Talk:Weapon Design (4e Guideline)

I feel I must say that this system sucks balance-wise. Just a suggestion, [url=http://community.wizards.com/forum/4e-general-discussion/threads/2086646]this [/url] makes, at the least, a better chasis for such a system.

It might help me if you give specific examples as to how this method is unbalanced. Marasmusine (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2014 (MDT)

Polearm, reach and light blades being cheaper, and generally less restrictions can result in more powerful weapons than stock 4e. Did have more here but internet went down while submitting. Grr.

The stock glaive, halberd and longspear can all be made with this method by starting with the basic two-handed melee, adding Reach and changing from Simple to Martial.

Please can you give me a specific example of an unbalanced reach weapon?

I'm also not sure how the Polearm weapon group makes any difference. Marasmusine (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2014 (MDT)

So by the current guidelines we can have: +2 1d8 military one handed light blade, staff, polearm, reach. Throw in Staff Expertise and you've got damage on par with the best light blades (except Spike Chain) at reach 2 and with full access to light blade support and polearm shenanigans such as polearm momentum.

Also the stock everything, bar Raiper and Greatsword, can be made with the other system so that point's mute.

Thanks for your reply. These guidelines are to help editors make a page for a weapon they've already conceptualized, and I expect people to be sensible with weapon groups. They do occasionally slip up on a weapon's [W], so that's the focus here.

A "light blade, staff, polearm" is obviously nonsense, I don't even know what that would look like, such a weapon isn't going to be created by anyone editing in good faith.

I stress that a Guideline pages are wiki-centric to help with "creating pages and formatting."

Uh, I'm interested though, why can't the other system make the stock greatsword or rapier? They work with this one. Marasmusine (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2014 (MDT)

Eh then my last comment would be the other system's more universal. As for the raiper: it could be done if it were superior, but according to the system it's unbalanced as a military weapon. The greatsword on the other hand... sucks. Badly. Provided I'm getting my names right, it's the same stats as the Bastard Sword only two-handed. And yeah, I couldn't picture my theoretical weapon as anything other than "a greatspear by another name for group exploits."

I taake that back. Although there is the problem of a polearm and a really long staff being discriptively the same thing: a long engraved shaft topped by a small blade, traditionally such a weapon would be used to nick at vital areas from afar.

For the record, the greatsword is martial, the bastard sword is superior, both are balanced at those levels. The rapier is balanced at military, in fact it's the same as the longsword (+3 / 1d8), without Versatile (I might actually add to the guideline that light blades can't be Versatile).

I'm taking a look at your link now, and I'm struck by some of the arbitrary rules. Why can't a mace be superior? 3.5e had exotic mace weapons, one of which I converted to 4e. The double weapon rules seem overly complicated and don't catch what is and isn't Stout or Defensive. Off-hand is given different weight depending on if it's a light blade or not, which doesn't make sense if you compare, say, short sword and scourge. Marasmusine (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2014 (MDT)

Nah the greatsword sucks, even compared to other two-handers. Well not necessarily suck, but they're a whole die size down, something about changing how damage added up. Also are you sure we've the same link? All I see about superior is it gives you an extra point to play around with. And while some of the rules seem wierd... well they're all reverse engineered from the patterns Wizards follows so I guess take it up with them? :P

Oh wait, I see it. I think it's because Wizard hasn't released any so how they'd balance can only be extrapolated. Personally I just ignore it.

Hmm, interesting, I took another look at greatsword. It is balanced compared to pike, maul, longspear, heavy flail, halberd and glaive.

The falchion, greataxe and and heavy warpick are one step better.

It's not that the greatsword is underpowered, it's that those three weapons seem to be better.

What do they have in common? Those are the High Crit two-handed martial weapons. So what I need to do is examine the weighting for High Crit. Marasmusine (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2014 (MDT)

Update: I can take greataxe off that list, since it lost High Crit in the 2010 updates. So it's just falchion and heavy warpick that are the anomalies. Marasmusine (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2014 (MDT)

Double weapons are crap

After allot of thinking and looking at how the double weapons work in 4e they are all crap. All of the weapons on the Dandwiki are bad or OP. From what I can tell it's used to either give rangers Two-handed weapon feats with double weapons, and or give them +1 AC so they die less. Aside from the stout property nearly all weapons damage (at least average between both ends) can be replicated if not improved upon with only a single superior weapon feat. As such I think they should honestly be given a rework to grant more unique properties to the dual wielding options.--Aitharious (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2017 (MST)