Halfling Sling
Simple Ranged Weapon (One-Handed)
Prof: +3
Damage: 1d4
Range: 10/20
Price: 1gp
Weight: 0 lbs
Group: Sling
Properties: Load free
While they have long been known for their accuracy with the sling, halfling slingers actually possess a simple secret. Shortening the straps gives the slinger greater control over the shot, but at the expense of power.
Simple Ranged Weapon (One-Handed)
Prof: +3
Damage: 1d4
Range: 10/20
Price: 1gp
Weight: 0 lbs
Group: Sling
Properties: Load free
While they have long been known for their accuracy with the sling, halfling slingers actually possess a simple secret. Shortening the straps gives the slinger greater control over the shot, but at the expense of power.
one advantage that projectile weapons gain which thrown weapons cannot easily compete with is the easy selection of changing properties based on ammunition rather than weapon.
weapons like longbows and big crossbows should have STR requirements to use, just like Armor
Why? Absolutely no weapons require an attribute whatsoever.
As far as the weapons are concerned, you need to be careful and qualify what happens with those alternate Slings with the Rogue's Sling Weapon Talent and the feat Deadeye Slinger (I think that's the name...it's in MP2).
Likewise, the Recurve Bow has identical average damage to a Greatbow. I don't see the purpose of this. Do you just dislike 1d12s? At least the other weapons had some niche (e.g. a more accurate sling), but the Recuvrve and Greatbow are identical in all ways except minimum and maximum damage.
I was also pretty sure there was already a feat that turned the Hand Crossbow into a +3, d8, high crit weapon. I don't remember if it was Drow only or not, but if it was, I'd suggest just removing the race restriction from that feat. I think it's generally a better idea to work with what's already out there, rather than trying to pull things from thin air.
i like these. i'd like to see composite bows. personally, i would prefer to see the high crit as a part of ammunition such that a few arrows/bolts/bullets could be the high crit, some the ... or even an entire quiver of enchanted arrows/bolts/bullets that brign high crit to the weapon itself. same could be said for brutal properties.
one advantage that projectile weapons gain which thrown weapons cannot easily compete with is the easy selection of changing properties based on ammunition rather than weapon.
Why thank you. I wasn't trying to play around with ammunition, simply show how easy it is to make the base weapons. I remember being unimpressed by ammunition at first glance, but haven't played a ranged class since then so I have no playing experience to draw upon for thatn.
weapons like longbows and big crossbows should have STR requirements to use, just like Armor
Why? Absolutely no weapons require an attribute whatsoever.
As far as the weapons are concerned, you need to be careful and qualify what happens with those alternate Slings with the Rogue's Sling Weapon Talent and the feat Deadeye Slinger (I think that's the name...it's in MP2).
I'm not too worried about it since I'll probably never actually use these weapons. To address your concerns though, I don't see the weapon talent as a problem. It's just like a dagger with a little better range that you can't use in melee. It does conflict somewhat with deadeye slinger, but the irony is that the feat exists simply to fill the void created when WotC did not make more ranged weapons. Deadeye slinger is basically weapon proficiency - uber sling. The halfling sling then gives the choice of delaying taking this feat until high level, when high crit actually becomes marginally useful. The staff sling gets more benefit, but once again it's just like weapon proficiency - uber staff sling.
Likewise, the Recurve Bow has identical average damage to a Greatbow. I don't see the purpose of this. Do you just dislike 1d12s? At least the other weapons had some niche (e.g. a more accurate sling), but the Recuvrve and Greatbow are identical in all ways except minimum and maximum damage.
Why did WotC make khopeshes, craghammers, or any other brutal weapon? Some people just like the brutal property and prefer those weapons.
I was also pretty sure there was already a feat that turned the Hand Crossbow into a +3, d8, high crit weapon. I don't remember if it was Drow only or not, but if it was, I'd suggest just removing the race restriction from that feat. I think it's generally a better idea to work with what's already out there, rather than trying to pull things from thin air.
There is because a friend of mine played a drow that took it, though i don't remember the +3 part. Anyway, it comes down to the same response I used above - WotC is using feats to create weapons.
Historically, shortbows were actually more deadly because they could be used while riding a horse more easily than longbows. Maybe you can also come up with something and called it a "Mounted Bow" or something like that. Give it special properties while the wielder is on his/her mount.
The mounted bow idea is interesting, but my group has never really used mounts in combat so I'm not sure how it would play out. Given that it would be a situation bonus it does sound perfect for some type of feat.
Why did WotC make khopeshes, craghammers, or any other brutal weapon? Some people just like the brutal property and prefer those weapons.
Because Khopeshes are both an Axe and a Heavy Blade, and they wanted it to be halfway between a longsword and battleaxe in damage.
The craghammer was meant to be an upgrade to the warhammer, but they wanted to keep the axe and hammer group distinct. The recurve issue would not be a question of two weapon groups being distinct, it would be two weapons in the same group doing the same damage in two needlessy distinct ways.
There is because a friend of mine played a drow that took it, though i don't remember the +3 part. Anyway, it comes down to the same response I used above - WotC is using feats to create weapons.
Yes, but that's kind of my point. What is the benefit to creating new weapons that require superior weapon proficiencies rather than just enhancing extant weapons with feats?
It makes no difference mechanically whether the character uses a normal weapon that is enchanced vs. a Superior Weapon, but creating more weapons could cause problems to those GMs who use random treasure drops (I am not one of them, but still).
Don't get me wrong, I see no problem with the balance of your weapons. You did your math correctly and all. I'm only questioning the necessity of some of them.
Why did WotC make khopeshes, craghammers, or any other brutal weapon? Some people just like the brutal property and prefer those weapons.
Because Khopeshes are both an Axe and a Heavy Blade, and they wanted it to be halfway between a longsword and battleaxe in damage.
The craghammer was meant to be an upgrade to the warhammer, but they wanted to keep the axe and hammer group distinct. The recurve issue would not be a question of two weapon groups being distinct, it would be two weapons in the same group doing the same damage in two needlessy distinct ways.
Broadswords? While having two weapon groups makes the khopesh more versatile in some respects, I've found it to be functionally like one or the other. PCs pick the enchantment they want and then decide "do i want this on a broadsword or a khopesh?" or "do I want this on a battleaxe or a khopesh?" They have the same average damage.
The khopesh is kind of a wierd duck anyway because it does combine two seperate weapon groups and I can't think of anything else that does (yeah, there are polearms, but that just kind of goes with reach). If WotC wanted to, they could remake the old dagger-whip, which would be lightblade/flail... hey idea for me.
I had forgotten about the craghammer being the only one-handed superior hammer, but there are a number of gaps in superior weapons that need to be filled. Aside from not having a high crit hammer I would actually want the choice of a +2/d12 hammer because average damage isn't everything. I have friends that will always take the brutal weapon because they hate rolling 1s while I avoid brutal weapons because I hate how they screw you over on every critical.
There is because a friend of mine played a drow that took it, though i don't remember the +3 part. Anyway, it comes down to the same response I used above - WotC is using feats to create weapons.
Yes, but that's kind of my point. What is the benefit to creating new weapons that require superior weapon proficiencies rather than just enhancing extant weapons with feats?
It makes no difference mechanically whether the character uses a normal weapon that is enchanced vs. a Superior Weapon, but creating more weapons could cause problems to those GMs who use random treasure drops (I am not one of them, but still).
Don't get me wrong, I see no problem with the balance of your weapons. You did your math correctly and all. I'm only questioning the necessity of some of them.
Perhaps consider it a matter of taste then. I would much prefer the character have the choice of picking the weapon up off the shelf, and from what I hear some others feel the same way. When the mechanics are equal it comes down to fluff... Do you want your PC to be carrying around a massive greatbow or a smaller recurve longbow that makes a loud twang every time it's shot? They also have a different feel on the table... grabbing d12s instead of d10s vs. getting to reroll those pesky 1s and 2s when they pop up. And I think of the 7 now up there, the recurve longbow is the only one that doesn't have its own niche, but it does have the PC feel I mentioned above.
Good point about the shortbow. I went ahead and added one in for those people that follow the small creature weapon restrictions. I made it so the recurve property bumps the bow up a category, so there really isn't a place for a recurve greatbow as a standard weapon. It would be a super-superior weapon.
The mounted bow idea is interesting, but my group has never really used mounts in combat so I'm not sure how it would play out. Given that it would be a situation bonus it does sound perfect for some type of feat.
My group never uses mounts either. I tried playing a character with one once and it just was another mini on an overcrowded board. Oh well, no worries, I doubt anybody would really use the Mounted Bow or whatever it'd be called.
Thanks for adding my ideas to your idea! I feel special that I contributed :D
On the topic of ranged weapon design...
Anyone ever notice there are no martial ranged weapons that are crossbows (so far I see only bows)? Anyone know why not?
What about a d6 martial one-handed ranged weapon, a crossbow, with +3 proficiency, and load free property; were these possibilities overlooked for a reason/exploit I am not seeing?
Anyone ever notice there are no martial ranged weapons that are crossbows (so far I see only bows)? Anyone know why not?
I believe the prevalent wisdom was that Crossbows are essentially point and click weapons. All the skill that they require to use is in loading it. There are no Simple Bows, either, you know. It was a conscious decision that Crossbows would be Simple and Bows would be Martial.
Sound weapon designs. I like the idea of there being badass nonmagical bows like there were in previous editions alot better than without; superior or not.
On the topic of ranged weapon design...
Anyone ever notice there are no martial ranged weapons that are crossbows (so far I see only bows)? Anyone know why not?
What about a d6 martial one-handed ranged weapon, a crossbow, with +3 proficiency, and load free property; were these possibilities overlooked for a reason/exploit I am not seeing?
Other than the aforementioned drow feat, there is no particular exploit that comes to mind so I can certainly add one to the list.