3.5 weapons in 5th edition

[j_spencer93]

Is there any difference between 5th edition weapons and their older counter parts? I didn't notice any except giving weapons some of their realistic qualities back, so could one easily update all of their 3.5 weapons (i made a huge list of them while using the edition) into 5.0 without a lot of problems?

[Demonic Spoon]

Is there any difference between 5th edition weapons and their older counter parts? I didn't notice any except giving weapons some of their realistic qualities back, so could one easily update all of their 3.5 weapons (i made a huge list of them while using the edition) into 5.0 without a lot of problems?

5e and 3.5 are built on fundamentally different math; I cannot think of a single thing that can be ported directly from 3.5 into 5e without issue.

D&D combat in general (3.5 included) is extremely abstracted - I wouldn't call 3.5 or 5e weapons specifically "realistic". If you're interested in a more detailed and differentiated weapons table, take a look around this forum - a few people have redesigned the weapons table to that end.

[Slipperychicken]

Is there any difference between 5th edition weapons and their older counter parts? I didn't notice any except giving weapons some of their realistic qualities back, so could one easily update all of their 3.5 weapons (i made a huge list of them while using the edition) into 5.0 without a lot of problems?

The main thing is that 5e weapons only have one damage type each, and none of them modify crit range or crit effects. Also, reach works a little differently than it used to, and the finesse property makes dex-fighters much more viable.

[j_spencer93]

Looking them over it only seemed to me that they limited damage type and crit range but the damage values stayed the same and if the weapon is versatile (meaning it can be 1 or 2 handed) wielding 2 handed adds a die. Am i wrong? If not, it is pretty simple.

[Slipperychicken]

Looking them over it only seemed to me that they limited damage type and crit range but the damage values stayed the same and if the weapon is versatile (meaning it can be 1 or 2 handed) wielding 2 handed adds a die. Am i wrong? If not, it is pretty simple.

Just replace this bit with "increases by a die size (i.e. 1d6->1d8->1d10->1d12 or 2d6)", and you're good. Also, they took out a lot of the little things like "+2 to disarm" or whatever. Aside from lances and nets, what you see on the weapon table is what you get. Also remember to check out weapon properties and their interaction with stuff like sneak attack and great weapon master.

And note that there's no such thing as exotic weapons anymore. DMG 41 has a table for refluffing weapons into asian equivalents, with the same stats. For example, a katana is a longsword, nunchucks are flails, naningata are glaives, and so on.

[XmonkTad]

5e and 3.5 are built on fundamentally different math; I cannot think of a single thing that can be ported directly from 3.5 into 5e without issue.

Off topic, water vehicles from Stormwrack (3.5) have the same prices (where they overlap) as the ones in the 5th ed PHB. So if you happen to be buying a boat, you can use those prices just fine.

As for porting weapons, re-fluffing is probably the answer you want. If you're porting something really strange (like the Sugliin or something) then you'll have to come up with something strange (like attacking with a sugliin also use up half your move speed or something).
Which weapon in particular were you thinking of?

[Steampunkette]

I dunno... I think you could port over a lot of 3e weapons by just using advantage.

So a spiked chain. Treat it as two light handed weapons or one two hander with reach. No big deal. But give it advantage to trip or disarm an opponent (so long as you're using those optional rules from the DMG). For Battlemaster abilities in particular you could have the Spiked Chain impose disadvantage on the safe to resist trips.

Same thing with disarming weapons. It's an action (or part of an action) where the player's damage is reduced by their attempt to do something else, so it usually balances out fairly well.

The thing, of late, that I've been doing with Crit Ranges (to help differentiate weapons a bit) is allowing Greataxes and Mauls to do an additional 1d6 damage on a crit. Versatile Weapons, on the other hand, increase their crit damage dice by 1 size to represent using them differently. So a longsword in one hand does 1d8+1d10+bonuses on a crit. While in two hands it does 1d10+2d6+bonuses on a crit.

So far it hasn't really done much of anything to the game's balance, since crits are rare enough to not be -super- relevant.

[lytokk]

I would like to see weapons with two damage types brought back. Mostly so my dwarven cleric who has both a waraxe and warhammer could just have a single weapon. One side of the head is a hammer and the other side is an axe.

[Slipperychicken]

I would like to see weapons with two damage types brought back. Mostly so my dwarven cleric who has both a waraxe and warhammer could just have a single weapon. One side of the head is a hammer and the other side is an axe.

Same here, but I just think it's idiotic that it's apparently impossible to cut with a shortsword or stab with a longsword. I guess the sharp side of a maul and the pointy bit on a poleaxe are purely decorative, and no-one ever used a hilt to hit anyone.

[pwykersotz]

I would like to see weapons with two damage types brought back. Mostly so my dwarven cleric who has both a waraxe and warhammer could just have a single weapon. One side of the head is a hammer and the other side is an axe.

I'm not sure this necessarily needs to be allowed on paper. When I DM, I just let it happen.

[Ralanr]

(I'm assuming 3.5 weapons and pathfinder weapons are pretty much the same).

Beyond crit multiplier, different weapon sizes for different races, and a few special properties, I don't see why it would be too difficult. Would certainly add more variety to the weapons list. Though a lot of weapons can be called something else for fluff (Like turning a scimitar into a cutlass).

The only damage die concern would be 2d4 weapons with versatile. What damage die should go directly to 2d4 when 1d8 goes to 1d10?

*Sigh* Weapons are always difficult choice for me. Sometimes I just don't like the damage, sometimes I don't like the image. Mauls get pretty unrealistic and I'm not the biggest fan of greatswords (Mainly because of how big they're always portrayed as in fiction. Slight nitpick I know, but I don't like it when people think I'm wielding a sword as big as the iron slab known as the Dragonslayer from Berserk. I love Berserk, but I don't want to play Guts).

I wish there was a heavy versatile weapon.

[Dontdestroyme]

I wish there was a heavy versatile weapon.

And that would be a great piece of treasure. Or a good item to commission.

[Person_Man]

I would like to see weapons with two damage types brought back. Mostly so my dwarven cleric who has both a waraxe and warhammer could just have a single weapon. One side of the head is a hammer and the other side is an axe.

Its useful to remember that damage types exist primarily to promote diversity of weapon/spell/etc use and tactics. For example, if you give the Fighter a +5 Greatsword of Awesomeness, and he pours his resources into specializing with that weapon, then it makes the game more interesting if the DM throws in enemies with Resistance to Slashing damage in once in a while. The Fighter is forced to stop spamming greatsword attacks, and do something else.

If you're not using damage types for the above purposes, then there's really no point in keeping track of them at all. If you or your players want different damage types for simulationist reasons, then just go with it.

[Demonic Spoon]

Its useful to remember that damage types exist primarily to promote diversity of weapon/spell/etc use and tactics. For example, if you give the Fighter a +5 Greatsword of Awesomeness, and he pours his resources into specializing with that weapon, then it makes the game more interesting if the DM throws in enemies with Resistance to Slashing damage in once in a while. The Fighter is forced to stop spamming greatsword attacks, and do something else.

If you're not using damage types for the above purposes, then there's really no point in keeping track of them at all. If you or your players want different damage types for simulationist reasons, then just go with it.

this has the problem that, unless you provide a compelling reason to use a particular weapon (by giving them a +10 vorpal greatsword of awesomeness), you get golfbag syndrome, where they just keep a weapon of every damage type.

I tend to agree that yes, unless you deviate from the basic design of 5e and homebrew monsters with resistances to specific nonmagical damage types, you can do whatever you want with a weapon, including having a double-headed axe/hammer.

[Wartex1]

Here's a simple damage formula that most weapons seem to follow:

1d8 base

The following decrease the damage die:
Light (by 1 die)
Thrown (by 1 die)
Ranged (by 2 dice)
Reach (2 dice)

The following increase the damage die:
Heavy (1 die)
Two-Handed (1 die)
Loading (1 die)

That's just off the top of my head, so there might be something that I forgot. Most weapons should follow that pattern though, with exceptions being the Greataxe as it uses a d12 instead of a 2d6 and maybe two or three others.

[Slipperychicken]

I wish there was a heavy versatile weapon.

Yeah, then you could sword-and-board with GWM and make half the weapon list obsolete.

[Ralanr]

Yeah, then you could sword-and-board with GWM and make half the weapon list obsolete.

More so I could grapple when needed or swing my weapon when climbing, but I see the abuse in a heavy versatile weapon.

[Steampunkette]

You -could- upgrade 2d4 into 2d5. Just roll 2d10 and halve the result.

[Dontdestroyme]

You -could- upgrade 2d4 into 2d5. Just roll 2d10 and halve the result.

Technically.... That wouldn't work. 2d5 would be 2-10, 2d10 is 2-20, divided by 2 would be 1-10.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I clicked this wondering if anyone would mention the Suglin and I was not disappoint

Im gonna make a Gnomr Barbarians wielding a refluffed Suglin someday I just know it

[Ziegander]

Technically.... That wouldn't work. 2d5 would be 2-10, 2d10 is 2-20, divided by 2 would be 1-10.

Okay, sure, but 1d10 can be turned into 1d5 easily (the same way 1d6 can be turned into 1d3): a roll of 1 or 2 is just 1, 3 or 4 is 2, 5 or 6 is 3, 7 or 8 is 4, and 9 or 10 is 5. Do that for 2d10s and you've got yourself a range of 2-10.

[XmonkTad]

I clicked this wondering if anyone would mention the Suglin and I was not disappoint

Im gonna make a Gnomr Barbarians wielding a refluffed Suglin someday I just know it

Every 3.5 weapons thread requires more Sugliin.

I'm not sure how to value weapon properties that aren't included in 5th ed though. How does expanded crit range work into the item's damage calculation. It certainly isn't worth a whole damage die is it?