This is why I want to use it actually: To get more testing done so I know what I should change. If needed, I can whip up a quick Simple/Martial reach weapon that would enable your earlier build design. I've been intending to include similar weapons in V1.2 since I do have some testplaying results, and that was something I thought was needed.
Well, it'd just be nice to...you know...be aware of what the rules are for my character before I make him. I didn't realize that was asking for so much.
And while I'd certainly like more choices for weapons, I really am not terribly confident about how they'd turn out. You said you did this to fix problems with weapons in D&D, but then admitted you both buffed the weaker options and nerfed the stronger ones, to the extent that nothing in your new set up is equal to what was possible before. The extent is pretty drastic. Just about any decent core weapon I can think of was nerfed in some way -- spiked chain (lower base damage;
provokes when used!), lance (only x2 crit), whip (only 10 ft reach now, which makes the provoking thing much more painful), guisarme (only representation is a simple weapon w/ slightly inferior [1d8] damage and 1 augment slot), scythe (dropped all the way to x2 crit! ...is tripping now, but hardly the best weapon for that anyway), etc... -- that's pretty incredible.
Perhaps a parallel example would help....
Anyone who wants heavy armor will generally go for full plate if they are able to (monetarily, etc...), it's the best in its category. NO ONE takes half-plate, because half plate just plain sucks. So you decide to swoop in and buff half-plate a little and nerf full plate a little, such that they're both equal and somewhere between in power where they each were before. On the surface, it may look like you've left everything balanced. But...you're neglecting the fact that people (certainly ones on this forum...) don't pick the godawful horrible choices, in a game system explicitly designed to have trap options and "Timmy cards." They take the good options. So what you've actually done, is to nerf heavy armors.
And yeah. Trying to balance weapons by restricting how many enhancements they can get, never mind by such a stupidly large range that one might be eligible for FIVE TIMES as many as another, is just a really bad idea.
I respect the desire to want to playtest stuff. I've been very dismayed that not a single player opted for one of my custom classes in the game I'm running, I was hoping to see one of them in action. And it would've been awesome to get to play my Capoeirista myself...but it's tier 4 at best (better than monk, at least) and your rules limited unarmed to only one augment (if you even allowed some footwear version of gauntlet) ever make that rather untenable.
But if you're going to write an entire manifesto -worth of houserules on something, it should at least have a significant impact, and for the better. Your rules...seem to not change much, or even make them slightly worse.
Also, as a counter-point / something nice to say... Your point buy allotment and rules buffing the str-boosting races do a great deal to help out MAD, str-based warriors, and took barely any text to even write, I quite like that. They're basically the opposite of your weapon rules in those respects.
