4ed article: Weapons

[Dragoon]

Here's the link click.

For those who can't access the site.

Spoiler

Show

In today’s preview, we asked Chris Sims to detail how weapons work in 4th Edition. His response:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

--Chris Sims

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing Weapons

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

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

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

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

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

Weapon Properties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it looks like they are simplifying the weapon groups, so perhaps the classes like Rogue will still be able to use Rapiers and other weapons. Or it could mean just less weapons in general.

Also sounds like to do attack with two weapons in the same round, a power will be needed. Not sure how new this is but I'm expecting the ranger to be getting it if they follow the combat styles of 3.5

[Charity]

I seriously doubt there will be less weapons... though there is bound to be less than in 1e (I want my Bohemian ear spoon damnit!).

I thought this excerpt was a little crunch lite, maybe a table, or a weapon description or two wouldn't have gone amiss... ah well i guess we'll see the whole shebang soon enough.

[TSGames]

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

lolz. Had to read that twice, the first time I thought it said "overcompensate".

[Infinity_Biscuit]

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

Just one point of damage more, ever? Am I missing something, or is it as useless as I'm reading it?

[Tai Sunstrider]

Huh...looks like they are really screwing over the 2H styles of combat (aww no crazy guy with a giant sword well not if he wants to maximize his killitude) just like in 3.5 2W style is where its at, the more attacks you can make the more chances to hit/crit and the more chances of dealing real damage (naturally this style was eaten alive by barbed devils).

This particular aspect of the new game does not please me although I will probably still be stealing ideas from 4e for my game.

[tyckspoon]

Huh...looks like they are really screwing over the 2H styles of combat (aww no crazy guy with a giant sword well not if he wants to maximize his killitude) just like in 3.5 2W style is where its at, the more attacks you can make the more chances to hit/crit and the more chances of dealing real damage (naturally this style was eaten alive by barbed devils).

This particular aspect of the new game does not please me although I will probably still be stealing ideas from 4e for my game.

Er. Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to the boards. And the truth that wielding a two-handed weapon is far and away the more effective way to deal damage in 3.5. If anything they're trying to reduce the impact of weapon choice.. (although it still gives some advantage when you're swinging a 2[W] or 3[W] power. And proper two-handed weapons that don't have the option of being used one-handed may have a little higher bonus damage.)

[Reel On, Love]

Huh...looks like they are really screwing over the 2H styles of combat (aww no crazy guy with a giant sword well not if he wants to maximize his killitude) just like in 3.5 2W style is where its at, the more attacks you can make the more chances to hit/crit and the more chances of dealing real damage (naturally this style was eaten alive by barbed devils).

...oh, man. Look, uh, guy... two-weapon fighting doesn't just blow in 3.5, it creates a damn hurricane. You have to spend multiple feats, in order to do less average damage than a guy with a two-handed weapon.
The exception is if you have a high amount of bonus damage that applies to every attack, like a Rogue's sneak attack ability.

Also, the extra point of damage will multiply with powers that do X[W], as mentioned. It's also for one-handed weapon that happen to be used in two hands--you can fully expect greatswords to have a higher base damage.

1 point of average damage is also the 3.5 increase from a longsword and a bastard sword, and bastard swords managed to be popular enough for people to spend feats on them, somehow.

[Farmer42]

Note that Versatile does not mean two handed, so we don't know what a weapon designed specifically for two handed combat looks like, damage-wise.

Edit: Ninja'd by tyckspoon

[bosssmiley]

So the new weapon properties of 4th Ed. can be summed up as:

"+1 what WFB/WFRP said"

Not original, but probaby usable.

[Kyalid]

To me it doesn't seem to have changed a bit from 3.5 to 4e, just a few minor changes for the names of things like military weapons and the definition of weapon groups like axe or light blade but everything else seems quite familiar.

[Kurald Galain]

A big "meh" from me.

There's no need for weapons to have categories and groups and properties. This could simply be handled by one keyword line - "category" and "groups" are essentially synonyms.

Bringing back the weapon groups from 2E is good; having weapons that fit in multiple groups sounds like unnecessary complexity (but, again, easily handled by a keyword line). Also, there are too many groups, some of which are very small or tend not to get used.

High Crit is simply ironic. Months ago, they explained to us how completely awesome it was that you didn't have to roll dice for a critical hit. And next, they introduce a power that lets you roll dice for a critical hit.

Likewise, saying "it's so cool that you won't get penalties for using weapons you're not proficient with" is just plain silly, because the very next sentence states you will get bonuses for using things that you are proficient with. Of course, that is the exact same thing, except that subtraction is very difficult for most players.

I don't like the fact that you can't fight with two weapons unless you have a power. Of course, this fits with the "you can't do that" design philosophy of 4E.

Disallowing small characters from using two-handed weapons is silly (they have two hands, yes?) and the "small" keyword is just a hack to fix this.

Load and Reach are nothing new. And versatile is pretty much pointless since the bonus is too small to matter much.

So meh. Nothing really bad, nothing really good, and a lot of empty hype.

[AslanCross]

Just one point of damage more, ever? Am I missing something, or is it as useless as I'm reading it?

We don't know how useless one point of damage is in 4E. Several feats and powers I've seen give small static bonuses, so this appears to be a new trend.

Huh...looks like they are really screwing over the 2H styles of combat (aww no crazy guy with a giant sword well not if he wants to maximize his killitude) just like in 3.5 2W style is where its at, the more attacks you can make the more chances to hit/crit and the more chances of dealing real damage (naturally this style was eaten alive by barbed devils).

This particular aspect of the new game does not please me although I will probably still be stealing ideas from 4e for my game.

As has been mentioned earlier, 3.5's TWF sucked horribly due to the immense feat support you need for it, and the fact that you're still penalized even when you have all three TWF feats.

4E is doing away with full attacks, now you really only get one attack per round unless you have a power that allows multiple attacks per round. So TWF isn't really screwed over and it's actually a better option.

[KIDS]

I happen to notice that the double reach with adjacent squares useless doesn't exist anymore... nice change there. Otherwise it isn't a big deal to me as long as superior (or exotic) weapons are placed adequately and not in a biased fashion like in the last PHB.

[Swooper]

The weapon groups look nice, I'd houserule something like that if I thought my players could be bothered to learn it... But what's with the keeping weapon categories then? Why do you need to separate weapons by simple/martial/exotic (or superior or w/e) when you've already separated them by sword/axe/spear/mace etc.?

I'll also agree with those who've said the Versatile thingy looks useless. Yay, another tiny insignificant modifier to keep track of (that we'll really only forget about most of the time)! It's better than spending a feat on a bastard sword, though.

Thirdly, reach weapons look screwed over. You don't threaten squares more than 5' away, nor can you flank except by being adjacent. Being able to control the battlefield to an extent via threatening and taking AoOs is the whole point of reach weapons in 3E! Now there's not as much point to them. But I guess they said they were downplaying AoOs. Bah, I say.

Finally: NOOOOOOOO they kept the spiked chain

[Roderick_BR]

lack of skill doesn’t penalize your roll; skill enhances your effectiveness instead.

I like that. That's something people has been complaining all the time about 3.x.
And yes, apparently anyone can pick a weapon and hit with it. Weapon choices will matter according to your character's abilities. I.E.: Your character is still gear dependent (at least a minimum), but now the asskicking comes from your characters, not from the gear alone.
All in all, I like the notion thus far.

@Swooper: Apparently the main use of weapon groups is to say what you can and can't do with your character's powers. Simple/Martial/Exotic is still how much you can use the weapon at all. And you can attack adjacent foes with reach weapons, so you can flank. It's silly you can't flank from more than 5ft, though.

[Lord Tataraus]

We don't know how useless one point of damage is in 4E. Several feats and powers I've seen give small static bonuses, so this appears to be a new trend.

I would argue we do know that small static bonuses will be about, or a bit less, as effective as in 3.5 because we know that HP is slightly higher.

[Dervag]

I like that. That's something people has been complaining all the time about 3.x.

This is a point, I think; I've heard quite a few objections to the way that 3rd Edition penalizes attempts to do something like tackle an opponent if you didn't think to take the Improved Tackling feat or whatever.

@Swooper: Apparently the main use of weapon groups is to say what you can and can't do with your character's powers. Simple/Martial/Exotic is still how much you can use the weapon at all. And you can attack adjacent foes with reach weapons, so you can flank. It's silly you can't flank from more than 5ft, though.

Yes, it is, but I can see why they did it. On a battlespace of five-foot squares, being "opposite" an opponent who is 10 feet away isn't as well defined. I mean, do you have to stand diametrically opposite the close-combat guy you're cooperating with in the flank-attempt? What if there's an obstacle in the way?

Logic would suggest that if the monster is in square (3,3) and the guy with the dagger is in square (4,3) that I should be able to threaten him with flanking using my pike from square (1,3). But it's hard to see why I shouldn't be able to use (1,2) or (1,4) to do the same thing. If I can't, those squares are permanently useless for flanking because they aren't diametrically opposite any of the eight squares around the monster.

So I can see why they decided not to open up the whole can of worms.

The weapon groups look nice, I'd houserule something like that if I thought my players could be bothered to learn it... But what's with the keeping weapon categories then? Why do you need to separate weapons by simple/martial/exotic (or superior or w/e) when you've already separated them by sword/axe/spear/mace etc.?

Because not all "mace" type weapons are simple, for instance?

For instance, crossbows in 3rd Edition are Simple weapons... except for the repeating and hand crossbows, which aren't. Morning stars and warhammers are likely classified as "maces," and in 3rd Edition those were Martial weapons where the light/heavy mace were Simple. And so it goes.

A big "meh" from me.

There's no need for weapons to have categories and groups and properties. This could simply be handled by one keyword line - "category" and "groups" are essentially synonyms.

Bringing back the weapon groups from 2E is good; having weapons that fit in multiple groups sounds like unnecessary complexity (but, again, easily handled by a keyword line). Also, there are too many groups, some of which are very small or tend not to get used.

It depends. For instance, the categories "one-handed/two-handed" are a relevant piece of information that has to do with what type of weapon you can use. Likewise, "simple/military."*

Whereas the group "axe" doesn't normally tell you whether you can use it; (it would be strange to have a class that can use any and all axes but no swords, for instance). It tells you details about the weapon's operation.

It would be quite possible to have one-handed or two-handed axes and simple or military axes. However, a generalized one-line category like "the set of all two-handed military axes" would be so specific that you'd need several dozen of them. That's no good.

So I think it's legitimate for them to have both 'category' and 'group' to designate weapons. The category idea is something old from 3rd Edition, but the 'group' idea is on the new side if you ask me.

As for some of the groups tending not to get used, that depends on how good a job of introducing more styles they do, no? I mean, in 3rd Edition there are a small number of objectively optimal weapons for any given style- scythe, rapier, greatsword, and so on. Much of the weapon list simply isn't as useful. They may be able to improve that.

*I think using the word "superior" is a terrible idea, because it strongly implies that every weapon which takes complex training in order to get basic mastery is superior. A double-bladed sword would take a lot of training to use without gutting yourself; this does not make it a better weapon in and of itself.

Likewise, saying "it's so cool that you won't get penalties for using weapons you're not proficient with" is just plain silly, because the very next sentence states you will get bonuses for using things that you are proficient with. Of course, that is the exact same thing, except that subtraction is very difficult for most players.

It's mostly psychological, I think. Also, keep in mind that the difficulty of the weakest challenges is typically calibrated to someone with no bonuses, or with some bare minimum of bonuses. Adding penalties on top of that can rapidly reduce the player to suckage simply because they have no chance of hitting the orc with their penalty factored in and no way to raise their to-hit score back to acceptable levels.

Disallowing small characters from using two-handed weapons is silly (they have two hands, yes?) and the "small" keyword is just a hack to fix this.

If they kept weapon size (as in "Small greatsword, Medium greatsword, Huge greatsword...") then yes it's kind of silly. In older editions that did not use weapon sizes, it was necessary to rule that Small characters could not use two-handed weapons. Because a halfling could not swing a greatsword, there were no halfling greatswords- there were only longswords being used by halflings as if they were greatswords.

[SamTheCleric]

Some good information increasing my desire for the books to be in my hands.

In return, I give you the daily art preview: (He will eat your face!)

[Duke of URL]

Other than cleaning things up from a terminology standpoint, this is little different from 3rd edition with the weapon groups variant from Unearthed Arcana, which I happen to like.

The notable differences, as have been pointed out, are reach weapons -- all reach weapons still threaten/can be used against adjacent squares, but cannot threaten non-adjacent squares even though they can be used against them -- and two-weapon fighting -- basically, you can't, except as part of a power... any guesses on which classes (*cough* Rogue *cough* Ranger *cough*) will have two-weapon powers?

[SamTheCleric]

Rangers are the classic two-weapon fighters... I'd imagine they will get TWF powers.

[Azerian Kelimon]

My bet is all the martial classes. I'm guessing they'll get a passive or at will that allows them to attack with two weapons.

[Charity]

Rangers are the classic two-weapon fighters... I'd imagine they will get TWF powers.

If you squint really hard... or rely on the good souls of Enworld you will discover how right you are.
Rangers get TWF of some form or another, which is prob accessible through multiclassing or feats for other classes.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Some good information increasing my desire for the books to be in my hands.

In return, I give you the daily art preview: (He will eat your face!)

Get in the car! >:3

[Matthew]

Because not all "mace" type weapons are simple, for instance?

For instance, crossbows in 3rd Edition are Simple weapons... except for the repeating and hand crossbows, which aren't. Morning stars and warhammers are likely classified as "maces," and in 3rd Edition those were Martial weapons where the light/heavy mace were Simple. And so it goes.

Negatory. There's a 'Hammer' group, so only Morning Stars might qualify as more advanced. My guess is you might see things like... Light Hammer, Heavy Hammer, Great Hammer, Light Battle Hammer, Heavy Battle Hammer, Great Battle Hammer, Light War Hammer, Heavy War Hammer, Great War Hammer, Spiked Heavy Battle Hammer, etc... Adjectives are fun!

[edit]
I thought of some more... Civilian, Military, Footman's, Horseman's, Infantry, Cavalry... I think I could probably create a whole expansion book for each weapon category. Ooh, Wizard's Hammer!

A Pole Arm group and a Staff group in addition to a Spear group seems kind of bonkers to me. It looks like there's no Scimitar group, just 'light' and 'heavy' blades. That never made any friggin' sense to me, Paizo Publishing is doing the same thing in Pathfinder. Apparently, a Short Sword is sufficiently different from a Long sword to merit a separate group, but a Hand Axe is similar enough to a Great Axe to qualify for the same group. Rubbish, I say, rubbish!

If you squint really hard... or rely on the good souls of Enworld you will discover how right you are.
Rangers get TWF of some form or another, which is prob accessible through multiclassing or feats for other classes.

Ah yes, the 'classic' dual light sabre wielding Ranger. Rubbish, I say, rubbish!

Some good information increasing my desire for the books to be in my hands.

In return, I give you the daily art preview: (He will eat your face!)

Get in the car! >:3

Nice looking piece, that. I doubt he'd fit in my car, though.

[Charity]

Negatory. There's a 'Hammer' group, so only Morning Stars might qualify as more advanced. My guess is you might see things like... Light Hammer, Heavy hammer, great hammer, Light Battle Hammer, Heavy Battle Hammer, Great battle Hammer, Light War Hammer, Heavy War Hammer, Great War Hammer. Adjectives are fun!

You forgot the famous Scottish weapon

Spoiler

Show

... well you started it...

A Pole Arm group and a Staff group in addition to a Spear group seems kind of bonkers to me. It looks like there's no Scimitar group, just 'light' and 'heavy' blades. That never made any friggin' sense to me, Paizo Publishing is doing the same thing in Pathfinder. Apparently, a Short Sword is sufficiently different from a Long sword to merit a separate group, but a Hand Axe is similar enough to a Great Axe to qualify for the same group. Rubbish, I say, rubbish!


Ah yes, the 'classic' dual light sabre wielding Ranger. Rubbish, I say, rubbish!

Well it's like any of these things they post weapons into boxes often only considering their names, or appearance, though in their defence spears are often used one handed whereas polearms are not. except in very unusal circumstances

[Matthew]

Well it's like any of these things they post weapons into boxes often only considering their names, or appearance, though in their defence spears are often used one handed whereas polearms are not. except in very unusal circumstances

Yeah, like when they're short handled... in any case, not much of a defence when both Great Axe and Hand Axe get to be in the same group! I wonder if 4e will actually let characters use ordinary spears one handed? I suppose they'll have the 'versitile' key word (Key Word!?).

Anyway, I would require both Axe and Spear for something like a Halberd, which is incidently something they are recognising elsewhere (Halberds can be used as both Axes and Spears for the purposes of powers), but are not actually capitalising on in this instance.

Rubbish, I say, rubbish!

[Jarlax]

i like the core concept of new TWF, ok you cant use both weapons at once, but your also not being penalized for holding one in your off hand.

so heres the deal, if your class cant use shields or two handed weapons (eg. rouge) you should carry two different types of weapons. the reason, to maximize weapon type powers that rely on separate weapon types (melee vs ranged, or blade vs axe, etc) or simple combat flexibility. for example on your rouge put a short sword in your main hand, and a dagger in your offhand.

im making quite a few assumptions about what daggers can do in 4e, but lets assume they are a light thrown offhand weapon, not a massive stretch. your using your shortsword almost all the time in your main hand. but any time you need a quick ranged attack, there it is loaded in your offhand with a +1 on the attack roll. later on you might enchant your weapons separately, fire on your shortsword and frost on your dagger.

the basic point is your not being penalized for filling your offhand slot, and its not doing anything otherwise. why not use it.

[Telonius]

Finally: NOOOOOOOO they kept the spiked chain

Hmm. I had that thought too. But upon closer inspection, that appears to be a set of morningstar-chucks.

[Rutee]

Hmm. I had that thought too. But upon closer inspection, that appears to be a set of morningstar-chucks.

....If that goes in without Sword Chucks, it will be a /travesty/.

[Charity]

Yeah, like when they're short handled... in any case, not much of a defence when both Great Axe and Hand Axe get to be in the same group! I wonder if 4e will actually let characters use ordinary spears one handed? I suppose they'll have the 'versitile' key word (Key Word!?).

Anyway, I would require both Axe and Spear for something like a Halberd, which is incidently something they are recognising elsewhere (Halberds can be used as both Axes and Spears for the purposes of powers), but are not actually capitalising on in this instance.

Rubbish, I say, rubbish!

Your white text fu is strong.
These weapon groups are not, as far as I'm aware for any kind of proficiency purposes. They are grouping to use with certain powers (mostly martial I imagine) that being the case the groupings might be as simple as what sort of injury they inflict, axe chopping, sword slashing, hammer mashing etc... this is of course pure conjecture but still it's all about simplicity and I guess the powers might include several groups depending on how they are deemed to function.
ie. Bonk on the nose with the blunt end - you can use this power with any two handed axe, staff or polearm...