3.5 Weapon complaints

[No brains]

I have some beef with the weapons in 3.5. Some weapons are given too much versatility, while others don't get that which they deserve. Example: Flail vs Battleaxe. With a flail, which is small enough to use one handed, you wan wrap up crap to trip and disarm. I've got a problem with this because 1. you're just as bad off when your weapon ties around another 2. Who picks up a flail and thinks, "I better use this with finess aiming attacks carefully" instead of, "ALRIGHT IT SPINS! MORE POWER! GO FOR THE HEAD!". Axes, however, WERE historically used to hook around things like shileds or even a ship's rails in the case of a boarding axe.

Maybe the propeties should be reversed with a flail having a X3 crit and an axe getting bonus manuvers? Does anyone else have similar thoughts?

[Mayhem]

I agree with you on how useful an axe is. As for criticals, I'm of the opinion that the devs balanced axe criticals against swords to add some tactics to the equation; sword is more likely to crit but axe wreaks terrible mayhem when it finally does crit. I definitely think axes should have some combat manuevers like trip etc, but like all D&D the designers clearly don't live in the real world :smallwink:. Just look at the retarded weapon weights for crying out loud!

As for flails, while they definitely have the 'cool' factor, I personally wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole. So many people have killed themselves while playing with them it isn't funny(ok, it's rediculously funny).

[Siosilvar]

The weapons in 3.5 simply aren't balanced.

Now, you could make them more balanced, but that'd take a lot of effort, and the value is questionable when you could just pick a weapon statline and a damage type for it, then describe as you like.

I'm not sure where I put the links to previous efforts to do the same, but I'm sure others will come along with them shortly.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: This goes in roleplaying games.

[LordBlades]

Sadly, 90% of weapons in 3.5 D&D are there just for flavor.

There are only a few weapons you'd want to use for generic damage dealing (basically anything with x4 or 18-20/x2 crit range, they provide the most DPS) and a few other cool spcial weapons (like spiked chain). The rest are mechanically inferior (although not that much usually).

[Ashtagon]

Sadly, 90% of weapons in 3.5 D&D are there just for flavor.

There are only a few weapons you'd want to use for generic damage dealing (basically anything with x4 or 18-20/x2 crit range, they provide the most DPS) and a few other cool special weapons (like spiked chain). The rest are mechanically inferior (although not that much usually).

Being a high damage high crit weapon matters far less than you'd think. I ran a series of simulations, and the following factors ware what mattered most:


Ranged weapons, not having an ability boost to damage is gimp.
Again for ranged weapons, not being able to do iterative attacks will gimp the weapon.
Two-handed weapons, able to get the extra boost from Power Attack and x1.5 Strength bonus, outmatch any other melee weapon by a considerable margin.
A 2-h weapon with 1d6 base damage and x2 crit will consistently beat a 1-h weapon with 1d8 base damage and x3 crit.

[LordBlades]

Being a high damage high crit weapon matters far less than you'd think. I ran a series of simulations, and the following factors ware what mattered most:


Ranged weapons, not having an ability boost to damage is gimp.
Again for ranged weapons, not being able to do iterative attacks will gimp the weapon.
Two-handed weapons, able to get the extra boost from Power Attack and x1.5 Strength bonus, outmatch any other melee weapon by a considerable margin.
A 2-h weapon with 1d6 base damage and x2 crit will consistently beat a 1-h weapon with 1d8 base damage and x3 crit.


I think I didn't make my point clear, sorry about that. What I meant was that, in a given class of weapons (let's say two-handed) the best ones (as in most damaging) are the ones with highest crit (damage-multiplier combination). I'm not trying to compare different classes of weapons.

Take for example Falchion (2d4, 18-20/x2) vs Greatsword (2d6, 19-20/x2).
Over 20 hits (assuming that only nat 1 misses)

Falchion: 2-17: 2d4(avg 5)+1.5xStr; 18-20: 4d4(avg 10)+3xStr, total 110+33xStr

Greatsword: 2-18: 2d6(avg 7)+1.5x Str; 19-20: 4d6(avg 14)+3xStr, total 147+31.5xStr.

this means that for a Str modifier >24, a Falchion deals more damage than a Greatsword. If they both are Keen (or have Imp crit) it becomes (125+37.5xStr vs. 161+34.5xStr) so you deal more damage starting from a +12 Str bonus. the breakpoint drops even lower if you;re using Power Attack (or other sources of static damage that double on crits)

[super dark33]

so what you say is that most of the weapons need to be redone? im on it!

Light flail and morningstar

IRL, tey are cool weapons, smashing and crushing.
in DND, they get 1d8 (likea normal medium weapon), but have a X2 crit multipier and only on netrural 20, which makes them inferior to the longsword and battleaxe.
they should get the crit better. maybe 19-20 2x or 20 x3

Spear
it was used in medival times, and was held one handed!
in DND, you need two hands to use it, altrough it does the same damage as longswoed or battle axe.
i declear it a one handed weapon! thus makeing the 1d8 x3 trio! Battleaxe (slash) Light flail (smash) and spear (stab)!

[Ashtagon]

Alternatively, you can just make every weapon do 1d6 damage, regardless of what it is or how many hands it needs to use.

Realistically, some weapons are simply better than others. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

[Darwin]

Light flail and morningstar

IRL, tey are cool weapons, smashing and crushing.
in DND, they get 1d8 (likea normal medium weapon), but have a X2 crit multipier and only on netrural 20, which makes them inferior to the longsword and battleaxe.
they should get the crit better. maybe 19-20 2x or 20 x3

Spear
it was used in medival times, and was held one handed!
in DND, you need two hands to use it, altrough it does the same damage as longswoed or battle axe.
i declear it a one handed weapon! thus makeing the 1d8 x3 trio! Battleaxe (slash) Light flail (smash) and spear (stab)!

Morningstar is inferior damage-wise to the Longsword and Battleaxe because it is a simple weapon. And it's actually considered the best weapon for it's category (simple, one-handed) since it deals both piercing AND blunt damage.

The Flail has lower damage because it gets a bonus to trip attacks. Admitted, there are better weapons for tripping out there (spiked chain, guisarme) but if you bump it uup to the level of the longsword it'll essentially make the trusty old blade obsolete.

The Spear was indeed held in one hand in medievel times, but not exclusively. There's been a lot of different spear types through the time, and the PHB reflect that quite well with both the Shortspear, Spear, and Longspear (and Lance, sorta).

In truth, I'm quite content with 3.5's weapons. No, they aren't balanced damage wise, but neither were real weapons. Most were suited for specific tasks, and the rules reflect that quite well if I may say so myself.

[Mayhem]

Weapons have more balance in Conan d20, but they're still out of whack and has some horrible ones.

Balancing weapons is difficult, we have price, damage, special combat manuevers, crit range and multiplier, training difficulty, weight, damage type, hardness/hit. Most d&d weapons are just balanced against each other as Darwin said, without really reflecting real life statistics.

In d&d it's halfspears or short spears I believe that are 1-handed weapons. Sure you can use regualr or long spears 1-handed, but have you tried it? Real pain, very difficult and really not worth the trouble.

[LordBlades]

In truth, I'm quite content with 3.5's weapons. No, they aren't balanced damage wise, but neither were real weapons. Most were suited for specific tasks, and the rules reflect that quite well if I may say so myself.

Not really.

Take for example heavy mace vs morningstar. Morningstar is cheaper, lighter, and also deals piercing damage. There's no advantage for using a heavy mace over a morningstar.

Also Greatclub vs Heavy Flail.

Even my Greatsword/Greataxe vs. Falchion/Scythe example a few posts higher. They are both pure damage weapons, but on any decent damage dealer (power attack, high str) Falchion performs way better.

These are just the most obvious examples.

[Mayhem]

Haha good point on the morningstar/mace there LordBlades.
How about morningstar does 1d6 damage? You can't really buff the heavy mace or you'll intrude on longsword and warhammer.

[Combat Reflexes]

Spear[/U][/B]
it was used in medival times, and was held one handed!
in DND, you need two hands to use it, altrough it does the same damage as longswoed or battle axe.
i declear it a one handed weapon! thus makeing the 1d8 x3 trio! Battleaxe (slash) Light flail (smash) and spear (stab)!

PHB already has a one-handed spear that does 1d8 / x3. It's called a trident.




Take for example heavy mace vs morningstar. Morningstar is cheaper, lighter, and also deals piercing damage. There's no advantage for using a heavy mace over a morningstar.

The mace, however, has 10 hardness and 20 hit points (IIRC), while the morningstar has only 5 hardness and 10 hit points - a mace is pure steel, almost impossible to sunder for all but optimized sunder builds.

[Shademan]

I agree with you on how useful an axe is. As for criticals, I'm of the opinion that the devs balanced axe criticals against swords to add some tactics to the equation; sword is more likely to crit but axe wreaks terrible mayhem when it finally does crit. I definitely think axes should have some combat manuevers like trip etc, but like all D&D the designers clearly don't live in the real world :smallwink:. Just look at the retarded weapon weights for crying out loud!

As for flails, while they definitely have the 'cool' factor, I personally wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole. So many people have killed themselves while playing with them it isn't funny(ok, it's rediculously funny).

but weight in D&D symbolizes both physical wieght and PRESENCE. how hard it is carrying it around and how much space it takes and how much that inhibits you.
so yeah, they should have neamed it something else than lb's to descripe this. something like...CU (carrying units) or whatever


as for spears: yep. should be one handed and simple. there is a reason it was one of the MOST common weapon in medieval times. and yes, it is supposed to be used one handed and it is easy to use.
(look at the arming spear here)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/judgerdead/spears-1.jpg

[Mayhem]

Yeah, weight is also balanced against carry capacity which I haven't looked at lately but I assume it's out of whack somewhat too.

Morningstar has 5 hardness and 5 hitpoints, and you are correct on heavy mace. Source:http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm

[Kuma Kode]

Take for example Falchion (2d4, 18-20/x2) vs Greatsword (2d6, 19-20/x2).
Over 20 hits (assuming that only nat 1 misses)

Falchion: 2-17: 2d4(avg 5)+1.5xStr; 18-20: 4d4(avg 10)+3xStr, total 110+33xStr

Greatsword: 2-18: 2d6(avg 7)+1.5x Str; 19-20: 4d6(avg 14)+3xStr, total 147+31.5xStr.

Odd. I ended up with a different result as to which was better. I determined the weapon's average per-attack damage rather than total up all possibilities. Here's what I did.

Since neither weapon has an advantage to hitting, we can assume all attacks hit (or some other arbitrary limit), and that all critical threats are confirmed.

Falchions do 2d4 damage, and have a 15% chance to critical.
Greatswords do 2d6 damage, and have a 10% chance to critical.

To model the chance, you can simply add 15% or 10% of the extra damage to get the weapon's DPA (Damage-Per-Attack).

The formula is (BASE DAMAGE) + ([EXTRA DAMAGE] × % CHANCE TO BE ADDED)

Unmodified Weapon DPA...
Falchion = (2×2.5)+([2×2.5]×0.15) = 5.75
Greatsword = (2×3.5)+([2×3.5]×0.10) = 7.7
Greataxe = 6.5+([{6.5}×2]×0.05) = 7.15

With 26 Strength...
Falchion = (2×2.5+12)+([2×2.5+12]×0.15) = 19.55
Greatsword = (2×3.5+12)+([2×3.5+12]×0.10) = 20.9
Greataxe = (6.5+12)+([{6.5+12}×2]×0.05) = 20.35

In fact, the falchion only begins to surpass the greatsword when the strength MODIFIER is 26 (Both match at 50.6 DPA). It takes it even longer for it to be a non-academic difference. The greataxe never appears to surpass either, except for perhaps at ludicrously high strength scores (modifiers up to 1000 were tested).

Don't forget the falchion's DPA is ALWAYS lower than the greatsword's against an enemy that is a construct, undead, ooze, or otherwise fortified against critical hits. Likewise, the greataxe suffers a 0.5 penalty compared to the greatsword due to its lower average result.

The falchion can surpass the greatsword as a more damaging weapon, but only if you happen to be building for it with some pretty high modifiers, and only against enemies who are vulnerable to critical hits in the first place. Whether that makes it "better" is highly subjective.

[LordBlades]

The falchion can surpass the greatsword as a more damaging weapon, but only if you happen to be building for it with some pretty high modifiers, and only against enemies who are vulnerable to critical hits in the first place. Whether that makes it "better" is highly subjective.

After my calculations the str mod at which a plain falchion surpasses a plain greatsword is 25(24.something), pretty close to your calculations.

If you make them keen however you only neeed a 12 str mod, which is quite easy to achieve.

Also, most damage in D&D comes from static sources(which gets multiplied by a crit).

Average Greatsword damage (most damaging medium weapon afaik) is 7. A 1st level fighter with a 18 str and power attack gets just as much static damage. As level and optimization increases, the 2d6 part starts to matter less and less (6th level barbarian with 18 base str and leap attack deals 2d6+33).

Falchion deals much better with static damage increases than greatsword. Using your formula, each point of static damage gets multiplied by 1.15 for Falchion, as opposed to 1.1 for Greatsword. If both weapons are Keen, the coefficients become 1.3 and 1.2 respectively. This means a Falchion utilizes every point of static damage more effectively than a Greatsword.

So, my conclusion is that, in practice, a Falchion does significantly more
damage to stuff that's not immune to crits, while only doing 2 less average damage for crit immune stuff.

[Partysan]

While there are onehanded spears in D&D they don't provide reach which is sorta the point (no pun intended). And even longer spears can be held in one hand, it's just only useful in formation and not in single combat.

[Shademan]

While there are onehanded spears in D&D they don't provide reach which is sorta the point (no pun intended). And even longer spears can be held in one hand, it's just only useful in formation and not in single combat.

thing is tho' that if you CAN take a spear with you, you really want to.
you can throw it at the enemy, hopefully ruining his shield, or if he doesnt have a shield, hey, bonus! now you can stab him. And that big beast with all the spikes and acid pimples? yeah you'd rather not get TOO close to that...
and if you ever need to switch to short arms you just drop the spear.
easy peesy

[Lyndworm]

While there are onehanded spears in D&D they don't provide reach which is sorta the point (no pun intended). And even longer spears can be held in one hand, it's just only useful in formation and not in single combat.

Not to detract from your (otherwise well-made) point, but there's a feat (I think it's Dragon Magazine, actually) that lets you wield a two-handed polearm and a light shield at the same time. Specialized training for this actually makes a certain amount of sense; have you ever held a stick in one hand and tried to poke a target 7.5 feet away with either enough accuracy and/or power to do any damage? It's even harder than it sounds.

[Runestar]

Some weapons become useful when paired with other feats. For example, 3-mountains style works with blunt weapons, so you pretty much have to use a greatclub.

If you want your dex mod to damage via shadow blade, short shords it is (unless your swordsage wishes to blow a feat on spiked chain prof).

Else, I agree that on their own, there is little reason to use say, a greatclub compared to a greatsword, barring dr issues. In fact, why doesn't the hill giant in the MM just wear a breastplate and wield a greatsword? Better AC and damage. :smalltongue:

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes. You can in fact wield a spear in one hand.

But spears in 3.5 are simple weapons - they don't require any specialised training. Wielding a spear in one hand is not easy.

Make it like a bastard sword; simple weapon proficiency to wield two-handed, martial to wield one-handed. Easy.

[Ravens_cry]

Only the shortspear can be wielded in one hand, the rest are two handed.

[Combat Reflexes]

Yes. You can in fact wield a spear in one hand.

Make it like a bastard sword; simple weapon proficiency to wield two-handed, martial to wield one-handed. Easy.

This is the best fix of them all! I'm using this :smallwink:

[Cyrion]

My beef with weapons in 3.5 is their genericness combined with the necessity for wasting a feat on exotic weapon proficiency for flavor. Take the bastard sword as an example. You get to blow a feat for a decrease in damage (because one-handed the added strength bonus goes down) and no significant bonus beyond being able to use a shield. Yes, historically it's harder to use one-handed, but if we're being historically accurate, a mace or flail should have the chance to do ongoing damage to characters in heavier armor because one of the dangers of the weapon if you got hit was it denting your armor to the point you couldn't get it off or breathe.

The racial weapons in the splat books are pretty universal offenders. They've got cool flavor, but their damage is generic or sub-par and they don't come with a bonus you can't get from using a regular martial weapon.

[Fhaolan]

Down this road lies madness. I've attempted rectifying the weapons in D&D before to line up with RL properties. Once you start that, it leads to modifying weapon proficiencies, and from there to the skill & feats, and down to the morass of rectifying the combat engine itself. While amusing at first, I realized this was *way* more work than I was willing to put into it. :smallsmile:

[Yuki Akuma]

Only the shortspear can be wielded in one hand, the rest are two handed.

I'm talking about, you know, real spears. Which can be wielded in one hand up to a length of eight feet.

[ericgrau]

you wan wrap up crap to trip and disarm....Who picks up a flail and thinks, "I better use this with finess aiming attacks carefully"

She does:

http://darwen.us/darrell/femmes/dfsowerndf.jpg

Would you like to tell her your objections?

[Greenish]

PHB already has a one-handed spear that does 1d8 / x3. It's called a trident.Beat me to it. :smallamused:

If you want your dex mod to damage via shadow blade, short shords it is (unless your swordsage wishes to blow a feat on spiked chain prof).Well, a case could be made for daggers, which have piercing/slashing instead of just piercing. After all, the base damage is secondary concern for a swordsage.

My beef with weapons in 3.5 is their genericness combined with the necessity for wasting a feat on exotic weapon proficiency for flavor.I feel the weapons in 3.5 are overly specific, in an attempt at "realism". I much prefer the Legend's simplified system:
There are 3 kinds of weapons - Hold-Out weapons, Special weapons, and Main weapons.

Hold-Out weapons are concealable on one's person (not automatically detected if you carry them under clothes, concealable from active search with a Larceny check). They do 1d6 + stat + mods. Examples include daggers, hand crossbows, saps, and small handguns if they exist in a given setting.

Special weapons offer a character some kind of extra capability while using them. This capability offers improved access to a combat maneuver, reach, etc. They do 1d8 + stat + mods. Examples include longswords and handaxes (can be used with a shield, granting +2 AC and anything else you get from the specific item), flails (give bonus to trip maneuver), spears (give Reach property), and shortbows (can be used while mounted without the Cataphract feat).

Main weapons offer a character the ability to focus on smacking people around. They always occupy both hands. They do 2d6 + stat + mods. Examples include greatswords, longbows, and paired weapons with the same Range (such as a pair of matched shortswords, or a rapier and main gauche).

Take the bastard sword as an example. You get to blow a feat for a decrease in damage (because one-handed the added strength bonus goes down) and no significant bonus beyond being able to use a shield.So use the longsword. Same thing, basically. :smalltongue:


The racial weapons in the splat books are pretty universal offenders. They've got cool flavor, but their damage is generic or sub-par and they don't come with a bonus you can't get from using a regular martial weapon.Well, there are exceptions. Gnomish Quickblade has found it's way to certain applications, Spiked Chain (a hobgoblin weapon!) is standard issue, Elven Courtblade is one of the few finessable two-handers, Valenar Double Scimitar is perhaps the best weapon for TWF (thanks to it's PrC support, granted), Talenta Sharrash (pre-nerf) was a most excellent weapon, Talenta/Xen'drik boomerangs have their specialized uses, and so forth.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

I wonder at the desirability of a finesseable two-hander. Without a good strength bonus, aren't you giving up part of why you use a two-hander?

What are some good applications of the Courtsword?

[Greenish]

I wonder at the desirability of a finesseable two-hander. Without a good strength bonus, aren't you giving up part of why you use a two-hander?Yeah, but at least you'll get the 2:1 PA, which many builds have as their main source of damage.

It's not the best option, but if your concept calls for it, it's nifty to have the option.

[No brains]

Yes. You can in fact wield a spear in one hand.

But spears in 3.5 are simple weapons - they don't require any specialised training. Wielding a spear in one hand is not easy.

Make it like a bastard sword; simple weapon proficiency to wield two-handed, martial to wield one-handed. Easy.


PHB already has a one-handed spear that does 1d8 / x3. It's called a trident. The mace, however, has 10 hardness and 20 hit points (IIRC), while the morningstar has only 5 hardness and 10 hit points - a mace is pure steel, almost impossible to sunder for all but optimized sunder builds.

The above was an idea for a fix of mine called: "Martial Simple Weapon Proficiencies", little things that help simple weapons keep up with martial weapons, even though they do in their own esoteric ways.

Below, I thought the trident only did X2! And also, I am a big fan of the mace for its insunderablility.


She does:

http://darwen.us/darrell/femmes/dfsowerndf.jpg

Would you like to tell her your objections?

Yeah. That's a spiked chain by its reach and I'll tell her with an improvised morningstar.:smallamused:

[Maeglin_Dubh]

Maybe a feat called Simple Weapon Expertise?

Allows you to...
Use a spear in one hand.
Grapple with a quarterstaff.
Reload a sling as a free action.
Make a bludgeoning melee attack with the butt of a crossbow.
Use a longspear as a double weapon.

[Cyrion]

Beat me to it. :smallamused:

So use the longsword. Same thing, basically. :smalltongue:

Exactly! You've wasted a feat to get a longsword.



Well, there are exceptions. Gnomish Quickblade has found it's way to certain applications, Spiked Chain (a hobgoblin weapon!) is standard issue, Elven Courtblade is one of the few finessable two-handers, Valenar Double Scimitar is perhaps the best weapon for TWF (thanks to it's PrC support, granted), Talenta Sharrash (pre-nerf) was a most excellent weapon, Talenta/Xen'drik boomerangs have their specialized uses, and so forth.

Yes, but I think the elven blades are among the worst offenders. They just don't have a significant enough benefit to warrant the feat(s). They do the same damage as every other weapon, and mostly they just add flavor. Being able to use Weapon Finesse with them is great, but you've already taken Weapon Finesse- is it really reasonable to demand a second feat to allow your Dex-based thumper to do the same damage as a Str-based thumper who (because he probably came in with Martial Weapon Proficiency) didn't have to expend any feats?

My usual solution is that if it isn't a "different" weapon- it's got higher-than-normal damage potential, can be used to trip or entangle, has extra blades, etc.- it's a martial weapon, especially for the race it belongs to.

[big teej]

Ranged weapons, not having an ability boost to damage is gimp.
Again for ranged weapons, not being able to do iterative attacks will gimp the weapon.


this is off topic, and I apologize,

but everytime I see threads like this, I learn about new houserules I didn't know we were using.

such as.
1) we apply dex to damage (excluding thrown weapons, which apply str)
2) (not that it's come up yet) but we'd allow iteritve attacks with a bow.

[Lyndworm]

Making iterative attacks with a bow isn't a houserule, actually. However, you can't make iterative attacks with some crossbows or any thrown weapons without the right feats (Rapid Reload for crossbows, Quickdraw for thrown).

[calar]

this is off topic, and I apologize,

but everytime I see threads like this, I learn about new houserules I didn't know we were using.

such as.
1) we apply dex to damage (excluding thrown weapons, which apply str)
2) (not that it's come up yet) but we'd allow iteritve attacks with a bow.
Ya, strictly speaking the only way to add bonus damage to a bow is to make it a compound bow. This balances out the fact that making attacks at range is a lot more powerful than needing to get up close. Also, as was said, you can iteratively attack with bows, but not crossbows unless you have rapid reload.

[Yuki Akuma]

She does:

http://darwen.us/darrell/femmes/dfsowerndf.jpg

Would you like to tell her your objections?

That's not a flail. That's a meteor hammer.

The difference is that flails have a rigid pole on one end. A meteor hammer is just a rope or chain with a heavy thing on the end.

[Mayhem]

I suspect historical flails were more like this;
http://www.ritterruestung-handgeschmiedet.de/englishversion/weapons/pictures/morningstar.jpg
Which doesn't lend itself to trip attacks. The dnd version adds more to combat tactics and variety though which is always nice.

[Jayabalard]

Odd. I ended up with a different result as to which was better. I determined the weapon's average per-attack damage rather than total up all possibilities. Here's what I did.

Since neither weapon has an advantage to hitting, we can assume all attacks hit (or some other arbitrary limit), and that all critical threats are confirmed.

Falchions do 2d4 damage, and have a 15% chance to critical.
Greatswords do 2d6 damage, and have a 10% chance to critical.This is the chance for a chritical threat, not for a critical hit. The chance to actually critical is lower, probably far lower. It depends a lot on how hard it is to hit your target; for example:

if you hit on a roll of 6 or higher, then you have a 11.25% and 7.5% crit chance, respectively.
if you hit on a roll of 11 or higher, then you have a 7.5% and 5% crit chance, respectively.
if you hit on a roll of 16 or higher, then you have a 3.75% and 2.5% crit chance, respectively.

[Doug Lampert]

Even my Greatsword/Greataxe vs. Falchion/Scythe example a few posts higher. They are both pure damage weapons, but on any decent damage dealer (power attack, high str) Falchion performs way better.

Way better? Really. Based on your numbers you need +24 static to make the falchion ALMOST equal the greatsword (at +24 it's still slightly inferior).

Let's look at level 7: Strengh 18 at level 1, +4 str for item or spell, +1 str from levels, +2 weapon. That's +11 to damage. We need to power attack at 7 to be a fractional point better off. That's assuming that power attacking full is actually a good idea (which it's not).

Weapon specialization helps some if you take it, but broadly speaking, by the time your fighter is better off with a Falchion he's already either one shotting everything with an ubercharger build, or he's mostly irrelevant.

[Mayhem]

I thought max ability range was 3-18 plus ability bonus, so a halforc has 5-20 strength range and 1-16 intelligence range, modifiable only by magic or wishes. Raising scores through level bonus above racial max is a houserule is it not?

[Xzeno]

The spear's the best weapon* on the list, but wielding it one-handed is not the way to go. Spears aren't made to be used in one hand. It being possible doesn't make it ideal.

*Maybe the rapier comes close. I'd even consider the longsword a contender. There's also the fact that the situation matters greatly, but the spear is the most useful in most situations.

[Yuki Akuma]

I thought max ability range was 3-18 plus ability bonus, so a halforc has 5-20 strength range and 1-16 intelligence range, modifiable only by magic or wishes. Raising scores through level bonus above racial max is a houserule is it not?

There is no such thing as a maximum ability score. At all.

I have no idea where you even got this idea. What?

[Mayhem]

Huh, I just found the part where it says ability score increase with no limit. Only a limit for character creation then, strange.

[Greenish]

Yeah. That's a spiked chain by its reach and I'll tell her with an improvised morningstar.:smallamused:Morning Star is the one with the spiked ball in the end of the handle. If you're thinking about a spiked ball connected to a handle by a chain, you're thinking of flail.

Yes, but I think the elven blades are among the worst offenders.Well, at least you get a bunch of them with a feat, but yeah, I'd scratch the elven (and other races') automatic weapon proficiencies in favour of weapon familiarity with all the appropriate exotic weapons.

If exotic weapons were a function of the race instead of a feat, it wouldn't quite matter so much that they're usually only minor upgrades from martial versions.

[Fox Box Socks]

I'm still peeved at how stupidly powerful 2-handed weapons are in 3.5. There's just not any reason to go sword-and-board, ever.

[Greenish]

I'm still peeved at how stupidly powerful 2-handed weapons are in 3.5. There's just not any reason to go sword-and-board, ever.That is perhaps more of the function of how powerful offense is in D&D, related to mundane defenses, and how weak shields are.

[Kuma Kode]

This is the chance for a chritical threat, not for a critical hit. The chance to actually critical is lower, probably far lower. It depends a lot on how hard it is to hit your target; for example:

if you hit on a roll of 6 or higher, then you have a 11.25% and 7.5% crit chance, respectively.
if you hit on a roll of 11 or higher, then you have a 7.5% and 5% crit chance, respectively.
if you hit on a roll of 16 or higher, then you have a 3.75% and 2.5% crit chance, respectively.


I understand that, however, neither of the weapons have an innate bonus to attacks or to confirming criticals, so both suffer the same chances to confirm the critical. The critical damage would be reduced proportionately the same, so I just went with auto-hitting, auto-critting for the sake of ease.

EDIT: It is for the reasons I showed that I feel Improved Critical and Keen should stack, as only then will a high-crit weapon be competitive with its higher damage brethren. Typical weapons do not require an enchantment or a feat to make them competitive, so why should those that do still suffer?

[soulchicken]

Ok, unless my calculations are completely dumb, this is what I've found:
Using Open Office Calc, I calculated the average damage of the following weapons:
great sword, falchion and great axe
Weapon's damage is calculated with randbetween(2;12), randbetween(2;8) and randbetween(1,12) respectively.
Crit threats were auto succeeded on, and nat 1 tallied up to 0's
Crits were calculated by adding with randbetweens to simulate dice rolls
Str was calculated at str bonus*1.5
Used 4 damage bonus for weapon spec + great weapon spec
used 10 damage for sacking 5 ba for PA
used Str bonus of 12

Average damage for each weapon is as follows after 450 calculations:
greatsword: 45.52
Falchion: 46.89
greataxe: 44.92

and for fun,
scythe: 47.24

In my opinion, vs things that be crit, weapons with x4 crit or big crit ranges will be better off. Vs things that can't be crit, go with the average damage weapons. Either way, just use whatever you feel like using. Only ~1-3 average damage diff over the course of 450 attacks shouldn't matter.

[Bakkan]

great sword, falchion and great axe
Weapon's damage is calculated with randbetween(2;12), randbetween(2;8) and randbetween(1,12) respectively.


/nitpick: The proper way to express the greatsword's damage is randbetween(1;6)+randbetween(1;6) since the greatsword does 2d6 damage, which is a binaomial (approximaely bell curve) distribution as opposed to the uniform (flat) distribution of randbetween(2;12). This doesn't affect the average damage, but just FYI.

Actually, this gives another statistical difference between greatswords and greataxes: the greatsword will roll closer to its average damage a lot more than the greataxe will. This combined with the difference in threat ranges and critical multipliers makes the greataxe a much more "swingy" weapon.

I guess that's why many disciplined military fighters carry the reliable greatswords and many barbarian hordes carry the "chaotic" greataxe.

[ericgrau]

Yeah. That's a spiked chain by its reach and I'll tell her with an improvised morningstar.:smallamused:
It's a heavy flail. Spiked chains don't have balls. And they have spikes on the chains. EDIT: I can believe that it's a meteor hammer too, but close enough. In either case you could do the same with a flail.

[LordBlades]

Way better? Really. Based on your numbers you need +24 static to make the falchion ALMOST equal the greatsword (at +24 it's still slightly inferior).

Let's look at level 7: Strengh 18 at level 1, +4 str for item or spell, +1 str from levels, +2 weapon. That's +11 to damage. We need to power attack at 7 to be a fractional point better off. That's assuming that power attacking full is actually a good idea (which it's not).

Weapon specialization helps some if you take it, but broadly speaking, by the time your fighter is better off with a Falchion he's already either one shotting everything with an ubercharger build, or he's mostly irrelevant.

Couple of issues with this:

-most self-respecting damage builds would be breaking +24 static by level 6 (leap attack+shock trooper+6 BAB is 24 static damage, without str bonus)

-most falchion users will make them Keen (or get an equivalent effect via spells/feats), and for that they only need a +12 str mod to outdamage the greatsword (Draconic Polymorph into Cave Troll is +13 str mod alone). Really, if you can't get a +12 static mod on your damage pretty soon, then that char won't be relevant (as a damage dealer) for long in any decently optimized game

[Shademan]

The spear's the best weapon* on the list, but wielding it one-handed is not the way to go. Spears aren't made to be used in one hand. It being possible doesn't make it ideal.

*Maybe the rapier comes close. I'd even consider the longsword a contender. There's also the fact that the situation matters greatly, but the spear is the most useful in most situations.

yes. yes they were.
there is a reason most armies in europe during the middle ages consisted of men with spears and shields.
Besides, ever used a spear? it's not very difficult at all to use it one handed

[Tytalus]

Since neither weapon has an advantage to hitting, we can assume all attacks hit (or some other arbitrary limit), and that all critical threats are confirmed.


That simplification somewhat skews the result by over-emphasizing the role of criticals. Naturally, the falchion fares better under these circumstances that it would with a realistic treatment of criticals.



Take for example Falchion (2d4, 18-20/x2) vs Greatsword (2d6, 19-20/x2).
Over 20 hits (assuming that only nat 1 misses)

Falchion: 2-17: 2d4(avg 5)+1.5xStr; 18-20: 4d4(avg 10)+3xStr, total 110+33xStr

Greatsword: 2-18: 2d6(avg 7)+1.5x Str; 19-20: 4d6(avg 14)+3xStr, total 147+31.5xStr.


This neglects unconfirmed threats (nat. 1 still misses).

Of course, the lower the to-hit chance, the lower the impact of the critical hits (i.e., the falchion's advantage comes into play at a later point).

E.g., with a 50% chance to hit you opponent, including proper treatment of threats, you need a +26 damage bonus (or +13 in the keen case) to come out even / ahead.

If you are looking at a difficult-to-hit opponent, things look different still. E.g., assuming you need a 16+ to hit (25% chance), you'd still need a +26, but keen actually helps the greatsword more (needs +29 static damage bonus to have the falchion perform better).

In the extreme case of only hitting with a natural 19 or 20 (only fair if you considered only natural 1s missing), you can't perform better with the falchion. The same is true if you are assuming keen weapons and you need a 17+ to hit.

And of course, vs. crit-immune opponents, the greatsword does always better, unless you have weapon enchantments that trigger on a threat/crit regardless of the target's immunity.


most self-respecting damage builds would be breaking +24 static by level 6 (leap attack+shock trooper+6 BAB is 24 static damage, without str bonus)


YMMV, but in my experience that is rather high op and certainly not a given. It also assumes you actually get the charge/jump off. If you don't, greatsword fares better. And with a damage bonus of +24, the greatsword still comes out ahead (even using your numbers); you need 25+.

[LordBlades]

This neglects unconfirmed threats (nat. 1 still misses).

Of course, the lower the to-hit chance, the lower the impact of the critical hits (i.e., the falchion's advantage comes into play at a later point).

E.g., with a 50% chance to hit you opponent, including proper treatment of threats, you need a +26 damage bonus (or +13 in the keen case) to come out even / ahead.

If you are looking at a difficult-to-hit opponent, things look different still. E.g., assuming you need a 16+ to hit (25% chance), you'd still need a +26, but keen actually helps the greatsword more (needs +29 static damage bonus to have the falchion perform better).

In the extreme case of only hitting with a natural 19 or 20 (only fair if you considered only natural 1s missing), you can't perform better with the falchion. The same is true if you are assuming keen weapons and you need a 17+ to hit.

And of course, vs. crit-immune opponents, the greatsword does always better, unless you have weapon enchantments that trigger on a threat/crit regardless of the target's immunity. .

We did use some simplification to make calculations easier. I don't think they affect the result that much (a few points either way, as your calculations have shown).

Also, not even 30 static damage bonus isn't that much, if you're aiming to be a serious damage dealer. The Leap Attack damage bonus of an 8 BAB char is 32 without anything else. that's the kind of numbers you'd have to pull off to classify as a good damage dealer in my book. Of course, for a group where the numbers are much smaller, then the greatsword is better.




YMMV, but in my experience that is rather high op and certainly not a given. It also assumes you actually get the charge/jump off. If you don't, greatsword fares better. And with a damage bonus of +24, the greatsword still comes out ahead (even using your numbers); you need 25+.

It depends on what power level each group is playing, of course. In my group simply having leap attack & shock trooper without pounce, valorous weapon, dive and/or spirited charge, lances etc. is considered low-ish optimization.


In my current campaign (13th level) for example, the main melee DPS is a cleric/ordained champion that easily gets 800-900 damage per full attack(4 attacks, 200ish damage each).

[Firechanter]

On every Full Attack, not just when charging? How? PM me if you feel this would be OT.

[LordBlades]

On every Full Attack, not just when charging? How? PM me if you feel this would be OT.

Nah, it's charging, but the party is so high on mobility spells and stuff like Benign Transposition that charging is not too easy to stop. Normal attack damage is only about 40-50 without Combat Brute triggering(he usually uses Draconic Polymorph into War Troll, persisted by the party Incantatrix via Reach Spell+his own DMM Persist buffs). It's not great, but Fort Save vs. Daze on each attack helps a bit.

[Jayabalard]

I'm still peeved at how stupidly powerful 2-handed weapons are in 3.5. There's just not any reason to go sword-and-board, ever.the word "ever" there makes that false. It might be true in the general case, but there are certainly places where sword and board > 2 hander.

The relative effectiveness of the shield is not linear with AC; the higher your AC, the more the shield helps, until you're only being hit on a 20; at that point the benefit of the shield vanishes.

On another thread there was a side discussion about this, and as a result I messed around with doing some simple level 1 simulations; in the last run that I did, team sword and board, fighting defensively (with feat) beat team two hander (power attacking or not) ~9 times out of 10 when both were in medium armor; the sweet spot in those runs was anywhere team sword and board could pump their AC up to ~18 (combination of dex, armor, shield and fighting defensively).



I understand that, however, neither of the weapons have an innate bonus to attacks or to confirming criticals, so both suffer the same chances to confirm the critical. The critical damage would be reduced proportionately the same, so I just went with auto-hitting, auto-critting for the sake of ease.That's not a valid way to do analysis. The difference between the two weapons is not linear with respect to AC; you're weighing the advantage of the high crit threat too highly, which skews your data significantly. Fhe falchion will never have that full 5% advantage over a great sword (since you always miss on a 1)

When you fight a high AC opponent, the high crit threat gives you less advantage; eg you only have a 1.25% advantage over the lower if you need to roll a 16 or higher, which means that the increased crit threat range isn't as valuable in that particular fight as it is in a fight where you have a better chance of confirming. In fact, it may be less valuable than some other boost (ie 2 points of average damage).

[LordBlades]

the word "ever" there makes that false. It might be true in the general case, but there are certainly places where sword and board > 2 hander.

The relative effectiveness of the shield is not linear with AC; the higher your AC, the more the shield helps, until you're only being hit on a 20; at that point the benefit of the shield vanishes.

The reasons why sword and board usually sucks are many:

-As levels increase, AC becomes less and less relevant, unless you are specifically optimizing for it. And I mean REALLY optimizing, and heavy armor&shield is not the way to do it. A traditional sword and board fighter will have at lvl 20 an AC of 10(base)+13 armor (+5 mithral full plate)+9 shield (+5 tower shield), +5 natural (amulet of natural armor +5) +5 deflection (+5 ring of protection)+ 3 dex=45. Compare that to the to-hit bonuses of the mosters you're expected to fight at lvl(titan +37, great wyrm white dragon +45, Tarrasque +57, etc.)

-Also, sword and board has a very low threat level. Your damage is around 1d8+Str, which is pretty lousy compared to monster HP past a certain level. You're not helping anyone of the monsters won't attack you (they got easier targets) and you can't dish out enough damage.

-Animated shields. At high enough level, you get both shield and a two handed weapon.

[Greenish]

It's a heavy flail. Spiked chains don't have balls.Depends on depiction.
http://www.waynereynolds.com/D&D/x.jpg
http://the-bunker.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dnd1.png
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97166.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/hoh_gallery/91999.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/hoh_gallery/92000.jpg

-most self-respecting damage builds would be breaking +24 static by level 6 (leap attack+shock trooper+6 BAB is 24 static damage, without str bonus)Well, that varies rather much.

[Cyrion]

The reasons why sword and board usually sucks are many:


-Also, sword and board has a very low threat level. Your damage is around 1d8+Str, which is pretty lousy compared to monster HP past a certain level. You're not helping anyone of the monsters won't attack you (they got easier targets) and you can't dish out enough damage.



Why did you assume that a character is going to have well-equipped armor, but not well equipped weapons? That 1d8 + Str is likely to be + Power Attack, +several from weapon enchantment, +multiple d6 from enchantments and weapon crystal, +benefits from charging or + iterative hits, + bonus dice of damage from a martial maneuver. Still not your most efficient means of ending a fight, but if you can't make a critter sit up and take notice when you thwack it, you're doing something wrong.

[Greenish]

Why did you assume that a character is going to have well-equipped armor, but not well equipped weapons? That 1d8 + Str is likely to be + Power Attack, +several from weapon enchantment, +multiple d6 from enchantments and weapon crystal, +benefits from charging or + iterative hits, + bonus dice of damage from a martial maneuver. Still not your most efficient means of ending a fight, but if you can't make a critter sit up and take notice when you thwack it, you're doing something wrong.Yeah. Using a shield. :smalltongue:

ToB helps, true enough. Pouring enormous sums on your weapon does, too, even if the opportunity cost is very steep.

Besides, most of what you list will work to further widen the gap between 1h and 2h.

[Cyrion]

Yeah. Using a shield. :smalltongue:

ToB helps, true enough. Pouring enormous sums on your weapon does, too, even if the opportunity cost is very steep.

Besides, most of what you list will work to further widen the gap between 1h and 2h.

No argument there, but the original point I was taking issue with was that weapon damage isn't more than a mosquito bite to a monster on the way to the squishy mage at the center of the party.

[Tyndmyr]

I think I didn't make my point clear, sorry about that. What I meant was that, in a given class of weapons (let's say two-handed) the best ones (as in most damaging) are the ones with highest crit (damage-multiplier combination). I'm not trying to compare different classes of weapons.

Take for example Falchion (2d4, 18-20/x2) vs Greatsword (2d6, 19-20/x2).
Over 20 hits (assuming that only nat 1 misses)

Falchion: 2-17: 2d4(avg 5)+1.5xStr; 18-20: 4d4(avg 10)+3xStr, total 110+33xStr

Greatsword: 2-18: 2d6(avg 7)+1.5x Str; 19-20: 4d6(avg 14)+3xStr, total 147+31.5xStr.

this means that for a Str modifier >24, a Falchion deals more damage than a Greatsword. If they both are Keen (or have Imp crit) it becomes (125+37.5xStr vs. 161+34.5xStr) so you deal more damage starting from a +12 Str bonus. the breakpoint drops even lower if you;re using Power Attack (or other sources of static damage that double on crits)

Feh. That's only true if you don't consider overkill levels. I would rather have higher base damage than be crit-focused. It's much easier to get reliable hits. While static damage boosts are indeed awesome, if your target drops from a solid hit, crit damage becomes a lot less relevant.

[Firechanter]

I used to be all about Crit-milking, especially in 3.0 when expanding your threat range was easy. Now I consider them too unreliable to be worth the bother. I might give it another shot some day with a Tiger Claw Warblade dual-wielding keen Kukris in the Blood in the Water stance, but apart from that...

[LordBlades]

Why did you assume that a character is going to have well-equipped armor, but not well equipped weapons? That 1d8 + Str is likely to be + Power Attack, +several from weapon enchantment, +multiple d6 from enchantments and weapon crystal, +benefits from charging or + iterative hits, + bonus dice of damage from a martial maneuver. Still not your most efficient means of ending a fight, but if you can't make a critter sit up and take notice when you thwack it, you're doing something wrong.

I give you, ToB helps a lot with this issue, but for non ToB classes:

-Bonus dice from weapon damage: it's 1d6 for a +1 enhancement, that's a huge opportunity cost for an average of 3.5 damage to stuff that's not immune.

-Flat bonus for weapon enhancement: it's easily obtainable via GMW, but it's +5 at CL 20, so not that much

-Power attack: if you're not using Shock Trooper, you lower your chance to hit, therefore your DPS (unless you are well in the autohit area, unlikely for a fighter); if you're using Shock Trooper, why in the world would you use a shield, since your AC would be autohit anyway?

[Ravens_cry]

Feh. That's only true if you don't consider overkill levels. I would rather have higher base damage than be crit-focused. It's much easier to get reliable hits. While static damage boosts are indeed awesome, if your target drops from a solid hit, crit damage becomes a lot less relevant.
*ahem*
Rule #37: There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.' :smallbiggrin:

[huttj509]

*ahem*
Rule #37: There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.' :smallbiggrin:

Maxim #37, keep up to date with other webcomics and changes made for trademark reasons (It's now the 70 Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries).

[Ravens_cry]

Maxim #37, keep up to date with other webcomics and changes made for trademark reasons (It's now the 70 Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries).
:smallredface:
Still, the maxim or rule still applies.

[No brains]

The reasons why sword and board usually sucks are many:

-As levels increase, AC becomes less and less relevant, unless you are specifically optimizing for it. And I mean REALLY optimizing, and heavy armor&shield is not the way to do it. A traditional sword and board fighter will have at lvl 20 an AC of 10(base)+13 armor (+5 mithral full plate)+9 shield (+5 tower shield), +5 natural (amulet of natural armor +5) +5 deflection (+5 ring of protection)+ 3 dex=45. Compare that to the to-hit bonuses of the mosters you're expected to fight at lvl(titan +37, great wyrm white dragon +45, Tarrasque +57, etc.)

What about another +5 for a defending weapon, +5 (or yet more if you're using Improved)Combat Expertise and +4 for fighting defensively? Then you get 59. You're still Tarrasque brunch, but you can make titans and dragons look stupid.


-Animated shields. At high enough level, you get both shield and a two handed weapon.

Mmmmm... Having cake and eating it too...:smallsigh: We need a better drool emote.

[LordBlades]

What about another +5 for a defending weapon, +5 (or yet more if you're using Improved)Combat Expertise and +4 for fighting defensively? Then you get 59. You're still Tarrasque brunch, but you can make titans and dragons look stupid.


If you're taking a total of -9 to attack (4 from fighting defensively and 5 from combat expertise) you're not going to hit much as a fighter(at least not with any iteratives).

Defending weapon is a nice trick provided you're
a) a caster so you can use a +1 defending and GMW
b) use it on a secondary weapon such as armor spikes.

Otherwise means it's a 72000 gold item (very high opportunity cost) and it costs you another -5 attack.

[Firechanter]

Wait. You can put Defending on Armour Spikes? And have your party wizard cast GMW on it, and essentially get up to +5 AC bonus for free, even though you're attacking with your primary weapon all the time?

[Greenish]

Wait. You can put Defending on Armour Spikes? And have your party wizard cast GMW on it, and essentially get up to +5 AC bonus for free, even though you're attacking with your primary weapon all the time?Technically, yes.

[DeltaEmil]

Don't forget spiked gauntlets, that count as separate weapons... and can therefore give you up to another +5 enhancement bonus to AC which stack with all others.

[Yuki Akuma]

Don't forget the spikes on your animated spiked shield.

[Firechanter]

You're kidding now, aren't you?

[Kuma Kode]

Nope. The rules say the spikes can be enchanted separately, and in fact need to if they're going to have weapon enchantments. Defending is a weapon enchantment.

Though adding Defending to a shield or armor's spikes is hardly cost-effective, it's legal by the rules.

[Yuki Akuma]

Don't forget the sleeve blades, boot blades, elbow blades, knee blades or tail spikes.

You can stack a lot of Defending weapons if you try. It's expensive, but it's amusing.

[Firechanter]

If you have enough castings of GMW available in the party, it is _very_ cost effective. All those spikes just need to be "+1 Defending", costing 8000GP. Then your caster can spruce that up up to +5. If you seriously apply this to Spiked Gauntlet, Armor Spikes and Shield Spikes, you pay 24K for up to +15 AC. If that isn't cost-effective I don't know what is.

(If someone came up with this in a game of mine, I'd try to compromise by assigning this Defending AC a particular bonus type. So it would stack with anything else but not with itself. I think that's fair enough.)

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes, but that also requires three castings of Greater Magic Weapon!

(Or a single chained GMW.)

[Draz74]

If you have enough castings of GMW available in the party,

*ahem* Chained Greater Magic Weapon. One Level 7 Spell Slot, affects [caster level] weapons.

Back on topic: I always thought the longbow was the perfect historical example of an exotic weapon. Not that archery needs the nerf, in D&D ... but frankly, the composite shortbow is still a perfectly good weapon, so it wouldn't be all that crippling to the style. And it would be a lot more realistic (longbows really do require special training!). And would give Elves an actual reason to be archers.

[Firechanter]

Or two 3rd level slots if you happen to be Ultimate Magus. XD

I think I just had a Nerdgasm.

[DeltaEmil]

Of course, that defending property is completely useless against touch attacks, which are the really dangerous ones, and for which you need ample dodge and deflection bonus.

[Greenish]

Of course, that defending property is completely useless against touch attacks, which are the really dangerous ones, and for which you need ample dodge and deflection bonus.And even then there are plenty of attacks that do not target AC.

[LordBlades]

And even then there are plenty of attacks that do not target AC.

And even for those that to, Wraithstrike/Deep Impact/Emerald Razor is your friend.

[Jayabalard]

The reasons why sword and board usually sucks are many:

-As levels increase, AC becomes less and less relevant, unless you are specifically optimizing for it. And I mean REALLY optimizing, and heavy armor&shield is not the way to do it. A traditional sword and board fighter will have at lvl 20 an AC of 10(base)+13 armor (+5 mithral full plate)+9 shield (+5 tower shield), +5 natural (amulet of natural armor +5) +5 deflection (+5 ring of protection)+ 3 dex=45. Compare that to the to-hit bonuses of the mosters you're expected to fight at lvl(titan +37, great wyrm white dragon +45, Tarrasque +57, etc.) If you'll look back at what I wrote, you may notice that I'm not saying anything like "sword and board is the bomb, yo!" ... I'm just saying that it's not universally a bad choice; I gave an example of the general case where it's strongest, and then a reference to a slightly more specific example where it won out over people using 2 handers.

Even in your example, using the shield impacts how much the titan can reasonably power attack the fighter; without the shield, the titan can power attack for 3 and still hit on a 2 or higher.

At level 1, AC can make a huge difference; at level 20, AC has been eclipsed by touch attacks, high attack bonus, save or dies, etc. The changeover isn't instantaneous... it happens somewhere in the middle of that range.


What about another +5 for a defending weapon, +5 (or yet more if you're using Improved)Combat Expertise and +4 for fighting defensively? Then you get 59. Hmm... I've always read combat expertise as replacing the normal fighting defensively, since it has that under the normal section for that feat. They both give a dodge bonus to AC so they wouldn't stack, would they? Edit: Derp, don't post before coffee. The not working together is really just about the fact that combat expertise lists the normal defensive fighting under "normal" ... since that usually indicates something that replaces the way something normally works.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes they would. Dodge bonuses explicitely stack.

[Xuc Xac]

I have a lot of complaints about weapons in D&D but most of them boil down to the designers thinking that there is only one acceptable way to use each of them. And sometimes that one way is actually wrong.

For example, you can use a quarterstaff as a double weapon. If you sharpen one end to make a spear, then you can no longer strike with the dull end. If you use a polearm with reach, you have to stick the dangerous end past an adjacent foe instead of just shortening your grip or hitting him with the shaft.

If you use a sword, it only does slashing damage or only piercing damage and you're screwed if you face something that needs bashing damage to effect it (despite the fact that medieval warriors would routinely grip their swords by the blade and bash their armoured enemies with the blunt end like a warhammer).

[Lyndworm]

For example, you can use a quarterstaff as a double weapon. If you sharpen one end to make a spear, then you can no longer strike with the dull end. If you use a polearm with reach, you have to stick the dangerous end past an adjacent foe instead of just shortening your grip or hitting him with the shaft.

There are actually at least two feats that you do exactly that; Short Haft and Shorten Grip. Neither are very good and it should probably just be a standard combat option, though.



If you use a sword, it only does slashing damage or only piercing damage and you're screwed if you face something that needs bashing damage to effect it (despite the fact that medieval warriors would routinely grip their swords by the blade and bash their armoured enemies with the blunt end like a warhammer).

Actually, you can do this as well. It's an improvised Bludgeoning weapon.



All in all, I agree with your sentiments, however.

[Xuc Xac]

There are actually at least two feats that you do exactly that; Short Haft and Shorten Grip. Neither are very good and it should probably just be a standard combat option, though.

There are way too many things that are feats which should be standard options. This is definitely one of them. If you can strike someone with both ends of a staff, then you shouldn't need a feat to strike someone with either end of a staff that has a point on one end.



Actually, you can do this as well. It's an improvised Bludgeoning weapon.


There's nothing improvised about it. That's just how the weapons work. It wasn't something that worked at a significant penalty. It was considered to be highly effective and standard practice. It was so effective, they called it the "murder stroke" because it was a deadly blow. It wasn't a "club" with -4 non-proficiency penalty to hit. In fact, it was the kind of thing that only proficient users would do.

[Firechanter]

There are way too many things that are feats which should be standard options.

+1, +1, +1, I can't emphasize enough how much I agree. One of the major beefs I have with 3.X is that every little fart has been turned into a feat, implying you can't do it without the feat. Especially seeing how one feat allows you to cast the same spell twice, while the other, well, allows you to place your hand higher up on the shaft of a spear. oO

As an afterthought, that's probably where "getting the shaft" comes from.

[Yuki Akuma]

There's nothing improvised about it. That's just how the weapons work. It wasn't something that worked at a significant penalty. It was considered to be highly effective and standard practice. It was so effective, they called it the "murder stroke" because it was a deadly blow. It wasn't a "club" with -4 non-proficiency penalty to hit. In fact, it was the kind of thing that only proficient users would do.

Do you mean perhaps that it would only be done by people with a high enough bonus to hit that a -4 doesn't matetr? Well I never!

Hint: holding a sword by the blade and smacking people with the hilt is unwieldy. Swords are not designed to be used like that!


+1, +1, +1, I can't emphasize enough how much I agree. One of the major beefs I have with 3.X is that every little fart has been turned into a feat, implying you can't do it without the feat. Especially seeing how one feat allows you to cast the same spell twice, while the other, well, allows you to place your hand higher up on the shaft of a spear. oO

I really would like to know how the hell you know that casting the same spell twice in the span of six seconds (I assume you mean Twin Spell) is something anyone can do.

Also, spears are simple weapons. I don't know why I've had to say this twice. Learning to use them properly requires an extra feat because the simple weapon proficiency means "you know how to stand back and poke people with the pointy end".

I do agree that many feats are absurd and should be basic options, but those two examples were pretty bad.

[Shademan]

http://www.schielhau.org/images/tafel_63.gif

Tallhoffer begs to differ

[Xuc Xac]

Do you mean perhaps that it would only be done by people with a high enough bonus to hit that a -4 doesn't matetr? Well I never!


No. I'm saying that people who are proficient in it would be able to do a standard maneuver with the weapon without taking the -4 non-proficiency penalty. It was a standard combat maneuver for the better part of a thousand years. The guys doing the fighting were the ones that commissioned the swords to be made. I'm pretty sure they were, in fact, designed to be used that way. If they weren't designed that way on purpose, then it's a remarkable coincidence that it works so well.




Hint: holding a sword by the blade and smacking people with the hilt is unwieldy. Swords are not designed to be used like that!


I've seen you say things like this in several threads now. Almost every time, someone corrects you with contrary evidence in the next post or two. Have you ever actually trained in using any weapons or, at least, read a period fight manual? It seems like all your knowledge on this topic comes from poorly researched RPGs.


Also, spears are simple weapons. I don't know why I've had to say this twice. Learning to use them properly requires an extra feat because the simple weapon proficiency means "you know how to stand back and poke people with the pointy end".


You know what else is a simple weapon? A staff! The simple weapon proficiency means you know how to stand back and poke people with the pointy end of a stick, but it also means you know how to swing a stick to bash people with it.

[Firechanter]

I really would like to know how the hell you know that casting the same spell twice in the span of six seconds (I assume you mean Twin Spell) is something anyone can do.

Exactly. Twin Spell is something you'd imagine as being pretty difficult, and it enables you to do something awesome and costs a feat, Short Haft enables you to do something any retarded idiot who failed kindergarten could do and gives you a minor advantage and costs a feat. This extreme divergence in cost/difficulty/power is what I am whingeing about.


Also, spears are simple weapons. I don't know why I've had to say this twice.

This has been said before in this thread, but someone proficient in Martial Weapons should be able to use the spear more effectively. For instance, One-Handed. Also, there are Martial Weapons with reach, and by your interpretation martial training should involve more than standing and poking in the general direction of the enemy.

I have some experience with various kinds of melee weapons myself -- not rubber larp boffers but live ones -- as do probably about 1000 other folks on this board so I'm not claiming I'm special - it's not rocket science!

P.S.:
Other D20 derivatives are wiser; for instance Conan D20 allows to use the Pommel as a weapon. A Pommel counts as Light Martial Weapon (thius can be used while in grapple) and does d4/x2 Bludgeoning.

[Shademan]

I dont think you even need martial weapon proficiency to one hand a spear.
Believe me, its not difficult if you dont have your targets safety in mind. and in RPG's you generally dont.

[Spiryt]

No. I'm saying that people who are proficient in it would be able to do a standard maneuver with the weapon without taking the -4 non-proficiency penalty. It was a standard combat maneuver for the better part of a thousand years. The guys doing the fighting were the ones that commissioned the swords to be made. I'm pretty sure they were, in fact, designed to be used that way. If they weren't designed that way on purpose, then it's a remarkable coincidence that it works so well.


Better part of thousand years is pretty bold. Evidence about such usage is pretty much limited to 15th and 16th century, we don't know much about earlier times.

Especially that earlier swords were not really very suitable for such actions, being mostly one handed, and having mostly very broad blades.

And I believe that Yuki is saying that sword held by the blade and swing should work as well as actual mace for gaming purposes (no penalties, the same damage etc.) which is perfectly obvious and reasonable.

As far as usage that way goes, both manuals and practice unsurprisingly suggest that such use would be well timed, temporary action, usually in connection with halfswording, or/and using sword as leverage for grappling and biding.

Giving it option of just doing bludgeoning damage in 3.5 would cause the fact, that the swords could be just used like maces, (as mace would have nothing to offer in comparison) which creates hilarious image of patients holding their shields and one handed swords by the point and charging enemy.

[Yuki Akuma]

Exactly. Twin Spell is something you'd imagine as being pretty difficult, and it enables you to do something awesome and costs a feat, Short Haft enables you to do something any retarded idiot who failed kindergarten could do and gives you a minor advantage and costs a feat. This extreme divergence in cost/difficulty/power is what I am whingeing about.

Oh, I misread your post. Apologies.

Also I do tend to agree that having martial weapon proficiency should allow you to do better thigns with simple weapons. Such as wielding a spear one-handed, which is totally possible but not as easy as doing it two-handed because it requires a specific grip to be effective.


I've seen you say things like this in several threads now. Almost every time, someone corrects you with contrary evidence in the next post or two. Have you ever actually trained in using any weapons or, at least, read a period fight manual? It seems like all your knowledge on this topic comes from poorly researched RPGs.

Have you ever trained to use medieval weapons in actual combat? No, I don't mean LARPing or even reenacment, but actual combat. No?

No, weapons are not as simple and straight-forward as RPGs protray them. This is because it's just a game and too much detail just bogs things down. But most swords (not all swords, granted, but the longsword in D&D represents more than one model of sword) are not designed to be turned around and held by the blade.

Can you do it? Sure. Did people do it? I can't imagine why they wouldn't. Is it as easy as using the sword in its intended manner? Unless you've trained specifically for it, no.

For a start, a blade is not the best handle for leverege...

Edit: Also I'd like to know where these threads are that I've been proved wrong in. Not because I doubt you - you're probably right. But I'd like to see it because being proved wrong is helpful and I don't always keep up with threads I post in.

Edit 2: I'm not saying it's impossible to do it, mind. I'm saying it requires training - or a special sword - to pull off well. Or just a high attack bonus, something I don't doubt a lot of medieval swordsmen had.

[Kuma Kode]

No, weapons are not as simple and straight-forward as RPGs protray them. This is because it's just a game and too much detail just bogs things down. But most swords (not all swords, granted, but the longsword in D&D represents more than one model of sword) are not designed to be turned around and held by the blade.

Can you do it? Sure. Did people do it? I can't imagine why they wouldn't. Is it as easy as using the sword in its intended manner? Unless you've trained specifically for it, no.

For a start, a blade is not the best handle for leverege...

I agree with Yuki... having something be a useful tactic and having it be unintended by the design is not mutually exclusive. Most guns are not build with pistol whipping or rifle butting enemies in mind, the fact that you can and it can be a useful tactic in close situations does not change that fact.

You can also beat someone to death with a ceramic plant pot, but that doesn't mean the pot is built with that in mind.

[Xuc Xac]

Have you ever trained to use medieval weapons in actual combat? No, I don't mean LARPing or even reenacment, but actual combat. No?


This is called "shifting the goalposts". I didn't ask you about actual combat. I asked if you've ever trained to use the weapons properly or even read a book about the proper use of them. There's an illustration from one of the most famous medieval fight manuals right here in this thread.

I've never actually trained in using Western weapons, but I've read a lot of scanned copies of European fighting manuals available on the web and discussed them with people who are actively practicing them in Finland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, the UK and the US. I live in Asia, so European sword teachers are hard to come by here. I've studied the use of several Chinese weapons (with an old sifu who fled China after the Cultural Revolution) so I have a good grounding in weapons in general but not the European specifics. For example, I never learned half-swording because the Chinese solution to the heavy armour problem uses a different piercing technique, but I think it's safe to assume guys like Silver and Tallhoffer knew what they were doing.



This is because it's just a game and too much detail just bogs things down.

Have you seen D&D? It's full of details that bog things down. My complaint isn't that there aren't enough details. I'm complaining that the details it already has are completely wrong.


Can you do it? Sure. Did people do it? I can't imagine why they wouldn't. Is it as easy as using the sword in its intended manner? Unless you've trained specifically for it, no.


Trained specifically as in "proficient"? To use your own idea about simple and martial proficiencies for the same weapon: knowing that the pointy end of the sword goes in the other guy would be a simple proficiency (and using a longsword only for chopping seems like something a commoner would do). Having martial proficiency would cover stuff from Tallhoffer like half-swording or the mordschlag. People used half-swording for a reason: it provides more accuracy when stabbing with the point. It makes no sense for that maneuver to be done at a -4 penalty. It would be like giving ranged attacks a penalty for taking time to aim. My "3.5 Weapon Complaint" is that the rules are written by designers who don't know how the weapons were really used or--even worse--who learned misinformation from Victorian-era historians. This is why we have "warhammers" that are more like sledgehammers than real weapons and swords that weigh two or three times as much as they should.


Edit: Also I'd like to know where these threads are that I've been proved wrong in. Not because I doubt you - you're probably right. But I'd like to see it because being proved wrong is helpful and I don't always keep up with threads I post in.


This is the one that really made your name stick out in my memory. You said gunblades from Final Fantasy were real weapons, but real world gun/melee combo weapons were nothing like the ones in FF. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10140796&postcount=37) Since that one caught my eye, I've taken your posts with a large grain of salt.

[Yuki Akuma]

Oh, so it's just one thread where I repeated something multiple people had already told me before that turned out to be wrong. I see.

And no when I say special training I mean feats. That's what feats are for. Proficiency just means knowing how to stab or chop or smack someone with a weapon without flailing wildly.

[Xuc Xac]

And no when I say special training I mean feats. That's what feats are for. Proficiency just means knowing how to stab or chop or smack someone with a weapon without flailing wildly.

I'm not arguing how the rules work. I'm saying that the way they work is stupid. Knowing how to stick the pointy end in the other guy is not combat training. It's just primate DNA.

Using a staff is a simple proficiency. Using a spear is a simple proficiency. Why should it require a feat to swing a spear like a staff? There's no good reason that it should. The center of gravity isn't that different. The technique isn't any different. There are only two reasons I can think of. The designers have a very narrow view of how a weapon can be used (spears can poke holes and only poke holes) so they set arbitrary limits on them. Or they think that being able to do Piercing OR Bludgeoning damage with that simple weapon would just be too powerful, which is ridiculous. It's more useful, but it's not so useful that it's worth a precious feat. It doesn't even come close to the power of some other feats.

[Firechanter]

Well _actually_, and that takes us back to RL weapons, historical spears usually had very slender shafts, as can be seen from the diameter of the blades' sockets (I'm not sure what the proper English word is). Not like those monstrosities that are produced for the reenactment market today. So with those slender shafts, they don't really lend themselves to bashing so well.

Likewise, I have my doubts about the practicality of grabbing a sword by the blade and bashing with the guard. That maneuver may well have been restricted to ~15th century (i.e. renaissance) bated sparring longswords. Medieval swords were frickin razor sharp, and in the early middle ages people didn't believe in gauntlets, either.

[Xuc Xac]

Well _actually_, and that takes us back to RL weapons, historical spears usually had very slender shafts, as can be seen from the diameter of the blades' sockets (I'm not sure what the proper English word is). Not like those monstrosities that are produced for the reenactment market today. So with those slender shafts, they don't really lend themselves to bashing so well.

Those really thick staffs that you're comparing them to are also "reenactment monstrosities". At least in this part of the world, a staff and a melee spear could be made from the same piece of wood.

[Shademan]

Well _actually_, and that takes us back to RL weapons, historical spears usually had very slender shafts, as can be seen from the diameter of the blades' sockets (I'm not sure what the proper English word is). Not like those monstrosities that are produced for the reenactment market today. So with those slender shafts, they don't really lend themselves to bashing so well.

Likewise, I have my doubts about the practicality of grabbing a sword by the blade and bashing with the guard. That maneuver may well have been restricted to ~15th century (i.e. renaissance) bated sparring longswords. Medieval swords were frickin razor sharp, and in the early middle ages people didn't believe in gauntlets, either.

henche why this move didnt pop up until 14th century, I think. When mail mittens and early gauntlets were readily availible

[The Winter King]

Of course, that defending property is completely useless against touch attacks, which are the really dangerous ones, and for which you need ample dodge and deflection bonus.

Ummm.... why? Touch AC is just your AC-armor, natural armor and shield, and the bonus from defending is an enhancement bonus to AC. And the enhancement bonus on armor doesnt add to TAC because its an enhancement bonus to your armor bonus. To me this implies it adds to TAC.

[Spiryt]

henche why this move didnt pop up until 14th century, I think. When mail mittens and early gauntlets were readily availible

Mail mittens or simply gloves or padded sleeves would be popular long before 14th century, especially among people carrying swords, and that would be most important.

Move didn't pop until 14th century, cause as mentioned, it really doesn't do much sense with one handed sword, especially mounted.

That's what we know so far, at least.

[The Deej]

Ummm.... why? Touch AC is just your AC-armor, natural armor and shield, and the bonus from defending is an enhancement bonus to AC. And the enhancement bonus on armor doesnt add to TAC because its an enhancement bonus to your armor bonus. To me this implies it adds to TAC.

Correct conclusion, but incorrect reasoning. The bonus from a defending weapon is untyped, therefore it always applies. It also happens to stack with everything (even other defending weapons).

[Firechanter]

Wait. Need to get this straight. I would figure that Defending AC bonus would not apply to Touch AC, simply by the reasoning that the attacker just has to _touch_ any part of you, and a Defending weapon would probably work by magically moving to parry an attack -- thus establishing contact between the attacker (or ray) and the defender (or his aura).

The only things that count into your Touch AC are what makes it more difficult to establish contact: your Dexterity, Size, Dodge and Deflection modifiers. Of the rarer bonus types, I'd also apply Insight, Luck and possibly Morale bonuses to Touch AC. But Defending just doesn't fit into that picture.

(A real mean DM might even shaft his players by making Defending bonuses _subtract_ from TAC, but that would not earn brownie points with me.)

[PersonMan]

Wait. Need to get this straight. I would figure that Defending AC bonus would not apply to Touch AC, simply by the reasoning that the attacker just has to _touch_ any part of you, and a Defending weapon would probably work by magically moving to parry an attack -- thus establishing contact between the attacker (or ray) and the defender (or his aura).

Untyped bonuses apply to Touch AC because Touch attacks don't say "ignore untyped bonuses".

One could justify it by saying that the magic of the Defending weapons is specifically woven to mess with hostile spells(ones that the wearer wants to avoid), forcing the caster to try and touch a non-Defending part of the enemy or have his spell "blocked".

Or, you could say that Defending weapons aren't quite touching you.

...Then again, how, say, flying Defending shield spikes somehow allow touch spells(or rays, whatever) to get to their wielder when they block them is...well.

TL;DR: Because the rules say so. There isn't really a good explanation apart from one that we make for ourselves.

[Firechanter]

Mhm, upon re-reading the rules, I see that
[Touch] AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers [...] apply normally.

So you are right, by wording of the rules Defending weapon bonuses do apply, but I still consider that a mistake / oversight. Meh.