PDA

View Full Version : [4e] House rule to decrease ever-expanding number of weapons in game.



Decoy Lockbox
2009-08-19, 05:12 PM
As I'm sure many of you have noticed, quite a few of the superior weapons are simply better versions of the base weapons. For example, longsword --> bastards sword, greatsword --> fullblade, etc.

Now, since superior weapons in 4e are generally worth the feat, these weapons tend to be rather popular. Want to be a sword 'n' board fighter? Go with a bastard sword! Want to use a big axe? Executioner's Axe for you! Are you a ranger who uses a bow? Why not use a greatbow?

The problem with this is that it forces DMs to further diversify their loot. Now all of the magic longsword dropped by the enemy fighter is useless to the party, as their fighter uses a bastard sword. So this requires you to either A) give the party items they won't use, or B) make all weapon loot conform to the types the party uses. The first option is totally lame, and the second one hurts verisimilitude. "Wow, I can't believe we find these magical bastard swords all the time, and yet have never ever seen a magical longsword wielded by an opponent or in pile of loot!"

So I have a very easy solution to this issue. Instead of taking the feat "superior weapon proficiency: craghammer", and then wielding a slightly different type of one-handed hammer, the player will take a feat called "improved hammery", which will allow him to treat all wielded warhammers as craghammers for the purpose of mechanics. This cuts down on the number of superior weapons out there, and allows players who want to use longswords/battleaxes/etc to do so without feeling like they are gimping themselves for no reason.

Truly unique weapons like the shuriken or double sword are unaffected by this, as the house rule only affects weapons which are literally just "longsword++" or "crossbow++".

So, what do you guys think? The only pitfall I can see is that superior versions of weapons normally cost more than the base weapon. Of course, this is only relevant at level 1, since magic items have their base cost subsumed into their magic item cost.

Kylarra
2009-08-19, 05:22 PM
AV has transfer enchantment ritual. It's a level 4 ritual with a 25gp component cost. It essentially does what it says on the box, moves an enchantment over to a similar item that it can enchant (same slot, same type- ie rod, wand, weapon, etc).

Easier solution than houseruling everything imo.


Additionally, I don't see why it has to be an all or nothing thing. Mix in some weapons of superior types, some of "normal" types and probably a few that no one even uses.

erikun
2009-08-19, 05:31 PM
I suppose this could work, although it does bring up the question about multiple "upgrade" feats. If someone can take a feat to upgrade the weapon damage die (warhammer > craghammer) and a different feat to add Brutal 1 to a weapon, can you take both? Why/why not?

This still doesn't help the "Wow, I can't believe we find these magical gnome hooked hammers all the time, and yet have never ever seen a magical longsword wielded by an opponent or in pile of loot!" Sure, you could just disenchant > enchant the desired ability onto your hooked hammer, but couldn't you do that under the standard system?

Of course, there's just limiting weaponry to the PHB items....

Tengu_temp
2009-08-19, 05:35 PM
I see no issues with this houserule.

Myrmex
2009-08-19, 06:01 PM
I know 4e uses a different mechanic for running NPCs vs. PCs, but if the superior weapons are better, why wouldn't you see them show up in good loot piles?

Sure, maybe all the CR3 henchman only have rusty longswords, but wouldn't there be a sweet sword in the boss's loot pile? If you're going to make a magic weapon, you might as well use the superior weapon, right?

ColdSepp
2009-08-19, 06:05 PM
How often are they finding new items from enemies? :smallconfused:

It could be a set of armor, a new cloak, boots, a ring, gold or residium to have a new weapon enchanted...

JaxGaret
2009-08-19, 06:08 PM
improved hammery

:smallbiggrin::smallsmile::smallbiggrin: :smallsmile::smallbiggrin::smallsmile: :smallbiggrin::smallsmile::smallbiggrin:

Mr. Mud
2009-08-19, 06:09 PM
Seems logical to me, although I think it' better done with this.


AV has transfer enchantment ritual. It's a level 4 ritual with a 25gp component cost. It essentially does what it says on the box, moves an enchantment over to a similar item that it can enchant (same slot, same type- ie rod, wand, weapon, etc).

Easier solution than houseruling everything imo.


Additionally, I don't see why it has to be an all or nothing thing. Mix in some weapons of superior types, some of "normal" types and probably a few that no one even uses.

And even if you have to have an abnormally large amount of dropped Craighammers until the Ritual is acquired, that doesn't mean every drop has to be a special weapon the party is currently using.

Jalor
2009-08-19, 06:32 PM
Craighammers
Hammers used to beat a guy named Craig?

Anyway, I've been on the player end of this problem. Everyone has a magical weapon already, and then I join the group. I'm playing a Halfling archer Ranger, but we find a magical axe. I used two daggers in melee, but I just went "screw it" and started using it in melee anyway. It worked out fine.

Decoy Lockbox
2009-08-19, 09:02 PM
I suppose this could work, although it does bring up the question about multiple "upgrade" feats. If someone can take a feat to upgrade the weapon damage die (warhammer > craghammer) and a different feat to add Brutal 1 to a weapon, can you take both? Why/why not?

This still doesn't help the "Wow, I can't believe we find these magical gnome hooked hammers all the time, and yet have never ever seen a magical longsword wielded by an opponent or in pile of loot!" Sure, you could just disenchant > enchant the desired ability onto your hooked hammer, but couldn't you do that under the standard system?

Of course, there's just limiting weaponry to the PHB items....

The idea of, for example, the "improved hammery" feat, is that it allows you to wield your warhammer with such prowess that it, for the purposes of the rules, is a craghammer.


I know 4e uses a different mechanic for running NPCs vs. PCs, but if the superior weapons are better, why wouldn't you see them show up in good loot piles?

Sure, maybe all the CR3 henchman only have rusty longswords, but wouldn't there be a sweet sword in the boss's loot pile? If you're going to make a magic weapon, you might as well use the superior weapon, right?

Honestly, I think I can see both sides in this (admittedly very minor) issue. I think I just don't like the idea of there being a series of weapons that are just randomly better than others. Like, if bastard swords are better than longswords, why on earth would anyone ever train in longsword fighting? If the longsword just the "training" version of the bastard sword? I guess I just don't like the idea that the "military" weapons might as well be renamed "inferior" weapons.

Tiki Snakes
2009-08-19, 11:59 PM
The idea of, for example, the "improved hammery" feat, is that it allows you to wield your warhammer with such prowess that it, for the purposes of the rules, is a craghammer.



Honestly, I think I can see both sides in this (admittedly very minor) issue. I think I just don't like the idea of there being a series of weapons that are just randomly better than others. Like, if bastard swords are better than longswords, why on earth would anyone ever train in longsword fighting? If the longsword just the "training" version of the bastard sword? I guess I just don't like the idea that the "military" weapons might as well be renamed "inferior" weapons.

If you've gone to the trouble of learning to use a 'superior' weapon, you haven't instead learned something else. Be it mounted combat, or heavy blade opportunist, or whatever.
There will be an in-universe equivalent trade-off, as far as training and so on goes.

But, as people above have said, there's nothing majorly wrong with the homebrew above, really. All you are basically doing is changing the 'exotic weapon proficency' to not require a new weapon.

The only issue I can see is, if you can learn how to weild a Longsword in such a style that it is just mechanically better, why would anyone learn 'longsword' style? ;)

erikun
2009-08-20, 12:23 AM
The idea of, for example, the "improved hammery" feat, is that it allows you to wield your warhammer with such prowess that it, for the purposes of the rules, is a craghammer.
This response would be easier if I actually had Adventures' Vault, but here it goes anyways.

Suppose there is a feat "Improved Hammery" which allowed you to wield your warhammer as a craghammer (that is, higher damage dice). Suppose there is a feat "Brutally Hammery" which allowed you to wield your warhammer as a Brutal 1 weapon, a la some weapon which probably exists but I'm not familiar with it.

Will a character be able to pick up both feats? Would an Improved Brutally Hammery be too much?


The only issue I can see is, if you can learn how to weild a Longsword in such a style that it is just mechanically better, why would anyone learn 'longsword' style? ;)
Probably the same people who use longswords rather than bastardswords - the small, the weak, the feat deprived! :smalltongue:

FlawedParadigm
2009-08-20, 01:46 AM
What you're seeing here is an illusion. Earlier editions of the game just spewed treasure at you and hoped you could use some of it. 3E even said it shouldn't be hard to sell one you just can't use (whereas earlier editions suggested you'd be insane to want to sell any kind of magic item). 4E, on the other hands, does specifically suggest the DM ask players for item wishlists and recommends you cater to these lists. What happened is we went from the old style of trying to build treasure hoards that seem realistic but ultimately contained little you were likely to use, to instead just giving you the items you were hoping would show up anyhow.

There's a fairly easy way to deal with this, especially once you're past low levels. But first, the low level stuff; at each level, there's a set number of treasure parcels. Some of them are magic items, the rest are piles of coins, gems, art objects, and potions. Simply ask the DM to have the non-magic items be the stuff you find in the adventure, and have the magic items once in awhile be something a monster/NPC wields (after all, it's occasionally plausible someone will wield a weapon the party does), or have the party's patron/questgiver offer to have a smith forge them a magic weapon/heavy armour of their choosing (or a tanner, in the case of light armour). Perhaps someone has a spare (weapon X) family heirloom they'd like you to have in thanks. In short; the party-specific rewards should have plot behind them, so that it makes sense the party receives them.

Later, it gets easier, because the DMG suggests you don't need to necessarily give the PCs new weapons, so much as let them upgrade the old ones. If they do that (making special sense if they're keeping the same type of weapon but just increasing the bonus), you can have the party find what would have been the sale price of the old version of it in residuum, preferably in the lair of something or possession of someone who may not know its value (to explain why it's still there.)

Kurald Galain
2009-08-20, 01:51 AM
Now, since superior weapons in 4e are generally worth the feat,

I beg to differ.

Frequently, you're only spending a feat on +1 to damage, sometimes +2, which is primarily attractive to strikers, and rather low on the list of priorities of most other classes. The main reason the weapons are popular is because many people think that bigger is always better.


make all weapon loot conform to the types the party uses.
This is pretty much what the game intends for the DM to do. And there's always Xfer Enchantment, of course. Verisimilitude is never a priority in 4E design, playability and balance are.

Pramxnim
2009-08-20, 01:56 AM
4e supposes that PCs possess magical items suited for their level, but that doesn't mean they have to find them in the loot. Fluff is mutable to fit with the mechanics of the game, so I don't see why you cannot just "upgrade" your players' weapons when you feel the time is right.

I envision it as a Weapons of Legacy sort of mechanic, where the PCs weapons and armour level up with them as they adventure. That way, you get the players attached to their equipment, and avoid the issue where someone would throw away their family heirloom just because "Oh that axe totally has a higher enhancement bonus than mine" (of course the transfer enchantment ritual works too. But this is in case you don't have a ritual caster). You could still give out normal loot, and diversify the magical items the PCs get too.

Edit: Ninja'd by FlawedParadigm

oxinabox
2009-08-20, 04:59 AM
I liked it, i like it a lot.
I might just use that.
Makes sense that someone learns to use a longsword then gets gets bettaer at it.

on trhe downside it removes a lot of the weapons from the game.

The New Bruceski
2009-08-20, 08:04 AM
I give Transfer Enchantment to any NPC Blacksmith who is expected to work with magical items. If you're trying to repair armor that's magically tougher than normal items, I figure it's easiest to move the enchantment onto some spare armor, do the repairs, and move it back. Sure it's a 4th level ritual, but something that useful would definitely be passed on from master to apprentice.

Bam. You have an in-game way of helping the players even if they don't hoard rituals, it fleshes out the world a little more, and finding a blacksmith able to do so can be a plot hook at low levels. It's not as useful in "Magic is nearly unknown" or "magic is scary" worlds (though finding one in those worlds could be an adventure of a different kind), but it seems reasonable to me at a Standard Fantasy Game level, even if you're not as magic-integrated as Eberron.

Artanis
2009-08-20, 10:52 AM
Frequently, you're only spending a feat on +1 to damage, sometimes +2, which is primarily attractive to strikers, and rather low on the list of priorities of most other classes. The main reason the weapons are popular is because many people think that bigger is always better.

About the best reason I can think of to take weapon proficiency feats is that if you're going to take a damage-boosting feat anyways, I can't find anything that does a better (or less-terrible) job of it. Most of that sort of feat adds +1 per attack per tier, but weapon proficiency will generally add +1 per [w].

So long story short, if you're going to take that sort of feat anyways, weapon proficiency is at the top of the list.

Mr. Mud
2009-08-20, 10:52 AM
Hammers used to beat a guy named Craig?

His name wasn't Craig! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122055)


Anyway, I've been on the player end of this problem. Everyone has a magical weapon already, and then I join the group. I'm playing a Halfling archer Ranger, but we find a magical axe. I used two daggers in melee, but I just went "screw it" and started using it in melee anyway. It worked out fine.

Heh, I remember in Icewind Dale, Instead of clicking Weapon Proficiency: Bow, I clicked Weapon Proficiency:Axe... Needless to say Al Gore the ranger did pretty damn well in melee.

Kylarra
2009-08-20, 10:55 AM
About the best reason I can think of to take weapon proficiency feats is that if you're going to take a damage-boosting feat anyways, I can't find anything that does a better (or less-terrible) job of it. Most of that sort of feat adds +1 per attack per tier, but weapon proficiency will generally add +1 per [w].

So long story short, if you're going to take that sort of feat anyways, weapon proficiency is at the top of the list.Well there are specific racial proficiency feats that do better. :smalltongue: But overall, you are correct.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-20, 11:01 AM
So long story short, if you're going to take that sort of feat anyways, weapon proficiency is at the top of the list.
Yes, but that's a big "if". Easier (and, at least in my area, much more common) ways to boost weapon damage are e.g. bloodclaw, reckless, and those bracers.

Artanis
2009-08-20, 11:05 AM
Sure, it's a big if. But the things you mention aren't feats, and as such have absolutely no bearing on weapon proficiency's worth or lack thereof relative to other feats.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-20, 11:11 AM
Sure, it's a big if. But the things you mention aren't feats, and as such have absolutely no bearing on weapon proficiency's worth or lack thereof relative to other feats.
In my opinion, they do. I find that a feat that can be duplicated by equipment is worth less than a feat that cannot (since over his adventuring career, a character is most likely getting more equipment than feats). Similarly, the value of powers like Dispel Magic, or rituals like Arcane Lock, is diminished by the existence of cheap items that perform the same function.

Kylarra
2009-08-20, 11:15 AM
In my opinion, they do. I find that a feat that can be duplicated by equipment is worth less than a feat that cannot (since over his adventuring career, a character is most likely getting more equipment than feats). Similarly, the value of powers like Dispel Magic, or rituals like Arcane Lock, is diminished by the existence of cheap items that perform the same function.Given the number of feats you end up with over the course of your adventuring career, I don't see much issue with burning one or two for a little more damage.

Artanis
2009-08-20, 11:30 AM
In my opinion, they do. I find that a feat that can be duplicated by equipment is worth less than a feat that cannot (since over his adventuring career, a character is most likely getting more equipment than feats). Similarly, the value of powers like Dispel Magic, or rituals like Arcane Lock, is diminished by the existence of cheap items that perform the same function.

Which is entirely beside the point. The gear you're using has absolutely no effect on the fact that weapon proficiency will typically add more damage to a 7w hit than will weapon focus, backstabber, astral fire, or the like. Your gear may make you not want to bother with a feat like that, but if you take one anyways, weapon proficiency (or its objectively superior racial equivalents) is generally at the top of the list.


Just to reiterate, I'm not saying it's good. I'm saying that if you're taking that sort of feat anyways, weapon proficiency is usually your best choice of that category...and that that's the only reason I can think of to take it.

Hal
2009-08-20, 12:25 PM
My GMs typically deal with this issue by just saying, "You find a level 5 magic item. Oh, Hal, it's your turn to have a magic item? What do you want it to be?"

I realize this destroys immersion, but it means never having to fuss with such matters. It means players get to decide what loot they want, instead of being outfitted by random chance/GM fiat.

Alternatively, you can just give out the material used to enchant magic items as loot, rather than the item itself. This way, a player with the proper ritual could make whatever items the party wanted.

Decoy Lockbox
2009-08-20, 02:14 PM
If you've gone to the trouble of learning to use a 'superior' weapon, you haven't instead learned something else. Be it mounted combat, or heavy blade opportunist, or whatever.
There will be an in-universe equivalent trade-off, as far as training and so on goes.

But, as people above have said, there's nothing majorly wrong with the homebrew above, really. All you are basically doing is changing the 'exotic weapon proficency' to not require a new weapon.

The only issue I can see is, if you can learn how to weild a Longsword in such a style that it is just mechanically better, why would anyone learn 'longsword' style? ;)

Its simple; learning to use the longsword would be the first step in the training, and then "advanced" longsword training would upgrade your damage die to d10. So people would neglect to get advanced training for all the same reasons that they would neglect to get the better weapon (other than lack of cash). Honestlly, its just a very minor, cosmetic house rule that I wanted to use because I like the idea of a character's power coming from their own skills and training rather than the gear they have. I have something of a character > gear mentality if you will. I'm even running a "no wealth" 4e game at the moment.


This response would be easier if I actually had Adventures' Vault, but here it goes anyways.

Suppose there is a feat "Improved Hammery" which allowed you to wield your warhammer as a craghammer (that is, higher damage dice). Suppose there is a feat "Brutally Hammery" which allowed you to wield your warhammer as a Brutal 1 weapon, a la some weapon which probably exists but I'm not familiar with it.

Will a character be able to pick up both feats? Would an Improved Brutally Hammery be too much?


Probably the same people who use longswords rather than bastardswords - the small, the weak, the feat deprived! :smalltongue:

I think you misinterpreted my idea; the "improved hammery" and other feats, for rules purposes, treat your wielded warhammer exactly as if it was a craghammer. If memory serves, the craghammer is identical to the warhammer (+2, 1d10), but has brutal 2. Regardless, there aren't multiple feats per weapon, its just a cosmetic feat substitution. This is almost less of a rule and more of a reflavoring. The only real differences are that there would be less (in my opinion, unnecessary) weapon types out there, and superior weapon guys pay less than they otherwise normally would. The last part only really effects lvl 1 people, so you could potentially give it a hand wave, or just have the lvl 1 guy pay extra cash for his training (although thats dumb, since other feats don't cost cash to learn).


I beg to differ.

Frequently, you're only spending a feat on +1 to damage, sometimes +2, which is primarily attractive to strikers, and rather low on the list of priorities of most other classes. The main reason the weapons are popular is because many people think that bigger is always better.


This is pretty much what the game intends for the DM to do. And there's always Xfer Enchantment, of course. Verisimilitude is never a priority in 4E design, playability and balance are.

Well, personal experience and the wisdom of the CO boards tell me that superior weapons are pretty nice. Also, you often get an extra added perk from taking one -- the fullblade isn't just a greatsword with d12 dice, its also high crit.


Yes, but that's a big "if". Easier (and, at least in my area, much more common) ways to boost weapon damage are e.g. bloodclaw, reckless, and those bracers.

Why not just take the superior weapon, and bloodclaw, and the bracers? If you are going for pure damage, no reason to limit yourself, especially if you are the only striker in the party.

Artanis
2009-08-20, 02:57 PM
Why not just take the superior weapon, and bloodclaw, and the bracers? If you are going for pure damage, no reason to limit yourself, especially if you are the only striker in the party.

EXACTLY! Thank you, this is what I've been trying to say :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2009-08-20, 03:49 PM
Frequently, you're only spending a feat on +1 to damage, sometimes +2, which is primarily attractive to strikers


If you are going for pure damage, no reason to limit yourself, especially if you are the only striker in the party.

Seems to me we're saying the same thing, then.