Everything that is wrong with D&D 5e weapons: a compilation

[Eric Diaz]

I am trying to compile everything that is wrong with D&D 5e weapons for my blog (I'm trying to "fix" weapons, as many before me...), but it seems like a huge task.

Anyway, maybe some has a list already? If they don't, let me start (feel free to call me out if I get something wrong... and by that, I mean "right"):

- Strictly useless weapons (mace, sickle, trident, add more).

- Redundant or identical weapons (glaive-halberd, scimitar-shortsword, add more).

- Missing fighting styles (no reason to use a lighter weapon in one of your hands, no hoplite, no dexterity for quarterstaves or spears unless you're a monk).

- Missing weapons (buckler, main-gauche, add more).

- The quarterstaff - the quintessential absurd weapon in D&D: can be wielded with one hand, does more damage than a mace, and will never give you an AC bonus.

- No strength required to use a longbow.

- High elves are proficient in longswords, which is useless for most elves (since its STR-based). They must be really dumb, despite their INT, to use the longsword as their cultural weapon.

- Useless armor (one you have enough gold; being discussed in another thread).

- The monk: "you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a Sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama).". So, yeah, there is no reason for a monk to use a nunchaku or kama because, RAW, they are useless. At least they can use a quarterstaff...

That is all that comes to min by now. I love melee weapons and they are probably my least favorite part of 5e. Fixing them will take a while but might be worth the effort.

The upside on compiling mistakes is that you can fix two or three at once: think of a two-handed d6 quarterstaff that gets a bonus d4 attack without PAM and you're basically good to go.

Strength and Dexterity requirement would fix lots of stuff (specially my dislike for the idea that being strong AND dexterous is really sub-optimal for anyone, specially a fighter) but I understand not everyone is willing to go there.

BTW, I don't think weapons need "fixing" per se, it is only that I'm somewhat annoyed that half of the list is useless. If they just made small, light, medium, versatile and two-handed weapons that would be ok with me.

[Skyblaze]

Seems like you just don't see a point as to why weapons with same damage type/dice are labeled differently? To my mind the reason is simple, aesthetics. Glaive and a Halberd are different weapons historically. Short sword and a scimitar are different designs of swords with different cultures/purposed behind them.

[rooneg]

I wouldn't call Shortsword and Scimitar redundant, they at least have different damage types after all. Agreed about the rest. The Quarterstaff is a special kind of insane, IMO.

One thing you did miss though is the way DEX based characters are railroaded towards the Rapier, since there's no other d8 damage finesse weapon. There should be at least a Saber or something that's a Rapier but with slashing damage, so they're not basically required to do piercing damage.

Personally, I would have made damage a class based thing rather than a weapon based thing, like 13th Age does it, so you could let people use iconic weapon types (i.e. a Rogue with daggers) without getting penalized for it.

[Darokar]

Is the mace really useless? I like it. At least aesthetically.

[Unoriginal]

Ah, yes, because elves having more STR than DEX is ridiculous. And don't tell me about how elves might just like the longsword being able to cause more damage than a shortsword in case of low stat bonus, especially if used with two hands.

Oh, and also of course weapons that fail to be the best for PCs to use are "useless".

[Eric Diaz]

I wouldn't call Shortsword and Scimitar redundant, they at least have different damage types after all. Agreed about the rest. The Quarterstaff is a special kind of insane, IMO.

One thing you did miss though is the way DEX based characters are railroaded towards the Rapier, since there's no other d8 damage finesse weapon. There should be at least a Saber or something that's a Rapier but with slashing damage, so they're not basically required to do piercing damage.

Personally, I would have made damage a class based thing rather than a weapon based thing, like 13th Age does it, so you could let people use iconic weapon types (i.e. a Rogue with daggers) without getting penalized for it.

Yes, good points. Different damage types is a good way to differentiate weapons. I wish they meant something more than "do not a black pudding". It would be nice to make gargoyles susceptible to Bludgeoning and all oozes resistant to it, etc, but probably too fiddly.

You're right about the rapier to.

I like 13th age, but I am looking for a bit more detail, not less. We have hundreds and hundreds of spells, why not more than a dozen good weapons?

[rooneg]

Is the mace really useless? I like it. At least aesthetically.

Mechanically, it's pretty useless. You might as well use a Quarterstaff instead, it costs way less and gives you the option of doing more damage if you use it two hands. Not to say you shouldn't use it, I have multiple characters who use suboptimal weapons because whatever, it's not like it's an enormous difference in average damage dropping from d8 to d6 or d6 to d4, but if you're doing that you should at least be aware of it, and it's kind of annoying that the game makes you make these sort of suboptimal decisions in the pursuit of what's essentially aesthetics.

[mephnick]

Is the mace really useless? I like it. At least aesthetically.

People get too tied up with weapon damage. It's like..the least important thing in the game.

A rogue using a dagger is still getting 99% of their damage from sneak attack, just like a rapier rogue.

A dex fighter using a scimitar is getting like 1 less damage from a scimitar as opposed to a rapier. That image is a lot more important to me than 1 damage.

Everyone decries Dual Wielder as a horrible feat partly because "the weapons only give you 1 damage anyway" then turn around and cry that the game is FORCING them to take the rapier because of the 1 extra damage.

[Eric Diaz]

EDIT: Will leave this on top becasue this is my main gripe:

I hate when the system punishes players for doing cool stuff.

I don't really care that the punishing is small (1 HP damage, a few gp, etc).

I understand that you might not care.

I suspect if half the spells where strictly worse than the other half in the same list, people would complain too.

This is just my personal taste - I have more use for twenty decent weapons than for twenty new spells when I already have 200 spells that work well.


Seems like you just don't see a point as to why weapons with same damage type/dice are labeled differently? To my mind the reason is simple, aesthetics. Glaive and a Halberd are different weapons historically. Short sword and a scimitar are different designs of swords with different cultures/purposed behind them.

Well, you could put both under "polearms", or Glaive/Halberd.


Is the mace really useless? I like it. At least aesthetically.

Me too. I think it is cool.


Ah, yes, because elves having more STR than DEX is ridiculous. And don't tell me about how elves might just like the longsword being able to cause more damage than a shortsword in case of low stat bonus, especially if used with two hands.

Oh, and also of course weapons that fail to be the best for PCs to use are "useless".

I don't think elves having more STR than DEX is ridiculous - it would be a good fit for some Tolkien elves for example. It is just very bad, mechanically. I hate when the system punishes players for doing cool stuff.

I'm not saying you cannot have an elf with a longsword, I just don't see the point of adopting it as a cultural weapon over the rapier. All elves get +1 to hit and damage with the rapier by default, after all.

I DO think weapons that are strictly worse than others - such as the trident - are "useless", but I would love to see anyone convince me otherwise.

[Talamare]

4e tried to fix this by introducing Brutal and High Crit to Weapons

Thus creating markedly different weapons. We need that back.

[Eric Diaz]

People get too tied up with weapon damage. It's like..the least important thing in the game.

A rogue using a dagger is still getting 99% of their damage from sneak attack, just like a rapier rogue.

A dex fighter using a scimitar is getting like 1 less damage from a scimitar as opposed to a rapier. That image is a lot more important to me than 1 damage.

Everyone decries Dual Wielder as a horrible feat partly because "the weapons only give you 1 damage anyway" then turn around and cry that the game is FORCING them to take the rapier because of the 1 extra damage.

Well, for me is more like "5e has no place for a buckler, a decent main-gauche, Miyamoto Musashi or Oberyn Martell, but it does encourage you to fight with two rapiers - a fighting style I have never seen in any movie, novel, history book, or dojo".

[Dudewithknives]

I am trying to compile everything that is wrong with D&D 5e weapons for my blog (I'm trying to "fix" weapons, as many before me...), but it seems like a huge task.

Anyway, maybe some has a list already? If they don't, let me start (feel free to call me out if I get something wrong... and by that, I mean "right"):

- Strictly useless weapons (mace, sickle, trident, add more).

- Redundant or identical weapons (glaive-halberd, scimitar-shortsword, add more).

- Missing fighting styles (no reason to use a lighter weapon in one of your hands, no hoplite, no dexterity for quarterstaves or spears unless you're a monk).

- Missing weapons (buckler, main-gauche, add more).

- The quarterstaff - the quintessential absurd weapon in D&D: can be wielded with one hand, does more damage than a mace, and does not work with polearm master, and will never give you an AC bonus.

- No strength required to use a longbow.

- High elves are proficient in longswords, which is useless for most elves (since its STR-based). They must be really dumb, despite their INT, to use the longsword as their cultural weapon.

- Useless armor (one you have enough gold; being discussed in another thread).

- The monk: "you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a Sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama).". So, yeah, there is no reason for a monk to use a nunchaku or kama because, RAW, they are useless. At least they can use a quarterstaff...

That is all that comes to min by now. I love melee weapons and they are probably my least favorite part of 5e. Fixing them will take a while but might be worth the effort.

The upside on compiling mistakes is that you can fix two or three at once: think of a two-handed d6 quarterstaff that gets a bonus d4 attack without PAM and you're basically good to go.

Strength and Dexterity requirement would fix lots of stuff (specially my dislike for the idea that being strong AND dexterous is really sub-optimal for anyone, specially a fighter) but I understand not everyone is willing to go there.

BTW, I don't think weapons need "fixing" per se, it is only that I'm somewhat annoyed that half of the list is useless. If they just made small, light, medium, versatile and two-handed weapons that would be ok with me.

Actually the most glaring flaw in the weapons is that they all only crit on a 20 for double dice.

That takes out all the interesting flair of weapon use from older editions.

No more debate over 1d12 20x4 or 2d4 18-20 x2.

It used to be you could define an entire character by the weapon he uses and there were plenty of feats and options to customize your build for it.

in 5e it is pretty much pick if it is 1hand, 2 hand or bow. take the 1 feat that matters, pick the one style that is comparable. now just stand there and be like every other person in the entire game that uses that 1 hand, 2 hand or bow weapon.

[2D8HP]

...We have hundreds and hundreds of spells, why not more than a dozen good weapons?


To me that argues for less spells

:tongue:

[Eric Diaz]

4e tried to fix this by introducing Brutal and High Crit to Weapons

Thus creating markedly different weapons. We need that back.

Brutal is a great feature for the 5e greataxe. High crit would be great for daggers, etc.

3e has many different ideas on the subject, too.

I just wish 5e chose between the 3e/4e or 13A route.

I am tempted to make piercing weapons crit with 1d10, slashing with 1d8, light+finesse with 1d12, etc., but that would mess with features that interact with crits... And still would make the dagger worse than the shortsword.

[Pex]

Why would you say the quarterstaff does not work with Pole Arm Master when the feat specifically mentions it?

[Max_Killjoy]

First, don't base your evaluation of weapons on simplified mechanical effects and numbers.

Second, do research into why different weapons were different.

Third, get the names right, don't perpetuate Victorian / Gygaxian errors.

[Eric Diaz]

Why would you say the quarterstaff does not work with Pole Arm Master when the feat specifically mentions it?

You're right - I was thinking of the spear. Just edited the OP.

[Talamare]

First, don't base your evaluation of weapons on simplified mechanical effects and numbers.

Second, do research into why different weapons were different.
Are you trying to say in real life and/or historically?

Because that doesn't matter much currently from a mechanical perspective.

A Glaive and A Halberd are EXACTLY THE SAME and USED EXACTLY THE SAME
Is what the game says.

But it would be nice if there were mechanics in play that would illustrate how/why the different weapons are different.

[stoutstien]

So I can figure out how to format properly I'll post my whole redo of the weapons table it has worked really well at any table I've ran.

[2D8HP]

- No strength required to use a longbow.....
Yes the longbow requires a great deal of strength to be effective, but to be more realistic, shouldn't every single weapon require both some Strength and some Dexterity?

[JellyPooga]

I've long thought there should be nine melee weapons;

Light/1-H/2-H each in flavours of B/P/S.

Call them whatever you like.
- Light weapons are all Finesse and deal 1d6 damage.
- 1-H weapons are all Versatile (1d10) and deal 1d8 damage.
- 2-H weapons all have Reach, the Heavy property and deal 2d6 damage.

Now add three ranged weapons;

Light/Medium/Heavy

They all do Piercing damage (seriously, ALL ranged weapons do piercing damage; if it doesn't deal piercing damage, it's not a weapon). 1d4/1d6/1d8 damage respectively. Call them whatever you like too.

12 weapons, each distinct, but infinite variety by simply calling them different things on a player and/or character by P/C basis. Why differentiate between a spear and a trident when they're functionally identical? No, differentiate by game mechanics; add fluff to taste.

[Eric Diaz]

.
Yes the longbow requires a great deal of strength to be effective, but to be more realistic, shouldn't every single weapon require both some Strength and some Dexterity?

Yes.

But in some cases some Strength and some Dexterity will be 8 in both attributes.

From a game perspective, I don't think you should punish the Strength 6 wizard for using a longsword instead of a rapier - he is already being punished enough.

But you should probably give SOME cool ability for someone who has good Strength AND Dexterity, since they are also being punished for having both, since they work against one another in 5e.

Some examples I've written recently:

- Enough Strength allows you to:
* Wield spears and big swords with finesse.
* Use heavier bows and crossbows.
* Hurl weapons at a longer distance.
* Move better in heavy armor (i.e., get a better Dexterity bonuses).
* Fight with giant weapons and big shields.

- Enough Dexterity lets you:
* Use the best weapons in the game effectively (and by that I mean greatswords and longbows).
* Attack with a light weapon in your off-hand even of you're not using a light weapon in your main hand.
* Use a +1 AC buckler in your off-hand to gain most benefits of a shield with fewer drawbacks. Or a cape.

- If you have enough Strength AND Dexterity...
* You can use unique weapons (katana anyone?).
* You get some bonus to grappling.

- If you have NO Strength AND NO Dexterity...
* You're stuck with useless weapons. That is why clubs exist.

[mgshamster]

I've long thought there should be nine melee weapons;

Light/1-H/2-H each in flavours of B/P/S.

Call them whatever you like.
- Light weapons are all Finesse and deal 1d6 damage.
- 1-H weapons are all Versatile (1d10) and deal 1d8 damage.
- 2-H weapons all have Reach, the Heavy property and deal 2d6 damage.

Now add three ranged weapons;

Light/Medium/Heavy

They all do Piercing damage (seriously, ALL ranged weapons do piercing damage; if it doesn't deal piercing damage, it's not a weapon). 1d4/1d6/1d8 damage respectively. Call them whatever you like too.

12 weapons, each distinct, but infinite variety by simply calling them different things on a player and/or character by P/C basis. Why differentiate between a spear and a trident when they're functionally identical? No, differentiate by game mechanics; add fluff to taste.

I really like this system.

Besides damage , what's the difference between the ranged weapons? Like, can you only dual wield the light ranged weapons? Only fire the heavy once per round?

[the_brazenburn]

I wouldn't consider anything about a weapon to be "useless". A sickle, for instance, is a light 1d4 slashing weapon. There is no such equivalent in the game. With, say, trident/spear, the difference is fluff. Fluff is underrated in this game. It's also a good indicator of status: adventurers and very rich people wield large, expensive weapons that require training to use (i.e. tridents), while your average city guard uses an ordinary spear. A member of a barbaric tribe that doesn't have the means or resources to craft strong metal weapons uses a roughly hewn stone javelin. All these weapons deal 1d6 piercing damage and can be thrown, but for the creation of an atmosphere the differences are incredible.

And yes, I am aware that javelins are not versatile.

[Dudewithknives]

I really like this system.

Besides damage , what's the difference between the ranged weapons? Like, can you only dual wield the light ranged weapons? Only fire the heavy once per round?

Further: Throwing an axe at someone is not piercing. Neither would using a sling really.

[Unoriginal]

I hate when the system punishes players for doing cool stuff.

5e is probably the D&D that allow players to do cool stuff the most.



I don't think elves having more STR than DEX is ridiculous - it would be a good fit for some Tolkien elves for example. It is just very bad, mechanically. I hate when the system punishes players for doing cool stuff.

How is it punishing anyone from doing cool stuff?



I'm not saying you cannot have an elf with a longsword, I just don't see the point of adopting it as a cultural weapon over the rapier. All elves get +1 to hit and damage with the rapier by default, after all.

And? It would also be advantageous for goblins to use rapiers, should it be their cultural weapon too?



Well, for me is more like "5e has no place for a buckler, a decent main-gauche, Miyamoto Musashi or Oberyn Martell, but it does encourage you to fight with two rapiers - a fighting style I have never seen in any movie, novel, history book, or dojo".

You can see Christopher Lee and a friend practicing that, here:


https://youtu.be/w44kSeH-KWA?t=59

[Laurefindel]

Further: Throwing an axe at someone is not piercing. Neither would using a sling really.

From a physics (TM) perspective, yes, a thrown hatchet is closer to a piercing weapon than a slashing one (assuming the target is hit by the blade of the hatchet). The resulting wound has more to do with the small impact surface/high velocity of the weapon than the way the weapons runs against the surface of the target. Simiarly, give a sling bullet enough velocity and it will pierce the target through and through.

But by this definition, many D&D slashing and bludgeoning melee weapons actually deal "piercing damage" as well. IMO, it's preferable to keep it at "small hole = piercing, long gash = slashing" as far as D&D is concerned.

[edit] But for the number of times damage type actually matters in play, 5e could have easily done without B/S/P completely.

[Laurefindel]

And? It would also be advantageous for goblins to use rapiers, should it be their cultural weapon too?

I'm not sure if the goblin PC race has a cultural weapon, but if it does, I'm betting it's not a STR-based weapon either.

[Danielqueue1]

Well, for me is more like "5e has no place for a buckler, a decent main-gauche, Miyamoto Musashi or Oberyn Martell, but it does encourage you to fight with two rapiers - a fighting style I have never seen in any movie, novel, history book, or dojo".

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-fGMNoZfMZ8/maxresdefault.jpg

[Laurefindel]

Didn't the Florentines also used a two-rapier technique during the renaissance, or is that a modern myth?

[UrielAwakened]

Brutal and High-Crit were amazing properties in 4e.

Add Brutal 1 and Brutal 2 to some of the heavier weapons in 5e, and High-Crit (Roll an additional weapon die when you crit) to some of the more fitting ones.

[Mith]

I will say that I am always amused with system changes like this I think they are an interesting idea, and should be considered. But a lot of system changes feel to me like one could take the oD&D game, fit everything onto a single system of resolution, and we would resolve most of the complaints I have seen of 5e. After porting over the Advantage/Disadvantage system to clean up some of the charts, I think you have a pretty functional game.

[the_brazenburn]

I'm not sure if the goblin PC race has a cultural weapon, but if it does, I'm betting it's not a STR-based weapon either.

i don't know about the PC race, but goblins in both D&D and most other pop culture thingies use scimitars, which is both Dex based and "interchangable" with shortswords.

[Talamare]

Log Horizon Nyanta Pose

Except he only uses the left hand to parry, and the right one to thrust.
Which is a common fighting style.

Oh, and he gets WRECKED in that fight against the Boxer/Monk/Pugilist/Katar Claw user
Yea, he "technically wins" but it was only due to his friend using the OP "I win" spell from the show on him twice to deal over 2/3s of his HP in damage.

Then again, the Cat was crazy old irl and in PvE gear; while the Monk was in PvP gear.

[Anonymouswizard]

To me that argues for less spells

:tongue:

Actually, I'd much rather play a game with 30-50 good, varied spells than one with over 100 spells in the rulebook. It makes choosing spells easier, and I prefer low fantasy anyway.


On weapons, as I can see we need at least six types:
Light/concelable
Finesse one-handed
Nonfinesse one-handed
Two handed
Reach
Ranged

Each should have an option for all three damage types. Each of these have a use (light weapons are emergency backups for when you're disarmed/captured, and then each other one fits into a different fighting style), and we could even just give the categories, a list of options, and then a sample of what it's supposed to represent. For example:

One-Handed: 1d8 damage, includes arming swords, maces, warhammers, picks, and similar weapons.

[rooneg]

Didn't the Florentines also used a two-rapier technique during the renaissance, or is that a modern myth?

As I understand (mostly from reading these sort of message board debates, mind you) it's largely a myth. There may be one or two documented cases of someone writing about the technique, but it was rare and more of a theoretical thing than one that actually got used in practice.

[qube]

"Everything that is wrong with D&D 5e weapons" ? Lets see ...


https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-72556e310412bca5eca1523a0c5eab86
1d10 slashing damage to the face

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/c6/e8/cac6e81ef391a182582ef477288bd3c9.jpg
rolling to see if my 1d10 slashing damage weapon hits you ... 17 to hit?

http://i.imgur.com/EGgxoAc.jpg
... nope! AC 18 of full plate. it ... gets deflected on my armor?

[X3r4ph]

I agree that there are too few choices for weapon enthusiasts in 5e. Especially since Spells and Invocations are being spit out at a machinegun rate. Where are my 40 new maneuvers for battlemaster? Where is my claymore? Flamberge? Falchion? Freakin spiked-chain? (I hated that weapon to be honest)

I have devised an interesting variant rule for this where all weapons has maneuver-like features. Like, curved greatsword can do a sweep attack; Immense maul can reroll 1 and 2; and fullered rapier can cause bleeding etc.
Using these features requires a certain amount of effort and can therefor only be used a certain amount of times per combat.
This encourges the player to carry different weapons and change up their style. Also they can of course craft these weapons.
Weapons can also have more than one feature. Guts' dragonslayer greatsword would be a Laden Immense Keen Greatsword for example. You get the picture.

I have done away with regular magical items for now as well. +1, +2 and +3 is a bad concept IMO because I experience players, and myself, discarding funny and unique weapons because mathematically they have been inferior. It's a shame.

I have test run my system twice and it's pretty fun. No were near finished. But it have worked great. MUCH better than what PHB offers at least. But most importantly it has shown than the system can easily handle more choices for martial classes.

[qube]

As I understand (mostly from reading these sort of message board debates, mind you) it's largely a myth. There may be one or two documented cases of someone writing about the technique, but it was rare and more of a theoretical thing than one that actually got used in practice.consider however, that documents are very rare. I'm 99% sure we've got more documents on how to fight with dual rapiers then there are on how to fight with a falchion ...

Now, while it probbably was rare, as dual swords are mention in spanish, italian & german sources, it's not really it the ream of myth and theoretical. Lets not forget the benefit of training in a style your opponent is (or, most of your opponents are) vastly unfamiliar with.

[Doug Lampert]

Further: Throwing an axe at someone is not piercing. Neither would using a sling really.

Roman army surgeons are believed to have carried a specialized tool specifically to remove sling bullets from flesh. Because they were piercing weapons and pierced flesh quite nicely.

Now, at least some historical slingers carried two entirely different slings for different uses (short and long range). And for ammo, lead bullets and clay bullets and river rocks are all different. So it's entirely possible that not all slings were intended to be piercing weapons.

Clay bullets may have been mostly bludgeoning. But lead bullets from a sling were expected to pierce much the same way as lead bullets from a gun are piercing.

[Danielqueue1]

Except he only uses the left hand to parry, and the right one to thrust.
Which is a common fighting style.

Oh, and he gets WRECKED in that fight against the Boxer/Monk/Pugilist/Katar Claw user
Yea, he "technically wins" but it was only due to his friend using the OP "I win" spell from the show on him twice to deal over 2/3s of his HP in damage.

Then again, the Cat was crazy old irl and in PvE gear; while the Monk was in PvP gear.

Monk pugilist guy also had a whole squad of healers helping him while Nyanta had only one level insignificant healer backing him. without his healers. Monk dude would have been bubbles. seeing as the two weapon fighting rules give you all attack action attacks on your main hand and only one on your off hand, I do think using the left hand mostly to parry is still rather thematic. +1 to AC.

[Eric Diaz]

5e is probably the D&D that allow players to do cool stuff the most.

Hum... okay, I guess.


How is it punishing anyone from doing cool stuff?

I think strong, quick fighters are cool, and 5e punishes them by making either Strength or Dexterity near useless.


And? It would also be advantageous for goblins to use rapiers, should it be their cultural weapon too?

I would vote for finesse spears, myself.



You can see Christopher Lee and a friend practicing that, here:

I would if I had the time stamp, what I've said still stands:

"Well, for me is more like "5e has no place for a buckler, a decent main-gauche, Miyamoto Musashi or Oberyn Martell, but it does encourage you to fight with two rapiers - a fighting style I have never seen in any movie, novel, history book, or dojo"."

Even if we forget that... Can you name a couple of Appendix N or modern fantasy characters with two rapiers? Or a historical/mythical figure? Maybe a modern show such as Rome or GoT, or a high-fantasy movie like The Hobbit or Clash of Titans (well, I bet that Legolas could do that in the Hobbit movies, so maybe).

More importantly - have you ever played another RPG that encourages this, or a player trying to create such a character before 5e?

Finally - even if you did - is this an archetype that is more worth having than Niten Ichi or anything using a main-gauche?

[Foxhound438]

From a physics (TM) perspective, yes, a thrown hatchet is closer to a piercing weapon than a slashing one (assuming the target is hit by the blade of the hatchet). The resulting wound has more to do with the small impact surface/high velocity of the weapon than the way the weapons runs against the surface of the target. Simiarly, give a sling bullet enough velocity and it will pierce the target through and through.


Ah, yes, everyone remembers the story of how David killed goliath. He had to whip that sling so god damn hard that when he released it the sling bullet made a loud cracking noise as the vacuum on its back end closed, and the bullet went staight through goliath's chest. Cause of death was bleeding. No, a sling bullet is a bludgeoning instrument. You hit your enemy with one, it can crush bones and leave bruises.

[Unoriginal]

Ah, yes, everyone remembers the story of how David killed goliath. He had to whip that sling so god damn hard that when he released it the sling bullet made a loud cracking noise as the vacuum on its back end closed, and the bullet went staight through goliath's chest. Cause of death was bleeding. No, a sling bullet is a bludgeoning instrument. You hit your enemy with one, it can crush bones and leave bruises.

Slings' ammunition DID penetrate flesh, dude. In the same way that early bullets were small metal balls, applying a lot of force to a spherical object can make it pierce an human body.

And in David vs Goliath the notable thing was that the big guy one-shot by an head-shot.

[jas61292]

I think the problem with rapiers is that they are just generally, mechanically, out of sync with everything else. Every other finesse weapon in the game does a maximum of 1d6. I feel like they felt that the rapier was iconic enough and wanted to make it its own thing mechanically, but in making it stronger than other finesse weapons, they encouraged all sorts of weird things. In my opinion, within the simple 5e weapons system, the rapier has no reason to exist at all. It should just be a way that people can flavor their short swords. There is no good reason for a finesse weapon to be just as good as the best strength weapons of similar characteristics, but with no drawbacks.

[Unoriginal]

I think strong, quick fighters are cool, and 5e punishes them by making either Strength or Dexterity near useless.

Ah, so it's not "5e forbids players to do cool stuff", it's "5e makes it not optimal for me to do something I like".



I would vote for finesse spears, myself.

That would still be mechanically inferior.

Mmmmh, I wonder, could it be possible that people would vote for something less powerful because they think it's better aesthetically?

...Nah, it can't be that.




5e has no place for a buckler

We call that a shield.




Even if we forget that... Can you name a couple of Appendix N or modern fantasy characters with two rapiers? Or a historical/mythical figure? Maybe a modern show such as Rome or GoT, or a high-fantasy movie like The Hobbit or Clash of Titans (well, I bet that Legolas could do that in the Hobbit movies, so maybe).

It was done by characters in "De Capes et de Crocs", as well as in the BBC's Three Musketeers, and probably in other swashbuckling tales.



More importantly - have you ever played another RPG that encourages this, or a player trying to create such a character before 5e?

It's probably a fighting style in Secret of the 7 Seas, and I'm pretty sure I've seen characters like that before, yes.



Finally - even if you did - is this an archetype that is more worth having than Niten Ichi or anything using a main-gauche?

A main-gauche is literally a dagger you use with your left hand. Niten Ichi-ryū is using a longsword and a short sword.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Slings' ammunition DID penetrate flesh, dude. In the same way that early bullets were small metal balls, applying a lot of force to a spherical object can make it pierce an human body.

And in David vs Goliath the notable thing was that the big guy one-shot by an head-shot.
It's also worth mentioning that ancient sources say that slings shot further than ancient bows, and the Greeks and Romans often used heavy clay or lead bullets instead of rocks. They created injuries in a manner shockingly similar to that of a gun- there have been recent studies that show that a sling's stopping power isn't much less than a modern pistol.

If anything, they're getting gimped in D&D.

[Requilac]

You do not need to create an entire new weapon system to solve almost all of the problems you listed off OP. If you like a weapon for its aesthetics but think it’s statistic are terrible, you can just reflavor a different weapon. There is no necessity to create an entirely new system to solve problems that could be easily covered up without playtesting. If someone likes the look of a sickle but thinks that the hand-axe is much better, they can just take the statistics of the hand-axe and rename it to be their “sickle”. If someone wants to use a saber instead of a rapier, they can change the damage type of a rapier to slashing and call it a “saber”. If a fighter wants to use a Staff as their weapon, they can use the statistics of a great-axe but change the damage type to bludgeoning and call it a “staff”. The name of a weapon is entirely fluff, if you wanted more weapons and better representations of useless ones just change the name and (possibly) damage type of another weapon. It does not require an entire re-writing of how 5e weapons works, it just requires a little bit of reflavoring. You could use a similar system with armor too (just call the studded leather armor a gambeson). No mechanical changes but all your issues are resolved quite simply.

This does not quite solve the issue “minimum strength score required to use a longbow”, or your complaint about elven weapon training but all the others are patched up completely. There is No need to rewrite the entire weapon system and undoubtedly go through the grueling process of play-testing everything and changing features to mesh better with it.

Edit: I have found a way to fix your other issues. Make it so that you have disadvantage while using a longbow if your strength is less than 13 and that elf weapon training gives proficiency in rapiers (scimitars or whips may also make sense) instead of long swords.

[rooneg]

We call that a shield.

That certainly simplifies things, but being able to use Shield Master to hide behind your buckler in response to a fireball or something does strain credulity a bit.

[Dudewithknives]

That certainly simplifies things, but being able to use Shield Master to hide behind your buckler in response to a fireball or something does strain credulity a bit.

A buckler should have been an item that gives 1 AC, but can be donned as an object interaction not a full action, and leaves your hand free but can't wield a weapon in it.

Ie. You could hold an item in it, reload a loading weapon if it is one handed, or use a component pouch but not use a 2 handed weapon or fight with a weapon in that hand.

[Unoriginal]

It's also worth mentioning that ancient sources say that slings shot further than ancient bows, and the Greeks and Romans often used heavy clay or lead bullets instead of rocks. They created injuries in a manner shockingly similar to that of a gun- there have been recent studies that show that a sling's stopping power isn't much less than a modern pistol.

If anything, they're getting gimped in D&D.


Romans also used to write jokes on their sling bullets: http://mentalfloss.com/article/63739/sarcastic-jokes-found-roman-bullets

Also, here's a guy testing the sling's penetrating power:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHP-aoQUhlY

[Requilac]

I also think that you are all being much too literal with weapon damage types. My understanding of it has always been that the damage type of a D&D weapon is not the motion the weapon is being used in, it is the design and shape of the weapon itself. A rapier is needlike in design so it does “piercing damage”, even though it could be used to make a “slashing” motion. A great-sword has a wide, flat blade so it does “slashing” damage, even though you could potentially stab something with it. A hand-axe’s blade is smoothly curved, so it deals “slashing damage” even though the tip of the axe is what (sometimes) hits the opponent. A slings bullet is round and blunt so it deals “bludgeoning damage” even though it easily pierces through flesh and bone.

I cannot justify that hitting your opponent with the pommel of a sword would do anything close to slashing damage though...

[lunaticfringe]

That certainly simplifies things, but being able to use Shield Master to hide behind your buckler in response to a fireball or something does strain credulity a bit.

Finesse weapons strain credulity a bit too, unless you smoke Wuxia Crack. Also there is the whole Dragon thing.

Threads like this are so amusing.

[Unoriginal]

That certainly simplifies things, but being able to use Shield Master to hide behind your buckler in response to a fireball or something does strain credulity a bit.

Then fluff that as you dodging the fireball thanks to your superior mobility from not carrying a big shield.



I cannot justify that hitting your opponent with the pommel of a sword would do anything close to slashing damage though...

Hitting with the pommel of the sword wouldn't do slashing damage. Same way that hitting with the pole of a polearm does bludgeoning damage, not piercing/slashing.


Finesse weapons strain credulity a bit too, unless you smoke Wuxia Crack. Also there is the whole Dragon thing.

Yeah, in a fight where a guy throw an exploding ball of fire to a guy with a buckler thanks to the power of his mind, it's the guy with the buckler that strains credulity.

[Eric Diaz]

Ah, so it's not "5e forbids players to do cool stuff", it's "5e makes it not optimal for me to do something I like".

I do not completely agree, but you're arguing with yourself here; what I said (twice) is that "I hate when the system punishes players for doing cool stuff."


That would still be mechanically inferior.

Not necessarily.


A main-gauche is literally a dagger you use with your left hand. Niten Ichi-ryū is using a longsword and a short sword.

Exactly. Both things that are suboptimal in 5e - and there is no way to make them optimal.

EDIT: let me make this clearer: I do not need Niten Ichi-ryū to be better than a greatsword for ALL fighters. I want it to be better for MY fighter. And 5e does not support that.

[Anonymouswizard]

Finesse weapons strain credulity a bit too, unless you smoke Wuxia Crack. Also there is the whole Dragon thing.

Threads like this are so amusing.

Eh, I like Wuxia, and even I think Finesse is a bad thing (mainly for mechanical reasons), or that it should be a universal 'Strength to damage, Dexterity to attack' situation*. This makes spellcasters better though, as they only have one primary start and I can't work out how to change that with vanilla classes (making my own I'd go 'Wisdom determines spell points, Intelligence determines wizard spell potency, Charisma determines cleric spell potency).

I will note though that 5e is not Wuxia. I have two dedicated Wuxia systems, and they are very different. Might try making a hack for it though, take the five Legends of the Wulin archetypes (Warriors, Protests, Scholars, Courtiers, and Doctors), give them varying ki powers and martial arts progressions, and replace subclasses with class agnostic kung fu styles. As everybody is human instead of giving increases to ability scores we just let people pick a free skill or two. It could work really well. I'll likely remove stated weapons though and make damage entirely based on your Martial Arts die, allow everybody to pick a tag for their weapon like Heavy, Ranged, Flexible, Balanced, or what else I can think up.


* yes, Dexterity is still probably better here, but less so.

[Unoriginal]

I do not completely agree, but you're arguing with yourself here; what I said (twice) is that "I hate when the system punishes players for doing cool stuff."

And you have not demonstrated to me that there is any kind of punishment.

If John says "I want my Wizard to use Wisdom as their casting stat so I can invest more into it and to be very good at using this flaming greatsword", is John being punished by the system by not allowing him to do it?



Exactly. Both things that are suboptimal in 5e - and there is no way to make them optimal.

Think about it: Are weapons which do 3 damages on average or weapons which do 2 damages on average (before modifier) so weak compared to a weapon that does 4 damages on average?

If your answer is yes, you've just dismissed the Niten Ichi-ryū, the main gauche and most of the characters you've mentioned as worthless for one or two points of damage.

[Eric Diaz]

And you have not demonstrated to me that there is any kind of punishment.

Well, if you want to go in circles, "you have not demonstrated to me that I said 5e forbids players to do cool stuff".

Tell me which thing I've said you want to see demonstrated, and I'll do my best.


If John says "I want my Wizard to use Wisdom as their casting stat so I can invest more into it and to be very good at using this flaming greatsword", is John being punished by the system by not allowing him to do it?

That is neither here nor there but since we are mentioning examples out of the blue... in my last campaign I allowed a Sorcerer to use Intelligence to cast spells. I went okay.


Good. We have now established that you don't care about how cool something is, you want it to be optimized.

We? Maybe you did. I like both.


Since apparently your opinion is that a weapon which does 3 damages on average or one which does 2 damages on average (before modifier) are so weak compared to a weapon that does 4 damages on average that they're worthless.

Not worthless, useless, as in - it has no mechanical reason to exist in the game. Or "mechanically, I do not see the point in using a trident or mace".


Congratulation

Thanks.


you dismissed the Niten Ichi-ryū, the main gauche and most of the characters you've mentioned as worthless for one or two points of damage.

Not worthless, useless. As in - I cannot create a character in 5e that would be better using Niten Ichi-ryū or a main gauche. I can create a PC that would fight better a spear, a greatsword, or a halberd. But not a main gauche or wakizashi. Not even the swashbuckler or samurai.

[Talamare]

Roman army surgeons are believed to have carried a specialized tool specifically to remove sling bullets from flesh. Because they were piercing weapons and pierced flesh quite nicely.

Now, at least some historical slingers carried two entirely different slings for different uses (short and long range). And for ammo, lead bullets and clay bullets and river rocks are all different. So it's entirely possible that not all slings were intended to be piercing weapons.

Clay bullets may have been mostly bludgeoning. But lead bullets from a sling were expected to pierce much the same way as lead bullets from a gun are piercing.

At short range the sling was definitely intended to be used as more of a piercing weapon, while at longer rangers it was more of a bludgeoning one. Raining Stones from the heavens.
It's funny tho, since for the majority of history Slings were considered to be the better weapon compared to bows.
but recent history is usually more emphasized than the much longer ancient history.


Monk pugilist guy also had a whole squad of healers helping him while Nyanta had only one level insignificant healer backing him. without his healers. Monk dude would have been bubbles. seeing as the two weapon fighting rules give you all attack action attacks on your main hand and only one on your off hand, I do think using the left hand mostly to parry is still rather thematic. +1 to AC.

From the beginning he knew he wasn't going to win. That's why he asked for Shiro for help.
I don't really understand why the show writers made the monk dude ask for healing tho.
It happened as he still have over 8k hp (way more than half), and the Sword guy was down to 2k-3k.
I understand it was implied that he was having trouble hitting him, due to low accuracy...

So he only needed 1 more good hit, and he would have won. It was established in the story that Monk Guy was a Top Tier PvPer too, so the whole thing ended up playing out pretty poorly.
but, main characters gotta main character

[qube]

As in - I cannot create a character in 5e that would be better using Niten Ichi-ryū or a main gauche. Really?

I mean "rapier (finesse) +short sword (light, finesse)" isn't that difficult to think of, no? Yet it's the typical example for a western Niten Ichi-ryū (or if you reflavor the weapons to katana & wakasashi -- because, right or wrong, many ppl consider the katana a finesse weapon; it's real Niten Ichi-ryū)

sure, if you take a Dual wielder, sure you can go rapier+rapier (+1 AC from feat, +1 damage from better off-hand weapon), but our Niten Ichi-ryū user can use that feat for a +2 dex boost (+1 AC, 2x +1 attack, 2x +1 damage)



(and for anyone who wants to complain that rapiers are piercing weapons, while katanas aren't ... you're most likely confusing rapiers with epees. rapiers slash just fine)

[Chugger]

Nothing is wrong w/ 5e weapons! Why? Because 5e is not a reality emulator. It's a game. And to work games must make "tough choices" or w/e we will call them - just how it is.

[JackPhoenix]

Nothing is wrong w/ 5e weapons! Why? Because 5e is not a reality emulator. It's a game. And to work games must make "tough choices" or w/e we will call them - just how it is.

Ironically, there are just as many problems from gamist perspective (some choices are more optimal than others) as from a realistic perspective (the whole system is too abstract and simplified).

5e walks the middle road. Real weapon and fighting styles are *not* equal, like some people would like D&D weapons to be for "balance reasons", but they are much too complex to be correctly depicted in a game without taking half an hour to resolve every detail that goes into attack.

If the game had everything using the same stats, people who knows something about real fighting would be angry. If the game used more realistic approach, people who just want to shoot bows without having to account for wind speed and direction, distance, type of arrowhead, draw strength of the bow, arm exhaustion, what layers of armor the enemy uses, and I don't want even to think what else would be angry because it takes forever and slows the game. WotC choose the way that allows everyone except those who understand what kind of game it is or just don't care whine and b*tch together, though for different reasons.

[Vaz]

Nothing is wrong w/ 5e weapons! Why? Because 5e is not a reality emulator. It's a game. And to work games must make "tough choices" or w/e we will call them - just how it is.

Why is it how it is though? Don't give a toss about Stockholm Syndrome. Question Everything. Including this question. Why is a Trident worse than a spear? Why is a mace, well, a 5e mace?

Why are certain god weapons made worthwhile by feat application but others are left in the dirt? Why is a QStaff gold, but a sickle ain't worth ****? Because that's the way it is?

Why aren't their options to improve certain weapons? What happened to the weapon feats to make certain weapons better? Why is a flametongue limited to being a sword? Where are the magical sickles? Magical light hammers?

[Eric Diaz]

Really?

I mean "rapier (finesse) +short sword (light, finesse)" isn't that difficult to think of, no? Yet it's the typical example for a western Niten Ichi-ryū (or if you reflavor the weapons to katana & wakasashi -- because, right or wrong, many ppl consider the katana a finesse weapon; it's real Niten Ichi-ryū)

Nope. You cannot do that without the feat. With the feat you have no reason to.

But I agree it is a viable house rule.


Nothing is wrong w/ 5e weapons! Why? Because 5e is not a reality emulator. It's a game. And to work games must make "tough choices" or w/e we will call them - just how it is.

How is choosing between a spear and a trident a tough choice?

[Eric Diaz]

5e walks the middle road. Real weapon and fighting styles are *not* equal, like some people would like D&D weapons to be for "balance reasons", but they are much too complex to be correctly depicted in a game without taking half an hour to resolve every detail that goes into attack.

If the game had everything using the same stats, people who knows something about real fighting would be angry. If the game used more realistic approach, people who just want to shoot bows without having to account for wind speed and direction, distance, type of arrowhead, draw strength of the bow, arm exhaustion, what layers of armor the enemy uses, and I don't want even to think what else would be angry because it takes forever and slows the game. WotC choose the way that allows everyone except those who understand what kind of game it is or just don't care whine and b*tch together, though for different reasons.

Look, there is no middle road in 5e. Take the quarterstaff: there is no "realistic" reason for it to be wielded one hand with the same damage as a mace. It doesn't make the quarterstaff "balanced" with the mace. It doesn't even make he game simpler or faster.

It is just... random.

I can accept realistic (GURPS).

I can accept "balance" (4e, I guess).

I can accept "simple" (13A).

A mix would be fine.

I just don't particularly like this system that is none of the above.

And I LOVE 5e. I like the spells, classes, etc. I just want the weapons to get 10% of the attention the spells get.

I understand that soem people prefer more archetypes, spells and races. I like melee weapons. That is all.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I think the poor weapon rules are really helpful, actually. If you're playing anything outside AL, you go up to your DM and say "Hey, I want to use this really inefficient thing because I think it's cool, do you mind if I use the stats of reasonable thing x to make it work?", and they say no, it's a good sign that you should probably not play that game at all.

I can only remember one DM ever being that strict about not allowing a 'counts-as' or helping make a flavorful option equally viable with something else. And he was terrible.

[Eric Diaz]

If you're playing anything outside AL, you go up to your DM and say "Hey, I want to use this really inefficient thing because I think it's cool, do you mind if I use the stats of reasonable thing x to make it work?", and they say no, it's a good sign that you should probably not play that game at all.

I agree with this part! :smallsmile:

[thoroughlyS]

I'm not saying you cannot have an elf with a longsword, I just don't see the point of adopting it as a cultural weapon over the rapier. All elves get +1 to hit and damage with the rapier by default, after all.
And? It would also be advantageous for goblins to use rapiers, should it be their cultural weapon too?
I'm not sure if the goblin PC race has a cultural weapon, but if it does, I'm betting it's not a STR-based weapon either.
i don't know about the PC race, but goblins in both D&D and most other pop culture thingies use scimitars, which is both Dex based and "interchangable" with shortswords.



And? It would also be advantageous for goblins to use rapiers, should it be their cultural weapon too?
I would vote for finesse spears, myself.
That would still be mechanically inferior.

Mmmmh, I wonder, could it be possible that people would vote for something less powerful because they think it's better aesthetically?

...Nah, it can't be that.
I'm a rather avid fan of goblins in media, and especially D&D.
The first depiction of a goblin shows them wielding an axe (Dungeons & Dragons Vol. 1 Men & Magic p.29). In AD&D 1st edition the pictured goblin wields a morningstar (Monster Manual p.47), but they are listed as wielding the following:


Weapon
Frequency


shortsword and military pick
10%


shortsword and sling
10%


shortsword and spear
10%


sling
10%


morningstar
20%


military pick
10%


spear
30%

Basically, spear > shortsword > morningstar = military pick = sling. The symbol for Maglubiyet is listed as a bloody axe (Deities & Demigods p.109).

In AD&D 2nd edition, the pictured goblin again wields an axe, and they are noted to prefer spears and maces and use shortswords as a secondary weapon (Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1 p.62). This is corroborated in the Monstrous Manual (p.163), but the image shows them wielding a dagger/shortsword. In the Complete Book of Humanoids (p.34) the depicted goblin wields an axe and a dagger, and later in the section a reprinted image shows one with an axe (p. 36). They are listed as being proficient with axes, military picks, morningstars, slings, shortswords, and spears. Maglubiyet is associated with axes, Khurgorbaeyeag with whips (though his priests wield maces and clubs in battle), and Bargrivyek with flails (Monster Mythology p.49-51).

In D&D 3rd and v3.5 the goblin is depicted with a morningstar and the default stat block uses a morningstar and javelin(D&D v3.5 Monster Manual p.133). Maglubiyet's favored weapon is listed as the battleaxe (Defenders of the Faith p.94;Complete Divine p.124). Of special note is the Darguun Mauler feat (Races of Eberron p.108) which heavily associates Eberron goblins with the flail, heavy flail, dire flail, and spiked chain.

In D&D 4E, they are depicted with a "hexing rod", a battleaxe, and a spear with javelins; the stat blocks list them using shortswords, spears, javelins, hand crossbows, "hexing rods", and battleaxes (Monster Manual p.136-139). Finally, in D&D 5E the Monster Manual depicts a goblin wielding a mace/morningstar and alternatively a scimitar, with the goblin and goblin boss stat blocks mentioning scimitars, shortbows, and javelins.All told, goblins commonly wield battleaxes, morningstars, shortswords/scimitars, and spears/javelins, the majority of which are strength weapons.

[Chugger]

Oh dear, Playground Obsession Syndrome strikes again. I hope to goodness it isn't contagious - off to get a hot shower and gargle a gallon of Listerine!

[qube]

Nope. You cannot do that without the feat. With the feat you have no reason to. [/qutoe]what the heck are you talking about?

rapier is finesse.
-> Main hand. dex weapon.

short sword is light & finesse
-> Off hand. dex weapon.

No feat needed to fight with rapier & short sword.

[QUOTE=Eric Diaz;22579997]How is choosing between a spear and a trident a tough choice?Considering how close a spear & trident are ... yes.

Personally, I would pick a three-pronged Yari

[mgshamster]

rapier is finesse.
-> Main hand. dex weapon.

short sword is light & finesse
-> Off hand. dex weapon.

No feat needed to fight with rapier & short sword.

No, he's right. Without the feat, *both* weapons need to be light.

Although personally, why anyone would care about that extra one point of damage to this point of complaining about it is beyond me.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Considering how close a spear & trident are ... yes.

Personally, I would pick a three-pronged Yari
In reality, tridents make terrible weapons compared to spears. Having three possible points for any energy put behind it to disperse through limits the penetration possible. It was meant for fishing, because you want the increased area to increase the likelihood of actually hitting the fish.

The only time they were used in any type of combat were relatively recent martial art practices and gladiators, who were forced to use tridents and nets as a kind of theme. Often, gladiators were made to fight with certain themes, and the fisherman-based net fighter was a popular one.

[gloryblaze]

[QUOTE=Eric Diaz;22579997]Nope. You cannot do that without the feat. With the feat you have no reason to. [/qutoe]what the heck are you talking about?

rapier is finesse.
-> Main hand. dex weapon.

short sword is light & finesse
-> Off hand. dex weapon.

No feat needed to fight with rapier & short sword.

Considering how close a spear & trident are ... yes.

Personally, I would pick a three-pronged Yari

You can't use TWF unless BOTH weapons are light. Rapier not being light = no TWF w/o feat

[Leon]

the difference is fluff. Fluff is underrated in this game.

This board is infested with optimizers, they cant fathom anything that is not "optimal" and fluff is one of those things that never will be.

[Knaight]

Ah, yes, everyone remembers the story of how David killed goliath. He had to whip that sling so god damn hard that when he released it the sling bullet made a loud cracking noise as the vacuum on its back end closed, and the bullet went staight through goliath's chest. Cause of death was bleeding. No, a sling bullet is a bludgeoning instrument. You hit your enemy with one, it can crush bones and leave bruises.

That whip crack noise? Slings make those - that's not an exaggerated effect, it's what they actually do. As for crushing bones and leaving bruises, you seem to be working on a really high estimate for how much force and energy it takes to do tissue damage. Bludgeoning instruments tend to do that as well, particularly when they hit a softer surface.

[Anonymouswizard]

This board is infested with optimizers, they cant fathom anything that is not "optimal" and fluff is one of those things that never will be.

Strawman much?

Okay, I'm an optimiser. I specifically look at options and pick the ones that'll allow me to build my concept the best. At the same time I'll routinely dump a Fighter's Wisdom over their Intelligence because it feels more like the character, I feel justified in this because optimisation means I'm not dragging the party down by making one or two bad choices.

There's a real difference between theoretical optimisation, which is searching for the best build possible, and practical optimisation, which is optimising with the intent to make your character work and not break the game. Most people who engage in TO on boards will instead engage in PO at the table, which can be a problem because while a PO character is generally weaker than a TO character it's still stronger than what nonoptimisers make.

An optimiser is more likely to be annoyed at a lack of refluffing or minor changes, especially if the game is missing those options. I've had GMs who would let me take a slashing rapier as a saber, and one who insisted it was a better fit for the jian than the longsword is (which I just wanted added to the list of monk weapons), and others who refuse to allow anything that isn't identical to what's printed in the book.

[JackPhoenix]

You can't use TWF unless BOTH weapons are light. Rapier not being light = no TWF w/o feat

You can't use the BA TWF attack. You can fight with two weapons perfectly fine if you have Extra Attack or other ways to get multiple attacks and choose to use different weapon with each. You'll even still add your ability modifier if you do that. It's how my Shield Master fighter pushes foes to the ground, beats them to death with his shield and stabs them at the same time.

[Morty]

I wouldn't consider anything about a weapon to be "useless". A sickle, for instance, is a light 1d4 slashing weapon. There is no such equivalent in the game. With, say, trident/spear, the difference is fluff. Fluff is underrated in this game. It's also a good indicator of status: adventurers and very rich people wield large, expensive weapons that require training to use (i.e. tridents), while your average city guard uses an ordinary spear. A member of a barbaric tribe that doesn't have the means or resources to craft strong metal weapons uses a roughly hewn stone javelin. All these weapons deal 1d6 piercing damage and can be thrown, but for the creation of an atmosphere the differences are incredible.

And yes, I am aware that javelins are not versatile.


This board is infested with optimizers, they cant fathom anything that is not "optimal" and fluff is one of those things that never will be.

There's no reason whatsoever for why picking weapons to match your aesthetic should be unoptimal. "Bad optimizers don't care about the fluff" is just a deflection from the fact that the 5E weapons table has no rhyme or reason to it.

It's not detailed or realistic, because weapons only differ from each other by damage dice and simple tags. It's not a freeform "pick whatever you like" kind of thing, because there's separate categories for weapons that shouldn't be separate - longswords and battle axes are functionally identical, but occupy different slots. Why? Because that's how it's always been, and the table was thrown together to roughly resemble past editions. Even though the rules that differentiated them (if marginally so) no longer exist.

That's not a "middle road", as someone put it. That's straddling the fence. It's covering up simplicity with an illusion of complexity and false choice. That being said, making up more weapons and tags probably isn't going to work, because the 5E combat model just doesn't have the granularity required. Better to just boil it down to a few broad categories (like light, one-handed and two-handed), then let everyone describe their weapons however they please. If you're still absolutely desperate to wield an inferior weapon, you can always ask your GM to lower its damage dice. Or if the circumstances leave you fighting with a rusty old sword, or such.

[pwykersotz]

I've long thought there should be nine melee weapons;

Light/1-H/2-H each in flavours of B/P/S.

Call them whatever you like.
- Light weapons are all Finesse and deal 1d6 damage.
- 1-H weapons are all Versatile (1d10) and deal 1d8 damage.
- 2-H weapons all have Reach, the Heavy property and deal 2d6 damage.

Now add three ranged weapons;

Light/Medium/Heavy

They all do Piercing damage (seriously, ALL ranged weapons do piercing damage; if it doesn't deal piercing damage, it's not a weapon). 1d4/1d6/1d8 damage respectively. Call them whatever you like too.

12 weapons, each distinct, but infinite variety by simply calling them different things on a player and/or character by P/C basis. Why differentiate between a spear and a trident when they're functionally identical? No, differentiate by game mechanics; add fluff to taste.

Given the way 5e is set up, I third this method. You could even have three to six example weapons for each category so it "feels" like D&D.

That said, I feel this strips the heart right out of weapon selection. I don't want it to be as complex as spellcasting, but special options or maneuvers that really got to the heart of what a weapon was designed for would be better, I think.

The main problem with what all of you are discussing (from my angle) is that I am very much NOT a weapons nerd. I don't know what the heck a main gauche is, I don't know what styles were used historically versus defined by Hollywood (and this is AFTER reading the "Real World Weapons and Armor" thread in the Roleplaying Games section!), and I don't know why spears are such a hot topic here. I mean, I know in the instant I read threads explaining them, but my interest is so low, I don't remember it long. Any weapons system needs to have a bar for entry I can pass while still being immersive enough for people to whom that sort of thing matters. That's a pretty tall order.

But yeah, I am very much not an optimizer, but the useless options on the weapons table bother me too.

[JellyPooga]

That whip crack noise? Slings make those - that's not an exaggerated effect, it's what they actually do. As for crushing bones and leaving bruises, you seem to be working on a really high estimate for how much force and energy it takes to do tissue damage. Bludgeoning instruments tend to do that as well, particularly when they hit a softer surface.

Agreed. As far as ranged weaponry is concerned (excepting larger scale ranged weapons like siege weapons), if it's not doing piercing damage it's not doing damage at all. As has been mentioned, from a physical point of view, even a "blunt" or "edged" weapon used at range is functionally performing a "piercing" role. There are no "slashes" or "wide area crushes" at range because the former is almost impossible to achieve with any kind of efficiency and the latter because to get something that large to move fast/far enough requires much larger force than is practical on the personal level (ever try throwing a shot-put? That's a bludgeoning ranged weapon. Is it practical in an actual fight, outside of desperation? No. No it's not. That's why cannons were invented.); no, ranged combat is all point of contact penetration i.e. "piercing". That's why sling stones are small and bullet shaped. That's why arrows are pointy. Throw an axe and the damage it does is not from any kind of cutting motion, but from the point of contact; the "pierce", if you will, which is why a thrown axe is a relatively inefficient ranged weapon; not only is it slow, but it's point of contact is too wide to be efficient without a stable platform behind it (e.g. a big burly dude with arms like tree trunks holding said axe at the time of contact).

Yes, a sling bullet can crush bone and bruise flesh. So will an arrow or a bullet from a gun. As can (and will) a spear in melee. The damage types, to my understanding, are not anything to do with the type of physical trauma the weapon inflicts; all weapons are capable of inflicting bruising, broken bones, bleeding and so forth. No, the damage types are about the delivery mechanism of that damage. Piercing weapons deliver damage through a narrow, direct point of contact, Slashing weapons have an indirect, narrow point of contact (usually a blade) and Bludgeoning weapons have a wide area point of contact (typically direct).

[Anonymouswizard]

There's no reason whatsoever for why picking weapons to match your aesthetic should be unoptimal. "Bad optimizers don't care about the fluff" is just a deflection from the fact that the 5E weapons table has no rhyme or reason to it.

It's not detailed or realistic, because weapons only differ from each other by damage dice and simple tags. It's not a freeform "pick whatever you like" kind of thing, because there's separate categories for weapons that shouldn't be separate - longswords and battle axes are functionally identical, but occupy different slots. Why? Because that's how it's always been, and the table was thrown together to roughly resemble past editions. Even though the rules that differentiated them (if marginally so) no longer exist.

That's not a "middle road", as someone put it. That's straddling the fence. It's covering up simplicity with an illusion of complexity and false choice. That being said, making up more weapons and tags probably isn't going to work, because the 5E combat model just doesn't have the granularity required. Better to just boil it down to a few broad categories (like light, one-handed and two-handed), then let everyone describe their weapons however they please. If you're still absolutely desperate to wield an inferior weapon, you can always ask your GM to lower its damage dice. Or if the circumstances leave you fighting with a rusty old sword, or such.

This exactly this. There are games out there that have generic weapon categories and only stat out specific weapons when they differ, Lamentations of the Flame Princess is an example I have next to me. Even beyond that, looking back at all the 5e characters I've made, the only time I didn't go for the largest damage die was with two handed weapons, where I like having the extra 5ft of reach (and just like polearms in general). Heck, in 5e Resistance to specific types of physical damage is rare enough that I wouldn't notice damage types going for a walk (compare them to GURPS and it's treatment of damage types, which can significantly change what weapon is optimal based on how high your opponent's armour is).

I would argue that polearms (two handed with reach but a lower damage die) and ranged weapons give different tactical opportunities in 5e and are worth the inclusion alongside light, one-handed, and two-handed. I'd burn finesse in a fire and make dexterity significantly impact melee combat as well, but that's just me.

Heck, I'd love a low fantasy game with more tactical combat based on the 5e engine, it's what my 'basic fifth' hack has turned into (not even a dedicated magic class anymore, clerics are faces and magic users are replaced by scholars). I'm even considering adding in a basic weapon reach system, your Reach ranges from 0-2, melee combat can be at a range of 0-2, if you're not in the ideal range for your weapon you suffer disadvantage on attack rolls.

[Eric Diaz]

There's no reason whatsoever for why picking weapons to match your aesthetic should be unoptimal. "Bad optimizers don't care about the fluff" is just a deflection from the fact that the 5E weapons table has no rhyme or reason to it.

It's not detailed or realistic, because weapons only differ from each other by damage dice and simple tags. It's not a freeform "pick whatever you like" kind of thing, because there's separate categories for weapons that shouldn't be separate - longswords and battle axes are functionally identical, but occupy different slots. Why? Because that's how it's always been, and the table was thrown together to roughly resemble past editions. Even though the rules that differentiated them (if marginally so) no longer exist.

That's not a "middle road", as someone put it. That's straddling the fence. It's covering up simplicity with an illusion of complexity and false choice.

Yes, well said.


That being said, making up more weapons and tags probably isn't going to work, because the 5E combat model just doesn't have the granularity required.

I think it could be done. I agree it wouldn't be an easy task, but maybe messing with crits somehow, make S/P/B mean something (say, bludgeoning weapons are better against most objects, gargoyles, and constructs).

[Rusvul]

I took a stab at fixing some of these problems. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XUPIN2TQKrwyJZ_HKtfwJmNO1Hgbq7N6U1PgldS0OJk/edit?usp=sharing) Basically what I did was try to decipher the math that went into making the 5e weapons list (several other people have done this; I leaned heavily on their work) and then actually enforce it. At some point in the development process, it seems like the 5e team decided to stop paying attention to the math they had used for weapons. I also added a few weapon properties: Critical, Double, Secure, and Reload. The latter three aren't particularly consequential, but Critical is similar in theme to the 4e weapon properties and the 3.x crit multipliers that people have mentioned earlier. All in all, it's definitely not entirely balanced, but I've tried to give every weapon a niche.

This fix is made for use in my own game with my other fixes and homebrew, though, so YMMV. I haven't gotten around to writing descriptions for every weapon yet, either.

[Talamare]

I took a stab at fixing some of these problems. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XUPIN2TQKrwyJZ_HKtfwJmNO1Hgbq7N6U1PgldS0OJk/edit?usp=sharing) Basically what I did was try to decipher the math that went into making the 5e weapons list (several other people have done this; I leaned heavily on their work) and then actually enforce it. At some point in the development process, it seems like the 5e team decided to stop paying attention to the math they had used for weapons. I also added a few weapon properties: Critical, Double, Secure, and Reload. The latter three aren't particularly consequential, but Critical is similar in theme to the 4e weapon properties and the 3.x crit multipliers that people have mentioned earlier. All in all, it's definitely not entirely balanced, but I've tried to give every weapon a niche.

This fix is made for use in my own game with my other fixes and homebrew, though, so YMMV. I haven't gotten around to writing descriptions for every weapon yet, either.

I would suggest making the Spear a Martial Weapon, bump it to d8
Remove Versatile, and allow it to be thrown 15/40

[Eric Diaz]

I took a stab at fixing some of these problems. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XUPIN2TQKrwyJZ_HKtfwJmNO1Hgbq7N6U1PgldS0OJk/edit?usp=sharing) Basically what I did was try to decipher the math that went into making the 5e weapons list (several other people have done this; I leaned heavily on their work) and then actually enforce it. At some point in the development process, it seems like the 5e team decided to stop paying attention to the math they had used for weapons. I also added a few weapon properties: Critical, Double, Secure, and Reload. The latter three aren't particularly consequential, but Critical is similar in theme to the 4e weapon properties and the 3.x crit multipliers that people have mentioned earlier. All in all, it's definitely not entirely balanced, but I've tried to give every weapon a niche.

This fix is made for use in my own game with my other fixes and homebrew, though, so YMMV. I haven't gotten around to writing descriptions for every weapon yet, either.

This is awesome, thank you. I tried the "parry" stuff before, very flavorful - although I started by giving it to the quarterstaff, which apparently you didn't.

And I'm curious about exotic weapons - how are you dealing with them?

Great work overall.


I would suggest making the Spear a Martial Weapon, bump it to d8
Remove Versatile, and allow it to be thrown 15/40

I've added a few spears instead (heavy spear, etc), myself. Removing the simple spear stops the monk from using it, and also it makes sense to me that even untrained peasants can use spears effectively.

[Morty]

Given the way 5e is set up, I third this method. You could even have three to six example weapons for each category so it "feels" like D&D.

That said, I feel this strips the heart right out of weapon selection. I don't want it to be as complex as spellcasting, but special options or maneuvers that really got to the heart of what a weapon was designed for would be better, I think.

The main problem with what all of you are discussing (from my angle) is that I am very much NOT a weapons nerd. I don't know what the heck a main gauche is, I don't know what styles were used historically versus defined by Hollywood (and this is AFTER reading the "Real World Weapons and Armor" thread in the Roleplaying Games section!), and I don't know why spears are such a hot topic here. I mean, I know in the instant I read threads explaining them, but my interest is so low, I don't remember it long. Any weapons system needs to have a bar for entry I can pass while still being immersive enough for people to whom that sort of thing matters. That's a pretty tall order.

But yeah, I am very much not an optimizer, but the useless options on the weapons table bother me too.

There were plans for different abilities for different weapons during the development. But the designers decided that's too complicated and takes up too much space (which was presumably better spent on spells). We never even got to see them in the playtest.



I think it could be done. I agree it wouldn't be an easy task, but maybe messing with crits somehow, make S/P/B mean something (say, bludgeoning weapons are better against most objects, gargoyles, and constructs).

You could go through the monster list and make it so there are more resistances and vulnerabilities to the damage types, but that just becomes a rock/paper/scissors situation. And every warrior will carry three weapons to swap out as needed. Without Weapon Focus or similar, and with magic items being scarce, there's no real reason to stick to a particular weapon, as long as it fits your chosen combat style.

You also run into the issue where most finesse weapons in the list as it stands are piercing. So rogues and finesse warriors will be in trouble if they run into such a resistance.

[X3r4ph]

This might be too much homebrew for your taste, but I hope it can inspire more diverse weapons:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pstDEF8BSYE837oaz5h6Gs4LcES-0sTZHqyptZxvYaI/edit?usp=drivesdk

[CantigThimble]

What if we just got rid of all the weapon names on the weapon chart and replaced them with mechanically distinct generic weapons? For example:

Simple weapon: 1d6 damage, choose bludgeoning peircing or slashing, choose one of versitile (1d8), throwing or finesse

Martial one handed weapon: 1d8, choose up to two of bludgeoning peircing or slashing, choose one of: Versitile (1d10), throwing or finesse

And then just let people flavor their fighting style however they like? It's just plain impractical to come up with a set of rules that makes every weapon mechanically distinct without mechanically pushing players to all use the same weapons.

This isn't something I'd do (because I'm not that bothered by it) but one thing I do houserule is that a dagger can be dual wielded with anything. Because dagger & rapier is just much nicer than 2 shortswords and it's the same average damage.

[mephnick]

They killed the meaning of different weapons when they neutered resistences. Lumping B/P/S resistence all together is one of my annoyances with 5e. I loved carrying around multiple weapons at low levels, even though I understood it was another slight against martial characters. I wish they had kept some of that granularity somehow.

[mgshamster]

They killed the meaning of different weapons when they neutered resistences. Lumping B/P/S resistence all together is one of my annoyances with 5e. I loved carrying around multiple weapons at low levels, even though I understood it was another slight against martial characters. I wish they had kept some of that granularity somehow.

They still have it a tiny bit with vulnerability to certain weapons. Like skeletons and bludgeoning Weapons.

[Kuulvheysoon]

They still have it a tiny bit with vulnerability to certain weapons. Like skeletons and bludgeoning Weapons.

Somebody had a thread not too long ago about this exact thing - they actually had about a dozen entries, which surprised me. Also, Flameskulls having resistance to piercing damage is just neat.

[Rusvul]

This is awesome, thank you. I tried the "parry" stuff before, very flavorful - although I started by giving it to the quarterstaff, which apparently you didn't.

And I'm curious about exotic weapons - how are you dealing with them?

Great work overall.


Thanks! Glad to hear I'm not slowly going crazy in my ever-expanding bubble of rules alterations.

Every race has two racial weapons: a martial weapon and an exotic weapon. Members of that race treat their race's martial weapon as a simple weapon, and their race's exotic weapon as a martial weapon. Thus, if a Gnome has proficiency in simple weapons, they add the hooked hammer to that list. If they have proficiency in martial weapons, they add the quickrazor to that list. If someone wants proficiency with a weapon not on their race's list, they can take a feat (which I haven't written yet, I'll probably give something in addition to a weapon proficiency) or learn it in downtime.

Humans don't have a racial martial weapon, instead they have two exotic weapons. In my game, humans invented firearms, so arquebuses and pistols are pretty much exclusive to them.


I would suggest making the Spear a Martial Weapon, bump it to d8
Remove Versatile, and allow it to be thrown 15/40

The problem I have with this is that martial weapons, in theory, require significant training to use effectively. The spear is a sharp, pointy stick used by peasants with shields. The pike is a longer pointy stick used by peasants standing behind the ones with shields. Making either of them a martial weapon would be contrary to how were historically used, as well as how they are often used in fantasy.

[Talamare]

The problem I have with this is that martial weapons, in theory, require significant training to use effectively. The spear is a sharp, pointy stick used by peasants with shields. The pike is a longer pointy stick used by peasants standing behind the ones with shields. Making either of them a martial weapon would be contrary to how were historically used, as well as how they are often used in fantasy.

You're saying that a peasant picking up a Spear will perform about the same as a Soldier who has trained in it?

You're kidding right?

The only reason Pikes worked was the vast number and massive amount in a small area

1vs1 Combat with a Spear is nothing like that.

[Rusvul]

You're saying that a peasant picking up a Spear will perform about the same as a Soldier who has trained in it?

You're kidding right?

The only reason Pikes worked was the vast number and massive amount in a small area

1vs1 Combat with a Spear is nothing like that.


No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying, however, that a peasant who has trained even a little bit can use a spear effectively, while effective use of a martial weapon (like a greatsword) requires far more intense training. If I wanted to represent a soldier's superior skill, I'd do it with a better weapon and armor (our soldier is proficient in them, while our peasant is not), higher ability scores, or a higher proficiency bonus, though the limited scope of proficiency bonuses makes that a suboptimal solution.

I think D&D's focus on small skirmishes rather than actual battles necessitates some liberties with historical use of weapons. Still, I like to make nods to the real world where I can. Beyond that, while the notion of using a pike in 1-on-1 combat is absurd, the binary nature of proficiencies suggests that if you know how to use a pike in a formation, you also know how to use a pike in a tiny skirmish with your three buddies against a half-dozen orcs.

I could alter the rules such that spears and pikes are essentially useless outside of full-scale battles, or that they require more training to use in the smaller fights typical of adventuring, but at the end of the day, that doesn't make the game any more fun or rewarding for me or my players. While I realize that everyone draws the 'realism and historical accuracy' line somewhere different, peasants proficiently using spears and pikes doesn't break verisimilitude for me.

[Talamare]

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying, however, that a peasant who has trained even a little bit can use a spear effectively, while effective use of a martial weapon (like a greatsword) requires far more intense training. If I wanted to represent a soldier's superior skill, I'd do it with a better weapon and armor (our soldier is proficient in them, while our peasant is not), higher ability scores, or a higher proficiency bonus, though the limited scope of proficiency bonuses makes that a suboptimal solution.

I think D&D's focus on small skirmishes rather than actual battles necessitates some liberties with historical use of weapons. Still, I like to make nods to the real world where I can. Beyond that, while the notion of using a pike in 1-on-1 combat is absurd, the binary nature of proficiencies suggests that if you know how to use a pike in a formation, you also know how to use a pike in a tiny skirmish with your three buddies against a half-dozen orcs.

I could alter the rules such that spears and pikes are essentially useless outside of full-scale battles, or that they require more training to use in the smaller fights typical of adventuring, but at the end of the day, that doesn't make the game any more fun or rewarding for me or my players. While I realize that everyone draws the 'realism and historical accuracy' line somewhere different, peasants proficiently using spears and pikes doesn't break verisimilitude for me.
The historical first choice weapon for Well Trained Soldiers has always been the Spear.
If you're looking for a "better weapon", the BEST choice is the Spear.
The Sword was an after thought for everyone except the Roman Legionnaire.
From Japan to the Berbers. They ALL preferred the Spear over the Sword.

Not representing that at all is one of the biggest mistakes that DnD has made, and you continue.

If this is about not wanting to remove the option of the Spear as a Simple Weapon, then just introduce the "Soldiers Spear"

[Waterdeep Merch]

The historical first choice weapon for Well Trained Soldiers has always been the Spear.
If you're looking for a "better weapon", the BEST choice is the Spear.
The Sword was an after thought for everyone except the Roman Legionnaire.
From Japan to the Berbers. They ALL preferred the Spear over the Sword.

Not representing that at all is one of the biggest mistakes that DnD has made, and you continue.

If this is about not wanting to remove the option of the Spear as a Simple Weapon, then just introduce the "Soldiers Spear"
Would it be all that wrong to just have certain weapons perform better in the hands of a martial weapon expert? Like, let a spear behave as a d8/d10 versatile reach polearm for anyone with martial training. Something similar for the mace (d8 that adds an additional d8 of damage on a crit, perhaps?).

[Rusvul]

The historical first choice weapon for Well Trained Soldiers has always been the Spear.
If you're looking for a "better weapon", the BEST choice is the Spear.
The Sword was an after thought for everyone except the Roman Legionnaire.
From Japan to the Berbers. They ALL preferred the Spear over the Sword.

Not representing that at all is one of the biggest mistakes that DnD has made, and you continue.

If this is about not wanting to remove the option of the Spear as a Simple Weapon, then just introduce the "Soldiers Spear"

"I'm tired of all this "masterwork spear" bs..."

Jokes aside, I think you and I have differing ideas of how important historically accurate arms and armor are in fantasy. (I get the impression that you're more well versed on the topic than I am, as well.) At the end of the day, I'm happy with simple weapon spears. I didn't even have to change them; I copied them straight from the Player's Handbook without modification. They fill exactly the niche I want them to: cheap to make, effective, widely used by rank-and-file soldiers as well as peasants, easy to use, and can be thrown a short ways. Historically blasphemous, yes, slightly, but D&D is so far from a historically accurate game (even ignoring the dragons and magic) that trying too hard to make it all make sense is, in my opinion, wasted effort. But again, different people care about different things. If "Spear" and "Soldier's Spear" is a better representation of spears in your eyes, then by all means use them that way in your game.


Would it be all that wrong to just have certain weapons perform better in the hands of a martial weapon expert? Like, let a spear behave as a d8/d10 versatile reach polearm for anyone with martial training. Something similar for the mace (d8 that adds an additional d8 of damage on a crit, perhaps?).

While this is an interesting idea, and I could see it working pretty well, I would argue that it is unnecessary. 5e already has a system for "this person is better at a thing than this other person": proficiency bonus and ability scores.

[Morty]

I question how much of a purpose martial and simple weapons serve anymore.

[Eric Diaz]

Thanks! Glad to hear If someone wants proficiency with a weapon not on their race's list, they can take a feat (which I haven't written yet, I'll probably give something in addition to a weapon proficiency) or learn it in downtime.

Probably a version of Weapon Master would do - TBH I would even require them to ANY exotic weapons.... It seems that, otherwise, most PCs would only use exotic weapons (for example, goliaths would seldom have a reason to use something eles).

Just my 2c:

---
Exotic Weapon Master
You have practiced extensively with a variety of exotic weapons, gaining the following benefits:

* Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
* You gain proficiency with your race's exotic weapon, plus two exotic weapons of your choice.
---

I'm tempted to make ability requirements to exotic weapons instead (e.g., you need Strength 17 and Dexterity 13 to use a 2d8 Zweihander), but that might be too fiddly.


Would it be all that wrong to just have certain weapons perform better in the hands of a martial weapon expert? Like, let a spear behave as a d8/d10 versatile reach polearm for anyone with martial training. Something similar for the mace (d8 that adds an additional d8 of damage on a crit, perhaps?).

There would be no problem at all IMO, but would add a bit of complexity and invalidate things such as peasants using spears over greatswords. Well, not sure they would be able to buy the greatswords anyway. But then again I see no problem in letting a 20th level wizard use a longsword - it is not like it would be a good decision anyway...

[LudicSavant]

Adding to your list of problems: Shields take an action to drop, which is... excessive to the point I've seen new players express shock and dismay when the response to "I want to drop my shield" is "you can't, except with an action." This is especially the case for the many shield types which do not "strap on." An alternative way of looking at this would be to say that the game only allows for thoroughly strapped-on shields, and does not allow for things like viking center-grip shields or what-have-you. Also, if a player says something like "I want to break his face with my shield" there's no clear rules for that (no, the shield bash from the feat doesn't cover it. You just sort of have to wing it with improvised weapon rules).

Removing from your list of problems: I don't think the "redundant" items are an issue. The book already advises, quite soundly, to model many weapons via reflavoring of others. The identical/redundant weapons are simply providing examples of this principle.

[Eric Diaz]

Adding to your list of problems: Shields take an action to drop, which is... excessive, especially for the many shield types which do not "strap on." Also, if a player says something like "I want to break his face with my shield" there's no clear rules for that (no, the shield bash from the feat doesn't cover it. You just sort of have to wing it with improvised weapon rules).

Removing from your list of problems: I don't think the "redundant" items are an issue. The book already advises, quite soundly, to model many weapons via reflavoring of others. The identical/redundant weapons are simply providing examples of this principle.

Well, I did mention I wanted a buckler! :biggrin:

I like shield bashing, the problem is that 1d4 damage seems excessive, and we don't have d2 and d3 weapons anymore.

But yeah, I agree, the shield should get more attention.

[Rusvul]

Probably a version of Weapon Master would do - TBH I would even require them to ANY exotic weapons.... It seems that, otherwise, most PCs would only use exotic weapons (for example, goliaths would seldom have a reason to use something eles).

Just my 2c:

---
Exotic Weapon Master
You have practiced extensively with a variety of exotic weapons, gaining the following benefits:

* Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
* You gain proficiency with your race's exotic weapon, plus two exotic weapons of your choice.
---

I'm tempted to make ability requirements to exotic weapons instead (e.g., you need Strength 17 and Dexterity 13 to use a 2d8 Zweihander), but that might be too fiddly.


I'm kind of alright with goliaths who fight in melee only using greathammers... It's a very effective weapon unique to their culture, it makes sense fluff-wise that it'd be very prevalent. What I'm wary of is human PCs only ever using Greathammers or Dragonsclaws or what have you. That breaks verisimilitude for me. That's the biggest (and only, really) flaw I see in your proposed feat: it's just as easy to become proficient in another race's exotic weapon as it is yours, which... doesn't seem right to me.

Ultimately, I'm not too concerned about weapon balance compared to the PHB. At the end of the day, we're talking about pretty small increases or decreases in average damage. I'm not even trying to make all weapons equal. I'm mostly just trying to make sure every weapon has a niche, something that makes it worth using over similar weapons. (That, and add a little flavor with exotic and racial weapons.)

I had considered ability requirements, but I think you're right, it's too fiddly.

[Eric Diaz]

Some good fixes in this thread already!

By the way, what other 5e weapons "fixes" are there? I could swear I saw one complete "weapon build" system around here (I mean, in the GitP forums, not this thread), but cannot find it.


I'm kind of alright with goliaths who fight in melee only using greathammers... It's a very effective weapon unique to their culture, it makes sense fluff-wise that it'd be very prevalent. What I'm wary of is human PCs only ever using Greathammers or Dragonsclaws or what have you. That breaks verisimilitude for me. That's the biggest (and only, really) flaw I see in your proposed feat: it's just as easy to become proficient in another race's exotic weapon as it is yours, which... doesn't seem right to me.

Ultimately, I'm not too concerned about weapon balance compared to the PHB. At the end of the day, we're talking about pretty small increases or decreases in average damage. I'm not even trying to make all weapons equal. I'm mostly just trying to make sure every weapon has a niche, something that makes it worth using over similar weapons. (That, and add a little flavor with exotic and racial weapons.)

I had considered ability requirements, but I think you're right, it's too fiddly.

Yeah, you're right. The main issue, probably is avoiding exotic weapons to become overpowered... And give at least some reason not to use them.

[Laurefindel]

A few weapon-related thoughts, somewhat on subject...

If we houseruled TWF to work like in 3e, that is, "light weapon" restriction on off-hand only, we might see a few more TWF combos such as rapier/main-gauche(dagger), longsword/handaxe, rapier/whip etc. off the bat. This would also increase TWF's DPR by 1-3 points, which seems to be 1-3 points behind by most analysis I've seen.

Alternatively, if TWF was limited by the "weight" of their damage dice, we could replace two 1d6 weapons by a 1d8/1d4 pair, thus allowing the iconic rapier/main-gauche from level 1 without affecting DPR too much. It could also benefit the user slightly when the Bonus Action is spent on something else.

The main gauche could be a special dagger that, if not used to attack during the previous turn, provides a +2 bonus to AC against melee attacks. Basically, the main-gauche is not a weapons but a shield that can be "transformed" into a dagger for a round. This would be consistent with main-gauche primarily being used to parry IRL.

B/P/S types could gain special riders when a critical hit is scored, thus differentiating the weapon type a bit further. Thus instead of x2 damage, the wielder of a piercing weapon could choose to provoke bleeding damage, bludgeoning could trip, slashing could force disadvantage on next attack etc. Haven't given much thoughts to that yet.

Similar to above but with weapon categories like in 3e.

Move spear to 1d8/1d10 versatile weapon (there's a niche for a piercing longsword/axe anyway). Scrap this whole simple/martial weapon concept; If you want your wizard to be restricted to quarterstaff, dagger and light crossbow; just make a list of proficiencies for classes. Historically, peasants, militias and irregular troops would be equipped with a polearm of some sort in tight formations (most "martial" polarms are dedicated weapons derived from modified farming implements used by peasants in the middle ages). Presently, most polearms are not simple weapons and can't replicate that.

As far as I understand, most western polearms are derived from farmers' equipment. For the medieval monarch, equipping your peasants with spears and shield is way too expansive (besides, you don't want to give them actual weapon in case they decide to rebel or side with your neighbour). Instead, you ask them to take what they have and modify it for the battlefield. Thus, remove the blade of your scythe and attach it straight up on a straight pole and you've got a proto-glaive. Remove a butcher's knife and attach it on a pole and you've got a proto-voulge. Attach a logger's hook or a harvest sickle to a pole and you've got a proto-guisarm. Smiths will then make improved military versions of these weapons for militias and irregular troops, but that's where they come from.

Your conscripted peasants won't have much training, hence the pole weapon and the reach (even if that isn't really represented in 5e) and the group formation. Individually they are worthless, but as a group they may provide a decent obstacle. Depending on how medieval you want to go, your peasants don't own slings or bows; those are for hunting and that is the privilege of the nobles (and the crime of the poachers).

Even if you don't wanna go medieval, your fantasy frontier-settlers peasants not-tained-for-war but ready-for-skirmish (with golbins and wolves) will get a minimum weapon proficiency. They still are likely to use weapons that they have at hand (like a logger's axe), weapons they use for hunting and survival (short bow) or weapons they can afford due to low metal content, low steel quality and low technology requirement (like a spear). At which point it should be more of a matter of convenience than anything else.

[Anonymouswizard]

I question how much of a purpose martial and simple weapons serve anymore.

Honestly? Next to none. There are 12 core classes, 9 get all simple weapons, 4 get all martial weapons as well, and 1 gets subclasses that gives them martial weapons.

The exceptions? Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards. Three classes designed to almost always have a better option than 'I hit it with my staff'. We could give them all simple weapons without unbalacing anything. Before level five giving casting classes martial weapons will be slightly problematic, but almost everybody who gets all simple weapons gets access to one or more martial weapons as well. The end result is we get wizards who can't use spears and monks who can't use longswords, for no discernable reason. But it's fine to give elves access to the rapier.

Honestly? The game would probably not change much if you assumed everybody was proficient in everything. Casters would stay away from more powerful weapons anyway, they'd be more effective casting spells and having a backup rapier in case a goblin got close.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't have a problem with the weapon system as it stands (and certainly not with any lack of supposed historical accuracy). I do like the 4e weapon group concept (where there were feats that allowed you to do cool things based on the type of weapon you're wielding).

I just wrote a first attempt at doing that for 5e--the google doc is here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10_-Jh32QinqyekT3qPcI68KSqk0mG7yMdvVxtAQ2tms/edit?usp=sharing). Note that if I used this it would replace PAM/GWM/SS/CBE--those have been broken out into separate half-feats and pieces combined elsewhere/dropped entirely.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I don't have a problem with the weapon system as it stands (and certainly not with any lack of supposed historical accuracy). I do like the 4e weapon group concept (where there were feats that allowed you to do cool things based on the type of weapon you're wielding).

I just wrote a first attempt at doing that for 5e--the google doc is here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10_-Jh32QinqyekT3qPcI68KSqk0mG7yMdvVxtAQ2tms/edit?usp=sharing). Note that if I used this it would replace PAM/GWM/SS/CBE--those have been broken out into separate half-feats and pieces combined elsewhere/dropped entirely.

With a quick look, I've spied a few things that irk me:

Deadly Axe - How does this interact with a mid-level barbarian or a half-orc? Perhaps change the language to read roll an additional damage die (like the aforementioned abilities).
Street Thug - was it your intent to let rogues SA with a maul (and treat it as a two handed finesse weapon)?
Spear Push - something just doesn't feel right about this one. Not sure what.

[PhoenixPhyre]

With a quick look, I've spied a few things that irk me:

Deadly Axe - How does this interact with a mid-level barbarian or a half-orc? Perhaps change the language to read roll an additional damage die (like the aforementioned abilities).
Street Thug - was it your intent to let rogues SA with a maul (and treat it as a two handed finesse weapon)?
Spear Push - something just doesn't feel right about this one. Not sure what.


1) I was going for a brutal critical (x3 crits) style. Your wording also works.
2) That one...I'll have to rethink. Maybe restrict it to those lacking the two-handed property...or just decide to allow it.
3) Yeah. It was taken from 4e (where it increased the push distance for powers that pushed) and supposed to be like the Staff Momentum knockdown effect.

It's still very much a WIP.

[Requilac]

Somebody had a thread not too long ago about this exact thing - they actually had about a dozen entries, which surprised me. Also, Flameskulls having resistance to piercing damage is just neat.

I am actually the person who started that thread. I counted about 8 different times when the damage type of a mundane weapon mattered. You can check the link here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541857-When-does-the-damage-type-of-a-mundane-weapon-matter) for those of you who care.

[qube]

hmmm ... on the flaming skulls thing ... that's actually an interesting idea
all creatures smaller then a certain size having resistance* to piercing because those are more difficult to hit (a swing with a weapon has a much larger 'hit area')
creatures with low dex but high AC having vulnearbility* to bludgooning, as things like maces are specifically designed for those
...


*: or, maybe a 'micro-resisitance/vulnearbility' of, for example, 2 damage difference per hit instead of half/double, if you don't want to scew the CR too much

[Eric Diaz]

hmmm ... on the flaming skulls thing ... that's actually an interesting idea
all creatures smaller then a certain size having resistance* to piercing because those are more difficult to hit (a swing with a weapon has a much larger 'hit area')
creatures with low dex but high AC having vulnearbility* to bludgooning, as things like maces are specifically designed for those
...


*: or, maybe a 'micro-resisitance/vulnearbility' of, for example, 2 damage difference per hit instead of half/double, if you don't want to scew the CR too much

TBH I don't even think you need to go that far. Just give adequate resistances/vulnerability to ALL constructs, ALL oozes, etc.

[Mappybc]

While everything you said is valid from a game mechanics point of view, the DM can easily introduce situations where the most damaging weapon is not optimal.
If you need to conceal a weapon then a maul or greatsword are out of the question.
If you need to cut a rope during combat, say a net restraining you, then it's perfectly valid for the DM to say your Rapier simply can't do the job. There are many other examples I can think of, a warhammer is better at battering a door or breaking a statue than a greatsword. If you are fighting underwater then maybe any non piercing weapon, like a trident, has disadvantage on attack rolls.
Or if you are fighting goblins on a narrow tunnel then apply disadvantage to two handed weapons that require room to swing.
As for armor, if you are in the middle of a scorching desert, or in a boat, you do not want to be in plate armor.
After the players encounter several of these situations you can expect them to start carrying different weapons for specific situations.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread necromancy is :smallyuk: