Removing the Two-Handed property and buffing damage on Versatile weapons

[LeonBH]

Something I've felt lately (and have seen other people in other threads/forums/sites bring up) is that two-handed weapons and two-handed versatile weapons seem to be unsatisfying. Holding a versatile weapon two-handed just doesn't add up if you can just hold a better two-handed weapon. And if you wanted to hold a one-handed weapon in one hand and hold a shield in another, what's the point of the versatile property? You wouldn't be able to hold the weapon with two hands anyway.

Many people have been trying to fix it with a feat or Fighting Style. I have a different idea. What if there were simply no two-handed weapons? So yes, you can wield a Greatsword in one hand -- but so can the enemy, and this is epic fantasy. So let's assume this is possible for a moment, just for this thread.

Now that all weapons can be wielded in one hand, the Versatile property should then get better dice when two-handed. It still deals 1d8 with one hand, but 1d12 with two hands (for melee martial weapons, anyway).

The only weapon I think that is "nerfed" by this change is the Greataxe, which deals 1d12 with two hands before this change, when Versatile can deal the same damage but with both hands. But now a Greataxe deals 1d12 with one hand, so it evens out in the end.

A happy side effect is it also makes Two-Weapon fighting more fun and viable, but it still won't outdo a class with Extra Attack.

How would these changes break the game?

[skaddix]

Personally I like a STR MOD. Ergo when wielding a weapon that is versatile or two handed in both hands you get to add 1.5X the normal strength mod.

[djreynolds]

I think the game is designed to be played with or without feats and multiclassing

I found when I was playing a dwarf cleric in CoS, at times I would use my war hammer and battle axe two-handed just for the extra damage (or possibility)

I know its not much, 1d8 to 1d10... but the only fix is what they did in OLD 1E and that math was crazy on some of those weapons

[LeonBH]

Personally I like a STR MOD. Ergo when wielding a weapon that is versatile or two handed in both hands you get to add 1.5X the normal strength mod.

That is an option as well. Though it does make Versatile weapons better than two-handed weapons in this case, as they deal more damage and are more versatile besides.


I think the game is designed to be played with or without feats and multiclassing

I found when I was playing a dwarf cleric in CoS, at times I would use my war hammer and battle axe two-handed just for the extra damage (or possibility)

I know its not much, 1d8 to 1d10... but the only fix is what they did in OLD 1E and that math was crazy on some of those weapons

Well, this change doesn't need feats or multiclasses, so we're on the same page :)

But also, if your dwarf cleric used the two-handed property of a versatile weapon, I think it's because of the Heavy property, which discourages small races from using heavy weapons for some reason. I feel like, in epic fantasy, if a Strength 20 Dwarf wields a heavy weapon, they should be able to do it. But, those are the rules.

[djreynolds]

I don't see a problem with it, as you can play a Halfling with a 20 strength

But sometimes the issue is that the "little" things in game tend to be the items argued about the most.

Not the fireball mind you, but crossbow expert. I think its because the little things ground us.

For instance we a playing in the astral realm and all this 3 dimensional movement is what is bogging down this part of the game because we tend to work in 2 dimensional thinking and players are confounded by it.

So what I'm saying is, having a gnome wielding two great axes might be too much... as crazy as it sounds when the wizard is casting teleport.

[LeonBH]

A gnome wielding two greatswords? Crazy! :P

But no, they would still have disadvantage by the rules. What I'm proposing just gets rid of the two-handed property. And balancing around the absence of feats, the gnome wouldn't be able to dual wield greatswords without the Dual Wielder feat because they're both non-light weapons.

[Trampaige]

But also, if your dwarf cleric used the two-handed property of a versatile weapon, I think it's because of the Heavy property, which discourages small races from using heavy weapons for some reason. I feel like, in epic fantasy, if a Strength 20 Dwarf wields a heavy weapon, they should be able to do it. But, those are the rules.

Dwarves are medium.

[LeonBH]

Should have checked that. In which case, this Dwarf cleric could have used a heavy two-handed weapon instead of a versatile weapon with two hands and dealt better damage. :)

[MrStabby]

Versatile should mean that people, in practice, switch from using it in one hand to using it in two.

It isn't the biggest issue in the game though.

My first thoughts on fixing it would be a two stage process:

1) you can add dex bonus to damage whilst wielded in two hands to represent being better able to guide the weapon to vulnerable areas.

2) Ensuring there are a lot of benefits to having a free hand. Require it not just for grappling but also needed for shoving (not including shield mastery) and add in a couple more manoeuvres that would need a free hand.

Together this would provide enough of a damage boost to make 2 handing a weapon attractive whilst the tactical options for a free hand would justify sometimes going down to 1 hand. May need some fine tuning though.

[NNescio]

Versatile weapons give you the option of going 1-H or 2-H, which is somewhat useful for people who switch between 1-H and shield and 2-H ranged regularly. The versatile weapon can be used 2-H if the user cannot spare the action to equip his shield when he's caught in melee with his ranged weapon up.

There are more circumstantial uses which require a second hand free (you can hold a 2-H weapon with one hand but you can't swing it) like hanging off a rope or holding a focus or wand (again, you can hold a 2-H weapon and another object, but swinging it requires you to fool around with dropping items or using your free object interaction, and you can't OA with a 2-H weapon if you don't have both hands free).

Really, the better versatile weapons (longsword and warhammer) used 2-H lose only like 1~1.5 damage when compared to 2-H weapons. The main tradeoff is that you can't GWM with it (heavy weapons are usually two-handed, not versatile) in exchange for being able to use a shield or wield/hold some other object.


Should have checked that. In which case, this Dwarf cleric could have used a heavy two-handed weapon instead of a versatile weapon with two hands and dealt better damage. :)

Clerics generally want shields because they don't want to get hit and blow their concentration. Versatile weapons usually have the best damage range compared to most other 1-H weapons.

Occasionally they may doff the shield if they want to fire at faraway enemies (Cleric cantrips and spells generally have sucky ranges) with a bow or crossbow. If they get caught offguard without the opportunity to don their shield (which eats an action), they might as well just drop their ranged weapon and 2-H the versatile weapon they're carrying.

[McNinja]

Versatile should mean that people, in practice, switch from using it in one hand to using it in two.

It isn't the biggest issue in the game though.

My first thoughts on fixing it would be a two stage process:

1) you can add dex bonus to damage whilst wielded in two hands to represent being better able to guide the weapon to vulnerable areas.

2) Ensuring there are a lot of benefits to having a free hand. Require it not just for grappling but also needed for shoving (not including shield mastery) and add in a couple more manoeuvres that would need a free hand.

Together this would provide enough of a damage boost to make 2 handing a weapon attractive whilst the tactical options for a free hand would justify sometimes going down to 1 hand. May need some fine tuning though.I'm not sure a flat dex bonus would work with all weapons logically. You can't swing or maneuver a greatsword with the speed you can with a longsword. It just won't happen. A 5-6 foot sword vs a 3-4 foot sword is vastly different. I'm all for changing versatility to mean something, because 1d8->1d10 is simply not worth it most of the time.

[MrStabby]

I'm not sure a flat dex bonus would work with all weapons logically. You can't swing or maneuver a greatsword with the speed you can with a longsword. It just won't happen. A 5-6 foot sword vs a 3-4 foot sword is vastly different. I'm all for changing versatility to mean something, because 1d8->1d10 is simply not worth it most of the time.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant for the dex bonus to damage to apply to versatile weapons being used in 2 hands. Possibly as half a feat, possibly as a fighting style or even just by itself.

[LeonBH]

Addressing comments in reverse order here.

I agree that, on the whole, this issue is not that big of a deal. But it did bother me, so I had some of my own ideas to address it (and make the game more epic at the same time).

I'm not quite sold on adding Dex to the damage of a versatile weapon, as some fighters may dump Dex and this penalizes them (and even if they had 10 Dex, then it doesn't benefit them at all; instead, it just makes versatile weapon users MAD). But as for adding incentives to have a free hand... well, that's essentially putting the weight on the DM to design encounters like that. It would be nice if the system carried that weight for them and did not have this issue out of the box.

In the case of a character who regularly uses the versatile property, I haven't quite met someone who plays in that style. Yes, in a pinch, if they had a versatile weapon when they're caught without their shield, it's good. But on a "normal" adventuring day, in which it's the PCs running into the danger, I haven't found someone who makes a habit of switching between 1-H and 2-H. The need for the versatile property doesn't actually come up much, and in practice I've never seen someone take advantage of it.

And as for the case of a cleric who does S&B style, the versatile property of the weapon is only incidental. They're using it one handed because it gives the best damage, but because of the shield, they can't really use the 2-H property during the fight. If they were carrying a non-versatile weapon with the same damage die, they wouldn't even notice on a typical adventuring day.

[Sir cryosin]

I don't understand y'all problems with the versatile property. It ups the damage die because you are using two hands to apply more force and better control. Also if a fighter can go around wielding a greatsword instead of a longsword with a shield or two gs. Why would anyone pick a greatsword. Adding more damage to a versatile longsword why would you ever use a greatsword when you can use a longsword and switch to using a shield when you need more AC.

[NNescio]

I don't understand y'all problems with the versatile property. It ups the damage die because you are using two hands to apply more force and better control. Also if a fighter can go around wielding a greatsword instead of a longsword with a shield or two gs. Why would anyone pick a greatsword. Adding more damage to a versatile longsword why would you ever use a greatsword when you can use a longsword and switch to using a shield when you need more AC.

Great Weapon Master.

[Unoriginal]

Seriously, what's the supposed "problem" with versatile weapons?


Versatile weapons are for, like the term indicates, versatility. You need to hold something as you fight, like a shield or a ladder? Use one hand. You'd rather do a bit more damage? Use two.



Great Weapon Master.

No offense, but that explains nothing.

[gfishfunk]

Enforce spellcasting: a 2H weapon cannot be wielded while spellcasting. Versatile weapons can be used while spellcasting and subsequently used to attack with 2H.

Done. Versatile weapons now have their niche.

[LeonBH]

The "problem" is, have you every seen someone capitalize on the versatile property? Finesse is well-used, Heavy is significant due to the feat, Ranged is obviously for range weapons. But Versatile weapons are floating in the aether, and they're not particularly exciting to play.

The assumption here is, if you buy in to this discussion, you would like to see a versatile weapon character.


Enforce spellcasting: a 2H weapon cannot be wielded while spellcasting. Versatile weapons can be used while spellcasting and subsequently used to attack with 2H.

This is a nerf to classes to force versatile weapons to be useful. We could do better by buffing things instead.

[Specter]

The easiest solutions are:

1) Add 1,5x the STR mod, a la 3.5;
2) Treat every 1 and 2 rolled on the two-handed versatile weapon as a 3.

Using a greataxe one-handedly is just weird.

[NNescio]

The "problem" is, have you every seen someone capitalize on the versatile property? Finesse is well-used, Heavy is significant due to the feat, Ranged is obviously for range weapons. But Versatile weapons are floating in the aether, and they're not particularly exciting to play.

The assumption here is, if you buy in to this discussion, you would like to see a versatile weapon character

Monks before Level 11 (at which point their martial arts damage die becomes 1d8, so there's no need to 2-H the staff any longer). This is pretty much capitalizing on the versatile property of a quarterstaff, because staves still qualify for Martial Arts despite being used 2-H because they technically don't have the "Two-Handed" property (or the "Heavy" property, for that matter).

Grapplers (including some Monks) may also like to capitalize on the Versatile property to allow them to free one hand to grapple other creatures while still retaining the ability to attack.

[Unoriginal]

The "problem" is, have you every seen someone capitalize on the versatile property? Finesse is well-used, Heavy is significant due to the feat, Ranged is obviously for range weapons. But Versatile weapons are floating in the aether, and they're not particularly exciting to play.

The assumption here is, if you buy in to this discussion, you would like to see a versatile weapon character.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What makes versatile weapons "not exciting to play" ? That they don't have min-maxed builds based around them?




This is a nerf to classes to force versatile weapons to be useful. We could do better by buffing things instead.

It's not a nerf, you can't cast a spell while holding a two-handed weapon.


The easiest solutions are:

1) Add 1,5x the STR mod, a la 3.5;
2) Treat every 1 and 2 rolled on the two-handed versatile weapon as a 3.

Using a greataxe one-handedly is just weird.

Those are "solutions" to a problem that is not here.

[NNescio]

It's not a nerf, you can't cast a spell while holding a two-handed weapon.

You can. Just hold it with one hand while you cast a spell, using the other for the somatic components (and/or material). This is made more clear in the PHB errata (https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata-V1.pdf):


Two-Handed (p. 147). This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.

Heck, non Somatic spells don't even require a free hand. You can very well cast it while tied up (like Misty Step and a lot of teleportation spells, for example).

[Unoriginal]

You can. Just hold it with one hand while you cast a spell, using the other for the somatic components (and/or material). This is made more clear in the PHB errata (https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata-V1.pdf):

Allow me to correct myself: you can't cast spell when you hold a 2 handed weapon in an attack position, if the spell has S components.

[LeonBH]

Using a greataxe one-handedly is just weird.

It looks cool in my head. I don't quite know how to describe it, but I like the aesthetic.


Allow me to correct myself: you can't cast spell when you hold a 2 handed weapon in an attack position, if the spell has S components.

In which case... you're right. But that doesn't disallow casters from using a Greatsword and casting, as you seemed to imply. Just have them let go of the weapon (free action), cast a spell, and then hold it back again (free object interaction).


I have no idea what you're talking about. What makes versatile weapons "not exciting to play" ? That they don't have min-maxed builds based around them?

If you already have ideas about me, I'm just not fighting you on this. :)

I don't like versatile weapons as they are. We are discussing improvements, but you are shooting it down.


Those are "solutions" to a problem that is not here.

You're right, there's no problem. We can and do play the game as written, including with versatile weapons.


Monks before Level 11 (at which point their martial arts damage die becomes 1d8, so there's no need to 2-H the staff any longer). This is pretty much capitalizing on the versatile property of a quarterstaff, because staves still qualify for Martial Arts despite being used 2-H because they technically don't have the "Two-Handed" property (or the "Heavy" property, for that matter).

Grapplers (including some Monks) may also like to capitalize on the Versatile property to allow them to free one hand to grapple other creatures while still retaining the ability to attack.

This is a good point. Monks are really far off my radar as I've never played them. The point about the grappler builds is also well-received. (as an aside, isn't it strange that monks don't make great grapplers? Bards on the other hand...).

How would things change for a monk if the two-handed property were removed from all weapons, in your opinion?

[Specter]

Those are "solutions" to a problem that is not here.


Something I've felt lately (and have seen other people in other threads/forums/sites bring up) is that two-handed weapons and two-handed versatile weapons seem to be unsatisfying. Holding a versatile weapon two-handed just doesn't add up if you can just hold a better two-handed weapon. And if you wanted to hold a one-handed weapon in one hand and hold a shield in another, what's the point of the versatile property? You wouldn't be able to hold the weapon with two hands anyway.

Above is the problem. Not that I care about it, but there's no reason to use a versatile weapon as the game stands right now.

[NNescio]

How would things change for a monk if the two-handed property were removed from all weapons, in your opinion?

Greatclubs would count as monk weapons then, but it still deals the same damage as a 2-H quarterstaff or spear.

Edit: Oh, right, removing Two-Handed from all weapons would mean all crossbows can now be fired with a single hand. Ammunition property (because of the PHB errata) still prevents bows from being fired with one hand though, so Monks can only take advantage of this with the light crossbow, and they still need another free hand to reload it. Not that it matters too much anyway (other than letting a monk fire a light xbow without dropping or 'sheathing' his quarterstaff/shortbow/shortsword), because Monks tend to keep their hands free.

Shield users (like Clerics) would benefit more.

[Unoriginal]

If you already have ideas about me, I'm just not fighting you on this. :)

I have no idea about you, I just don't get what you're talking about.



I don't like versatile weapons as they are. We are discussing improvements, but you are shooting it down.

Yes, because I don't get what you want improved.



You're right, there's no problem. We can and do play the game as written, including with versatile weapons.

Well, it's you who were talking about fixing things, so it implies you see a problem with them.


Above is the problem. Not that I care about it, but there's no reason to use a versatile weapon as the game stands right now.

Sure there is reasons. Two exemples: liking the weapon, and wanting to be able to change how you use the weapon depending on the fight.

[LeonBH]

Greatclubs would count as monk weapons then, but it still deals the same damage as a 2-H quarterstaff or spear.

So not much, then? I also thought of buffing the damage of a versatile weapon held with 2 hands as below.


Now that all weapons can be wielded in one hand, the Versatile property should then get better dice when two-handed. It still deals 1d8 with one hand, but 1d12 with two hands (for melee martial weapons, anyway).

Sounds like Monks would also get buffed with these changes. Which, in my mind, is a good thing. :)

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

If you look at the weapons table, you will see that there are not really that many unique weapons, most weapons are just worse versions of existing weapons, or the same the weapon that has a different damage type.

Darts ---> Daggers ----> Javalin ----> Spear ( for example )

Darts do D4 and have no melee options

Daggers do D4 and can be used in melee and be throw

Javelin do D6 and only loose finesse

Spears do D6/D8 and only loose a little bit of range compared to a Javelin

You can break down all simple weapons in this way ( martial weapons are a little harder because of feat support)

The PHB actually says that if there is a weapon that does not exist you can make a weapon using any preexisting stats. So if you want to have a Finesse Mace, you can give it the stats of a rapier with no ill effects to game balance.

Damage types rarely come up anyway as being singled out as being resisted or not resisted excursively, so changing the damage type of a weapon should not matter

[NNescio]

The PHB actually says that if there is a weapon that does not exist you can make a weapon using any preexisting stats. So if you want to have a Finesse Mace, you can give it the stats of a rapier with no ill effects to game balance.

Does give Rogues easy access to bludgeoning damage though (they otherwise have to use slings). This removes one of the weaknesses of the Rogue (needs to deal piercing damage to benefit from SA, unless he uses a sling), so keep that in mind. This advantage can come up very early against Skeletons and Ice Mephits.

(Bludgeoning is generally the best physical damage type, followed by Slashing, then Piercing, 'though this only matters for a very small selection of MM monsters.)


So not much, then? I also thought of buffing the damage of a versatile weapon held with 2 hands as below.



Sounds like Monks would also get buffed with these changes. Which, in my mind, is a good thing. :)

Be careful of crossbows that used to be Two-Handed, which can now be fired with one hand (but still require both hands to reload). Bows are non-issues due to the PHB errata on the Loading property.

[LeonBH]

Idkwhatmyscreen, I think it's the martial weapons that really get affected by this change. Though as noted by NNescio, I missed the one on the quarterstaff due to the Monk. But it seems it's all good on that front, too.

As for reskinning weapons. Yeah, this is true and is an option. But, I don't know. I like reskinning spells, classes, backgrounds, etc. But I really do want to see an alternate take to the mechanics of these weapons. Having one Greatsword wielded in two hands dealing 2d6 and a second Greatsword dealing 1d10 when wielded in two hands but can be held in one hand to 1d8 is something you can definitely do, and is satisfying to a degree.

I'm not really worried about damage types either. It's very obscure corner cases when they come into play, and the damage type follows the flavor of that weapon anyway.


Does give Rogues easy access to bludgeoning damage though (they otherwise have to use slings). This removes one of the weaknesses of the Rogue (needs to deal piercing damage to benefit from SA, unless he uses a sling), so keep that in mind.

I haven't quite encountered anything where Rogues dealing bludgeoning damage is an issue. I can't think of a reason why this can be considered a weakness. Care to expound?

[NNescio]

I haven't quite encountered anything where Rogues dealing bludgeoning damage is an issue. I can't think of a reason why this can be considered a weakness. Care to explain?

Rogues generally are confined to using Piercing weapons unless they use a Sling (which has its own issues of requiring two hands despite being a one-handed ranged weapon, due to its Loading property) or a Scimitar (slashing, but lower damage die). Skeletons are usually a common enemy if undead is involved at some point and they have vulnerability to bludgeoning, which the rest of the party can exploit by switching to bludgeoning weapons (doesn't require much metagaming beyond guessing in-character that skellies = don't have much flesh to pierce or slash but are weak against getting their kneecaps or skulls shattered) . Rogues can't do this except via the Sling (which complicates TWF), unless they want to give up SA.

Ice Mephits are another low CR enemy with vulnerability to bludgeoning, but they are significantly rarer, so mostly not an issue.

There are a handful of monsters that have resistance to piercing, but those can be gotten around via switching to Slashing, IIRC.

Generally reskinning B/P/S for weapons isn't that much of an issue in 5e as compared to previous editions, because damage vulnerabilities and resistances are far less common now, and most of the physical resistances can be gotten around by using magical weapons. It still has some measurable impact on balance though (makes the Rogue a tiny bit stronger), however minor, if only because of the near-ubiquity of Skeletons in undead dungeons/campaigns.

Edit: Utility-wise, Bludgeoning and Slashing damage are generally better than piercing, as Bludgeoning can be used to smash objects or brute-force doors and creating other methods of ingress, while Slashing can be used to cut ropes and objects (important if someone is restrained by webs or nets). These circumstances might come up sometimes.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Does give Rogues easy access to bludgeoning damage though (they otherwise have to use slings). This removes one of the weaknesses of the Rogue (needs to deal piercing damage to benefit from SA, unless he uses a sling), so keep that in mind.



Be careful of crossbows that used to be Two-Handed, which can now be fired with one hand (but still require both hands to reload). Bows are non-issues due to the PHB errata on the Loading property.

How many monsters in the monster manual are resistant to piercing damage and only piercing damage, or weak to bludgeoning and only bludgeoning?

Often times you just wind up with monsters being all or nothing


Idkwhatmyscreen, I think it's the martial weapons that really get affected by this change. Though as noted by NNescio, I missed the one on the quarterstaff due to the Monk. But it seems it's all good on that front, too.

As for reskinning weapons. Yeah, this is true and is an option. But, I don't know. I like reskinning spells, classes, backgrounds, etc. But I really do want to see an alternate take to the mechanics of these weapons. Having one Greatsword wielded in two hands dealing 2d6 and a second Greatsword dealing 1d10 when wielded in two hands but can be held in one hand to 1d8 is something you can definitely do, and is satisfying to a degree.


The problem is that by removing the two handed property from certain weapons you wind up having a bunch of weapons that are the same and worse then the best two handed weapons. why would anybody use a long sword when they can use a Greatsword at no cost?

The set up is roughly Greatweapons ( two handed big damge dealers) Pole Arms ( Two handed weapons you only care about for the feat) the not pole arms ( the weapons with similar stats that don't qualify) The Versatile (for non martial heavy melee builds), and the not versitle (d8 only club)

Basically Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins use weapons that do 2d6 or 1d12 ( unless they want to duel wield or use a shield)

Bards Clerics and Rangers use the Versatile or not Versatile weapons as they really want to use a shield or duel wield and have no special reason to use the big weapons

Rouges will use finesse weapons ( the king of which lives in the Not versatile club)
Monks only really get to use simple weapons
Warlocks can use whatever they want with pact of blade as the situation demands

Wizards, sorcerers, and druids have better things to do then make melee attacks

[NNescio]

How many monsters in the monster manual are resistant to piercing damage and only piercing damage, or weak to bludgeoning and only bludgeoning?

Often times you just wind up with monsters being all or nothing.

Not a lot in numbers (in the DMG) due to 5e deemphasizing damage resistance/immunity and vulnerability, but Skellies are a popular choice for DMs whenever undead is involved.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Basically if you want to remove the two handed requirement, You basically say that the expected damage output for characters with martial weapons proficiency is 2d6 per attack ( unless you are a rouge and you get 1d8)

And the expected damage for Simple weapons is 1d8 per attack

Aside from that you could use a shield and get the benefits of the extra damage and the extra ac.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Not a lot in numbers (in the DMG) due to 5e deemphasizing damage resistance/immunity and vulnerability, but Skellies are a popular choice for DMs whenever undead is involved.

True, but the Dm could always drop in a skeleton with opposite resistances ( Rubber skeleton )

[LeonBH]

Be careful of crossbows that used to be Two-Handed, which can now be fired with one hand (but still require both hands to reload). Bows are non-issues due to the PHB errata on the Loading property.

Considering I like to allow Matt Mercer's Gunslinger, I'm fine with crossbows be buffed in this way. The guns have long since surpassed them, though.

I hadn't considered skeletons had bludgeoning resistance. Good to know.


True, but the Dm could always drop in a skeleton with opposite resistances ( Rubber skeleton )

This is hilarious. If I didn't run games with serious overtones, I'd drop this on my players.


The problem is that by removing the two handed property from certain weapons you wind up having a bunch of weapons that are the same and worse then the best two handed weapons. why would anybody use a long sword when they can use a Greatsword at no cost?

Well, they deal the same damage, technically. It's just the versatile weapon deals 1d12 with both hands this time, whereas the two-handed heavy weapon deals 2d6 with one hand. I do know Barbarians and Orcs will prefer the 1d12 due to their brutal critical, so there's a niche there still for the 1d12 weapons.


Basically if you want to remove the two handed requirement, You basically say that the expected damage output for characters with martial weapons proficiency is 2d6 per attack ( unless you are a rouge and you get 1d8)

And the expected damage for Simple weapons is 1d8 per attack

Aside from that you could use a shield and get the benefits of the extra damage and the extra ac.

Huh, this does create a "one true path" kind of arrangement, now that you point it out. Greatsword/Greataxe with a shield.

Well, it wouldn't mesh for Great Weapon Fighting Style since that style requires you use two hands on the attack. It would benefit from Dueling though. I'm tempted to say just remove Dueling and it's fixed, but that affects more than just Strength-based weapon fighters.

[Sir cryosin]

There is nothing wrong with versatile weapons. You use two hand and the damage dice gos up one and it stays under the stronger hit weapons. It right were they should be.
Reasons to use a weapons versatile.
1. You are a gnome or halfling and are playing a greatweapinest character.
2. You don't have time to equit your shield.
3. You are a caster melee and you need one hand to cast your spells with.
4. There are few more I get can't think of right now.

Also have you tried to think about coming up a fighting style to complement using a versatile weapon with two hands like.
Precise control.
When you make a weapon attack with a versatile and you are using it with two hand. You gain +2 to the attack roll.

Counter strike.
When your using a versatile weapon with two hands. And a creature miss you with a melee attack. You can use your reaction to make one weapon attack. The damage dice for this attack is a d4.

[LeonBH]

To be honest, I'm not fine of the Heavy property giving disadvantage to small races when wielding those weapons. But reason #1 is true.

Reason #2 is also true. I'd say it's a corner case (the first few times the DM catches you without your shield, I think you'll start catching on). Of course, if you're going two handed anyway, best pick up a Greatsword rather than have a 2-handed weapon on you.

Reason #3 is not necessarily true. Even with a Greatsword, you can still cast spells. Verbal component spells, for one, are always viable. Spells with Somatic components can be cast if you let go of the Greatsword and use your free hand to cast. Spells with Material components can be cast if you then use your free Object Interaction to grab your spellcasting focus.

I did mention other people using fighting styles in the first post to shore up the weakness. It's not a bad idea, it's just I tried a stab at a different approach.

[Sir cryosin]

Go out a pick up a 8 to 10 feet tall sword waiting around 25 pounds. Start swing that sword around. You would not be able make any precise strikes you will not be able to fall back on any of your fighting techniques properly you would not be able to handle the sword properly. So I think having creatures with the small size or smaller have disadvantage with heavy property weapons is perfectly fine. And it makes complete sense. Yes we may be playing a game of high fantasy. But there are still some laws of physics in this High fantasy world. This is not anime where a girl whose arms are smaller than a piece of my body from my nether region is. I'm sorry for being a prick but if that's something you want to do. there is probably another game out there for you to play.


VERSATILE Weapons already to what there name says. They give you versatility when need. There is nothing you can do to the weapon. That will make other weapons like greatsword or mauls obsolete in comparison.

[SharkForce]

i'm not sold on their being a problem.

they're useful when they're useful. they aren't when they aren't. and that is perfectly fine.

climbing a ladder? holding on to a torch? grappling an enemy that wants to escape very badly? swiping the enemy spellcaster's wand and keeping it in your hand so they can't pick it back up? with a versatile weapon, as soon as you're done doing all that stuff, you can switch to two hands.

if those situations don't come up often for you, then you aren't going to use the versatile property very often... and that's ok. not every weapon needs to be used all the time to be good, it just needs to have a use. if it doesn't have a use for you at any given moment, don't use it. and heck, it isn't even like the weapons don't get used fairly often, it's really just that one property; people use longswords and warhammers and battle axes, they just aren't routinely making use of the versatile property, and again, that is perfectly fine. it's there if they need it, and if they don't need it they can just not use it.

edit: to put it another way, this is like complaining that the thrown property of dagger isn't constantly used, therefore we need to make daggers deal as much damage as a crossbow when thrown so that people will use the thrown property of daggers. so what if it isn't used constantly? it's an ability that you can use if you need it, and just don't use it if you don't need it, and it is perfectly fine that way.

[DanyBallon]

Go out a pick up a 8 to 10 feet tall sword waiting around 25 pounds. Start swing that sword around. You would not be able make any precise strikes you will not be able to fall back on any of your fighting techniques properly you would not be able to handle the sword properly. So I think having creatures with the small size or smaller have disadvantage with heavy property weapons is perfectly fine. And it makes complete sense. Yes we may be playing a game of high fantasy. But there are still some laws of physics in this High fantasy world. This is not anime where a girl whose arms are smaller than a piece of my body from my nether region is. I'm sorry for being a prick but if that's something you want to do. there is probably another game out there for you to play.


VERSATILE Weapons already to what there name says. They give you versatility when need. There is nothing you can do to the weapon. That will make other weapons like greatsword or mauls obsolete in comparison.

OP already stated that he like playing Epic fantasy. In such a setting wielding in combat a greatsword makes more sense than a grittier setting where mundanes act more closer to medieval times.

While I prefer the later and I'm not thrilled by OP suggestion. I understand is line of though and what he propose can make a lot sense in his setting. I think that OP is not as much trying to "fix" versatile weapons as he is looking for input for a houserule that he want for his own setting.

[CaptainSarathai]

edit: to put it another way, this is like complaining that the thrown property of dagger isn't constantly used, therefore we need to make daggers deal as much damage as a crossbow when thrown so that people will use the thrown property of daggers. so what if it isn't used constantly? it's an ability that you can use if you need it, and just don't use it if you don't need it, and it is perfectly fine that way.

Exactly. I feel that OP's concern is that there's no reason to build around a Versatile weapon. But then, as stated - nobody really builds around a dagger thrower. They either pick ranged and go Bow/XBow, or they go melee and take a bigger weapon. Or dual-wield and grab a hand crossbow.

Versatile exists for a reason. Right now, that reason is being able to use a 2-handed weapon and still have access to a free hand at all times.
When I use a versatile weapon, I don't think "oh, +1Dam if I go 2handed." I think,
"oh, +1Dam and no hands if I switch to a GreatAxe, or I can just drop a hand and have -1dam. I'll keep the Versatile weapon"

The issue, I think, is actually the 2d6 of the Greatsword. Usually, as you "step up" a die-size, you gain +1 average damage. D10->D12 goes from 5.5 average damage, to 6.5 average damage. D10->2d6 however, goes from 5.5 to 7 average damage. This is compounded with GWF, which is more accessible than Brutal Crit.

If I wanted to see more Versatile Weapons, I would say:

1. Greatsword becomes 1d12 like the Axe
2. You need a Free Hand to Shove (or Shield Master) Grapple, and to Cast.
2.5 You cannot "lift a hand" off a 2Hand weapon except to reload a weapon.

[Sir cryosin]

OP already stated that he like playing Epic fantasy. In such a setting wielding in combat a greatsword makes more sense than a grittier setting where mundanes act more closer to medieval times.

While I prefer the later and I'm not thrilled by OP suggestion. I understand is line of though and what he propose can make a lot sense in his setting. I think that OP is not as much trying to "fix" versatile weapons as he is looking for input for a houserule that he want for his own setting.

That's find if he wants to play a EPIC fantasy. There are better systems were he can play a gnome duel wielding swords the size of buster sword. What he trying to to do is change a system and it will throw the rest of the weapons off balance.

P.S. there is a ttrpg called Open Legend were you can do stuff like that. The system is easy to learn and it free on there site check it out.

[tkuremento]

If you look at the weapons table, you will see that there are not really that many unique weapons, most weapons are just worse versions of existing weapons, or the same the weapon that has a different damage type.

And then there is the Halberd and Glaive, which are exact copies of each other. They have the same damage dice, type of damage, cost, weight, and properties. They also both work with PAM.

[gfishfunk]

Its also worth noting that 'bad weapon choices' are valid, especially for enemy NPCs. Its useful to build a club wielding ruffian, whose damage is less than optimal.

EDIT: or, more to the point of the thread, a versatile weapon user rather than a 2H weapon user to lower the damage output slightly.

[GlenSmash!]

I like versatile weapons so i use them. I would love it if there was a Fighting Style and/or a Feat specific to wielding virtual weapons.

[Vogonjeltz]

Something I've felt lately (and have seen other people in other threads/forums/sites bring up) is that two-handed weapons and two-handed versatile weapons seem to be unsatisfying. Holding a versatile weapon two-handed just doesn't add up if you can just hold a better two-handed weapon. And if you wanted to hold a one-handed weapon in one hand and hold a shield in another, what's the point of the versatile property? You wouldn't be able to hold the weapon with two hands anyway.

Small creatures have disadvantage on using Heavy weapons, they don't have disadvantage using Versatile weapons.

So Halflings need Versatile weapons to have use of a two-handed weapon.


The "problem" is, have you every seen someone capitalize on the versatile property? Finesse is well-used, Heavy is significant due to the feat, Ranged is obviously for range weapons. But Versatile weapons are floating in the aether, and they're not particularly exciting to play.

I've had my fighter climb aboard large+ creatures to attack them using a longsword in one hand. Would have been impossible using a Maul, Greatsword, or any other heavy weapon.

So, yes, I've seen it happen.

[FinnS]

Small creatures have disadvantage on using Heavy weapons, they don't have disadvantage using Versatile weapons.

So Halflings need Versatile weapons to have use of a two-handed weapon.



And by RAW, can not use the -5/+10 option of the GWM feat. Not unless your DM rules that a versatile weapon is counted as having the Heavy property for small sized users.
They can only benefit from the universal Kill/Crit granting a Bonus attack part of GWM that anyone taking this feat can benefit from regardless of weapon.

[Iamcreative]

Go out a pick up a 8 to 10 feet tall sword waiting around 25 pounds. Start swing that sword around. You would not be able make any precise strikes you will not be able to fall back on any of your fighting techniques properly you would not be able to handle the sword properly. So I think having creatures with the small size or smaller have disadvantage with heavy property weapons is perfectly fine. And it makes complete sense. Yes we may be playing a game of high fantasy. But there are still some laws of physics in this High fantasy world. This is not anime where a girl whose arms are smaller than a piece of my body from my nether region is. I'm sorry for being a prick but if that's something you want to do. there is probably another game out there for you to play.


VERSATILE Weapons already to what there name says. They give you versatility when need. There is nothing you can do to the weapon. That will make other weapons like greatsword or mauls obsolete in comparison.

I realize you do admit that this is fantasy, but I still really dislike that argument. Hell Id have WAY MORE success swinging around a sword 3x my size than trying to cast a fireball (and lets be honest, weve all tried to cast a fireball).

Which is why I tend to dislike the small = disadvantage for large weapons. But I do agree that versitile weapons are ok they way they are. However I'd be on board with a fighting style that capitolized on the versitility.

Say something like +1 to attack rolls when weilding 2 handed and +1 to damage when 1 handed.