Weapon Groups and Feats (PEACH)

[Requilac]

I'm going for a more gamist view than a historical/scientific one. I'm not too concerned about how they were used in reality, I'm concerned about making a useful game distinction between too-similar weapons.

I prefer a gamist perspective over a realistic perception in D&D too but the system you have made is heavily reliant on historical aspects so I feel it is necessary to bring them up.

That's doable, I guess. I don't particularly like specifying weapons in feats (as that's part of what I was trying to avoid), but...

I am simpy afraid that the amount of groups may become a little overwhelming, but if you think that is better solution than it is fine. That is definitely a rather strange group to add on though keep in mind, and I do not see any reason why it can’t be a pole-arm, but if you are intent I suppose it is fine.

I have very little concern for "realism" here in motions. Chop vs slash is a fine enough distinction for me, personally.

I would be fine putting it in there if the group was called something like “chopping” weapons but i personally find the category of “axe” misleading. Now that I know what you mean by axe, I am fine with it being there but I am stating that people would not intuitively know that axe=chopping weapons.

Tradition, mostly. And both can do both, it's just the dominant use that matters here, personally.

If you wanted to keep the tradition you could always just put the motion in parantheses. Called them axes (chopping), heavy blades (slashing) and light blades (stabbing) or something. Like that

I don't like the repetition of "blade." It may just be background habits, but I associate "blades" with swords more than anything. I intellectually know that axes have blades, but I don't think of them as being blades. I've removed the spears category as a separate thing. It also feels wrong to lump sickles in with greatswords. Dunno why, but...

If you do not like the word blade you can use the suggestion I stated in the previous paragraph. I can imagine why you would find putting sickles in with great swords strange though, but it is just that if your mentality is really heavy=slashing and light=stabbing than sickles would be heavy.

Again, that's my subjective feeling. These aren't hard, realistic categories, they're an attempt at differentiating the all-too-similar weapons. I'll probably ditch the staff category entirely, adding quarterstaffs into crushing weapons and adding them where appropriate as a specific exception.

I still do not understand your issue with making staffs pole-arms. Many of the same feats that would apply to pole-arms make a lot of sense for staffs too. But putting them In with crushing is fine.

The dominant reason for lumping these together is to combine all the usually-thrown weapons that lack any kind of support together. The big thing they all lack is that you can't throw very many in a turn (due to object interaction effects). Throwing multiple tridents or nets in a turn (let alone carrying them effectively) just strains my disbelief a bit. I can see someone throwing lots of daggers or javelins, but tridents? Again, subjective, not scientifically rigorous.

Fair enough, there are several feats that work with spears and tridents anyway do they do not need any extras. Your case about the nets are fair too. I do not understand why blowguns are exempted from the list though.