Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 03-10-04, 12:58 AM	I really like the idea of the weapon groups, but I don't like the way some groups are inferrior to other groups, or how some groups contain both martial and simple weapons. Stuff like maces over chains; flails are much better than maces in every way. I'd like to work on rebalancing the groups, and finding some way to encourage simple weapons to be chosen, but limiting the martial weapons from some of the classes in some way. I'm still not sure, do you have any ideas?
JohnCJ 03-10-04, 07:08 AM	Whatever you do, please move the Kukri from the Exotic to the Light Blades group. Seems like they forgot that Kukri are Martial in 3.5 Aside from that, I don't see the problem. ;)
Tenzhi 03-10-04, 09:21 AM	I just think the groups aren't broad enough. The categories need to be more like: Slashy Things That Can Be Wielded In One Hand Slashy Things That Have To Be Wielded In Two Hands Bashy Things That Can Be Wielded In One Hand Bashy Things That Have To Be Wielded In Two Hands Pokey Things That Can Be Wielded In One Hand Pokey Things That Have To Be Wielded In Two Hands Things That Are Hurled Shooty Things That Are Hard To Use Shooty Things That Are Easy To Use Whippy Things That Stab, Poke, Or Bash While Looking Cool, Absurd, And/Or Dangerous To Use
Krelios 03-10-04, 10:01 AM	Tenzhi, I wish they'd have used your groups' names in UA. I got a good laugh out of those descriptions and I think you're actually on the right track by grouping weapons by use/purpose instead of arbitrarily. As cool as the axe group is, using a two-handed axe is very different from throwing a hand axe, but they're all one proficiency in the current variant. Oh well, I'll still use 'em.
Tenzhi 03-10-04, 10:23 AM	In reality, I'd probably want to add a "Choppy things" (otherwise known as "Things that go *THUNK* in the night") category for axes and picks, but there's no "Chopping" damage type to really associate it with.
77IM 03-10-04, 10:50 AM	I concur. Smart characters would all choose Heavy Blads (or Axes), Bows, and Exotic Weapons, so the Weapon Group system would actually make characters look more alike, not less, which is contrary to the goals of the system. My thoughts were, Double the initial number of group feats each class gets (paladins get only one more group than rogues? weak). However, although people are getting more proficiencies, there is now a prerequisite tree. For example, Heavy Blades group would require Clubs group proficiency -- it doesn't make sense that someone could be trained with a sword withouth knowing how to use a simple mace. Flail group and Axe group would also require Clubs. Polearms group would require Spears. Bows group would require Crossbows. Etc. Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Double Exotic Weapon Proficiency would not be considered weapon group feats, in the sense that you can't take them with your class-given group feat slots, and you can't apply Weapon Focus to all Double Exotic Weapons the way you can apply it to all Heavy Blades. Exotic Weapon Proficiency would be broken into three more feats: Heavy Exotic Weapon Proficiency (for weapons that are exotic due to their size, like the bastard sword, fullblade, greatspear, etc), Ranged Exotic Weapon Proficiency (duh), and Technique Exotic Weapon Proficiency (weird stuff like whips and spiked chains and nunchuks). What do you guys think? Balanced? -- 77IM
stone_dog 03-10-04, 11:07 AM	Jeez Tenzhi, why don't you just call weapon specialization for blades, "Putting sharp things through soft things that scream and bleed." ;) There are some good thoughts here. I am thinking of just scrapping the whole "pick your groups" thing and having weapon focus and specialization apply to an entire group as well as each subset of exotic weapon be its own feat.
Nei 03-10-04, 11:23 AM	You can also implement a system where everybody is familiar with x weapons (where x = much for a fighter, and barely anything for a wizard). The penalty for weapons you are unfamiliar with would stay at -4, but they would only be -2 for weapons that share a group with a weapon you are familiar with. Exotic weapons would be part of their 'normal' weapons group (i.e. an orc double axe belongs to 'axes'), but they count double for the number of familiar weapons you can start out with. With this system, the weapon groups would still have to be adjusted of course. I think I'll use Tenzhi's system for that... ;) Any thoughts on this? Nei
FenixZero 03-10-04, 11:38 AM	Since I too lazy to start a new thread let me ask this here. What if someone took weapon focus on heavy blades group and then selected the group exotic. Does the weapon focus work on a one-handed use of a bastard sword? I think yes but I have to ask before I make any desicions (sp?). FenixZero
stone_dog 03-10-04, 12:52 PM	Fenix- I am betting yes on the bastard sword thing. I am ruling that if a weapon appears in two different groups that you are proficient in then weapon focus applies to both uses of that weapon.
Xeviat-DM 03-10-04, 12:55 PM	Originally posted by FenixZero Since I too lazy to start a new thread let me ask this here. What if someone took weapon focus on heavy blades group and then selected the group exotic. Does the weapon focus work on a one-handed use of a bastard sword? I think yes but I have to ask before I make any desicions (sp?). FenixZero I don't think it would. But as a DM, I would let you apply your weapon focus (heavy blades) to the exotic heavy blades as well. I would not let someone select weapon focus (exotic weapon) since those weapons have little to nothing to do with each other. I think the prerequisite tree was a great idea; it's an interesting way to keep the better weapons out of non-warrior's hands, and it's a refreshing bit of realism. As it stands now, I'd like to make distinctions between simple and martial weapons still. Martial weapons would require a +1 BAB to select proficiency in. Yes, this does mean that war clerics wouldn't be able to start with their deities favored weapon, but the war domain pretty much covers that does it not? Also, martial classes could have all simple weapons to start with. What do you think? Also, some of the groups, like Druid and Monk weapons, needs to be redone for consistancy. I don't like the idea of all monks selecting weapon focus (monk weapons) and getting the bonus on all the weapons they can flurry. I think for realism (and to be rid of the cultural racism within the D&D game), those monk weapons (other than the shuriken) could simply be simple weapons within a category called (Peasent Weapons). The Sickle and a few other simple weapons should be in there as well. The Shuriken simply goes in with the Slings and Thrown weapons.
Greyman 03-10-04, 08:20 PM	I don't have a problem with monk special weapons being a group on their own.  They are at least thematically linked.  And if this allows monks to effectively select Weapon Focus [all my flurry attacks], that's fine by me as well.  Monks are supposed to have a unique way of fighting and leting them enhance that so easily is not balanced.  (Consider that the same applies to any one fighting with two weapons from the same group.) Druid Weapons, however, shares the same problem the druid weapon list has always had - it is simply are such an arbitary selection of weapons.  ALL the group's weapons are from other lists. However, I can see why the group was made - there's just no other way to mirror the traditional weapon list using the other Weapon Groups (as the system stands).  It has the further advantage of encouraging druids to stick with the traditional list (if that's important to you) by making Weapon Focus [Druid Weapons] more attractive than selecting another Weapon Group to expand their proficiencies. I suggest limiting the Druid Weapons group to Druids.  Other than that, I don't have a problem with the Weapon Groups.
Xeviat-DM 03-10-04, 10:35 PM	Grayman and others, how do you make groups like maces and clubs, crossbows, and spears and lances more desireable? I could see requiring maces and clubs for any of the other melee wepaons, spears and lances for the pole arms, and crossbows for the bow (though this one doesn't make much thematic sense, since bows existed before crossbows; but the proficiency of a crossbow should be next to nothing to take up). Ideas?
Tenzhi 03-10-04, 11:33 PM	Originally posted by Xeviat-DM Grayman and others, how do you make groups like maces and clubs, crossbows, and spears and lances more desireable? I don't see that they NEED to be. If someone wants to use a mace, let them pick up the proficiency, but there's no reason to make the proficiency a must-have.
Eric Anondson 03-11-04, 01:47 AM	Originally posted by Xeviat-DM I'm still not sure, do you have any ideas? If you see some sort "unbalance" in the weapon group rules, the best option, IMO, is not to redesign the whole thing, but rather to make available magic versions of those simple weapons first, and also to have higher power magic items first appear as those boring weapons. That way there is an incentive that each individual DM can tailor for their own campaigns based on percieved player ignoring. Regards, Eric Anondson
Xeviat-DM 03-11-04, 02:25 AM	Originally posted by Tenzhi I don't see that they NEED to be. If someone wants to use a mace, let them pick up the proficiency, but there's no reason to make the proficiency a must-have. But as it stands now, maces is a "never have" while picks and hammers would be a must have for someone who wants to deal bludgeoning damage. Crossbows is also a relatively poor choice, except for the use of repeating crossbows (which I think are fine as simple weapons actually, there's an annoying reload time and a mean GP addition). Spears is a weak group, as is Monk Weapons (no matter what anyone tells me, those are all simple weapons).
Tenzhi 03-11-04, 04:40 AM	Originally posted by Xeviat-DM But as it stands now, maces is a "never have" while picks and hammers would be a must have for someone who wants to deal bludgeoning damage. "Maces" is still a necessary proficiency if you WANT to use a mace. And if you WANT to use a mace, you have no use for proficiency in hammers and picks (making it far from a must-have). Most characters using this proficiency system should really only need one or two proficiencies to accomodate their general weapon of choice and an optional ranged weapon.
bjorntfh 03-11-04, 02:19 PM	IMC I'm using the weapon groups, and the only modification I gave the PCs is every 6 BAB you can take another one for free. The feat Proficiency: Weapon Groups: (insert here) gives you your choice of any 2. This has let my PCs pick the weapons they already know, and then expand slowly their knowledge by literally picking up and using non-familliar weapons. Of course strangely the group has only 3 (out of 5) Pc who share ANY weapon groups (beyond basic... duh.) And those shared weapons are 2 have spears and 2 have bows and 2have heavy blades. Everyone but one did pick up exotic weapons, but mostly because they use "nonstandard" weapons of the type. One uses a Katana/Wakazashi and Great Bow (exiled samurai) One uses a trident, (and has exotic spears for some reason... still can't tell why though...) and one uses claw weapons (she's a serpent Barbarian with whirling frenzy) for grappling with opponents. Overall the group has nearly no common weapons used even though you'd think the "best" groups would be pick right away. My PCs chose weapons based on the PC, not on "what will give me the most broken advanage." I'm so proud of them. *sniff*
Xeviat-DM 03-11-04, 03:08 PM	Has anyone chosen maces or crossbows?
bjorntfh 03-12-04, 08:02 AM	The newest member chose crossbows. He's using 2 hand crossbows and a siege bow for the John Wu style sniper actually.