Community

I've looked at the weapon list and frankly I think it's terrible.  A katana weighs 3 lbs but requires two hands.  A bastard sword weighs 10 lbs but I can wield it in one hand.    To me the only difference between these two swords is the location where they are made.   A few of these weapons have head scratching costs and stats that I think are arbitrary just to make them different from each other.  For instance, there is no damage difference between a Flail and a Warhammer  but they have differing weights and costs.    One would think that a Flail would be able to avoid Shields easier or be able to disarm a foe better than a Warhammer.   One would think that a warhammer knock someone prone with a skill blow.  


So what I propose is to have Maneuvers made that are specific to a certain weapon.   You don't need to learn anything new.  Just be proficient with the weapon and have the Combat Expertise dice to use the maneuvers.  Maneuvers can be such like Disarm for Whips or Flails, Parry for Main-Gauches or Sai's, Block for Quarterstaves, Etc.  


This way someone who likes using a specific weapon gets more out of it and the weapon matters more throughout the character's life.

Dec 27, 2012 -- 11:21AM, ZaranBlack wrote:

I've looked at the weapon list and frankly I think it's terrible.  A katana weighs 3 lbs but requires two hands.  A bastard sword weighs 10 lbs but I can wield it in one hand.    To me the only difference between these two swords is the location where they are made.   A few of these weapons have head scratching costs and stats that I think are arbitrary just to make them different from each other.  For instance, there is no damage difference between a Flail and a Warhammer  but they have differing weights and costs.    One would think that a Flail would be able to avoid Shields easier or be able to disarm a foe better than a Warhammer.   One would think that a warhammer knock someone prone with a skill blow.  


So what I propose is to have Maneuvers made that are specific to a certain weapon.   You don't need to learn anything new.  Just be proficient with the weapon and have the Combat Expertise dice to use the maneuvers.  Maneuvers can be such like Disarm for Whips or Flails, Parry for Main-Gauches or Sai's, Block for Quarterstaves, Etc.  


This way someone who likes using a specific weapon gets more out of it and the weapon matters more throughout the character's life.

I love this if it's fighter specific.
More maneuvers for fighters. A tangible advantage they have with weapons, without getting mixed up in bonus bloat or trap feats. Weapons feel different, but mostly in the hands of a truly masterful warrior.
It doesn't make the whole game more complicated, it just gives one small ability to one class that is weapon dependent.
Obviously, these could carry through to being enemy abilities too. It also works cleanly with multi-classing.

Of course, then, people would get mad if the weapons weren't balanced... we'd have these fights about, "Why would I use X when it's the same weight, cost and whatever but with a worse maneuver" of course... those people would have never been happy anyway.

On the other hand, maybe you could make it a thing where every few levels the fighter can CHOOSE a SINGLE weapon catagory to gain this feat in and by level 20 it's nearly all of them or something. That might be smoother and less overwhelming. Like, starting at level 2 or 3 you gain a Weapon Focus maneuver in addition to your normal ones. 

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:04PM, Staccat0 wrote:

I love this if it's fighter specific.
More maneuvers for fighters. A tangible advantage they have with weapons, without getting mixed up in bonus bloat or trap feats. Weapons feel different, but mostly in the hands of a truly masterful warrior.
It doesn't make the whole game more complicated, it just gives one small ability to one class that is weapon dependent.
Obviously, these could carry through to being enemy abilities too. It also works cleanly with mauli-classing.

I agree. One thing that I actually like from 4th was the tendency to give fighters stances that simply augmented their attacks with certain weapons or in certain circumstances. I had a couple of fighters that would go into stance and then at-will for the rest of combat. Perhaps the maneuvers could be tied to stances based on wepon classes.

I see no reason for it needing to be fighter only.  If they have access to combat expertise dice they should be proficient with any weapon specific maneuvers.

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:45PM, ZaranBlack wrote:

I see no reason for it needing to be fighter only.

This gets said about anything that is proposed to give to fighters.  Eventually you just have to accept it.  Why?

Because fighters.

Dec 27, 2012 -- 11:21AM, ZaranBlack wrote:

I've looked at the weapon list and frankly I think it's terrible.  A katana weighs 3 lbs but requires two hands.  A bastard sword weighs 10 lbs but I can wield it in one hand.    To me the only difference between these two swords is the location where they are made.   A few of these weapons have head scratching costs and stats that I think are arbitrary just to make them different from each other.  For instance, there is no damage difference between a Flail and a Warhammer  but they have differing weights and costs.    One would think that a Flail would be able to avoid Shields easier or be able to disarm a foe better than a Warhammer.   One would think that a warhammer knock someone prone with a skill blow.  


So what I propose is to have Maneuvers made that are specific to a certain weapon.   You don't need to learn anything new.  Just be proficient with the weapon and have the Combat Expertise dice to use the maneuvers.  Maneuvers can be such like Disarm for Whips or Flails, Parry for Main-Gauches or Sai's, Block for Quarterstaves, Etc.  


This way someone who likes using a specific weapon gets more out of it and the weapon matters more throughout the character's life.

/agree with suggestion.

one handed weapon 10lbs???

haha

a twohanded is useless with that weight...

I see some promise here.  I like the idea of making it fighter exclusive or more readily available to fighters.  Set a spear vs charge and the D6 bonus dice becomd D8.  A sword might allow any excess parry to carryover to the target as damage.  This could be built around key words and quailities for weapons.

Its funny you mention this, A few weeks ago I put a sticky note over the weapons description.

Off hand (-4 to hit) or thrown melee: 1d4  Range: 2”,4”,6”

One handed weapon: 1d6 inside, 1d8 outside

2 handed w/ reach: 1d6

2handed: 1d8 inside, 1d10 outside

I get nothing from bent and broken attempts to give each weapon “character” and “individual mechanical feel”. Having streamlined the weapons table to this extent it would be nice to have something to differentiate the different methods of stab, crush, and break.

I was thinking like exploding dice for certain weapons, or a stun effect, or multiple target attack. What are some of your ideas for these feats?

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:45PM, ZaranBlack wrote:

I see no reason for it needing to be fighter only. If they have access to combat expertise dice they should be proficient with any weapon specific maneuvers.

I see no reason to tie it to expertise dice.  If they have proficiency with the weapon, then they should also be proficient with weapon specific maneuvers.

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:49PM, Mand12 wrote:

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:45PM, ZaranBlack wrote:

I see no reason for it needing to be fighter only.

This gets said about anything that is proposed to give to fighters.  Eventually you just have to accept it.  Why?

Because fighters.

Well now, I generally defend the fighter's right to have nice things, but I have to agree that this shouldn't be a fighter thing.  The OP's suggestion makes weapon choice more interesting without changing the effectiveness of each weapon as a weapon (which is determined solely by damage).  I also don't think it should be tied to expertise dice.  However, I am in favor of the maneuvers being more effective if you spend expertise dice on them (kind of like the riders from 4e).

Any attempt to add more realism/complexity to weapons is always met with mixed reviews. My hopes are high, my expectations low

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:49PM, Mand12 wrote:

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:45PM, ZaranBlack wrote:

I see no reason for it needing to be fighter only.

This gets said about anything that is proposed to give to fighters.  Eventually you just have to accept it.  Why?

Because fighters.

Eh... I don't care about classes. I've certainly been on the record about being tired of all the whining that people pushing for wizards or fighters to have everything.

My reasoning that it should be a fighter thing, while maybe faulty, did indeed have a why.

You might think it's silly, or just disagree on taste, but to me giving weapon bonuses, NOT in the form of +1s is valuable. Having a measurement of skill with a weapon might be valuable to some players who want their character to have some mastery of certain weapons greater than that of another 5th level dude with the seame weapon and stats. It's certainly an archetype people associate with fighters and it's certainly been in past editions as a fighter thing.
It would be cool to have weapon focus, specialization or mastery, in a form that wasn't just raw bonuses. If other players want it for their class, they can multi-class or buy a feat or something. I don't care.

Applying it across the board, is to me, a boring thing for players to remember and slowly take for granted. At least, that's how I've experienced similar systems in the past. I certainly don't value complexity to meleee attacks personally, and if it was an optional thing for all PCs and NPCs or no characters, I'd probably opt to leave it out in my games. If its a small, cool special thing one dude in the party has, it's probably less likely to gum up the works and slow combat down exponentially or whatever so who cares?

You might disagree, but Its not necessarily for nothing.

Also, when I hear meaneuvers and XD, I don't think all clases. When I hear wepon abilities, I don't think Monks really... so you'll have to forgive me for having tunnell vision on the subject. At the same time, there is a vocal group of people moaning about fighters on these boards all the time, and another group (myself included) who immediately roll their eyes when people want more rules OR versimilitude... So I guess that informs my opinion as well if I'm being honest.

I'm surprised this hasn't been said, but this seems like the perfect sort of thing for a module.

Obvious problem:
What happens when a particular weapon has no specific maneuvers, or an already-great weapon gets a crazy maneuver?

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:05AM, Qmark wrote:

Obvious problem:
What happens when a particular weapon has no specific maneuvers, or an already-great weapon gets a crazy maneuver?

Design has failed.  Since the designers aren't idiots, I wouldn't worry about it.

Versitility tends to be better.

Dec 27, 2012 -- 11:05PM, Staccat0 wrote:

My reasoning that it shouldn't be a fighter thing, while maybe faulty, did indeed have a why.

You might think it's silly

It's not about what I think, or even this particular issue.  My point is that there's always a "why" for something to not be fighter only.

Also, bolded for what I assumed you meant based on the prior post - clarification requested.

This is a cool idea, but I think you first need to ask: does the fighter need more maneuvers?  And not more as in more possible maneuver, but actually more known maneuvers.

Fighters start with 3 ways to use their dice: damage, parry, and a maneuver.  By level 10 they have 4 more maneuvers (gaining an extra one at 2, 4, 8, and 10).  If you wanted, you could pick up 4 more by spending all your feats in that way.  In fact, the Martial Training feat is even described like this:

"You have undertaken specialized training to be able to do more with your weapon than simply strike at a foe."

In other words: maneuvers already represent weapon tricks.  I don't think it would be a good idea to restrict certain maneuvers to certain weapons.

If someone wants to make a thematic fighter whose maneuvers are tied closely to their chosen weapon, they can do so.  But if another person doesn't want to, it is good that they aren't limited in such a way.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:08AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:05AM, Qmark wrote:

Obvious problem:
What happens when a particular weapon has no specific maneuvers, or an already-great weapon gets a crazy maneuver?

Design has failed.  Since the designers aren't idiots, I wouldn't worry about it.

Alternately, the concept could be leveraged to provide an actual reason to use a rapier over a shortsword.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 9:21AM, Qmark wrote:

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:08AM, Maxperson wrote:

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:05AM, Qmark wrote:

Obvious problem:
What happens when a particular weapon has no specific maneuvers, or an already-great weapon gets a crazy maneuver?

Design has failed.  Since the designers aren't idiots, I wouldn't worry about it.

Alternately, the concept could be leveraged to provide an actual reason to use a rapier over a shortsword.

I don't know what you are talking about.  Your post was about weapons not having specific maneuvers or already-great weapons having a maneuver that is too strong to be combined with it.  If that happens, design has failed. 

So what does your statement and my response have to do with reasons to use a rapier over a shortsword?

Dec 28, 2012 -- 7:29AM, Arithezoo wrote:

This is a cool idea, but I think you first need to ask: does the fighter need more maneuvers?  And not more as in more possible maneuver, but actually more known maneuvers.

Fighters start with 3 ways to use their dice: damage, parry, and a maneuver.  By level 10 they have 4 more maneuvers (gaining an extra one at 2, 4, 8, and 10).  If you wanted, you could pick up 4 more by spending all your feats in that way.  In fact, the Martial Training feat is even described like this:

"You have undertaken specialized training to be able to do more with your weapon than simply strike at a foe."

In other words: maneuvers already represent weapon tricks.  I don't think it would be a good idea to restrict certain maneuvers to certain weapons.

If someone wants to make a thematic fighter whose maneuvers are tied closely to their chosen weapon, they can do so.  But if another person doesn't want to, it is good that they aren't limited in such a way.

The way I see it this would be a Module for those that want it and if you want to be the fighter that just hits things with the object in your hand and then passes the initiative that it can be ignored.  Otherwise what's wrong with the Fighter knowing more maneuvers?   This is a complication that can be there for those who want it.  I for one would like to have more choices in every class.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 9:24AM, Maxperson wrote:

So what does your statement and my response have to do with reasons to use a rapier over a shortsword?

in playtests 1-3, the only difference between a rapier and a shortsword was about 20GP and one pound.  It's since changed.

Sorry about that.

Your idea to pair the disarm action with the flail, is good. This is the right direction in thinking. Each weapon should have a unique attractive point that makes selecting a weapon part of the fun of the game. How about weapons that sunder armor and reduce ac? This thinking is good.

Jan 1, 2013 -- 4:02AM, ren1999 wrote:

How about weapons that sunder armor and reduce ac?

That sounds like a pain to keep track of.  Especially if it's used against more than one character, or by a character against more than one monster.

Where I come from you use a rapier for higher crit chance.
You use a shortsword since it's smaller and easier to hide. And BC no one uses a rapier as a backup. (All 3.5)
My group needs no reasons we have fun with whatever and I make the weapons interesting as DM.

What they need to do is make weapons do more than just damage.

Like two handed weaponry get a +1 AC vs. groups of monsters.

One handed weapons a bonus to initiative.  Stuff like that.  We already had 'reach' why not expand it?

And how about specific weapon types doing more than just looking pretty?

Dec 27, 2012 -- 7:48PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:49PM, Mand12 wrote:

Dec 27, 2012 -- 12:45PM, ZaranBlack wrote:

I see no reason for it needing to be fighter only.

This gets said about anything that is proposed to give to fighters.  Eventually you just have to accept it.  Why?

Because fighters.

Well now, I generally defend the fighter's right to have nice things, but I have to agree that this shouldn't be a fighter thing.  The OP's suggestion makes weapon choice more interesting without changing the effectiveness of each weapon as a weapon (which is determined solely by damage).  I also don't think it should be tied to expertise dice.  However, I am in favor of the maneuvers being more effective if you spend expertise dice on them (kind of like the riders from 4e).

The way I see it.  Expertise dice is a measure of ability the character has with Martial Combat.  Linking the Weapon Maneuvers to those means that only characters that have access to those dice will be able to learn the maneuvers.  The way they have it now, only Fighters and Monks have the ability, with the Rogue and Clerics getting damage only.  I don't like that very much because I liked the whole trading in damage for effects idea for every class with the extra dice.

I like that suggestion.

In previous editions, weapons had damage types (and some creatures were vulerable or resistant to some damage types).  I remember characters carrying a weapon for each different type of damage to adapt during combat.

Some weapons were more useful to disarm or trip your enemies.
Weapons had attack rolls adjustments regarding the armor worn by the opponent.

All these factores made the various weapons attrative and not all characters ended carrying the same weapon all the time.

Making special combat maneuver for each weapon is a good idea but the balance of it is another matter.
The purpose would be to make all weapons attractive because of these special maneuvers you could do with them.

Maneuvers isn't a terrible idea, so long as the maneuver changed each time you switched a weapon. Like Acrilos said above though, you risk some maneuvers being a lot better than others and pressuring people to use one weapon over another due to the maneuver. But the main thing is that it's a far more accessible idea than Weapon vs Armor tables and the like. I, as an almost 15+ veteran of RPGs, was complete confused the first few times I read over the Weapon vs Armor table in 1e. Apparently it was confusing, unbalancing, and just plain game slowing enough that a good amount of DMs just ignored it.