Give weapon types inherent properties to encourage wider use of different weapons

[Lobster5]

There are many weapons in DDO that are currently used very little, aside than by spellcasters looking for the appropriate spell enhancing property on them.

To encourage wider use of weapon types, and to encourage more use of tactics and thought in combat, I suggest that weapons be given inherent properties.

Here are some suggestions for some of the less popular weapons.


Daggers A stackable 5% bonus to attack speed

War Hammers A chance to reduce the fortification of the enemy struck with it. (Although this would need more enemies to have fortification, something that is long overdue in the game).

Shortswords A stackable +1 sneak attack bonus

light hammers/light maces A stackable +4% to stunning

Battleaxes A small percentage chance to bypass fortification on critical hits

Sickles Inherent bleed/slicing property

Heavy Mace Inherent lesser destruction (-2 AC on hit)



At the moment damage is the only concern of players and there is little reason not to use a rapier, scimitar, or khopesh. The above would redress some of this balance and do so in a fun way that encouraged difference rather than sameness.

[kartos]

actually I thought of something like that but I think that daggers should get a bonus to hit or damage from intelligence most probably hit as it makes sense that daggers need to hit in soft spots in the body to damage the target and an intelligent character will know where are those soft spots

[madmaxhunter]

How about for sickles a stackable bonus to trip?

[Templarion]

Good ideas.

Of course, balance must be kept and cannot say if the bonuses would be too high or low but something like OP said would be nice to have.

/signed

[FuzzyDuck81]

/signed

It'd give a reason (besides price) to use some of the less popular weapon types

[sirgog]

/signed, with a caveat - even after any changes like these, simple weapons should be worse (in general) than martial, which should be worse than exotic.

[Scraap]

Probably swap hammers and axes myself as far as fort goes (Going by historical usage, a hammer dealt it's damage mainly through concussion, while an axe chipped away at armor). Other than that, real nice notions there.

Would also tend to agree that exotics should provide higher degrees of non-dps options (essentially applying a specific feat on crit for spending the proficiency on that one weapon.)

[donfilibuster]

/not signed
One is not supposed to pick simple weapons over martial weapons.
Simple weapons exist for builds that don't use martial weapons, the whole point of customization is giving you the option.

It is not a matter of just saying that non-optimal weapons need fixing, they don't, just don't use them if you can.
In d&d the weapons are classified by proficiency, by damage type and by size, so you will gonna see at least one weapon for each combination.

dagger is the piercing simple, sickle is the slashing simple, etc.
For bludgeons, Warhammer is main hand, the light hammer is off-hand, same with the battleaxe with handaxe.

An exception is the morning star which is one of those weapons that isn't properly implemented.
It was meant to be both pierce 'and' bludgeon but you can't have that in DDO as it is now.
The shortsword was tought to be slash and pierce but is listed as pierce only in the SRD.
The dagger is the one that is listed as slash 'or' pierce, but that role is filled by the sickle and kukri atm.

The exotic weapons are also badly implemented, losing a lot of the things you do the 'special training' for.
The bonuses to trip are also gone from weapons, but that's aside the point.

So these aspects are the things that need fixing, before going on suggesting new tweaks just make the weapons usable.

[pie2655]

/not signed
One is not supposed to pick simple weapons over martial weapons.
Simple weapons exist for builds that don't use martial weapons, the whole point of customization is giving you the option.

It is not a matter of just saying that non-optimal weapons need fixing, they don't, just don't use them if you can.
In d&d the weapons are classified by proficiency, by damage type and by size, so you will gonna see at least one weapon for each combination.

dagger is the piercing simple, sickle is the slashing simple, etc.
For bludgeons, Warhammer is main hand, the light hammer is off-hand, same with the battleaxe with handaxe.

An exception is the morning star which is one of those weapons that isn't properly implemented.
It was meant to be both pierce 'and' bludgeon but you can't have that in DDO as it is now.
The shortsword was tought to be slash and pierce but is listed as pierce only in the SRD.
The dagger is the one that is listed as slash 'or' pierce, but that role is filled by the sickle and kukri atm.

The exotic weapons are also badly implemented, losing a lot of the things you do the 'special training' for.
The bonuses to trip are also gone from weapons, but that's aside the point.

So these aspects are the things that need fixing, before going on suggesting new tweaks just make the weapons usable.

Many of the weapons he listed are Martial.

Also to the OP
/signed

[Seikojin]

/signed - I mirror Sirgogs comments as well.

[Lithic]

Some PREs could have additional bonuses to certain weapons. For example, if Assasin 1 granted +1 crit range with daggers, and assasin 2 granted a second crit range with daggers, An assasin could then choose to use daggers instead of rapiers/scimetars without too much of a loss as both would be 15-20 x2 weapons after imp. crit. This would be more apropriate to the class IMO. Acrobats already get decent bonuses with staves, though I am not sure it is enough to make staves a viable combat option for the masses.

Similarly, paladins could get bonuses to longswords, barbarians with great clubs, monks with kamas, clerics with maces, etc.

[TheDearLeader]

Since there are two different threads like this, I'll just quote myself from the first.

I agree that some weapons do not equal each other.

This is because of "Proficiency".

For example, the Khopesh, got an upgrade because it was an "Exotic" weapon that required a feat, yet provided the same stats as a Longsword.

Bastard Sword and Dwarven axes give their own benefits, compared to other melee weapons.

Moreover, some are Martial, some are Simple. Some classes get all Martial, some Martial, or no Martial.

The reason that different weapons are not equal to others... is proficiency. That's why the weapons we currently utilize are (mainly) very similar to their PnP equivalents - because a balance system was already in place. Combat-oriented classes with little else going for them compared to Specialists/Casters got the better weapons. Specialists or Casters could still get these weapons, but they need to burn a feat to do so.

For these reasons, I'm sorry, I cannot agree that such changes are necessary.

tl;dr version : Weapons are the way they are for a reason.

[Falco_Easts]

/signed. I like the idea.


10% for a thrown spear to remove a mobs shield bonus to AC as the spear lodges in the shield and they need time to remove it for example.

[Lobster5]

Since there are two different threads like this, I'll just quote myself from the first.



tl;dr version : Weapons are the way they are for a reason.

It's always more difficult to quote when someone else quotes, so you can have my tl:dr response.

There is currently no reason to use half the martial weapons on offer, this is silly and should be fixed.

Additionally there are very few classes that want to melee and don't end up gaining martial weapon proficiency in some form, be that a fighter splash, masters touch, dilettante feat, etc. The existence of simple/martial boundaries is close to irrelevant.

[karl_k0ch]

I like variance, options and the the need to weight pros and cons in different situations.
\signed, though sirgog has a point.

[TheDearLeader]

It's always more difficult to quote when someone else quotes, so you can have my tl:dr response.

There is currently no reason to use half the martial weapons on offer, this is silly and should be fixed.

Additionally there are very few classes that want to melee and don't end up gaining martial weapon proficiency in some form, be that a fighter splash, masters touch, dilettante feat, etc. The existence of simple/martial boundaries is close to irrelevant.

One of the weapons I see discussed in both threads is the dagger. Lots of Assassins wanting something nice to come out of a Simple Weapon.

The existence of the boundary *is* relevant. Why? All the things you mentioned (class splashing, spell taking, UMD scrolling, feat-taking) are choices made by a character. It was a build choice to incorporate a single or all martial weapon proficiencies, and probably at the expense of something else. (pure classing, taking another spell, taking a skill other than UMD, plus the cost of UMD scrolls, and another dilettante feat, respectively for each of your examples.)

Martial weapon proficiency should still mean something. Exotic Proficiency should mean even more than that.

4/7 of OP's weapons were Simple weapons that he wants to "buff". When I see that, I see someone that wants all the benefits of BAB 20 class, without any of the investment.

So, as I said in the other thread, I would personally oppose such changes. Especially in light of the fact that the new crafting system will allow us to pull properties from different weapons, and put them on weapons more to our style.

[Lobster5]

One of the weapons I see discussed in both threads is the dagger. Lots of Assassins wanting something nice to come out of a Simple Weapon.

Rogues already get a free rapier proficiency. Rapiers in DDO are comprehensively superior to daggers. There is no reason for a player to use a dagger as a weapon in the game at all. Why not give them a reason that allows for more variation in builds, playstyle, and weapon choices?

The existence of the boundary *is* relevant. Why? All the things you mentioned (class splashing, spell taking, UMD scrolling, feat-taking) are choices made by a character. It was a build choice to incorporate a single or all martial weapon proficiencies, and probably at the expense of something else. (pure classing, taking another spell, taking a skill other than UMD, plus the cost of UMD scrolls, and another dilettante feat, respectively for each of your examples.)

Your argument is one that exists only in the abstract. I challenge you to proffer a build that makes any significant loss in order to gain a martial weapon that would substantially improve it. For casters, master's touch is a level 1 spell. There are not many builds that can't spare a level 1 spell slot. Rogues and bards have access to rapiers which are already one of the best weapons. Monks need ki weapons and have proficiencies in all of them. The only class that remains is a cleric. Show me a dedicated battle cleric that isn't splashing a level of fighter anyway, and I'll show you an idiot.

Martial weapon proficiency should still mean something. Exotic Proficiency should mean even more than that.

Except they don't mean anything aside from in the case of the khopesh, and the khopesh makes a mockery of your entire point as a build without martial weapon proficiency spends precisely the same as a "BAB 20" class in order to get the most powerful weapon in the game.

4/7 of OP's weapons were Simple weapons that he wants to "buff". When I see that, I see someone that wants all the benefits of BAB 20 class, without any of the investment.

I've already demonstrated that the "investment" is laughable. All I want is to give people a reason to use weapons that are falling by the wayside.

[donfilibuster]

Many of the weapons he listed are Martial.

Yes, one for each type, there's martial bludgeons and piercers, both light or not. Wasn't just speaking of simple weapons.
The point isn't that weapons dun need fixing, but that they were selected to fill the table.
Weapons may need fixing but just wanting tweaks to make them nice isn't a proper solution.

People want to improve the light hammer for example.
Why use a light hammer if you can use a light mace? there ought to be a light martial bludgeon on the list so the devs picked one.
But what the devs did? just filled the spot with the weapon that was listed such in the SRD and entirely ignored it's martial advantage.

Does it mean the light hammer needs be any better than the light mace?
Oddly enough yes, the light hammer has a 'special usage' that the devs entirely ignored without nothing to make up for it.
So yeah, the light hammer IS the throwing hammer, one of many badly implemented weapons.

Despite the pitfalls of DDO you are supposed to pick martial weapons over simple weapons, including via master's touch or any means at your disposal.
That there's easy ways to get proficiency just means you gotta take that ability and use martial weapons.

There is currently no reason to use half the martial weapons on offer, this is silly and should be fixed.

Additionally there are very few classes that want to melee and don't end up gaining martial weapon proficiency in some form, be that a fighter splash, masters touch, dilettante feat, etc. The existence of simple/martial boundaries is close to irrelevant.

So technically yes, half the martial weapons are lacking and is silly and should be fixed, just not via tweaks.
The weapons of D&D are rich in functionality, all that was stripped from DDO and that definitely needs a deeper fix.
Starting with the entirety of the exotic weapons.

Only with a full revamp we can safely say proficiencies are worth anything when it comes to character customization.
Meanwhile, boosting the simple weapons because the whole of the weapon system is poor is just a step backwards.

All i say is that if we are gonna go around suggesting things to the devs at least gotta make it worth the effort.
Sadly it seems that just having some bonuses is enough to make a lot of people happy.
Player requests are known to make the devs make tweaks and easy buttons, so go ahead and keep trying.

[TheDearLeader]

Rogues already get a free rapier proficiency.

You word this incorrectly. By a character investing one or more class levels in Rogue, they are then awarded proficiency with said weapon.

If a character is a pure Cleric, Favored Soul, Wizard, Sorcerer, or Monk, and do not use a Feat, they will no be proficient in this weapon.

Rapiers in DDO are comprehensively superior to daggers. There is no reason for a player to use a dagger as a weapon in the game at all. Why not give them a reason that allows for more variation in builds, playstyle, and weapon choices?

Rapiers are comprehensively superior to daggers in PnP D&D, as well, aside from obvious things such as ease of concealment. This OP wants +5% Attack speed, the other thread had someone wanting a full +4 to Assassinate DC.. +4. The same as getting a stacking +8 Int Item.

Fine, give dagger a bonus. Then also give it the penalty of the ridiculously short reach it offers in compare to a rapier.

And many daggers in game do have use - as caster items. +3 Superior Potency VI Dagger is pretty nice until you find something better.

Your argument is one that exists only in the abstract. I challenge you to proffer a build that makes any significant loss in order to gain a martial weapon that would substantially improve it. For casters, master's touch is a level 1 spell. There are not many builds that can't spare a level 1 spell slot. Rogues and bards have access to rapiers which are already one of the best weapons. Monks need ki weapons and have proficiencies in all of them. The only class that remains is a cleric. Show me a dedicated battle cleric that isn't splashing a level of fighter anyway, and I'll show you an idiot.

First, I will not make a build to satisfy you. The point is, take levels in X class, it means you're losing out on *something* you could have obtained by taking one of the other 10 classes in game, especially with the Enhancement/Action Points system granting pure classes the option of a Capstone.

If someone multiclasses, it is because they think the pros of such outweigh cons - but it is still a tradeoff.

My Sorcerer has 4 Level 1 Spells slots - not a one of them is Master's Touch. I use all four of my Level 1 Spells every adventure. Guess that makes him an "odd build" to you. It's a spell slot. It's a choice. Meaning by choosing it, I'm giving some other useful spell up, in order to further from that use spell points in order to gain a weapon proficiency. Sacrifices, no matter how small.

Rogues and Bards have Rapier Proficiency as a granted class feature - That's part of the reason so many use them, instead of Scimitars. Same Crit range, same multiplier. provided DR is not at play, both are equally effective. But they are not granted to Rogues and Bards, are they? So, the Rapier's superiority (to a Rogue) is not just in its damage profile, but also in the fact that they do not have to further invest a feat into it, like they would scimitar.

Monks do not have proficiencies in all "Ki" Weapons - at least, not without investment. I introduce Ninja Spy and Shortswords. And while not a Ki weapon, a Monk or monk splash choosing to remain centered while wielding longswords needs two prerequisite Feats in order to just unlock this Feat, Whirling Steel Strike.

Arbitrarily insulting Clerics or their builds is no way to sway me in this discussion, but it does paint us a portrait of how you feel toward your fellow player.

Except they don't mean anything aside from in the case of the khopesh, and the khopesh makes a mockery of your entire point as a build without martial weapon proficiency spends precisely the same as a "BAB 20" class in order to get the most powerful weapon in the game.

Actually, you help reinforce my point with the above. One of the most sought after weapon types in the game is an exotic weapon.

Also, I think you're selling other exotic weapons short. Most monks have at least one set of Kamas, vorpals, and a couple of shuriken. Most Dwarves I know would prefer to use Dwarven Axes, even if they have to invest a feat into getting them, due to racial enhancements boosting their to-hit and damage. Mechanics love their light repeaters, and would love them even more if they'd shoot all their arrows.

If anything, you're coming off as inflexible here. "Oh my, Khopeshes are so awesome, any other build is just not going to cut it, DDO is doomed if someone walks into a quest with GS Longswords!". My position is that weapons are working well as they are - find the one that works right for you, swing it until mob is dead. I'm sure after the Skull icon pops up, the [Insert Mob Here] isn't going to care that it was killed by something deemed "inferior" by a DPS Calc.

I've already demonstrated that the "investment" is laughable. All I want is to give people a reason to use weapons that are falling by the wayside.

You've proven nothing of the sort to me. All investment in this game comes at a loss of something else, whether or not you consider it insignificant.

And, as I stated before, if you truly are pleased with a weapon's properties, but not the weapon type it happens to be on - save it, because soon you'll be able to craft the prefix, suffix, or maybe both onto another weapon type.

May the Sovereign Host guide you - and give yo a +1 to-hit with Longswords, should you choose to wield them.

[Lobster5]

You word this incorrectly. By a character investing one or more class levels in Rogue, they are then awarded proficiency with said weapon.

The original point you made was about assassins, all assassins are rogues. We were therefore talking about rogues, and rogues make no additional investment to use rapiers.

If a character is a pure Cleric, Favored Soul, Wizard, Sorcerer, or Monk, and do not use a Feat, they will no be proficient in this weapon.

Irrelevant given that you misunderstood the above.

Rapiers are comprehensively superior to daggers in PnP D&D, as well, aside from obvious things such as ease of concealment.

Irrelevant, this is not a discussion about improvements to P&P

This OP wants +5% Attack speed, the other thread had someone wanting a full +4 to Assassinate DC.. +4. The same as getting a stacking +8 Int Item.

And both of these would still put the dagger behind the rapier in most situations. What's your actual objection to buffing daggers for rogue use, given that they already have access to rapiers at no cost?

And many daggers in game do have use - as caster items. +3 Superior Potency VI Dagger is pretty nice until you find something better.

Already mentioned in op. The above is not an argument that makes daggers worthwhile in the game.

First, I will not make a build to satisfy you.

I was demonstraring that your point about cost is not relevant or significant, if you refuse to support your point with evidence then that's your lookout.

The point is, take levels in X class, it means you're losing out on *something* you could have obtained by taking one of the other 10 classes in game, especially with the Enhancement/Action Points system granting pure classes the option of a Capstone.

Give a real life example where this will matter to someone. All of your arguments are nebulous. You speak of some cost somewhere but refuse to give a concrete example. This is either because you are unable to or unwilling to. The former suggests that you don't understand the point properly, the latter suggests that you are aware any concrete example would be quickly rebutted and your argument proven to have no substance.

If someone multiclasses, it is because they think the pros of such outweigh cons - but it is still a tradeoff.

If I choose to eat chipboard instead of sirloin steak it's still a tradeoff, the important factor is whether the tradeoff matters.

My Sorcerer has 4 Level 1 Spells slots - not a one of them is Master's Touch. I use all four of my Level 1 Spells every adventure. Guess that makes him an "odd build" to you. It's a spell slot. It's a choice. Meaning by choosing it, I'm giving some other useful spell up, in order to further from that use spell points in order to gain a weapon proficiency. Sacrifices, no matter how small.

The bolded bit is the most important and highlights the folly in your entire argument. The size of the sacrifice is the determining factor! Every build that is going to primarily hit things (and thus care about weapons) is going to have martial weapon proficiency and the cost will be next to nothing. Even if for some reason you've got a level 20 pure sorc and you'd like nothing better than to whack things with a greataxe then you can do so at the cost of 1 level 1 spell. I would love to hear the four level 1 spells you use in every quest. Again if you've got an actual example of a build that suffers from the choice, then please provide it.

Rogues and Bards have Rapier Proficiency as a granted class feature - That's part of the reason so many use them, instead of Scimitars. Same Crit range, same multiplier. provided DR is not at play, both are equally effective. But they are not granted to Rogues and Bards, are they? So, the Rapier's superiority (to a Rogue) is not just in its damage profile, but also in the fact that they do not have to further invest a feat into it, like they would scimitar.

It's entirely unclear what point you're making here. Bards and rogues don't need to use scimitars because they have rapiers. I agree. It also underlines my point that weapon selection is getting increasingly pigeonholed.

Monks do not have proficiencies in all "Ki" Weapons - at least, not without investment. I introduce Ninja Spy and Shortswords.

Shortswords only become a ki weapon if you decide to be a ninja spy, which grants you proficiency with shortswords. Once again I fail to see your point.

And while not a Ki weapon, a Monk or monk splash choosing to remain centered while wielding longswords needs two prerequisite Feats in order to just unlock this Feat, Whirling Steel Strike.

I've got a monk splash that does this. I only needed to take weapon focus:slashing in order to unlock it, because bizarre as it may seem, my character already had martial weapon proficiency from one of its many sources!

Yes a pure monk would have to find another way to get martial weapon proficiency, be it by feat selection or dilettante, but one would have to ask what the hell this person thought they were doing.

Arbitrarily insulting Clerics or their builds is no way to sway me in this discussion

But you ducking every attempt to actually evidence your argument is gonna bring me right around?

Actually, you help reinforce my point with the above. One of the most sought after weapon types in the game is an exotic weapon.

Which renders martial weapon profiency pointless, since rather than "invest" in that I make the same investment someone who has the proficiency makes. It costs a pure sorc as many feats as a pure barb to get identical usage of the most powerful weapon. Martial proficiency is next to meaningless.

Also, I think you're selling other exotic weapons short. Most monks have at least one set of Kamas, vorpals, and a couple of shuriken. Most Dwarves I know would prefer to use Dwarven Axes, even if they have to invest a feat into getting them, due to racial enhancements boosting their to-hit and damage. Mechanics love their light repeaters, and would love them even more if they'd shoot all their arrows.

None of this is makes a difference to the fact no one is going to spend a feat on a weapon unless it is for khopesh, and under the current system, nor should they.

If anything, you're coming off as inflexible here. "Oh my, Khopeshes are so awesome, any other build is just not going to cut it, DDO is doomed if someone walks into a quest with GS Longswords!". My position is that weapons are working well as they are - find the one that works right for you, swing it until mob is dead. I'm sure after the Skull icon pops up, the [Insert Mob Here] isn't going to care that it was killed by something deemed "inferior" by a DPS Calc.

Tell me what the bolded bit means.

My point is there is no rational reason to use some of the current martial weapons, and this means they are only used when someone is grossly misinformed, or crazy. There is potential to fix this and make a more varied game. To stand in the way of that seems pretty silly.