Dungeon World's Class Damage Dice

[pwykersotz]

So after many recommendations (most of which I think came from obryn) on these forums to look to Dungeon World in order to see a lightweight ruleset in action, I finally did. And I have to admit, I like a lot of parts about it.

One aspect that I liked that seemed portable to 5e (there are many, and I might make other threads about them in due time) is the damage die based on class instead of weapon. I kind of hate the weapon table, because it seems like it's incredibly detailed for very little purpose. One of the sacred cows, maybe. So I'm wondering, would it be problematic if we assigned damage dice to classes based on their classic weapons (ex. 2d6 for Figher, 1d12 for Barbarian, 1d8 for Cleric, 1d4 for Wizard) and made the distinction between weapons the properties that they possess? I think, for my table at least, this might lead to players choosing the weapon they actually want thematically. The examples aren't set in stone either, they're just starting points for ideas.

Thoughts?

Edit:

This system eliminates a lot of the needless complexity of the weapon table and allows classes to use the type of weapons they want instead of being limited in concept. It is modeled after the game Dungeon World. It makes your weapon deal damage as a function of your skill and power, rather than of the weapon itself. You must still be proficient with a weapon to add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls.

Each class uses a damage die that is the same as their hit die.

d12 - Barbarians
d10 - Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
d8 - Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Warlock
d6 - Sorcerer, Wizard

Any extra damage from ability modifiers or magic are the same.
A weapon that is both melee and two-handed or which has the loading property adds +1 to your damage. (A feat which removes the loading property does not remove this extra damage.)
Unarmed strikes still deal 1 damage unless you have the Tavern Brawler feat or are a Monk.
When multiclassing, use the highest hit die among your classes.
Reach weapons have disadvantage on attacks against enemies within 5 feet.
An improvised weapon deals damage according to your hit die, but breaks if it deals maximum damage, or if put to a circumstance where the GM rules it would normally do so.
Great Weapon Fighter rerolls until the roll is not a 1 or 2.

[coredump]

What if a fighter uses a dagger, and wants to throw them.
Now a sword with shield does the same as greats word.
How do you deal with finesse?

[pwykersotz]

What if a fighter uses a dagger, and wants to throw them.
Now a sword with shield does the same as greats word.
How do you deal with finesse?

1. The answer would be to let them. Their bows do the same damage as well. It might merit toning down the dice if that causes too many problems with the math, but I'm not sure I see that yet.
2. This is a big problem, and one to which I haven't come up with an answer. I'm open to suggestions. Maybe decrease the die when you wear a shield?
3. Finesse weapons would still be the same. You can choose to use your Dex over Str for both to-hit and damage if you like. The static damage would still apply.

[Grod_The_Giant]

2. This is a big problem, and one to which I haven't come up with an answer. I'm open to suggestions. Maybe decrease the die when you wear a shield?
Seems fair-- have one die for two-handed weapons and note that one-handed weapons use a die one step smaller.

[Ruslan]

I suggest a simple division into "proficient in Martial Weapons", "not proficient in Martial weapons", and "Wizard" (which is a bottom rung all by itself)

Any class proficient in Martial weapons: 2d6 or 1d12 two-handed, 1d8 one-handed, 1d8 ranged (examples: Greatsword, Battleaxe, Longbow)
Any class not proficient in Martial weapons (except Wizard): 1d8 two-handed, 1d6 one-handed, 1d6 ranged (examples: Quarterstaff, Club, Javelin)
Wizard: no two-handed, 1d4 one-handed, 1d4 ranged (examples: Dagger, Sling)

I don't know how this interacts with Polearms, though.

[pwykersotz]

I suggest a simple division into "proficient in Martial Weapons", "not proficient in Martial weapons", and "Wizard" (which is a bottom rung all by itself)

Any class proficient in Martial weapons: 2d6 or 1d12 two-handed, 1d8 one-handed, 1d8 ranged (examples: Greatsword, Battleaxe, Longbow)
Any class not proficient in Martial weapons (except Wizard): 1d8 two-handed, 1d6 one-handed, 1d6 ranged (examples: Quarterstaff, Club, Javelin)
Wizard: no two-handed, 1d4 one-handed, 1d4 ranged (examples: Dagger, Sling)

I don't know how this interacts with Polearms, though.

Thus incentivizing melee. Interesting. I suppose if the die is being decreased for shields, then the same could happen for ranged without it being overly complicated. I think I like your scale here. It might also bring Weapon Master into the fray a bit, increasing your damage die when you master a Martial Weapon. Not sure if that's good or bad yet, but it's interesting.


Edit:
Two other things strike me. Racial weapon proficiencies and offhand equipment other than shields. This would mean all Elves would be proficient in Martial Weapons, even if they're Wizards. I'd have to choose whether to over-write that, ignore it and say that it doesn't modify damage dice and is pure flavor, or just keep it.

Your system does account for offhand weapons and such as well, reducing the damage dice for them. I just thought I'd mention it here for completeness.

[Kane0]

I don't see a problem with it.
I mean there would be things to iron out of course, but nothing that immediately screams "That won't work!"

Could be something simple like: the damage you deal with weapons equals your hit die, down one step if its light or ranged and up one step if its two handed melee.

Edit: Finally, the blowgun might actually see some use.

[pwykersotz]

I don't see a problem with it.
I mean there would be things to iron out of course, but nothing that immediately screams "That won't work!"

Could be something simple like: the damage you deal with weapons equals your hit die, down one step if its light or ranged and up one step if its two handed melee.

Edit: Finally, the blowgun might actually see some use.

Hahaha, just saw your edit. That's a great point!

Edit: I'm not sure if light weapons are deserving of a change in this system. Given that the damage die is homogenized, I'm not sure that two-weapon fighting has anything to gain or lose by having that property in play. The hit die bit is an interesting take. Simple, elegant, but I'm not sure if Fighters and Paladins would be happy at their new, lower damage tier. I was just going to average it based on the typical weapons used.

[Kane0]

Hahaha, just saw your edit. That's a great point!

Edit: I'm not sure if light weapons are deserving of a change in this system. Given that the damage die is homogenized, I'm not sure that two-weapon fighting has anything to gain or lose by having that property in play. The hit die bit is an interesting take. Simple, elegant, but I'm not sure if Fighters and Paladins would be happy at their new, lower damage tier. I was just going to average it based on the typical weapons used.

But on the other hand, now people other than barbarians will actually use d12s for something.

[pwykersotz]

But on the other hand, now people other than barbarians will actually use d12s for something.

Oh, the poor, lonely d12. Greataxe and Barbarian Hit Die...and nothing else.

The Monk and the Unarmed Strike are also deserving of attention here. A Paladin hitting you with a fist would do the same as a longsword. And the Monk table...well, I'd be inclined to have them just be special and keep following their table.

Edit for yet another thing:

The Hit die method resolves (or eludes) the issue of racial weapon proficiency, so that's a plus. Also, scratch the Monk table idea. I thought they went up to 2d10 because I was remembering 3.5. Now I'm wondering if it would be best to have Unarmed Strikes be an exception and still deal 1 damage, and have the monk up that to his hit die (or whatever metric is used).

Edit again!:

What if instead of increasing the die, you simply added +1 static damage? This would let all classes continue to roll their same die the entire time, but it would do the same average thing as increasing the die by a step. So it might look like this:


Each class uses a damage die that is the same as their hit die.

d12 - Barbarians
d10 - Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
d8 - Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Warlock
d6 - Sorcerer, Wizard

Any extra damage from ability modifiers or magic are the same.
A weapon that is both melee and two-handed adds +1 to your damage.
Unarmed strikes still deal 1 damage unless you have Tavern Brawler or are a Monk.

I'm on the fence about reducing the damage/die for ranged or light weapons. I don't think I like the feel of it unless it can be disguised as a bonus. Baking in a penalty doesn't feel fun in my opinion.

[Once a Fool]

Some considerations:

First, hit die=damage die is a simple enough solution, except...

You would need to figure out what to do with multiclassing. My suggestion would be just give the highest damage die.

Other than that, I wouldn't worry much about a fighter or paladin dealing 1d10 damage instead of 2d6; it's only 1.5 per hit, after all.

You might want to change the Great Weapon Fighting style to indefinite rerolls (or downsize the die one step and add +2, which is numerically identical) to compensate for the loss of two-dice weapons.

Shields. They work in Dungeon World because it is a narrative-based system, so it always matters what you hold and when. In 5e, I guess downgrading the damage die by a step while wielding a shield would be as good a solution as any.

Reach weapons. Best I can figure is to give them disadvantage on attacks within 5 feet. Also refluff Polearm Master's secondary attack as from the same attacking end (still 1d4, though).

Monks' unarmed strikes. Personally, I'd be fine keeping these=to hit die from start to finish and just giving them an extra ki point every time they would get a damage die increase.

Improvised weapons. Hit die valued damage here could be loads of fun, but it would be nice if the improvised weapon was destroyed or rendered inoperable if it deals maximum damage. If the user has Tavern Brawler, it could also deal extra damage.

Regular unarmed strikes. Probably keep these at 1+STR mod.

Edit= Two weapon fighting. Same problem as shields, probably the same solution.

[pwykersotz]

Some considerations:

First, hit die=damage die is a simple enough solution, except...

You would need to figure out what to do with multiclassing. My suggestion would be just give the highest damage die.

Other than that, I wouldn't worry much about a fighter or paladin dealing 1d10 damage instead of 2d6; it's only 1.5 per hit, after all.

You might want to change the Great Weapon Fighting style to indefinite rerolls (or downsize the die one step and add +2, which is numerically identical) to compensate for the loss of two-dice weapons.

Shields. They work in Dungeon World because it is a narrative-based system, so it always matters what you hold and when. In 5e, I guess downgrading the damage die by a step while wielding a shield would be as good a solution as any.

Reach weapons. Best I can figure is to give them disadvantage on attacks within 10 feet. Also refluff Polearm Master's secondary attack as from the same attacking end (still 1d4, though).

Monks' unarmed strikes. Personally, I'd be fine keeping these=to hit die from start to finish and just giving them an extra ki point every time they would get a damage die increase.

Improvised weapons. Hit die valued damage here could be loads of fun, but it would be nice if the improvised weapon was destroyed or rendered inoperable if it deals maximum damage. If the user has Tavern Brawler, it could also deal extra damage.

Regular unarmed strikes. Probably keep these at 1+STR mod.

Fantastic considerations.

You're right, I would just allow the highest die when multiclassing.
Could Great Weapon Fighting simply have a new floor and keep the math similar? Such as a roll of 1 or 2 is a 3 instead?
I feel similarly about reach weapons. Disadvantage on close range is an acceptable feel in my mind.
Extra ki: Interesting thought. I'll definitely think about that one.

[Once a Fool]

Could Great Weapon Fighting simply have a new floor and keep the math similar? Such as a roll of 1 or 2 is a 3 instead?

Rerolling 1s and 2s equals +1 to the average of a normal roll (no matter the die type). Simply making 1s and 2s into 3s is only a +0.3 average increase to the average of a d10 and only +0.25 to the average of a d12. Not great.

Edit= If, instead, you make 1s and 2s equal maximum damage, the average for a d10 becomes +1.7 and for a d12, +1.75. Pretty good.

Edit 2= Also, I'm sure it was pretty clear, but since it'll bug me if I don't correct it, I meant disadvantage on reach weapon attacks within 5 feet, not 10.

[pwykersotz]

Rerolling 1s and 2s equals +1 to the average of a normal roll (no matter the die type). Simply making 1s and 2s into 3s is only a +0.3 average increase to the average of a d10 and only +0.25 to the average of a d12. Not great.

Edit= if, instead, you make 1s and 2s equal maximum damage, the average for a d10 becomes +1.7 and for a d12, +1.75. Pretty good.

Hmm...duly noted.

Edit:
Going over the Weapon table once again, I notice another problem. A weapon with the loading property (crossbows) is inherently inferior to one without. It would basically just be a punishment for using the weapon. The loading property might also need to increase damage. And a caveat might be needed for Crossbow Expert that ignoring the loading property doesn't remove the increased damage.

And yes, I knew exactly what you meant about reach weapons. :smallsmile:

[Gtdead]

If you want to do this in order to allow players to choose weapons based on concept, then how about you just let them use whatever they want and change the damage to something they would be able to use anyway?

For example

Wizard wants to use a greataxe (1d12)
He doesn't have the proficiency for it.
The closest thing he can do by RAW is to use a greatclub (1d8)

So let a wizard use a greataxe but with 1d8 damage. Or 2d4 if he wanted a greatsword instead.

[pwykersotz]

If you want to do this in order to allow players to choose weapons based on concept, then how about you just let them use whatever they want and change the damage to something they would be able to use anyway?

For example

Wizard wants to use a greataxe (1d12)
He doesn't have the proficiency for it.
The closest thing he can do by RAW is to use a greatclub (1d8)

So let a wizard use a greataxe but with 1d8 damage. Or 2d4 if he wanted a greatsword instead.

That would work equally well from a certain angle, it would certainly allow players the freedom of choice. But I have the additional goals of not needing to reference a table to determine the damage your weapon will do and making it easy for some of my more casual players to remember which dice to roll. The hit die method is actually extremely elegant in this regard, being able to tell my friend the Barbarian that a d12 governs his HP on level, his Hit Dice for recovery, and his weapon damage all at once is very desirable.

[Once a Fool]

Going over the Weapon table once again, I notice another problem. A weapon with the loading property (crossbows) is inherently inferior to one without. It would basically just be a punishment for using the weapon. The loading property might also need to increase damage. And a caveat might be needed for Crossbow Expert that ignoring the loading property doesn't remove the increased damage.

Good point. This is going kind of far afield, but I think you might solve that problem by requiring a minimum strength score to use regular bows. 13 for short bows, 15 for longbows.

[pwykersotz]

Good point. This is going kind of far afield, but I think you might solve that problem by requiring a minimum strength score to use regular bows. 13 for short bows, 15 for longbows.

That's solid...and it's pretty binary, not something players will have to think about much. The hilarious part is that the Heavy Crossbow is 18lbs, yet the Longbow requires strength to use. Yeah, I know that it's draw strength versus being able to crank a winch and pull a trigger, but it still amuses me.

On the other hand, I'm torn between what I view as a simple and static numerical increase and a rule that applies to no other weapons in the game under this system. There is a precedent with armor requiring strength, so it's probably inconsequential, but it's still making me think about it.

[Once a Fool]

That's solid...and it's pretty binary, not something players will have to think about much. The hilarious part is that the Heavy Crossbow is 18lbs, yet the Longbow requires strength to use. Yeah, I know that it's draw strength versus being able to crank a winch and pull a trigger, but it still amuses me.

On the other hand, I'm torn between what I view as a simple and static numerical increase and a rule that applies to no other weapons in the game under this system. There is a precedent with armor requiring strength, so it's probably inconsequential, but it's still making me think about it.

If you wanted it to parallel armor strength requirements a little more, you could halve the weapon ranges if the strength minimum isn't met. Or, if you want to be more draconian, treat all shots as disadvantaged and make the short range limit the new maximum range.

[pwykersotz]

If you wanted it to parallel armor strength requirements a little more, you could halve the weapon ranges if the strength minimum isn't met. Or, if you want to be more draconian, treat all shots as disadvantaged and make the short range limit the new maximum range.

I think that I'm not a fan of the strength prereq overall, and I don't think I'll include it for my table. But I applaud the idea. It's another great way to go about it.

[Once a Fool]

I think that I'm not a fan of the strength prereq overall, and I don't think I'll include it for my table. But I applaud the idea. It's another great way to go about it.

Still leaves the loading property problem, though. A die step increase would help a little, but not enough to make up for extra attacks.

Perhaps double damage dice, but only within short range.

Edit= Even that is too little, really. And too much for single-attack classes. Perhaps just maximum damage, if used by someone who would otherwise have extra attacks.

[manny2510]

I would love this as hard rules I can implement. Can you summarize the rules so far?

[pwykersotz]

I would love this as hard rules I can implement. Can you summarize the rules so far?

Already done in the OP. :smallsmile:


Still leaves the loading property problem, though. A die step increase would help a little, but not enough to make up for extra attacks.

Perhaps double damage dice, but only within short range.

I'm not sure I understand. The main difference between the Heavy Crossbow and the Longbow (other than the range and loading properties which would remain the same) is the d10 damage vs the d8 damage. Am I missing something, or are you suggesting a fix for different inequities?

[manny2510]

How to modify GWF: if the die lands on the trigger number you reroll the damage die once and add that to the initial roll. Pretty much a mini-crit.

[Once a Fool]

Already done in the OP. :smallsmile:



I'm not sure I understand. The main difference between the Heavy Crossbow and the Longbow (other than the range and loading properties which would remain the same) is the d10 damage vs the d8 damage. Am I missing something, or are you suggesting a fix for different inequities?

All of my suggestions assumed damage dice=hit dice. In order to compensate for the loading property's hindering quality, you could increase its damage, but doing so by one die step doesn't even come close to making up the difference in lost damage from extra attacks.

Doubling the damage, as I suggested in my last post, is also problematic, since it is a significant boost to single-attack classes and still less damaging than multiple attacks (because it only gets modifiers once). My revised suggestion is to maximize damage from a loading weapon if you give up extra attacks to use it. On a hit, of course. Still a little weak, but very consistent damage.

[pwykersotz]

How to modify GWF: if the die lands on the trigger number you reroll the damage die once and add that to the initial roll. Pretty much a mini-crit.

If we're going the extra mile and adding a new die roll, I think I'd rather do as Once a Fool suggested and reroll until not a 1 or 2 instead.


All of my suggestions assumed damage dice=hit dice. In order to compensate for the loading property's hindering quality, you could increase its damage, but doing so by one die step doesn't even come close to making up the difference in lost damage from extra attacks.

Doubling the damage, as I suggested in my last post, is also problematic, since it is a significant boost to single-attack classes and still less damaging than multiple attacks (because it only gets modifiers once). My revised suggestion is to maximize damage from a loading weapon if you give up extra attacks to use it. On a hit, of course. Still a little weak, but very consistent damage.

Ah, so you're thinking of compensating for the loading property as written to ensure equity to a certain degree, rather than just translating it as written. Got it.

I admit that wasn't a step I'd considered taking, but I'll entertain it. Wouldn't it be easier to simply remove the loading property rather than have clever special rules for use? The only difference then would be range and theme. It would make one element of Crossbow Expert redundant, but I don't think that was really the main draw in the first place.

[Once a Fool]

If we're going the extra mile and adding a new die roll, I think I'd rather do as Once a Fool suggested and reroll until not a 1 or 2 instead.



Ah, so you're thinking of compensating for the loading property as written to ensure equity to a certain degree, rather than just translating it as written. Got it.

I admit that wasn't a step I'd considered taking, but I'll entertain it. Wouldn't it be easier to simply remove the loading property rather than have clever special rules for use? The only difference then would be range and theme. It would make one element of Crossbow Expert redundant, but I don't think that was really the main draw in the first place.

Sure, that works too. I was just offering an option that encompassed a meaningful decision for the player. Of course, if it were me, I'd probably just stick with the simple minimum strength scores on bows. But I'm just putting ideas out there. Options, ya know.

[pwykersotz]

Sure, that works too. I was just offering an option that encompassed a meaningful decision for the player. Of course, if it were me, I'd probably just stick with the simple minimum strength scores on bows. But I'm just putting ideas out there. Options, ya know.

Yes, and they're very much appreciated. Like your sig says, gotta gain more from a discussion than what you bring in. :smallsmile:

[Kane0]

To be fair, the rules dont compensate crossbows for the loading property beyond a die increase and a proficiency easier as it is. You arent exactly expected to go farther than that, eh?
Course, in some games there isnt much need for the loading quality anyway, and the feat gets rid of it too.

[Once a Fool]

To be fair, the rules dont compensate crossbows for the loading property beyond a die increase and a proficiency easier as it is. You arent exactly expected to go farther than that, eh?
Course, in some games there isnt much need for the loading quality anyway, and the feat gets rid of it too.

Another good point. I suppose the designers probably wanted/expected single-attack classes to gravitate toward crossbows (or magic) and extra-attack classes to gravitate more toward bows.

[Kane0]

So going this way means that the only factors differentiating weapons are their range and qualities, which you may or may not want to expand on for flavor and balance reasons.

[pwykersotz]

So going this way means that the only factors differentiating weapons are their range and qualities, which you may or may not want to expand on for flavor and balance reasons.

Exactly. The simplification was an important step to reduce what I perceive to be needless complexity, but I enjoy complexity that adds real depth to the game. The trouble is doing it without bogging down the combat system. It might be simply worth it to acknowledge the current qualities as the default ones, and have specially crafted weapons have a single unique or custom quality. This might allow a bit more player connection with the weapon. What form those would take, I'm not sure yet.

[acemcjack]

How about adding a class damage die for some classes, and choosing the highest of the weapon damage die and the class damage die, in a way similar to the advantage/disadvantage mechanic?

For example, suppose Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins get a D8 or D6 damage dice, while Rogues, Monks, Clerics and Bards get a D6 or D4 damage die (or maybe just their own HD), and when rolling for damage with any weapon, they choose the highest of the two.
I wouldn't give a Wizard a damage die, but perhaps certain archetypes might grant a higher damage die (e.g. Assassin, War Domain Cleric, Bladesinger, etc.)

So, if a Barbarian wants to use a Greataxe, for instance, he would roll a d12 for the weapon damage die and a d8 for his class damage die (or perhaps 2d12, if you decide using the HD alternative), and pick the highest of the two when calculating damage.

What do you think?

[Kane0]

Exactly. The simplification was an important step to reduce what I perceive to be needless complexity, but I enjoy complexity that adds real depth to the game. The trouble is doing it without bogging down the combat system. It might be simply worth it to acknowledge the current qualities as the default ones, and have specially crafted weapons have a single unique or custom quality. This might allow a bit more player connection with the weapon. What form those would take, I'm not sure yet.

So how about:
As discussed, weapon damage equals hit die.
Every weapon has one property, rarely more. Qualities are:

- two handed: needs two hands to use. Not usually a quality used on its own.
- finesse: can use dex in place of str for attack and damage
- ranged: uses some form of ammunition and has a range
- reach: increases reach by 5', at a cost of disadvantage to attack creatures within 5'
- versatile: can choose to wield in both hands, increasing damage die 1 step when doing so
- heavy: must use two hands to wield, increasing damage die 2 steps
- tripping/entangling: can be used to grapple or disarm an opponent using the weapon instead of a free hand (not sure if this is already the case, might actually be useless)
- impaling: when used to make or recieve a charge (preparing an action) deals an additional damage die

Thus crossbows are equal to bows in all but range, proficiency and weight, greatswords, longsword and shortswords all retain their uses and special cases like the whip amd lance also get their chance to shine. Polearms also remain balanced against other two handed options.

This also allows players to bring in unique weapons without requiring you to add to a table. They name and describe a weapon, all you have to do is allocate it a quality or two. Magic items might even have extra qualities, a nice alternative to magic powers and +1s

[pwykersotz]

How about adding a class damage die for some classes, and choosing the highest of the weapon damage die and the class damage die, in a way similar to the advantage/disadvantage mechanic?

For example, suppose Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins get a D8 or D6 damage dice, while Rogues, Monks, Clerics and Bards get a D6 or D4 damage die (or maybe just their own HD), and when rolling for damage with any weapon, they choose the highest of the two.
I wouldn't give a Wizard a damage die, but perhaps certain archetypes might grant a higher damage die (e.g. Assassin, War Domain Cleric, Bladesinger, etc.)

So, if a Barbarian wants to use a Greataxe, for instance, he would roll a d12 for the weapon damage die and a d8 for his class damage die (or perhaps 2d12, if you decide using the HD alternative), and pick the highest of the two when calculating damage.

What do you think?

I think it's a very interesting system, but I don't really see it being compatible with my objectives. I'm not really trying to protect against poor rolls or increase damage from the norm, just reduce complexity.


So how about:
As discussed, weapon damage equals hit die.
Every weapon has one property, rarely more. Qualities are:

- two handed: needs two hands to use. Not usually a quality used on its own.
- finesse: can use dex in place of str for attack and damage
- ranged: uses some form of ammunition and has a range
- reach: increases reach by 5', at a cost of disadvantage to attack creatures within 5'
- versatile: can choose to wield in both hands, increasing damage die 1 step when doing so
- heavy: must use two hands to wield, increasing damage die 2 steps
- tripping/entangling: can be used to grapple or disarm an opponent using the weapon instead of a free hand (not sure if this is already the case, might actually be useless)
- impaling: when used to make or recieve a charge (preparing an action) deals an additional damage die

Thus crossbows are equal to bows in all but range, proficiency and weight, greatswords, longsword and shortswords all retain their uses and special cases like the whip amd lance also get their chance to shine. Polearms also remain balanced against other two handed options.

This also allows players to bring in unique weapons without requiring you to add to a table. They name and describe a weapon, all you have to do is allocate it a quality or two. Magic items might even have extra qualities, a nice alternative to magic powers and +1s

I think that is a fantastic way to simplify the list. Tying the damage increase to the Heavy property does disenfranchise the poor, poor Greatclub, but I don't think that in 7 years of gaming I've ever seen that weapon used...so I'm not particularly concerned. And I like the way Versatile and Heavy are distinguished. And the Impaling property, where in the books was that again? I know it wasn't a property, I remember it being tied to a specific polearm but I can't find it now.

Edit: I think it might buff ranged weapons too much though. I just remembered the Longbow is a heavy weapon. It's already getting a damage boost with the heavy weapon classes, but to add a buff overall like that seems excessive.
I realize now that you clearly specified that weapons have only one property in general, and range would preclude heavy.

Follow up question: I'm really inclined to add a static +1 damage for each die type increased as opposed to rolling a different die. This, of course, forces the average as opposed to letting the player roll better or worse, and it lets the player always use the same die. Good idea, or bad?

[Once a Fool]

Follow up question: I'm really inclined to add a static +1 damage for each die type increased as opposed to rolling a different die. This, of course, forces the average as opposed to letting the player roll better or worse, and it lets the player always use the same die. Good idea, or bad?

Upside: easy to implement. Possibly easier to remember.

Downside: no physical representation for remembering. Most conditional passive (by which I mean not, in themselves, an ability being used) bonuses in 5e can be represented by physically placing a specific die on your character sheet as a reminder to use it. This could be done by adding +1d4 instead of +2 or +1d2 (a coin) instead of +1. If it matters to you.

[Finieous]

FYI this is an idea that goes back at least to Dragon #66.

"What Sapienza proposes is class-based weapon damage, an idea that's been kicked around the OSR for several years now. Sapienza divides characters up into fighters, semi-fighters, and non-fighters. How much damage a weapon deals is based not on the weapon itself but on the class that wields it. Thus, while a cleric -- a semi-fighter -- can wield a sword, he does only 1d6 damage with it rather than the 1d8 of fighters (or, for that matter, the 1d4 of non-fighters, like magic-users)."

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2011/11/articles-of-dragon-should-they-have.html

I think it's cool and used it in one of my B/X campaigns. Some people hate it.

[pwykersotz]

FYI this is an idea that goes back at least to Dragon #66.

"What Sapienza proposes is class-based weapon damage, an idea that's been kicked around the OSR for several years now. Sapienza divides characters up into fighters, semi-fighters, and non-fighters. How much damage a weapon deals is based not on the weapon itself but on the class that wields it. Thus, while a cleric -- a semi-fighter -- can wield a sword, he does only 1d6 damage with it rather than the 1d8 of fighters (or, for that matter, the 1d4 of non-fighters, like magic-users)."

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2011/11/articles-of-dragon-should-they-have.html

I think it's cool and used it in one of my B/X campaigns. Some people hate it.

That's pretty awesome. I knew the idea existed for a while, but I had no idea that it went back that far.

[Kane0]

Follow up question: I'm really inclined to add a static +1 damage for each die type increased as opposed to rolling a different die. This, of course, forces the average as opposed to letting the player roll better or worse, and it lets the player always use the same die. Good idea, or bad?

Theres nothing wrong mechanically with that besides maybe increasing the minimum damage as well as reducing the maximum, but more importantly its against 5e design on principal. By all means you can do it, however 5e as a whole shies away from static modifiers like +1 to damage. It shows up only a handful of times (fighting styles and rage for example), and they try to make it as clear and easy to distinguish as possible. The designers really wanted to get away from mires of modifiers like 3.x relied on.

Edit: And impaling was just one i threw in there for lances, since they don't have any others. You could add it to certain spears and the like too.
You could easily give greatclubs heavy, or another quality of your design. Just have your player describe his weapon and you assign a quality that you both agree with. For example a player might want to relive the glory days of the spiked chain, so you give him a weapon that is either reach or tripping/entangling plus two handed.

[2D8HP]

If you really want to make it simple, IIRC in the LBB's of 0e D&D, all classes had 1d6 HP's and all weapons did 1D6 damage.
To make it much more complex real traditional bows have different "pulls"which require different strength to use effectively, and can mean dramatically different ranges and hitting force. From their musculature forensic anthropologist could tell which bodies belonged to the archers in the wreckage of the sunken late medieval/early renaissance warship "Mary Rose", as their skeletons were warped. In real historic military use of Longbows strength was very important.

[REVISIONIST]

How would this work for the MM though? Monsters with natural weapons etc.? I love the base damage by class, but doesn't that also skew the monsters? I understand you want to simplify the weapons table and I agree with the all the upthread ideas, but as a DM now I have to take a hard look at the Monster Manual and see how to apply these same ideas. I don't see huminoids or npc's who actually wield weapons being so much of a problem (ie. guard with sword = fighter etc.) but to keep damage consistent for creatures vs. PC's then I'm deconstructing any monster that doesn't
use a weapon. Or is just as simple as using their damage dice and going from there? AFB right now and like the premise of dice per class, but will I need to take a hard look at the pc's opponents?

[Kane0]

I do believe monster HP has an average number followed by a rolled number in dice, which you can use in the same way we are here.
For example the Cockatrice has 27 (6d6 +6) HP, if it were to somehow use a weapon it would probably do 1d6 damage.

[Sindeloke]

Why worry about monsters at all? They already follow different rules than player characters, and their damage is already (supposedly) balanced around the HP and AC that players are expected to have, which aren't changed in any way by this system. As it stands, non-humanoid damage is somewhat arbitrary, and humanoid damage has arbitrary modifiers (a 2 HD hobgoblin, meant to be faced by 1st level PCs, has the sneak attack of a 3rd level rogue to augment its comparatively irrelevant base weapon damage), so trying to fit them into a consistent system is a more substantial shift in design principles than doing so for the weapons table (which does already follow a consistent system, for the most part).

[pwykersotz]

Theres nothing wrong mechanically with that besides maybe increasing the minimum damage as well as reducing the maximum, but more importantly its against 5e design on principal. By all means you can do it, however 5e as a whole shies away from static modifiers like +1 to damage. It shows up only a handful of times (fighting styles and rage for example), and they try to make it as clear and easy to distinguish as possible. The designers really wanted to get away from mires of modifiers like 3.x relied on.

I think that the elegance of using a single class die outweighs the static bonus issue, especially since this isn't going to stack any higher on the damage scale than would otherwise be possible.


If you really want to make it simple, IIRC in the LBB's of 0e D&D, all classes had 1d6 HP's and all weapons did 1D6 damage.
To make it much more complex real traditional bows have different "pulls"which require different strength to use effectively, and can mean dramatically different ranges and hitting force. From their musculature forensic anthropologist could tell which bodies belonged to the archers in the wreckage of the sunken late medieval/early renaissance warship "Mary Rose", as their skeletons were warped. In real historic military use of Longbows strength was very important.

I think I'll avoid changing the Hit Dice of all the classes. That's a little more of a balance rework than I want to tackle.
And yes, differing strengths for bows can be cool, hence the Composite bows from 3.5. I'm reconsidering that as the solution.

In terms of monsters, that's not really a concern for me. As has been pointed out, if I really want simplicity I can just take average damage. The idea of working out new info for every statblock in the monster manual or having to do an on-the-fly conversion for each creature isn't appealing to me.