What I'd Like To See Added to 5E - Weapon Comparison

[Water Bob]

As much as I like what I read about 5E, I'm sorry to see that the differences in weapons continued to be watered down.

Remember back in the 1E AD&D days? One of the attractive aspects of the dart was that it had a rate of fire of 3, meaning that you could make three attacks with the weapon in a single combat round. The dart only did 1d3 damage to S/M creatures, but if you hit all three times, the damage would add up. That's 3-9 points, skewing towards 4-5 points (because you're rolling 3 dice), with a high minimum damage throw. Your 1st level Magic User, with darts, could potentially do as much damage with his darts as the party's fighter with his longsword.

Of course, the mage would not hit as often as the fighter. And, if you recall, 1E AD&D also used modifiers for different types of armor. If the target was wearing AC 5 chain, then the longsword has an edge because it's +0 vs. AC 5. Darts are -2 vs. AC 5.

But, do you see what I'm getting at? In 1E AD&D, there were reasons to use weapons other than just, "Well, how much damage do they do? I want the weapon that does the most damage."

Take the hammer vs. the longsword. Why would any fighter ever use a hammer? The hammer does 1d4+1 vs. S/M creatures, where the longsword does 1d8. But, look at the Armor Class Adjustments for the hammer. Against most armor types, the hammer is going to hit more often than the longsword.

What do you think is the better weapon against a target in plate and using a shield (AC 2), the hammer or the longsword?

It's the hammer! The longsword is -2 to hit vs. AC 2 while there is no modifier with the hammer. So, would you rather hit more often (10% more often), doing 2-5 damage with the hammer, or would you rather hit less often and have the potential to do both more and less damage (2-5 for the hammer, 1-8 for the longsword).

See the trade off?

When you selected your weapons in 1E AD&D, you had to consider the enemies that you would likely fight. You didn't just go for the weapon that did the highest damage. You had to consider how often you would hit, as well.

I really miss that--the picking of the right tool for the job.

(And....I didn't even talk about the obvious...that weapons in 1E AD&D had TWO damage ratings: One for S/M targets, and one for Large targets. This gave the wielder even something else to consider. "How does the weapon perform against large targets?")







FLASH FORWARD TO AD&D 2E.

Here, there is still some differences to consider about weapons, but it's been watered down quite a bit. Now, instead of armor modifiers specific to a weapon, the modifier is tied to the basic damage a weapon does: Slash, Blunt, Pierce.

In AD&D 2E, the hammer (now called a warhammer), a blunt weapon, has no modifier against a foe wearing plate mail. The longsword (an edged weapon), however, is -3 vs. that same foe in plate mail.

This made for easier-to-use rules, I guess, because you didn't have a string of modifiers for every weapon against several AC types as you did in 1E AD&D (I never found them hard to use), but you lose a little something when comparing like weapons--like two edged weapons.

What was added in 2E AD&D, though, was a re-purposing of the Speed Factor. This sometimes used mechanic in 1E AD&D (it was used to break d6 initiative ties in 1E AD&D) became an every-combat-used mechanic in 2E AD&D as a weapon's Speed Factor directly influenced a character's initiative. The SF became a modifier to the character's initiative throw. So, if a character was using a wand (SF +3), a creature was using a breath weapon (SF +1), and a fighter was using his longsword (SF +5), with all other factors being equal, it was likely that the creature's breath weapon would happen first, followed by the wand, followed, lastly, by the swing of the longsword.

And, a weapon's SF (as well as the weapon's damage vs. Large targets) became the primary means to weigh the advantages of like weapons. For example, the battleaxe and the longsword both do 1d8 damage. Both are slashing weapons, so the armor modifier is the same for both weapons. The difference between the two is in what the weapon does against Larger foes (battleaxe does 1d8, longsword does 1d12), and also the weapon's Speed Factor (How quickly can the weapon be used--how bulky is it?). The battleaxe has a Speed Factor of +7, where the longsword has SF +5. Which means....the longsword is a much better weapon to use overall (faster, plus much more damage vs. Large).







FLASH FORWARD, AGAIN, TO D&D 3E

For all of the crunch used in the third edition of the game, all of this neat weapon comparison stuff was erased! Gone. No more!

The only real difference between weapons is...how much damage do they do? (And, of course, there's the class restrictions--or Feat restrictions--, but that has been true in each of the D&D editions).

Why would you ever use a dart under the 3E rules? Answer: You wouldn't! And, in no way can the 3E dart ever hope to rival the longsword (as it did in 1E AD&D, as I explained above).

Weapon selection in 3E D&D is based on class (what can I use?) and roleplaying (I think it would be neat for my barbarian to carry a battleaxe). But, many players are just going to default to the usable weapon with the highest damage.

Sure, you've got some basic comparisons, like one-handed vs. two-handed. And, maybe something special about a certain weapon (this one can be used to trip; that one can't). But, gone are the various weapon statistics that made weapon selection so interesting in the earlier editions (at least, from my point of view).

I don't want to say that there's no means of weapon comparison besides damage in the 3E game. There's a couple of factors: one-handed vs. two-handed, reach weapons, finesse weapons, Critical Threat Range.... But, as a whole, I don't think that 3E does near as good a job making differences in weapons as either 1E AD&D or 2E AD&D.







VARIANTS - THE HOPE FOR WEAPON SELECTION

So, what happens is, that weapon selection stats can be added again to the game through optional rules or variant rules. For example, the CONAN RPG (published by Mongoose) is based on the 3.5 d20 set of mechanics. But, in that game, armor does not make a person harder to hit as it does in standard D&D. Armor absorbs damage when a character is hit.

Weapons are graded with a new stat called Armor Piercing. This rates the weapon's ability to deliver damage to armored foes. The higher the AR rating, the easier it is to damage foes wearing armor.

For example, a cutlass is rated at AR 2. That's low. The weapon is not a good weapon to use against armored foes. Yet, the cutlass does 1d10 damage in this game.

Compare that to the warhammer. It only does 1d6 damage. But, it's Armor Piercing rating is AR 7. That's pretty good. The weapon will bash through most types of armor.

If your foe is wearing a mail shirt, would you rather do 1d10 -5 damage with the cutlass (hitting, but scoring 0 damage on half your hits, and 1-5 points of damage the other half of the time when you hit), or would you rather do 1d6 -2 damage with the war hammer (hitting, but scoring 0 damage a third of the time, and 1-4 points of damage two thirds of the time when you hit).

Obviously, the warhammer is the better weapon against that foe.

But, Pirates typically go up against seamen on other vessels--and those sailors are usually not armored or only lightly armored. Against a non-armored or lightly armored foe, the cutlass is the superior weapon. It's AR 2 rating is enough to do some good damage against lightly armored foes, and damage will average much higher than that of the warhammer.

So, in the Conan RPG, you've got a real, mechanical reason to see cutlasses often used by Pirates, and the warhammer will typically be seen only on large battlefields where knights in heavy armor fight to win the day.







WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IN 5E D&D

From what I've seen of 5E, weapons are rated very much as they were in 3E. That is to say that the neat weapon comparison stats like those in 1E and 2E AD&D have been watered down as they were in 3E D&D.

I'd like to see a Variant rule that will do for the game what the Conan RPG did for 3.5 D&D. I'm not saying that the Conan RPG should be copied. 1E and 2E AD&D show that there are many different ways to skin a goat. But, whatever it is, I'd like to see some weapon stats/rules that make the choice of weapon something more than just picking the weapon that does the most damage from the lot a character can choose from.

Am I the only one who would like to see this?

[DivisibleByZero]

Am I the only one who would like to see this?

Not at all.
I loved the speed factor that weapons had, and the different ratings versus different armor types.
They slowed combat down if you used them, but they offered much more granularity if you wanted it.

[AgentPaper]

This sounds like the kind of mechanic that is fun to think about and design, but in practice just bogs the game down and increases the amount of math and bookkeeping that the players and DM need to do without really adding that much interesting choice to the game. Melee characters just carry 2 weapons, one for armor and one for non-armored, and use whichever one is more appropriate each round. Everyone else doesn't care.

[Water Bob]

This sounds like the kind of mechanic that is fun to think about and design, but in practice just bogs the game down and increases the amount of math and bookkeeping that the players and DM need to do without really adding that much interesting choice to the game. Melee characters just carry 2 weapons, one for armor and one for non-armored, and use whichever one is more appropriate each round. Everyone else doesn't care.

I cut my gaming teeth on the 1E AD&D modifiers, then graduated to 2E AD&D when it came out and used that set of rules. I never thought combat was bogged down at all.

Just like a player memorizes his STR bonus and damage his weapon does, it was easy to remember what your weapon did against various armor types.

If you had a longsword, in 1E AD&D, it was:

-2 vs. Plate n. Shield
-1 vs. Plate

+1 vs. Shield Only
+2 vs. No Armor

And no modifier for everything else.

That's not hard to remember at all.



In 2E AD&D, it was:

-4 vs. Full Plate
-3 vs. Plate mail
-2 vs. Banded, Chain, and Studded Leather
-1 vs. Brigadine and Ring mail.

And no modifier vs. everything else.

You simply wrote that down on your character sheet (but pretty soon, you knew the mods by heart).



This is no different than the various Shield AC's that characters would have to consider. So, a character with a Medium Shield would get that benefit to the facing foe and to the shielded flank. No shield bonus to the opposite flank. And, the character had his worst AC to his back.






Melee characters just carry 2 weapons, one for armor and one for non-armored, and use whichever one is more appropriate each round. Everyone else doesn't care.

And, everyone ends up carrying a longsword....

Which is part of my point.

Sure, the longsword should be the most common weapon. But, there needs to be (imo) real, mechanical reasons to carry other weapons--different tools for different types of jobs.

[Naanomi]

In 2e didn't everyone use Cestus, Dart, or Nodachi/Giant Sword? Damage boosts often mattered more for combatants (who could hit anything reliably by mid levels regardless of modifiers), and became pretty irrelevant for everyone else (who only used weapons out of desperation or boredom)

Changes in to-hit under bound accuracy will matter way more than they ever did in the older editions

[DivisibleByZero]

The 2e table, for anyone that is interested.

"Table 52 lists the weapon vs. armor modifiers applied to the attacker's THAC0, if this optional system is used. To use this table, the actual armor type of the target must be known in addition to the target's Armor Class. The bonuses of magical armor do not change the type of armor, only the final Armor Class.
This system is used only when attacking creatures in armor. The modifiers are not used when attacking creatures with a natural Armor Class."


Armor Type
Slash
Pierce
Bludgeon


Banded mail
+2
0
+1


Brigandine
+1
+1
0


Chain mail*
+2
0
-2


Field Plate
+3
+1
0


Full Plate
+4
+3
0


Leather armor**
0
-2
0


Plate mail
+3
0
0


Ring mail
+1
+1
0


Scale mail
0
+1
0


Splint mail
0
+1
+2


Studded leather
+2
+1
0


* Includes bronze plate mail
** Includes padded armor and hides

Also note that 2e used THAC0, which was basically attack modifiers and AC in reverse, so any + will translate into a - for 5e, and any - translates into a +
So, for example, the bottom line for studded leather, in 5e, would read -2 | -1 | 0, and those modifiers would be reflected on the attacker's roll.

For ease of record keeping, and keeping things straight, it was almost always easier to simply have three different AC values for a PC or NPC/monster, depending on which type of weapon was being used.
One AC vs Slash, one vs Pierce, one vs Bludgeon. That way you don't have to keep different modifiers in mind, you simply had to know what kind of weapon was being used to attack with. When done this way, you would reverse the mods and apply them not to the attack roll, but to the AC of the person in the armor.... or for 5e's sake, keep them as they are on the chart (because they're reversed already due to attack roll vs THAC0 discrepancies).

[Water Bob]

For ease of record keeping, and keeping things straight, it was almost always easier to simply have three different AC values for a PC or NPC/monster, depending on which type of weapon was being used.

One AC vs Slash, one vs Pierce, one vs Bludgeon. That way you don't have to keep different modifiers in mind, you simply had to know what kind of weapon was being used to attack with. When done this way, you would reverse the mods and apply them not to the attack roll, but to the AC of the person in the armor.... or for 5e's sake, keep them as they are on the chart (because they're reversed already due to attack roll vs THAC0 discrepancies).

Yes. We did this. A character's sheet would have several AC ratings, pre-computed, so that the player could just pick the one that applied.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yes. We did this. A character's sheet would have several AC ratings, pre-computed, so that the player could just pick the one that applied.

Our table has considered using similar rules to this for the next game, but instead of modifying AC those numbers would provide damage reduction against certain weapon types (so as not to break bounded accuracy, but still make certain armors better against certain weapon types).
And we use home brewed weapon speed factor rules, rolling each round's initiative separately, so different weapons still have value over damage die. Combining the two would make weapons and armor count for more than just what offers the most AC and the most damage.

[Gritmonger]

This is just me.

If you really wanted to do this under 5th, I'd probably (and again, this is me...) give armor a type of resistance to certain kinds of damage, or DR of a point or two, and not mess with AC.

Skeletons, for instance, no longer take 1 point from edged and piercing - they are vulnerable to bludgeoning.

There is magical armor that gives you resistance to one type, and vulnerability to two others.

Heavy Armor Master gives you DR3 versus all three damage types.

So, if you wanted, you could give various armors different DRs versus various damage types. Say, DR2 versus Edged for full plate. Heavy Armor Master still outstrips it by the DR3 to all three damage types.

That way, players don't get bogged down in to-hit mechanics, and weapon choice won't factor into their to-hit - it resolves more when they are hit, which ideally should be less often than they make attack rolls.

The bounded accuracy gives a lot of variance to whether a person hits or not, and I don't know how I'd feel messing with that (messing with plusses to AC for individual weapons, and minuses with combinations of weapon and armor types)

[Talyn]

Weapon speeds and AC vs. damage type is fun if you have (a) a small group of PCs and (b) EVERYONE knows the rules, and keep up with them on a round-by-round basis.

I've been playing D&D and it's variants, pretty consistently, for just about 20 years now, and I have had a group like that ONCE.

As soon as you end up with 4 or more PCs, or you have even one person around the table who doesn't have a really good grasp of the combat rules, this becomes a huge pain in the expletive.

Gritmonger's suggestion has some merit to it, but the problem is scaling. Damage Reduction is way too good at early levels, and then becomes meaningless at higher levels. It also makes hordes of lower-level minions significantly less deadly than a few big monsters, which might not fly at some tables.

[Water Bob]

Our table has considered using similar rules to this for the next game, but instead of modifying AC those numbers would provide damage reduction against certain weapon types (so as not to break bounded accuracy, but still make certain armors better against certain weapon types).

Yeah, the Conan RPG, which I play currently, works well, and it's similar to what you are suggesting.

The Conan System works like this:

1. Make a standard d20 attack throw (mods, Critical Threat, etc) vs. Armor Class.

2. If a hit is made, compare Total Armor Piercing to Damage Reduction of the Armor. (Total Armor Piercing is the AR rating of the weapon plus STR mod.) If Total AR is equal to or greater than DR, then Damage Reduction for the armor is halved. Otherwise, the DR stands.



Example:

Pelitos, the Argossean Soldier, has STR 17 (+3 mod). And, Pelitos is using a broadsword (AP 3, 1d10 dmg) and a large shield. Thus, when Pelitos hits, his Total Armor Piercing score is AP 6.

Pelitos is fighting Shemite mercenary raiders that have made a lightning attack over the border. The Shemite is wearing a conical helm (+1 DR) and mail hauberk (DR 6). Thus, the Shemite's total Damage Reduction is DR 7.

When a hit is scored, we simply compare the two numbers. Pelitos' AP 6 vs. the Shemite's DR 7.

Pelitos needs a 7+ AP to penetrate. He doesn't. Thus, the damage from any successful attack that Pelitos makes is reduced by the Shemite's full Damage Reduction rating.

When Pelitos hits, he'll do weapon damage + STR mod - Damage Reduction. That's 1d10 + 3 - 7, or 1d10 -4 damage.

Simple.

[jaydubs]

I don't really have anything bad to say about the existence of variant rules. I mean, at the end of the day, you can just choose whether or not to use them. That said, I definitely wouldn't want to use such a variant rule in games I DM or play in. Don't get me wrong. Sometimes I like complicated weapons systems. There's a place for them in RPGs. For me, it just doesn't fit with the reason I play 5e.

For me, 5e is about simplicity and speed. The game flows quickly, it's easy to learn for beginners, and it's a lot harder to build a character that's either overpowered or terrible. An in-depth weapon and armor system just runs counter to those goals.

[Dralnu]

Negative implication: it makes magical weapons less powerful, because that weapon is now only optimal against a percent of foes instead of universally effective. It "feels" bad knowing your Holy Avenger longsword you went on an epic quest for is worse than the mundane hammer you're lugging around when faced with enemies wearing chainmail.


I personally wouldn't use this variant for that reason, plus I choose my weapon based on what fits the image of my character in my mind, so the idea of swapping out weapons based on what I'm fighting doesn't appeal to me. (Signature weapons and all).

But hey, it's a variant, and if that makes some folks happy then why not? Definitely do it.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Who in the HELL ever used the overly complicated Weapon speed and Weapon vs Armor tables?

Not only were the WvsA tables overly complicated they also barely made any sense with seemingly random numbers puked onto a page .This is even considering how most higher level monsters werent wearing armor for it too matter AND how only about 3 weapons [Long sword Longbow and Darts] were even worth using even with this overly complicated niche sub-system

The only good version of that ever done was the Combat and Tactics book where the criminally weak weapons got a boost by getting either small bonuses to hit vs a broad category of armors or simply ignored a portion of AC [Making the humble Crossbow more than just a terrible shortbow finally]

For weapon speeds................Ok they havent even rolled Inititive per round in core since MC Hammer was big whats the chance thats gonna catch on? Sure I still roll Initi every round but its still just gonna bog things down

[Easy_Lee]

Weapon vs. Armor makes sense, though I would argue that it is not lore-friendly. Fantasy characters like Drizzt are able to become so dexterous that they can find the chinks in any armor, slip a strike through, and continue with the fight unhindered. I believe that the threshold for dexterity and finesse is much higher in the world of D&D than in our own; perhaps their brains process information more quickly than our own. In addition, wielding a spear seems to offer no advantage over wielding a longsword; perhaps the sheer number of Large and larger enemies has forced them to develop fighting styles that ignore reach advantages.

In addition, it's simpler just to use the weapons as-is, rather than keeping weapon speeds or armor interactions in mind. After all, if we wanted to be truly realistic, we should note that plate armor is very uncomfortable and would be crippling in some terrains, such as swamps.

I prefer that interesting weapon choices come in the form of unique magical items or custom-ordered specialized items from master smiths. Perhaps this hammer works quite well against plate armor, treating heavily-armored targets as having two less AC. Oh look, a mithril longsword that can be finessed. And is that the Quarterstaff of the Monkey King? Awesome.

[Water Bob]

Who in the HELL ever used the overly complicated Weapon speed and Weapon vs Armor tables?

(Raises Hand). We did. All the time. For decades. We didn't find it a problem at all. And, we quite liked using them in our games.




Not only were the WvsA tables overly complicated they also barely made any sense with seemingly random numbers puked onto a page .This is even considering how most higher level monsters werent wearing armor for it too matter AND how only about 3 weapons [Long sword Longbow and Darts] were even worth using even with this overly complicated niche sub-system

I think the table in 1E AD&D looks complicated, but, like a lot of things, once you dig into and use it, you find it's not that complicated at all.

(As I sated above.)

For example, with a Longsword, a player would write on his character sheet:

Longsword
-2 vs. Plate n. Shield
-1 vs. Plate

+1 vs. Shield Only
+2 vs. No Armor

And no modifier for everything else.

That's not too hard to use/remember, is it?





With 2E AD&D, we'd do the reverse, and apply it to our ACs, like this:

Chainmail

AC X vs Slash
AC X vs. Blunt
AC X vs. Pierce

Again...pretty easy. Not brain surgery.





For weapon speeds................Ok they havent even rolled Inititive per round in core since MC Hammer was big whats the chance thats gonna catch on? Sure I still roll Initi every round but its still just gonna bog things down

Just FYI, I prefer rolling initiative once per combat.

[DivisibleByZero]

Just FYI, I prefer rolling initiative once per combat.

Not me, I prefer rolling it every round.
Rolling it once per combat creates a situation where the players know who is going when, and a metagame begins about turn order.
Not only that, but the 2e style of announcing actions and rolling before each round locks a player to a decision, which keeps the game moving. Rolling once per combat leaves it so that a player waits until his or her turn to decide what to do, as the situation has changed multiple times since they last thought about it, and combat often takes longer because of it.

Really. Not joking. You'd think that rolling initiative once and following a repeating order would be faster, but in practice I've found the reverse to be true.

[Easy_Lee]

Not me, I prefer rolling it every round.
Rolling it once per combat creates a situation where the players know who is going when, and a metagame begins about turn order.
Not only that, but the 2e style of announcing actions and rolling before each round locks a player to a decision, which keeps the game moving. Rolling once per combat leaves it so that a player waits until his or her turn to decide what to do, as the situation has changed multiple times since they last thought about it, and combat often takes longer because of it.

Really. Not joking. You'd think that rolling initiative once and following a repeating order would be faster, but in practice I've found the reverse to be true.

I've used cards before to track initiative. If I rerolled initiative each round, I would have to reorder the cards.

In theory, I could see the benefit to rerolling each turn in a computerized setting. That could be pretty cool, actually. But at the table, I would have trouble with it.

[Finieous]

Who in the HELL ever used the overly complicated Weapon speed and Weapon vs Armor tables?


We tried it, didn't like it, and went back to our mash-up of B/X with AD&D character options, monsters and magic items.

I think this kind of thing is an excellent candidate for house rules. I'd like to see the core rules stay very lean.

[DivisibleByZero]

I've used cards before to track initiative. If I rerolled initiative each round, I would have to reorder the cards.

In theory, I could see the benefit to rerolling each turn in a computerized setting. That could be pretty cool, actually. But at the table, I would have trouble with it.

We also use speed factor rules (notable here because of spellcasting).
We have each player announce his action.
Not the target, not his movement, not any bonus, just simply his action. IE: Joe says he'll shoot his bow. Billy says he'll cast a spell. Rob says he'll swing his sword.
The DM decides what the mobs will do.

Roll initiative.
Everyone knows what you rolled? It's not that hard to keep track of one simple number, is it?
Good.

DM: "20 or higher, 19, 18, 17, 16"
Billy: "I begin casting scorching ray"
DM: "15"
Joe: "I shoot my bow at <names an enemy>" *rolls d20 and d8, probably already done since his action was announced before* "AC 17, for 6 points of damage if it hits"
DM: "Yup, that hits. And the goblins attack at the same time." *tells people what happened* "And Billy takes a hit for 4 points of damage. You were still casting, so roll a constitution save to make sure your spell isn't interrupted." *note: if it is interrupted, he loses his action this round, but not the slot*
Billy: "Nope, I'm good."
DM: "OK, 14"
Billy: "My scorching ray goes off and hits <insert target(s) here> for X damage."
DM: "OK, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9.... *the skeletons take their turn*.... 8, 7"
Rob: "I move from <A to B> and *kills a goblin* and then I move from <B to C> and Action Surge and *kills another goblin* and then I move from <C to D> to get in front of Billy to try to protect him."
DM: "OK, so what's everyone doing this round?" *announce action and roll initiative*

No cards needed. Players need to remember when they act, and what they claimed as an action.
DM needs to do that for each group of mobs (although he doesn't announce the mobs' actions, he still decides prior to rolling).
It sounds like it would bog things down, but it really does keep it moving nicely, namely because their actions are locked in. No more time spent waiting for a caster to decide what spell to cast as he looks through the books. He should already know what he's casting.
It really does speed things up, rather than the reverse like you'd expect.

edit:
And if you had enemies in range when you announced your action, but by the time your turn comes those enemies are dead or moved out of range, you basically lose your action. You can still move, you can still use a bonus if you have one that works, but your announced action is no longer viable. You decided to do something, and began doing something, and then it quickly became a non (or really poor) option. Things like this happen.
Kind of like playing basketball, when you were planning on passing to someone, but they move differently than you expect and now you need to find something different to do. Changing your mind takes time, which costs you your action that round.

[Demonic Spoon]

A potential problem with this is weight restrictions.

Encumbrance (both from weight and from volume) in D&D is very simplified and very friendly to the players simply so we don't have to do bookkeeping about whether we're taking too many rations. Weight bookkeeping isn't fun.

The problem is that, without meaningful weight/volume limits, carrying equipment for every situation becomes trivial. If there were really strong advantages to one weapon vs another, then people would just bring both and use whatever's most appropriate at the time.


You could potentially get around this by creating a new attunement-like mechanic - a character can only be "good" at a couple weapon types at a time, and be able to switch that at reasonable intervals, but not from one encounter to the next...but it's more involved than just creating new weapon tables.

[Water Bob]

Not me, I prefer rolling it every round.

I used to roll every round until I was convinced by someone that it doesn't really mean a whole lot. You don't gain a lot by rolling every round. The number of attacks stays the same, and the order, generally, stays the same as faster characters typically go first.

If you use Speed Factors (as in 2E AD&D), you've got to declare actions first in order to use the SF's on initiative. And, that leads to a lot more meta-gaming than just knowing who's turn it is.

But, the major reason I don't use initiative every round is movement. If a person goes last in a round, moves as far as he can move, then moves first in the next round, he moves impossibly far. He basically gets to move for two rounds before he can be attacked.

Using the d20 based Conan game (because that's what I know), a person without armor can move 30 feet and still attack in a round. The combat rounds are six seconds long. If he runs all-out, he can move 120 feet in one round.

If he moves 120 feet at the bottom on round 1, then moves 120 feet at the top of round 2, he moves 240 feet before anybody can get an arrow launched at him!

That's a bit unbelievable.

And, it leads to unbelievable situations like this--


Round 1

Tordek fires his bow at the target that is 10 feet away.

The target, an bandit, runs 120 feet--his max--away from Tordek.



Round 2

The target continues to run--another 120 feet.

Tordek can now fire his second arrow at the running bandit at a range of 250 feet! The target covered 250 feet in the time it took Tordek to knock a second arrow!



So, rolling once for initiative per combat is the way to go, in my opinion. Plus, it sure speeds up the game taking out that die roll for every PC and every foe.

I used to roll for initiative every round when I played 1E and 2E AD&D. I used it for years. Decades. Then, when we started playing Conan (based on the d20 system), I was amazed at how much smoother the combat round went when rolling once. It was a big difference.

I doubt I'll ever go back to rolling every combat round.

[Yagyujubei]

regardless of what you would like to see, this will never happen in 5E because it goes against everything they were trying to do with the edition. the whole point was to get rid of stuff like this and allow for more streamlined RP. if you want to add it then go for it, but it will never be added by WotC as an official rule.

possibly as some variant down the road, but if they didn't include it in the DMG then it obviously isnt high in their priority list.

EDIT: on the opposite side of the coin, if your issue is that the current system pigeonholes players into using a few weapons over others because they are more optimal, nothing is stopping you from saying that you're using a different weapon than the one listed. at the end of the day they're all just weapon die, so intsead of a 1d8 longsword, use a 1d8 big spike hammer if you want, who cares?

[1Forge]

Pretty simple solution, House ruling. I do it all the time , For example you could say hammers have advantage to hit enemy's in heavy Armour (not dex assisted) I House ruled recently that war picks could harm stone golems even mundane ones, you could do similar, just give bludgeoning weapons some sort of advantage over heavy armour users. Or you could rule that people in plate are vulnerable to bludgeoning or something (though that would make it way OP)

It dosent have to be spelled out to be a thing, the book is just a template for a ham sandwich just tweak the ingredients a little to make it taste better.

[Water Bob]

Roll initiative.
Everyone knows what you rolled? It's not that hard to keep track of one simple number, is it?
Good.

LOL!

You'd be amazed at how many people forget their initiative number right after they roll it. That's another reason why I now prefer a single nish roll for just the combat, keeping the same order for the entire combat (though players can do things to alter their nish number during the round, but their new number sticks). When I used to roll once per round, I'd record it on a piece of scratch paper or list it right there on graph paper (the map, if we used one for that encounter), to keep it straight.

[BRKNdevil]

I have issues with players rolling the right die for damage (hell sometimes they don't keep up with the advantage mechanic either), and they've played since 3.5 so i doubt this will help me any

[Dontdestroyme]

I've kind of been kicking around the idea in my head of having all the weapon style feats just tied to the weapons, because they're just a feat tax anyway, and martial characters need more stuff to do. Only vaguely related.

I like this as a fix for weapons. But I'm more mad about MAD characters needing to pay into feat taxes in order to be competitive, while casters don't really need any feats at all.

[D.U.P.A.]

And why there is not a flash forward to 4E?

[Sindeloke]

I've kind of been kicking around the idea in my head of having all the weapon style feats just tied to the weapons, because they're just a feat tax anyway, and martial characters need more stuff to do. Only vaguely related.

Agreed and likewise. I'd much rather OAs on reach and better to-hit against armor just be natural attributes of polearms and axes/hammers at certain proficiency levels, than force martials to burn feats on doing their jobs effectively. I'm of the strong opinion that feats should give players new class-agnostic options and interesting new ways to interact with the world, but the whole "a feat is a fighter class feature" means that most feats just become little storage capsules for bits of fighter features that they didn't want noob players to have to think about instead.

This is actually more than vaguely related to OP's complaint, though, IMO. If chain weapons simply give you a bonus action trip when you wield them, while hammers and maces instead give you a free shove attempt on every hit, than even if a flail and a warhammer use exactly the same damage die and to-hit, it's meaningful to choose between them, because they actually change the way you move around the battlefield. If anything, it's a superior difference to simple weapon speed or attack roll. Those are just numbers, whereas knocking a guy on his ass every turn versus driving him ten feet back actually alters your strategies and the feel of combat. De-coupling it from feats also means that a fighter can favor a single weapon and strategy without making himself unable to use any other if a superior magic weapon crops up or he needs a different trick for the next fight.

[Water Bob]

I've kind of been kicking around the idea in my head of having all the weapon style feats just tied to the weapons, because they're just a feat tax anyway, and martial characters need more stuff to do. Only vaguely related.

I like this as a fix for weapons. But I'm more mad about MAD characters needing to pay into feat taxes in order to be competitive, while casters don't really need any feats at all.

THIS (http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-equipment) was posted on another forum where we're discussing the same topic. I'm not versed enough with the 5E rules to evaluate it, but several of the 5E boys seems to dig it. Check it out.






And why there is not a flash forward to 4E?

Because....I never played 4E! :smile: I never even cracked a book. Nothing about that game interested me. I was happy with what I had with the Conan RPG.

[Chronos]

While I agree in principle with making the weapons more differentiated, for the love of the gods please don't bring back the weapon vs. armor tables. Those are fine for a computer game, but they're a royal pain to deal with in person. Yeah, yeah, you can just write down three ACs for everyone, but all the players also have to remember all of the modifiers or be crippled: Hey, that dude's wearing plate mail. Wait a moment, which weapon type is the one that actually has a chance of hitting vs. plate mail? Do I need to change weapons when I move onto the guy with splint mail, or not?

And I thought that 3rd edition did it just fine. Weapons had five different possible crit behaviors, and could be trip, disarm, reach, double, multiple damage types, finesse, and settable, had three different categories of ease of use, and many had further special rules beyond that. That's plenty of variety. They were more or less balanced for damage (at least, averaging across different situations), so you (almost) never had a situation like the 2nd edition battleaxe, which was never worth using.

[1Forge]

Amen to the above statement.

[Water Bob]

Again, I never found the tables that hard to use. The table looks a lot more scary than it really is. You just record your weapon's adjustments on the character's sheet.

Longsword

-2 vs. Plate n. Shield
-1 vs. Plate

+1 vs. Shield Only
+2 vs. No Armor

How difficult is that? Heck, just like a lot of other stats (like damage), you'll memorize it if you play with it enough.

[Chronos]

OK, that's the first edition form of the tables... but now, anyone with armor needs to remember the modifiers vs. all weapons, and there are a lot of those. Alternately, if you use the 2nd edition form, then anyone with armor only needs to remember piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning, but anyone with a weapon needs to remember the effects vs. ten different armors.

[Water Bob]

OK, that's the first edition form of the tables... but now, anyone with armor needs to remember the modifiers vs. all weapons, and there are a lot of those.

Why? Just know your weapon vs. armor, like I showed above.

DMs can write this next to humanoid stats, and even write a truncated version because the DM knows what armor the NPCs will go up against. The DM knows what armor the players have. Plus, humanoids have common weapons, so, playing with these, pretty soon it will only be the less often used weapons that are not known. Clubs, battleaxes, longswords...those will all be memorized quickly.

It was never a problem when we played. As I said above, I think the table is just scary looking, so many DMs never even try them out.




Alternately, if you use the 2nd edition form, then anyone with armor only needs to remember piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning, but anyone with a weapon needs to remember the effects vs. ten different armors.

I don't have a problem with 2E, or really, any edition that has some type of method to rate weapons other than just damage dealt.