Imbalance with weapons(3.5)

[Origomar]

Is it just me or does it seem like alot of the weapons aren't balanced correctly from 3.5. Such as i dont see any reason why someone would choose a great club over a great sword or great axe other than they just want a big club. Or why there would be any incentive to have a short bow rather than a long bow(or composite for that matter).

Also, the monk weapons seem to be a little off statistic wise.

Ex. Sai being bludgeoning weapons, they are obviously piercing hence the pointy ends. Also the Shuriken having an effective range of 10 feet. That's the same as if you were throwing a 12 pound two handed axe at someone(granted it would take longer and have a less chance to hit) but still I've seen Shuriken thrown effectively at 20 feet.


/rant

What are your thoughts?

[Quietus]

Is it just me or does it seem like alot of the weapons aren't balanced correctly from 3.5. Such as i dont see any reason why someone would choose a great club over a great sword or great axe other than they just want a big club. Or why there would be any incentive to have a short bow rather than a long bow(or composite for that matter).

Also, the monk weapons seem to be a little off statistic wise.

Ex. Sai being bludgeoning weapons, they are obviously piercing hence the pointy ends. Also the Shuriken having an effective range of 10 feet. That's the same as if you were throwing a 12 pound two handed axe at someone(granted it would take longer and have a less chance to hit) but still I've seen Shuriken thrown effectively at 20 feet.


/rant

What are your thoughts?

Shuriken CAN be thrown at 20 feet, by someone skilled. They just eat a range penalty with them.


Regardless, I think they were aiming to cover a broad range of things with weapons, and didn't want them all to come down to "1d4 for easily hid weapons, 1d6 for light, 1d8 one-handed, 2d6 two-handed". There are also the weight/cost balances to take into consideration, as well as certain damage types generally being more useful.

After all, the greatsword is what.. 50 gold? That's a hefty chunk of starting gold, compared to the 8 or 10 (forgive me if I'm off, this is off the top of my head) for the greatclub.

All that being said, I doubt it'd break anything to move to the 1d4/1d6/1d8/2d6 setup above.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

There actually have been attempts to figure out the system used to balance weapons by WotC for homebrewers. I unfortunately lost my link to it, but google may help.

And keep in mind that while the Greatclub is weaker than the Greatsword, it's only down by one point of damage and a bit weaker critical. Not a huge loss.

[Origomar]

Shuriken CAN be thrown at 20 feet, by someone skilled. They just eat a range penalty with them.


Regardless, I think they were aiming to cover a broad range of things with weapons, and didn't want them all to come down to "1d4 for easily hid weapons, 1d6 for light, 1d8 one-handed, 2d6 two-handed". There are also the weight/cost balances to take into consideration, as well as certain damage types generally being more useful.

After all, the greatsword is what.. 50 gold? That's a hefty chunk of starting gold, compared to the 8 or 10 (forgive me if I'm off, this is off the top of my head) for the greatclub.

All that being said, I doubt it'd break anything to move to the 1d4/1d6/1d8/2d6 setup above.


I just think its silly to make some weapons obviously superior, alot of weapons they did a good job with making some have slightly higher crit chances but lower attack or higher crit damage but lower crit chances, just a few of them are almost completely useless or don't seem realistic.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I just think its silly to make some weapons obviously superior, alot of weapons they did a good job with making some have slightly higher crit chances but lower attack or higher crit damage but lower crit chances, just a few of them are almost completely useless or don't seem realistic.Do you really think a Greatclub should be in any way as effective as a Greatsword? As-is, most of the weapons are balanced with each other, with many having distinctive traits to make them attractive in various situations, with the exception of Monk weapons, which suck. This is fine, since Monks suck, and them having decent weapons might lure even more people to try to play them.

Also, here's the thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=694416) discussing the balance.

[Quietus]

I just think its silly to make some weapons obviously superior, alot of weapons they did a good job with making some have slightly higher crit chances but lower attack or higher crit damage but lower crit chances, just a few of them are almost completely useless or don't seem realistic.

Silly? Sure. But I personally like having a difference between my greatclub-weilding half-dragon, my greatsword-weilding viking fighter, my greataxe-weilding barbarian, and my scythe-weilding necrogish.

[kpenguin]

Ex. Sai being bludgeoning weapons, they are obviously piercing hence the pointy ends.

The pointy ends aren't pointy. On a sai, the ends are blunt.

[Sinfire Titan]

I'm working on a total overhaul of the base weapons and enhancements for them (for gamer fans: Think Fable 1&2, and you would be very close to what I'm trying to make). Its about 20% finished, so it will be a while, but it will be in my Sig when its finished.

[Origomar]

The pointy ends aren't pointy. On a sai, the ends are blunt.

They still pierce though. (unless the video i saw of their use was incorrect, which in all possibility it could be.)


And i don't mean every weapon being the same i mean the weaker weapons being tweaked to be more attractive example.


Great sword does 2d6 damage 19-20 threat and x2 crit damage

Great axe does 1d12 damage regular threat and x3 crit damage

They are different while great sword is more consistent and more crits will happen great axe has a higher chance at rolling 12s and when it does crit it packs a wallop. I would say one is probably superior to the other but not as much as say great club which does less damage and has a lower crit chance and crit damage than both of them.

[Babale]

But that's realistic! Why would ANYONE skilled with both a club and a sword EVER choose a sword when he's going for pure damage?

[Oblivious]

Short bows can be used while mounted, but they mostly exist to be on the rogue proficiency list, I believe.

Shuriken are thrown ammunition. They're not good primary weapons, but they're cheap to enchant and good for throwers before getting Quick Draw.

[Origomar]

But that's realistic! Why would ANYONE skilled with both a club and a sword EVER choose a sword when he's going for pure damage?

The kanabo was essentially a club used in Medieval japan and it was used to sunder weapons and crush anything it hit. People used it :)

And Oblivious thanks i didn't knows that, can longbows not be used at all on mounts or do they just get a penalty?

[Quietus]

I'm working on a total overhaul of the base weapons and enhancements for them (for gamer fans: Think Fable 1&2, and you would be very close to what I'm trying to make). Its about 20% finished, so it will be a while, but it will be in my Sig when its finished.

If I were going to do something like this, I'd use what I said above.


Light weapons : 1d6
One-handed weapons : 1d8
Two-handed weapons : 2d6/1d12 (Not sure which I'd go with, probably the 2d6, since it scales nicely with size)


Then if a weapon has unique attributes to it beyond what its level of weapon should do (Scythe : Can be used for trips, Ranseur : Bonus to disarm), reduce the effective size by one.

Simple weapons : No attributes, simple nat 20/x2 crits
Martial weapons : One attribute, be it enhanced crits (wider range, higher crit multiplier, a trip/disarm bonus, etc)
Exotic weapons : Two attributes, as above


I'm sure there'd be a few oddities in this system, and some changes to what we have right now. A kama would become a simple weapon, for example, which is fine.. but so would nunchuks be. The damage on a bastard sword/dwarven waraxe would go up, to show their usually two-handed nature, then the Exotic feat would essentially make them one-handed weapons with the "Enhanced Crit" and "Enhanced Damage" attributes, which I feel is fine. But the vast majority of your weapons would stay more or less the same - a greatsword would still be 2d6, 19-20/x2, and other levels of "<something>swords" would stay the same.


And Oblivious thanks i didn't knows that, can longbows not be used at all on mounts or do they just get a penalty?


Pretty sure they can't be used on horseback at all.

[Sinfire Titan]

They are different while greatsword is more consistent and more crits will happen great axe has a higher chance at rolling 12s and when it does crit it packs a wallop. I would say one is probably superior to the other but not as much as say great club which does less damage and has a lower crit chance and crit damage than both of them.

Speaking in probability only, a basic Greataxe is worse than a basic Greatsword due to average and minimum damage values. Also, the Greatsword is more likely to crit. I've seen the actual math behind it before and remember that, despite the Greataxe's x3 Crit modifier making it deal more damage on a successful crit, a Greatsword ends up being the more efficient weapon as it crits twice as often as a Greataxe.

IE: Take 20 attacks from a Str 30 character (nothing else, not even enhancements). Assume nothing but averages. Here's the math if every attack hits:

Greataxe: 21.5 average damage/attack (from 1d12+15 due to 30 Str and 2-handed), 64.5 on a crit. One crit for every 20 attacks. Average damage after 20 Attacks: 473 damage.
Greatsword: 22 average damage/attack (2d6+15), 44 on a crit. 2 crits for every 20 attacks. Average damage after 20 attacks: 484 damage.

See? 11 points of difference due to higher average damage. When you mix in abilities that improve damage on a Crit, the Greataxe ends up ahead (but so does the Scythe and Falchion).




One thing bugs me: WotC's Scimitar is not actually a Scimitar. It's actually a Falchion. They mixed up those two weapons.

[quick_comment]

They still pierce though. (unless the video i saw of their use was incorrect, which in all possibility it could be.)



The video was wrong. Sais are not pointy in any way.

[Babale]

Greatclubs, if I am not mistaken, deal bludgeon damage-so they are good for enemies of the undead, who can have Disrupting Greatclubs.

As for your Japanese Sundering Club, that could be a separate exotic weapon, which deals low damage, but gives a bonus on sunder attacks.

[Sinfire Titan]

If I were going to do something like this, I'd use what I said above.


Light weapons : 1d6
One-handed weapons : 1d8
Two-handed weapons : 2d6/1d12 (Not sure which I'd go with, probably the 2d6, since it scales nicely with size)


Then if a weapon has unique attributes to it beyond what its level of weapon should do (Scythe : Can be used for trips, Ranseur : Bonus to disarm), reduce the effective size by one.

Simple weapons : No attributes, simple nat 20/x2 crits
Martial weapons : One attribute, be it enhanced crits (wider range, higher crit multiplier, a trip/disarm bonus, etc)
Exotic weapons : Two attributes, as above


I'm sure there'd be a few oddities in this system, and some changes to what we have right now. A kama would become a simple weapon, for example, which is fine.. but so would nunchuks be. The damage on a bastard sword/dwarven waraxe would go up, to show their usually two-handed nature, then the Exotic feat would essentially make them one-handed weapons with the "Enhanced Crit" and "Enhanced Damage" attributes, which I feel is fine. But the vast majority of your weapons would stay more or less the same - a greatsword would still be 2d6, 19-20/x2, and other levels of "<something>swords" would stay the same.

Close. I put weapons at 1, 3, or 4 augment slots for magic abilities, based on proficiency required. The exceptions would be the Bastard Sword and Waraxe. Those both have 5 augment slots due to being statistically inferior to a Longsword or Greatsword. I made them worth the feat.

And I actually avoid that system mentioned above. Anything that lists the Greathammer as overpowered with the d12, 19-20, x4 values is wrong and just doesn't want melee characters to have nice things. Melee characters need nice things, otherwise casters rape them. Well, they still do, but not as hard.

[Origomar]

The video was wrong. Sais are not pointy in any way.

How do you attack with Sai? I know you can use the handle to bash them with it but other than that i thought your supposed to stab them x.x

[mistformsquirrl]

Quick comment is correct on that.

That said, one can thrust with a blunt weapon, so the video might actually have been perfectly right, but your interpretation may be a bit off.

Something a lot of people don't really think of is that just because something is blunt doesn't mean it's like a mace - jabbing with the end of a quarterstaff, or a nunchaku with both ends in the same hand, or the tip of a sai or jitte - all perfectly valid techniques.

Course a lot of people forget you can strike with the pommel of a sword, and with some, punch with the hilt. Some historical swords that would in D&D terms classify as greatswords are actually sometimes gripped by both handle and blade and used in a spear-like thrust. (Remember, your hand is protected by mail, which is highly resistant to cutting.)

A lot of weapons are designed so that you can do all kinds of things - the whole weapon is a striking surface.

/weapons-nerd

[Innis Cabal]

Ex. Sai being bludgeoning weapons, they are obviously piercing hence the pointy ends.

They can be both actually, just not in D&D

[Swordguy]

Is it just me or does it seem like alot of the weapons aren't balanced correctly from 3.5. Such as i dont see any reason why someone would choose a great club over a great sword or great axe other than they just want a big club. Or why there would be any incentive to have a short bow rather than a long bow(or composite for that matter).



Because some weapons ARE qualitatively better than other weapons. A two-handed sword is flat-out better than a large club*. It's a holdover from when D&D had pretensions of simulationism and "balance" wasn't an issue - the issue was merely attempting to represent the relative abilities of the various weapons in D&D mechanical parlance.

That said, if you'd like to "rebalance" weapons, go back to 2e sources and look for the table relating to weapon strengths against various types of armor (and, secondarily, weapon speeds). The main reason to use a warhammer, say, over an arming sword is because it's much better at transmitting impact against rigid armor (plate) or chainmail than a sword is. Against an unarmored target, the sword is superior due to easier handling characteristics and the whole "cutting off limbs" thing. It's not a matter of complication; if you want to have this huge variety of weapons, and want people to have a reason to use them, you NEED these factors in play.

Otherwise, there's no point to having actual "weapons" at all. Just take a 1-handed weapon that does 1d8 damage and a 19-20/x2 crit range. Why bother what it's called if the only concern is the mechanics?



*Note: this is also why some armors are better than others. There is no rational circumstance, short of facing down gunfire, in which you'd want to be wearing animal hides when full alwhite plate is an option.

[mistformsquirrl]

@Origrimar -

Remember that a sai is primarily built to catch swords and the like - it's not primarily designed as an offensive weapon.

That doesn't mean you can't beat someone silly with them! It's just not their primary purpose.

Striking with a sai (keeping in mind that I don't claim to know everything, I'm sure there are dozens of ways to use them) -

Striking with the tips - like I said above, you can thrust with a blunt weapon and do tremendous damage with it. Striking hard enough you might even penetrate. (And I have to imagine that would hurt like hell.)

Pommel striking is always good, and if I remember correctly you can use a reverse grip for effecting punching and jabbing, as well as of course striking with the central shaft (which is essentially like being beaten with a metal rod. ... because that's what it is.)

Sai aren't really a weapon I know perfectly, but those are what I can recall off the top of my head >.<

[Keld Denar]

But that's realistic! Why would ANYONE skilled with both a club and a sword EVER choose a sword when he's going for pure damage?

Why? I'll tell you why. Greater Mighty Wallop. Its a spell in Races of the Dragon. Boosts a BLUDGEONING weapon 1 size catagory per 4 caster levels. So, you get a CL20 GMW cast on your greatclub, and now you go from 1d10 to 2d6 to 3d6 to 6d6 to 9d6 to 18d6. And thats not even counting all of the other properties of the weapon that are independant of that spell. It also lasts HOURS PER LEVEL. I'd like you to show me a sword that does 18d6.

And don't even get me started on Spikes....

[Babale]

@Swordguy: That's actually a great idea.

Doesn't even have to be that hard: just say that you lower an amour's AC bonus and add in DR of the appropriate type. For example, chainmail might have DR 5/Piercing, while Full Plate Plate would have DR 10/Bludgeoning.

[Babale]

Why? I'll tell you why. Greater Mighty Wallop. Its a spell in Races of the Dragon. Boosts a BLUDGEONING weapon 1 size catagory per 4 caster levels. So, you get a CL20 GMW cast on your greatclub, and now you go from 1d10 to 2d6 to 3d6 to 6d6 to 9d6 to 18d6. And thats not even counting all of the other properties of the weapon that are independant of that spell. It also lasts HOURS PER LEVEL. I'd like you to show me a sword that does 18d6.

And don't even get me started on Spikes....

I meant in real life.

Besides, I already came up with a time a greatclub is best: a disrupting greatclub against the undead.

[Quietus]

Close. I put weapons at 1, 3, or 4 augment slots for magic abilities, based on proficiency required. The exceptions would be the Bastard Sword and Waraxe. Those both have 5 augment slots due to being statistically inferior to a Longsword or Greatsword. I made them worth the feat.

And I actually avoid that system mentioned above. Anything that lists the Greathammer as overpowered with the d12, 19-20, x4 values is wrong and just doesn't want melee characters to have nice things. Melee characters need nice things, otherwise casters rape them. Well, they still do, but not as hard.

I don't follow what you mean by the augment slots. By magic abilities, do you mean things like frost/shock/impact/etc? If so, do you still have the exponentially-scaling cost of magic abilities? And would, say, a +2 sword use two augment slots?

As for the greathammer point; I didn't say that system was perfect. Hell, I came up with it off the top of my head in five minutes. That being said, it IS capable of accurately reproducing the majority of weapons in the PHB. There are a few within it that can't be more or less reproduced with it, and probably a few more outside of that, but it covers MOST... and really, looking at that setup, you could get a d12, 19-20, x3 weapon as it was as a standard-balanced Exotic weapon.. which is fine, IMO. And you could always add a drawback to a weapon to give it another ability, like reducing its die size, or putting a minimum size/strength requirement, or an attack penalty on it, then give it another bonus to balance it. Say the Greathammer can only be used by a character with <X> strength or Large+ size, and you can get the extra +1 to crit multiplier.. and really, it makes *sense* that only someone of exceptional strength/size could weild something like that.

[mistformsquirrl]

@Babale - actually:

Chain can be pierced easily yes, but chain also offers pretty unimpressive protection against bludgeoning weapons as well. Remember - it's a flexible armor, which means that although the weapon isn't physically contacting you, it can still break your bones quite easily, and the mail isn't going to do much to stop that.

Plate on the other hand is rigid, and stands up to everything a lot better; though bludgeoning is still one of the better ways to get through. Some weapons - it's not even about penetrating the armor, but causing ridiculous amounts of head trauma right through the helmet. Even in a fully encased plate helm, a smack with a flail could probably cause serious problems for your neck. Other blunt weapons can shatter your bones despite the armor, though it's far more resistant than chain.

Of course that only applies to steel weapons - wood would probably still work somewhat against chain, but against plate it'll be far less useful.

(This is why I tend to leave realism out of my D&D games - things can get complicated. I'd rather people just pick the weapons they think are cool and get on with it <@_@>m)

[Sinfire Titan]

I don't follow what you mean by the augment slots. By magic abilities, do you mean things like frost/shock/impact/etc? If so, do you still have the exponentially-scaling cost of magic abilities? And would, say, a +2 sword use two augment slots?

Kinda. Augment Slots are kinda like the Augment Crystals in the MIC (they come in multiple grades). In a thread, I give the following example:


Instead of having a +1 Flaming Burst Adamantine Longsword, it's just an Adamantine Longsword and a small rock. That rock is a +1 Elemental augmentation, the same basic thing as the Flaming/Frost/Shocking/Acidic enhancements. If it were a +2 Elemental augmentation, it would be a stronger version of Flaming/Frost/Shocking that auto-includes the Burst ability. A +5 Elemental augmentation is effectively 5d6 fire/cold/electricity/acid damage and an extra 4d8 fire/cold/electricity/acid damage on a crit (4d10 if x3, 4d12 if x4). You are able to switch between the energy types as a Swift action.

As a standard action, you attach the +1 augmentation to the Adamantine Longsword (Longswords have 3 slots, so this permanently fills one of those slots). It gains the Augment's enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls, and can deal the extra damage. It takes a swift action to activate it, but remains active as long as you need it to be.

Multiple augments of the same type can be applied to the same weapon, so that Adamantine Longsword can hold 3 Elemental augmentations. If one of those augments is more powerful than the others (one is +5, the others are +4 or lower), you use that one's enhancement bonus to determine the attack roll and damage roll bonus, but otherwise keep track of the enhancements separately (so the +4 ones only grant an extra 4d6 damage). All 3 of them can be activated with the same swift action, and all 3 of them can be different energy types (so the +5 gives 5d6 Fire, one of the +4 gives 4d6 cold, and the last one gives 4d6 acid). If you Crit, you deal a metric ton of extra damage (5d6fire+4d8 Fire+4d6 Cold+3d8 Cold+4d6 Acid+3d8 Acid). If it were a Scythe, all of those d8s would be d12s.

Augments "fall out' of the weapon they are attached to if the weapon is successful destroyed by someone using the Sunder action. MDJ destroys both the weapon and any augments attached to it. Dispel Magic can suppress the augments, but it has to check against each augment separately.

There's more to it than just this, but this covers the basics. I'm going to eventually update the Soulknife, Kensei, Weapons of Legacy, and any artifact-level item to match this system. Epic items won't be touched aside from what I borrow from that system.


As for the greathammer point; I didn't say that system was perfect. Hell, I came up with it off the top of my head in five minutes. That being said, it IS capable of accurately reproducing the majority of weapons in the PHB. There are a few within it that can't be more or less reproduced with it, and probably a few more outside of that, but it covers MOST... and really, looking at that setup, you could get a d12, 19-20, x3 weapon as it was as a standard-balanced Exotic weapon.. which is fine, IMO. And you could always add a drawback to a weapon to give it another ability, like reducing its die size, or putting a minimum size/strength requirement, or an attack penalty on it, then give it another bonus to balance it. Say the Greathammer can only be used by a character with <X> strength or Large+ size, and you can get the extra +1 to crit multiplier.. and really, it makes *sense* that only someone of exceptional strength/size could weild something like that.

Eh. I'm taking the time out of my schedule to completely rewrite weapons, so a quick-fix really does me no good (I'm actually very skilled when it comes to balancing fine-points of an ability, though I tend to aim towards Tier 3 with pretty much everything). Deleting redundant ones, repricing them, and giving them flavor text, that sort of stuff. So, no offense, I don't really see the point in using your fix.

[Sinfire Titan]

Why? I'll tell you why. Greater Mighty Wallop. Its a spell in Races of the Dragon. Boosts a BLUDGEONING weapon 1 size catagory per 4 caster levels. So, you get a CL20 GMW cast on your greatclub, and now you go from 1d10 to 2d6 to 3d6 to 6d6 to 9d6 to 18d6. And thats not even counting all of the other properties of the weapon that are independant of that spell. It also lasts HOURS PER LEVEL. I'd like you to show me a sword that does 18d6.

And don't even get me started on Spikes....

Unarmed Strikes>Great Club. Dman proved this.

[Swordguy]

(This is why I tend to leave realism out of my D&D games - things can get complicated. I'd rather people just pick the weapons they think are cool and get on with it <@_@>m)

Trouble is, without the realism, you get problems like the one detailed in the OP; unbalanced weapons. Without the realism concerns, why WOULD anyone take a warhammer over a longsword, say?



Slight threadjack: On armors...

Chain is generally not worn against the skin, but over a padded garment, like a quilt. This garment (known, among other things, as a gambeson) is a very protective garment in its own right. It's actually what you're "technically" wearing if you wear cloth armor (alone, you could call it a padded jack and be close enough to correct that only hopologists are going to be snippy about it). And while the mail doesn't protect against bludgeoning well, the gambeson does a reasonable job. Interestingly, there are also many Crusader accounts of knights walking around in full mail looking like porcupines from all the Saracen arrows stuck in their mail...and with the knights not harmed in the slightest. Real mail - riveted and flattened links with extremely small internal ring diameters - is actually quite resistant against attacks that can be generated with only one arm's worth of force (in D&D terms, long and short swords, short bows, daggers, and so forth. The best 1-handed weapon for getting through mail is an axe).

If I HAD to give the varying armors DR, here's what they get (coverage is an issue here - the breastplate is great defense - but only on the torso, so some of the numbers may look weird). No balance is intended, the values are relative to one another.

Cloth: DR 2 vs B,S

Rigid Leather: DR 2 vs B,P

Studded (soft) Leather: DR 1 vs B, DR 3 vs S

Chain Shirt: DR 5 vs S, DR 3 vs B, DR 2 vs P
-You've got chain on the torso and cloth on the limbs - what gets hit?

Chainmail (fullbody): DR 6 vs S, DR 3 vs B, DR 3 vs P

Scale: DR 7 vs S, DR 3 vs B, P

Breastplate:DR 10 vs S, DR 5 vs P, B
-issue here is that this is essentially Full Plate+leather, so what gets hit?

Bronze Plate Mail: DR 5 vs S, B, DR 7 vs P

Plate Mail: DR 10 vs S, DR 6 vs P, DR 5 vs B

Full Plate: DR 10 vs S, DR 7 vs P, DR 5 vs B

These would be starting values, of course - something like adamantine would add its DR value to these; making adamantine breastplates or full plate full of win.

/threadjack

The overall problem is that interaction between weapon and armor is extremely complex, not at all an exact science, and absolutely must be accounted for for many weapons to be viable choices at all. See plate armor, pull out warhammer. See cloth, pull out sword. it would require a very thorough rewrite of the equipment chapter, though.

[ericgrau]

Is it just me or does it seem like alot of the weapons aren't balanced correctly from 3.5. Such as i dont see any reason why someone would choose a great club over a great sword or great axe other than they just want a big club. Or why there would be any incentive to have a short bow rather than a long bow(or composite for that matter).

Also, the monk weapons seem to be a little off statistic wise.

Ex. Sai being bludgeoning weapons, they are obviously piercing hence the pointy ends. Also the Shuriken having an effective range of 10 feet. That's the same as if you were throwing a 12 pound two handed axe at someone(granted it would take longer and have a less chance to hit) but still I've seen Shuriken thrown effectively at 20 feet.


/rant

What are your thoughts?

Uh, no. Not at all. If anything they went rather overboard on balance. You compared practically the lowest damage weapon to the highest, and even that one has its uses since it's dirt cheap and easy to find. See: Roy Greenhilt. Looking at other martial two-handed weapons, so we compare apples to apples, each one deals only slightly less damage and comes with a special ability to easily make up for that 1-2 damage. Heck, the crits from the falchion and scythe can give them slightly more damage on average. If anything the problem comes from players with poor optimization priorities who won't give up even 1-2 damage for all those other advantages. The weapons themselves in any given category are pushed rather unrealistically close together in terms of power.

EDIT: Shuriken have a 10 foot range increment, which means their max range is 50 feet. You just pay -2 AB per 10 feet. Other thrown weapons and slings are likewise 5 times increment for max range, while bows are 10 times the increment.

[Doc Roc]

It certainly would.... At that point, I'd be reaching for a copy of Mount And Blade, because even a number-monkey of a GM like me is gonna get a little squeamish over that intricate of a system at first. It looks like after a while, I'd be fine running it, but certainly it'd be rough going at first.

[Kaiyanwang]

eat.

And I actually avoid that system mentioned above. Anything that lists the Greathammer as overpowered with the d12, 19-20, x4 values is wrong and just doesn't want melee characters to have nice things. Melee characters need nice things, otherwise casters rape them. Well, they still do, but not as hard.

If the thing works for your game, good for you but IMHO the greathammer you wrote about (is the one from MM III or IV, isn't it?) it's a typo.

I think that the "right" one is the goliath hammer from races of stone.. generally, at least in 3.5, weapons follow the same pattern:

19-20 threat, x2 crit

18-20 threat, x2 crit but slightly less damage

20 threat, x3

19-20 threat, x4 but slightly less damage

20 threat, x4 and are exotic.

IMHO, weapons in 3.5 are well made. You only have to know what's the right tool for the job, for the righ class or against the right enemy.

As an example, a lot of people say that light weapons giving bonus to disarm are a trap, because you need a big one to be the best disarmer. YES as a general rule is true.

But.. you could have, say, a rogue that want to disarm a ninja. Both are "light weapon bearers" so such weapon can be very useful.

Actually, when people complain about the sameness of melee combat, IMHO, it's because never experienced an imaginative use of things like bolas, harpoons and whips. IMHO, of course.

And, at least in my experience, weapon damage type matters.

Finally, look up on the splats (sadly): they've done a lot of "equivalent" weapons (as an example, maul is the bludgeoning bastard sword).

EDIT: for the problems inherent weapon feats like weapon focus, I strongly recommend UNhearthed Arcana's weapon categories. They really saved my game (even if I use an advantageous interpretation in a gestalt game ;:smalltongue:)

[Sinfire Titan]

If the thing works for your game, good for you but IMHO the greathammer you wrote about (is the one from MM III or IV, isn't it?) it's a typo.

I think that the "right" one is the goliath hammer from races of stone.. generally, at least in 3.5, weapons follow the same pattern:

19-20 threat, x2 crit

18-20 threat, x2 crit but slightly less damage

20 threat, x3

19-20 threat, x4 but slightly less damage

20 threat, x4 and are exotic.

IMHO, weapons in 3.5 are well made. You only have to know what's the right tool for the job, for the righ class or against the right enemy.

I understand that its a typo, but the weapon is just another carbon-copy of something they've printed before and never bothered to check and see if they did. It may be a better weapon than the Goliath version, but it is just nicer to say they errata'ed the Goliath Greathammer to make it worth the EWP feat.


Finally, look up on the splats (sadly): they've done a lot of "equivalent" weapons (as an example, maul is the bludgeoning bastard sword).

I know. The bastard sword and waraxe are identical in every way except crit value. The maul is at least bludgeoning instead of slashing. It got retarded when I opened up the Dragon Compendium and found 12 polearms that could be easily reduced to 4.

[mistformsquirrl]

@Swordguy - Hehe, I was trying to maintain simplicity <~_~> (and I won't deny, I sometimes forget to include gambeson and similar types of under-armor) - it gets well, like you noted, very very complex if you start bringing things to absolute reality.

As for the "Why?" of using weapons that are functionally inferior - I can only answer for myself but my reasons are relatively simple:

I choose a weapon because of the feel it gives a character. Sometimes I have a character who'd be perfectly capable of fighting with a longsword... but I give them a short sword or a dagger, or a morning star instead. It all depends on what I want the character to feel like.

I like to create characters on a specific theme - some of the themes are RL based - roman legionaires, samurai, more traditional knights, etc... depending on what I feel really evokes the 'feel' of that character, that's the weapon they get.

That's not to say it's perfect as it is... but I personally don't sweat it at all, because the differences are generally rather minor.

That of course is just me <@_@>b others may feel compelled to always take the most potent weapon they can get, and that's not a bad thing; but from my perspective, there's plenty of reasons to take the less powerful weapons if you have an idea they fit.

[High_Voltage]

Slight aside but I am a martial artist and I have experience using sais so I just wanted to clarify a few things.

The long central shaft is actually pointed while the two other flanking ends aren't. Stabbing with a sai, at least in the style that I practice, doesn't happen very frequently. A reverse grip which mistformsquirrl mentioned is the most common grip that I use and with that grip the pommel is used to punch an opponent. Otherwise the most common strike is using the long shaft to basically bludgeon your opponent like a metal baton. So I actually agree with WotC listing the sai as a bludgeoning weapon.

Just my two cents.

[Quietus]

Kinda. Augment Slots are kinda like the Augment Crystals in the MIC (they come in multiple grades). In a thread, I give the following example:



Augments "fall out' of the weapon they are attached to if the weapon is successful destroyed by someone using the Sunder action. MDJ destroys both the weapon and any augments attached to it. Dispel Magic can suppress the augments, but it has to check against each augment separately.

Sounds vaguely like the gem-socketing deal in Diablo 2; My gut reaction is that it seems a little more complicated, but I like the feel.




Eh. I'm taking the time out of my schedule to completely rewrite weapons, so a quick-fix really does me no good (I'm actually very skilled when it comes to balancing fine-points of an ability, though I tend to aim towards Tier 3 with pretty much everything). Deleting redundant ones, repricing them, and giving them flavor text, that sort of stuff. So, no offense, I don't really see the point in using your fix.



In general, taking a great deal of time to work over the balance of things does in fact result in a more robust and effective system; I was mostly going for thought-exercise with what I came up with, more for my own benefit than anything else.

[Doc Roc]

Sinfire, you have my sun blade.

I'd love to help you with a weapons rebalance, since I love numbers and making them dance around.

[Darkfire]

Short bows can be used while mounted, but they mostly exist to be on the rogue proficiency list, I believe.

Composite longbows can also be used while mounted. The only reasons not to use them as your long ranged weapon of choice are non-proficiency or choosing to specialise with crossbows. Opting for Crossbow Sniper (PH2) on a Scout or Rogue is probably the only time you'd consider the latter but they've not got proficiency with longbows anyway (unless they're multi-classing or have racial proficiency).

[Doc Roc]

Oh man, I LOVE crossbow sniper. Particularly with the... oh what is it.... quick loading? enhancement from MiC.

[J.Gellert]

What about a 2nd-edition-style system where armors offer different AC against each type of weapon?

Then hammers/clubs become stronger against full plate, for example.

[Kaiyanwang]

I know. The bastard sword and waraxe are identical in every way except crit value. The maul is at least bludgeoning instead of slashing. It got retarded when I opened up the Dragon Compendium and found 12 polearms that could be easily reduced to 4.

Well, it depends fromthe value you assign to the kind of damage. As an example, I found my players love Lucerne Hammer (the DComp version).

Anyway, there are oddities: as an example, could someone please explain me why ankus is Exotic :smallconfused:?

[hewhosaysfish]

Anyway, there are oddities: as an example, could someone please explain me why ankus is Exotic :smallconfused:?

Because I've never heard of it. Therefore it must be weird and exotic.

Hmm... Wikipedia tells me its a hooked thing for goading elephants but makes no mention of it being adapted for use as a weapon...

[Kaiyanwang]

Because I've never heard of it. Therefore it must be weird and exotic.

Hmm... Wikipedia tells me its a hooked thing for goading elephants but makes no mention of it being adapted for use as a weapon...

I meant, of those who have the Dragon Compendium.

[huttj509]

Slight aside but I am a martial artist and I have experience using sais so I just wanted to clarify a few things.

The long central shaft is actually pointed while the two other flanking ends aren't. Stabbing with a sai, at least in the style that I practice, doesn't happen very frequently. A reverse grip which mistformsquirrl mentioned is the most common grip that I use and with that grip the pommel is used to punch an opponent. Otherwise the most common strike is using the long shaft to basically bludgeon your opponent like a metal baton. So I actually agree with WotC listing the sai as a bludgeoning weapon.

Just my two cents.

First off, I agree that this is similar to how I had heard of the sai being used. Either to whack someone with the length of it or catch swords for disarming sort of thing.

The video I'm SURE is being referred to is from Deadliest Warrior show on Spike TV. In their Mafia vs. Yakuza match they had one of the Yakuza experts demonstrating the sai. While he did mention the disarming capabilities, ALL he did to demonstrate it was quick jabs with the central point. The reason I remember that clip is when I watched it, my first thoughts were "I didn't think that was how you use a sai..."

However, for that demonstration he was attempting to showcase how the sai could be used as a deadly weapon. The show does not look favorably on things unless bones are broken or there's bleeding (was a gel torso), so he may have been going for effect on purpose.

[J.Gellert]

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu9LV6YHasA&feature=fvw) shows what you do with Sai... he doesn't even try to pierce.

And this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXqJoWxm9BM) has an explanation - even when thrown, it's apparently supposed to trap.

[John Campbell]

Mail actually provides more protection against bludgeoning than most people expect. I've been doing SCA heavy combat - which is all blunt rattan weapons - in a mail hauberk for some years, and the mail does provide a significant amount of protection. And it is the mail itself, not the gambeson - though the gambeson does provide its own degree of protection. I've fought without one or the other for various reasons over the years, and I'd much rather take a hit from a bludgeoning weapon with the mail but no gambeson than with the gambeson but no mail. (Though mail + gambeson would be my preference... or, better yet, plate.)

See, while mail is flexible, it's heavy, and so the mass of it - particularly if it's hanging loose away from the body - absorbs a lot of the energy of incoming blows. It's less effective in places where it's stretched tight against my body by its own weight, like over my shoulders (the Roman lorica hamata had a double layer there for a reason).

My mail has a tendency to swing out away from me when I'm moving, too, and when it's doing that, its momentum goes directly to countering incoming blows. There have been more than a few times when someone has struck at me, at my legs in particular, when I was turning, and their weapon smacked into ten pounds of steel rings moving the other direction, and their blow just stopped dead without ever even touching me.

Heavier weapons are more effective against this - a hammer or an axe will carry more of its energy through and actually deliver it to my person than a sword does. Spears also work very well... the spear is a much-underrated weapon. They're heavy, usually two-handed, and piercing, and they don't skip off mail... they catch in a ring, burst it open, and go right through. (It was a pig carcass behind the mail when we tried that, admittedly, not me.)