Weapon Damage Logic: How to Homebrew and Why Some Weapons are Trap Options

[Easy_Lee]

In a different thread, I conceived of a system for predicting weapon damage based on its features. This post expands on that system, and I hope potential homebrewers and houserulers can find some value in the system. I checked to be sure that most of the weapon table conforms. Unfortunately, there are some outliers to the system. There's not much I can do about that since the weapons table is not perfect.

The system is only concerned with game balance. It does not consider what a given weapon is actually capable of in the real world.

The Assumptions:

For the sake of balance and consistency, weapon damage should use a formula. Applying the weapon damage you think the weapon should have based on logic is a poor practice from a gamist perspective
Combinations of features do not increase the value of the feature. A weapon with both finesse and reach is not more powerful than the combination of those features
The people who designed the weapons table made some mistakes with weapons whose damage should be higher or which, in one case, should be considered martial

The System:
Start with 1d10, adjust up or down by 1d2 for each boon or drawback.

This system assumes that all boons and drawbacks are equal, except for ammunition and the lance effect which are worth double. Any given boon may help one build but not another, so I see this as relatively balanced.

The following are boons:

Simple - usable by non-martial characters
Light - Can dual wield without feat, one hand only
Finesse - Use DEX or STR for attack and damage
Thrown - Has a thrown range
Reach - Attack from 10 feet
Ammunition (special, double boon) - particularly powerful as it adds exceptionally long range

And the following are drawbacks:

Loading - can only do one attack per turn with this weapon unless feated, ammunition weapons only
Two handed - have to use both hands to attack, no casting (without feat) or holding shields with the other hand
The lance effect - two handed while not mounted and disadvantage on attacks made within 5' (special, double drawback, does not stack with two handed) - particularly debilitating since it requires a mount and imposes disadvantage on many attacks

And the following are neither:

Versatile: not really a benefit since duelist and dual wield will both increase damage a lot more. This is more flavor than anything.
Heavy: not a benefit for the weapon so much as a penalty for being small. Small characters don't weigh as much, can fit in smaller places, and are adorable, so they can't use large weapons. This is a holdover from 3.5 and is not particularly balanced this edition, but whatever. It's easy to fix by homebrewing weapons with finesse instead of heavy and 1d2 less damage die.

Finally, some special rules:

One handed weapons cannot exceed 1d8, or 1d6 for simple, unless they have the double drawback
Two handed weapons that are 1d12 may be 2d6 instead (optional), but cannot exceed 2d6. 2d6 is better except in certain cases (halforc)


Some examples:

Longsword/battleaxe/warhammer: 1d10, rule#1 lowers to 1d8 (1d10 versatile).
Flail/War pick/morningstar: as above but no versatile
Rapier: 1d10 - finesse = 1d8
Quarterstaff: 1d10 - simple = 1d8, rule#1 lowers to 1d6 (1d8)
Scimitar: 1d10 - light - finesse = 1d6
Halberd: 1d10 - reach + two handed = 1d10
Lance: 1d10 - reach + the lance effect = 1d12
Shortbow: 1d10 - simple - ammunition + two handed = 1d6
Heavy Crossbow: 1d10 - ammunition + two handed + loading = 1d10

The system is not perfect. Below I've listed the outliers I spotted on the weapons table:

Dagger: 1d10 - light - simple - finesse - thrown = 1d2 1d4, it's basically a martial weapon that anyone can use, thieves love it for a reason
Greatclub: 1d10 - simple + two handed = 1d10 1d8
Whip: 1d10 - finesse - reach = 1d6 1d4
Sickle: 1d10 - simple - light = 1d6 1d4
Trident: 1d10 - thrown = 1d8 1d6
Blowgun: 1d10 - ammunition + loading = 1d8 1. Seriously, wtf? I think you used to be able to apply poison as part of the attack but I don't see that in the PHB, correct me if I'm missing it

From this list, we can see that the outliers (besides dagger) really ought to have higher damage based on their features. A trident is identical to a spear, even though spears are simple. The whip ought to have the light feature, higher damage, or something special for whips. The sickle sucks unless a monk is using it. The greatclub is inferior to the quarterstaff in every way (identical damage, higher price and weight, no one handed option). The blowgun blows. If you want to houserule any of the weak outliers to be better or have additional features, you are completely justified.

Using this system, it's easy to create homebrew weapons. Want to make a lance for the little guys? Add finesse and lower the damage to 1d10. Want to make a more powerful scimitar? Just take away light and raise its damage to 1d8. Want to make a dart-chucker used by a gnome militia which they hold in one hand while riding dogs? 1d10 - ammunition + the lance effect = 1d10. The cutest little polearm: 1d8 reach finesse.

I'd love to hear feedback on the system. I hope it helps homebrewers and houserulers make decisions.

[Strill]

Longsword/battleaxe/warhammer: 1d10, rule#1 lowers to 1d8 (1d10 versatile).Logically no one should ever use this weapon when they could instead use a 1d8, versatile, reach weapon.

[Easy_Lee]

Logically no one should ever use this weapon when they could instead use a 1d8, versatile, reach weapon.

Or a 1d8 finesse weapon. Either longswords aren't as good as they should be or finesse ought to be a free weapon property. Really, though, without polearm master, attacking from reach doesn't add all that much benefit to the character. It makes it a little easier to avoid opportunity attacks, except from enemies with reach (which is a lot of them), but that's about it. It makes it easier to get your own opportunity attacks in some cases, and harder in others due to the larger "safe" area around you. It's not as great as many think.

[Sartharina]

I'd say it's longswords/battleaxes/warhammers not being as good as they should be.

[Easy_Lee]

I'd say it's longswords/battleaxes/warhammers not being as good as they should be.

I agree. They should have been 2d4 or had some extra benefit, IMO.

[Sartharina]

I was thinking d10, like the broadsword/battleaxe/warhammer were in 4e.

[Easy_Lee]

I was thinking d10, like the broadsword/battleaxe/warhammer were in 4e.

That pushes their average damage with duelist over a greasword (7.5 vs. 7). Duelist with 2d4 has an average damage of 7, and doesn't benefit from great weapon fighting style, so it's a bit more balanced. As is, anyone using sword n board is pretty much required to use a rapier if they want to optimize, since DEX > STR.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Shouldn't the clever thing for whips be indiana jones shenanigans? You don't really need special rules for that.

[WickerNipple]

Shouldn't the clever thing for whips be indiana jones shenanigans? You don't really need special rules for that.

I'd think you'd specifically need special rules for that.

Regardless: I'm a little confused on the goal here. I feel like we already decided the weapon table is bad and they put little work into it - are you trying to establish a baseline or start over again?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

All you need to do is tell your DM what you want to do and they rule it plausible or not, or what the DC should be.

IMO there's so many ways to use the whip that explicit rules would reduce their useability, not improve it.

[Shadow]

And the following are neither:
Versatile: not really a benefit since duelist and dual wield will both increase damage a lot more. This is more flavor than anything.

Versatile is absolutely a benefit. It raises the damage type when used two handed and allows rerolls of 1s and 2s with great weapon style. Or it allows the use of shield/casting/TWFing. It's called "versatile" because that's exactly what it is, and that's certainly a benefit.

[Hytheter]

Versatile is absolutely a benefit. It raises the damage type when used two handed and allows rerolls of 1s and 2s with great weapon style. Or it allows the use of shield/casting/TWFing. It's called "versatile" because that's exactly what it is, and that's certainly a benefit.

I don't think it's a benefit that would justify dropping the damage dice though.

[Shadow]

I don't think it's a benefit that would justify dropping the damage dice though.

Every single versatile weapon suffers from "rule #1" though, so apparently the designers thought that it should (had they used this formula).

Anyway, I disagree.
Being able to use a single weapon for literally any situation or fighting style imaginable could easily justfy a lowered damage die, especially when you take into account that using it a certain way gives that higher die right back to you.

When you use it two handed it doesn't drop that damage die. When you use it one handed it does. So its base damage absolutely should drop that die, otherwise you end up with its versatile damage doing more damage than the table suggests, and it becomes one of the outliers.
Following this line of thought, the trident is right where it should be, and the other versatile weapons are as well, even without the need for "rule #1."

[Mandrake]

Nice ideas, OP.

Two comments:
Tridents are a niche weapon mostly used for underwater stuff, and rarely seen anywhere else. Underwater, though, you can tell why it is lowered by a d2.
I'm not sure finesse should be used as a boon. It only means you can use some other stat, but since a single weapon is wielded by a single character, you still need some stat. In other words, I would count for example Rapier as pure Rule #1.

Eh, I'm not sure about that, though. Anyway, even if you consider some minor changes in your system like the ones I suggest (which I think might be bad), you still get a flawed table. Also, I think that's what they were aiming for, just like with the Armor table.
Don't wield a bad weapon, if you know what you're doing, just like you wouldn't wield a chair and expect to be effective. If you take out specific strange weapons from your system: the purposefully all-mighty dagger, and the weird trident, blowgun, whip and sickle, you get a pretty much evened thing. And I don't think anyone expects a sickle to be a warrior's choice.:smallwink:

[Suichimo]

I'm not sure finesse should be used as a boon. It only means you can use some other stat, but since a single weapon is wielded by a single character, you still need some stat. In other words, I would count for example Rapier as pure Rule #1.

Being able to, almost completely, eliminate a stat isn't a boon? I say almost because you still need to carry stuff, although you still have a carrying capacity of 120lbs with 8 STR. Functionally, Finesse is the strongest ability a weapon could have.

[Mandrake]

Being able to, almost completely, eliminate a stat isn't a boon? I say almost because you still need to carry stuff, although you still have a carrying capacity of 120lbs with 8 STR. Functionally, Finesse is the strongest ability a weapon could have.

Not eliminate, replace. You still need Dexterity.
But still, I said it might be a bad idea. What bothers me more is that the outliers are actual outliers "in real life" (take this with a grain of salt) and are meant to be different than the usual.

[Dhavaer]

Not eliminate, replace. You still need Dexterity.
But still, I said it might be a bad idea. What bothers me more is that the outliers are actual outliers "in real life" (take this with a grain of salt) and are meant to be different than the usual.

Unless you're a heavy armour user, though, you need Dexterity anyway. You don't need Strength at all if you've got a finesse weapon.

[Hytheter]

Anyway, I disagree.
Being able to use a single weapon for literally any situation or fighting style imaginable could easily justfy a lowered damage die, especially when you take into account that using it a certain way gives that higher die right back to you.


But how many characters are going to be using both styles? Most will be using either a two handed weapon, in which case a Greatsword is better, OR sword and board/dual wielding, in which case you're no better off than with any other weapon.

[Mandrake]

Unless you're a heavy armour user, though, you need Dexterity anyway. You don't need Strength at all if you've got a finesse weapon.

But what if I am, like most Fighters and Paladins are? Even if I am a Ranger or Barbarian or Rogue, even then, my Dexterity bonus is maxed at +3, unless I invest more into it, taking some feats and so on. Anyway, it's just one stat or another: Strength and carrying armor or Dexterity and being dodgy. You still need one stat.

Nevertheless, I agree it might be a boon. The sole issue is that in my opinion the table is ok, because some weapons are meant to be used in a specific, unique way (trident, whip), and some are simply not good weapons (sickle). It is not a trap option it is a bad option, so don't opt for it, if you have a choice. The same way some armors are bad, and the same way you yourself would probably take a sword from the armory instead of a sickle if you had to pick one weapon to fight.

[Shadow]

But how many characters are going to be using both styles? Most will be using either a two handed weapon, in which case a Greatsword is better, OR sword and board/dual wielding, in which case you're no better off than with any other weapon.

Who's going to use both styles? Oh, I dunno.... everybody?
Try to swing a greatsword while you're climbing or holding something. You can't do it. But you can still swing your longsword/spear/qstaff/, and when you're not holding something else you're free to swing away with a higher damage die.
There are plenty of situations where the versatile property can be amazingly useful, where you normally swing it two handed but in certain situations it literally makes the difference between you getting an attack or not.
And you don't have to carry an arsenal to make it happen.

Just because it isn't the optimal choice doesn't make it useless. It offers choices because its.... versatile. And versatility is valuable.


The sole issue is that in my opinion the table is ok, because some weapons are meant to be used in a specific, unique way (trident, whip), and some are simply not good weapons (sickle). It is not a [I]trap option it is a bad option, so don't opt for it, if you have a choice. The same way some armors are bad, and the same way you yourself would probably take a sword from the armory instead of a sickle if you had to pick one weapon to fight.

Those weapons and armors are almost invariably either thematic or not intended for PC use.
Take the sickle, or padded armor, for example. The sickle is thematic for a monk or a druid.
Padded and sickels are what farmers would have easy access to, and so they need stats. Not for PCs, but for NPCs, genarally speaking.

[Hytheter]

some weapons are meant to be used in a specific, unique way (trident, whip)

What "unique, specific" way is the trident meant to be used in, exactly?

The whip will always have "only one handed reach weapon" in its favour, with finesse to boot, but Trident is still "literally a spear except fewer classes are proficient with it"

[Suichimo]

Not eliminate, replace. You still need Dexterity.
But still, I said it might be a bad idea. What bothers me more is that the outliers are actual outliers "in real life" (take this with a grain of salt) and are meant to be different than the usual.

Almost completely. Assuming you meant Strength when you said Dexterity, you need Strength for very little with a Finesse weapon. You need it for carrying capacity, Strength saves, and Athletics. Carrying capacity is extremely generous at 15lbs per point of Strength, Strength saves aren't all that common, and Athletics can be replaced with common sense and/or magic.


But what if I am, like most Fighters and Paladins are? Even if I am a Ranger or Barbarian or Rogue, even then, my Dexterity bonus is maxed at +3, unless I invest more into it, taking some feats and so on. Anyway, it's just one stat or another: Strength and carrying armor or Dexterity and being dodgy. You still need one stat.

If you do wear heavy armor you still need Dexterity for initiative, Dexterity saves, Dexterity skills, and Ranged attacks. Everyone wants initiative, Dexterity saves are extremely common(the most common if history holds true), the skills aren't that important and you're heavily penalized on one anyway, and bows/crossbows are the only decent ranged weapons.

Admittedly, Paladins can largely ignore Dexterity saves, but the rest are real problems. Especially having to use thrown weapons, which may as well be called melee at a distance, for range as they are worthless after a MAX of 30' and do LESS damage than the Dex based bows.

Finesse moves a character towards SAD, and that is a very, very powerful ability.

[Rallicus]

Why don't homebrewers ever take into account the good rollers vs the bad, as well as the plethora of other variables that can change how good something is?

I love the idea of homebrewing original content. But I truly dislike and am baffled by the "fixing" of what is perceived as broken and imbalanced. I don't understand the logic behind this post ("every weapon you choose should be equal!"). Why? Because a player shouldn't be punished (meager though it may be) for using an inferior weapon? Because theoretically a weapon is inferior because it involves rolling a smaller dice?

Somebody explain this to me. :smallsigh:

(And yes, this is the reason I stay away from the homebrew section.)

[hachface]

Why don't homebrewers ever take into account the good rollers vs the bad, as well as the plethora of other variables that can change how good something is?

I love the idea of homebrewing original content. But I truly dislike and am baffled by the "fixing" of what is perceived as broken and imbalanced. I don't understand the logic behind this post ("every weapon you choose should be equal!"). Why? Because a player shouldn't be punished (meager though it may be) for using an inferior weapon? Because theoretically a weapon is inferior because it involves rolling a smaller dice?

Somebody explain this to me. :smallsigh:

(And yes, this is the reason I stay away from the homebrew section.)

Every time I hear someone claim to be either a "bad roller" or "good roller" I want to follow them around with a clipboard and record every dice roll they make for a year. If they really are affecting the probability of dice rolls by their very presence I can take him or her to the James Randi foundation and we can split a cool million dollars, because this person has a certifiable paranormal ability.

[Ursus the Grim]

Why don't homebrewers ever take into account the good rollers vs the bad, as well as the plethora of other variables that can change how good something is?

I love the idea of homebrewing original content. But I truly dislike and am baffled by the "fixing" of what is perceived as broken and imbalanced. I don't understand the logic behind this post ("every weapon you choose should be equal!"). Why? Because a player shouldn't be punished (meager though it may be) for using an inferior weapon? Because theoretically a weapon is inferior because it involves rolling a smaller dice?

Somebody explain this to me. :smallsigh:
(And yes, this is the reason I stay away from the homebrew section.)

Because not everyone is a min-maxer. People fix things so that there are more viable options. How is "don't fix the sickle because its a crap weapon" any different than "don't fix the 3e Fighter, because bad players should be penalized for picking it."

As for point one? How do you take into account the 'good rollers' or the 'variables' when, well, you can't? You can't take into account a 'good roller' (which is, btw, somewhat of a contradiction in terms) when you're calculating statistical differences.

[Theodoxus]

I don't know what thread you're talking about OP, but your analysis of the weapon chart (and those who apparently agree that it's haphazard) is wrong.

The chart is based on two separate bases; simple and melee weapons.

Simple weapons are base 1d6, melee are base 1d8 - the only exception is that weapons requiring ammunition are base 1d6 regardless.

There are six modifiers to weapon damage and 2 that set the damage amount (ammunition, already discussed and versatile 1d6(1d8) for simple, 1d8(1d10) for melee).

Heavy, Increased cost, Loading and Two-handed (melee only) are all +1 die
Decreased cost and Light are all -1 die.
Used on Horseback is a +2 die (only applicable to Lance, currently).

Finesse, Reach and Thrown do not modify the damage die in any way.

The weapon chart is actually quite elegant, if lacking is some basic damage type combinations (and the OP two-handed finesse weapon).

[Easy_Lee]

Would just like to mention that neither the spear nor trident suffer penalties for underwater combat (PHB198). Tridents otherwise weigh more, cost more, and are martial, while spears are simple and are one of the cheapest weapons. So the niche of tridents is limited only to wanting one or finding a magical one.

[Strill]

Who's going to use both styles? Oh, I dunno.... everybody?
Try to swing a greatsword while you're climbing or holding something. You can't do it. But you can still swing your longsword/spear/qstaff/[insert-versatile-weapon-here], and when you're not holding something else you're free to swing away with a higher damage die.
There are plenty of situations where the versatile property can be amazingly useful, where you normally swing it two handed but in certain situations it literally makes the difference between you getting an attack or not.
And you don't have to carry an arsenal to make it happen.

Just because it isn't the optimal choice doesn't make it useless. It offers choices because its.... versatile. And versatility is valuable.

If you have the Dueling Fighting Style, you actually LOSE damage from using a Versatile weapon two-handed.

How in the world could it be the difference between getting an attack or not? Your hit chance should be the same either way.

[Easy_Lee]

If you have the Dueling Fighting Style, you actually LOSE damage from using a Versatile weapon two-handed.

How in the world could it be the difference between getting an attack or not? Your hit chance should be the same either way.

Right, duelest pushes 1D8 damage up to equivalent average damage as a 1D12. That's probably the eentire reason why we don't see any one handed weapons with higher than 1D8, save lances.

[MrUberGr]

How would you homebrew a Double Weapon, double sword for instance? 1d8 on both sides, any special properties? In 3.5e it would crit on a 19-20, while in 4e it would add +1 to your AC.

P.S. is there any chance of official "exotic" weapons any time soon?

[Easy_Lee]

How would you homebrew a Double Weapon, double sword for instance? 1d8 on both sides, any special properties? In 3.5e it would crit on a 19-20, while in 4e it would add +1 to your AC.

P.S. is there any chance of official "exotic" weapons any time soon?

I think that's handled by the polearm master feat, swinging the other end as a bonus action. Either way, I would just say you can swing either side for your attack, and either put different damage types or enchants on each side. Would have to be limited to 1D8, and count as a one handed martial weapon for the purpose of assigning boons.

[Shadow]

If you have the Dueling Fighting Style, you actually LOSE damage from using a Versatile weapon two-handed.

How in the world could it be the difference between getting an attack or not? Your hit chance should be the same either way.

He didn't ask who was going to "take" both syles, he asked who was going to "use" both styles.
Amd if you're carrying something or holding something and you have a greatsword, no attacks for you unless you drop/let go of that something, which may not be an option.

At this point I think you're arguing with me for the sake of arguiing with me.

[MrUberGr]

I think that's handled by the polearm master feat, swinging the other end as a bonus action. Either way, I would just say you can swing either side for your attack, and either put different damage types or enchants on each side. Would have to be limited to 1D8, and count as a one handed martial weapon for the purpose of assigning boons.

I think it would be just as if you're weilding 2 weapons, but together. Meaning it would be under dual weilding for the purpose of feats etc. The reason I'm asking is that technically you could use it as a pact blade, adding STR+CHA to both sides, something you can't do when you're just using two longswords. Plus...:

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140421143551/starwars/images/1/1a/Darth_Maul_lightsaber_reveal.png

p.s. dunno if it could be a finesse as well?

[Easy_Lee]

I think it would be just as if you're weilding 2 weapons, but together. Meaning it would be under dual weilding for the purpose of feats etc. The reason I'm asking is that technically you could use it as a pact blade, adding STR+CHA to both sides, something you can't do when you're just using two longswords. Plus...:

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140421143551/starwars/images/1/1a/Darth_Maul_lightsaber_reveal.png

p.s. dunno if it could be a finesse as well?

Going off of rapier being 1D8 and finesse, should be.

[Shadow]

Going off of rapier being 1D8 and finesse, should be.

Rapier being 1d8 is the exception, not the rule.
None of your "rules" or "boons" accounts for the fact that both finesse and light weapons are 1d6 max.
The raiper is the sole exception. It was offered as a 1d8 weapon choice for rogues to sneak attack with.
This is the exact reason that it is not considered a light weapon, because it is more powerful than any other finesse weapon and wasn't intened to be dual wielded for balance purposes.
We'll ignore whether dual wielding actually *is* balanced or not, because that was the intention of the rapier.
It is the only finesse weapon which is not light, and it is the exception to the rule. It was designed that way on purpose.

The only ones that can use a finesse weapon as a double weapon are low level monk dips with polearm master using a qstaff.... and that's only 1d8 using versatile, and it's only finesse because of a unique class feature, and the other end only gets a 1d4 (or a 1d6 if it was a little more than a small dip in monk & you read the rules loosely with an unintended interpretation).

So no, you should not be going off of rapier being 1d8, and no, you should not have a double finesse weapon by default that deals 1d8.
A 1d8 double finesse weapon? That would literally be the most powerful weapon in the game for most characters.

[Easy_Lee]

A 1d8 double finesse weapon? That would literally be the most powerful weapon in the game for most characters.

If we treated it as a non-light weapon and required the dual wielder feat to get the extra attack, it would be literally identical to using two rapiers. It's basically fluff.

Also, unless you're secretly a WoTC writer, your assumptions about the writers' motives are no better than any of ours. Just because the rapier is the only finessable D8 doesn't mean an identical weapon with a different damage type wouldn't be equally balanced.

[Shadow]

If we treated it as a non-light weapon and required the dual wielder feat to get the extra attack, it would be literally identical to using two rapier. It's basically fluff.

In that case your answer to his question should still be No, because you aren't creating a double weapon any longer, and that was the request.

[Easy_Lee]

In that case your answer to his question should still be No, because you aren't creating a double weapon any longer, and that was the request.

The point of his post was making a weapon that counted as a single pact weapon for a warlock but acted like dual wielding. I don't see anything wrong with that, and my response offers an option consistent with the rules for current weapons.

[Geoff]

Every single versatile weapon suffers from "rule #1" though, so apparently the designers thought that it should (had they used this formula).

Being able to use a single weapon for literally any situation or fighting style imaginable could easily justfy a lowered damage die, especially when you take into account that using it a certain way gives that higher die right back to you. If fluidly switching among multiple fighting styles were a good tactic for any class, at all, that'd be very true. Is there any such class, though? Don't the classes for whom a melee weapon is their optimal choice also tend to specialize in a fighting style? Fighters with Combat Style, for instance.

[Easy_Lee]

If fluidly switching among multiple fighting styles were a good tactic for any class, at all, that'd be very true. Is there any such class, though? Don't the classes for whom a melee weapon is their optimal choice also tend to specialize in a fighting style? Fighters with Combat Style, for instance.

That was my reasoning. If we count versatile as a feature, then weapons like morningstars become trap options as well. I was trying to limit the number of trap options already on the weapons table.

[Mandrake]

That was my reasoning. If we count versatile as a feature, then weapons like morningstars become trap options as well. I was trying to limit the number of trap options already on the weapons table.

Still, I just want to point out that these are not trap options, but bad options. A trap option, IMO, is when something looks inviting, but is actually quite bad. There is nothing alluring about fighting with a sickle, if you can get a longsword. And no, it's not the same as saying that Fighter is a bad class so don't pick it; a class is much more important and long-lasting than a weapon. Also, a class you might get into a situation where you use whatever weapon you can get your hands on, while you don't have a situation in which you use whatever class you can.

One more thing that I would like to ask, since this is a productive discussion: what's your opinion on damage types? For example, rapier does piercing damage (if I'm not wrong). Didn't check the MM yet, could it be that maybe monsters are usually not resistant to slashing or bludgeoning damage?

[Easy_Lee]

Still, I just want to point out that these are not trap options, but bad options.

One more thing that I would like to ask, since this is a productive discussion: what's your opinion on damage types? For example, rapier does piercing damage (if I'm not wrong). Didn't check the MM yet, could it be that maybe monsters are usually not resistant to slashing or bludgeoning damage?

Fair point about the rhetoric. Regarding types, mundane types seem to all be equally valuable. In 3.5, bludgeoning and slashing were best, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Most things with resistance to mundane have resistance to all weapon types. In the least, the weapons table seems to value them evenly, save the dagger being a bit boon-heavy for its damage. So I'd say benefits are situational enough to be considered equal.

[Hytheter]

It is the only finesse weapon which is not light

Don't forget the whip!

Also, the dart, though that's a ranged weapon so I don't think it can be light.

[MaxWilson]

If fluidly switching among multiple fighting styles were a good tactic for any class, at all, that'd be very true. Is there any such class, though? Don't the classes for whom a melee weapon is their optimal choice also tend to specialize in a fighting style? Fighters with Combat Style, for instance.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it sure does pay off to have a 5' option, a reach option, and a ranged option. Otherwise you run the risk of not being able to contribute to certain tactical situations.


Most things with resistance to mundane have resistance to all weapon types.

The only thing I can think of that has resistance to only one damage type is a Fiend Warlock using his resistance ability that he changes every short rest. He will probably take resistance to whatever damage type is most common for the monsters he's fighting, in which case it is valuable to have them not be homogenous. E.g. some skeletons with maces and others with pikes. Of course, skeletons aren't usually smart enough to switch up their weapons.

[Theodoxus]

Fsave the dagger being a bit boon-heavy for its damage

/facepalm It's really not - you've based your entire supposition on incorrect analysis of the data. Daggers are just as internally consistent as the rest of the chart.

Sickle's are the the cheapest slashing weapon you can buy. Hand axes are inordinately expensive for being a simple weapon, hence why they get a boost to damage. The sickle is perfectly fine as a weapon choice. It's only when you're dealing with unlimited resources and nit picking the weapon chart to obtain maximal damage potential that it comes out substandard.

[Easy_Lee]

/facepalm It's really not - you've based your entire supposition on incorrect analysis of the data. Daggers are just as internally consistent as the rest of the chart.

Sickle's are the the cheapest slashing weapon you can buy. Hand axes are inordinately expensive for being a simple weapon, hence why they get a boost to damage. The sickle is perfectly fine as a weapon choice. It's only when you're dealing with unlimited resources and nit picking the weapon chart to obtain maximal damage potential that it comes out substandard.

The costs of individual weapons are not a valid reason for increasing the weapon's power. Furthermore, if we take cost into consideration, we find that the weapons table has even more problems. For instance, the spear and trident have the same stats, but the trident weighs and costs more.

Any way in which you can try to argue that the weapons table is consistent and balanced, I can shoot down. There is no single metric by which the weapons table is balanced. I merely found an equation which fits most of it and which I find useful from a gamist perspective.

[Shadow]

Don't forget the whip!

Also, the dart, though that's a ranged weapon so I don't think it can be light.

The whip is a flavor weapon and nothing more. It doesn't count.

[Theodoxus]

The costs of individual weapons are not a valid reason for increasing the weapon's power. Furthermore, if we take cost into consideration, we find that the weapons table has even more problems. For instance, the spear and trident have the same stats, but the trident weighs and costs more.

Any way in which you can try to argue that the weapons table is consistent and balanced, I can shoot down. There is no single metric by which the weapons table is balanced. I merely found an equation which fits most of it and which I find useful from a gamist perspective.

Cost certainly is a basis for more damage. I presented my entire analysis on the first page - and in a previous thread. You didn't shoot down any of it. Stomping your foot and crying foul doesn't cut it.

The metric is quite elegant and works for any weapon you'd wish to create. But whatevs - it's your game, your rules.

[Easy_Lee]

Cost certainly is a basis for more damage...Stomping your foot and crying foul doesn't cut it.

The metric is quite elegant and works for any weapon you'd wish to create. But whatevs - it's your game, your rules.

Where to begin...

Firstly, don't insult me.

Second, cost as a metric for weapon damage is in no way elegant nor supported by the table. If we assume it should be, then the quarterstaff is broken because it's dirt-cheap and deals the same damage as the great club, plus having additional options.

Many weapons on the weapons table have identical stats and different costs, such as spears and tridents. This fact alone proves that weapon cost is not tied to damage.

Players are allowed to start with a wide variety of weapons with varying costs. Furthermore, the text allowing fighters to start with "one martial weapon and a shield or two martial weapons", etc, further demonstrates that weapon cost is not tied to its usefulness or effectiveness. If that were the case, players would only be able to start with specific weapons.

Finally, if more valuable weapons are automatically better, then the scimitar is superior to the shortsword (it's not), and the hand crossbow is superior to everything (it's not, either).

Suggesting weapon cost is tied to effectiveness produces a world where everyone uses the same weapons as soon as they can afford them. Since that was obviously not the designers' intent, we can dismiss the notion as absurd.

[Sartharina]

If fluidly switching among multiple fighting styles were a good tactic for any class, at all, that'd be very true. Is there any such class, though? Don't the classes for whom a melee weapon is their optimal choice also tend to specialize in a fighting style? Fighters with Combat Style, for instance.But they excel even when not specializing. They're well-rounded specialists.

[IAmTehDave]

Many weapons on the weapons table have identical stats and different costs, such as spears and tridents. This fact alone proves that weapon cost is not tied to damage.
But it could very well be tied to quality: The trident is a very different weapon than the spear: one is a metal rod with 3 spikes at one end, the other is a smooth, straight wooden stick with a metal or stone spike at the tip. Trident is heavier, and more durable (harder to cut through the metal haft of a Trident than the wooden one of a spear)


Players are allowed to start with a wide variety of weapons with varying costs. Furthermore, the text allowing fighters to start with "one martial weapon and a shield or two martial weapons", etc, further demonstrates that weapon cost is not tied to its usefulness or effectiveness. If that were the case, players would only be able to start with specific weapons.
Or the game wants players to start with whatever weapons they want to use to start with. Starting wealth in 5e is much more loose than in, say, 3.x


Finally, if more valuable weapons are automatically better, then the scimitar is superior to the shortsword (it's not), and the hand crossbow is superior to everything (it's not, either).
Two very different swords (note the scimitar is slashing) with very different crafting requirements.
The hand crossbow is the only dual-wieldable ranged (not thrown) weapon. With the crossbow master feat you can effectively dual-wield ranged attacks. (Whether this would actually work in reality is a question we will output to /dev/null)


Suggesting weapon cost is tied to effectiveness produces a world where everyone uses the same weapons as soon as they can afford them. Since that was obviously not the designers' intent, we can dismiss the notion as absurd.
Not sure how obvious the intent was, but the cost is definitely not something you should dismiss in looking over the weapons. It's sure not dismissed in looking at armor (I'm looking at you, full plate!)

[Easy_Lee]

Not sure how obvious the intent was, but the cost is definitely not something you should dismiss in looking over the weapons. It's sure not dismissed in looking at armor (I'm looking at you, full plate!)

The cost was assigned based on the writers' opinions on how expensive each weapon or armor would be in the real world. For armor, more cost = more AC. But even a cursory glance at the weapons table will show numerous instances where cost and effectiveness have nothing to do with each other. Case in point, the sling has higher damage and lower cost than the blowgun.

So no, cost is not tied to damage. Suggesting it is both confuses players and ignores the entire weapons table. I don't see how that is even the slightest bit productive towards playing a balanced, interesting game.

[Shadow]

Case in point, the sling has higher damage and lower cost than the blowgun.

A sling is a piece of cloth that throws a stone at your head.
A blowgun is a long piece of wood painstakingly hollowed to allow a dart or needle to shoot out of it.

Cloth = cheaper than labor, materials and time to create blowgun
Stone = hurts more than needle

So yes, a sling costs less and does more damage.

He's saying that you need to take these things into consideration when looking at the weapons properties and overall cost.
You can't just look at what properties a weapon offers and how much damage it does and state that this one should be less expensive than that one.

[Easy_Lee]

A sling is a piece of cloth that throws a stone at your head.
A blowgun is a long piece of wood painstakingly hollowed to allow a dart or needle to shoot out of it.

Cloth = cheaper than labor, materials and time to create blowgun
Stone = hurts more than needle

So yes, a sling costs less and does more damage.

He's saying that you need to take these things into consideration when looking at the weapons properties and overall cost.
You can't just look at what properties a weapon offers and how much damage it does and state that this one should be less expensive than that one.

How did we get to talking about determining weapon cost? I don't care what the cost of a weapon is. It shouldn't affect the damage and the weapons tablet largely agrees with me. This thread is not about how much weapons should cost and, frankly, I don't see how it matters past low levels.

[IAmTehDave]

Case in point, the sling has higher damage and lower cost than the blowgun.
[snip]
{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

A sling and a blowgun are two VERY different weapons, with very different applications. A sling is, as was pointed out, rather cheap and easy to craft (hell, if you really wanted to, you could improvise a workable sling with a strip of the shirt you are presumably wearing right at this second!) and considering the ammunition used, it makes sense that it deals more base damage. (Heavy objects tend to deal more damage)

You can, however, (very, very carefully) put some Black Lotus Extract on the tip of the blowgun dart and poison someone with the same attack.

I do care about game balance, truly I do. I just think that the raw weapon qualities as presented on the weapon table are not the entire story of the given weapons. They might not be explicitly pointed out, but there are other considerations for these weapons. (The Halberd/Glaive thing is pretty stupid, though)

Yes there are issues with the default weapon table, but I doubt they'll ever really have a major enough effect on any game I run or play in to cause myself or the respective DMs to go looking for fixes. Especially when said fixes explicitly ignore non-table properties of the weapons they are trying to "fix".

edit:

How did we get to talking about determining weapon cost? I don't care what the cost of a weapon is. It shouldn't affect the damage and the weapons tablet largely agrees with me. This thread is not about how much weapons should cost and, frankly, I don't see how it matters past low levels.
You were the one who brought it up. And you don't necessarily know how much money PCs are going to have at higher levels. There's no WBL table for D&D 5e, as far as I'm aware of. Your gold-on-hand and mundane equipment might actually matter at higher levels. I posit that this would be a feature, not a bug.

edit edit: To your other point: This thread is about "fixing the weapons table". You are explicitly ignoring part of the way the weapons table works, without giving any reason or at least a cursory nod in that direction. You are also ignoring the fact that none of the weapons in question exist in a vacuum.

[Shadow]

How did we get to talking about determining weapon cost? I don't care what the cost of a weapon is. It shouldn't affect the damage and the weapons tablet largely agrees with me. This thread is not about how much weapons should cost and, frankly, I don't see how it matters past low levels.

"Sickle's are the the cheapest slashing weapon you can buy. Hand axes are inordinately expensive for being a simple weapon, hence why they get a boost to damage."

That's how we got to talking about weapon cost, although his explanation as to why it does more damage is only indirectly related to the cost.
It gets a boost to damage (and to cost) because it takes much more craftsmanship to create a well balanced hatchet than it does to create a simple farm implement for reaping grain.
That craftsmanship is what makes a handaxe better, and thus more expensive.

[Sartharina]

... overall, I think I actually like the table.

[Maxilian]

I really want a character who uses whips... but... THEY ARE SO BAD! It makes me sad!, it doesn't give any real advantage :smallfrown: (I will ask my DM if he would allow me to use "special" actions with the Whip, like grabbing an enemy leg and pull it to make it fall prone, or to strangulate a caster with it to make sure it won't use any spell that need him to talk -and maybe i could make him suffocate-)

Note: Well it would need some restriction like the size and the creature would have to make a saving Throw (something like a grapple)

[Maxilian]

Blowgun: 1d10 - ammunition + loading = 1d8 1. Seriously, wtf? I think you used to be able to apply poison as part of the attack but I don't see that in the PHB, correct me if I'm missing it


You used to be able to apply poison as part of the loading action in the playtest but the damage was also 1 piercing damage (IMO it was still more usefull in the playtest)

[Easy_Lee]

You used to be able to apply poison as part of the loading action in the playtest but the damage was also 1 piercing damage (IMO it was still more usefull in the playtest)

Yeah, 1 piercing is fine when you get to skip the apply poison action. That would let rogues use poison in combat without necessarily losing a round of SA, and would be useful. I'm rather fond of the idea of rogues carrying a weak weapon with poison basically readied.

No idea why they took that away but left the blowgun's damage so low. Perhaps some DMs would still allow it, or would allow rogues to load the ammunition with poison before combat and use it that way.

[Tenmujiin]

How would you homebrew a Double Weapon, double sword for instance? 1d8 on both sides, any special properties? In 3.5e it would crit on a 19-20, while in 4e it would add +1 to your AC.

P.S. is there any chance of official "exotic" weapons any time soon?

A double weapon would count as wielding two of the weapon and is purely a thematic choice.

[Easy_Lee]

A double weapon would count as wielding two of the weapon and is purely a thematic choice.

There's exactly one benefit I can think of: warlocks can count a double weapon as their pact weapon, since they only get one pact blade. It's something I think most DMs would allow.

[Sartharina]

The trident should definitely be a d8 base damage weapon, instead of d6 :smallfrown:

[Demonic Spoon]

The trident should definitely be a d8 base damage weapon, instead of d6 :smallfrown:

The only problem I have with this is that it's would be the only d8 thrown weapon, which would make it blatantly superior to things like axes and javelins as backup weapons for melee characters.

[Easy_Lee]

The only problem I have with this is that it's would be the only d8 thrown weapon, which would make it blatantly superior to things like axes and javelins as backup weapons for melee characters.

That's because it's martial, while the other thrown options are simple (except the net). No one has a problem with maces outdamaging clubs, after all. Fighters get better weapons than commoners.

[Demonic Spoon]

That's because it's martial, while the other thrown options are simple (except the net). No one has a problem with maces outdamaging clubs, after all. Fighters get better weapons than commoners.


Yup, and that crunch makes sense. It further makes sense that a seasoned warrior would use a battleaxe over a handaxe, or a greatsword over a big stick. A trident over a throwing axe? That's less clear. It seems wonky that the premier throwing weapon is the trident.

[Easy_Lee]

Yup, and that crunch makes sense. It further makes sense that a seasoned warrior would use a battleaxe over a handaxe, or a greatsword over a big stick. A trident over a throwing axe? That's less clear. It seems wonky that the premier throwing weapon is the trident.

Handaxe probably should have a shorter thrown range than trident or javellin, but I don't see much problem. A trident punches up to three holes to increase the likelihood of hitting a vital. It also has its force focused over a smaller area. In the real world, that probably means a trident does more damage than a handaxe. In D&D...just use a handaxe, spear, or javellin and save yourself the money.

[Shadow]

Handaxe probably should have a shorter thrown range than trident or javellin, but I don't see much problem.

Um, no.
I guarantee I can throw a hatchet a heck of a lot further than I can throw a giant, man-sized fork.

[JoeJ]

Handaxe probably should have a shorter thrown range than trident or javellin, but I don't see much problem. A trident punches up to three holes to increase the likelihood of hitting a vital. It also has its force focused over a smaller area. In the real world, that probably means a trident does more damage than a handaxe. In D&D...just use a handaxe, spear, or javellin and save yourself the money.

How common was it in the real world for warriors to use tridents in place of spears?

[Easy_Lee]

How common was it in the real world for warriors to use tridents in place of spears?

Ask a gladiator or fisherman. Trident is more of a single-combat weapon because the barbs don't help much in a line and make it easier to break (also more expensive).

As far as range goes, there are numerous tools and tactics that can be employed when throwing a comparatively aerodynamic pole. These tricks are not available when throwing a not-particularly-aerodynamic axe.

[JoeJ]

Ask a gladiator or fisherman. Trident is more of a single-combat weapon because the barbs don't help much in a line and make it easier to break (also more expensive).

As far as range goes, there are numerous tools and tactics that can be employed when throwing a comparatively aerodynamic pole. These tricks are not available when throwing a not-particularly-aerodynamic axe.

So very much a niche weapon, not one for general combat use.

If you change the game stats to make trident hands down the best thrown weapon then it's going to see a lot more use than it got in our world. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's something to be considered flavor wise.

[Shadow]

As far as range goes, there are numerous tools and tactics that can be employed when throwing a comparatively aerodynamic pole. These tricks are not available when throwing a not-particularly-aerodynamic axe.

Um, no again.
An hatchet is much heavier on one side than the other, which lends itself to the spinning motion you see in a thrown axe.
A trident is also much heavier on one side than the other, but it is not intended to be spun in flight, making it *less* aerodynamic than an axe for throwing purposes.
The blade of an axe cuts through the air during flight.
The tines of a trident simply fall toward the ground during flight.
A trident can be thrown, but not very effectively, thus the shorter range compared to a javelin.

[Sartharina]

Trident has the shortest thrown range, leaving even the d6 weapons favorable to it. It also deals Piercing Damage, which I believe is the most commonly-resisted form of physical damage. Axes can be FAR more aerodynamic than a trident, especially light axes (Which are balanced for throwing).

[Easy_Lee]

I'm going to bow out of the hatchet vs strident discussion because it's obvious some of you have never tried to throw an axe and it doesn't matter anyway.

It doesn't matter because having a martial weapon (exclusive to warriors) with identical stats to a simple weapon (anyone can use) is bad from a game design perspective. The real world has nothing to do with it.

[Morty]

I have a strong suspicion that the participants in this thread alone have put more thought into the weapons table than the people at WotC responsible for it ever have. Looking for rhyme or reason in it is futile because, in all likelihood, there isn't any. It's just thrown together from what the past editions used to have. It could be condensed into a few lines without losing any variety. The Versatile tag is more or less irrelevant, so the only real question is whether the Finesse tag should imply a smaller damage dice.

[Shadow]

The real world has nothing to do with it.

You're the one that brought aerodynamics into it. :smallamused:

[Sartharina]

I'm going to bow out of the hatchet vs strident discussion because it's obvious some of you have never tried to throw an axe and it doesn't matter anyway.What sort of axe do you think we're trying to throw? No, you can't throw a basic civilian hatchet very well, but tomahawks are excellent for throwing, as are several other designs.

[Easy_Lee]

What sort of axe do you think we're trying to throw? No, you can't throw a basic civilian hatchet very well, but tomahawks are excellent for throwing, as are several other designs.

Excellent for throwing, though you won't get as much distance as a javelin, or as much chopping power as an axe designed for hand to hand combat. We'd need a separate entry for tomahawk; my guess would be martial, thrown, 1d6, light, 1d4 if you add finesse.

[Shadow]

my guess would be martial, thrown, 1d6, light

page 149
Handaxe 5 gp 1d6 slashing 2 lb. Light, thrown (range 20/60)
Only difference from what you just described is that it's simple. Because it's a damn hatchet which doesn't need any special military type training to use.

[Easy_Lee]

page 149
Handaxe 5 gp 1d6 slashing 2 lb. Light, thrown (range 20/60)
Only difference from what you just described is that it's simple. Because it's a damn hatchet which doesn't need any special military type training to use.

True, it doesn't take any training whatsoever to throw a hatchet accurately at 20'. What was I thinking?

[Sartharina]

Excellent for throwing, though you won't get as much distance as a javelin, or as much chopping power as an axe designed for hand to hand combat. We'd need a separate entry for tomahawk; my guess would be martial, thrown, 1d6, light, 1d4 if you add finesse.An axe designed for hand-to-hand combat is a Battleaxe. Tomahawks and other light, balanced-for-throwing axes work fine as Light Axes. And no, they don't have the same distance as a javelin - They're 20', while Javelins are half again that. And Tridents are only half that.
True, it doesn't take any training whatsoever to throw a hatchet accurately at 20'. What was I thinking?It takes only light training. No more than using a hatchet in combat. They're pretty damn intuitive to use, and far easier than Darts, Paper Airplanes, or even Javelins.

[Easy_Lee]

No more than using a hatchet in combat. They're pretty damn intuitive to use, and far easier than Darts.

Don't know about you, but I'd have a much easier time learning to wield a trident or fire a longbow than throw an axe. But, again, it does not matter. I'm only concerned with game balance.

[Shadow]

I'm only concerned with game balance.

.... says the person that thinks making a double weapon which deals 1d8 for both sides, with finesse, for use with a warlock pact.... is perfectly okay.

[Sartharina]

Don't know about you, but I'd have a much easier time learning to wield a trident or fire a longbow than throw an axe.
No you wouldn't. Wielding a longbow is deceptively difficult. An axe, meanwhile, is just an extension of your arm and it flies intuitively and precisely with just the mechanics from one arm. I have an easier time throwing an axe accurately than a baseball.

[Easy_Lee]

.... says the person that thinks making a double weapon which deals 1d8 for both sides, with finesse, for use with a warlock pact.... is perfectly okay.

Since it's the same as dual wielding rapiers, yeah, it's balanced. I mean unless you think dual wielding rapiers (which requires a feat, dual wielder, same as the dual weapon) is imbalanced.

The difference is only applicable to warlocks, and the damage different is 5 per round, max. That build still deals considerably less damage than a warlock/sorcerer can deal. So, honestly, what is your point?

[Easy_Lee]

No you wouldn't. Wielding a longbow is deceptively difficult. An axe, meanwhile, is just an extension of your arm and it flies intuitively and precisely with just the mechanics from one arm. I have an easier time throwing an axe accurately than a baseball.

Apparently I got warned for double posting. That's funny.

[Ehcks]

What "unique, specific" way is the trident meant to be used in, exactly?

The whip will always have "only one handed reach weapon" in its favour, with finesse to boot, but Trident is still "literally a spear except fewer classes are proficient with it"

In theory, a trident could catch a weapon between its tines, and the wielder could twist it, dislodging their opponent's weapon. But since the rules don't give tridents an ability to disarm the opponent, the reduced number of proficient classes doesn't make sense.

[Shadow]

So, honestly, what is your point?

My point is that you need to compare it to other weapons, not to a friggin warlock/sorcerer multiclass.
Compare it to any other *single* weapon.
If game balance were actually a concern for you, I wouldn't need to tell you to compare one weapon against another weapon instead of against a dual caster multiclass using cheese to do massive damage and be a one trick pony in order to sustain that damage.

[Regulas]

The weapon rules in D&D have always been vastly oversimplified. A lot of weapons should have specific special rules like Flanged maces ignoring some portion of armour. But this is exactly why they haven't tried to make a more re-pleat system because their is simply too many variations between weapons like much of the debate above shows, that would make it too difficult and undesirably complex, instead they add only rules based on specific pre-existing combat mechanics. Ultimately when I look at the weapon stats they seem more concerned with just letting you pick what you want then anything else.

[Morty]

The weapon rules in D&D have always been vastly oversimplified. A lot of weapons should have specific special rules like Flanged maces ignoring some portion of armour. But this is exactly why they haven't tried to make a more re-pleat system because their is simply too many variations between weapons like much of the debate above shows, that would make it too difficult and undesirably complex, instead they add only rules based on specific pre-existing combat mechanics. Ultimately when I look at the weapon stats they seem more concerned with just letting you pick what you want then anything else.

If that was their goal, the table wouldn't be as long as it is.

[Demonic Spoon]

If that was their goal, the table wouldn't be as long as it is.


No, that's exactly why the table is so long. Long does not equal complex - the options are, intentionally, pretty simple. Long means that people have a lot of choices, even if a lot of those choices are for thematic reasons.

[Suichimo]

The only problem I have with this is that it's would be the only d8 thrown weapon, which would make it blatantly superior to things like axes and javelins as backup weapons for melee characters.

The problem I have is thrown weapons are 95% worthless, you might need to throw one over the world's shortest canyon or at someone in the literal opening round of combat. The max effective range on ANY thrown weapon is 30', that is within walking distance for just about every character, and you have disadvantage against anyone past that.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The problem I have is thrown weapons are 95% worthless, you might need to throw one over the world's shortest canyon or at someone in the literal opening round of combat. The max effective range on ANY thrown weapon is 30', that is within walking distance for just about every character, and you have disadvantage against anyone past that.

I haven't found this to be true at all in my games. Granted, we're still in low levels, but at least once an encounter the cleric or melee fighter will be 40'-60' away from the nearest target, so they'll move 30' and throw a javelin or handaxe so they can get an attack in. Something that sees use in most encounters is clearly not worthless.

[toapat]

Almost completely. Assuming you meant Strength when you said Dexterity, you need Strength for very little with a Finesse weapon. You need it for carrying capacity, Strength saves, and Athletics. Carrying capacity is extremely generous at 15lbs per point of Strength, Strength saves aren't all that common, and Athletics can be replaced with common sense and/or magic.



If you do wear heavy armor you still need Dexterity for initiative, Dexterity saves, Dexterity skills, and Ranged attacks. Everyone wants initiative, Dexterity saves are extremely common(the most common if history holds true), the skills aren't that important and you're heavily penalized on one anyway, and bows/crossbows are the only decent ranged weapons.

Admittedly, Paladins can largely ignore Dexterity saves, but the rest are real problems. Especially having to use thrown weapons, which may as well be called melee at a distance, for range as they are worthless after a MAX of 30' and do LESS damage than the Dex based bows.

Finesse moves a character towards SAD, and that is a very, very powerful ability.

the short list of differences:

Advantages to Str:
Superior melee damage options
Combat Maneuvers use this attribute
Saves are vs more dangerous effects then damage

Advantages to Dexterity:
Initiative
Longbow and Heavy Crossbow outperform Javelins, but only minimally.
Saves are vs Heavy damage effects, most common save type printed.

Were it not for initiative, Dexterity and Str this edition would be perfectly balanced. THe only class which should touch strength is the barbarian. Even paladins benefit more from Dex (Rapier+Board with alternate Longbow)


How would you homebrew a Double Weapon, double sword for instance? 1d8 on both sides, any special properties? In 3.5e it would crit on a 19-20, while in 4e it would add +1 to your AC.

P.S. is there any chance of official "exotic" weapons any time soon?

inflicts the damage on yourself when you hit with it. theres pretty much no point at which Double-weapons dont look stupid in combat and dont carry exorbitant risk to the wielder while fighting. The only exception is Sif in Thor who gets away with it because Goddess

exotic weapons dont exist and wont exist, so for all technicallity, If a paladin comes across an Anti-matter Rifle (the best weapon printed and it does not exist in any canon setting), they are proficient with it.

[Trasilor]

Ask a gladiator or fisherman. Trident is more of a single-combat weapon because the barbs don't help much in a line and make it easier to break (also more expensive).

As far as range goes, there are numerous tools and tactics that can be employed when throwing a comparatively aerodynamic pole. These tricks are not available when throwing a not-particularly-aerodynamic axe.

Or you could ask these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangpa)

[TheTeaMustFlow]

My point is that you need to compare it to other weapons, not to a friggin warlock/sorcerer multiclass.
Compare it to any other *single* weapon.
If game balance were actually a concern for you, I wouldn't need to tell you to compare one weapon against another weapon instead of against a dual caster multiclass using cheese to do massive damage and be a one trick pony in order to sustain that damage.

A single two handed weapon that requires *dual wielding* to use should not be compared to a single weapon. It should be compared to other options for *dual wielding*. And, funnily enough, it appears that this two bladed sword appears to be, in almost all ways, identical to 2 rapiers, the other option for dual wielders. Ways in which it's different: 1) it's good for blade pact warlocks, as mentioned. also eldritch knights (weapon bond), a tiny bit. 2) It'd be slashing, and 3) I'd make it a bit more expensive than two rapiers because it's weird.

Yes, clearly this choice of weapon, which is in and of itself mechanically identical to the generic choice of it's fighting style, is clearly unbalanced. This isn't just one sword. It's two swords, just stuck together for magic reasons.


Or you could ask these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangpa)

Ooh, do they throw them too? :smallbiggrin:

[Trasilor]

]


Ooh, do they throw them too? :smallbiggrin:

I don't think so...they seem to be more like Pikes (non-throwing pointy sticks)...the other end is even pointed and covered in metal.

Honestly, I don't think the trident was ever really used outside the gladiator pits and fishing. :smallamused:

[Suichimo]

I haven't found this to be true at all in my games. Granted, we're still in low levels, but at least once an encounter the cleric or melee fighter will be 40'-60' away from the nearest target, so they'll move 30' and throw a javelin or handaxe so they can get an attack in. Something that sees use in most encounters is clearly not worthless.

I did mention that. You use a javelin, at best, once an encounter under normal circumstances. Also, why is your Cleric not using a cantrip?


the short list of differences:

Advantages to Str:
Superior melee damage options
Combat Maneuvers use this attribute
Saves are vs more dangerous effects then damage

Advantages to Dexterity:
Initiative
Longbow and Heavy Crossbow outperform Javelins, but only minimally.
Saves are vs Heavy damage effects, most common save type printed.

Were it not for initiative, Dexterity and Str this edition would be perfectly balanced. THe only class which should touch strength is the barbarian. Even paladins benefit more from Dex (Rapier+Board with alternate Longbow)

I've gotta disagree with the bolded on the basis of range alone. A longbow's range is literally 5x that of the javelin's. You are accurately attacking enemies outside of the javelin thrower's MAXIMUM distance. Range is immensely powerful.

I've also gotta disagree with "THe only class which should touch strength is the barbarian." Paladins benefit more from Strength than they do Dexterity. Heavy armor, melee-only (improved)smites, and CHA to saves is a huge disincentive to using Dexterity.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I did mention that. You use a javelin, at best, once an encounter under normal circumstances. Also, why is your Cleric not using a cantrip?

Strength score is as high as his wis score, thrown axe adds STR mod to dmg, thrown weapon is vs AC instead of a Dex save in the case of sacred flame.

[Shadow]

Strength score is as high as his wis score, thrown axe adds STR mod to dmg, thrown weapon is vs AC instead of a Dex save in the case of sacred flame.

Yeah, at low-to-mid levels a weapon is almost always a better choice for a cleric. Better accuracy, higher damage, no save.

[toapat]

I've gotta disagree with the bolded on the basis of range alone. A longbow's range is literally 5x that of the javelin's. You are accurately attacking enemies outside of the javelin thrower's MAXIMUM distance. Range is immensely powerful.

I've also gotta disagree with "THe only class which should touch strength is the barbarian." Paladins benefit more from Strength than they do Dexterity. Heavy armor, melee-only (improved)smites, and CHA to saves is a huge disincentive to using Dexterity.

the range for engagement is not a determining factor in terms of the balance of effectiveness.

Rapiers with duelist compete with great-axes for damage. and the only advantage that 2H has is with feats, where paladin doesnt need any more issue with because of absolutely manditory warcaster. Duelist is, by objective measure, better then great weapon fighting because GWF is not even +2 damage on the greatsword, its +1 2/3 damage with the best weapon for it.

Smiting is objectively better the weaker the weapon the attack is made with is, because smiting is adding proportionally more damage the smaller the base weapon. This is the case with most damage rider class features, where the damage is divorced from the weapon.

Defense against combat Maneuvers is based on Strength or Dexterity, and the value of 1 AC is not enough to say dex sucks compared to fullplate. Comparitively Str's only saves are vs immobilization and incapacitation, where as dexterity's are based on ignoring damage, meaning that for raw damage prevention, the loss in 1 ac is more then made up for by the damage reduction. Even after Oath of the Ancients's spell resistance aura which we should only assume 1/3rd of paladins have.

[Suichimo]

the range for engagement is not a determining factor in terms of the balance of effectiveness.

Why not? At the very minimum, flying enemies are fairly common and you're not doing much if you don't have the proper range.


Rapiers with duelist compete with great-axes for damage. and the only advantage that 2H has is with feats, where paladin doesnt need any more issue with because of absolutely manditory warcaster. Duelist is, by objective measure, better then great weapon fighting because GWF is not even +2 damage on the greatsword, its +1 2/3 damage with the best weapon for it.

This assumes your choice of fighting styles is between Duelist and Great Weapon Fighter. There are two other options available, and I personally use Defense.


Smiting is objectively better the weaker the weapon the attack is made with is, because smiting is adding proportionally more damage the smaller the base weapon. This is the case with most damage rider class features, where the damage is divorced from the weapon.

As a proportion, sure. It is still an extra 1d8 damage that every melee weapon is getting.

Also, you don't get to smite with your ranged attacks. Which was my reason for saying that.


Defense against combat Maneuvers is based on Strength or Dexterity, and the value of 1 AC is not enough to say dex sucks compared to fullplate. Comparitively Str's only saves are vs immobilization and incapacitation, where as dexterity's are based on ignoring damage, meaning that for raw damage prevention, the loss in 1 ac is more then made up for by the damage reduction. Even after Oath of the Ancients's spell resistance aura which we should only assume 1/3rd of paladins have.

Never said Dexterity sucks, just that there is a large disincentive to go with it as your primary.

Even without taking the Resilient feat to gain proficiency in Dex saving throws and with a 10 in Dexterity, a Paladin should still have a +5 Dexterity saving throw from its Charisma alone. Paladins are save machines.

[MaxWilson]

the range for engagement is not a determining factor in terms of the balance of effectiveness.

This is a bit of a strawman, if you're claiming that range is the only factor that matters. As the previous poster noted, range is immensely powerful. 600' range may not sound like much in real life (it's Civil War engagement range, practically in shouting distance) but in D&D terms it is huge. You're immune to most spells and ranged attacks, and it will take the enemy 5 to 8 rounds of combat even at constant Dash to even begin to threaten you with javelins or melee weapons.

[toapat]

This is a bit of a strawman, if you're claiming that range is the only factor that matters. As the previous poster noted, range is immensely powerful. 600' range may not sound like much in real life (it's Civil War engagement range, practically in shouting distance) but in D&D terms it is huge. You're immune to most spells and ranged attacks, and it will take the enemy 5 to 8 rounds of combat even at constant Dash to even begin to threaten you with javelins or melee weapons.

and when, exactly, will anyone be fighting at military engagement ranges in a game of DnD where the wizard doesnt have Inflict Divine Baconization? you have disadvantage on any ranged attack to the 4th increment even with sharpshooter.

[MaxWilson]

and when, exactly, will anyone be fighting at military engagement ranges in a game of DnD where the wizard doesnt have Inflict Divine Baconization? you have disadvantage on any ranged attack to the 4th increment even with sharpshooter.

Uh, constantly? 600' isn't modern military engagement range, it is Civil War engagement range: modern soldiers train for 300 yards, which was fine in urban combat in Iraq but is actually too short for Afghanistan; WWI infantrymen were trained to engage at "short range" (0 to 500 yards), "medium range" (500 to 800 yards), and expert shooters were trained to engage at "long range" (800 to 1200 yards). That suffices to prove the point that human optics are capable of distinguishing enemies at that range.

The only reason you'd engage at shorter distances than that is if 1.) you think they might be friendlies, 2.) you can't see them until they get closer (applies mostly at night, in urban combat, or when the enemy is camouflaged/stealthy), 3.) you are incapable of engaging at longer range.

I have no clue what you mean about "Inflict Divine Baconization", nor what you mean by sharpshooters having disadvantage "on the fourth increment", but if you rely on javelins and the other guy relies on longbows I think you'll find that the bacon is you. Sharpshooter is just gravy.

[toapat]

I have no clue what you mean about "Inflict Divine Baconization", nor what you mean by sharpshooters having disadvantage "on the fourth increment", but if you rely on javelins and the other guy relies on longbows I think you'll find that the bacon is you. Sharpshooter is just gravy.

The range of DnD combat is significantly shorter then the range of a longbow, and Inflict Divine baconization is a refference to how in 3rd, the range of a wizard was measured in Miles, not feet.

[MaxWilson]

The range of DnD combat is significantly shorter then the range of a longbow, and Inflict Divine baconization is a refference to how in 3rd, the range of a wizard was measured in Miles, not feet.

Yes, wizard spell ranges have been heavily nerfed in 5E. So yes, fighters now have an advantage over wizards at long range. Care to explain that comment about sharpshooters having disadvantage on the fourth increment? I didn't understand it.

I'd also like to hear your explanation for why "the range of Dnd combat is significantly shorter than the range of a longbow."

[toapat]

Yes, wizard spell ranges have been heavily nerfed in 5E. So yes, fighters now have an advantage over wizards at long range. Care to explain that comment about sharpshooters having disadvantage on the fourth increment? I didn't understand it.

I'd also like to hear your explanation for why "the range of Dnd combat is significantly shorter than the range of a longbow."

1: Not at the book, i thought that weapons had multiple increments, which there isnt.

2: DnD is not a wargame, the books have never built the world to be such beyond what is necessary to the plot. The world is going to look alot like the natural terrain of my home town much more often then anything in Wyoming. Considering that the natural line of sight in northern NJ is not longer then 300' before we cleared out space for buildings, roads, and farms.

[MaxWilson]

1: Not at the book, i thought that weapons had multiple increments, which there isnt.

2: DnD is not a wargame, the books have never built the world to be such beyond what is necessary to the plot. The world is going to look alot like the natural terrain of my home town much more often then anything in Wyoming. Considering that the natural line of sight in northern NJ is not longer then 300' before we cleared out space for buildings, roads, and farms.

I've never lived in pre-industrial NJ of course, but why would you think that the whole world would be like NJ? I'm taking your word for it that the whole state was covered in dense forests and hills, but even if so, why wouldn't travellers make and use roads? In the forest in this picture (http://thingstodo.viator.com/germany/files/2013/06/Germany-Black-Forest.jpg), the left fork curves out of sight, but the right fork appears to be right about at longbow range, 100 to 200 yards. It's certainly too far to launch a 5E Fireball.

If the terrain really is so dense that visibility is restricted, then it is certainly going to be difficult terrain, which gives ranged characters even more advantage than they would have otherwise, especially if they take the Mobile feat.

It just isn't plausible to argue that ranged characters will be unable to exploit their advantage outdoors. Indoors and in underground caves, yes, javelins are about as good as longbows.

[Regulas]

Range is more often decided by the DM anyway. More often then not encounters are close range unless the DM is specifically creating longer range encounters, so I don't see range as a balance factor since it's a DM decision.


Really far more then weapons the thing that's always bothered me is armour which is just handled wrong (if it's fine enough rules wise). Heavy, Medium, Light should be based on body coverage rather then type. The notion of leather armour as depicted in D&D especially for roguish types is just... wrong on so many levels, there were real leather armour but it's heavy and bulky and still not that good. Rather a rogue would be wearing concealed chain or plates (Jack-of-Plates).

[Demonic Spoon]

Range is more often decided by the DM anyway. More often then not encounters are close range unless the DM is specifically creating longer range encounters, so I don't see range as a balance factor since it's a DM decision.


If the DM has monsters approaching you in daylight on an open plain or some other area with long line of sight, and you don't notice them until you were within 50 feet, either they destroyed their stealth checks, or the DM was being bad.

[Regulas]

If the DM has monsters approaching you in daylight on an open plain or some other area with long line of sight, and you don't notice them until you were within 50 feet, either they destroyed their stealth checks, or the DM was being bad.

And in how many campaigns have you typically been going across grassy plains while never going inside or into caves or dungeons?

[Demonic Spoon]

As mentioned above, 300-400 feet isn't actually that far. You don't strictly need to be in a grassy plain - most places outside give you decent visibility. And it is highly campaign-dependent, but I'd venture to say that the vast majority of campaigns frequently have situations where it is advantageous to shoot more than 20-30 feet that a throwing weapon gives you.

[MaxWilson]

600 feet (200 yards) is not as far as some people think it is. Next time you're in your car, pick a sign or something a block or so away, close enough that you can still see the people there. Look at the odometer. Look at the odometer again when you reach the landmark. Odds are you're going to find you've got at least 0.1 miles (528 feet), possibly 0.2 miles. Where I live, the distance between the freeway off-ramp and the freeway on-ramp in the other direction is negligible, there isn't even a stoplight in between them--but it's also over 0.15 miles when I measure it by odometer.

200 yards is really not that far at all, and 100 yards is closer still.

[Sartharina]

and when, exactly, will anyone be fighting at military engagement ranges in a game of DnD where the wizard doesnt have Inflict Divine Baconization? you have disadvantage on any ranged attack to the 4th increment even with sharpshooter.Attacking with disadvantage while having immunity to counterattack is better than attacking at a normal range while being vulnerable to counterattack.

[toapat]

I've never lived in pre-industrial NJ of course, but why would you think that the whole world would be like NJ?

because thats how forests and swamps are when you dont clearcut them

[Sartharina]

because thats how forests and swamps are when you dont clearcut them

In some places. In other places, they're not. They're like... everwhere else as well, instead.

[MaxWilson]

because thats how forests and swamps are when you dont clearcut them

Already addressed in prior post, see above.

[JoeJ]

because thats how forests and swamps are when you dont clearcut them

But not all of the world is forest and swamp. Some places look naturally look like this. (http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/64883106.jpg)

[Suichimo]

600 feet (200 yards) is not as far as some people think it is. Next time you're in your car, pick a sign or something a block or so away, close enough that you can still see the people there. Look at the odometer. Look at the odometer again when you reach the landmark. Odds are you're going to find you've got at least 0.1 miles (528 feet), possibly 0.2 miles. Where I live, the distance between the freeway off-ramp and the freeway on-ramp in the other direction is negligible, there isn't even a stoplight in between them--but it's also over 0.15 miles when I measure it by odometer.

200 yards is really not that far at all, and 100 yards is closer still.

Hell, I assume most of us here are American, a football field is 100 yards by itself. Two of those isn't that far.

[Shadow]

600 feet or 200 yards isn't that far if you're simply judging distances.
600 feet is a HECK of a long way if you're trying to hit a target that is man sized or smaller.

The qualifying round for the world championship archery competition is shot from 70 meters.

[toapat]

But not all of the world is forest and swamp. Some places look naturally look like this. (http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/64883106.jpg)

and where does the DM hide the dungeons in Wyoming? there are no giant trees, no caves, no hills or obstructions, Just a few buildings that people put up themselves. and you have to start calling the DM out by the 10th dungeon in Wyoming because you have breached and cleared every building in the village unless theres a Tristram scenario where there are that few buildings, its just that one of them is populated by satan.

[MaxWilson]

600 feet or 200 yards isn't that far if you're simply judging distances.
600 feet is a HECK of a long way if you're trying to hit a target that is man sized or smaller.

The qualifying round for the world championship archery competition is shot from 70 meters.

Thus emphasizing the fact that weapon range, not visual range, is often the limiting factor on engagements--which is why Sharpshooter is an awesome feat. You'll be the only one who can hit an armored target for the first four to eight rounds of the engagement, depending on whether you're fighting Mongol horse-troops or hobgoblin infantry.

[JoeJ]

and where does the DM hide the dungeons in Wyoming? there are no giant trees, no caves, no hills or obstructions, Just a few buildings that people put up themselves. and you have to start calling the DM out by the 10th dungeon in Wyoming because you have breached and cleared every building in the village unless theres a Tristram scenario where there are that few buildings, its just that one of them is populated by satan.

What do you mean "hide the dungeons?" There are certainly hills and caves in Wyoming (or Nevada, which is where the picture I posted was taken), and a castle or or tower or tomb makes as much sense in the desert or the plains as it does anywhere else.

Why would you be breaching and clearing buildings in a village?

[toapat]

What do you mean "hide the dungeons?" There are certainly hills and caves in Wyoming (or Nevada, which is where the picture I posted was taken), and a castle or or tower or tomb makes as much sense in the desert or the plains as it does anywhere else.

Why would you be breaching and clearing buildings in a village?

the example of Wyoming was chosen because it is the only state without a major city in the entirety of the united states, as well as being primarily grassland plains. Epic caves are extremely rare IRL as opposed to depressions and crevases in a mountain which is insignificant. Simply put, you cant hide anything in Wyoming because its Wyoming. Its very flat till you get to the rockies. So everything would be in the village buildings, so unless you are going into the local den of ultimate evil repeatedly ALA Castle Greyhawk, you are running out of local threats or local inhabitants.

I assumed your example picture was of Arizona which is why i didnt refference it specifically, while Nevada quite litterally does have super-secret installations, at least 51 of them.

[Sartharina]

the example of Wyoming was chosen because it is the only state without a major city in the entirety of the united states, as well as being primarily grassland plains. Epic caves are extremely rare IRL as opposed to depressions and crevases in a mountain which is insignificant. Simply put, you cant hide anything in Wyoming because its Wyoming. Its very flat till you get to the rockies. So everything would be in the village buildings, so unless you are going into the local den of ultimate evil repeatedly ALA Castle Greyhawk, you are running out of local threats or local inhabitants.Actually - you can hide a LOT in Wyoming. There are so few landmarks that even just gentle changes in the contour of the land can cause you to miss something by miles.

[toapat]

Actually - you can hide a LOT in Wyoming. There are so few landmarks that even just gentle changes in the contour of the land can cause you to miss something by miles.

and negate that curve by using a ladder to climb on the questgiver's roof

[Sartharina]

and negate that curve by using a ladder to climb on the questgiver's roofDo you have some power to see through shrubberies?

[Shadow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvsGdJP3ng

[MaxWilson]

Do you have some power to see through shrubberies?

Incidentally, I learned recently that hedges were an important aspect of (cheap!) defensive terrain-shaping in the middle ages. From now on, all my human commoners and kobolds are going to be growing hedges in strategic places. It's just good sense.

[toapat]

Incidentally, I learned recently that hedges were an important aspect of (cheap!) defensive terrain-shaping in the middle ages. From now on, all my human commoners and kobolds are going to be growing hedges in strategic places. It's just good sense.

actually hedgewalls were important up until tank philosophy involved adding serated blades to the fron of them.

still, this is Wyoming, a hedgemaze is going to be the opposite of concealing and anything native will only be a foot tall

[MaxWilson]

actually hedgewalls were important up until tank philosophy involved adding serated blades to the fron of them.

still, this is Wyoming, a hedgemaze is going to be the opposite of concealing and anything native will only be a foot tall

So now there are exactly two places in the world, New Jersey and Wyoming. I guess at least that's better than just New Jersey. ;-)

Even in the Wyoming picture posted earlier you saw another terrain type: hills. It's hard to tell from the picture how dense that forest is, but let's suppose that it's incredibly dense and you have only 20' of visibility, and it goes on for hundreds of miles. This is enough terrain variance to have interesting stories and strategies: forest creatures which dominate the forest ecology, and human rangers who roam the plains on horses and use longbows to kill any threat which emerges from the forest. Furthermore, the humans have heroes (like the adventurers) who are trained to penetrate the forest and fight in difficult terrain (Mobile feat is incredibly good if you can count on always having difficult terrain around).

The bottom line is, D&D takes place in all kinds of settings: indoor, outdoor, urban, tundra, underwater, mountainous, forested, etc. In some settings, there is lots of room, and cavalry and longbows are a good idea. In other places, you can't have any cavalry at all, and all the fighting has to be practically hand-to-hand. If you're prepared to fight in either type of terrain (and anything in between) you can go anywhere; but if you are Mr. 30' throwing axe guy you can't afford to venture out of the forest or the longbow dudes will kill you.

Ergo, range is a powerful quality for a weapon to have, but not dispositive (i.e. not the only factor which needs consideration).

QED.

[JoeJ]

the example of Wyoming was chosen because it is the only state without a major city in the entirety of the united states, as well as being primarily grassland plains. Epic caves are extremely rare IRL as opposed to depressions and crevases in a mountain which is insignificant. Simply put, you cant hide anything in Wyoming because its Wyoming. Its very flat till you get to the rockies. So everything would be in the village buildings, so unless you are going into the local den of ultimate evil repeatedly ALA Castle Greyhawk, you are running out of local threats or local inhabitants.

I assumed your example picture was of Arizona which is why i didnt refference it specifically, while Nevada quite litterally does have super-secret installations, at least 51 of them.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never actually been to Wyoming. The part that I've seen (mostly the southern part, along Interstate 80) is actually very hilly. Here's (https://walkoverstates.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/100804-arlington-to-rattlesnake-pass-rd-008.jpg) an example of what I mean.

A place like Wyoming could be a fantastic setting for a D&D campaign. The vegetation is mostly short, except for the trees that line the river beds. The horizon is miles away as you'd imagine, but there are also many places where a clever enemy could be hidden ten feet from you in a small depression or behind a low rise. The land is not nearly as flat as you think it is; in many places you could very easily pass within a few miles of a castle, or even an entire town, and never know it was there. And when the barbarians on their swift horses top the hill and charge forward I hope your party has got some good archers, because the barbarians sure will!

[toapat]

within a few miles of a castle, or even an entire town, and never know it was there.

1: Rockies, i understand the concept of Flat meets Mountain.
2: Someone, really, really screwed up where they built their castle if you cant see it from 50 miles away. The better the sightlines, the longer you have to get the peasents inside the walls

[Wolfsraine]

So: Finesse (boon -d2) Two-Handed (drawback +d2) Heavy (neutral +/- 0)
so D10 finesse two hander? Did I do this right?

[Easy_Lee]

So: Finesse (boon -d2) Two-Handed (drawback +d2) Heavy (neutral +/- 0)
so D10 finesse two hander? Did I do this right?

Yeah, I would say so. And that's the same damage as a heavy crossbow does, so it's not like d10 is out of the question for dex.

That said, these are just observations and a system that I thought would work. Do what you think will work for your table.

[Blood of Gaea]

To fix the problem with a Longsword/Battleaxe/Warhammer. Add this rule: If a one-handed martial weapon does 1d8 damage, and does not have finesse, change the damage to 2d4.

This fixes the problem for anyone besides Half-Orcs and/or Barbarians. Barbarians are generally more suited to a two-handed weapon though, so not a big deal.

Versatile in general isn't a very strong thing to have on a weapon. Most people using a one-handed versatile weapon will be using the Duelist style, which is subjectively better then wielding the weapon in two hands.

[Markoff Chainey]

I tried and go over the weapon list according to your "rules", checked with some other sources and houserules, reviewed it again and came up with this...

the idea was to balance the weapons in terms of mechanics AND to give every weapon a niche where it would shine. This lead to the problem that some weapons are just too similiar to justify them next to each other and I took the alphabetical later ones and put them under one row.

Feedback highly appreciated.. :)

Properties explained...
Heavy - as in the book, but also subtracts 2 from Initiative
Polearm - can be used with the Feat Polearm mastery
M - valid as Monk weapon
flimsy - breaks on a 1 OR 20 when used to make a melee weapon attack with that weapon.

Simple Melee Weapons


Name
Cost
Damage
Damage type
Properties


Club
1 sp
1d6
bludgeoning
light, M


Dagger
2 gp
1d4
piercing
finesse, light, thrown (20/60), M


Greatclub
2 sp
1d10
bludgeoning
two-handed, heavy


Handaxe
5 gp
1d6
slashing
light, thrown (20/60), M


Javelin
5 sp
1d6
piercing
thrown (30/120), M


Light Hammer
2 gp
1d6
bludgeoning
light, thrown (20/60), M


Mace
5 gp
1d8
bludgeoning
M


Quarterstaff
2 sp
1d8
bludgeoning
two-handed, finesse, flimsy, Polearm


Sickle/Chain
3 gp
1d4
slashing
light, finesse, reach (w chain), M


Spear
1 gp
1d6
piercing
thrown (20/60), versatile (1d8), Polearm, M




Martial Melee Weapons


Name
Cost
Damage
Damage type
Properties


Battleaxe, Greataxe
50 gp
1d10
slashing
Versatile (d12), heavy


Flail, Morningstar,
10 gp
1d10
bludgeoning
--


Glaive, Halberd
20 gp
1d10
slashing
heavy, reach, two-handed, Polearm


Pike
20 gp
1d10
piercing
reach, two-handed


Greatsword
100 gp
2d6
slashing
heavy, two-handed


Lance
10 gp
1d12
piercing
reach, flimsy, special


Longsword
15 gp
1d8
slashing
versatile (d10)


Maul
20 gp
1d12
bludgeoning
Heavy, two-handed


Rapier, Longsword (elvish)
25 gp
1d8
piercing
Finesse


Scimitar
25 gp
1d8
slashing
light


Shortsword
10 gp
1d6
piercing
Finesse, light, M


Trident
10 gp
1d10
piercing
Thrown (20/60), two-handed


Warhammer
50 gp
1d10
bludgeoning
versatile (d12), heavy


Whip
5 gp
1d6
slashing
Finesse, reach, light

[El_Jairo]

I tried and go over the weapon list according to your "rules", checked with some other sources and houserules, reviewed it again and came up with this...

the idea was to balance the weapons in terms of mechanics AND to give every weapon a niche where it would shine. This lead to the problem that some weapons are just too similiar to justify them next to each other and I took the alphabetical later ones and put them under one row.

Feedback highly appreciated.. :)

Properties explained...
Heavy - as in the book, but also subtracts 2 from Initiative
Polearm - can be used with the Feat Polearm mastery
M - valid as Monk weapon
flimsy - breaks on a 1 OR 20 when used to make a melee weapon attack with that weapon.

Simple Melee Weapons


Name
Cost
Damage
Damage type
Properties


Club
1 sp
1d6
bludgeoning
light, M


Dagger
2 gp
1d4
piercing
finesse, light, thrown (20/60), M


Greatclub
2 sp
1d10
bludgeoning
two-handed, heavy


Handaxe
5 gp
1d6
slashing
light, thrown (20/60), M


Javelin
5 sp
1d6
piercing
thrown (30/120), M


Light Hammer
2 gp
1d6
bludgeoning
light, thrown (20/60), M


Mace
5 gp
1d8
bludgeoning
M


Quarterstaff
2 sp
1d8
bludgeoning
two-handed, finesse, flimsy, Polearm


Sickle/Chain
3 gp
1d4
slashing
light, finesse, reach (w chain), M


Spear
1 gp
1d6
piercing
thrown (20/60), versatile (1d8), Polearm, M




Martial Melee Weapons


Name
Cost
Damage
Damage type
Properties


Battleaxe, Greataxe
50 gp
1d10
slashing
Versatile (d12), heavy


Flail, Morningstar,
10 gp
1d10
bludgeoning
--


Glaive, Halberd
20 gp
1d10
slashing
heavy, reach, two-handed, Polearm


Pike
20 gp
1d10
piercing
reach, two-handed


Greatsword
100 gp
2d6
slashing
heavy, two-handed


Lance
10 gp
1d12
piercing
reach, flimsy, special


Longsword
15 gp
1d8
slashing
versatile (d10)


Maul
20 gp
1d12
bludgeoning
Heavy, two-handed


Rapier, Longsword (elvish)
25 gp
1d8
piercing
Finesse


Scimitar
25 gp
1d8
slashing
light


Shortsword
10 gp
1d6
piercing
Finesse, light, M


Trident
10 gp
1d10
piercing
Thrown (20/60), two-handed


Warhammer
50 gp
1d10
bludgeoning
versatile (d12), heavy


Whip
5 gp
1d6
slashing
Finesse, reach, light



I appreciate the effort of trying to rework the weapons table, yet you need to figure in the ranged weapons as well.

I would suggest to use P : for compatible with PAM.

I do wonder what happened to the cost of weapons in the Martial part: it seems you have doubled the cost of some weapons. What is the reasoning behind this?

What is the reasoning behind penalising heavy with a -2 to initiative? Heavy doesn't really have a benefit, apart from it being attached to high damage weapons, but typically this comes with the disadvantage of two-handed.

[Unoriginal]

Please do not necro a 4 years old thread.

[jdolch]

I'd say it's longswords/battleaxes/warhammers not being as good as they should be.



Longsword/battleaxe/warhammer: 1d10, rule#1 lowers to 1d8 (1d10 versatile). Logically no one should ever use this weapon when they could instead use a 1d8, versatile, reach weapon.

Maybe I am blind but i can't find a better weapon for 1-hand + Shield than Longsword. (with Warhammer, etc. as sidegrade)

[Sception]

There's exactly one benefit I can think of: warlocks can count a double weapon as their pact weapon, since they only get one pact blade. It's something I think most DMs would allow.

The other innate advantages of a double weapon are:

since it's a single object, you could draw or stow it with a single weapon interaction
since it's a single object, you can take a hand off of it to cast a somatic spell then go back to wielding it normally without needing to use item interactions or take the warcaster feat. You can do the same to access material components, something even warcaster doesn't allow. This is how things currently work for existing two handed weapons, but not for normal dual wielding.


that said, there are some innate drawbacks:

If one of your hands is occupied (climbing, grabbing, holding a thing, etc) then a normal dual wielder can stow or drop one weapon and still attack with the other, while a double weapon wielder could not
If some effect would disarm or destroy a single weapon then a normal dual wielder would still have one weapon left, while a double weapon user would not.


There's also magic items to consider. Presumably a magic double weapon would be treated as two separate magic weapons, but they'd still be stuck with each other. A normal dual wielder could
use the best two magic weapons they find, and if they find a new better weapon they can ditch whichever the less good of their two existing weapons is. A double weapon user has to ditch both previous weapons to pick up a new one. On the other hand, if a DM drops a new magic double weapon for the double weapon user, they just got two magic items in one.


All in all, I'm inclined to call all of this a wash that balances itself out, and to say that, overall, this is the way double weapons should be handled. ie, double scimitar is a single two handed weapon that is in all other ways wielded as though it were a pair of regular scimitars. The same could be used for a double sword as two short swords, or some more esoteric weapons like a kusari-gama as a sickle plus a whip (maybe substituting bludgeoning damage for the whip's normal slashing damage) - though in that case the fact that a whip isn't normally a light weapon kind of gets in the way. But then again, whips are kind of below curve as they are and should probably be either light weapons or deal d6 damage to begin with. But that's getting a bit off topic. Heck, the quarterstaff could be re-worked as a 'double club', which would probably be a better representation of the weapon.

Anyway, yeah, other than the inherent effects of being a single two handed object instead of two distinct one handed ones, treating double weapon use identically to dual weapon use of the two component ends seems like the obvious and natural way to go. Of course, if you think the current dual wielding rules are sub par, then you'd still need to fix the problem, but presumably such a fix would apply equally to both dual wielders and double weapons, rather than leaving some players out in the cold for what should be aesthetic decisions.