) strike with both in about the same amount of time that a person holding one weapon can. If you don't believe me, go pick up and hold two kitchen knives, and then tell me why you are somehow unable to stab with both of them at the same time.


----------



## Ximenes088 (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> You might not necessarily get two attacks per turn, but I think there should be some advantage to fighting with two weapons because you're giving up a shield.



Not for rogues, archery rangers, wizards, or warlocks, unless they've got shield proficiencies I haven't noticed. If you don't have shield proficiency, then adding some intrinsic benefit to dual-wielding makes it a no-brainer choice for a class to wield two weapons.


----------



## Destil (May 7, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Well, its a two-handed weapon and I bet access is pretty much restricted to the fighter class without feats.



I'm fairly certain we had a cleric using one in one of the first previews, the one about the red dragon. . .


----------



## Stalker0 (May 7, 2008)

I am VERY happy for the decision to make thrown weapons into two categories.

The reason? Because thrown weapons in 3.5 blew chunks.

Why would a fighter ever use a weapon where his to hit was determined by his dex, and give up his big strength? There's a reason the "power throw" feat was invented.

With this version thrown weapons are much more useful. Because you get the double bang for your buck from either a high strength or high dex.


----------



## Rechan (May 7, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> I remember reading that lances pushed the opponent and stuff like that. I was hoping for more information on that.



From the Paragon Paths article:

Paragon feat
Spear Push 	Str 15, Dex 13 	Add 1 square to distance pushed with spear or polearm.

Polearms and spears push. A lance is probably qualified as 'spear'.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 7, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Not for rogues, archery rangers, wizards, or warlocks, unless they've got shield proficiencies I haven't noticed.




All of those you mention have a different advantage - range.



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> If you don't have shield proficiency, then adding some intrinsic benefit to dual-wielding makes it a no-brainer choice for a class to wield two weapons.




Not when it incurs penalties.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 7, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The "common" way of looking at these weapons(which may or may not be actually correct in reality) is different.  The way the "average" person thinks of these weapons is as follows:
> 
> Axes are weapons designed to be heavy and cut things.  They have a large striking surface, so they do a lot of damage.  They chop off limbs and pierce deep into someone when they hit.
> 
> ...



I don't really agree with this logic... First, you really need to split hairs in order to create these definitions. Second, I don't agree that they are necessarily "common" conceptions.

First, I do agree that the flail deserves to be something different, simply because it has a chain. Actually, I would almost prefer it if it were the 'Whip" or "Chain" category, and flails in particular used both "Mace" and "Chain" as its group. At the very least, I would prefer to describe an videogame-style Snake Sword as a Light Blade/Chain rather than a Light Blade/Flail...

Getting to my main point... Even in your distinction, the difference between Maces and Hammers is neither logical or consistent. Why should hammers be "heavy" and maces be "light" when normal nail-hitting hammers are common and lightweight and maces can often be very heavy and large? Further, why should weight be the distinguishing factor for hammers and maces when axes can easily vary from small throwing axes to very heavy great-axes?

Another question is why should maces, picks, and axes be differentiated based on the kind of damage they inflict, when rapiers, knives, and broadswords all count as "Blades" even though their specific use and method of inflicting harm can vary so widely?

Fundamentally, warhammers, military picks, and maces all share the same combat function: ripping apart or punching through armor. I really don't quite see why they would need to be differentiated on a mechanical level. I can possibly see axes being used in a different manner, but I don't see why you would use different powers depending on whether you were using a mace or a hammer.

As I said before, I really like the idea of weapon groups and how they are going to be used in 4E, but this implementation just seems a bit clunky, even to a guy like me whose main familiarity with different kinds of weapon comes mostly from videogames.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 7, 2008)

In real life, you wouldn't be able to use two weapons unless they were BOTH short, unless you had proper training.  If you haven't had any teaching or training, trying to use two weapons, both short, is difficult, and trying to do it with one long is near impossible.  Trying to do it with _both_ long makes you a bigger danger to yourself then your enemy.

That said, everything about 4e has been meant to show even level one adventurers as being incredibly more powerful then random peasants, so I'd assume the more martial based classes have had enough training to at least be able to hold a weapon in the other hand and not kill themselves with it.  However, giving NO bonus for it seems a bit on the dumb side.  Allow characters with a light weapon in the offhand but no power to at least get a bonus to attacks of opportunity, or something like that - show that, while they very much have an offhand, it's not just waving around uselessly.


----------



## thalmin (May 7, 2008)

I keep reading "only the ranger gets TWF" from various posts, but I have seen nothing in a WotC release that gave me that impression. Has WotC said that, or are we basing this supposition on the lack of seeing a TWF feat or power choice for any any other class. We have only seen a handful of feats, so it might be early to jump to such a conclusion.


----------



## Darth Cyric (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Because someone wielding a weapon in each hand can (usually) strike with both in about the same amount of time that a person holding one weapon can. If you don't believe me, go pick up and hold two kitchen knives, and then tell me why you are somehow unable to stab with both of them at the same time.



I'm sorry, but this is just wrong, as anyone who has any sort of experience with swordsmanship will tell you.

Two weapons does NOT allow you to attack faster or more times per round in a typical fight than someone with one weapon. What two weapons CAN do, however, is give you more options on offense and defense, cross-parries, attacks against two different parts of the body at once, etc.

Florentine fencing (rapier/dagger) uses the dagger almost entirely for defense. Any actual attacks with the dagger are when locked in close quarters, and only when the opportunity presents itself.


----------



## FadedC (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> An actual medieval broadsword would be more like a D&D bastard sword. A "longsword", as it is described, is much smaller. I have a sword like that hanging in my room, and it seems pretty easy to me to use. I don't think it would be very hard to use two at once. Anakin Skywalker used two lightsabers in the movie. Yeah, I know, it's a movie, but they did physically play out those scenes, with training and direction from professional sword fighters.
> 
> I shouldn't have used the word "easy," of course. I simply meant that, just as they admit anyone can pick up and swing a sword, anyone can pick up and swing two swords. It will obviously give penalties, but it can be done. And if it can be done at all by a normal person in real life, a fantasy hero should be able to do it with ease.




Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 7, 2008)

Side note - while the weapon groups kinda makes sense, I think there's going to be trouble with the light and heavy blades.  There's no way you'd ever use a rapier like you would almost any other weapon.  And a Zweihander, forgive the lack of happy face above that a, is a very different animal to handle then a simple longsword.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 7, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm extremely displeased that they're still using Wayne England for this sort of thing. I sincerely hope he's not illustrating anything in the _Monster Manual_ - I'm sick of his full-face reptilian creatures advancing towards the viewer, which is about all he seems capable of drawing (whether the monster is supposed to be reptilian or not).



Well, I don't like his art very much as well, but I think _flat_ objects, like most weapons, ARE something he can draw. And not too badly (though I don't like the big knobs he always has to incorporate).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Cirex (May 7, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> From the Paragon Paths article:
> 
> Paragon feat
> Spear Push 	Str 15, Dex 13 	Add 1 square to distance pushed with spear or polearm.
> ...




Ah, missed that, thanks!

By the way, there are no double weapons at the PHB...but at the art image there is a double weapon.


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Not for rogues, archery rangers, wizards, or warlocks, unless they've got shield proficiencies I haven't noticed. If you don't have shield proficiency, then adding some intrinsic benefit to dual-wielding makes it a no-brainer choice for a class to wield two weapons.



Good point. Perhaps the ability to mix-and-match could be the benefit of a Two-Weapon Flexibility feat or something.


----------



## drjones (May 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The good:
> -I dislike that it seems "DUAL WIELD IS FOR RANGERS ONLY."



I am not getting this from what I have read but I see it being repeated here as fact.  Why should we assume that because rangers have access to powers which make TWF more effective that a thief or fighter can't take feats that improve TWF as well?  I think the likelihood that upon release it is not possible to make a great twf thief is diminishingly small.

If nothing else it seems to me that a lucky fellow with two magic daggers or magic wands can trigger both of their encounter effects in a fight without any feat expenditure or accuracy hit.  Sounds like a nice deal to me.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Because someone wielding a weapon in each hand can (usually) strike with both in about the same amount of time that a person holding one weapon can. If you don't believe me, go pick up and hold two kitchen knives, and then tell me why you are somehow unable to stab with both of them at the same time.



I can also wield only one knife in one hand, and stab with that knife at the same time I punch someone. I could also make a front kick in conjunction. 
But fighter wielding longsword don't get extra unarmed strikes, unless they have some special training. That's how the game works. Making 2 attacks per turn is more powerful than making one attack per turn, so it makes sense that the character need some sort of "special training" (power, class feature, feat) in order to take advantage of dual wielding.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> You might not necessarily get two attacks per turn, but I think there should be some advantage to fighting with two weapons because you're giving up a shield.



It's not always true. It depends on the class.
Rangers don't give up a shield because they are not even proficient with them, so it was not a optimal choice to begin with.
A dual wielding fighter would be giving up a shield, which he is proficient with, in order to fight in a way he has no special training. Why should he get any advantage at all?

That's how the game works, the d20 system works. A guy wielding a .38 revolver doesn't suddenly get 6 attacks per turn.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

thalmin said:
			
		

> I keep reading "only the ranger gets TWF" from various posts, but I have seen nothing in a WotC release that gave me that impression. Has WotC said that, or are we basing this supposition on the lack of seeing a TWF feat or power choice for any any other class. We have only seen a handful of feats, so it might be early to jump to such a conclusion.



Any character can get those multiclass/power swap feat and choose some TWF ranger powers.

I have a hunch that rogues will also have some TWF powers at their disposal.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 7, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Ah, missed that, thanks!
> 
> By the way, there are no double weapons at the PHB...but at the art image there is a double weapon.



 Double weapons are not inherently stupid... only the ability to use both ends at the same time.

The dwarven urgrosh is a weapon you usually use as a normal axe, but when locked in close quarters, the pointy end can come in handy.

Or a staff used as half staff can take advantage of holes in the defense on both parts of the enemy, as well as make a fast furry of blows, if the opponents lets his defense down (otherwise those flurries only hit your opponents staff and prepare a real hit)

So in 4e a double weapon could actually make sense...


----------



## GnomeWorks (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Why should anyone wielding two weapons automatically get two attacks per turn?




Why should wielding one weapon automatically get you one attack per turn?

I am disappointed that they're going back to something non-3.5 regarding how creatures of differing size categories interact with weapons. 3.5's solution wasn't the most elegant, but it worked pretty well.

The versatile keyword seems a little disappointing, but I guess they didn't want to have to do the math of 1.5 x Str rather than just Str. I can understand the desire to tone that complexity, but I'm not sure they went the right way with it (1 point seems so minimal).

The keyword thing does seem like a pretty solid idea. Hopefully it has decent implementation throughout the system, and isn't left by the wayside later on, because it is definitely useful.

I like the heavy thrown/light thrown distinction. I don't know if that's the cleanest way to do it, but it definitely seems like a good place to start.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Why should wielding one weapon automatically get you one attack per turn?



It doesn't.


----------



## ryryguy (May 7, 2008)

The excerpt did not state, nor even imply, that only Rangers can make two attacks via TWF.  The excerpt only gave the following base rule:



> An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon.




Remember this is an exception based system.  _No_ exceptions were discussed in the excerpt (not just regarding TWF, but anything really!).  So there is room for plenty of exceptions to allow more flexible TWF: feats, powers, etc. which may not be restricted to Ranger.  In fact I think it's a pretty safe bet to say there will be some such exceptions available to non-Rangers, though also pretty safe bet that the _best_ ones will be Ranger-only.  

And as far as base rules go, this is a not ungenerous one.  There are no penalties at all for wielding an off hand weapon, and some minor payoff in versatility as others have noted, even if it only comes up in odd situations.

Some people here are going off half-cocked, which I think is a bit ironic in a discussion of two-weapon fighting...


----------



## DonAdam (May 7, 2008)

I'll be really happy if its:

Sword and board: AC bonus
Two-handed: Extra damage
Two-weapon: To hit bonus

I think the idea of using one weapon to set up the other attack fits the cinematic style of TWF much better.

Now if only I could think of something for fencers... Of course, I guess the ability to initiate grapples and pick stuff up without dropping a weapon should count for something.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 7, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> Or a staff used as half staff can take advantage of holes in the defense on both parts of the enemy, as well as make a fast furry of blows, if the opponents lets his defense down (otherwise those flurries only hit your opponents staff and prepare a real hit)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

I like the categories and descriptors. They definitely look useful.

On Two-Weapon Fighting: Granting extra attacks due to wielding multiple weapons doesn't fit well into the 4E system. Most character attacks will use powers, and each power has a description what kind of action it requires to use. How do you handle this with making multiple attacks? Either you can only use a power and ignore the off-hand attack, or you grant the benefits twice, which obviously leads to overpowered effects. Neither is satisfying.

So, if you want to fight with two-weapons, all the time, you'll need a power for it. I wonder if it will be a at-will attack power for the Ranger (I don't know if that would be balanced), but I think most of the time, you'll use your encounter powers to gain extra attacks. To compensate, you won't suffer any penalties.

A general tendency for 4E seems to be to eliminate direct penalties. You don't get a non-proficiency penalty, but a proficiency bonus. When you perform a special maneuver (via a power), you don't suffer penalty or bonuses, but you get to deal damage and a special effect. To compensate, you can't do it at-will. 
It's only consistent to do the same for two-weapon fighting.

People might still disagree with this basic design assumptions, but that's what they are, and I think it is a wise choice not to break with them without a real need.

I hope as much as anyone else that it will be easy to add additional two-weapon fighting powers to other characters, but I can live without it. If two-weapon fighting is my character shtick, why _not_ play a Ranger?


----------



## Torchlyte (May 7, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.




I'm don't necessarily disagree, but expense would be a realistic hurdle in many cases.


----------



## Parlan (May 7, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.




Well said, sir.  Touche.


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I hope as much as anyone else that it will be easy to add additional two-weapon fighting powers to other characters, but I can live without it. If two-weapon fighting is my character shtick, why _not_ play a Ranger?



Concept. They might not necessarily want the Nature-themed abilities.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> I'm don't necessarily disagree, but expense would be a realistic hurdle in many cases.



I've only D&D prices available for comparison, but I've got the impression that armor and horses are traditionally more expensive then weapons. And troops definitely managed to give their soldiers armor and horses. But they didn't create special "two-weapon fighting brigades". There might be a reason for it...


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 7, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.




Actually, I believe Miyamoto Musashi developed a very effective two-sword fighting style back in the 1600s. I'm sure that wasn't the only instance of two-sword fighting in history.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Concept. They might not necessarily want the Nature-themed abilities.



If the Ranger is really that "nature-themed". But I definitely think two-weapon fighting also fits to the Rogue. I am afraid he will lack powers for two-weapon fighting, but I might be wrong. 

But I don't think it fits for Fighters (at least not under the Defender role concept) or Paladins (I suppose we don't need to talk about casters...)...


----------



## Imp (May 7, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.



It's not much good in formation and carrying around two long blades for duels/street fights is more of a pain than it's worth? In any case a) I've sure I've seen two-sword Chinese broadsword demos and b) of all the things to get simulationist about in this game surely realistic weapon styles are among the least productive concerns.


----------



## Baumi (May 7, 2008)

I'm VERY happy about the fact that they dropped the stupid size modifiers! 8D

I often played halflings and I could never find any good Weapons since there are very few small sized enemies and their weapons sucked most of the time ... and the treasure tables also didn't work exactly in your favor.

The only disadvantage that I see now that it is hard to use big Weapons that are "special" like Polearms or Spiked Chains (that would be no loss )... but I think there will be substitute for this thanks to the "small" Property.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe Miyamoto Musashi developed a very effective two-sword fighting style back in the 1600s. I'm sure that wasn't the only instance of two-sword fighting in history.



I believe he used a katana and a wakizashi, and not a katana in each hand.


----------



## FadedC (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe Miyamoto Musashi developed a very effective two-sword fighting style back in the 1600s. I'm sure that wasn't the only instance of two-sword fighting in history.




I believe the fighting style you mention involves the use of a katana and wakazashi....or in very broad english terms a long sword and a short sword. Note that even legendary samurai didn't try to fight with 2 long swords at once.

Keep in mind I didn't say there were no historical fighting styles using 2 swords....I said two equal sized long swords.


----------



## Rechan (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Concept. They might not necessarily want the Nature-themed abilities.



Have we seen anything that SAYS rangers = nature themed?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Have we seen anything that SAYS rangers = nature themed?



Nature as class skill. That's all we have so far.


----------



## bjorn2bwild (May 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Nature as class skill. That's all we have so far.




well, to be a little more precise... nature as a choice for a trained skill.

The leaked picture from GAMA gives the ranger a choice between nature and _edit_ streetwise _dungeoneering_


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe Miyamoto Musashi developed a very effective two-sword fighting style back in the 1600s. I'm sure that wasn't the only instance of two-sword fighting in history.




And he learned it - it being specifically to go with long blade / short blade - by watching Europeans, who had been doing that for quite some time


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 7, 2008)

Hopefully we won't see the broken cheese of Monkey Grip + Two Weapon Fighting (+ that feat which reduces 2wf penalties for same sized weapons) = Dual Wielding Greatswords, that we got in 3.5e.


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2008)

bjorn2bwild said:
			
		

> The leaked picture from GAMA gives the ranger a choice between nature and streetwise.



Nature and Dungeoneering, actually.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Note that even legendary samurai didn't try to fight with 2 long swords at once.



Truth to be told, there WAS a legendary samurai who fought with two katanas!
Tom Cruise.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Truth to be told, there WAS a legendary samurai who fought with two katanas!
> Tom Cruise.



Dang! That changes everything!


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But I don't think it fits for Fighters (at least not under the Defender role concept) or Paladins (I suppose we don't need to talk about casters...)...



A two-weapon defender is just a two-handed defender with two smaller weapons instead of one big one.  Conceptually, the weapon in the off hand can also be used to parry.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> A two-weapon defender is just a two-handed defender with two smaller weapons instead of one big one.  Conceptually, the weapon in the off hand can also be used to parry.



He should be carrying a shield or just wear heavy armor and carry a big sword/axe/polearm. Yes, that's my limited world view and I am sticking to it.


----------



## Gloombunny (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> A two-weapon defender is just a two-handed defender with two smaller weapons instead of one big one.  Conceptually, the weapon in the off hand can also be used to parry.



I would say that a two-weapon defender is just a sword-and-shield defender with a smaller, pointier shield.

(In real combat, the difference between a shield and an off-hand weapon is not so big as RPGs would have us believe.)


----------



## bjorn2bwild (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Nature and Dungeoneering, actually.




I stand corrected.  I blame insomnia!


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Conceptually, the weapon in the off hand can also be used to parry.



Maybe that will be a Ranger Utility Power. A stance that gives you a bonus to AC for wielding an off-hand weapon.

*Off-hand Parry Ranger Utility 2*

*Encounter Martial, Stance*
*Requirement:* You must be wielding two melee weapons
*Minor Action Personal*

*Effect*: You gain a +1 bonus to AC.


----------



## vagabundo (May 7, 2008)

TWF just got more realistic. (it was also a pain in the ass to calculate the penalties depending on what feats you had, way too complex, hopefully fixed)

Being able to wield two equal sized weapons was ridiculous. I do like the default two weapon style is an either/or attack. It will be nice to see what feats/powers are generally available to augment this fighting style.

Maybe you could designate the off-hand to do something useful through a feat (AC, damage or to-hit). Or you roll the second weapons damage on a a critical. Simulating a *two weapon strike*.

I hated the fact that all weapons were very similar or crazy in 3e. Weapons should encourage a differentiation of fighting style and, from this preview, I think 4e is well on the way to doing this.

EDIT: What the hell are they going to do with Drizzt? I suppose exception based design. Feat: Drow-Bad-Ass-Figthing Style...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 7, 2008)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I would say that a two-weapon defender is just a sword-and-shield defender with a smaller, pointier shield.
> 
> (In real combat, the difference between a shield and an off-hand weapon is not so big as RPGs would have us believe.)




Maybe in a fancy schmancy duel, but when you're in the middle of a war, you can have your little pigsticker, I'll take my very sizable life insurance.


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Maybe that will be a Ranger Utility Power. A stance that gives you a bonus to AC for wielding an off-hand weapon.



I wonder if sword and shield fighters can get a stance that allows them to attack with their weapon and shield bash in the same round.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 7, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> I believe the fighting style you mention involves the use of a katana and wakazashi....or in very broad english terms a long sword and a short sword. Note that even legendary samurai didn't try to fight with 2 long swords at once.




A katana is closer to a bastard sword, actually.

But anyways, I'm not going to argue about whether or not it's "realistic" anymore. This game has thrown verisimilitude out the window in pretty much every other aspect of its rules. I've never head of someone using a dire flail in real life either. Even if fighting with two longswords is impossible in real life (which I don't believe it is), that should be no reason why my character can't do it. This game lets you fly, teleport around, do cartwheels to move safely through enemy lines and shoot two arrows at once like Robin Hood, so I think it's pretty absurd to say "no you can't" in regards to fighting with a pair longswords. And I'm just going to leave it at that.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I wonder if sword and shield fighters can get a stance that allows them to attack with their weapon and shield bash in the same round.



They do get a Power actually.

*Tide of Iron Fighter Attack 1*
_After each mighty swing, you bring your shield to
bear and use it to push your enemy back._
*At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon*
*Standard Action Melee weapon*
*Requirement: * You must be using a shield.
*Target:* One creature
*Attack:* Melee vs. AC
*Hit: * 1[W] + Str damage, and you push the target 1
square if it is your size, smaller than you, or one
size category larger. You can shift into the space
that the target occupied.


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> They do get a Power actually.
> 
> *Tide of Iron Fighter Attack 1*



Meh, I want some actual damage, not a push 1.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Meh, I want some actual damage, not a push 1.



Then we will have to wait until June.  

But the Tide of Iron is a good indicative we will have some shield-based Powers.
The problem I could see with shield-based attack rolls is that the shields are secondary magic items now. They no longer have an enhancement bonus.
Even with shield-based Powers, it's better to let the weapon handle the attack roll, and the shield to handle some secondary follow-up effects, such as a stun, push, disarm, etc. 

The Troy movie gives a lot of ideas for shield-based Powers BTW. Maybe a shield stance that prevents you from being flanked, or an immediate encounter Power that allow you to deflect a ranged attack.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> And he learned it - it being specifically to go with long blade / short blade - by watching Europeans, who had been doing that for quite some time




link?


----------



## HeinorNY (May 7, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> link?



That's just speculation. Everything indicates that Musashi created the style by himself.
That argument is often proposed by those who consider that european swordsmanship was superior than japanese swordsmaship, and although I strongly agree with this, that claim about the Musashi is really just historical speculation.


----------



## Ten (May 7, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> link?




http://tinyurl.com/59wart

Seriously though, it's the second result on google for the phrase I searched for...

I believe he got that from the wikipedia article, which, unfortunately, doesn't have a citation.  It merely says "Some historians suspect".  To be fair, it sounds vaguely reasonable!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> That's just speculation. Everything indicates that Musashi created the style by himself.
> That argument is often proposed by those who consider that european swordsmanship was superior than japanese swordsmaship, and although I strongly agree with this, that claim about the Musashi is really just historical speculation.




There's no evidence either way.  Historians just like to bicker about it back and forth.

I side with the Europeans because, well, Japan wasn't exactly known for it's innovation, and because using two weapons HAD been a part of European dueling for some time by that point.


----------



## Ravhin (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I believe he used a katana and a wakizashi, and not a katana in each hand.




No, he did develop the style of using two Japanese long swords(though historians do debate many aspects fo his life). The Long sword/short sword style allready existed before him. This style is called Nitto Ryu and is still practiced today in several martial arts, including Kendo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdMZAChx4Nw .

It's effectiveness is debatable, it is different to use two swords then just one, you have less reach, less speed and less control but more options like someone said before, and yes it allows you to do more attacks in the same time you would otherwise do just one, but these are difficult techniques. It is definitely a viable fighting style, and if normal people can do it heroic characters much more so.

That said I think we don't know enough of the rules to make a judgment, personally I find this preview very very lacking. Remains to be seen how it will deal with enlargement spells and the likes.


----------



## Wulfram (May 7, 2008)

The main thing they seem to be doing with dual wielding is ensuring that it won't work with (non-ranger) powers.

This makes in a lot easier to balance - all they have to do is make sure that the dual wieding powers are as good as other powers of a similar level and they're fine, with no worries about synergies with other powers making it too good.


----------



## parvatiquinta (May 7, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> From the Paragon Paths article:
> 
> Paragon feat
> Spear Push 	Str 15, Dex 13 	Add 1 square to distance pushed with spear or polearm.
> ...



That's what I thought too the first time I saw that, but on second thought, it doesn't really imply that spears or polearms push. The push effect could have to come from a power.


----------



## Lizard (May 7, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be surprised if there is more into weapon size categories they don't want out yet. I can't imagine a smaller person would make a normal sized weapon when they can't use them properly. Simplicity or no, that's just silly.




To you it's silly. To me it's silly. To the designers and a certain segment of the local populace, it's "thinking too hard about fantasy".

3.5 weapon sizing made perfect sense. Halflings do not wield human longswords two-handed, they wield halfling-sized longswords. The 3.0 system was broken and was fixed; why re-break it for 4e? It does not make sense.


----------



## hong (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> To you it's silly. To me it's silly. To the designers and a certain segment of the local populace, it's "thinking too hard about fantasy".




Indeed. And soon, you too will learn the benefits of not thinking too hard about fantasy.



> 3.5 weapon sizing made perfect sense. Halflings do not wield human longswords two-handed, they wield halfling-sized longswords. The 3.0 system was broken and was fixed; why re-break it for 4e? It does not make sense.




This is easily solved by simply banning halflings.


----------



## AZRogue (May 7, 2008)

What's the difference between a halfling sized longsword and a shortsword? I ask because I didn't play 3.5 but didn't have a problem with the 3.0 system, so this doesn't seem that different to me.

Isn't a halfling sized longsword basically a shortsword anyway?

EDIT: Probably doesn't seem that much an issue to me since I've only once, over the last 20+ years, had a player choose a gnome or halfling PC. That one halfling was one of the most memorable PCs we've ever had, of course, but it was the only time. No one's ever played a character that didn't match their own sex, though, either. Every group is different, I guess.


----------



## hong (May 7, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> What's the difference between a halfling sized longsword and a shortsword? I ask because I didn't play 3.5 but didn't have a problem with the 3.0 system, so this doesn't seem that different to me.
> 
> Isn't a halfling sized longsword basically a shortsword anyway?



 The fact that D&D is not and has never been a size-equivariant ruleset continues to cause angst among those who persist in thinking too hard about fantasy.


----------



## Aloïsius (May 7, 2008)

I don't like the way reach is supposed to work. So, a guy with a lance can fight an adjacent ennemy without problems ? And, even more, he can take AoO against adjacent targets, but not against those that are at the intended distance of use of the weapon ? House rule at 11...


----------



## hong (May 7, 2008)

Aloïsius said:
			
		

> I don't like the way reach is supposed to work. So, a guy with a lance can fight an adjacent ennemy without problems ? And, even more, he can take AoO against adjacent targets, but not against those that are at the intended distance of use of the weapon ? House rule at 11...



 Have you SEEN Seung Mina at work?


----------



## Lizard (May 7, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Ah, thank god for that. I hated with a passion the complexity that was introduced with 3.5.
> 
> Halflings do not warrant an entire category of weapon size specifically for them, especially if they're not a dominant race with their own cities and culture.
> 
> Second dumbest rule in 3.5.




And if your campaign features, as the one I'm in does, small, medium, and large PCs, with access to size-changing spells, or changes in size with level gain (Savage Species)?

Simply shifting weapon damage up or down is easy.  Remembering complex if/then rules is harder.

The 3.5 rules acknowledged that many campaigns went well beyond core and didn't assume the only small race was halflings, or that there would be no huge or tiny PCs. It made it easy to give frost giants maces and pixies crossbows. 4e seems to be much less flexible.


----------



## med stud (May 7, 2008)

Weapon sizes, especially concerning halflings: Good! It was more of a hassle than it was worth in 3.5.

Two weapon fighting: I think this is the only way to get it right. In 2e it was overpowered, in 3e it was underpowered. As many have brought up before me, two weapon fighting might still be viable since some powers demand a light blade while other powers demand something else. There will most likely be powers for two weapon wielding as well.

Weapon groups: I'm fairly neutral on this.

PS: A historical long sword is a one and a half- hander, much like bastard swords. The main difference between a bastard sword and a long sword is that the bastard sword is more modern and has a more tapered point. The D&D longsword is more like an arming sword or a wide bladed cut-and-thrust sword. The defenition of broadsword is that it is a sword with a wider blade than a rapier, essentially any sword.

The only historically confirmed fighting style involving two equal length long blades that I know of is Musashi's style and the Italian case of rapiers. The latter is fencing with two rapiers.

Finally, trying to prove anything about two weapon fighting by swinging swords or kitchen knives in the air is futile. BTW, that goes for any swinging in the air.


----------



## AZRogue (May 7, 2008)

I ask again, because I'm honestly curious: what's the difference between a halfling sized longsword and a normal shortsword? Is there any difference?


----------



## hong (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And if your campaign features, as the one I'm in does, small, medium, and large PCs, with access to size-changing spells, or changes in size with level gain (Savage Species)?




You ban small and large PCs, of course.


----------



## Lizard (May 7, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> What's the difference between a halfling sized longsword and a shortsword? I ask because I didn't play 3.5 but didn't have a problem with the 3.0 system, so this doesn't seem that different to me.
> 
> Isn't a halfling sized longsword basically a shortsword anyway?




Not when there's feats, powers, etc, which require specific weapons. If a halfling uses a human shortsword as a longsword, can he sneak attack with it?


----------



## hong (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not when there's feats, powers, etc, which require specific weapons. If a halfling uses a human shortsword as a longsword, can he sneak attack with it?



 Again, all of your problems are rendered moot by simply banning halflings. It's the cure to all ills, people!


----------



## AZRogue (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not when there's feats, powers, etc, which require specific weapons. If a halfling uses a human shortsword as a longsword, can he sneak attack with it?




Well, he'd be using it like a longsword, right? Far too large for him to sneak attack with unless a human sized rogue could also sneak attack with one (not sure on that). It just doesn't seem that strange to me to have the baseline (human sized weapons) and then figure out the size differences, one up or one down the scale. Like I said, I never had a problem with 3.0 weapon sizes and never played with 3.5, so this seems just about the same to me.


----------



## vagabundo (May 7, 2008)

When I think of two sword fighting I think of this guy:

Nasir is a Saracen who was a professional assassin in Palestine. Captured by a European crusader and user of black magic, called Baron de Belleme, Nasir is placed under an evil spell by the Baron and brought back to England to work as his henchman. Nasir is freed from the spell when the Baron is killed by Robin Hood, and, having found respect for Robin during a crucial sword fight, decides to join Robin's band of outlaws in Sherwood Forest and help fight for the rights of the common people in medieval England.

From Robin of Sherwood TV Series.

Here he is in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6KUWz9SeWo


----------



## Lizard (May 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You ban small and large PCs, of course.




So, your method of resolving difficult rule issues is to simply shrink the scope of the game. If simplified rules break in edge cases, eliminate the edges! I'd say "Good thing you're not on the design team", but it seems you're in tune with them philosophically -- "That which cannot be simplified, shall be excised."

Often seen in programming -- if you can't get the feature to work right, just eliminate it, and tell customers they didn't want that feature, anyway. Works just until the competition shows up with the feature working.


----------



## Wormwood (May 7, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Well, I think this excerpt won't generate a 500+ post thread.
> 
> (But this is the internet. It could prove me wrong...)



188 and counting.


----------



## hong (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So, your method of resolving difficult rule issues is to simply shrink the scope of the game. If simplified rules break in edge cases, eliminate the edges! I'd say "Good thing you're not on the design team", but it seems you're in tune with them philosophically -- "That which cannot be simplified, shall be excised."




And thus is simplicity achieved. It's all rather zen.



> Often seen in programming -- if you can't get the feature to work right, just eliminate it, and tell customers they didn't want that feature, anyway. Works just until the competition shows up with the feature working.




So... why aren't you playing GURPS, which I believe you were doing for 20 years before D&D put in a few sops for the s*mul*tionists?


----------



## Lizard (May 7, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Well, he'd be using it like a longsword, right?




But it has the "Shortsword" tag and is thus a shortsword.



> Far too large for him to sneak attack with unless a human sized rogue could also sneak attack with one (not sure on that). It just doesn't seem that strange to me to have the baseline (human sized weapons) and then figure out the size differences, one up or one down the scale. Like I said, I never had a problem with 3.0 weapon sizes and never played with 3.5, so this seems just about the same to me.




But so much easier to say "This is a Small Greatsword; that is a Huge Dagger." It also makes much more sense to me that a halfling can't just grab a weapon built for human sized and hands and balanced for a human to wield one handed and then just swing it around as if it were built for his grip and body structure. A halfling can pick up a human shortsword, but it's going to be much clumsier for him than a longsword made to halfling scale would be; even if it does the same damage (1d6), he ought to have a to-hit penalty (and in 3.5, he does).


----------



## Lizard (May 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> So... why aren't you playing GURPS, which I believe you were doing for 20 years before D&D put in a few sops for the s*mul*tionists?




Actually, mostly Hero. About 75 Hero/25 GURPS. With a few forays into Star Wars D6.

Because half my current players are scared of Hero, and half are scared of GURPS, but they all like D&D.


----------



## hong (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Because half my current players are scared of Hero, and half are scared of GURPS, but they all like D&D.




Oh well.


----------



## Voss (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> To you it's silly. To me it's silly. To the designers and a certain segment of the local populace, it's "thinking too hard about fantasy".
> 
> 3.5 weapon sizing made perfect sense. Halflings do not wield human longswords two-handed, they wield halfling-sized longswords. The 3.0 system was broken and was fixed; why re-break it for 4e? It does not make sense.




Because people _whined_ about it.  Endlessly and at length.  It was too _hard_ it was too _unrealistic_, etc.  It looks like they ended up caving to the whiners.

That said... I don't care too much either way.   I am a bit disappointed in the article itself, though I like the TWF 'nerf'.  There isn't a lot of meat here.  The categories are nice to know, I guess, as are the properties, but we knew most of those already.  I'm still a bit puzzled as to why you wouldn't take high crit weapons all the time.  (Unless you're a sucker, er, rogue, and have to use light blades to use your class abilities and powers...)


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (May 7, 2008)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm extremely displeased that they're still using Wayne England for this sort of thing.




I don't particularly care about the artist, I just know I prefer this picture to this one.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The 3.5 rules acknowledged that many campaigns went well beyond core and didn't assume the only small race was halflings, or that there would be no huge or tiny PCs. It made it easy to give frost giants maces and pixies crossbows. 4e seems to be much less flexible.



Yes.  4e concentrates on the core D&D experience.  It IS less flexible in order to make the experience for 90% of the players better.

Let's take a look at it from the other point of view.  Assume your group never plays races other than the ones in the PHB and all monsters in the game do damage based on being monsters rather that due to weapon type.  Now, what purpose would a chart with rules about increasing or decreasing weapon size prove?  Wouldn't it just take up space?  Now, assume someone wants to play a halfling.  Don't you now have to explain the entire concept of small sized weapons to them, which is just another rule to know.  Aren't you also restricting them from using a large number of magic items the party finds simply because they aren't small sized?  So the DM has to spend extra effort to make sure that the treasure of the enemies contains a fair amount of small stuff.

In an "average" game, tiny, large, and huge PCs cause a large number of problems.  Some won't fit down the dungeon corridors of that adventure you made up or purchased.  Some are so small so as to fit in that hole you thought no one could get down...and so on.

3.5e was a lot more flexible in exchange for having to memorize and look up more rules.  And they were rules that a large number of groups never even used.


----------



## AllisterH (May 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Because people _whined_ about it.  Endlessly and at length.  It was too _hard_ it was too _unrealistic_, etc.  It looks like they ended up caving to the whiners.




Honestly?

I'm thinking that the added "realism" that the 3.5 weapon size system added to the game wasn't worth the ease of use of the 3.0 system.

For example, while as Lizard pointed out, it is quite true that a longsword designed for humans probably shouldn't be balanced for halflings, the added headache of having to rejigger the treasure table to account for this was never factored in...

You'll notice even though most monsters in the game AREN"T medium sized, the default treasure table gives out treasure assuming that the standard adventurer is medium sized.


----------



## neceros (May 7, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> 188 and counting.



Definitely not worth 500 posts... or 200 for that matter.


----------



## AZRogue (May 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Because people _whined_ about it.  Endlessly and at length.  It was too _hard_ it was too _unrealistic_, etc.  It looks like they ended up caving to the whiners.




Well, I never whined about it, but I much prefer the 3.0 system to what I'm hearing about the 3.5 system. After reading the article I didn't realize that anything had really changed, but now that I see that 3.5 was different, I suppose I'm pleased that they reverted back. Not that I, personally, was really impacted since 99% of the time my players play humans. Still, I would hate to have to take into account whether items I placed in my adventures were HALFLING longswords or ... just shortswords. Since I would have ignored any such needless categorizing, I suppose I'm glad that they didn't do it.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (May 7, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Again, all of your problems are rendered moot by simply banning halflings. It's the cure to all ills, people!




I thought playing a ranger was the cure to all ills?


----------



## hong (May 7, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:
			
		

> I thought playing a ranger was the cure to all ills?



 No, that's the CAUSE of all ills. As evidenced by the website listing 100 alt.rangers, which unfortunately now seems to have been lost to the mists of time.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not when there's feats, powers, etc, which require specific weapons. If a halfling uses a human shortsword as a longsword, can he sneak attack with it?



Halflings are nearly 5 feet tall in 4e.  They are just slightly shorter humans.  They can use human sized weapons with nearly no problem.  It is only the ones that are so big as to be completely unwieldly that they can't use(2 handed weapons).

Humans are the most populous race in default 4e.  The world is in a dark age after the last great empire of Humans collapsed a short while ago.  That empire crossed most of the world and united all the races for hundreds, if not thousands of years.  The Humans were the uniting factor between all the races.

Humans outnumbered Halflings dramatically and Halflings are natural born traders and wanderers.  Their culture for a long time has emphasized moving around a lot and not taking route in any one place.  They aren't the sort of culture that produces a lot of goods.  They mostly buy and sell goods made by others.  And the Human weapons seem to work fine in their hands, why spend the effort to make their own when there are so many of them just hidden in caves and buried in the ground from ancient battles and civilizations.

As for the feats thing.  It's really simple.  Rather than a complicated set of rules on which weapons they can use and which weapons they can't, you point a player at the list of weapons and say "take any of these weapons that aren't two handed."


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (May 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I'm still a bit puzzled as to why you wouldn't take high crit weapons all the time.




Only if high crit can be found with all the other good weapon properties. Would you rather have high crit or reach? Or a +3 proficiency bonus rather than a +2?


----------



## vagabundo (May 7, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> As for the feats thing.  It's really simple.  Rather than a complicated set of rules on which weapons they can use and which weapons they can't, you point a player at the list of weapons and say "take any of these weapons that aren't two handed."




Yey! Keywords FTW...

Divving up the weapons into a few categories make so much sense, each then has powers/feats that can enhance them. So an Ax and shield fighter can be very different than a longsword and shield fighter. This is a change I really really wanted.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I'm still a bit puzzled as to why you wouldn't take high crit weapons all the time.  (Unless you're a sucker, er, rogue, and have to use light blades to use your class abilities and powers...)



Meh, if the choice is between:
Longsword: Damage 1d6, prof: +2
and
Handaxe: Damage 1d6, prof: +1, high crit

(as a side note, I've purposefully given wrong numbers here to avoid breaking my NDA, don't over analyze this)

Then it's really a matter of +1 to hit in exchange for 1d6(more at higher levels) damage whenever you roll a natural 20.

Its really a matter of taste.


----------



## Lizard (May 7, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> For example, while as Lizard pointed out, it is quite true that a longsword designed for humans probably shouldn't be balanced for halflings, the added headache of having to rejigger the treasure table to account for this was never factored in...




Who the hell uses random treasure?

You always place items the PCs can use (and that you want in your game). That's why you have a human DM, not a computer.


----------



## Enoch (May 7, 2008)

Two-weapon fighting barely gives an advantage.  If it is really as good as some people think, *everyone* would fight with two weapons.

Musashi's Niten Ichi Ryu was fighting with katana and wakizashi.  He suggested practicing (and perhaps using it in real combat a time or two) fighting with two katana to get better at fighting with katana and wakizashi.

On the other hand...

I have no problem with fantasy characters fighting well with two longswords.  I do have a problem with everyone getting two attacks with them.  This leads to the obvious result of players always attacking twice.  When I imagine this in my head...it looks silly.  I much rather have two strikes be part of a special move or something, it makes it seem much more fluid (in my head at least).

-Joshua


----------



## Wormwood (May 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Because people _whined_ about it.  Endlessly and at length.  It was too _hard_ it was too _unrealistic_, etc.  It looks like they ended up caving to the whiners.



"This would be a great place to work if it wasn't for the customers."


----------



## Ashardalon (May 7, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Halflings are nearly 5 feet tall in 4e.



Last I heard, halflings only grew 1 foot, not 2 feet. They're still supposed to be Small. And halflings, for that matter. 

Honestly, the 3.5 system had its warts, especially entering the 1.5-hand weapon territory, and some lack of weapon equivalents in the PHB. Those warts could be fixed, though. No need to rip them out like that in my opinion.


----------



## Cirex (May 7, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I ask again, because I'm honestly curious: what's the difference between a halfling sized longsword and a normal shortsword? Is there any difference?




The feats that affect one or another. If you got weapon focus : Shortsword, you got it for shortsword only, not for a small sized longsword, even if they are identical.

There's a PrC called Dervish. It's a specialist using dual scimitars (where is the roll eyes smile) but since scimitars were medium weapons, you had a -4 penalty instead of -2. You could always get a small size scimitar and go for dual scimitar with just the -2 penalty of normal/light blade TWF.
Damage was 1d6/1d4.


----------



## Propheous_D (May 7, 2008)

Well 2 Weapon fighting when dealing with long weapons is in reality impractical in combat. The problem with modern society is we have no combat experience and rely solely on heresay and practice. Anyone who has been in a real fight will say that what you do in the ring is VERY different then what you do in the alley against an experienced opponent. However, this being fantasy allows us to have alot of fun with it. 

I can say from what little experience I have had fighting with two weapons the counter argument of opening yourself up for attack stands pretty strong. A buckler makes a much better friend then a second weapon in reality.


----------



## Lord Nat (May 7, 2008)

What I really want to see info on is Tri-Welding >.>






Hm... *starts to think about a Paragon Path*

ok really, I have been a fan of keyword systems for a long time so happy to see that.
It's nice to see that reach fix, I was tired of having to stand 10 feet away from my target ALL the time when using a long spear. I'd like to see what they are going to do for throwing weapon powers.

It looks like that each weapon type are going to have (if not in the PHB then in the powers book later this year) power based around the it's style. I'd like to think that those will come from feats or at least feats that open combat styles.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Because people _whined_ about it.  Endlessly and at length.  It was too _hard_ it was too _unrealistic_, etc.  It looks like they ended up caving to the whiners.




I'm glad they got rid of the 3.5e weapon sizing rules - it stood out like a proud nail in attempting to be extra-simulationist when sitting alongside hit points and all the other abstract mcguffins we know and love in D&D.


----------



## Edwin_Su (May 7, 2008)

which wepons can be used by halflings in 4.0

i think a lot of it is contained in :
Small: This property describes a two-handed or a versatile weapon that a Small character can use in the same way a Medium character can. A halfling can use a shortbow, for example, even though halflings can’t normally use two-handed .wepons

a versatile weapon that a Small character can use in the same way a Medium character can.

So the norm woeld be that a halfling used a versitile wepon in a difrent way then a medium size creature.
So i guess medium creatures can chose to wield these with 1 or 2 hands, and that halflings MUST wield them with 2 hands.

It also sais halflings can't wield weapons that MUST be used 2 handed by large cratures

This might lead to :

Medium      /      Halfling

2handed     /         -
versitile      /       2 handed
main hand ? /      versitile
Off-Hand     /      main hand 
   -             /     special small off hand weapon (off hand wapon with small weapon property)

or somthing like that


----------



## Ravhin (May 7, 2008)

Propheous_D said:
			
		

> I can say from what little experience I have had fighting with two weapons the counter argument of opening yourself up for attack stands pretty strong. A buckler makes a much better friend then a second weapon in reality.




Actually if you know what you are doing, fighting with one or two weapons will always be focused on defense. No matter what you do you must never leave openings, doing so with one weapon is just different from what you do with two and obviously different to what you do with a shield. Using a shield may seem the best option, but in a duel, you are cutting your offensive ability, a sword can deflect and parry marginally worse but has the added affect that you can threaten your adversary more effectively. He won't attack you if he senses the danger of a counter. 

Anyway this sort of discussion is useless since DnD doesn't base it's combat rules from anything reality based. If they where most one hit would spell death to any character and we don't realy want that do we ?


----------



## Blue (May 7, 2008)

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Not quite: a halfling can sneak attack with a shortsword, but a human can't sneak attack with a longsword.




That's an interesting point.  And the flip side, where you get things like a halfling warlord can't get into the paragon path that requires heavy blades.

But just look at the subtle effects of what you pointed out.  Many of the total armed halflings you meet will be armed with weapons that can do sneak attack.  Their thrown weapons will most likely be light, both because they are more likely to be Small and because they have a good dex.  While there will be two handed weapons for them so their shield use won't be more or less then average, they probably have a lot less access to reach weapons.

The weapon categories might be balanced very differently once you take out the weapons they can't use.

I wonder how they deal with tiny- and large+ creatures.  Even in 3.0 ogres had large spears, all 3.5 did was apply only one set of rules instead of two.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)


----------



## Klaus (May 7, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Not a bad idea, but that might be too powerful. Who knows, I suppose?



 That spiked chain picture is dreadful. Do people really think a chain is wielded by holding onto those two "grip" sections and nowhere else, like a He-Man action figure or something?


----------



## Edwin_Su (May 7, 2008)

> Originally Posted by klaus
> 
> That spiked chain picture is dreadful. Do people really think a chain is wielded by holding onto those two "grip" sections and nowhere else, like a He-Man action figure or something?




the picture coeld also be a new incarnation of the dual flail dual weapon.
But where woeld you grip the old spiked chain except for the rings ?


http://www.dragonquestfrontiers.com/images/chain.JPG

and yes a chain is gripped in multiple places but i don't recomend gripping on the spiked part of a spiked chain.


----------



## Propheous_D (May 7, 2008)

Ravhin said:
			
		

> Actually if you know what you are doing, fighting with one or two weapons will always be focused on defense. No matter what you do you must never leave openings, doing so with one weapon is just different from what you do with two and obviously different to what you do with a shield. Using a shield may seem the best option, but in a duel, you are cutting your offensive ability, a sword can deflect and parry marginally worse but has the added affect that you can threaten your adversary more effectively. He won't attack you if he senses the danger of a counter.
> 
> Anyway this sort of discussion is useless since DnD doesn't base it's combat rules from anything reality based. If they where most one hit would spell death to any character and we don't realy want that do we ?




It all ways fun to partake in. Also, don't be so quick to dismiss a shields offencive capabilities. In War EVERYTHING is a weapon.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

>




ok, does that mean i am totally wrong in that case?

But i can´t interpret that picture...

so please enlighten me...


----------



## Irving (May 7, 2008)

It all depends on what you want to simulate, folks. 

The "best" (as in, the one tested by the most people) system of "real" combat tested so far would be the SCA. In the SCA, shields rule. Two-weapon fighting is for suckers. In the LARPs I play... shields rule. With the exception of Japan, shields dominated the field of war for a long time (although tools like the flail, the pick, and other weapons evolved to counter them, and shields shrunk as armor improved.) There's an argument to be made that "real" samurai, as it actual professional warriors, didn't use two weapons in combat either - the samurai was a horse archer first and foremost. 

However... none of that is, in the end, truly relevant. D&D emulates D&D. No more, no less. Ideally, it should permit you play just about any concept you like - sword and board or dual fighting - and enjoy yourself without feeling cheated. 

I strongly suspect that we're going to toss all our assumptions out when we see the rules. We're probably underestimating the value of pushing enemies around, forcing them to slide, and otherwise controlling their board position. Heck, forget about real life combat at all - we're talking about a board game like chess. It's going to be a big deal to be able to put an enemy in range for your ally's ranged attack, or incapable of reaching a target he marked. There's no such thing as line up and hit them anymore. There are going to be so many more things to do other than just swing and do damage. TWF just to land the blows may well end up looking like a weak choice for a fighter when we're all done.


----------



## Stormtalon (May 7, 2008)

Yeah, I'd agree with the sentiments that while there were _good_ changes from 3.0 to 3.5, the weapon size thing appeared good on paper, but in the end was just cumbersome and annoying.  Good riddance!


----------



## Cadfan (May 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> To you it's silly. To me it's silly. To the designers and a certain segment of the local populace, it's "thinking too hard about fantasy".
> 
> 3.5 weapon sizing made perfect sense. Halflings do not wield human longswords two-handed, they wield halfling-sized longswords. The 3.0 system was broken and was fixed; why re-break it for 4e? It does not make sense.



I would normally agree, but then I started thinking about halflings with reach weapons.  Logically, a halfling with a reach weapon should get all the benefits of reach against another halfling, but probably no benefits against a target of Medium size or larger.  This is because, if they're half the size of a normal person, they should function on a grid of squares 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet in diameter.  Then I got a headache trying to work out the implications of all of this, and gave up.


----------



## Voss (May 7, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> That spiked chain picture is dreadful. Do people really think a chain is wielded by holding onto those two "grip" sections and nowhere else, like a He-Man action figure or something?




That is pretty horrible.  In a way, I'm impressed that something actually beats out the tiefling weapons in the realm of Things That are Completely Unusable.


----------



## Pistonrager (May 7, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> ok, does that mean i am totally wrong in that case?
> 
> But i can´t interpret that picture...
> 
> so please enlighten me...




Kittens give Morbo gas.


----------



## Voss (May 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I would normally agree, but then I started thinking about halflings with reach weapons.  Logically, a halfling with a reach weapon should get all the benefits of reach against another halfling, but probably no benefits against a target of Medium size or larger.  This is because, if they're half the size of a normal person, they should function on a grid of squares 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet in diameter.  Then I got a headache trying to work out the implications of all of this, and gave up.




The implication was that 'small' reach weapons were actually about 2.5 feet longer than medium reach weapons


----------



## withak (May 7, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> ok, does that mean i am totally wrong in that case?
> 
> But i can´t interpret that picture...
> 
> so please enlighten me...



I'm guessing that the picture is meant to represent "_X_ does not work that way!" where _X_ is something from your original post that he disagreed with.

Or maybe he just really digs Richard Nixon. Without any text, it's hard to say.


----------



## Ravhin (May 7, 2008)

Propheous_D said:
			
		

> It all ways fun to partake in. Also, don't be so quick to dismiss a shields offencive capabilities. In War EVERYTHING is a weapon.




That is quite true yes. But there is one important aspect in a fight that a shield can't emulate, the pressure a bladed weapon has. A shield can be dangerous yes but in the end in doesn't have the offensive capabilities of a sword.

Each weapon and each weapon style has it's own uses, there is not one superior to the other. Shields dominated the battlefields because they insured better chances of survival in the chaos and the arrow/bolt volleys, In duels their weight and size would be cumbersome. Against cavalry you had spears and other polearms, against heavy armored opponents you used maces, morningstars and the likes. 

We do the same in DnD when we switch weapons when fighting an opponent with dr 20/slashing  (no more in 4th though we may switch  for other reasons).


----------



## Baka no Hentai (May 7, 2008)

While I do share the concerns of some other posters that only rangers will be able to use two-weapon fighting effectively, I have a feeling that those concerns will be alleviated when we see the full rules (including feats, the combat chapter, and class powers). 

However it ends up, I believe that no matter what the three main fighting styles (two-handed, two-weapon, one-handed + shield) will be balanced against each other, as that seems to be the main goal of 4E. As long as that is the case I will be satisfied.

At any rate, I think all this "how weapons are used in reality" talk is detracting from the most important topic of discussion at hand... which of course is whether or not you should be able to use Intimidate in skill challenges!


----------



## Cadfan (May 7, 2008)

Regarding TWF, and the possibility of feats granting powers generally.

Its possible that feats will grant new at will powers.

Certain powers are very unbalanced when it comes to granting them through a feat.  You can reason through and see why, if you try.  A 4e character has a certain power curve built into him.

At will abilities
1[W]+Stat+small effect
Unlimited use

Encounter abilities
2[W]+Stat+small effect
Restricted number based on level

Per Day abilities
3[W]+Stat+small effect
Restricted number based on level

That's basically what you're looking at, with some variation.  For example, a per encounter ability might do 1[W]+stat+big effect.

Now feats granting new powers could break this curve by giving the players more times per day that they could accomplish 2 or 3[W] than their level plans for them.  And since feats are considered less valuable resources than powers in 4e, it would be inappropriate to grant this by consuming feats.  That's probably why the multiclass feats all dropped the granted powers down a level, so that per encounter became per day, and at will became per encounter.

But not every power has features which would break this planned power curve.  Specifically, *at will attack powers* might not break the power curve.

At will powers that are not attacks, like the ranger's marking ability, can break the curve because making them available at will is close to a permanent damage bonus.

At will powers that are attacks but which come coupled with very good special non damage bonuses can break the power curve because granting the power at will also grants the non damage bonus.

But at will powers that primarily or solely do damage might NOT break the power curve, because if the damage is already comparable to the damage dealt by the class' other powers, all you're accomplishing is converting the method by which the damage is dealt.  You're not actually increasing the power at all.

So, in other words.

A Cleaving Fighter deals damage equal to 1[W]+Str+Str.  The second +Str goes to a second target, but this is the total damage dealt.

If two weapon fighting is designed so that the weapons used for it, when you add their [W] values together, equal the [W] value of a two handed weapon, then this comes out the same.

Watch.

Two handed fighting: 1[W1]+Str+Str
Two weapon fighting: 1[W2]+Str+1[W3]+Str 
where W1=W2+W3

This changes almost nothing about the characters damage output. 

The only things that change are:

1. TWF gets a slight benefit in that it can be used against a single opponent and Cleave requires two targets to work.  
2. In the long term, two weapons can have more magical options on them than a single weapon.  This is the biggie.  On critical hits under 4e rules, two weapons beats one weapon once you have magical enhancements, because, while the [W] being maximized is smaller, the +1d6 per enhancement bonus is a flat boost applied to two items instead of just one.  Plus, since weapons can get powerful per encounter enhancements, the TWF wielder could get twice as many.

I don't know how much of a problem those last two issue are.  But the general principle, that extra at will attack powers don't automatically bust the power curve, still stands.  If a power doesn't grant an extra [W] damage, or a new, valuable type of effect, it can fit cleanly into the established power curve.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 7, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> ok, does that mean i am totally wrong in that case?
> 
> But i can´t interpret that picture...
> 
> so please enlighten me...




I believe Morbo is saying

“Earthlings do not yet know the meaning of suffering.”


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 7, 2008)

I like the preview - not much to it but what's there is plenty informative.

I don't want to go over the same ground as a lot of other posters - but it strikes me that *powers* give you new abilities (including, I would imagine, the ability to strike with two weapons in the same round) and *feats* make those powers better (say, improving chances to hit, pushing opponents further etc).

I'm guessing TWF will be a Power (accessible by more than one character class, although Rangers will be best at it) and then various feats will affect exactly how good you are at it.


----------



## lukelightning (May 7, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I agree. IMO the way 3.0 (and apparently 4e) handles weapons for small characters is vastly superior to 3.5.




The problem in 3.0 is that weapon proficiencies didn't mesh well with weapon size; by calling the differently-sized weapons by different names all sorts of weirdness could arise. My gnome druid could not use a scimitar and shield; she had to wield her scimitar in two hands. However, if you were to cast _enlarge person_ on her, she'd be medium, and her scimitar would, what, become a falchion? In which case Nature would get pissed and strip her of all her magic.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

One idea, and it's balance is a shot in the dark since we have seen only the stats for the pick: 

Two-Weapon Fighting:
Prerequsite: Dex13+, Military Weapon Proficiency
Benefit: If you are wielding a melee weapon in your off-hand, you can use its proficiency bonus (if you are proficient with it) rather than your primary weapons proficiency bonus for attack rolls. 

Basically, use a weapon with a lower bonus in your primary hand, and a weapon with a high bonus in your off-hand. I am assuming that most smaller weapons will grant a higher proficiency bonus.


----------



## drjones (May 7, 2008)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> (In real combat, the difference between a shield and an off-hand weapon is not so big as RPGs would have us believe.)



Defensively, not so much.  If you are in formation facing missile fire and the guy next to you was planning on defending you with a dagger you would be pissed/dead.  Offensively the shield was just as likely to have been used to bash in close combat as an off hand blade would have been used to stab.

But in dnd we have to factor in that hp != physical damage so an off hand weapon could theoretically be used to help wear down your opponents defenses so you can get a good strike with your real weapon finishing them off.  It's a bit of a stretch but so is all dnd combat.

But I think it is pointless to think about it much, no dnd game has ever modeled using two weapons or using a board in a realistic way, which is fine, it is a fantasy game.


----------



## Caliber (May 7, 2008)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> The problem in 3.0 is that weapon proficiencies didn't mesh well with weapon size; by calling the differently-sized weapons by different names all sorts of weirdness could arise. My gnome druid could not use a scimitar and shield; she had to wield her scimitar in two hands. However, if you were to cast _enlarge person_ on her, she'd be medium, and her scimitar would, what, become a falchion? In which case Nature would get pissed and strip her of all her magic.




I would instead posit that the problem here is the Druid's insane proficiency rules, and not any problem with how weapon's are sized. 

Did anyone like the Druid's proficiency rule?


----------



## tresson (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe Miyamoto Musashi developed a very effective two-sword fighting style back in the 1600s. I'm sure that wasn't the only instance of two-sword fighting in history.





It used a Katana(Longsword) and a Wakasashi(Shortsword) and was generally only used a) by him as it was a truly advanced. He was the only person to master it. The style that is now taught was passed done from his adopted son and is only an approximation of the Musashi's style. B) It was only used in duels and not on the battlefield.


----------



## Klaus (May 7, 2008)

Edwin_Su said:
			
		

> the picture coeld also be a new incarnation of the dual flail dual weapon.
> But where woeld you grip the old spiked chain except for the rings ?
> 
> 
> ...



 Which is why you only add spikes to the last few links of a chain (and even then use heavy gloves to grip it).


----------



## drjones (May 7, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Humans outnumbered Halflings dramatically and Halflings are natural born traders and wanderers.



I don't have a link or anything but didn't I read in the preview books that they were toning down the 'humans run everything now' line that had been part of the previous editions? (I suppose taken from Tolkien)  Sounded like they wanted the different races to be more on par to up the fantasy/adventure elements and make things less like earth.

But I don't see why any rp justification for this system is necessary.  Fancylad Tutwillow halfling blacksmith hammers out a sword for the young adventurer to use.  Does he know what damage dice it uses?  What class it falls under? Keywords? No he just makes a sword that a halfling can use which happens to be a short sword under the game rules.  other than not stocking many greatswords I don't see this as any different than a human smith or a dorf smith or an illithid smith.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 7, 2008)

Two weapon fighting?

Spiked Chains?

Yes.


----------



## Shadeydm (May 7, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.



It is worth noting that DnD in general and 4E specifically doesn't model the real world. One might assume there is a very good reason for this.


----------



## Shadeydm (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Truth to be told, there WAS a legendary samurai who fought with two katanas!
> Tom Cruise.




Now that is funny!!


----------



## CleverNickName (May 7, 2008)

Wow.  I disappear for 10 hours, and look what happened: a weapons article from WotC, followed by sixteen pages of commentary.  I love the internets.    I've just spent the last half-hour reading this thread, and here are my thoughts.

*Weapon Categories: * Mostly a vocabulary change; they moved a few weapons around but that's about it.  I can take it or leave it.  (+0)

*Weapon Groups:* Where are the clubs?  I suppose that they would be filed under the "mace" category, but that seems a little too generous.  IMO, the category should be called "club," and maces should be shoehorned into it instead...but whatever.  (-1)

*Weapon Properties: * Good idea...I like how one little word carries tons of information. (+1)

Thrown Weapons:  I really like the distinction between light and heavy thrown weapons.  Well done. (+1)

High Crit: I like this, too.  Makes a lot more sense than high-level characters attempting to jack their crit range with feats and magic properties.  I predict there will be tons of feats in the future which allow a character to make any weapon "high crit."   Sort of like the 4E answer to the Improved Critical feat. (+1)

Load: I like this, too.  It will revolutionize the way firearms will work in my 4E house rule. (+1)

Off-Hand: You know what?  I like the new TWF rules...I've always thought that dual-wielding weapons should give you tactical options, not free attacks.  A rogue fighting with a longsword in one hand and a light crossbow in the other has the option to make ranged or melee attacks, for example.  Now, I'm sure that many people will hate this rule, but it is rather easy to house-rule (just add a feat, for example.)  (+2)

Reach: I like it...mechanically sensible, with just the right amount of nerf.  (+1)

Small: I think this is an over-simplification.  I like to think that halflings are industrious enough to create "small-sized" versions of anything that humans use, from tea cups to greatswords.  So it looks like I will have to write a houserule for this...probably something along the lines of a uniform damage penalty for smaller versions of weapons, instead of creating a whole new dice range.  (-1)

Versatile: I'd rather see this bonus as "+ 1/2 your Strength modifier" instead of a flat "+1," but it's not a deal-breaker for me.  (+0)

*Proficiencies:* I would have liked to see this as a skill....Weapon Training (Simple), Weapon Training (Military), etc.  The more ranks you invest in these skills, the higher the bonus you get when using weapons in that category.  Oh well.  It's more fun this way, apparently. (-2)

Overall opinion: Pretty good.  There is plenty of stuff in here that I'll have to tweak and modify to suit my particular gaming style, but IMO the good outweighs the bad (+3).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> I don't have a link or anything but didn't I read in the preview books that they were toning down the 'humans run everything now' line that had been part of the previous editions? (I suppose taken from Tolkien)  Sounded like they wanted the different races to be more on par to up the fantasy/adventure elements and make things less like earth.



The idea seems to be that the last big Empire was human, but it broke down after some kind of invasion or cataclysmn. But this means that a lot of the weapons and armor still running around are probably human-based. There isn't a new established Empire yet. (It might be the PCs job to create one, or stop the creation of one.  )


----------



## DandD (May 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The idea seems to be that the last big Empire was human, but it broke down after some kind of invasion or cataclysmn. But this means that a lot of the weapons and armor still running around are probably human-based. There isn't a new established Empire yet. (It might be the PCs job to create one, or stop the creation of one.  )



 Never. The greatest Gnoll Despot to ever embrace the world, the Ruler of Ruin, shall never allow the rise of humans again. All shall bow down to the servants of Yennoghu, king of ghouls and gnolls.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 7, 2008)

Ok, read the article and waded through this long thread.  I feel no need to rehash the arguments about main-hand/off-hand weapons or 3.0's weapon sizing rules.

I think this is, more or less, what I expected coming down the road for weapons.  As far as previews go, this is not the most interesting, but then I find equipment one of the least interesting aspects of DnD, and with only 30 days left til release, I think we're starting to run low on meaty previews without giving away the books.

Anyway, I share a lot of the same concerns about the TWF stuff.  My feeling is that wielding two weapons is going to have some benefit other than access to Two Weapon Powers.  But there's really know way to know until I have all the rules.  Who knows, maybe they screwed the proverbial two-weapon-wielding pooch.  It'd be an unfortunate blemish on a system I otherwise adore.

One thing that seems clear to me is that attacking more than once with a standard action is very good, no matter who's doing it.  Being able to do it all the time probably belongs in the Paragon or Epic realms of play.  Wizards will get AoE effects that can hit many targets, but these are going to be limited to Encounter and Daily powers... much like a Ranger's TWF abilities.

As others suggested I think there are going to be some passive benefits to fighting with two weapons (easy access to multiple weapon Encounter powers, for instance).  But at this point, all we can do is wait.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 7, 2008)

My opinions:

On two weapon fighting: I approve of the idea that holding a weapon in each hand does not get you an extra attack per round.  An "attack" is just an abstraction of everything your PC is doing to try to land a blow on an opponent anyway.  However, this means that there's no good reason to restrict PCs to using a light weapon in an off-hand.  If they're not getting an extra attack with it, who cares?  Any powers devoted to two-weapon fighitng can specify that one weapon must be light, if it seems important for balance reasons.  If I'm running a game and a player tells me they're going to use a longsword in each hand, I'll shrug and tell them it's fine with me.  If they have some sort of power that gives them two longsword attacks per round... that I might have to address.

I do think that there should be some sort of general bonus to fighting with two weapons.  Maybe it gives +1 to your AC or something, to represent the ability to parry.

On Small/Medium/Large weapons: I approved of the change in 3.5, because it gave small races access to all weapons.  In 4E, where many powers will be weapons-based, removing weapon size seems to impose an unfair restriction on Small PCs.  They have less powers to choose from.  Still, it's not that big a deal.  It might possibly be interesting to introduce some weapons that are too small for medium-size races to properly wield down the road.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 7, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Versatile: I'd rather see this bonus as "+ 1/2 your Strength modifier" instead of a flat "+1," but it's not a deal-breaker for me.  (+0)




do we know that using a weapon in two hands doesn´t automatically give you 1.5 times your strength modifier to damage?

+1 damage is just like increasing the damage die by one category (except d12 to d20 of course)


----------



## Korgoth (May 7, 2008)

*Longswords*: Are really 1.5-handers.  They are not the classic Viking or Arming swords, which are called "Viking" and "Arming" swords respectively (and sometimes not represented on the D&D weapon tables).  There's probably no way to effectively use 2 of those things at once.  Which brings me to...

*Two Weapon Fighting*: Funnily enough, though I can hold a spade in each hand with little difficulty, I can only dig one hole at a time.  As for "taking two kitchen knives and swinging them both"... OK, you can make two attacks but each one only does 1/8 regular damage.  The real advantage of two weapon fighting is that you have a larger variety of strikes that you can make (but still only one at a time), and therefore could theoretically find more openings.  But you won't be hitting twice as often, and you won't defend as well as you could with a shield.  It's an advanced technique that affords some advantages while making some trade-offs.  I expect that in 4E, it will allow some moves that you couldn't otherwise pull off.

*Weapon Size*: 
"You find a Large Dagger."  
"Oh, you mean a shortsword?"  
"No, it's a large dagger."  
"Oh, a shortsword then."  
"NO.  It's a dagger.  It has a blade roughly the length of..." 
"A shortsword?"  
"Yes.  It is a dagger the size of a shortsword."  
"Ah.  So you mean it's a shortsword, then?"
'NO.  It's a dagger.  It is a blade the size of a shortsword that you use for thrusting."
"Oh, I get it.  We find a shortsword."


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 7, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> * Small characters can't use two-handed weapons. Um, what? Don't get me wrong, I was never a fan of the whole small version of every weapon thing in 3.5, but at least it made some sense. This, on the other hand, is just ridiculous. Thanks, WotC, for punishing small characters for being small, and for doing so in a way that doesn't even make sense.



Let's forget all of the other misconceptions in the post and use this one as a good example. From the article, it's clear that the "two handed" keyword means that a small character can only use the weapon if the weapon also has the "small" keyword. So the short bow can be used by a small character because it has "small two handed" but the great sword cannot be used by the small character because it only has "two handed". This makes sense.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 7, 2008)

Irving said:
			
		

> It all depends on what you want to simulate, folks.
> 
> The "best" (as in, the one tested by the most people) system of "real" combat tested so far would be the SCA. In the SCA, shields rule. Two-weapon fighting is for suckers. In the LARPs I play... shields rule. With the exception of Japan, shields dominated the field of war for a long time (although tools like the flail, the pick, and other weapons evolved to counter them, and shields shrunk as armor improved.)




Wow...just...wow.

I'm going to restrain my personal opinion of how well the SCA fighting style simulates real swordplay and point out a few things:

1) In SCA fighting, people are, essentially, fighting for points. As such, they make attacks that open themselves up for serious (read: lethal) injury in order to inflict a devastating strike to their opponent's head. This is the same _problem_ that's faced by modern sport-fencing. While people go full speed, the cost-benefit of lethal combat is absent.

2) The SCA fights (for obvious reasons) with _rattan sticks_. This should be obvious, but I'll mention it anyway - a stick has _no cutting edge_. Many of the around the shield "rap-shots" used in an SCAdian fight would actually strike with the flat of the sword, not its edge. That's no fault of the fighters - nobody could actually tell at the speed they're going. The only way to develop that sensibility is to try some of those strikes with real swords, at slow speeds, and observe what happens. Then recognize that the mechanics of angles don't change just because you swing faster.

3) Most medieval fighters were probably in far better physical shape than the people who recreate medieval combat today. As such, even though most SCA fighters kinda waddle around in their armor, there's no reason to believe medieval fighters were that immobile. A highly-trained soldier (U.S. Marine, Green Beret, British SAS, etc.) used to carrying heavy (60+ pound) loads, once they become familiar with armor, is surprisingly agile in it (ducking, dodging, even, in some cases, rolling). That level of agility changes the combat style substantially from "waddle out and stand still."

More generally, there are plenty of two weapon styles out there _in the real world._ Most, but not all, utilize a lighter weapon in the offhand than in the primary hand. Typically, fighting styles would range from single sword (either thrusting, cutting, or cut-and-thrust), sword and shield, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, longsword (a "hand-and-a-half" - what D&D has traditionally called a "bastard sword"), two-handed sword, and quarterstaff. Fighting with a polearm or spear (other than a true pike) generally uses a style that's a variant of the latter. Except of course in pre-medieval times, when spear and shield was a unique style of its own.

Actual two-sword styles (Note 1) were developed in Europe, although in practice, they were very rare. Why? Because in order to fight effectively with two swords, you must follow the following training method. Learn to fight with a single sword in your primary hand. Learn to fight with sword (primary hand) and dagger (offhand). Learn to fight with single sword in your off-hand. Learn to fight with sword (off-hand) and dagger (primary hand). Then, and only then, do you stand a reasonable shot at actually benefitting from wielding paired swords.

With shorter weapons, or those lacking a cutting edge, this isn't quite as true. It is much easier to use two-small short swords, two scimitars, or to bludgeoning weapons (such as sai, tonfa, or escrima sticks (Note 2). Interestingly, this goes back to the lightsaber example and was referenced as its inspiration by _Star Wars_ fight choreographers. A lightsaber doesn't have "a cutting edge." _The whole blade is a cutting edge._ As such, maneuvers which are singularly ineffective with a sword (because you'd be hitting with the flat) work perfectly fine with a lightsaber. As such, the "windmilling" technique so common to people swinging two swords _actually works_ with a lightsaber. As such, the fighting style is closer to escrima than to the various forms of swordfighting.

Overall, from the perspecitve of someone who's studied historical martial arts, the 4E system looks good, if slightly fantasized. I fully expect there to be various feats and powers that enhance various combat styles. And I don't have a problem with their being certain classes that are intended to be the experts in the use of certain styles and others that are not.



Note 1: Referring to two-weapon fighting as "Florentine" is an SCAism. The period terms are simply "sword & dagger," "rapier and dagger," or, in the case of two rapiers, "case of rapiers" - case in this instance meaning "pair."

Note 2: "Escrima" (the Filipino martial art) is a name derived from the Spanish word for "sword." It evolved from rapier and dagger fighting, as introduced to the east by the Spanish. However, since it uses sticks, or short blades, instead of a long blade and a short one, the fighting techniques gradually evolved over 4 centuries into the art we know today.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 7, 2008)

Most 2-weapon fighting styles I know of are things like 2 machetes, or 2 butterfly swords, or 2 nunchaku, or 2 sticks, or 2 rope darts.  Generally 2 weapons that are considered "small" or "light" and for the most part I think at least the idea with attacking with 2 butterfly swords is to be able to counter attack sooner rather than later, by using 1 to block and the other to strike.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 7, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> ok, does that mean i am totally wrong in that case?
> 
> But i can´t interpret that picture...
> 
> so please enlighten me...






			
				withak said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that the picture is meant to represent "_X_ does not work that way!" where _X_ is something from your original post that he disagreed with.
> 
> Or maybe he just really digs Richard Nixon. Without any text, it's hard to say.





Bingo   

QUARTERSTAFF FIGHTING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> More generally, there are plenty of two weapon styles out there _in the real world._ Most, but not all, utilize a lighter weapon in the offhand than in the primary hand. Typically, fighting styles would range from single sword (either thrusting, cutting, or cut-and-thrust), sword and shield, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, longsword (a "hand-and-a-half" - what D&D has traditionally called a "bastard sword"), two-handed sword, and quarterstaff. Fighting with a polearm or spear (other than a true pike) generally uses a style that's a variant of the latter. Except of course in pre-medieval times, when spear and shield was a unique style of its own.




You know what _nobody_ brought onto the battle field?  Duel wielding.

Also, it amuses me you talk about realistic midieval fighting and then use as an example...Star Wars 

Again, you can bring your pick sticker out in war if you want.  I think I'll keep my + one hundred against arrows and other enemies' attacks.

Edit: Side note, on big flaw with the "rule of cool" is that one person's "Cool!" is another person's "Incredibly stupid."  Just take a gander at Deviant Art.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 7, 2008)

As far as weapon sizing, I think 3.5 split the community on the issue. Half the group like the new rules, the other half likes the 3.0 rule. So to me, either way works.

TWF....we definitely need some historical basis for this.....historical basis from a fantasy world!!!

One thing people have mentioned about TWF is that even if historically it might have been effective, it took so long to master techniques it was not usually worth it. But in a world where eladrin sword masters live for hundreds of years, suddenly it becomes possible to create a truly amazing style. And once created, to teach to the younger races.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 7, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Small: I think this is an over-simplification.  I like to think that halflings are industrious enough to create "small-sized" versions of anything that humans use, from tea cups to greatswords.  So it looks like I will have to write a houserule for this...probably something along the lines of a uniform damage penalty for smaller versions of weapons, instead of creating a whole new dice range.  (-1)




It sounds to me that a halfling (or goblin) with a *small long sword* can do everything a medium creature can do with a *long sword*.  Exactly the same; dice, powers, everything.

I'm having a hard time seeing the problem.

Or is the problem with a small character using a non-small weapon?  Perhaps they just lose the proficiency bonus?


----------



## Kordeth (May 7, 2008)

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> It sounds to me that a halfling (or goblin) with a *small long sword* can do everything a medium creature can do with a *long sword*.  Exactly the same; dice, powers, everything.
> 
> I'm having a hard time seeing the problem.
> 
> Or is the problem with a small character using a non-small weapon?  Perhaps they just lose the proficiency bonus?




"Small," I think, is just there to create an exception to the "small characters can't use two-handed weapons" rule where it's needed--the specific example of a shortbow from the article springs to mind. I really doubt we'll see "small longswords;" a shortsword fills the role of longsword for a small character, while a longsword fills the role of greatsword. In all-halfling communities, you'll probably hear halflings talk about their longswords and greatswords, but mechanically those weapons are shortswords and longswords, respectively. Granted, it's a little bit odd that halflings train their rogues to use arming swords while human, elf, dwarf, etc. rogues never do, but meh. Thinking too hard about fantasy.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 7, 2008)

> Side note, on big flaw with the "rule of cool" is that one person's "Cool!" is another person's "Incredibly stupid."




Yes, but in a random sampling of individuals, I bet "using two swords at once like a whirlwind of death" and "a chain, with spikes on it, that you beat things with" come up COOL more often than they come up dumb.

Contrast with "sword-chucks" or even weapons like the sword-staff, and you'll see a bit of a different mix.

Two swords at once? A spinning chain of spikes and metally doom? Perhaps while riding velociraptors into an ancient jungle temple ruled by snake-men and shooting lasers...er...magic missiles into their faces?

WICKED FREAKING AWESOME.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> You know what _nobody_ brought onto the battle field?  Duel wielding.
> 
> Also, it amuses me you talk about realistic midieval fighting and then use as an example...Star Wars
> 
> Again, you can bring your pick sticker out in war if you want.  I think I'll keep my + one hundred against arrows and other enemies' attacks.




Caveat: I should mention that I've been training in Renaissance martial arts for the past 5 years. I also have studied the subject extensively including perusing both actual period manuals on the medieval martial arts and analyses of them by modern experts. I frequently give lessons on the subject, ranging from the mechanics of medieval weaponry to actual styles, to correcting misconceptions created by Hollywood. I can, if you'd like, provide citations for everything I've written.

If you actually read my post, you'll notice that I was using an effective real-world martial arts style (Escrima) to explain why two-weapon fighting with lightsabers would be _much easier_ than two-weapon fighting with swords. I was, essentially, explaining why the _Star Wars_ situation is the exception to the general rule.

You're right. In medieval (and renaissance) warfare, you generally carry either a weapon and a shield or a big, heavy, two-handed weapon. And, shocker, those are the weapons choices available to D&D fighters in Fourth Edition.

However, outside of warfare, a shield is encumbering, hard to carry, and not always as useful as you might think. For example, the renaissance style of backsword and buckler is terribly effective, both on a battlefield and off it. Bucklers are smaller than shields, easier to carry, and more maneuverable. It's not as good against unexpected attacks from multiple opponents, but most D&D combats are more like duels than warfare. A shield also impedes your vision in a way that a buckler (or defensive companion weapon) does not.

Most of the manuscripts we have on medieval fighting show surprisingly little shield work. For instance, Hans Talhoffer's seminal text on german martial arts has only two sections on using a full-sized shield, and both relate to judicial combat, not battlefield warfare. By contrast, the longsword (hand-and-a-half, remember...) is the focus of about half of the text. Contrary to popular belief, sword and buckler fighting did not originate in the Renaissance, but was used all across Europe from about the twelfth century onwards.

Basically, it comes down to this. Soldiers (and civilians) were always making tradeoffs between protection, mobility, and offense. In early times, when armor was rare or less effective, shields were more common. As armor improved, shield use declined. By the mid-to-late renaissance, many soldiers opted to forgo shields in favor of better offensive weaponry (like poleaxes and longswords), because their _armor alone_ offered sufficient protection.

In civilian use, a shield is bulky, being hard to carry and hard to bring to bear quickly when you're attacked. In response, people came up with the buckler - a light, maneuverable shield that offered many of the benefits without the drawbacks. However, when pressed, a dagger can be used as an off-hand (primarily defensive!) weapon. And it's even easier to carry than a buckler. Its secondary value as a surprise attack gives it a slight offensive edge over the buckler, but it's limited area means you lose out (a little) defensively.

When choosing real weapons, tradeoffs are the name of the game. However, as my swordmasters emphasize in their training, steel versus flesh is NOT a fair contest. If someone smashes you in the face with a buckler, unless you're lucky, you're (probably) only a few moments away from getting killed. It doesn't matter that you blocked your opponent's sword when he shoves a dagger through your ribs...and so on.

If Fourth Edition can instill some sense of the tradeoffs involved while still preserving the genre flexibility we're after in a fantasy setting, I'll consider it a success.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 7, 2008)

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> It sounds to me that a halfling (or goblin) with a *small long sword* can do everything a medium creature can do with a *long sword*.  Exactly the same; dice, powers, everything.
> 
> I'm having a hard time seeing the problem.
> 
> Or is the problem with a small character using a non-small weapon?  Perhaps they just lose the proficiency bonus?




Its a problem with size.  A long sword is to big for a halfling to wield in one hand, its that simple.  Mechanically this all seems to be the same as 3.x if you look at dammage ratios.  All they did was not have an extra set of weapons.  In 3.x a small lonsword was actually a shorsword, and a small bastard sword was actually a longsword.  All 4ed did was take away the extra set.  Now a short sword is simply treated like a longsword for small creatures, and a long sword is just treated like a bastard sword for small creatures.

Lets a a bit of a comparison:

3.x:

A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon. 

4ed:

A Longsword is too large for small creatures to use one handed.  A small character can use a longsword two handed as a military weapon.

3.x:

Longsword: One Handed Melee Weapon, 1d6(S), 19-20/×2 

4ed (for small characters):

Short Sword: Wielded in one hand, 1d6 dammage, Prof 3

In fact, I bet that you could probably still use the 3.x system, but you would probably get the same results without having to actually have a whole other set of weapons.


----------



## lukelightning (May 7, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> the renaissance style of backsword and buckler is terribly effective




I hope that 4e bucklers are real bucklers, not the stupid, unrealistic, strap-to-the-arm buckler of 3.0 and 3.5


----------



## Voss (May 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yes, but in a random sampling of individuals, I bet "using two swords at once like a whirlwind of death" and "a chain, with spikes on it, that you beat things with" come up COOL more often than they come up dumb.
> 
> Contrast with "sword-chucks" or even weapons like the sword-staff, and you'll see a bit of a different mix.
> 
> ...




In the interest of providing data for your random sampling...
every single one of those things is incredibly stupid.

The chain is almost passable, except for the bit where you're impaling you own hands to use it.  Why not an actual length of chain? Why add the injure-yourself spikes?

As an aside, its worth noting that the thread has degenerated into *my* personal theories and non-lethal practice experience with weapons sort of like these is more valid than *your* personal theories and non-lethal practice experience with weapons sort of like these.

Its entirely predictable, but I think its officially time for the thread to explode.


----------



## Stormtalon (May 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Its entirely predictable, but I think its officially time for the thread to explode.




Okey-dokey!  Three barrels of Alchemist's Fire, forty Tindertwigs and one albino squirrel coming right up!


----------



## jdpacheco (May 7, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Okey-dokey!  Three barrels of Alchemist's Fire, forty Tindertwigs and one albino squirrel coming right up!




No, wait.  It can't explode until Godwin's Law has come into play...  Or did I miss it somewhere in there?


----------



## Spatula (May 7, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> I like the weapon properties on each weapon. I disliked how 3e weapons were so similar to each other that it just came down to scimitar and rapier because they had better crit ranges.
> 
> I hope they git rid of that type of thing.



Uh... high-crit weapons like the rapier and scimitar are actually inferior to other one-handed martial weapons.

I don't really see anything much different than 3e in here, aside from the removal of the weapon sizes.  The only "new" properties are taking into account the loss of Small weapons or the presumed lack of 1.5x str bonus when using weapons 2H (versatile).

It's disappointing that we couldn't actually see some weapon stats.

EDIT: wow, how the heck is this on page 18... what a lightweight excerpt.


----------



## Wulfram (May 7, 2008)

jdpacheco said:
			
		

> No, wait.  It can't explode until Godwin's Law has come into play...  Or did I miss it somewhere in there?




(Fails will save vs bad taste)

Well, the Nazis disapproved of dual wielding.  As the song goes

_Hitler has only got one sword_....


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 7, 2008)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> (Fails will save vs bad taste)
> 
> Well, the Nazis disapproved of dual wielding.  As the song goes
> 
> _Hitler has only got one sword_....




Oh boy. And here was me about to vote that riding dinosaurs into battle automatically rated as 'cool'.

Although according to The Memo from The Rouse, nothing is 'cool' any more, remember?

For me, a rogue who can carry a shortsword in one hand, a light crossbow in the other and on each turn pick which he uses, rather than having to keep switching weapons? That may not be 'cool' (although I'll put in a vote for 'nifty') but it is a fun image and sounds like fun to play.


----------



## Spatula (May 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> "*Small: * This property describes a two-handed or a versatile weapon that a Small character can use in the same way a Medium character can. "
> Halflings blacksmiths create small weapons.



Err, so they only make 2H or hand-and-a-half weapons?  I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the Small property on weapons.  According to the article it is only applied to weapons that a size-small character would not be able to use normally.  That is, it's an exception to the normal weapon rules for small characters.


----------



## Spatula (May 7, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> For me, a rogue who can carry a shortsword in one hand, a light crossbow in the other and on each turn pick which he uses, rather than having to keep switching weapons? That may not be 'cool' (although I'll put in a vote for 'nifty') but it is a fun image and sounds like fun to play.



Assuming you mean a hand xbow (a light crossbow would take 2 hands to aim & fire), but even then it would take two hands to reload.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 7, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Caveat: I should mention that I've been training in Renaissance martial arts for the past 5 years. I also have studied the subject extensively including perusing both actual period manuals on the medieval martial arts and analyses of them by modern experts. I frequently give lessons on the subject, ranging from the mechanics of medieval weaponry to actual styles, to correcting misconceptions created by Hollywood. I can, if you'd like, provide citations for everything I've written.




But isn't everything you wrote pretty meaningless?  4E explicitly takes any idea of realism or historical accuracy out behind the barn and shoots it in the head.  You made the most sense when you were talking about Star Wars!  I'm not sure why you bothered writing out all that, really.

The important question is, did it look cool when some guy did it in a movie or did it sound cool when some dude did it in a book?  Based on that criteria, I'm guessing the spear-and-big-round-shield fighting style of 300 will prove to be the uber-style for early 4E.


----------



## Spatula (May 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Regarding TWF, and the possibility of feats granting powers generally.
> 
> Its possible that feats will grant new at will powers.



Haven't the designers explicitly said that feats will not grant new powers?  Feats in 4e are supposed to enhance what you can already do, not give you new things to do, or so I thought.


----------



## hamishspence (May 7, 2008)

*Swords and crossbows*

Light crossbows could be fired one handed in 3.5 (with penalties)

As for the longsword: art seeems to stress that it is long hilted (human fighter on horseback) In that sense, is it more like what was traditionally referred to as a longsword? (excepting the bastard sword and the greatsword) A weapon which is designed to be wielded two handed when needed, but is mostly wielded one handed?

Is this the sort of weapon soldiers or knights usually wielded, with a shield in the other hand, or was that the "arming sword"? And does the long hilt of the 4th ed weapon make it more realistic, or less so?

Katanas: look like unusually short blade, but quite long hilt. In fact, a lot like said 4th ed longsword. Does the comparison work? or does the single edge of the katana make it impossible to merge it with the longsword? Were katanas usually wielded two handed only, or was it possible to mix one handed and two handed use of the katana?


----------



## Mort_Q (May 7, 2008)

Ok, I shouldn't have used *small long sword* in my earlier suppositions.

A short sword perhaps, or dagger most certainly, would have a the keyword *small* in its description, and could be used by a small character in an identical manner as would a medium character.  Same dice, etc.

Is that how people are reading it?


----------



## Kordeth (May 7, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Haven't the designers explicitly said that feats will not grant new powers?  Feats in 4e are supposed to enhance what you can already do, not give you new things to do, or so I thought.




Depends on your definition of "new powers," as we've already seen one feat (Power of Amaunator) that gives the cleric a new way to use his _channel divinity_ ability.


----------



## Kordeth (May 7, 2008)

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> Ok, I shouldn't have used *small long sword* in my earlier suppositions.
> 
> A short sword perhaps, or dagger most certainly, would have a the keyword *small* in its description, and could be used by a small character in an identical manner as would a medium character.  Same dice, etc.
> 
> Is that how people are reading it?




No. Daggers and short swords are neither two-handed nor versatile, so they will not (and do not, check out the DDXP characters) have the "small" keyword. Daggers and shortswords can _already_ be used by Small characters exactly identical to Medium characters, because being Small only affects your ability to wield versatile and two-handed weapons.



			
				Weapon Preview said:
			
		

> Small: This property describes a *two-handed or a versatile weapon *that a Small character can use in the same way a Medium character can. A halfling can use a shortbow, for example, even though halflings can’t normally use two-handed weapons.




Personally, I think we'll only see this keyword on weapons that are classified as two-handed because of how they're used, not their size or unwieldiness. As the article itself points out, bows would be classed as two-handed weapons, because there's simply no way to fire a bow one-handed no matter how small it is. If there weren't an exception for weapons like shortbows, halflings would, by the rules, be unable to be archers. The small keyword creates the necessary exception for cases like this.


----------



## Cadfan (May 7, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Haven't the designers explicitly said that feats will not grant new powers?  Feats in 4e are supposed to enhance what you can already do, not give you new things to do, or so I thought.



We've seen feats that give new ways to use existing powers (Power of Amanautor) and feats that grant new powers at a reduced strength (multiclassing feats).

I don't know how things will be out of the box.  But I'm confident that we will eventually see powers granted by feats.  Which powers will be worth granting with feats will be governed by the analysis in my earlier post.  Adding new at will powers to a character does not actually increase that character's power level in a meaningful way, IF the rules in my earlier post are followed.  That means that doing so at the cost of a feat will not harm the game's balance.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 7, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> No. Daggers and short swords are neither two-handed nor versatile, so they will not (and do not, check out the DDXP characters) have the "small" keyword.




Thanks. Now it becomes clear.


----------



## Spatula (May 7, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Depends on your definition of "new powers," as we've already seen one feat (Power of Amaunator) that gives the cleric a new way to use his _channel divinity_ ability.



Ah good point, although in that case using any Channel Divinity power "uses up" all the others for the encounter.


----------



## Klaus (May 7, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Most 2-weapon fighting styles I know of are things like 2 machetes, or 2 butterfly swords, or 2 nunchaku, or 2 sticks, or 2 rope darts.  Generally 2 weapons that are considered "small" or "light" and for the most part I think at least the idea with attacking with 2 butterfly swords is to be able to counter attack sooner rather than later, by using 1 to block and the other to strike.



 Rapiére/Main-Gauche.


----------



## Kaffis (May 7, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> If that's the standard of the weapon illustrations in the PHB I'll be happy.




Likewise. I want the rapier.


----------



## frankthedm (May 7, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Uh... high-crit weapons like the rapier and scimitar are actually inferior to other one-handed martial weapons.



Only for the lowest levels. As levels go up in 3E, the weapon damage die mattered much less than the damage bonus. The extra crits more than made up for the slightly reduced damage die, notably with Scimitars / falchions and 2 for 1 Power attack.


----------



## Kordeth (May 7, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Ah good point, although in that case using any Channel Divinity power "uses up" all the others for the encounter.




Yep. It's worth noting that we haven't seen any feats that give you _extra_ powers yet--Power of Amaunator gives you a new way to use an extant class ability, and the multiclassing feats let you draw one of your power picks from another class's list.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 7, 2008)

> The extra crits more than made up for the slightly reduced damage die




Unless of course, you were attacking something that was immune to crits...


----------



## Mort_Q (May 7, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Unless of course, you were attacking something that was immune to crits...




Which is apparently rarer is 4e.  At least, whole _types_ aren't immune anymore.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Ah good point, although in that case using any Channel Divinity power "uses up" all the others for the encounter.



I think the general framework of "power-adding-feats" will be that you have to sacrifice a power for it - either permanently, like for the multiclass feats, or on a case-by-case (encounter or daily) base (like Power of Aumanator).
Adding extra powers is probably unbalanced most of the time.


----------



## Spatula (May 7, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Only for the lowest levels. As levels go up in 3E, the weapon damage die mattered much less than the damage bonus. The extra crits more than made up for the slightly reduced damage die, notably with Scimitars / falchions and 2 for 1 Power attack.



When making single attacks with high crit weapon in two hands, yes, because of the overpowered 3.5 PA / 2H weapon conversion rate.  When making multiple attacks, not so much.  When using a rapier or scimitar 1H, not at all.  All that assumes the target can be crit; against crit-immune targets (which are legion in 3e) such weapons are clearly inferior.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 7, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Bingo
> 
> QUARTERSTAFF FIGHTING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!




next time tell me that i was talking  instead of putting such a picture there... 

Quarterstaff fighting against an armed opponent uses one hand at the end and one hand about at quarter its length for extended reach and control? Thats what i heard... if i am wrong, just tell me...

i was also told that you can put both hands in the middle to strike with both ends...


----------



## Cirex (May 8, 2008)

Kaffis said:
			
		

> Likewise. I want the rapier.




The rapier picture from 3.5 PHB was not a rapier, but a sable.
(Random clarification).


----------



## MindWanderer (May 8, 2008)

Since people are still having trouble with the "Small" designation, here's a breakdown:

- Weapons with no designation (e.g. shortsword) can be used one-handed by anyone.
- Weapons with the Versatile designation (e.g. longsword) can be used one-handed or two-handed (w/ +1 damage) by Medium creatures, or two-handed (no bonus) by Small creatures.
- Weapons with the Versatile and Small designations (no example so far--quarterstaff, perhaps?) can be used one-handed or two-handed (w/ +1 damage) by anyone.
- Weapons with the Two-Handed designation (e.g. longbow, greatsword) can be used two-handed by Medium creatures and not at all by Small creatures.
- Weapons with the Two-Handed and Small designations (e.g. shortbow) can be used two-handed by anyone.

Capice?


----------



## jdpacheco (May 8, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> The rapier picture from 3.5 PHB was not a rapier, but a sable.
> (Random clarification).




(a)  What's a sable?  The creature?  The color black (heraldy)?  Do you mean "sabre"? (also spelled "saber")

(b) If you *do* mean sabre, it certainly isn't.  While the guard could possibly give that impression, the weapon depicted is clearly a stabbing weapon.  Sabres are slashing weapons.  The blade is too long and slender, which would lead me to also volunteer the name "rapier" for it.

(c)  If you *don't* mean sabre, and you do mean sable, provide some link to somewhere that I can see this weapon.


----------



## Cirex (May 8, 2008)

Yes, I meant a sabre. Sable is the latin form, and I thought it was universal. Didn't think of "Sabre/ertooth".
That weapon is a sabre. Look at the curved blade and the one-sided edge and the absence of that cross thingy to protect the hand from attacks (called 'Gavilanes', in Spanish).
The rogue at the page 168, called Kerwyn, is holding a rapier. 
If you don't like it being considered a sabre, you can call it a Espada Ropera, a Spanish version of the rapier, which was a cross between a rapier and a normal sword.

A sabre:






A rapier:


----------



## Sir Brennen (May 8, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Small: I think this is an over-simplification.  I like to think that halflings are industrious enough to create "small-sized" versions of anything that humans use, from tea cups to greatswords.  So it looks like I will have to write a houserule for this...probably something along the lines of a uniform damage penalty for smaller versions of weapons, instead of creating a whole new dice range.  (-1)



But is there really any mechanical difference between a "halfling greatsword" and a halfling wielding a normal longsword? Same thing with a halfling longsword... wouldn't that be pretty much the same as his human buddy's shortsword? 



> *Proficiencies:* I would have liked to see this as a skill....Weapon Training (Simple), Weapon Training (Military), etc.  The more ranks you invest in these skills, the higher the bonus you get when using weapons in that category.  Oh well.  It's more fun this way, apparently. (-2)



 Except you don't put "more ranks" into a skill like you did in 3E.  Everyone's skill goes up at +1/2 per level, so everybody would be proficient in every weapon to some degree if such things were skills.  A -2 rating seems pretty harsh for something that isn't really supported by the skill rules anyway, and individual weapon skills  as a mechanic I don't think anyone really expected to be in a class-based game, either. If you think the Fighter class should be able to *not* choose any weapon training skills, well...


----------



## jdpacheco (May 8, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Yes, I meant a sabre. Sable is the latin form, and I thought it was universal. Didn't think of "Sabre/ertooth".
> That weapon is a sabre. Look at the curved blade and the one-sided edge and the absence of that cross thingy to protect the hand from attacks (called 'Gavilanes', in Spanish).
> The rogue at the page 168, called Kerwyn, is holding a rapier.
> If you don't like it being considered a sabre, you can call it a Espada Ropera, a Spanish version of the rapier, which was a cross between a rapier and a normal sword.





Perhaps we're looking at different images?






I'm looking at that picture, second weapon from the left (immediately to the right of what people are supposing is a spiked chain, but could also be some sort of strange flail).  The weapon I'm looking at features no curve, and is long and slender.  It closely resembles the image you provided for a rapier.

Ironically, I have a sword hanging in my living room which is very much a sabre, but players insist on calling a rapier...  Despite it's wider, curved blade, and the fact that it is definitely a slashing, not stabbing, weapon (though it's a show piece, so no edge).


----------



## Kordeth (May 8, 2008)

jdpacheco said:
			
		

> Perhaps we're looking at different images?




Yes you are. 



			
				Cirex said:
			
		

> The rapier picture *from 3.5 PHB* was not a rapier, but a sabre.
> (Random clarification).




Edited the quote to fix the spelling confusion.


----------



## jdpacheco (May 8, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Yes you are.





*ahem*  Yes, well...  Um...  Step one, apparently, is to take reading lessons....

Color me sheepish...

Yeah, I'd noticed that in the PHB before...  Honestly, I was never all that impressed with the weapon images in the 3.5 PHB...  And the mistakes only adds to the joy...

Sorry about that...


----------



## tintagel (May 8, 2008)

Jey, Sir Brennan!

Nice to see you using Tiddlywiki!

I love that "app"?  dunno what to call it really.  Not a program... not a site... heh.


----------



## Ondo (May 8, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Versatile: I'd rather see this bonus as "+ 1/2 your Strength modifier" instead of a flat "+1," but it's not a deal-breaker for me.



I'm glad to see that even someone of average strength can now do more damage by using two hands.


----------



## Shroomy (May 8, 2008)

Ondo said:
			
		

> I'm glad to see that even someone of average strength can now do more damage by using two hands.




I agree.  Besides, strong characters already get the bonus to their melee damage from Strength.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 8, 2008)

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> I'm having a hard time seeing the problem.
> 
> Or is the problem with a small character using a non-small weapon?  Perhaps they just lose the proficiency bonus?



Yes, that was the problem I was referring to.  Sure, a "small shortsword" is a dagger, but what is a "small" halberd?  or do halflings even get to choose such a weapon?  Is it a battle-axe instead?  If so, do they still get reach with it, or are reach weapons impossible for halflings?

There is probably a blurb or table or something in the PHB somewhere, for adding the "small" descriptor to any weapon, armor, or shield...WotC just didn't include it in this release.  I'm hoping so, anyway.  We love hobbits at our table.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 8, 2008)

Ondo said:
			
		

> I'm glad to see that even someone of average strength can now do more damage by using two hands.



Agreed.  The more I think about the +1 thing, the more I like it.  I just thought a "Versatile" weapon would be a little more, um, versatile.


----------



## Sojorn (May 8, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> We love hobbits at our table.



It's the choice of sauce that makes the dish.

Wait, what do you mean "as characters"?


----------



## CleverNickName (May 8, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> A sabre:



Yarr...'board my ship that be called a cutlass, ya landlubber!

EDIT: Okay, not really...a "cutlass" would have a heavier blade and a fuller basket over the hilt.  I was just looking for an excuse to talk like a pirate.


----------



## Irving (May 8, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Wow...just...wow.
> 
> I'm going to restrain my personal opinion of how well the SCA fighting style simulates real swordplay and point out a few things:




Heh. Should known I'd have pulled an ARMA grognard out of the woodwork with that comment. 



My definition of "best" might be a little too particular. I was attempting to say "the system of mideval combat gaming/simulation that the most people reading have a chance of being personally familiar, veers close enough to simulationism to be at least marginally accurate, and has been tested enough to permit some wacky things to happen." Which is to say, not great, but acceptable. SCA combat is what it is, which may or may not be completely realistic, but is as realistic as most people are willing to have and still have fun. 

Health of combatants, armor, and all the other issues  your bring up are too general to make assumptions about. I'm not at all positive that medieval warriors were in better physical shape  than your average SCAdian. Leaner, most certainly, but fitter? Considering the diet and general level of health at the time? Debatable. 

I'll point to the best example of a "real life" one-on-one medieval combat I've got in my library: The judicial duel between Jean de Carrouges and Jacques le Gris in 1386. (The Last Duel, by Eric Jager. Excellent read.) At least one of the combatants in that fight was getting over a very high fever. The winner's masterful dueling technique was to grab his opponent by the top of his helmet, step back, and yank him prone in an almost Stoogian maneuver. The fellow couldn't get up in his plate mail. Nor could his opponent stab him with his sword. Eventually he pried a visor clasp open and shoved a dagger into his brainpan. 

SCA, ARMA, D&D, I don't care - nobody's going to try to simulate that one. 

In any event (and to drag us, kicking and screaming, back on topic) - D&D combat is going to be its own animal in the end, and only look as real as is tolerable. I still think that pushing your opponent around on the field is going to matter much more than we give credit for.


----------



## sarcasm2k1 (May 8, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Getting two attacks with a penalty to each isn't unbalanced at all as a base attack option. I don't understand why WotC doesn't get this. I can understand their desire to reign in TWF from the nonsense of high level 3e combat where people could make like a dozen attacks each round, but since there are no longer any iterative attacks that can't be a problem anymore. It's okay for a Wizard to hit several people at once, at range, at-will with scorching blast, but if you want to fight with two weapons and have two attacks, no way! Two attacks ruins the "economy of actions" ... or something.
> 
> Give me a break. This is the worst rule in 4e so far.




The wizard's ability to attack multiple targets at will is a power that he selected.  The fighters ability to attack with both weapons will be a power he selected, and I suspect it will be an at-will power.

My second comment is not in response to any one in particular but to anyone making arguments that realism requires easy TWF.  No! bad poster bad.  In real fights TWF is only common in fencing styles utilizing very light blades in both hands (and the off hand and is used primarily for defense or grapples).  

I have personal experience in broadsword sport fighting (think fencing with wooden longswords).  And I can tell you that a long sword in two hands is both faster and more powerful than a long sword in one hand.  And trying to use a full sized sword in your non-dominant hand is usually worse than using nothing (it's slow, weak and more complicated).  If your opponent is trying to use two longswords it's easer to push them both aside than if he was just using one.  And an attacks with 2 different swords are individually weaker, therefore more easily defended against (also they recover slower leaving you very open if you commit with both weapons).

Many of my teammates loved to play with two swords, or sword & dagger, or sword and shield; but come competition time _everyone_ use a single longsword in two hands (with a dagger tucked in your belt), and this was not required in the rules.  What was forbidden by the rules was the spear I liked to play with, and that was forbidden because it was a unfair advantage.

Having two hands on your weapon gives you more leverage, which gives you more power and (more importantly) more speed.  If your going to give that advantage up you had better be replacing it with something worth having, and in a real fight looking cool isn't worth it.  Mind you in a game looking cool is worth it, so bring on the at-will TWF powers.  Just don't make realism arguments supporting two longswords.

I should also point out that I made this post after reading the first 6 pages, so who knows if what I've said is still relevant.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 8, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> next time tell me that i was talking  instead of putting such a picture there...
> 
> Quarterstaff fighting against an armed opponent uses one hand at the end and one hand about at quarter its length for extended reach and control? Thats what i heard... if i am wrong, just tell me...
> 
> i was also told that you can put both hands in the middle to strike with both ends...




Can I use this as an excuse to bring out my favourite quarterstaff story?



			
				English Martial Arts said:
			
		

> "In the year 1625 England and Spain were at war and Peeke was serving in an English naval squadron, under the command of the Earl of Essex, which was attacking a Spanish naval stronghold. After heavy and accurate bombardment the English captured the fortress, whereupon, they sent forces ashore to carry the attack inland. In the wake of the English landings sailors were sent ashore to forage for food. Richard Peeke, of Tavistock in Devon, was among them. Unwisely he foraged alone and paid the price for his mistake when he was attacked by a patrol of spanish musketers. After a furious fight, during which Peeke was wounded twice, he was captured and taken in chains to Cales ( Cadiz ). from there he was transfered to Xeres where he was put on trial. Present at his trial, which in reality was a miitary interrogation, were four Dukes, four Marquesses, and four Earls. After much questioning Peeke was asked if he thought that the Spanish soldiers present would prove such 'hennes' as the English when they landed in England the following yeare. "
> 
> "No" replied Peeke. "They would prove to be pullets or chickens."
> 
> ...




With apologies to any of my Spanish ENworld buddies


----------



## tintagel (May 8, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Yarr...'board my ship that be called a cutlass, ya landlubber!
> 
> EDIT: Okay, not really...a "cutlass" would have a heavier blade and a fuller basket over the hilt.  I was just looking for an excuse to talk like a pirate.




YAR!  Tis' not till a few more months, but ye' can still sing along!
http://educatedgamer.net/blog/archives/129

Taaaarrrrget!  LARL!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing - that's a great story!

So who's going to be first to shout about Quaterstaff powers...?


----------



## Cadfan (May 8, 2008)

Giant pet peeve- The logical way to fight with a lightsaber is NOT escrima, it is olympic fencing.  Not only is the entire edge a weapon, but so is the point.  The point cuts through anything, and it has no weight.  First person to poke the other guy's wrist wins when the other guy's hand falls off.


----------



## jdpacheco (May 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Giant pet peeve- The logical way to fight with a lightsaber is NOT escrima, it is olympic fencing.  Not only is the entire edge a weapon, but so is the point.  The point cuts through anything, and it has no weight.  First person to poke the other guy's wrist wins when the other guy's hand falls off.




When discussing sport fencing, you need to be more specific.  Also, light-sabre duels would be nothing like sport fencing.  No single sport fencing weapon would cover it.

Epee: Entire body is the target, only stabbing
Foil: Torso only, only stabbing
Sabre: Everything above the waste is target (except hands), stabbing or cutting.

No one weapon fully covers all the possibilities.

Add to that the fact that sport fencing is limited in movement (basically straight-line, no cross-over advance in Sabre) and you're looking at something no very light-sabre duelish at all.

I'm not familiar with escrima, so I won't speak on it.


----------



## Andor (May 9, 2008)

Well, having seen that orcs tend to either have 1hp or 60 to 200 hp I'm going to stand by my statement that the "versatile" weapon trait is blowful.


----------



## jdpacheco (May 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Well, having seen that orcs tend to either have 1hp or 60 to 200 hp I'm going to stand by my statement that the "versatile" weapon trait is blowful.




Could depend on the power...  Remember, a lot of the martial powers are 2 or 3 times your weapon damage...  Yeah, it's not as good Strength and Half, but 1 to 3 extra damage is probably about on par with what you were seeing in 3.5 anyway...  And it's a little more universal. The low strength rogue can still gain a benefit from two-handing a "versatile" weapon.  In 3.5, that rarely happened unless it was his (or her) focus.


----------

