Weapons

One thing I wanted to point out... I don't think this is the biggest issue but I didn't see anyone else mention it so I figured I'd bring it up.  The list of weapons seems kind of wonky.  There isn't any balance to them.  I guess if you don't care about balance, that's cool, but I think it would be better to have a balanced list and then the people who don't want to worry about balance don't have to.

For example - the club and the mace are exactly the same, except that a mace costs 12 times as much money.  A hammer is cheaper than a mace and is the same PLUS you can throw it.  The mace is the worst basic weapon but also the second most expensive.

The short sword is just like a rapier but better because it's light, yet the rapier is the most expensive finesse weapon.

The battleaxe and longsword, pick and trident, warhammer and flail are each identical to each other except one costs twice as much as the other.

Now that the bastard sword is Martial instead of Exotic/Heavy, it's strictly better than the Longsword in every way, except that it's a little more expensive.  I think Bastard should go back to being Heavy or Exotic.

The lance is better than the longspear in every way (more damage plus you can use it one-handed while mounted); there is no reason to ever use a longspear except that it's two gp cheaper.  Maybe the longspear should be a simple weapon.

Greataxe and Greatsword are identical but the greatsword is more than double the cost of a greataxe.

Shortbow and Longbow are better than Crossbows in every way - same damage, but longer range and they don't require a reload time.  The loading penalty of crossbows is very steep, so they need to offer something useful over bows for that tradeoff.  Maybe bows should go back to being Martial?

There's only one Complex Missile weapon - the heavy crossbow, and it inexplicably uses Strength for its attack.  The crossbow is the one weapon which is least dependent on the user's strength when making an attack.  Maybe that's a mistake?

4e was very good about making each weapon slightly different but balanced.  I'm guessing these weapon stats are pulled from 2e, but maybe you guys should consider using the 4e stats instead?  Unless the old edition stats need to return for nostalgia's sake as well.
Skill Challenge Alternative: The Chase
That's a very good observation. I missed that myself. Weapons should be more balanced. 

Nice to see more constructive criticism on these boards  
The pricing will make more sense, me thinks, when more advanced weapon variant modules come out.  

Hopefully.... Maybe.
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af156/Tom_Shambles92/DrSeuss.jpg http://www.last.fm/user/Pogo92 Endorsed by the C.C.A.A. Booty Patrol. "If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play"." - Areleth
The pricing will make more sense, me thinks, when more advanced weapon variant modules come out.  

Hopefully.... Maybe.



I'm worried that "Don't worry, a module will fix it" is going to become a meme soon. ;)
I didn't notice this until the OP pointed it out, mostly because I hadn't gotten to scrutinizing the weapons and armor yet.

@Makeshift: I agree with you about most of the weapons you mentioned.  There is only one where I do not.  The bastard sword is only better than the longsword if you fight with both hands on the same weapon.  If you use a shield, the longsword is the same weapon for half the weight and less than half the price.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I agree with this thread. I agree that 4e did do a lot right with weapons.

I'm worried that "Don't worry, a module will fix it" is going to become a meme soon. ;)



It totally should be.
It's the same with the armors, just like in 3.X, there are 1-2 'optimal' choices for weapons in each category and then a whole bunch of ones that make no sense to bother with.

Even with the return to the Golf Bag of Weapon Damage Types, there's no reason to take/buy most of the choices presented--and so far we've only gotten a very short list.

Perhaps a module will introduce more reasons to take specific weapons (Speed Factors, Proficiency Bonuses, Crit Multipliers, etc.) but at the moment, there's nothing to compel you to take the sub-optimal choices.
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium


I'm worried that "Don't worry, a module will fix it" is going to become a meme soon. ;)



It totally should be.

I'm no artist. I did the best I could with the iconic "Cooking Mama" failure screen, since everything is better with an image macro.

IMAGE(http://i48.tinypic.com/nwej46.png)

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I'd much prefer a simpler approach to weapons, but they likely won't do it because of tradition.
Simply pick melee or ranged, then pick one choice from each category that applies.
(Note that my pricing guides are based on the idea that, after character creation, cost doesn't really mean much at these low numbers.)

(Since there are no "basic" and "martial" or whatever type weapons here, I'd suggest just giving combat classes a +2 bonus to attacks instead of the proficiency bonuses.)

You have melee weapon size:
Light weapons can be dual-wielded, can be thrown (20/80), and deal 1d6 damage. Base cost 1g.
Medium weapons are the standby, and deal 1d8 damage. Base cost 4g.
Heavy weapons are two-handed, and deal 1d12 damage. Base cost 10g.
Hafted weapons are two-handed, have reach, and deal 1d10 damage. Base cost 8g.

You have melee weapon category:
Normal weapons use Strength to attack, and can be of any size.
Finesse weapons can use Strength or Dexterity to attack, but must be Light or Medium. x2 cost (harder to make well)

You have ranged weapon size:
Light ranged weapons deal 1d6 damage, and require two hands to fire. Base cost 10g.
Heavy ranged weapons deal 1d8 damage, and require two hands to fire. Base cost 25g.
Crossbows deal 1d8 and 1d10 damage respectively, but must be reloaded as an action or fired with Disadvantage. x2 cost.

You have weapon damage type:
Slashing.
Piercing.
Bludgeoning.
Slashing or Piercing. Cost x2
Bludgeoning or Piercing. Cost x2
This is, again, something I think that will be addressed as we progress further into the playtest. I'm sure the weapons (and armour) lists we've been given are far from final.

But some very good observations there. Definitely hope to see some of the more glaring issues resolved. 
Yup the weapons list is borked.

I'd also like to point out that a halberd has reach, but a spear doesn't.  This doesn't make sense since the average spear is longer than a halberd.  The pole arm selection is severely limited.  Spear damage is weak.  A regular spear should have the same advantage as a bastard sword.