forge weapons

[arma]

Unless you make all weapons within one category virtually the same, there's always gonna be those that are objectively better and those that are objectively worse. Why have a knife if there's also a dagger?
Well, if you're in a kitchen, you'll grab what's around. And everybody is carrying one for eating. And if you're otherwise throwing them, you may want to save the last one for melee.
So, there's situation where you'll just end up using one of these, even if just on an NPC, because it makes sense at that time.
And while I think we've improved on weapon selection in general in ED3 (for example, you didn't have an axe-equivalent for the broadsword previously--you either had to use a Size 2 hand-axe or a Size 4 axe...) we've also introduced some stuff that is weaker on purpose, for example stone or wooden variants. All these fit a theme one way or the other, or are there because it makes sense having them represented even if they're not widely used, but they also form a great basis for uniquely themed threaded treasure. If you go beyond "some weapon with generic bonuses" you may want to have a dagger with special assassin powers, not an assassin's pole-axe. You may want to have your dwarf sword have some special benefits to throalic defenders, not an elven warbow. And your stone mace may be the one to tie into the troll raiders' magic, not your t'skrang rapier-style broadsword. You can make all of these equally good, just not with your off-the-rack thread item progressions, because these are intended for players, and the GM can go beyond that in item design, or can work with the player-enchanter to create something fitting.

[galafrone]

i agree arma, but there is something between "some objectively better and those that are objectively worse" and the epic gap between some weapons in ED 3 (IF you consider the forging AND the threading, otherwise i am pretty ok with the weapons provided, i am not discussing the "normal weapons" in this thread).

you have done a great work balancing those "regular" weapons imho, the sizes are ok, the damage values are ok (probably just the dwarven sword is a bit off, but with the house rule provided by ManDrake it's already solved). I am not happy with the high size > higher parry bonus but i can accept it in a "overall balance pov" (i am more used to the old RQ rules if i have to consider the hit-parry-damageabsorbed-damage inflicted routine, where the shield are far better parrying weapons than the 2hswords, but isnt a problem).
You have done a great job also on the front of the "exotic weapons and armors" (stone, wood, etc) and i am obviously conscious that i can do what i want in my games, meh, i am gm'ing since 1982 and this is the thing i picked up at start 30 years ago

But i was actually trying to understand is if that gap is meant to be a "mechanic tool of equalization between high level powers in game" or just a background development or something between the 2.
or nothing at all, and just the designers decided that a 2h troll sword had to be the ultimate weapon in the game and just did the rules for that purpose

i am really sorry because it's probable that i am not able to rely what is in my head, sorry about that.
but i am not criticizing the game or this particular aspect of the game, but was just curious, because the gap is evident and since i dont have any experience on what a combat can be at 9-15 i was just exploring this part of the game discussing with you the approach of the designers in the rules.
thanks anyway folks and sorry if i was seeming criticizing the game

[arma]

[galafrone]

thanks for the lenghty answer, it's really appreciated. And i agree on ALL you wrote.
i am not really looking for a game where the classes are all balanced.
i am not interested in a d&d4th - wow - oriented so to speak
i am just curious (and you satisfied my curiosity in depth and lenght) about the concepts that stay behind some design decisions.

i really REALLY love this game, and i have just started to play it (september 2010), so i am exploring it step-by-step

at start i even avoided all the magic implications (and rules) and my first group reflects this (warrior, swordmaster, scout, thief).

And the warrior and swordmaster are 2 ladies, not really too much concerned on how the rules are, where are they going or how to do the highest dps possible.
so i had time to concentrate on the background, on the history on the flavor of the game.

but after 16 months of game (and only because i started to look a bit forward) it become clear that my 2 players werent playing their 2 classes at their top, so they STARTED just 6 months ago to study their talents and their implications in a combat routine.

before that combat was just an "attack-parry" flow or "attack-avoid blow" flow.
not much else.

After a bit i read also in the forge weapons / forge armor the chance to improve damage (i just told them of the fact they could improve their weapons and armor). so you see i didnt had any real problem of "damage delta" or "2h sword is the best in game".

my wife (the swordmaster) got some kind of training when she had to reach the 5th circle, since i organized a couple of tournaments, basically working out like 20 diffrent kind of swordmasters that she met in the tournaments (and invented the skill "swordmaster tournament politics" set the politics in the grid making of the tournament).
she won the 2nd tournament, in a very close finale match in urupa (yes, i told her that there was a "tournament cycle" going around the major cities of barsaive, hitting throal, urupa, travar, darranis, v'strimon, syrtis and such) and i think she now has understood how to use properly her baby.
but in my games there is more than this, the 2 ladies are both orks, and they are sisters
both have already 2 childs (and this is something that hinders they disciplines, since to be pregnant and going into kaers to fight shit isnt funny) but i love the color of the game and all the chances to roleplay all the small niceties in it.

one of my other groups is a bit different, there are 3 powerplayers, old fellas used to play RQ and HARNmaster, so they are more "mechanically inclined" to the finesse of the combat, and they have started to read the rule a lot before the 2 ladies of my first group.
1 of them is a weaponsmith and has already forged up his broadsword to +3 and with him we had some thought about the problem of the 2h vs dagger forging+enchanting delta.
but that's all

again, thanks for all the job, i am eager to read more about the changes you pointed in your post
ED forever

[arma]

[galafrone]

well, i am playing a lot in these days (1 evening as player, 3 as master, each week).
so i am exploring really in depth the game
this will bring more questions from me to these boards, and maybe some help aswell.

[The_Gun_Nut]

I run most games ("most" meaning 99.999% of them) of ED, so when I switch back to playing my human swordmaster, I have to remember all the tricks and tactics that worked well for him. The Disarm talent is absolutely not to be forgotten, especially when combo'd with Maneuver; Riposte for the low attack rolls, Parry for the high rolls, and Avoid Blow for ranged attacks, etc.

As one advances in their Discipline, these choices come slowly but naturally, giving the player time to get aquainted with them. Diving in after a break in play can be really rough for the first game or two.

[Dougansf]

[Slimcreeper]

The dwarf sword might be more socially acceptable - the sort of thing you could wear to your daughter's wedding or other formal event. Whereas if you brought a two-handed sword - a military weapon - the other family might have cause for alarm.

[arma]

I don't know, for an official function, you'd probably want to go with something ornate (and there's options and background for that in Namegivers of Barsaive).
The dwarf sword, you really got to see as an economic/efficient weapon. It's very, very cheap for something you can easily carry on your belt. (And as covered elsewhere) A broadsword is a month's salary, a short sword three weeks'. The dwarf sword is maybe a week's salary, and will get you almost the same results, it's just not as easy for a weaker character to use -- little problem for a dwarf though. Your alternative in its price range is a quarterstaff, and even a more unwieldy spear is more expensive.