For your examination: A rewritten weapon list.

[Palegreenpants]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present an alternate martial melee weapons list. The weapon types and damage that I have listed are based on historical accounts of effectiveness and quality. The weapon prices are significantly higher than vanilla 5E. This was done in an attempt to make weapons 'scale' in a manor similar to armor. Prices are also based on damage output. Finally, this list is formulated to fit a slightly higher technology level than is normal for classically medieval D&D. My personal campaign setting is based on a gunpowderless 16th century.

Also, if any price, damage, or weight values seem off or screwy, please tell! I'm posting this in an effort to test it, so use it as you will.

http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj508/Benton_Molina/034.png

Edit: I realized that lance is missing its damage type. It is, of course, piercing.

[Demonic Spoon]

A few problems I have with this:

-Weapon prices don't go high enough that this is meaningful. Full plate works because it's actually quite expensive.
-Going along with the above, I think there's more value in weapons being balanced against each other than armor being balanced against each other. This is obviously opinion, but I feel like the weapon a fighter uses is a lot more iconic than what armor they use...so while I'm fine with a small subset of armors being "the best" objectively, I'm less fine with a small set of weapons being "the best"
-Historical weapons are a much more complicated subject. I don't know how you could possibly claim to evaluate weapon power based on "historical accounts of effectiveness and quality" given that something as vague as "two handed sword" could mean a few different things, and there are many factors to consider that D&D will never model properly. It seems like wasted effort trying to make weapons more historically accurate in this way.

If you want to create a distinction between good weapons and bad weapons, you could just introduce some concept of "masterwork" weapons that give a +1 to attack and/or damage and cost a bunch more.

[Totema]

Minor nitpick: No axes!? What are dwarves expected to use?

Mechanically, though, I like it. It irks me that the PHB list has two versatile slashing weapons but no versatile piercing weapons, and this addresses that. Although I do agree that the prices are a little out of whack.

[Palegreenpants]

It seems as though prices are an issue. I can totally agree with that. Any ideas as to how to redo it? Higher scaling? Less scaling?

Also, to Demonic Spoon. Weapons are indeed dificult to deal with, as you mentioned, due to their massive, complicated variety, even within a single century. I'm shooting for historical appropriateness for an alternate-Europe setting, rather than historical accuracy. On another note, the damage values are still pretty similar to base 5e weapons.

[HorridElemental]

It seems as though prices are an issue. I can totally agree with that. Any ideas as to how to redo it? Higher scaling? Less scaling?

Also, to Demonic Spoon. Weapons are indeed dificult to deal with, as you mentioned, due to their massive, complicated variety, even within a single century. I'm shooting for historical appropriateness for an alternate-Europe setting, rather than historical accuracy. On another note, the damage values are still pretty similar to base 5e weapons.

Yeah see there is a problem here. D&D isn't a simulation game at all. D&D is a fantasy elfgame where although there is a general tone about the base world there really isn't one century you can place all d&d.

My biggest problem with this list is that it doesn't actually do anything different from the other list. If you had thrown in some new properties and stuff then yeah it would be cool but right now... There is no reason to use this over the core list.

I hate the core weapon system it really needs fixed and I was hoping this would be a step in the right direction but it just doesn't give me anything more than the normal list.

[Mr.Moron]

6 of 1, half dozen of the other. This doesn't make any meaningful changes. That really isn't a bad thing per se.If what you're looking to do is change what names go with what dice without shaking things up too much, you've probably done a solid job. It's just that there isn't anything meaty to review here, you can slot this into any game without causing a negative impact.

[Palegreenpants]

I hate the core weapon system it really needs fixed and I was hoping this would be a step in the right direction but it just doesn't give me anything more than the normal list.

What kind of properties or changes would you like to see? I had thought of adding new properties, but have been too tired to think of any.

Edit: It seems people want a different, or drastically changed weapon system. I like this. Any ideas on how to make it so?

[EvilAnagram]

Is there really a particular reason why we need a revamped list?

[Palegreenpants]

Is there really a particular reason why we need a revamped list?

Dissatisfaction with the old one. It is, in my opinion, unballanced and boring.

[Mr.Moron]

Dissatisfaction with the old one. It is, in my opinion, unballanced and boring.

What exactly is different about what's presented here? Some names a bit a different and some of the costs changed in a way that might affect starting equipment purchases but nothing beyond that. This is literally the exact the same system with a few names switched around!

I don't personally have any issue with the existing system. However you're going to have to elaborate some more on the specifics of what you're trying to address. I can't infer anything about your goals or what was "Boring" or "Unbalanced" before because this hasn't made real functional changes.

[Palegreenpants]

My current changes to the list have indeed been simple, such as adding a slashing finesse weapon, and separating shortswords into slashing and piercing variants.

I suppose what I'm looking for is ideas about how to further revamp this list. I consider it to be completely WIP.

[Mr.Moron]

My current changes to the list have indeed been simple, such as adding a slashing finesse weapon, and separating shortswords into slashing and piercing variants.

I suppose what I'm looking for is ideas about how to further revamp this list. I consider it to be completely WIP.

What are your goals? What do you hope to achieve? Making things less "Boring" or more "Balanced" is far too broad and subjective to give suggestions on. If anyone is going to offer meaningful advice or ideas, we need specifics on you're trying to create.

[Palegreenpants]

My current changes to the list have indeed been simple, such as adding a slashing finesse weapon, and separating shortswords into slashing and piercing variants.

I suppose what I'm looking for is ideas about how to further revamp this list. I consider it to be completely WIP.

[EvilAnagram]

My current changes to the list have indeed been simple, such as adding a slashing finesse weapon, and separating shortswords into slashing and piercing variants.

Doesn't creating slashing finesse weapons defeat the idea of finesse? The idea is that with agility and skill one might use some weapons to thrust in the perfect spot. How would finesse help with slashing, which has more to do with the blades shape, weight, and speed... things handled by strength?

[Laserlight]

Edit: It seems people want a different, or drastically changed weapon system. I like this. Any ideas on how to make it so?

I wouldn't be too keen on changing properties, because every published supplement is going to be using the existing properties.

If I were doing it, I'd simply say "whatever you want to call it--poignard or knitting needle or pixie warhammer--if it does 1d4 damage, it costs X gp. If it does 1d6, it's Y gp", etc. Figure out which properties are actually worth more and multiply the base cost. That way if you want an African throwing knife or Sikh quoit or whatever, you just call it 1d6 Heavy Thrown and pay your 15gp and you're good to go. No need to add Line # 117 to the Weapons Table, nor to argue over "This has four spiky bits sticking out here, it should do more damage!"

This also gets rid of the profusion of "this weapon is special because it's a Kukhri / Drow Long Knife / Ooo Spooky Dagger", when it should be "The scary thing is not the knife, it's the guy using it."

Incidentally, neither a cutlass nor saber is a finesse weapon.

[HorridElemental]

You could make a list of properties you can add to certain weapons based that you can choose to use based on what skill proficiencies you have.

Heavy or Versitile Property:

Athletic: If you are proficient in Athletics then you may use this weapon as a two handed ranged weapon (range 20/60). This weapon deals the same type of days as if used with melee.

Edit!

When you buy a weapon you buy it with a property, if you met the prerequisite of the property (skill proficiency) then you may use the ability with the weapon.

[Scirocco]

Why cut the halberd, King of the Polearms?

[Morty]

Dissatisfaction with the old one. It is, in my opinion, unballanced and boring.

It certainly is. But, like others said, your version doesn't really change that. Price and encumbrance are, at the end of the way, fairly irrelevant - they have no bearing on how the weapon is actually used in battle. There are still weapons which are virtually identical apart from the damage type, which is a bit less irrelevant, but not by much.

Really, both the vanilla weapons table and this one could be boiled down to this:


Light Weapons - 1d6
One-handed weapons - 1d8
Two-handed weapons - 2d6


Light weapons always count as finesse weapons, one-handed weapons can have the finesse tag. Two-handed weapon can have reach or finesse at the cost of knocking the damage down to 1d10. Add damage type if relevant. Describe the result however you want.

[Palegreenpants]

How would you guys feel about supplementing the original list with something like Morty proposed? Or possibly replacing in entirely?

[DCraw]

Doesn't creating slashing finesse weapons defeat the idea of finesse? The idea is that with agility and skill one might use some weapons to thrust in the perfect spot. How would finesse help with slashing, which has more to do with the blades shape, weight, and speed... things handled by strength?

There's more to how well a blow cuts than 'heavy sharp object hits squishy object.' You seem to be dismissing the technique behind the blow (along with a range of factors). What happens with the blade as it makes contact is arguably as important as how fast it is moving and how much inertia it has behind it.

This can be easily demonstrated in a domestic kitchen. Take two tomatoes and a reasonably sharp kitchen knife. The knife should be slightly curved but not serrated. Try to cut through the first tomato with a hacking action. Place the blade against it and press without sliding it backwards or forwards. Now cut the second tomato with a slicing motion. Place the blade against the tomato at an angle and draw it backward (and possibly forward). You'll find that the second tomato was much easier to cut, and was probably also neatly cut in half, whereas the first took more force and was probably more accurately described as squashed rather than than cut.

Fighting styles that focus on cutting weapons (or techniques that focus on inflicting cuts) tend to emphasise the use of draw or push cuts. The blade is drawn backward or pushed forward, slicing through the target, rather than relying on brute strength the rend it. This could easily be described as a fighter using their skill to use the blade in the most efficient manner, cutting deeply without the expenditure of great effort. That sounds like finesse to me.

[Morty]

Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBTtq2Gzm6w), this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvYA4_RKUzU) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg) and tell me there's no finesse in slashing weapons.

[EvilAnagram]

Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBTtq2Gzm6w), this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvYA4_RKUzU) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg) and tell me there's no finesse in slashing weapons.

I'll watch the first two and say that the first is a fictional movie, and the second is a modern nonviolent contest that involves blunted instruments not intended to cut anything. The third is an excellent display of Western sword techniques used in actual battles.

Aside from that, your point? I never said that slashing weapons don't take skill to use. I said that one's ability to effectively use slashing weapons, including the medieval long swords in the third video, depends largely on upper body strength. Yes, a slicing motion increases the depth of the cut, but it requires quite a lot of strength to effectively wield a longsword, katana, scimitar, or any other kind of slashing weapon, and the faster and harder you swing it (provided you swing it with proper form), the better it cuts.

For game purposes, the finesse attribute refers to weapons that are essentially thrusting weapons that let a skilled fencer find a weak point and thrust without needing too much upper body strength.

[Morty]

Wielding any weapon requires a mix of upper body strength, manual dexterity, reflexes and enough awareness to spot openings and weak spots. But D&D only keys your offensive potential off one attribute. Usually it's strength, but allowing it to be dexterity instead has nothing to do with the type of weapon. You might note that the scimitar is already a finesse weapon in 5e... the only good idea the weapon table contains.

(I will also say that dismissing a fictional film as an example when we're talking about a fantasy role-playing game perplexes me.)

[Alefiend]

... one's ability to effectively use slashing weapons, including the medieval long swords in the third video, depends largely on upper body strength. Yes, a slicing motion increases the depth of the cut, but it requires quite a lot of strength to effectively wield a longsword, katana, scimitar, or any other kind of slashing weapon, and the faster and harder you swing it (provided you swing it with proper form), the better it cuts.

At least two (http://youtu.be/j3OIjpLSaYQ) people (http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2/this-armored-lady-won-the-longsword-competition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/)would say this isn't strictly true.

[Laserlight]

If you make the jump from "that weapon takes skill to use well" to "it's a finesse weapon", then you might as well say "all weapons are finesse weapons"--although I'd choke if someone used "finesse" to describe a flanged mace. Might as well just delete the idea of "finesse weapons" entirely.

Or you could define a finesse weapon as one that has to to avoid armor instead of cutting / breaking / beating it.

It's a idiotic to separate weapons into STR and DEX anyway. Anyone who thinks a longbow doesn't take strength, or that a greatsword doesn't take speed and agility, ought to go visit an SCA site some time and try it out.

[pwykersotz]

How would you guys feel about supplementing the original list with something like Morty proposed? Or possibly replacing in entirely?

I'd love to see a viable do-it-yourself weapon table with a few examples statted out.

[Grynning]

I like the idea of more generalized weapons, though I will say that sometimes people are inspired by particular weapons for a character (though this is often negated by the fact that the first +1 weapon in every adventure ever is inevitably a longsword).

You could maybe split the difference and have weapons broken into groups:
Light Blade, Light Bludgeon, Fencing Blade, Heavy Blade, Heavy Bludgeon, Polearm, etc. I personally think that weapon damage types are largely an artifact of 2nd ed (when different armors had different effectiveness against the types), particularly with the difference between piercing and slashing damage, so separating short swords from cutlasses, rapiers from sabers etc. is largely unnecessary. I don't think there's anything in 5E that's resistant or vulnerable to slashing but not piercing or vice versa.

*Edit: I just realized that my proposed list of weapon groups is lifted almost exactly from 7th Sea (even though I don't own that anymore and haven't read it in years). 7th Sea was a very good game for simulating a renaissance era setting that was slightly more gritty and realistic than D&D (it still had magic, but it was low-fiat, high-consequence magic), you may want to check it out for some inspiration.

[Knaight]

Also, if any price, damage, or weight values seem off or screwy, please tell! I'm posting this in an effort to test it, so use it as you will.

http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj508/Benton_Molina/034.png

Edit: I realized that lance is missing its damage type. It is, of course, piercing.

The general lack of axes has already been pointed out, though I'm guessing they are in simple weapons. The halberd is conspicuously missing. The maul, bardiche, and two handed sword are both entirely too heavy. The pike is also pretty heavy, as the reach is consistent with a fairly short pike, and the weight a very long one. Even the pole ax could be toned down a little, though a few did hit 8 pounds. The lance is strictly better than the pike, even for fighting on foot, it's also somehow lighter.

[Morty]

It's a idiotic to separate weapons into STR and DEX anyway. Anyone who thinks a longbow doesn't take strength, or that a greatsword doesn't take speed and agility, ought to go visit an SCA site some time and try it out.

It is, but in D&D, it's what we have to work with.

Really, in a class-based system, basic to-hit and damage numbers ought to be class-dependent, since if you're a member of a martially-inclined class, it can be assumed that you're physically fit enough to fight with your weapon of choice. But I don't think it was ever in consideration for 5e.



You could maybe split the difference and have weapons broken into groups:
Light Blade, Light Bludgeon, Fencing Blade, Heavy Blade, Heavy Bludgeon, Polearm, etc. I personally think that weapon damage types are largely an artifact of 2nd ed (when different armors had different effectiveness against the types), particularly with the difference between piercing and slashing damage, so separating short swords from cutlasses, rapiers from sabers etc. is largely unnecessary. I don't think there's anything in 5E that's resistant or vulnerable to slashing but not piercing or vice versa.

*Edit: I just realized that my proposed list of weapon groups is lifted almost exactly from 7th Sea (even though I don't own that anymore and haven't read it in years). 7th Sea was a very good game for simulating a renaissance era setting that was slightly more gritty and realistic than D&D (it still had magic, but it was low-fiat, high-consequence magic), you may want to check it out for some inspiration.

The problem is that the only thing that could really set apart an axe from a sword of the same size in 5e are class features and feats. Not having the PHB, I have no idea if there are any which affect specific weapons rather than styles like two-handed, single weapon and such.

[Palegreenpants]

The problem is that the only thing that could really set apart an axe from a sword of the same size in 5e are class features and feats. Not having the PHB, I have no idea if there are any which affect specific weapons rather than styles like two-handed, single weapon and such.

The weapon-feats are fairly broad in their applications, such as Polearm Master, or Sharpshooter. There is also a lack of sword or axe-specific feats.

[Morty]

In that case there's probably not much point to those categories, unless some optional module is included in the DMG that depends on them.

[Malifice]

You're missing the following weapon:

Katana: Damage 1d12, finesse, light, versatile (3d6), special.

Katana: All attacks made with a Katana are at advantage due to the repeated folding of the blade or some other weebo fanboi dreck

:smallbiggrin:

[pwykersotz]

You're missing the following weapon:

Katana: Damage 1d12, finesse, light, versatile (3d6), special.

Katana: All attacks made with a Katana are at advantage due to the repeated folding of the blade or some other weebo fanboi dreck

:smallbiggrin:

I'm laughing. I hate you, but I'm laughing. :smalltongue:

[Janus]

You're missing the following weapon:

Katana: Damage 1d12, finesse, light, versatile (3d6), special.

Katana: All attacks made with a Katana are at advantage due to the repeated folding of the blade or some other weebo fanboi dreck

:smallbiggrin:
Obligatory:

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bull**** that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.

Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.

Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:

(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

[rlc]

the best part is that the reason why they folded the metal isn't because it was a superior method or anything, but because they were working with such inferior quality material. they folded it because otherwise their swords would just fall apart.

[Theodoxus]

I was thinking along the lines of Morty, but a bit more fleshed out.

All weapons have a choice of being bludgeoning, piercing or slashing, the damage type doesn't cost more.

Note, the examples are just naming convention for player fluff. On the character sheet, it'd simply say 'Simple, piercing & finesse' or 'Simple, slashing & two handed'

Simple weapons:
1d4 - finesse and/or thrown; examples: throwing hammers, darts, daggers (2 gold)
1d6 (1d8) - light, versatile and/or ranged; examples: quarterstaff, (cross)bow, hand axe (5 gold)
1d8 heavy, two handed: great club, longspear, scythe (10 gold)

Martial weapons
1d6 - finesse and/or thrown; examples: hammer, whip, scimitar (10 gold)
1d8 (1d10) - light, ranged and/or versatile; examples: warhammer, rapier, battleaxe (20 gold)
2d6 - heavy and/or two handed: examples: maul, greataxe, greatsword (50 gold)
1d12 - reach; examples: longhammer, pike, glaive (75 gold)

Gold prices are probably steep, but just off the top of my head.

I'd probably format it differently too - probably ask the player what properties he wanted on the weapon and if it was simple or martial.

"Martial, versatile, slashing" - 1d8 (1d10), call it a longsword, battleaxe or herberderber - whatever you'd like
"Simple, ranged, bludgeoning" - 1d6, call it a sling or a hammerchucker.

It plays fast a loose with racials though - dwarves would get 'martial proficiency with versatile weapons', elves would get 'martial proficiency with versatile and ranged weapons'. Though I don't think it's so bad for a dwarf running around with a longsword, or an elf with a warhammer, even though I'm sure it'll cause some purists some conniptions.

As noted with the fun katana discussion, you'll always find someone who objects to how some historical weapon is represented - so forget exhaustive lists that will never ever be correct and just go with a mix of what people want to use and let them fluff it for their own.

As it is, my list isn't complete... but I'm working on a matrix that would be. Just haven't finalized it - but thought to show where the idea is headed.

[Theodoxus]

Ok, finished the chart - went much faster than I thought.

Simple weapons are base 1d6, martial are base 1d8
Modifiers: Ammunition, Finesse, Heavy, Light, Loading, Reach, Thrown, Two-Handed, Versatile, Increased cost, Decreased cost, Uses Horse

Using these modifiers, every weapon on page 149 comes out (except the lance and maul, which I'll talk about later).

Ammunition: changes the base weapon to 1d6 for both simple and martial.
Finesse: does not change the damage die.
Heavy: increases the damage die by 1 (1d8 becomes 1d10)
Light: decreases the damage die by 1 (1d8 becomes 1d6)
Loading: increases the damage die by 1
Reach: does not change the damage die.
Thrown: decreases the damage die by 1, but only to a max of -1 (multiple decreasers do not stack - important for handaxe to work)
Two-Handed (melee only, does not affect ammunition): increases the damage die by 1.
Versatile: does not change the damage die, but using the two handed option, increases the die by 1.
Increased cost: increases the damage die by 1 (the reason hand axes are so expensive compared to the rest of the simple weapons)
Decreased cost: decreases the damage die by 1 (the reason most martial reach weapons do 1d10 rather than the expected 1d12)
Uses Horse: increases the damage die by 2 when using a horse (the only reason the Lance is 1d12).

Using this as a guideline, any weapon can conceivably be created, named whatever you want and do whatever type of damage you desire.

Note: The maul is an anomaly - it has a decreased cost, so it should only do 1d10 - or cost twice as much.
The Lance is just broken. Doing 1d12 while unhorsed as a two handed weapon is incorrect. Technically, it should be versatile 1d10 (1d12 - when on a horse). I would suggest doing that for anyone wanting to be a cavalier/knight - it's internally consistent and not game breaking.

I didn't complete the costing guide yet... maybe I'll finish that and do another post :)

[pwykersotz]

Ok, finished the chart - went much faster than I thought.

Simple weapons are base 1d6, martial are base 1d8
Modifiers: Ammunition, Finesse, Heavy, Light, Loading, Reach, Thrown, Two-Handed, Versatile, Increased cost, Decreased cost, Uses Horse

Using these modifiers, every weapon on page 149 comes out (except the lance and maul, which I'll talk about later).

Ammunition: changes the base weapon to 1d6 for both simple and martial.
Finesse: does not change the damage die.
Heavy: increases the damage die by 1 (1d8 becomes 1d10)
Light: decreases the damage die by 1 (1d8 becomes 1d6)
Loading: increases the damage die by 1
Reach: does not change the damage die.
Thrown: decreases the damage die by 1, but only to a max of -1 (multiple decreasers do not stack - important for handaxe to work)
Two-Handed (melee only, does not affect ammunition): increases the damage die by 1.
Versatile: does not change the damage die, but using the two handed option, increases the die by 1.
Increased cost: increases the damage die by 1 (the reason hand axes are so expensive compared to the rest of the simple weapons)
Decreased cost: decreases the damage die by 1 (the reason most martial reach weapons do 1d10 rather than the expected 1d12)
Uses Horse: increases the damage die by 2 when using a horse (the only reason the Lance is 1d12).

Using this as a guideline, any weapon can conceivably be created, named whatever you want and do whatever type of damage you desire.

Note: The maul is an anomaly - it has a decreased cost, so it should only do 1d10 - or cost twice as much.
The Lance is just broken. Doing 1d12 while unhorsed as a two handed weapon is incorrect. Technically, it should be versatile 1d10 (1d12 - when on a horse). I would suggest doing that for anyone wanting to be a cavalier/knight - it's internally consistent and not game breaking.

I didn't complete the costing guide yet... maybe I'll finish that and do another post :)

You are a gentleman and a scholar. :smallsmile:

[Theodoxus]

Thanks :) Looking at costs, they're kinda all over the place, and without having a decent starting place, it's really hard to know where to begin. I will note though, that the maul, being wooden, is probably correctly priced as a 1d12 (2d6) weapon - it's cheaper compared to a greatsword, but not to other wooden weapons. So that just leaves the Lance as incorrect /whew.

I would also allow players to choose die types that correspond: 1d12 vs 2d6, 1d8 vs 2d4, etc. It helps for some abilities and feats (Greataxe is awesome, except Greatswords are better in Champion or Paladin hands, etc.)

[Morty]

I don't think costs matter all that much, unless 5e is way more stingy with gold than the previous editions.

[HorridElemental]

I don't think costs matter all that much, unless 5e is way more stingy with gold than the previous editions.

Because there is no magic mart you get more gold to buy normal stuff and minor magic one shot items.

I love it

Edit

I should say that since a majority of your money won't be hoarded in order to buy item X you have a higher share of money (all of it) that will go toward smaller magic items (healing potions, etc) and non-magical items.

When all you can buy are non-magical stuff, that nonmagical stuff becomes used more... I had players use caltrops and marbles for the first time in years... At level 10!

[rlc]

of course, you could always make a magic mart, if you really want to. guys sells potions and rewards you with artifacts if you do things for him.

[Morty]

Because there is no magic mart you get more gold to buy normal stuff and minor magic one shot items.

I love it

Edit

I should say that since a majority of your money won't be hoarded in order to buy item X you have a higher share of money (all of it) that will go toward smaller magic items (healing potions, etc) and non-magical items.

When all you can buy are non-magical stuff, that nonmagical stuff becomes used more... I had players use caltrops and marbles for the first time in years... At level 10!

In which case the players probably don't need to worry about base weapon cost, most of the time.

Another consideration is: do we really need the Versatile property?

[Theodoxus]

Need is a strong word. But since they removed the 1.5 strength modifier for two handed weapons, using a hand and a half weapon two handed is a nice bit of compromise.

I can imagine a bit of player ire if they said 'I use my longsword in a powerful two handed grip. Do I do more damage?' and the DM replies 'nope, still a d8. sorry.'

[LordFluffy]

Ok, finished the chart - went much faster than I thought....

...I didn't complete the costing guide yet... maybe I'll finish that and do another post :)
Thank you! I've been trying to sort something like this out.

Personally, I hate racial weapon proficiencies. Unless you're explaining it by racial memory, then it assumes you're part of a specific culture, which is better handled by backgrounds.

How would you suggest handling Wizard proficiencies?

[Grynning]

I love the generic weapons rules. Probably going to use something like that for my "tricked out 5E with rims and underlighting" campaign I plan to do next year after I get through Tyranny of Dragons...aka 5E houseruled into the game I think it should have been :smalltongue:

[Janus]

Another consideration is: do we really need the Versatile property?
As someone who trains with a longsword, I can say that we most certainly do need it. I die a little on the inside when longswords are treated as one-handers by default.

[Morty]

Need is a strong word. But since they removed the 1.5 strength modifier for two handed weapons, using a hand and a half weapon two handed is a nice bit of compromise.

I can imagine a bit of player ire if they said 'I use my longsword in a powerful two handed grip. Do I do more damage?' and the DM replies 'nope, still a d8. sorry.'

The problem here is that if you use your one-handed weapon two-handed, you might as well just use a dedicated two-hander. If there was a difference between using a d8 weapon with two hands and using a proper 2d6 weapon other than the damage die, that would be another story. You could come up with a separate weapon style for Fighters, Rangers and Paladins to use, and a corresponding feat. As it is, the use for the Versatile property would be narrow at best.


As someone who trains with a longsword, I can say that we most certainly do need it. I die a little on the inside when longswords are treated as one-handers by default.

Well, yes, obviously. But if we use generic weapon rules like Theodoxus', we can just use a two-handed weapon and call it a longsword the way Liechtenauer intended - again, if such a way of fighting were separate from wielding a dedicated two-hander, it would be different.

[Janus]

The problem here is that if you use your one-handed weapon two-handed, you might as well just use a dedicated two-hander. If there was a difference between using a d8 weapon with two hands and using a proper 2d6 weapon other than the damage die, that would be another story. You could come up with a separate weapon style for Fighters, Rangers and Paladins to use, and a corresponding feat. As it is, the use for the Versatile property would be narrow at best.



Well, yes, obviously. But if we use generic weapon rules like Theodoxus', we can just use a two-handed weapon and call it a longsword the way Liechtenauer intended - again, if such a way of fighting were separate from wielding a dedicated two-hander, it would be different.

The reason I don't put the longsword in a dedicated two-hander category is that I prefer the two-handed category to be reserved for weapons like the Zweihander. *looks at generic rules again* Although, you could get a Zweihander by just make a sword with the Two-Handed and Heavy tags.
*scratches chin, deep in thought*

[JohnDaBarr]

I would like to point out that there is no weapon that has the ability to deal two types of damage although there are weapons that should go in that category on the PHB weapon list.

Weapons like the Morningstar where always used by PC's to fill a gap since usually everyone used swords.

[Morty]

That makes sense, but again - 5e rules as they are now don't really allow for such granularity as the distinction between something we'd call a proper great sword and a longsword. And part of the point of generic rules is to let players tie mechanics they want to weapon descriptions they want while stripping the illusion of simulation.

[Theodoxus]

That makes sense, but again - 5e rules as they are now don't really allow for such granularity as the distinction between something we'd call a proper great sword and a longsword. And part of the point of generic rules is to let players tie mechanics they want to weapon descriptions they want while stripping the illusion of simulation.

I thought of something...

The falchion. It's a two handed weapon. It should do 1d10, yet it has been portrayed in the past as a 1d8(2d4) weapon. What if we added another category, critical multiplier, at a -1 die cost. The falchion would then do 1d8(2d4), but be x3 damage dice on a crit.

I don't want to do crit ranges, as that steps on (and has weird interaction with) the Champion ability, but multipliers are open season.

Works with the scythe too - if one considers it a heavy two-handed, with two crit multipliers, it would also do a 1d8(2d4) but be x4 crit.


Thoughts?

[Morty]

Given how critical hits seem to work now, weapons with such traits would be a no-brainer for rogues.

[Grynning]

I will point out that really, there should be no real difference between a historical falchion/grosse messer/etc and a longsword, the former just being single edged versions of the latter, since the OP was going for more "historical" weapons. The 3.5 falchion was something they made up to fill a gap on the weapon chart (a two-hander with high crit range).

[ambartanen]

It should do 1d10, yet it has been portrayed in the past as a 1d8(2d4) weapon. What if we added another category, critical multiplier, at a -1 die cost.
2d4 is not equivalent to 1d8. The expected value of 5 is right between a d8s 4.5 and d10s 5.5, it cannot roll a one, has a more normalized damage and is amazing for the Great Weapon Fighting style that rerolls 1s and 2s giving your falchion an average damage of 6 compared to the of the 5.25 of a d8 weapon and the 6.3 of a d10 weapon. Sure, it's not a huge difference but these dice categories are already a small enough difference. Including critical hits, you'd be better off attacking with the falchion than a versatile weapon held in two hands. Of course, maybe you were just suggesting falchions should use a d8 which pretty much negates what I just said :P



I don't want to do crit ranges, as that steps on (and has weird interaction with) the Champion ability, but multipliers are open season...
... for now. Mechanics doing something with them will eventually appear and then interact with these weapons in unexpected ways.



Works with the scythe too - if one considers it a heavy two-handed, with two crit multipliers, it would also do a 1d8(2d4) but be x4 crit.
Automatically making it the best weapon for all Champions? Reroll 1s and 2s on d4 damage dice and 18-20/x4 crit with these amazing dice gives an average weapon damage of 24 on a critical hit. Nothing gamebreaking but still presents a single clear winner where many weapons were equally useful before and now half your fighters are running around with scythes which just looks silly.

In the end though, the difference between weapons are so minor that their effects will hardly ever be felt by the players.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, the 2dx weapons all disproportionately help the champion, for sure. I think the 2d6 Greatsword (and inexplicably die'd Maul) are carry-overs to differentiate between swords, axes and hammers. There's little justification for the 2d6 damage; a greatsword doing 1d12, without the Great Weapon Fighting ability, is over time, statistically the same as 2d6. Marginally better, but not worth nitpicking. If the Greatsword and Maul didn't exist, everyone would gravitate to the Greataxe. I'd be ok with that.

Personally, removing the crit range creates more problems than it solves. It's not like the weapon/damage chart needed updating - this feels like it was change for change's sake. A horrible reason to do anything. But since the Champion is balanced with crit range being taken into consideration, it would be a de-powering of the subclass to grant it to base weapon stats.

What's done is done... just not particularly happy with the end result.

[Morty]

In the end though, the difference between weapons are so minor that their effects will hardly ever be felt by the players.

That's true. 5e does take steps to make weapon dice matter a bit more, but the differences between them still blur the longer you fight and the more attacks you make. The difference between 2d6 and 1d8 will be noticeable... between 1d10 and 1d8, not so much. There's a reason high-crit weapons, whether they had wide ranges or big multipliers, were popular in 3e.

[Yenek]

the best part is that the reason why they folded the metal isn't because it was a superior method or anything, but because they were working with such inferior quality material. they folded it because otherwise their swords would just fall apart.

It was, in fact, a superior method. Which is why they used it to compensate for their inferior quality ore.
Fun fact: the exact same method was used in Syria, to produce weapons superior to all in vicinity. I'm not sure about Scandinavia, they could just have (had) great ore.

[EvilAnagram]

Scandinavia used that method until they developed ways to smelt superior ore. The folding method is only superior when the ore is inferior. It's how you get a good carbon content into the steel.

[KiltieMacPipes]

Doesn't creating slashing finesse weapons defeat the idea of finesse? The idea is that with agility and skill one might use some weapons to thrust in the perfect spot. How would finesse help with slashing, which has more to do with the blades shape, weight, and speed... things handled by strength?

I suspect any eastern style sword fighter would disagree with you, sir, as would knife fighters.

[EvilAnagram]

I suspect any eastern style sword fighter would disagree with you, sir, as would knife fighters.

Again, the point I was making is not that slashing weapons in the real world do not require finesse, but that the role that finesse weapons play in the game relies on people moving behind their enemy's guard to deliver a quick blow into the chink in its armor. Every weapon used by professionals from daggers to Zweihanders required finesse on the part of the wielder, but finesse weapons as a game term are a specific group of weapons.

[Morty]

How would it adversely impact the game if the players were given the option of using a weapon which is identical to a rapier, but deals slashing damage and is called a sabre or side sword?

[Knaight]

How would it adversely impact the game if the players were given the option of using a weapon which is identical to a rapier, but deals slashing damage and is called a sabre or side sword?

It wouldn't, though neither weapon has any more reason to be a finesse weapon than the long sword.

[DrLemniscate]

I would love a Polearm weapon (Poleaxe) which normally deals 1d10 Slashing damage, but can optionally deal 1d8 Bludgeoning or 1d8 Piercing damage.

A Poleaxe with a spike on top and a Hammer behind the Axe-head, but you can't deal quite as much damage when using the other parts.

Also, if we're looking for Finesse weapons, I would love to get a Swordbreaker dagger. Disarm and Sunder attacks aren't present anymore, except disarm as a Fighter Maneuver. So anything would probably need to be baked in. Either using your reaction or one of your attacks.

"If you are wielding this weapon, you can use your reaction against an attack from a bladed weapon (weapon that deals slashing damage?) to attempt to Parry, Disarm, or Sunder it. Make a Strength (Athletics) check against the enemies Strength (Athletics) (can't remember the proper wording. Should be same as shoving.). If you succeed, roll 1d100. On a 1-50, nothing happens. On a 51-75, the attack is parried and you take no damage. On a 76-95, the enemy is disarmed and drops that weapon. On a 96-100, the weapon is sundered and can no longer be used."

Probably way way too complicated for it to work. Maybe include a clause about not working against natural weapons ("bladed weapons" should exclude them, but might not be well defined."). Sundering the weapon may still be too powerful, so maybe downgrade the damage dice one step? 1d12 -> 1d10. But then they still have all their modifiers, and downgrading from 2d6 or other multiples may be too vague.

[Morty]

It wouldn't, though neither weapon has any more reason to be a finesse weapon than the long sword.

Probably, but if we don't want to completely rewrite the way weapons work in 5e, expanding the finesse tag to more weapons is the best we can do.