Just how many weapons do you use anyway?

[Kzach]

With the focused nature of building characters, I find that I often only ever use one, or possibly two weapons/implements over the course of the character's life-time. When 4e first came out, I cheered at the notion of 'weapon groups', and yet the design of the system after several years has veered away entirely from that base concept so that we now have pretty much the same damn thing we started off with in previous editions.

What's worse is that often classes don't even match up well with the weapons they NEED in order to fulfil their role. Take the thief, for instance, which is best off with a rapier and yet it's not even qualified to use it. And the thing is, once you spend the feat (or background) on getting the use of the rapier, you end up specialising in it and never using the features of the class which give you access to all those other weapons.

Although this ultimately lends credence to my argument that such bonuses should just be done away with altogether, that doesn't solve the present problem. I'm wondering just what needs to be fixed here in order to make it make more sense. Should it be even more limiting and simply say, "Ok, each class gets X free Weapon/Implement Proficiency feats of their choice," or should it be more open and say, "Ok, feats like blah, blah expertise apply to all weapons you're proficient in,"?

 

[Quickleaf]

The essentials thief really doesn't get rapier proficiency? Huh. I would house rule that one.

As for multi-weapon and weapliment users, don't Master at Arms and Versatile Expertise cover what you're looking for?

 

[darkdragoon]

You went for a slightly bigger light blade instead of the light blades you can already use. That isn't a weapon type issue. Ideally I want to have a suitably hurty main weapon and a secondary with some type of useful power. Implements tend to have a wider variety of utility, but frankly most have to argue away from ignoring them in lieu of a Staff of Ruin.

 

[Spatula]

a) remove superior weapons
b) remove feats that enhance specific weapons and weapon groups.
c) remove weapon-specific class features from the Essentials martial classes.

You could go a step further and make all weapons the same, mechanically, but perhaps that's going too far. If the option for specialization exists and the benefits are worthwhile, players will make use of it. The only solution that I can see is to remove the option or the associated benefits.

In theory the ki focus classes wouldn't have this issue, but the weapon using ones are still going to be looking to use a superior weapon whenever possible.

 

[was]

typically 3..one main melee, one ranged and a dagger as a backup..but it is nice to have an array to choose from in tailoring ur pc

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

It really depends on the character.

The idea of a character that can just whip out any weapon and rock with it is somewhat neutered by being so dependent on your enhancement bonus. Using the inherent bonus system solves this somewhat (combined with Master at Arms).

Typically though, I will take one main (melee or ranged), one backup (melee or ranged, opposite of the main choice), and others as situations require. A dagger does make a handy backup.

With implement users, the story is usually different for me. I'll use a collection of whatever implements I can find, even at a couple plusses behind. I've found with implements, properties can be far more enticing. My implement characters will usually carry a dagger for backup, either melee or ranged. With ranged at-will powers, sometimes it makes more sense to use a melee weapon for backup, and if you need to make an OA attack, a dagger is at least accurate enough to offset the fact that as an implement user, you probably suck at MBAs.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Divide weapons and implements into some reasonable groups, once, in the core rules, covering all weapons that will ever be added to the game. Playtest. Never change these groups again. Feel free to tweak weapons within each group.

Radically limit feats that affect weapons and implements, and all of these work at the group level. Every feat applies to at least three groups.

Make the things that the feats do and the groups to which they apply somewhat related. A feat that gives some bonus damage maybe applies to axes, heavy blades, and polearms. However, and this is key, mix up the feats and flavor such that you can't simply pick up all, say, the axe stuff, and get equally good at heavy blades, or vice versa. OTOH, if you study axes, you'll be at least decent with heavy blades. All you need to pull this off is a matrix of which bonuses will be awarded, balance them, and then divvy them up accordingly.

Voila! Every time you pick a feat to make yourself good at your main weapon, you pick up some ability with several other weapons. So then when that halberd starts looking like a good backup for your axe, either you are already reasonably decent with it, or can get that way with only another feat or two.

Essentially, structure so that narrow specialization is impossible.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

At least rapier's martial now. It seemed like a waste when it was a Superior weapon, since it was just a Light Blade longsword. But, hey, I still went and took it anyway since I liked rolling all d8s on my attacks on my rogue. I still carried daggers for ranged so I could get double mileage out of Weapon Focus, and I had thoughts of TWF, not that that helps rogues much. Later on, the Expertises would've stacked, too.


I don't have a problem using the same weapon; that's common enough in fiction. I can't really think of many characters, who use more than two weapons reasonably well enough to be commented on, and those are usually a melee type and a ranged type. Being good enough to be worth of comment with multiple different melee weapons is pretty rare.

Also, there's really not enough granularity in the system such that an axe is especially better than a sword, or that there are times you'd want one over the other, mechanically. 2e had the optional weapon type vs armor type rules, and 3e has DR breached by weapon damage type. 4e has nothing of the sort.

But it seems reasonable to want to do, though kinda hard in D&D, no matter what edition. 2e, 3/.5, and 4e all strongly encourage specialization, though 2e is the least restrictive, as only one class really cares what kind of weapons it uses.

For 4e, Master at Arms and inherent bonuses will help, significantly, but you still lose having higher critical strike dice and useful weapon properties. You also probably lose out on some damage due to lacking Weapon Focus for both weapons, though racial things like the Goliath's version of WF might help.

Brad

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Count me as another "depends on the PC" person- historically, most of my PCs use at least a melee and a ranged weapon. Some have had 2 melee weapons and no ranged weapons. Some had only one weapon. And at least two had 4.

However, my current PC (Dwarf Starlock/MC: Psion) only uses his Warhammer- he has no need for a ranged weapon.

 

[Geffor]

Personal weapon usage as a 15th century foot knight

Polearm until opponent is too close or it breaks. Then draw close combat weapon, usually a hand and a half sword but I frequently use a long sword with an off hand parrying weapon. If I was actually trying to hurt my opponents I would choose a hammer/pick if they had armour or an axe if they had a shield. Finally, there's always a use for a dagger in the final clinch

Alternate timeline uses light javelins, heavy javelins then attack with shield. Finally draw and use short sword for coup de grace. This form of combat is a little too lethal to actually use on people you don't want to injure unless you allow non-historical equipment for your opponent.