Expanding on Weapons in 3.5

[Dracos]

I blame Corwin.  He encouraged me toward this.  The same kinda holds for armor, but one blathering at a time.  It's not a particularly important topic, but it's also one that's actually easy fruit to rewrite, unlike spells and such since its a fairly limited area.  Mainly made available for those here as house rules :)  Armor will go in another topic.

feel free to comment, disagree, whatever.  As I'd prefer these to be valuable as site house rules type things, let's see how it goes.

Observations:
A)An overwhelming number of exotic weapons simply aren't worth a feat.   No, the few that are (such as spiked chain) are not broken, rather they are the only ones that make the cost of a feat to buy in to use it worth discussing.  In addition, they tend to be more rare and most DMs that don't do the traveling black market underrepresent them in their world intentionally to help build up the exotic factor.  As the overwhelming majority of non-core weapons are exotic, this keeps the core set being the only set almost all of the time.

B)Of the core weapons, pretty much ONLY these weapons are ever used.
Simple:
dagger
Mace, heavy
Longspear
Quaterstaff
Martial:
short sword
Rapier
Longsword
Two Handed:
Lance
Greatsword
Greataxe
Exotic:
Bastard Sword (Taken as Martial almost all of the time)
Ranged (post level 1):
Longbow Composite
Shortbow Composite

This is about 1/4th or so of the list of items, with everything else being a very rare sight generally only seen for 'I'm being different'.  The reason for this is there really is a few 'valid' spots on each weapon size how they do it presently.  This isn't a bad thing, but more that the rest of them are just filler and not truly valid options in game.

For verification, taking a random D&D game (balmuria) with lots of PCs and NPCs.  The only different weapons seen among 24 characters:

Longbow (not composite)- a custom creation of dunes that is way more powerful though, so it's almost bears no resemblance to the base longbow.
Longbow (not composite)- Huh, was going to put that one too, but I mentally figured every time I saw it, it was simply temporary until composite.
Rod of drake whatever - Magic wands and rods weren't included by me.  I'm not addressing them here.
Maul -  Hey neat.  Drawing on the Maul.  Technically, the Maul is a good weapon.  If it wasn't, for some reason, a weaker Greataxe stuck in Complete Warrior, it'd probably be used more by those who want greataxe power + bludgeoning.  I'd up its average damage really 1 point, but not a true surprise.
Falchion - The upsized Scimitar.  Again, another good one, that's basically the slashing rapier for 2-handed.  I should've really put 'rapier-clones' but Falchion is pretty rare to show up generally, so that's cool :)
Longbow (not composite) - heh, I guess this disagrees with me not having it initially.
Longbow(not composite)

So 24 characters.  A not unsizable amount.  4 things not on my list.  Leaving aside the longbow which surprised me a bit and the wand, both of those are effectively on the list.  They're the bludgeoning greataxe and the two handed scimitar/rapier.  If we add longbow, we effectively get that on 21 built characters by a fair variety of folks experienced in the game, almost all of their options chosen were in a small fraction of the phb weapons.

C)Price is ridiculous and pointless.  with a few exceptions, everything is essentially free, and even those exceptions are free for characters above level 2.  The overwhelming majority of any weapons cost post level 1 is magical enchantment, and so the variations on the price are pointless and largely driven around the level 1 economy to avoid folks having greataxes, greatswords, and bows at the level where their average damage increase is most relevent.  Given that D&D is mostly played above that level, the more prevailing guideline should be that almost every weapon is interesting on its own face and costs about the same.  Having significantly weaker weapons in a bracket that just cost 5 or 20 GP less is silliness.  This entire bit is a holdover from D&Ds history as a re-enactment game rather than an actual consideration on how to make a weapons table where you generally are deciding between a good deal of it.

D)There are a few meaningful categories that weapons are distinguished upon presently.
1)average damage.
2)Crit range.
3)crit multiplier (both 3 and 4 are taken as valid)
4)Special ability or rule (Examples being lance's double charge, Spiked chains special reach rules, set against charge, +2 to certain skills).
5)Reach
6)Range
7)Combination in two weapon fighting styles.

Other categories that aren't meaningful 'enough'
1)Damage type - With few exceptions, DMs don't pay much attention to forcing characters to vary their damage types.  While I think for those there should be a valid weapon in each category of each type, for most DMs and players this isn't a meaningful consideration and is often not even on the stat block.
2)Throwing - People almost never throw weapons.  Sure, you can make a throwing build, but I've never seen one, even rogues being clever and getting a full sneak attack while over a 5 foot step distance.  I'm not going to count throw distance as an actual meaningful category because of that.  It clearly isn't a valuable enough trait to tempt people.
3)Double Weapons - The majority of exotic 'double' weapons are pointless because two weapon type characters rarely have the feat to spare.  Just being 'two weapons in one' is not a good enough advantage.  Even if they were non-exotic, they still would be rarely chosen because to the player, that's not a meaningful change for the most part, just a flavor one.

E)Players pick weapons to optimize their specific build type most often.  Two handed ones go for high average damage and crit because they're already sacrificing AC.  Two weapon fighters go for stuff that doesn't sacrifice feats since they need to spend so many to begin with.

F)Crit mods and threat range are largely not relevant versus average damage on two weapon fighters.  This is because the combination of already lower damage plus half strength mod makes it generally not a significant effect, especially given they're usually high dex rather than high strength.  Taking the archetype example of short sword with a str 14 (pretty strong) fighter:
(1d6+1) x2 on a crit.
Average damage:
4.5
On crit:
9.

Hardly something to write home about.  The extended range weapons with their 1d4 are even worse.
1d4+1
3.5
on crit:
7.

Compare to a great sword wielded by the same character:
2d6+3
10
on a crit
20.

Simply stated: Crit range and multiplier doesn't matter much as presently stands on two weapon fighting.  Some magic stuff can modify that somewhat, but really the mods are too low to be significant with the reduced average damage.  You roll more, you fail more often, you crit more often... either way, two weapon fighting is a battle of number of blows rather than good blows.  It's possible to offer a high crit mod weapon in the area that may change that (as a x4 would make it relevant..but almost too strong).

I'll probably actually up the two weapon types crit mods so that they actually can do meaningful crits.

G)Having strength be the overriding characteristic in all cases is stupid.  This probably shouldn't be a guiding bit, but I'd kinda rather get rid of weapon finesse and instead have finnesable weapons gain from their trait.  I probably won't reflect this though since its a controversial observation.

mmm, I think that's the relevent observations.  I'll post guiding philosophy and rehash as separate topics.

[Dracos]

Placeholder for guiding philosophy for redo.

A)Ideally, most weapons should be interesting and have a good chance to be represented on the playing table.  They should be interesting in a mechanical sense, and not just a flavor sense.  A player should be able to look at one and say that would potentially be neat with my build.

B)Price should not be used as a meaningful difference as post level 2, cost of base weapon does not matter and it's wasteful number crunching.

C)There are certain known 'favorite' points.  These should be the baseline and other things should be brought up to that baseline, rather than back.

[Dracos]

Placeholder for actual rewrite of weapon stuff

[Dracos]

<Merc> Random musings: Morningstar (not Heavy Mace) is the simple weapon of choice of clerics. Scimitar is also somewhat common as a martial weapon. I almost never see the greataxe used in comparison to greatsword. I do see Falchion and Scythe getting use. Also, Guisarme is actually superior to the Lance (outside of mounting/charge builds) as a reach weapon, and I would actually note that trip builds are more common than mount builds.
<Dracos2> Post 'em. :)  And you're right, but I see heavy mace used more.  Scimitar I didn't name (i'll put it up), because its Rapier with a different damage type.
<Dracos2> I can think of a number of greataxe builds I've seen, but yes, Greatsword is the most commonly used twohanded weapon by far.
<Dracos2> If greataxe was a d14, they'd be more similar.
<Merc> People who use the heavy mace over the morningstar are doing so for flavor, not min/maxing. Note: Same damage. Heavy mace, however, costs more and weights moer. Meanwhile, morningstar does two types of damage for cheaper price and weight.
<Merc> Ergo, morningstar is superior.
<Dracos2> You are correct.
<Dracos2> :)
<Dracos2> You are though missing a point that some portion of gods say 'no piercing weapons'
<Dracos2> which knocks out morning star.  But you're still right
<Dracos2> as that's really just custom rules anyway
<Merc> *blinks* really?
<Merc> I don't honestly ever recall seeing someone tell a cleric he couldn't use a morningstar.
<Dracos2> and has mostly fallen out of flavor.  Thinking on it, I can't remember any having that in 3.5
<Merc> Clerics by default tend to use morningstar, unless they have war domain that allows them to use a greatsword, or are a zen archery build in which case it's a longbow.
<Merc> Or it's some wacky build.
<Dracos2> *nods*
<Merc> I also tend to see the falchion more than the greataxe because it's two dice instead of one like the greataxe. It may do less damage, but the increased threat range generally makes it better than the greataxe. Similarly, the scythe.
<Merc> forthe x4
<Merc> From min/maxing perspective, I don't htink I've ever seen the axe picked.
* Ranmilia is now known as Ranout
<Xornko> If you're going for a huge crit damage build, you use a 4x weapon. Scythe is common, greathammer if you can sweetalk your DM into it. (x4, 19-20. Broken.)
<Merc> There was a scythe variant in an eberron book that was horrrrribly broken and sweet.
<Merc> It was eventually errata'ed, but if the DM doesn't know?
<Dracos2> Mmm, maybe.  I'm not so much consider with numerical superiority as 'Good enough to regularly appear as a valid choice'.  I find greataxes do show up not infrequently.  I wouldn't remove them from the list for instance for not having enough benefits to encourage use, as I would with a Sap or Great Club.
<Merc> Incredibly sweet weapon.
<Dracos2> Exotic?
<Merc> The Talenta Sarrash I believe it was called.
<Merc> Yeah, exotic weapon
<Merc> Totally worth the feat though.
<Xornko> A sap has certian niche uses for a rogue at least. (Can nonlethal SA damage.)
<Xornko> What was the stat spread on it?
* Dracos2 would argue that most of the exotic weapons that 'look' broken are actually not. 
<Dracos2> The reason being that spending a feat for an exotic weapon should get something that is of generally equivilent value to a feat (which often are unique abilities or permanent bonuses).
<Merc> Talenta Sharrash: 2H, 1d10 dmg, 19-20/x4 crit, reach weapon, trip weapon.
<Merc> It eventually got errata'ed to x2 crit
<Merc> 19-20/x2
<Dracos2> yeah.  that's probably a little much.  But the errata'd one almost begs the question of why to take the feat.
<Dracos2> taking the Guisarme which you just brought up, 2H, 2d4, 20/x3, reach, trip.
<Dracos2> Sure, there aren't any core reach weapons that have an extended crit range, but that alone doesn't genuinely make it worth a feat.
<Merc> *nods* the 'broken' version is worth the feat. The errata'ed version? I'd stick with the guisarme in a reach/trip build.
* Dracos2 would say that goes the usual route of errata of moving an item that was too good into a range of too weak to bother with.
<Dracos2> I'd say one of these really
<Dracos2> 2H, 1d10, 19-20/x2, reach, trip, +2 to trip maybe.
<Dracos2> or
<Dracos2> 2H, 1d10, 19-20/x3, reach, +2 to sunder maybe.
<Dracos2> An extended range on a higher mult is pretty strong, but it's also pretty exotic.
<Dracos2> I think either of those would possibly have an argument for spending a feat on it.  The latter could easily be added with improved crit or keen to get a scary wall of cutting.
<Merc> bah, who sunders in a D&D game anyhow?
<Dracos2> Yeah, true :P  I was reaching for something that was not trip, but was a bonus.
<Dracos2> Disarm felt wrong, but yeah, maybe something else.
<Dracos2> I think reach, trip, decent damage, extended mod, higher crit mult is too much for one weapon, even with a feat, because having both extended and crit mult is rare to the point of nonexistance.
<Dracos2> so having it on top of a set of also very desirable traits is a little much.
<Dracos2> but it is the kind of cool thing that should live in exotic weapons.
<Dracos2> For instance, I bet folks would generally consider an exotic weapon that was: 2H, 2d6, 19-20/x3.
<Dracos2> I suspect that would honestly have folks asking the question about whether the exotic feat is worth it for it.
<Merc> Honestly, the weapon is a scythe variant, so a 20/x4 crit range could still conceivably make the weapon worth it. If compared to the scythe, it'd be 1d10 vs 2d4, so it potentially does more damage, but it's a bit more spread out, same crit, and for the cost of the exotic feat, you're getting reach and trip weapon (which isn't a bonus to your attempts, merely a "if you fail, you can let weapon go to not be tripped")
<Xornko> As a rule a x3 or an x4 weapon only has 20 for crit range (Two exceptions I know of, one is a MM monster weapon that's stupid-broken and the other is an erattaed Ebberon weapon.) Massive crits on that scale tend to be fatal and it's probably best not to allow them to come out to play that much.
<Merc> *nods*
<Dracos2> Yes, that's very true.
<Dracos2> Merc's rewrite would work fine as well.
<Merc> Note also that a 1d10 does on average 5.5 damage. 2d4 does 5 damage on average. So the damage is not significantly greater.
<Dracos2> I don't think I'd generally say exotic weapons should have that combination, but I would say that exotic weapons are too weak on average.  2H, 1d10, 20/x4, Reach, Trip offers interesting possiblities.

[Asrana]

Since ye have badgered me for it...

Mind, this was me musing for a tiny little one on one game I run, and also entails that I'm a history nerd and not exactly fully involved with IH rules, this hasn't really been playtested in any way. Some of these weapons are also simply 'representative' of certain classes of weaponry.

I worked from an assumption that dice splitting (1d12 vs 2d6 vs 3d4) operated roughly on 'impact area', if you hit with the sword you're more likely to strike with more surface area, less with the axe, even less with the spear. And criticals work in a very opposite manner.

+1/2 or +1 vs Armor = Extra damage dice to be used only against DR, so the dagger gets an extra 1d2 vs DR, and will roll that first to subtract from the DR roll, then roll its normal damage vs any remaining DR and so forth.
Set means the weapon can receive a charge and will do x2 damage and +1/2 vs Armor (up to +1 vs Armor if it already has +1/2) if receiving the charge is made as a ready action.
In particular note is the warhammer, which is not based on a D&D warhammer, but along historical lines such as http://www.armor.com/images/pole005a.jpg

I cannot emphasize enough that these are rough ideas from me toying around.

Edit note: The zweihander is representative of a class of large two handed swords treated more like polearms, and especially that often had the bottom 1/4 to 1/3 of their blade unsharpened so as to hold them by that section. This gives greater leverage, hence the sunder bonus, in their specialized role of trying to cut apart pike formations.

      Damage   Critical Range Rules
Simple Weapons (Light)
Dagger      1d4 19-20x2  10   +1/2 v Armor, Pierce/Slash
Sickle              1d6   x2      Slash
Handaxe      1d6   x3      Slash

Simple Weapons (One handed)
Club              1d6   x2      Bludgeon

Simple Weapons (Two handed)
Spear              1d8   x3   10   Pierce, Set, +1/2 v Armor
L/spear      1d8   x3      As spear, Reach
Q.Staff   1d6/1d6   x2      Bludgeon
Greatclub      1d10   x2      Bludgeon
Mattock      1d10   x3      Pierce/Bludgeon
Scythe      2d4   x3      Slash

Simple Weapons (Ranged)
Light Crossbow   1d6   x3   80   Pierce, +1/2 v Armor, slow reload
Shortbow      1d6   x3   60   Pierce
Sling              1d4   x2   50   Bludgeon

Martial Weapons (Light)
Axe, throwing   1d6   x2   10   Slash
Shortsword           1d6 19-20x2   Pierce/Slash, +1/2 v Armor

Martial Weapons (One handed)
Battleaxe      1d8   x3      Slash
Flail              1d8   x2      Bludgeon, disarm
Longsword           2d4   19-20x2      Slash
Mace              1d8   x2      Bludgeon, +1/2 v Armor
Rapier      1d6   18-20x2      Pierce
Scimitar      1d6   18-20x2      Slash
Warhammer
   Blunt s/   1d8   x2      Bludgeon, +1/2 v Armor
   Spike s/   1d6   x3      Pierce, +1 v Armor

Martial Weapons (Two handed)
Great Scimitar   2d4   18-20x2   Slash
Glaive      1d10   19-20x3   Reach, Slash/Pierce, Set
Greatsword           3d4   19-20x2   Slash
Halberd
   Axe           2d6   x3      Slash
   Hammer   1d12   x3      Pierce, +1/2 v Armor
   Spear           1d8   x3      Pierce,Set, +1/2 v Armor
Lance      1d8   x3      Pierce, Charge, Mounted, +1/2 v Armor
Greataxe           2d6   x3      Slash
Maul              1d12   x3      Bludgeon, +1/2 v Armor

Martial Weapons (Ranged)
Heavy Crossbow   1d10   x3   120   Pierce, +1 v Armor, slow reload
Longbow      1d8   x3   120   Pierce, +1/2 v Armor   

Exotic Weapons (Two-handed)
Zweihander           3d4   19-20x2   Slash, x2 Str, +2 Sunder

[Merc]

Thoughts:

-From the simple light/1H weapons, I would always pick a dagger for an IH game, or a handaxe for a D&D game  (or if you fight someone with no armor such as an arcanist in an IH game).
-From the simple 2H weapons, I would always pick a longspear or a mattock. Mattock for damage, Longspear in a reach build.
-From the simple ranged, shortbow probably, due to lack of reload.

-From martial light, always shortsword (and always pick this over a dagger or handaxe if an option).
-From martial 1H, a flail might be worth it in a disarm build.
-Otherwise, for a d&d game, it's longsword, if it's an IH game, it's either the mace or blunt warhammer.

-From martial 2H, glaive is insanely beautiful if that's 19-20/x3 crit.
-If it was meant to be 19-20/x2, though, then greatsword remains the D&D king. For an IH game though, a hammer-halberd or maul is actually superior though (unless you fight someone with no armor such as an arcanist).
-A spear and/or lance could see some use, though they're highly situational where they're superior, and thus better in the hands of NPCs.

-From martial ranged, longbow probably, again due to lack of reload.

-For the exotic weapon, I assume the "x2 STR" entry means that you apply your strength double what you would with a normal 2H weapon. In which case, it might be worth the exotic weapon proficiecy feat cost if strength is high enough.

Overall:
-It's kinda neat, but it doesn't specifically resolve most of the concerns Drac has mentioned. As shown above, there's still weapons that are generally superior/inferior. The one exotic weapon shown does have potential to be worth the feat cost though, which is cool.

[Asrana]

As a note I forgot: warhammer and halberd are single sided multi-headed. Like the halberd in 3.5, only crazier. So depending on choice you would use any of their forms for their given statistical advantages if you bought the full on premium model from the weaponsmith.

The problem I ran into in writing that list and trying to balance a bit of spreading usefulness while not offending my inner history nerd was that availability and evolution were historically major issues in weapon selection. Without grossly expanding the statistical field -- double the baseline damage for example -- it's hard/impossible to individualize so many weapons, moreso when attempting some historical accuracy (which I grant is largely a concern only for people like me).

So, for example, when maces and warhammers came into their fully evolved forms (gothic maces and the picture I linked respectively), they did kind of dominate hand weapon choice for people that could get them made. Similar with halberds/poleaxes/etc (the difference between the two is essentially semantical in D&D unless writing some REALLY complicated sunder rules), and the larger heavy bladed polearms came around at the same time (See Glaive). You still saw other weapons, and especially the ubiquitous spear, but this was more a question of availability and cost, which takes a working D&D economy (please, try not to choke on your ensuing laughter).

The zweihander's x2 str is supposed to mean you get x2 rather than x1.5 Str with two handed weilding, this was in part based off some number/probability work to make it probable that you could sunder a spear in one blow with a 14 str, but there's no essential iron clad nature to that ratio -- the idea is that it's made for more leverage than other two-handed swords, so if you know how to use it, you get more out of it.

But overall, the problem stands that certain weapons -did- dominate certain categories at given times, and it's hard to get past that without tossing logic out the window.

(notably, my house rule for katana is that you take the exotic for both katana and wakizashi, 1d8/18-20/x2 and 1d6/18-20/x2 light

[Dracos]

Technically, I like that x2 strength thing.  The problem inevitably with exotics is they do not offer enough reasonable advantage to take them.

[Carthrat]

Just a thought when designing stuff- A higher critrate is almost always superior to a higher multiplier.

-It's more reliable. Reliability is good for the planners and tacticians amongst us. If I only win a fight because of a lucky x3/x4 crit, I'm probably doing it wrong and need to come up with better plans.

-You need to make threat checks after a crit; a guy with an x3 greataxe has the same chance of making that as the guy with the 19-20/x2 longsword, but his crits are more valuable. I should do some probability analysis on this, gut tells me the swordsman comes out ahead by more than it appears at first glance.

-Most importantly, when people are slinging around high amounts of damage, whether it's from high strength/PA/flamingburst, one crit will, a lot of the time, end a fight right there, and x2 or x3 just doesn't matter as much. If your opponent has 30 HP, and your normal attack deals 15 damage, you don't care if it's an x2 or x3 mult.

Furthermore, since people lose HP as any fight progresses, the zone where an x3 provides more advantage than an x2 is invariably limited.

So yeah, I think higher critrates have an inherent advantage over higher mults, and thus 19-20/x2 and x3 are not precisely balanced (if you are worried about precise balance.)

Edit, since there is an exception- if I do shitty damage anyway, I might as well get the scythe. If luck is the only way to win in the physical arena...

[Carthrat]

Economy issues also heavily influence weapon/armour design. For instance, I don't think there's much work to be done on nonmagical armour- that a few sets are simply better than others in their class seems to fine to me when you consider they only have three real traits- protection, mobility, and cost. There may be novel ways of creating new traits, but why bother when magic exists?

Weapons can afford to be a bit more varied due to the style component, and that, of course, you can do some things with one weapon you can never do with another. Cost and technology still ensure that some weapons are just not preferred to others and are outdone in every way (and not always on the simple/martial/exotic axis, I think?)

[Dracos]

Just a thought when designing stuff- A higher critrate is almost always superior to a higher multiplier.

-It's more reliable. Reliability is good for the planners and tacticians amongst us. If I only win a fight because of a lucky x3/x4 crit, I'm probably doing it wrong and need to come up with better plans.

-You need to make threat checks after a crit; a guy with an x3 greataxe has the same chance of making that as the guy with the 19-20/x2 longsword, but his crits are more valuable. I should do some probability analysis on this, gut tells me the swordsman comes out ahead by more than it appears at first glance.

-Most importantly, when people are slinging around high amounts of damage, whether it's from high strength/PA/flamingburst, one crit will, a lot of the time, end a fight right there, and x2 or x3 just doesn't matter as much. If your opponent has 30 HP, and your normal attack deals 15 damage, you don't care if it's an x2 or x3 mult.

Furthermore, since people lose HP as any fight progresses, the zone where an x3 provides more advantage than an x2 is invariably limited.

So yeah, I think higher critrates have an inherent advantage over higher mults, and thus 19-20/x2 and x3 are not precisely balanced (if you are worried about precise balance.)

Edit, since there is an exception- if I do shitty damage anyway, I might as well get the scythe. If luck is the only way to win in the physical arena...

Complete agreement.

The first pass (which I think I'll try and get started tonight) won't really be concerned with that as much as "Is there a good reason to even select all of them weapons on the chart", because I think even that baseline is failed right now

[Merc]

Actually, you'd be incorrect about the value of x3 vs 19-20/x2, Rat. I've been messing with redesign myself, and that was one of the first things I calculated, with charts and everything, since I also wanted to look at other relationships between crits and dice pool damage.

The actual result is that on average, x3 and 19-20/x2 will do the same amount of overall damage. Similarly, x4 and 18-20/x2 will do the same amount of overall damage.

Actually, if an attack only hits on a roll of 20, the x3 and x4 crit attacks will be superior. However, as most attacks will hit on much lower attack rolls, they are essentially equal.

While an attack with a longer crit range will crit more often, it will end up averaging to the same amount of damage you'd do with onehigh crit attack. It's because of this that if the attack only hits on a high roll, the higher crit attack can be superior. Especially if you take into account things such as Keen enhancement or Improve Critical spell.

For example, asumme a weapon has x4 crit rate and another has 18-20/x2. When you apply Keen, the crits become 19-20/x4 and 15-20/x2. If the same attack hits on a 20 only, the x4 will be superior because it'll crit for x4 instead of x2. Similarly for a roll of 19. For a roll of 16-18, while the 15-20/x2 weapon will crit and the 19-20/x4 weapon doesn't, overall average damage will still be higher for the x4 weapon due to that higher crit multiplier. Once a weapon starts hitting on rolls of 15 or lower, the average damages for the two weapons normalizes to being identical.

However, an attack that only hits on 15 or higher essentially has a 30% hit rate. In general, combat is designed so players will hit much more often, generally at least 50% of the time (a roll of 11), if not a higher hit rate, since Power Attack is such a valid option. Thus, one can assume that a long crit range is equivalent to a higher crit multiplier.

The reason that a higher crit multiplier is technically superior is because it's not that much rarer than a long crit range. An attack does not only crit on a roll of 20 followed by another roll of 20. The first 20 simply causes a threat, and the second roll needs only hit to make it a crit. When you consider that the threat confirmation attack will hit on the same numbers for an attack with a high crit multiplier or one with a high crit rate, the actual result is that the high crit multiplier just hits 5% to 10% less often (or up to 25% less often if comparing keen weapons). The higher crit rate though, makes the averages balance out.

So really, calling it 'luck' is actually not correct. It's certainly less reliable. In the long run, both weapons will do the same amount of damage, it's just that one crits 5% more often but does half the damage when it does crit compared to the other one.

Edit: Notably, the point about how much a crit is worth as enemy's health drops is entirely valid though for making the crit range superior.

[Merc]

Since it's kinda relevant to the recent comments, going to post my observations from my current weapon redesign attempts.

*******

Introductory Warning: Rather than type "I agree" "I disagree" etc in regards to points already stated, I'll just rehash them here.

Weapon Design Notes:
There are a lot of factors in balancing weapons. The first is historical nuances vs balance. How closely does one follow reality despite balance needs? Generally, if you consider that the system for which these weapons are being designed is of the fantasy genre, you can justify a little leeway in ignoring reality. However, if the weapon seems too unreal, players might be similarly turned off.

WEAPON PROFICIENCY
All weapons are either categorized as simple, martial or exotic weapons. There are also improvised weapons.

By the names, one can assume a simple weapon is easy to make and use, readily available and do not require much training to use. A martial weapon is one that has been designed for combat, so it requires some training to use, but will likely do more damage. An exotic weapon is rare, but it likely has some special qualities that make it useful in combat. An improvised weapon is one that is none of the above, not actually meant to be a weapon in fact, and thus either hard to use or just inefficient for damage purposes.

Observations from D&D:
-Everyone has proficiency with all simple weapons except for six classes: Ninja, Monk, Druid, Spirit Shaman and Wizard. They still have proficiency with a decent number of simple weapons, and a few martial weapons. Duskblade are the sixth class, but they have access too all martial weapons, so it's not a loss to be missed.
-Because all but six classes have access to simple weapons, the feat "Simple Weapon Proficiency" is completely pointless and useless. Absolutely no one would use up a feat to gain proficiency with one simple weapon when they could instead gain proficiency with one martial weapon or one exotic weapon.
-Simple weapons do maximum 1d8 damage and generally only crit x2, though there are a few x3 or 19-20/x2. Very few weapons have special qualities (dagger, longspear and quarterstaff).

-Martial weapons have a wider range of crits and damage, and quite a few weapons have special qualities.
-Light weapons do around 1d4-1d6 damage, 1H weapons do around 1d6-1d8 damage, and 2H weapons do 2d4 to 2d6 damage.

-Just about every weapon not appearing in PHB is an exotic weapon. Damage is heavily varied, as are crits and qualities.
-In general, exotic weapons are not worth the feat cost, and many are in fact weaker than martial weapons.
-The question then is what justifies a feat cost? And what's to stop someone with only simple weapon proficiency from going after an exotic weapon if they are inherently better than martial weapons?

-Almost nobody ever uses improvised weapons, as players almost always keep their weapons with them.

MELEE VS RANGED
-Melee weapons use STR to boost attack rolls and add STR to damage.
-Ranged weapons use DEX to boost attack rolls, and can boost STR to damage (sometimes). Doing so costs them more money, though.
-Thrown weapons have pathetic range, and because they are treated as range weapons with DEX to attack and STR to damage, they require ability score splitting, aka MAD (multiple attribute dependency).

LIGHT/1H/2H
-Beyond weapon proficiency, all weapons also belong to one of the above categories if it's a melee weapon.
-Light weapons can have "weapon finesse" feat applied, but gain no benefit of being held in two hands. They are always paired with another weapon (two-weapon fighting) or a shield.
-One Handed Weapons are generally heavier than light weapons but can still be held in one hand. If you wield it in two hands, you get a strength bonus to damage.
-Two handed weapons are always held in two hands, giving least amount of combat options, but they do more damage overall than light or one-handed weapons.

WEAPON CATEGORY
Weapons can be lumped into categories, but generally this is purely flavor (polearms, axes, light blades, heavy blades, etc). Unearthed Arcana does have a system for how to have people have access to weapons based on category instead of by proficiency though. UA's system has too many categories though, might want to shrink the number if this is used to balance weapons.

WEAPON TYPE
Similarly, the type of damage a weapon does is mostly flavor. While there are a few monsters that have damage reduction against a type of damage, those are more of an exception to the rule.

COST
At level 1-2, maybe 3, the cost of the weapon matters, as money inflation does not quite come into effect heavily as it does in later levels. Unfortunately, if you look at costs, numbers seem all over the place. A bow, for example, despite being made of wood and string, costs a ridiculous amount more than a shaped and refined hunk of metal. Worse if you try to make it a composite bow so you can apply a strength bonus. Rather than balance, this feels more like punishing the player and keeping them from certain types of weapons.

And while that weapon cost does matter in those very early levels, once a player is a high enough level, they will invariably favor certain weapons. In fact, if one looks at the total number of available weapons and then at the number of weapons generally used, the difference is incredibly large. If one considers that D&D is somewhat a game of min/max mechanics, then a player looking to optimize their character will look at weapons that favor their build. In general, out of 300+ weapons, only about 20-25 are commonly used.

This is generally due to the presence of weapons that are simply superior in the same categories over others, and how often exotic weapons are not worth the feat cost, despite most weapons being exotic. Given money inflation at higher levels, cost is simply not a concern in regards to weapon selection.

WEIGHT
While mostly flavorful, it can matter in a build that dumps strength, such as a weapon finesse build, or if they can apply another ability score for attack/damage instead of strength. Given that, it's possible to have weapons that are less effective in the same category due to the fact that it weights less.

DAMAGE
-Generally, one assumes for design that dice are available to simulate random damage. It's why there are d2, d3, d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12 damage dice, but not d5 (although d5 could be simple to simulate), d7, d9, d11, or any die between 12 and 20.

-Because dice can only be represented as a variation of these available dice, one way to add variety is to have multiple dice rolls. For example, 2d4 vs 1d8, which both have the same maximum result.
-Notably, while they have the same maximum result, the probability of a given result is different between the two.
-In fact, if you compare a d(2X) vs a 2dX roll, while a d(2X) has equal probability of rolling from 1 to 2X, the 2dX favors an average roll result of X+1. Meanwhile, a d(2X) on average results in X+0.5 damage.
-As such, a 2dX does 0.5 more damage on average than a d(2X).
-By observation, one can tell that most min/max players will favor that 2dX weapon over a d(2X) weapon by comparing how often a greatsword is used in comparison to a a greataxe.
-One question to ask: Is it worth balancing around 0.5 damage if the lower damage weapon more often deals maximum damage? Does the fact that in practice the higher average weapon is favored mean it should be rebalanced?

-Average Damage based on dice: dice -> damage
1 -> 1
d2 -> 1.5
d3 -> 2
d4 -> 2.5
d6 -> 3.5
d8 -> 4.5
2d4 -> 5
d10 -> 5.5
d12 -> 6.5
2d6 -> 7
2d8 -> 9
2d10 -> 11
3d6 -> 10.5
3d8 -> 13.5
4d8 -> 18

-Weapon damage progression by size is very clunky (see page 114 of PHB) and in need of updating. It gets very messy as dice get added and weapon increases, as weapon damage starts increasing almost exponentially the higher the damage goes up. Because of that, it doesn't really adjust well. What if you want to find out the damage for a large greatsword? That's there, 2d6->3d6. What about a huge greatsword? 3d6->???.

WEAPON SIZE
As mentioned above, weapon size progression gets a bit clunky. For comparison, a 1d8 weapon (4.5 admg) progresses to 2d6 (7 admg), or a +2.5 admg gain. A 2d4 weapon (5 admg) progresses to 2d6 (7 admg), or a +2 admg gain. A 1d10 weapon (5.5 admg) progresses to 2d8 (9 admg), or a +3.5 admg gain. So... progression is +2.5 down to +2 up to +3.5. Right, that makes sense. In attempting to figure out how to balance, one invariably comes back to that 1d10 number, which is really something of an odd duck number. Removing that as an available option, it's possible to make a more streamlined option.

Weapon Increase:
1->1d2->1d3->1d4->1d6->1d8->1d12->2d8
2d4->2d6->2d8->3d8->4d8->5d8->6d8

Weapon Reduction:
2d8->2d6->2d4->2d3->2d2->1d3
1d12->1d8->1d6->1d4->1d3->1d2->1

This is still a bit clunky at two points (1d12/2d6 both advancing to 2d8, and 2d2/1d4 both reducing to 1d3), but it's fairly more straightforward, allows for wider range of size increases, and isn't quite as exponential in increased damage at the higher ends (rather, it pans out to a straight +d8 increase once itgoes past 2d8). I may mess with this a bit more, but for now, this is probably the weapon increment around which I want to balance things around.

CRITICAL ROLLS
Assuming two weapons have the same weapon damage, a crit of 19-20/x2 is equivalent to x3 so long as the attack does not only hit on a roll of 20. Assuming "Improved Critical" or "Keen" is applied to these weapons, they remain equal so long as attack does not only hit on roll of 18 or higher.

Similarly, crits of 18-20/x2 are equivalent to x4 so long as the attack does not only hit on a roll of 19 or higher. Assuming "Improved Critical" or "Keen" is applied to these weapons, they remain equal so long as attack does not only hit on roll of 16 or higher.

For 16 or higher, a player would have a hit rate of 25% or less. In general though, players will have at least 50% hit rate, if not much higher. As such, you can assume a 19-20/x2 and x3 weapon to always be equal, and similarly an 18-20/x2 and x4 weapon to always be equal.

When comparing weapons of x2 to x3 to x4 crit rate, weapons of equal damage will obviously do more damage on average with a higher crit multiplier. So to balance weapons in the same category, a weapon with higher crit multiplier would need to do less damage.

Notably, when this occurs, depending on the average damage difference between the two weapons, the lower crit weapon is going to be superior up to a certain threshold of OVERALL damage. To clarify, here's an example. A d10 axe normally does 5.5 damage on average, and has a crit rate of x3. Compare to a 2d4 sword with a crit rate of x4, which does 5 damage on average.

When you take into account the crit rate, average weapon damage goes up to 6.05 axe dmg and 5.5 sword dmg, respectively. This is, of course, before you take into account strength damage bonuses, feat bonuses, class bonuses, etc. Assume that for those weapons, the wielder has a STR +4 modifier and is wielding the weapons in two hands, and has no other modifers to damage. So damage goes up by +6, making the axe do 11.5 dmg on average, and the sword do 11 dmg on average. When you take into account the crit rate, damage becomes 12.65 damage on average for both weapons. When overall damage goes past 11.5 for the x3 crit weapon, the x4 crit weapon immediately becomes superior.

In fact, here's the relationship:
-When comparing a x2 and x3 weapon, a x3 crit weapon is superior for every +11 overall damage points per +0.5 average weapon damage difference.
-When comparing a x3 and x4 weapon, a x4 crit weapon is superior for every +11.5 overall damage points per +0.5 average weapon damage difference.

-There is also a relationship of note in terms of 'burst' when comparing weapons with different average weapon damage. If you assume that when a weapon crits, it has a special quality named "Burst", that adds some additional damge for a critical strike only, then two weapons with different average weapon damages have the same overall weapon damage when:

B = D * (C+19)

where,
B = Burst
D = difference in average weapon damage
C = Crit multiplier

For example, compare a greataxe and a greatsword. A greataxe does d12 damage and crits on x3. A greatsword does 2d6 damage and crits on 19-20/x2. From the crit equivalency mentioned earlier, we can treat a greatsword as doing 2d6 damage and critting on x3.

The greatsword, given 2d6 damage, will on average do 7 weapon damage. The greataxe, given d12 damage, will on average do 6.5 damage.

In this case, D = 7-6.5 = 0.5, and C = 3. As such, B = 0.5(3+19) = 11

Now, this variant greatsword will, when it hits, do 7 dmg on average, unless it crits, in which case it does 21 damage. Overall, it will do 7.7 damage on average.

The greataxe, meanwhile, will do 6.5 damage on average, unless it crits, in which case it does 30.5 damage (6.5x3+11 damage). Overall, it will also do 7.7 damage on average. This burst effect might be more interesting source of balance than playing around with strength/feat differences.

HIT POINTS & HARDNESS
Rules are pretty vague and weapons are very closely grouped. This could be used as a balancing effect though.

SPECIAL QUALITIES
Reach: Generally, it's not very powerful on it's own. There are some feats (Short Haft, Stand Still) that can make it a lot more powerful. It also becomes more powerful for users of size larger than medium. Generally, it's one of those "build around" specials. It's not great on it's own, but build up on it, and it's very good. Good enoguh to warrant a damage penalty. There's also some exotic weapons that have an extended reach beyond the normal reach, as well. Note that rules regarding reach are open to interpretation, so make sure your DM and you are on same page.

Charge: Weapon does double damage on a charge from a mount.

Disarm: Weapons give a bonus (+2 or +4) to disarm attempts. Again, one of those "build around" specials.

Double: Double Weapons are by design very similar to hand-and-half weapons in that it can serve in one of two ways. In this case, it can serve as 2H weapon or TWF weapon. The problem, however, is that TWF is only viable with precision damage, and if you have precision damage, you'll generally stick to TWF. In addition, outside of the quarterstaff (and possibly the ugrosh/hooked hammer being racial martial weapons for dwarf/gnome), every single double weapon is exotic. Damage is generally not high enough to make it worthwhile, especially in the feat-intensive TWF, and the only benefit of a single weapon serving as two weapons is that it's slightly cheaper to enchant with magic effects. On the other hand, most TWF use finessable weapons, and not a single double weapon is finessable. A possible balancing point is giving automatic TWF feat with that specific double weapon only. Right now this is what I'm considering.

Feint: Only appears on exotic weapons. It's an interesting ability, but as with most exotic weapons, not worth the feat cost. It does give one some options for redesign though.

Finesse: If the weapon is not light, a weapon with this ability can still have weapon finesse applied to it.

Grapple: Only appears on exotic weapons. Same as feint. Note that some ofthe grappling consequences may need to be rethought with these weapons. Do you follow common sense (you're grappling with the weapon, so should still be able to defend yourself), or design (if you don't lose dex bonus to AC as with a normal grapple, is the weapon perhaps too powerful)?

Hand-and-a-Half: Weapon is a 2H martial weapon, that can be treated as a 1H exotic weapon. While it's not particularly 'great', these weapons do see a lot of use with classes that only have access to simple weapons and shields, since at low level the exotic weapon proficiency gives them a 1H weapon to use with a shield, and once the shield can be animated, it gives them a 2H weapon that's almost as good as normal 2H martial weapons. For classes with access to martial weapons, it can still be worth it just for ability to use shields at those early levels. You almost never see them in use in games where characters start off at a high enough level to get animated shields, however.

Racial: An exotic weapon that counts as martial for that race. There is also a feat called "Improved Weapon Familiarity" that causes any weapon with a race's name on it to become a martial weapon.

Shared Focus: Certain feats taken with one weapon, apply to various similar exotic weapons (assuming you are proficient in said exotic weapon). Not bad, and given exotic weapons are supposed to be 'rare' *cough*yeahrite*cough*, it gives a player an option to use a more common weapon if their preferred weapon is unavailable for some reason. This might be worth playing around with for weapon category/type balance by not limiting it to exotic weapons.

Subdual: Weapon deals non-lethal damage. It can be something of a gimmick. Worth it though?

Trip: Given that an opponent can trip you if you fail to make a trip check, being able to drop the weapon to avoid a trip isn't bad. Picking up a dropped weapon is a standard action, but you're not prone. Getting up from prone is also a standard action (meaning you can't attack), so what's the benefit of keeping weapon on you? Plus, if you add the augment crystal "lesser crystal of return", the weapon jumps back into your hand as a move action. For 1000gp, that makes trip weapons's effect pretty useful for avoiding counter-trips. At least...this was the case until Complete Scoundrel. Now there's also the "Back on your Feet" skill trick, getting up from prone as an immediate action. All it requires is Tumble 12 and then two skill points. That lowers the effective worth of a trip special ability.

Throwing: The returning enchantment on thrown weapons saps at cost, it might be more viable if it was a flat +1000 gp enchantment. Throwing into melee also has a -4 penalty for thrown weapons with a range of 15-20 ft, though thankfully not for 10 ft ones (which is kinda sorta close and seems to reduce the worth of a thrown attack). And while you can full attack with thrown weapons...You'd need one for each additional attack you make, making it somewhat pointlessly expensive to keep up, even with a flat enchantment cost on returning weapons. Also, MAD ability, as it depends on both str/dex not just str (unless you waste a feat on Brutal Throw). They're somewhat Reach weapon's bastard idiot brothers.

Set: Do 2x damage to a charging weapon on a set vs charge action. Given that whenever you ready an action, you shift your initiative count, repeatedly setting weapons will invariably result in lost turns. Notably, if your DM considers initiative to not change from a readied action, this can actually be an attractive option, but that's a house rule matter, unless design is actually changed for that.

Skill: Add +X to some skill. An example is the Nekode, a clawed glove which grants +1 stacking circumstance to Climb Checks. Another is a dagger's sleight of hand bonus. Weak ability, but could be interesting to play with for design.

-Sunder/Parry: These do not currently exist, but it seems to me that having weapons designed for breaking others or for defending from attacks should also be acceptable design parameters.

GENERAL ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
- Wielding weapons in one hand is only worthwhile if you are fighting with two weapons, and if you have access to some form of additional precision damage (such as sneak attack). Note that precision damage (generally) does not burst on a critical strike.

- Using a shield is rarely worth it, thus shields should also get some redesign. Part of the problem, in fact, is that as soon as one has the money to get the Animated enchantment on the shield (+9150 gp before shield standard price), a player automatically switches to a 2H or TWF user. There is simply NO incentive to keep holding onto that shield.

-While there is a difference of +2 average damage between 2d6 and 2d4 damage, people still choose the 2d4 martial weapons (scythe, guisarme, lance and ranseur). Comparing them to a greatsword, one can generally assume that people consider:
a) Reach with x3 crit equal to x4 crit.
b) Disarm+2 equal to trip equal to charge.
c) +2 average damage equal to reach plus disarm/trip/charge.

-Given a +2 damage difference between 2d6 and 2d4 weapons, by the crit relationship, the 2d4 weapon is not going to be superior unless overall damage is above 46 damage. Given the amount of strength/additional damage needed to reach that (for example, a character with STR 20 and regularly power attacking -10 attack while doing a leap attack), you can generally assume a greatsword is superior to a scythe. At a high enough level, it's possible for the scythe to be better though. As such, it somewhat makes sense for the scythe to have a relatively weak special quality (only trip). It won't make the difference at lower levels, but it makes the weapons more equivalent at middle levels, and at high levels it doesn't outstrip the greatsword significantly either.

-Feats are expensive, outside of the fighter who has incredibly limited options outside of a feat path (although as more books came out, he got a lot more options, similar to spellcasters getting more options with more spells added). If it requires more than 2-3 feats to be feasable, it's generally not that good a weapon in the first place, unless you're a fighter though. Even then, some weapons will remain unfeasable.

-Considering the weight has been shown to be a factor in balance but not price, and that a tiny longsword is considered equivalent to a small shortsword and to a medium dagger, rules regarding weight and price need to be reconsidered past the double/half rule for size changes. Alternatively, if keeping that system, the current weights and prices would have to be adjusted for that weapon equivalence. Well, actually, this is only the case if I mess with weapons in that weapon equivalence. In general, they pretty much follow those self-set rules right now.

-While I suggested adding sunder as a special quality, it should be pointed out that sunder is considered somewhat weak in a D&D game, as most players do not sunder due to it leading to loss of loot. It is still considered a nice strong skill for NPCs or for Iron Heroes characters, though.

-Notably, it should also be pointed out that sunder does not actually lead to loss of loot, but it does reduce significantly the payout. At least, given two assumptions. (1) Players have access to someone with Craft (Armorsmithing) and/or Craft (Weaponsmithing). (2) Players have access to someone with the "Craft Magic Arms & Armor" feat.

-This is because to repair a magical item, you need to first repair the nonmagical component (skill) and then to repair the magical component (feat). Now, the repair costs for the skill state it costs 1/5 item's non-magical price and for the feat it's 1/4 item's magical cost. So for example, repairing a Greatsword+4 (32,350 gp) would cost 8,070 gp (350/5 + 32,000/4). Selling it, you'd make 16,175gp. For a total profit of 8,105 gp. Note that if you hadn't sundered it, you'd have made almost twice as much however.

-As such, it might make sunder more attractive if a weapon takes some penalties for partial sundering (reduced damage as it's HP goes down?) or modifying repair rules. Actually, sunder rules in general could use some messing around with. Nothing says how to repair a partially sundered weapon. Does it regain it's HP without repair? Does it cost same to repair a broken weapon as one with 3 HP less than normal? Why is there a line for sundering armor when rules say you can't sunder armor worn by someone? Do they expect some idiot to sunder armor when it's -not- being worn? Lots of questions here!

[Dracos]

Lots of neat thoughts Merc.  Responses~

On abilities:

I'm not familiar with Feint or Shared Focus.  Note Trip is needed as well for actual tripping~
" Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don't provoke an attack of opportunity. "

To me generally, without this, it's not a viable move at all.  Forget protection against counter trippers, invoking AoO and having to do an unarmed touch attack is something that many classes aren't good at.

In general, I like 'build around', as I feel it's giving direction or rather allowing the player to take a direction and thus be wielding something different that fits it.  Without encouragement to build around, its simply a question of what does the most damage that you can equip, which will always reduce to a few weapons.

I've generally never seen subdual crap really.  It's this incidental thing that comes out once in a blue moon and DMs generally go 'ha ha, don't you wish you had one now'.  It's retarded. 

I'll go with the statement  that I think one should be able to have a reasonable expectation that in an average battle any special quality might come into play.  It's reasonable to expect to take advantage of reach, trip, disarm, to protect against charging foes or charge yourself.

The bastard sword story you describe I've really never seen before in practice.  It's somewhat of an odd reading of the rules on it.  I'm not sure I'd let that fly if I was DMing it ("You get the martial and the exotic proficiency use of this weapon?")  It's not really particularly powerful either, and is a very focused build direction.  but that might just be me.

On Range Versus Crit Mult:

You are correct mathematically, but I feel this is not the true story in practice.

In practice, a high crit multiplier weapon is often backed by high strength, two handedness, and power attack.  When  that crit happens, it tends to end an enemy.  but...  it also tends to waste a fair bit of the damage in overkill excepting it happening just against the big bad boss.  Kamvakua for instance rolls a raging charging x3 crit as (5d6+13)x3+1d6 for an average of 95 damage, more than his own max hp.  Turn that into a scythe with its x4 and the likelihood of most of that crit damage not being meaningful in terms of average damage dealt due to being wasted on spillover is high.  This is something I've seen with quite a number of character builds, both npc and player.  This becomes more and more common as high strength, power attack, and magical burst comes into play.

Rat brings the other consideration which is from a tactical point: How often is a crit likely to appear.  Average damage over the course of the whole game matters less than average damage over the course of each individual battle.  While something with a 15-20 crit range is likely to see a few higher damage hits per battle, it's not uncommon for a 20 type crit to only be seen once by everyone in the battle, enemies and players alike.  It's super likely for a player to roll <10 attacks per battle, which makes anything above a 10 percent chance a good likelihood of appearing and anything below that very rare.

My gut feeling is that in practice, crit multipliers are slightly weaker than they appear because they generally do not occur in battle and when they do appear, they are more likely to kill an enemy outright.  That is a pretty neat bit, don't get me wrong, but more often than not, that Falchion for instance is going to be doing its full crit damage while the high multiplier scythe is going to be one-shotting the enemy right into -40 land once every three fights (on average).

That said, in reality, its a personality thing more than much else usually that makes the choice as they did mathematically balance them, assuming both were always hitting and always able to do their full damage range.

On Animated Shields/two handed:

I don't know if I buy this.  For much of the game, a +2 enhancement effect is a big expensive deal.  Level 10 characters can't spend that willy nilly as that's a sizable portion of their overall funding.  That ceases to be the case around level 14 or so certainly, but by then, you've spent most of your career with it unless you just got a +1 animated shield and that's all you did with it.  Besides, folks who do that build generally don't have a very high strength or the extra feats around.  The two handed weapon economy is not really meaningfully advantageous until you're at least at a +4 strength mod.  For someone with a 12 or 14 str, that exchange isn't going to nearly match what they would get out of shield specialization and an extra +2 enhancement for a +3 to AC.  Especially as AC based builds become more valuable the higher above the party average they are (A 22 to 20 isn't much.  A 32 to 22 is almost more game changing than the same thing happening in damage).

The feat economy seems to say against both really.  building a good two weapon fighting build means you've invested a bunch of feats in it.  For the two handed one, it is mainly power attack, but it also means you've got the stats high for it to make any meaningful use of it all (You need it both for the base damage and to have your to hit high enough to afford taking 2-5 points off regularly).

Basically, if you already have a non-shield build, they're a fantastic add.  If you do have a shield build, it feels against the economy of feats that you'd have enough to meaningfully take advantage of it versus just going ahead and adding a cool +2 enchantment to your shield that gives a real benefit to the build you already have.

Weapon Size:
I like the way you're going kinda.  I sort of almost would prefer instead it was a flat change (+2 or -2 to damage per size class difference for instance) because I know the result to me of the current system (and it would somewhat still be there for the system you propose) is that I always go for something that will size up with the +3.5 bonus to average, over the +1 (that's the bottom really).

Sunder thoughts:
I'm going to resist for the most part changing feats/magic enchantments/ or anything outside of weapons.  I agree with your logic here and it'd probably make a nice complimentary house rule, but scope limiting.

Man, instead of spending an hour getting weapons up, I spent it responding @_@  Bad me.

[Merc]

Note Trip is needed as well for actual tripping~
" Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don't provoke an attack of opportunity. "

To me generally, without this, it's not a viable move at all.  Forget protection against counter trippers, invoking AoO and having to do an unarmed touch attack is something that many classes aren't good at.

You are correct. I'd misremembered improved trip to revoke AoOs with any melee attack, whether unarmed or with weapon.

The bastard sword story you describe I've really never seen before in practice.  It's somewhat of an odd reading of the rules on it.  I'm not sure I'd let that fly if I was DMing it ("You get the martial and the exotic proficiency use of this weapon?")  It's not really particularly powerful either, and is a very focused build direction.  but that might just be me.

Note that it's not so much that you get martial proficiency with the weapon. Whenever you use a 1H weapon, you are able to use it in two hands and gain the strength bonus, per the rules. Essentially, this is what a lot of clerics do with a morningstar (a 1H weapon), wielding it as if it were a 2H weapon. Similarly here, a bastard sword, if you have martial proficiency, you can only use as a 2H, if you have exotic, you can use as a 1H or 2H.

On Range Versus Crit Mult:

You are correct mathematically, but I feel this is not the true story in practice

....

My gut feeling is that in practice, crit multipliers are slightly weaker than they appear because they generally do not occur in battle and when they do appear, they are more likely to kill an enemy outright.  That is a pretty neat bit, don't get me wrong, but more often than not, that Falchion for instance is going to be doing its full crit damage while the high multiplier scythe is going to be one-shotting the enemy right into -40 land once every three fights (on average).

That said, in reality, its a personality thing more than much else usually that makes the choice as they did mathematically balance them, assuming both were always hitting and always able to do their full damage range.

Yeah, I do agree that in practice a large crit range is more powerful since overkill, while impressive, doesn't actually help. It's one of the reasons that 'burst' relationship I noticed isn't necessarily the best balancing option. It balances, yes, but only in the mathematical sense. You're going from overkill for a bit to overkill by a lot. Still a worthwhile thought though.

On Animated Shields/two handed:

....

I do agree that an animated shield is expensive. However, we seem to have different perspectives in relation to shields and builds. At low to mid level games, a shield is valid because you still do enough damage to be a credible threat, in this we agree. At higher level games, a shield loses value more and more at each level that it's used in hand rather than animated, because general train of thought is "Why would an enemy target the guy with a shield that doesn't hit for a lot, vs the guy that hits for a lot but can be hit more easily?"

In this, it seems is where we start to disagree as you believe a shield maintains worth at higher levels.

That's not to say it's not valuable. If the enemy targets you, you'd certainly appreciate the added defense. The problem is, how often will the enemy target you? In part, that does depend on the DM. A good DM will want to make players feel like their playchoice is valid and have the enemy target a shield user. Still, a lot of DMs may hesitate to do so because of the above train of thought.

Also, note that you seem to mostly argue it from a build perspective. Sure, if you went for a shield build, then yes, an animated shield may not feel like a good use of money in relation to the build, after all, you spend very valuable feats to try and support the use of a shield, and then you're going to have it dancing in front of you?

My argument, however, is: "Is a shield build even -valid- in the first place?"

At low levels, it's very much valid, but feats are limited, so you can't really do much of a build with it in the first place. As you level, shields starts to lose its value due to the damage threat effect, and even though you get access to more feats, there's not a lot of feats in the first place to support shields, and those that are there aren't particularly powerful either, especially when compared to damage feats.

If you use the shield purely defensively, feats available: Shield Specialization (+1 AC. Wheeee!) and Shield Ward (add shield bonus to rolls to avoid trip/bullrush/disarm/etc). And that's about it from the good feats.

If you use the shield offensively: First, this becomes a Two-Weapon Fighting tree, with -additional- cost of Improved Shield Bash (Keep ac when bashing), and because it's TWF you have limits to where you can spend other shield feats. Second, heavy shields are 1H weapons for bashing purposes, meaning you're stuck with light shields. Alternatively, you can get "Agile Shield Fighter" feat, which is essentially TWF, but does not care if you use a light or heavy shield, it's always -2 and -2 penalty for each hand. On the other hand, the feat does not grant access to higher TWF tree feats, and has no followup feats of its own.

My argument is that there's not a lot of incentive to invest in a shield build, because either it's even -more- intensive than a TWF build (technically it -IS- a TWF build, just a more expensive one), or it doesn't keep up with a damaging build, meaning you automatically don't get targetted because your damage sucks, rending the shield somewhat moot in the first place.

You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

On the other hand, if you invest in some -other- build, you can legitimately be useful, and have your cake and eat it by getting an animated shield once you can afford it. If you want to use a shield before you can afford an animated shield, you still want to invest in feats that boost damage, not defense.

Notably, you could make it more valid by improving shield feats or adding new ones. But that's an entirely different area of redesign than weapons.