The 5e weapon table needs a few fixes.

[The Jack]

Let's whack this here for ease of reference.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BIy5R79nkyM/VJzY22mT4xI/AAAAAAAAAE0/CPzbL4cwmMo/s1600/5e-dnd-weapons.png

I, for the most part like 5e's weapon table. It's leagues above the mess I found in pathfinder, which was overly complex, that complexity was bull****, and most of the exotic weapons were just dumb. 5e gave us something simple, elegant; It was more understandable, more believable, and considerably more accurate. It still has problems.

Now, this isn't about realism, though that's an influence. If I wanted realism, I'd say daggers, shortswords and longswords* should all do the same amount of damage, light armour would be "padded cloth, Thicker padded cloth, More padded cloth" and I'd be contemplating whether heavy armour should provide immunity and resistances to everything or just a lot of resistances. The Miracle of Adamantine and Mithral would be heavily discussed since their merits would mean so much to the creation of armour... We're not going to do that (though I'd have fun). This thread's about balance.
*longsword used by one hand

The Greatclub
Compare the greatclub to the quarterstaff. Same price, same damage, worse weight, worse properties; It's two handed, the only two handed melee simple weapon. The quarterstaff is versatile. The Quarterstaff is an objectively better weapon. The answer is simple to me. The Greatclub should do 1d10
With 1d10, the greatclub is still inferior to versatile/two handed martial weapons. The other great weapons do 1d12/2d6, the polearms get reach, the versatile weapons are lighter, do as much damage in two hands, and only need one hand to wield.

The Morningstar
This here is really simple. It costs the same as a longsword, it weighs as much as a battle axe, it does the one handed damage of them both, and yet it's not versatile. It should be.

The Scimitar
A slashing shortsword that's heavier, more expensive, and more stylish. I don't mind that so much, I mean it's not balanced, but you're paying for style and the price is probably worth it. The real issue here is that certain classes get the short sword and not the scimitar, even that's a thematic miscarriage. What desert dwelling rogue doesn't used curved swords and does anyone know about fighting monks... in general?

The Pike, The Lance, The martial spear
Alright, this is the biggest mess.
-The Glaive/Halberd are mechanically the same thing, and putting them in one shared item would make it easier in terms of proficiency, But the next thing is that if I wanted a martial spear, I'd claim a halberd that does piercing. Important note for the next bit; These weigh 6lb.
- Now classification terms for weapons are pretty unwieldy, messy even, and I, and most people reading this, probably don't care for getting anal about it. That said; The Pike and Lance are pretty messed up. One's 6lb, the other's 18lb. One does 1d12, the other 1d10. One has disadvantage for everyone in 5ft.
Now let's try to be sensible here;
-The spear that weighs 18lbs should be the one with close range disadvantage. The spear that weighs 6lb, like it's glaive/halberd cousine, should be a happy, agile thing.
- If a spear is 18lbs, more than three times the weight of the next largest polearm, it should be even longer, right?
-There's no real reason why one should do a d12 rather than a d10. If you're going to couched lance charge from horseback, you're going to do more than an extra 2 damage.

TL;DR I present to you:
Martial Spear- 5gp- 1d10p- 6lb- Heavy, Reach
Heavy Spear- 5gp- 1d10p- 18lb- Heavy, special (+10ft reach, disadvantage within 5ft)

I'm not quite sure of the names and the price, but we can add a rule where you couch them both (and get additional charge damage).

The Trident
Just use the martial spear The trident is a weapon that sticks out to almost every player as an oddity. It's a simple spear, made more expensive and martial. So who knows what stats a peasant's pitchfork take Now, solution could be to just... have a trident any other spear, be it the simple spear or the martial spear, you pay a little extra for the cool. But I think there's room for an intermidate spear for martials.

Fighting spear-5gp- 1d8- 6lb*- Versatile (1d10p) Thrown (20/60)
(For ease, the simple spear should be named "simple spear")
*I was thinking 4lbs, but we need an excuse not to make the weapon simple. The name's a WIP. I think "trident" is a bit too specific. I like how "longsword" could mean mean any "versatile" sword used for cutting on the planet. Nonspecific names are a strength of 5e's weapons.

Ranged weapons
I've made sense so far and only made amendments . It's time to wildly deviate. Indulge me:
Bows and slings should come in D4, D6, D8, D10 and 2d6 variants, with strength requirements (and versions for Large+ creatures, though I'm not sure if you could make a bow that's huge or more without magic). A D4'd be good for small game or wolf defence, being able to use a d10 bow would be very impressive for a human.
I believe this change would diversify builds for archers (Do you sacrifice points in other areas so you can use a bigger bow, perhaps putting it all into dex and strength to be a cannon?) and it'd more importantly open up strength characters to more than just Javelins as a ranged choice. Alas, I personally don't know enough about bows to cite Str requirements or ranges (honestly, ranges should probably stay how they are to keep things simple) so if someone could make suggestions I'd be appreciative.

In regards to slings, they always get a bad rap, because people aren't really aware of what a sling could be. Yes, they could be very cheap weapons to aid in throwing stones and upsetting wildlife. That'd be a d4. They could also be nasty implements of death, firing disk shaped lead bullets of limb smashing, skull 'sploding death (and you could just use larger rocks...) and that'd be a d8.

For crossbows, I think it'd be interesting to have bigger ones. 1d10 for loading, 2d10 for two turns of loading, three d10s for three turns of loading... Each heavier than the last. Now, the crossbow mastery feat should really only reduce each loading by one turn, 3d10s isn't something you should multi attack with, but I think this change would really add diversity to ranged combat.


Flail, Warpick
These two, balance wise, are fine. They're cheap,very light, and they do a d8. I think the problem here is that, especially for the later, they're a bit boring. Saving a little money and weight doesn't really attract adventurers. I have never seen a player take a warpick, or an NPC with a warpick. One could make them heavier and versatile like the Longsword,battleaxe, warhammer and now morningstar, but they'd never stand out that way.
Flail: +1 against shields (remove the feat, it's a waste of an ASI)
Warpick: +1 against heavy armour.

The Net
I don't think I have to justify wanting to change this. I probably don't have the best solution, but I have a better one:
As an attack action, throw the net at one target. The target makes an acrobatics or athletics check to avoid being caught in the net, difficulty of the thrower's Str+proficiency in the martial. weapon. Those restrained may use an attack action to remove themselves from the net*, dc15. They may not make attacks of opportunity while in the net

(So folks with multi attack are better at getting out of the net, which makes sense to me)

Blowgun
If poisons were reasonable, this might be worthwhile, I've never seen a player use it. Special poison list. Price per 50 darts. I have no idea what I'm doing here.
Basic- Target takes 1d4 poison damage and makes a dc 10 con save or is poisoned. 10gp
Basic+- 1d8 poison damage and makes a dc 15 con save for poisoned 25gp
Basic++ 2d6 poison damage and a dc20 save for poisoned. 100gp
Necrotic-The target takes 1d4 Necrotic damage and can't regain that health without healing. Target must make a con save (10) each hour or take another 1d4 till they get 3 successes or are healed 20gp
Necrotic+-As above but with 2d4, difficulty 15 save. 60gp.
Necrotic++ 3d6, difficulty 15 save 200gp
Hallucinogenic - The creature becomes frightened of 1d4 random creatures and is poisoned for 1d6 minutes if it fails a 15 constitution saving throw. 20gp
Paralytic. DC 10 to avoid being paralysed, 15 to avoid being poisoned. You may repeat a failed check each round till you succeed (15+) otherwise lasts one minute. 200gp.
Paralytic +,15 for paralysed, 20 for poisoned. Paralysis lasts one hour, poisoned lasts four. You have disadvantage against the roll if you weren't excited. 600 gp.


Proposed additional weapons
Peasant Flail- 1g, 1d8b, 10lb two handed, +1 against shields. Simple.
Levy Flail 5g- 1d10p, 12lb- two handed- +1 against shields. Martial.
Chainsaw- 300g, 4d4, 10lbs, two handed. Martial.
I'm a big proponent of a 2d6p great weapon. Be it an extra large morningstar or war pick (spiked maul?).

DM's guide and guns.
Guns are way too strong relative to prior weapons. The advantage of a gun isn't the damage, but how easy to hit people with one. 2d6/2d8 are crazy for pistols/revolvers. If I was gonna do something to make guns "better" than earlier weapons, I'd let people attack with bonus actions for semi automatics, and have multi attack be applicable to bonus actions (which would make fighters insane, and I'd put limits on them). Renaissance guns would create a cube of fear from the muzzle flash on a shot. But just crazy damage... it's a bit ill thought out.

On the other hand, Bombs are far too weak next to spells.

[Daithi]

You had a lot of thought that went in to this. I hope others will weigh in.

One weapon I'd like to see is a 12' (or so) chain with weighted ends.

[rbstr]

I just don't think screwing with the weapon table is well advised. Particularly if you're gonna go and start adding properties of +X to fighting this and -Y for standing on your head.

Foremost: cost and weight have nothing to do with how the weapons on the table are balanced. Adjust those numbers all you want and really nothing changes about weapon balance, go ahead.
Otherwise: It's a pretty simple system and that's why there's redundancy. It's indended to be that way so weapon choice doesn't matter so much. Some things are just included to have them present as examples and not to be unique weapons that behave somehow differently. A Quarterstaff wielded with two hands is a GreatClub mechanically. It's a two-handed stick without other properties and it does the correct amount of damage. If you want it to do 1d10 you could make it heavy. That works out.
Only a couple weapons (the Trident, handaxe) fall out of line with the internal rules....(Trident should be d8/d10, handaxe d4).
If you want to make a new weapon (IE your 2d6 piercing weapon) just follow the rules. (It's just a great sword that does piercing damage...call it whatever you want.)

[the_brazenburn]

As you mentioned the scimitar vs shortsword, I'd like to add an amendment to do the same thing (different damage type, more stylish) for rapiers with the Katana.

1d8 slashing damage, finesse. It would cost significantly more than a rapier, perhaps three times as much.

I also find it confusing that sometimes people refer to a "flail" as a spiky ball on a chain, and sometimes as a spiky ball on a stick. Morningstar is used in the same way. The WotC people really should clear that up.

I agree with you on all counts, except for your question about the trident. I think it's essentially the same thing you said for scimitars, and I mentioned for katanas: people willing to pay more for a more stylish weapon.

Nice work!

[The Jack]

As you mentioned the scimitar vs shortsword, I'd like to add an amendment to do the same thing (different damage type, more stylish) for rapiers with the Katana.
Nice work!

Thank you very much for the appreciation. I shocked myself with how much time I put into that post.
However, I confess I got a little triggered with the katanas thing; Katanas are far more comparable to "longsword" than Rapier. They're two handed weapons you could use with one hand, and surprisingly the techniques used by kenjutsu are very similar to how European longswords were used. So I disagree with having a one handed, non versatile katana. Now, as a finess weapon... it's about as finess as a longsword, it's a both or none kind of thing.

Another thing about katanas were that, well, cheap katanas were made for peasants. It was only in the peaceful Edo period that they were restricted and only samurai could use them. However, swords in general were lovely status things, and having someone make you SuperExpensiveCustomSwordDelux Is the entitlement of any wealthy adventurer, Katanas for all!

I did, in one of my games, allow my player to use a long curved sword as a Finesse d8s weapon, basically a long scimitar. I've never really looked too much into indian/middle eastern swords, but it seemed right.

[Eric Diaz]

I, for the most part like 5e's weapon table. It's leagues above the mess I found in pathfinder, which was overly complex, that complexity was bull****, and most of the exotic weapons were just dumb. 5e gave us something simple, elegant; It was more understandable, more believable, and considerably more accurate. It still has problems.

... okay. Anyway, lots of people (including me) have tried this and I like what you done.

There is a poster here - Zman I think - that has a great list.



The Greatclub
Compare the greatclub to the quarterstaff. Same price, same damage, worse weight, worse properties; It's two handed, the only two handed melee simple weapon. The quarterstaff is versatile. The Quarterstaff is an objectively better weapon. The answer is simple to me. The Greatclub should do 1d10
With 1d10, the greatclub is still inferior to versatile/two handed martial weapons. The other great weapons do 1d12/2d6, the polearms get reach, the versatile weapons are lighter, do as much damage in two hands, and only need one hand to wield.

Yes, good one.



The Morningstar
This here is really simple. It costs the same as a longsword, it weighs as much as a battle axe, it does the one handed damage of them both, and yet it's not versatile. It should be.

Well, yes... but why do you need the Morningstar then? I made this weapon"brutal" (see below), I think Zman gave it 2d4 damage.



The Pike, The Lance, The martial spear
Alright, this is the biggest mess.
-The Glaive/Halberd are mechanically the same thing, and putting them in one shared item would make it easier in terms of proficiency, But the next thing is that if I wanted a martial spear, I'd claim a halberd that does piercing. Important note for the next bit; These weigh 6lb.
- Now classification terms for weapons are pretty unwieldy, messy even, and I, and most people reading this, probably don't care for getting anal about it. That said; The Pike and Lance are pretty messed up. One's 6lb, the other's 18lb. One does 1d12, the other 1d10. One has disadvantage for everyone in 5ft.
Now let's try to be sensible here;
-The spear that weighs 18lbs should be the one with close range disadvantage. The spear that weighs 6lb, like it's glaive/halberd cousine, should be a happy, agile thing.
- If a spear is 18lbs, more than three times the weight of the next largest polearm, it should be even longer, right?
-There's no real reason why one should do a d12 rather than a d10. If you're going to couched lance charge from horseback, you're going to do more than an extra 2 damage.

TL;DR I present to you:
Martial Spear- 5gp- 1d10p- 6lb- Heavy, Reach
Heavy Spear- 5gp- 1d10p- 18lb- Heavy, special (+10ft reach, disadvantage within 5ft)

I'm not quite sure of the names and the price, but we can add a rule where you couch them both (and get additional charge damage).

The Trident
Just use the martial spear The trident is a weapon that sticks out to almost every player as an oddity. It's a simple spear, made more expensive and martial. So who knows what stats a peasant's pitchfork take Now, solution could be to just... have a trident any other spear, be it the simple spear or the martial spear, you pay a little extra for the cool. But I think there's room for an intermidate spear for martials.

Fighting spear-5gp- 1d8- 6lb*- Versatile (1d10p) Thrown (20/60)
(For ease, the simple spear should be named "simple spear")
*I was thinking 4lbs, but we need an excuse not to make the weapon simple. The name's a WIP. I think "trident" is a bit too specific. I like how "longsword" could mean mean any "versatile" sword used for cutting on the planet. Nonspecific names are a strength of 5e's weapons.

Well, yes, they did a big mess with these ones. There is a spear feat in UA that solves most of these issues, but your solutions are good too. Not sure if the heavy spear should be thrown.

I made tridents "disarming" FWIW. And "brutal".



Ranged weapons
I've made sense so far and only made amendments . It's time to wildly deviate. Indulge me:
Bows and slings should come in D4, D6, D8, D10 and 2d6 variants, with strength requirements (and versions for Large+ creatures, though I'm not sure if you could make a bow that's huge or more without magic). A D4'd be good for small game or wolf defence, being able to use a d10 bow would be very impressive for a human.
I believe this change would diversify builds for archers (Do you sacrifice points in other areas so you can use a bigger bow, perhaps putting it all into dex and strength to be a cannon?) and it'd more importantly open up strength characters to more than just Javelins as a ranged choice. Alas, I personally don't know enough about bows to cite Str requirements or ranges (honestly, ranges should probably stay how they are to keep things simple) so if someone could make suggestions I'd be appreciative.

In regards to slings, they always get a bad rap, because people aren't really aware of what a sling could be. Yes, they could be very cheap weapons to aid in throwing stones and upsetting wildlife. That'd be a d4. They could also be nasty implements of death, firing disk shaped lead bullets of limb smashing, skull 'sploding death (and you could just use larger rocks...) and that'd be a d8.

For crossbows, I think it'd be interesting to have bigger ones. 1d10 for loading, 2d10 for two turns of loading, three d10s for three turns of loading... Each heavier than the last. Now, the crossbow mastery feat should really only reduce each loading by one turn, 3d10s isn't something you should multi attack with, but I think this change would really add diversity to ranged combat.


I personally think ranged weapons are good enough in 5e. However, I wrote three extensive postos on the subject:

D&D 5e fighting styles: Strong Archers
(http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2018/03/d-5e-fighting-styles-strong-archers.html)

D&D 5e fighting styles: Thrown weapons
(http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2018/03/d-5e-fighting-styles-thrown-weapons.html)

D&D 5e fighting styles: Strength x Dexterity interlude (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2018/02/d-5e-fighting-styles-strength-x.html)


Flail, Warpick
These two, balance wise, are fine. They're cheap,very light, and they do a d8. I think the problem here is that, especially for the later, they're a bit boring. Saving a little money and weight doesn't really attract adventurers. I have never seen a player take a warpick, or an NPC with a warpick. One could make them heavier and versatile like the Longsword,battleaxe, warhammer and now morningstar, but they'd never stand out that way.
Flail: +1 against shields (remove the feat, it's a waste of an ASI)
Warpick: +1 against heavy armour.

Good stuff! A bit fiddly. Shields are rare enough. What counts as heavy Armour? Does a skeleton, golem or tarrasque have heavy armor?



The Net
I don't think I have to justify wanting to change this. I probably don't have the best solution, but I have a better one:
As an attack action, throw the net at one target. The target makes an acrobatics or athletics check to avoid being caught in the net, difficulty of the thrower's Str+proficiency in the martial. weapon. Those restrained may use an attack action to remove themselves from the net*, dc15. They may not make attacks of opportunity while in the net

(So folks with multi attack are better at getting out of the net, which makes sense to me)

Folks with multi attack have a decent list of problems - crossbows and nets included.

My favorite solution is "if you do a single attack, roll one dice for each attack you have and pick the best".


---


About the "brutal stuff":

What do these "bad" weapons have in common?

Well, all those weapons seem to be... a bit clumsy? Maybe the reason they are worse is because they are farming/fishing implements used as weapons. Which, for many readers, might be reason enough to keep things as they are. I just think these weapons look cool and I want them to be useful!

GURPS would call most of these weapons "unbalanced"; weapons that, unlike a sword or quarterstaff, have one side that is significantly heavier than the other and are slower because of that (but, in GURPS, they often deal more damage).

So I added a "brutal" quality to them. It means that in a critical hit, the first dice you would roll deals maximum damage instead. So a crit with a scythe would deal d4+4 instead of 2d4, and a flail d8+8, etc.

I'm considering giving a flat bonus instead - and base it on strenght, i.e., limit it to double you Str bonus (which is very GURPS (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/07/gurps-d-part-iii-combat-basics-weapons.html)) but that would be too fiddly.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

You had a lot of thought that went in to this. I hope others will weigh in.

One weapon I'd like to see is a 12' (or so) chain with weighted ends.

A chain weapon is something i have been wanting to use. My character right now has a flaming chain that also works like the rope of entanglement.

The Jack. I agree with your idea. I feel like the weapons of 5e leave something to be desired. I also would like more weapons would be nice.

[the_brazenburn]

A chain weapon is something i have been wanting to use. My character right now has a flaming chain that also works like the rope of entanglement.

The Jack. I agree with your idea. I feel like the weapons of 5e leave something to be desired. I also would like more weapons would be nice.

Spiked Chain actually was a thing in 3.5 (and possibly other editions that I never played). If I was to stat it for 5e, I'd have it be a 2d4 piercing martial weapon with the reach and two-handed properties. Maybe also Eric Diaz's brutal property, if it's being used.

OTOH, I disagree with the brutal property on the whole. Weapons not specifically meant to be used as weapons should deal less damage, not more. I'd advocate for them to deal maximum damage on a crit instead of rolling twice.

[Dudewithknives]

Spiked Chain actually was a thing in 3.5 (and possibly other editions that I never played). If I was to stat it for 5e, I'd have it be a 2d4 piercing martial weapon with the reach and two-handed properties. Maybe also Eric Diaz's brutal property, if it's being used.

OTOH, I disagree with the brutal property on the whole. Weapons not specifically meant to be used as weapons should deal less damage, not more. I'd advocate for them to deal maximum damage on a crit instead of rolling twice.

In the Scarred Lands book they have the spiked chain: 60g, 8 lbs, 1d6 piercing, 2 handed, reach, and finesse.

That book is a little out there for most 5e games though.

[KorvinStarmast]

My response:

The Greatclub

The Greatclub should do 1d10 [/B]
Agreed.

The Morningstar
Disagree. It should do both piercing and bludgeoning damage to make it unique, otherwise no need to mess with it.

The Scimitar
Should do 1-8 slashing. No to the two-handed property, yes for the finesse property, no to the light property.

The Pike, The Lance, The martial spear

Alright, this is the biggest mess.
Polearms are fine.

Now let's try to be sensible here;

Martial Spear- 5gp- 1d10p- 6lb- Heavy, Reach
Heavy Spear- 5gp- 1d10p- 18lb- Heavy, special (+10ft reach, disadvantage within 5ft)
I'm not quite sure of the names and the price, but we can add a rule where you couch them both (and get additional charge damage).
Call the top one the lance, call the bottom one the pike; the latter one needs to be two-handed.

The Trident
Leave it alone. It's niche.

Ranged weapons
Leave them alone.

The Net
Leave it alone. It's fine.

Blowgun
No need to overcomplicate this. Leave it alone.

As to guns and bombs, they aren't actually a problem.

This edition tries to simplify and streamline a great deal. Any adjustment needs to keep that in mind: keep the KISS principle foremost in mind when considering a tweak. Your suggestions have to my mind too many fiddly bits.


@the_brazenburn: treat the katana mechanically as a long sword. Easy, simple, effective, and within design guidelines of the game as built.

[Willie the Duck]

The pike is the only one that really I would bother to change. Reduce the weight and call it a longspear. Then make pike something one finds in the overall equipment chart and not on the weapons table and a description something like: "Pike: while technically a weapon, this super-long spear is only practical for the types of formation fighting adventurers rarely are involved in. For the most part it is simply a found good a PC might find, buy, sell, etc., but rarely use in their adventuring lives."

[Aett_Thorn]

The Trident
Leave it alone. It's niche.


What niche does it have? It's beaten or matched by the Spear in every instance. Flavor isn't really a justification here, since if they're basically the same, you could just fluff a spear as a trident. The only things the Trident has going for it are that it costs more, weighs more, and requires an additional proficiency. Those are all negatives. Trident should be 1d8 piercing, versatile 1d10.

[KorvinStarmast]

The pike is the only one that really I would bother to change. Reduce the weight and call it a longspear. Then make pike something one finds in the overall equipment chart and not on the weapons table and a description something like: "Pike: while technically a weapon, this super-long spear is only practical for the types of formation fighting adventurers rarely are involved in. For the most part it is simply a found good a PC might find, buy, sell, etc., but rarely use in their adventuring lives." Willie, put a few pikemen in a second row behind your front row and you'll change your tune. :smallwink:

[Willie the Duck]

Willie, put a few pikemen in a second row behind your front row and you'll change your tune. :smallwink:

No, put a few longspear-men (with the same stats as a 5e pike, except probably only 8-12 lbs) behind my front row and it would work. Real world pikes... 10' to 25' long (I'm going to say 15'-25', and 10'-15' within the longspear category), no. Those would not work in the party size typical of D&D adventurers. They are large formation weapons.

[awa]

what adventuring party has enough martial types to have multiple melee characters in the back row.
Not to mention that getting a pike into a dungeon or forest is more trouble then its worth

a pikes a great weapon for a squad of soldiers to use in an open field, but not many adventuring parties have that many martial combatants or reliably fight in such accommodating terrain.

[The Jack]

I too think the "brutal" property isn't too hot, and'd I think +1 against shields, +1 against heavy armour isn't so complicated that it requires a full "special" paragraph.

I think just using a chain would be more an improvised whip, maybe without the finess property to do a d6 rather than d4. Maybe, if you added the two handed/heavy properties, mechanically you could have a d10 and it'd be fair in balance, Fluff wise, hiting someone with a chain isn't really so "D10", Might not even be a d8. But then we take a page from Japan, china, or some other crazy country, and add a very heavy weight on the end of the chain, make it do blunt force damage, and totally satisfy my desire for a reach blunt weapon.


Actually making a Kusarigama (Sickle and chain)... I don't like complex weapons. The less I have to write "special" and a paragraph, the better the rules are. I dislike exotic weapons, they're either A: not, or B: stupid. However, just out of interest...

Chained Weight - 1d6b-light (since the sickle in the other hand doesn't need special rules) Special- One reach attack per turn.

Fluff- the weapons are chained together, you don't really need mechanics here. In theory this'd mean you could use the chain weight with a shortsword, handaxe, dagger, hammer... another chained weight. I don't see why you couldn't, really. I guess if you're going to want the weapons chained together, anything with the thrown property might as well be changed to -one reach attack per turn-.

Heavy chained weight- 1d10b- heavy, two handed, reach. Swing your heart out. Why am I saying reach rather than using the special rule of one reach attack per turn? I don't know, and it upsets me greatly. I think just seeing a character take between 2 and 10 reach attacks with a flexible weapon would make me nautious. I'm already upset that I'd give something with "weight" in the name the light property. I admit my biases. Leave me alone! Mechanically, that special rule for the chained weight would probably be better off as just "reach".
Alternatively, you could just use a longer staff and maybe give it an iron head for that sweet 1d10b reach weapon so lacking in the weapon table, and it'd not get me upset trying to think about chain weapons.


I think I'll just hide this for the curious, since I'm not very proud of it.

[rbstr]

I too think the "brutal" property isn't too hot, and'd I think +1 against shields, +1 against heavy armour isn't so complicated that it requires a full "special" paragraph.

Here's the problem with these properties:
These weapons are now simply better for a sword/board character than a longsword or warhammer or battleaxe. Same damage die always, but a +1 to hit (or is it damage?) sometimes? Clearly superior.

Weight and cost at the weapon-table's level just don't matter and should not come into balance consideration at all.

If you want to make ANY weapon here's how you do it:
Start at a d6 die - this is a one-handed simple weapon.

For each of these properties move the damage up one level:
Martial proficiency required
Two handed
Heavy

For each of these move the damage down one level:
Reach
Light

These are "freebies" you can just tag on:
versatile - when you use it two handed move it up a level
finesse (but no finesse weapon does more than 1d8 damage, if the weapon has reach and finesse it needs to move the damage down one level)

If you want to add more properties I suggest fitting them into this framework.

So for this Weighted Chain Weapon as an example:
Martial, Reach, Two Handed - 1d8 bludgeoning

As an aside:
The versatile property is NOT something that makes a weapon stronger. It's a neutral property. When you one hand it has the damage die for a one-hand weapon. When you two hand it has the die of a two-handed weapon. All it has is flexibility.
And that flexibility is basically useless because it pretty much never provides an advantage versus alternatives and has no other mechanical support:
If you have dueling style you LOSE damage by two-handing it.
If you have great weapon style...why in the world would you use a longsword by choice?

[Eric Diaz]

OTOH, I disagree with the brutal property on the whole. Weapons not specifically meant to be used as weapons should deal less damage, not more. I'd advocate for them to deal maximum damage on a crit instead of rolling twice.

I agree with the idea that some of these weapons in theory should deal less damage*; however, if we accept the mace, trident, etc., as weapons, and not improvised ones, they should have SOME advantage IMO. And deal maximum damage on a crit instead of rolling twice would actually make them even worse.

So, mace, trident, greatclub, etc. have no mechanical reason to exist. Giving them a "better crit" feature ("brutal" or otherwise) would add at least a marginal utility to them, while still leaving plenty of reasons to use a quarterstaff or long-sword.

It bears mentioning that the damage added is minimal - adding 3.5 damage on a crit is barely affects your DPR, even if you're a barbarian, but at least would give them better reasons to use these weapons... and if feels cool to deal at lot of damage from time to time, instead of a steady DPR.

* although I cannot agree with the one-handed quarterstaff being strictly better than a mace, and the mace being a useless weapon. Or even the concept that the existence of a quarterstaff makes a two-handed club useless as a weapon. These things seem to be obvious mistakes IMO. And I'm not convinced that having glaive and halberd as identical weapons is a good idea; I'd rather they were both called "polearm" if that is the case.

[ErHo]

No spear was ever 18lbs, even bronze ones. Try throwing 18 lbs.

Spear heads are mostly fairly small, like an arrowhead, but on a larger shaft.

Scimitars are small light blades that are point heavy, not generally heavy in comparison to other swords.

Even a montante, spadone or zweihander -the largest of swords- rarely top out at 8 lbs.

Can confirm;
Worked for antique arms dealer in Texas

[Eric Diaz]

Here's the problem with these properties:
These weapons are now simply better for a sword/board character than a longsword or warhammer or battleaxe. Same damage die always, but a +1 to hit (or is it damage?) sometimes? Clearly superior.

Well, shields are rare enough, but I can see how +1 against heavy armor might be problematic.


Weight and cost at the weapon-table's level just don't matter and should not come into balance consideration at all.

If you want to make ANY weapon here's how you do it:
Start at a d6 die - this is a one-handed simple weapon.

For each of these properties move the damage up one level:
Martial proficiency required
Two handed
Heavy

For each of these move the damage down one level:
Reach
Light

These are "freebies" you can just tag on:
versatile - when you use it two handed move it up a level
finesse (but no finesse weapon does more than 1d8 damage, if the weapon has reach and finesse it needs to move the damage down one level)

If you want to add more properties I suggest fitting them into this framework.

So for this Weighted Chain Weapon as an example:
Martial, Reach, Two Handed - 1d8 bludgeoning

As an aside:
The versatile property is NOT something that makes a weapon stronger. It's a neutral property. When you one hand it has the damage die for a one-hand weapon. When you two hand it has the die of a two-handed weapon. All it has is flexibility.
And that flexibility is basically useless because it pretty much never provides an advantage versus alternatives and has no other mechanical support:
If you have dueling style you LOSE damage by two-handing it.
If you have great weapon style...why in the world would you use a longsword by choice?

Yes, this a good system. Agree with the versatile part. Versatile/finesse can add to cost (and weight, if versatile).

Also, I think some combinations are verboten (light+reach, finesse+versatile, heavy+finesse, etc).

And you forgot thrown - a useful property, I think, but not sure if it would count...

[the_brazenburn]

And you forgot thrown - a useful property, I think, but not sure if it would count...

Free, but can only be used on a one-handed weapon with a damage die of 1d6 or less.

[Willie the Duck]

No spear was ever 18lbs, even bronze ones. Try throwing 18 lbs.

Yes, but no one mentioned an 18 lb. spear. We were discussing the pike whether a D&D pike out to be the same as a real world pike* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(weapon))(which some of us believe makes no sense for D&D-style adventurers), or instead D&D should have their martial-reach spear-weapon be a longspear like it was in 2e and 3e (and exactly what weight that should have).
*which also would rarely be 18 lbs.


Can confirm;
Worked for antique arms dealer in Texas

An antique arms dealer that saw a lot of spears? That sounds amazing. They still around?

[The Jack]

As an aside:
The versatile property is NOT something that makes a weapon stronger. It's a neutral property. When you one hand it has the damage die for a one-hand weapon. When you two hand it has the die of a two-handed weapon. All it has is flexibility.
And that flexibility is basically useless because it pretty much never provides an advantage versus alternatives and has no other mechanical support:
If you have dueling style you LOSE damage by two-handing it.
If you have great weapon style...why in the world would you use a longsword by choice?

You've made some excellent points, but you're obviously looking at this from the perspective of someone not a grappler, or a gish that isn't using a focus on a shield/weapon. (also, RP wise, It's weird to take a shield or heavy weapon everywhere, though a versatile weapon makes a nice sidearm. But if your game lacks this aspect I'm not going to say you're playing it wrong.)

If you're a grappler, Versatile weapons are a godsend. If you haven't grabbed someone, a d10 of damage, when you have grabbed someone; A D8. If you used a one handed-only weapon, you wouldn't get that sweet d10. If you used a two handed weapon, you'd have to drop your sword/otherwise unequip it and switch to something less (heaven forgive unprofecient unarmed strikes...) to engage in that most advantageous of moves.

If you're a spell caster, well, you can use a versatile weapon for a d10 and still have a hand that could easily be freed for your somantic component. Spells that require somantic but not material components need free hands and the material component would get in the way, spells with material components need a hand for the material/focus and you can use that hand for the somantic component if needed (yes, spellcasting is a mess). But the short of it is that versatile weapons are great for casters.

Finess? That's as much as a bonus as versatile. There being no finess weapon exceeding 1d8 is more likely chance than conscious ruling, but I imagine brows would be raised if there were finesse weapons that were also versatile/two handed/heavy, and those are the traits that'd bring a weapon up.




Lastly, For anyone who says cost/weight doesn't matter
Do you hate RP and reasonable settings ?
Do you scorn players who buy their starting equipment, rather than use the quick'n easy choices?
Do you think of encumbrance as some sort of anal idiocy that nobody will or has ever enforced?

Now, I've never really complained that Mauls are cheap for a great weapon or that hand crossbows are crazy expensive garbage. But there is really a sort of balance between weight-cost-fancy, entirely separate from dice of damage and weapon properties. It's not an exact science, but it's sort of interesting that some people seem sort of offended by the idea that the pike being ridiculously heavy is worthy of discussion. To those people; I can't really think of any particularly clever way to express my distaste, but I think the nuance would be wasted anyway.

[Willie the Duck]

Lastly, For anyone who says cost/weight doesn't matter
Do you hate RP and reasonable settings ?
Do you scorn players who buy their starting equipment, rather than use the quick'n easy choices?
Do you think of encumbrance as some sort of anal idiocy that nobody will or has ever enforced?

Now, I've never really complained that Mauls are cheap for a great weapon or that hand crossbows are crazy expensive garbage. But there is really a sort of balance between weight-cost-fancy, entirely separate from dice of damage and weapon properties. It's not an exact science, but it's sort of interesting that some people seem sort of offended by the idea that the pike being ridiculously heavy is worthy of discussion. To those people; I can't really think of any particularly clever way to express my distaste, but I think the nuance would be wasted anyway.

I don't even know what to say, except that it seems to me that you are the one that is offended, not other people. You brought terms like hate and scorn and anal idiocy to this discussion, not anyone else.

[rbstr]

You've made some excellent points, but you're obviously looking at this from the perspective of someone not a grappler, or a gish that isn't using a focus on a shield/weapon. (also, RP wise, It's weird to take a shield or heavy weapon everywhere, though a versatile weapon makes a nice sidearm. But if your game lacks this aspect I'm not going to say you're playing it wrong.)


No, I certainly am taking these things into account. You're just not thinking about it comprehensively (grappling) and have a wrong interpretation of the rules (casting and two-handed weapons).



If you're a grappler, Versatile weapons are a godsend. If you haven't grabbed someone, a d10 of damage, when you have grabbed someone; A D8. If you used a one handed-only weapon, you wouldn't get that sweet d10. If you used a two handed weapon, you'd have to drop your sword/otherwise unequip it and switch to something less (heaven forgive unprofecient unarmed strikes...) to engage in that most advantageous of moves.

Certainly, if you're a Barbarian grappler the versatile weapon gives you +1 to damage when you're not grappling.
However, on any class that has a fighting style the Dueling style is superior to trying to use a versatile weapon with two hands. Dueling is +2 damage only when used in one hand. Using a versatile weapon with two hands is +1 damage and these effects cannot stack.

Make sense? If you're a grappling Fighter you take dueling and always use a one-handed weapon. It's just flat out better.



If you're a spell caster, well, you can use a versatile weapon for a d10 and still have a hand that could easily be freed for your somantic component. Spells that require somantic but not material components need free hands and the material component would get in the way, spells with material components need a hand for the material/focus and you can use that hand for the somantic component if needed (yes, spellcasting is a mess). But the short of it is that versatile weapons are great for casters.

This is simply not how the rules work. Versatile weapons offer no advantages over two-handed weapons for casters.
The Two-handed property only applies while you're making an attack with the weapon. You're completely allowed to take one hand off of a two-handed weapon to do somatic/material spell components.
Here's a series of tweets about it https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/02/2-weapon-casting/



Lastly, For anyone who says cost/weight doesn't matter
Do you hate RP and reasonable settings ?
Do you scorn players who buy their starting equipment, rather than use the quick'n easy choices?
Do you think of encumbrance as some sort of anal idiocy that nobody will or has ever enforced?

Now, I've never really complained that Mauls are cheap for a great weapon or that hand crossbows are crazy expensive garbage. But there is really a sort of balance between weight-cost-fancy, entirely separate from dice of damage and weapon properties. It's not an exact science, but it's sort of interesting that some people seem sort of offended by the idea that the pike being ridiculously heavy is worthy of discussion. To those people; I can't really think of any particularly clever way to express my distaste, but I think the nuance would be wasted anyway.

The idea is that weapons are basically binned into broader categories within which basically only the damage type exists as a distinction.
Thsis to make it so with "great weapon user" the considerations are basically the same whether you like a sword or big hammer. You're not going to be mechanically advantaged for liking the aesthetics of one over the other for the most part.

The cost/weight were clearly not accounted for in this and, as such, it doesn't matter to mechanical balance. The table itself makes it pretty clear these values are close to arbitrary and they have no impact on weapon stats.
If you want to change these numbers it will have very little effect on the overall balance of the game. It'd be perfectly fine to adjust these so they make more sense but adding properties because of cost or weight is really outside the bounds of how they're balanced now.

[Deadandamnation]

First of all the armour should be those:

Leather - Light Armor - 13+Dex - 25GP
(The light armor need to be good as Mage Armor imho)

Chain Shirt - Medium Armor - 14+Dex AC (maximum 3) - 200GP

Half-Plate - Medium Armor - 16+Dex AC (maximum 2) - 450 GP - Disadvantage

Chain Mail - Heavy Armor - 17 AC - 13 Str - 250 GP - Disadvantage

Full-Plate - Heavy Armor - 19 AC - 15 Str - 800 GP - Disadvantage

Shield - +2 AC - 13 Str - 20GP
Buckler - +1 AC - 10 GP

Those are the only armor that should exist. If you dislike the extra 1 AC that anyone get that way: lower Mage Armor to 12+Dex and lower my base AC of any item back by one.

Regarding Weapons:

In my opinion the 'style' part of weapons should be set aside from how they work out meccanically.
If my pg want to run around throwing goblin heads I'll take a basic weapon he can use and call It 'Goblin Heads', there's nothing wrong in that.

First of all we have 2 big categories:

Simple and Martial.
Simple weapon give us the basic stats and are usable by anyone.
Martial weapons have a one step superior dice and a better set of ability, they are usable only by those trained with.

Simple Weapons:

Shortbow - 1d6 - Two Hand - range 80

Dagger - 1d4 - Finesse - Light - Thrown - range 20

Shortspear - 1d6 - Thrown - Range 30 - Versatile (1d8)

Martial Weapons:

Longbow - 1d8 - Two Hand - range 120 - Ranged

Hand Crossbow - 1d6 - Light - Range 60 - Ranged

Shortsword - 1d6 - Finesse - Light - Thrown - Range 30

Glaive - 1d8 - Thrown - Range 30 - Versatile (1d10 and Reach)

Spear - 1d8 - Finesse - Versatile (1d6 - Reach)

Bastard Sword - 1d10 - Versatile (1d12)

Those are the baseline weapons, than you can combine them making any weapon you have in mind. Even exotic.

For example:

Sabre - (it's made for pirates, rogues and such but it's heavyier than a scimitar and it's not light). Take the spear base:

1d8 - Finesse - (leave the versatile part since it's not likely). Done. (That is exactly like the Rapier)

Katana or Elven Curved Blade - Exotic - It should be 1d8 - Finesse - Versatile (1d10)

[Kurt Kurageous]

I've been flirting with a RADICAL simplification of weapons so I can add back fiddly things that appeal to me (like flail +1 to hit v shield, warhammer + 1 damage vs non-shield ACs over 15)

Base rule 1, your class determines the die you roll, not the weapon. Full casty types (wiz, sorc) use d4, semicasty nonmartial (rogue) d6, mostly martial (ranger, pally) d8, pure martial (fighter, barb) d10. If wielded 2h, move up a die "level" or reduce two levels and roll 2 dice.

Base rule 2, the weapon, whatever you call it, does one type of damage (BLU PIE SLA), has two features or one other feature and is +1 to hit or to damage. The features include range, thrown, versatile, 10' reach. I'd add 'primitive' as a feature, which drops the cost of a weapon considerably. Primitive weapons must have two features and never gain the +1 to hit or damage.

Simple weapons and martial weapons distinctions go away, but strangely remain as far a dice rolled.

Cost? base it on the metal content. A warhammer is much cheaper than a sword, as is any weapon mostly wood. The spear? C'mon, too much money!

From here, you can fiddle however you want, name the weapons whatever you want, add balanced bonuses any way you want to brew it.

Yes, this gives the two pure martials an initial advantage easily overcome later by pure casters.

This answers the scimitar and any other flavoring issues.

[Kurt Kurageous]

No spear was ever 18lbs, even bronze ones. Try throwing 18 lbs.

Spear heads are mostly fairly small, like an arrowhead, but on a larger shaft.

Scimitars are small light blades that are point heavy, not generally heavy in comparison to other swords.

Even a montante, spadone or zweihander -the largest of swords- rarely top out at 8 lbs.

Can confirm;
Worked for antique arms dealer in Texas

Beware, the "this is fantasy, reality need not apply" trolls have heard you!

Totally agree BTW. Fought heavy in SCA years ago, appreciate and apply vestigial realism as a DM.

[Eric Diaz]

Shortsword - 1d6 - Finesse - Light - Thrown - Range 30

Glaive - 1d8 - Thrown - Range 30 - Versatile (1d10 and Reach)

Spear - 1d8 - Finesse - Versatile (1d6 - Reach)

Bastard Sword - 1d10 - Versatile (1d12)

Those are the baseline weapons, than you can combine them making any weapon you have in mind. Even exotic.

For example:

Sabre - (it's made for pirates, rogues and such but it's heavyier than a scimitar and it's not light). Take the spear base:

1d8 - Finesse - (leave the versatile part since it's not likely). Done. (That is exactly like the Rapier)

Katana or Elven Curved Blade - Exotic - It should be 1d8 - Finesse - Versatile (1d10)

This is a bit confusing... You're throwing glaives and shorstwords around, but not spears?

Also why would anyone use this sabre instead of a spear and lose the versatile part?

And no two-handed melee weapons then?

[Deadandamnation]

I've been flirting with a RADICAL simplification of weapons so I can add back fiddly things that appeal to me (like flail +1 to hit v shield, warhammer + 1 damage vs non-shield ACs over 15)

Base rule 1, your class determines the die you roll, not the weapon. Full casty types (wiz, sorc) use d4, semicasty nonmartial (rogue) d6, mostly martial (ranger, pally) d8, pure martial (fighter, barb) d10. If wielded 2h, move up a die "level" or reduce two levels and roll 2 dice.

Base rule 2, the weapon, whatever you call it, does one type of damage (BLU PIE SLA), has two features or one other feature and is +1 to hit or to damage. The features include range, thrown, versatile, 10' reach. I'd add 'primitive' as a feature, which drops the cost of a weapon considerably. Primitive weapons must have two features and never gain the +1 to hit or damage.

Simple weapons and martial weapons distinctions go away, but strangely remain as far a dice rolled.

Cost? base it on the metal content. A warhammer is much cheaper than a sword, as is any weapon mostly wood. The spear? C'mon, too much money!

From here, you can fiddle however you want, name the weapons whatever you want, add balanced bonuses any way you want to brew it.

Yes, this gives the two pure martials an initial advantage easily overcome later by pure casters.

This answers the scimitar and any other flavoring issues.

Ranger, Pally, Barbarian and Fighters should be pure martial and d8 it's the right die.

Their class follow the same path with little exceptions.

[Knaight]

Spear heads are mostly fairly small, like an arrowhead, but on a larger shaft.

There's a large variety, and even a lot of smaller spear heads are much bigger than the typical arrowhead (4" or so leaf blades are pretty common, which is downright huge for an arrow), without even getting into hewing spears and similar that can easily have foot long blades.

[Eric Diaz]

Base rule 1, your class determines the die you roll, not the weapon. Full casty types (wiz, sorc) use d4, semicasty nonmartial (rogue) d6, mostly martial (ranger, pally) d8, pure martial (fighter, barb) d10. If wielded 2h, move up a die "level" or reduce two levels and roll 2 dice.


I'm not opposed to the idea on principle, but 5e already does enough of this with simple/martial weapons. Also, it seems barbs will be mostly sword-and-board in your system, and rangers get a (unwarranted) downgrade in relation to fighters.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I'm not opposed to the idea on principle, but 5e already does enough of this with simple/martial weapons. Also, it seems barbs will be mostly sword-and-board in your system, and rangers get a (unwarranted) downgrade in relation to fighters.

The simple/martial distinction as far as damage goes gets close, but it breaks down along silly lines.

My rationalization is the time rangers spent studying nature and such, the fighter spent on technique. The difference in DPR is really really small between the dice levels. It gets more interesting with crits, which is where barbs and fighters should shine. I use a different crit rule, BTW. crit = normal die roll plus damage plus the max value of the dice rolled. Crit with a 1d8 +2 STR means you roll and add 8 for the crit, +2 for the STR. It stops the noncritical critical of rolling a 1 and a 2...criticals stay critical.

[Morty]

A lot of this looks like adding fiddly details added to a system that's already got plenty of fiddly details, but very little else.

[Kurt Kurageous]

A lot of this looks like adding fiddly details added to a system that's already got plenty of fiddly details, but very little else.

I'm pretty much scrapping the current table. I keep the names and the ranges.

[Morty]

I was talking about the OP, to be clear. Your ideas I can get behind.

[The Jack]

Simple weapons

Simple weapons, as a whole, are a bit of a mess. I confess that I overlooked most of that list because martial weapons interested me more. That's deliberate in some ways- A Sickle should suck, it'd be improvised if it weren't for monk martial arts.

The handaxe is a king, The light hammer is an inferior blunt clone, the mace is full of suck, the quarterstaff is maybe too good, maybe.

The light hammer, hand axe and mace could all have simple and martial variants

The Mace could be versatile, which would be a very simple way in having it keep up with the quarterstaff. It could also be light, which leaves it a little inferior to the axe (and what the light hammer could be) though perhaps they deserve to be d4 weapons (which makes me a little sad. They're favourites of mine)

I'll sadly leave this post a little unfinished, time constraints and all, but I'll make updates later.

[ErHo]

An antique arms dealer that saw a lot of spears? That sounds amazing. They still around?

Spearheads yes, quite a lot! You can get one at auction for under $1k or less most times.

Not the hafts for the most part for anything older than 18thC, but there are plenty of sources noting the size of said spear types, and also the Queen Mary Rose wreck has preserved Yew longbows, arrows and yes, even Spears of ash and oak.

The only thing mysterious about medieval weapons is trying to apply blanket terms across hundreds of types of the same weapon.

[GlenSmash!]

snip

You and I seem to have different definitions of the word "few"

:smallwink:

[ErHo]

There's a large variety, and even a lot of smaller spear heads are much bigger than the typical arrowhead (4" or so leaf blades are pretty common, which is downright huge for an arrow), without even getting into hewing spears and similar that can easily have foot long blades.

I didnt mean to say and arrowhead size on a spear shaft, holy crap! LOL

Proportionally, the head and haft size ratio, is very similar to an arrow.

[ToastyTobasco]

The subtle hate for the sling WOTC seems to have always bothered me. Sure its good balance to have a weapon that wouldnt be so easily hidden, have ever-available ammunition, to not be doing d8's, d10s, or d12's but slings were historically terrifying in the right hands.

The Warsling in 3.5 was a very nice weapon if your DM said that x-bow feats worked for them. You had skiprocks (Hit adjacent enemies), thunderstones (thunder damage and deafening), rocks (d4 but always available) and bullets (d6?) doing different types of damage. I really wanted to do an Ancestral Warsling for a 3.5 campaign as it would let me beef it up as time went on.

[Deadandamnation]

The simple/martial distinction as far as damage goes gets close, but it breaks down along silly lines.

My rationalization is the time rangers spent studying nature and such, the fighter spent on technique. The difference in DPR is really really small between the dice levels. It gets more interesting with crits, which is where barbs and fighters should shine. I use a different crit rule, BTW. crit = normal die roll plus damage plus the max value of the dice rolled. Crit with a 1d8 +2 STR means you roll and add 8 for the crit, +2 for the STR. It stops the noncritical critical of rolling a 1 and a 2...criticals stay critical.

So basically your crit is normal damage rolled + maximized damage.
At high levels it's a truck of damage, I usually let crit just deal x2 damage as in 3.5 to not hamper fighters (they deal less dice damage than a rogue, Paladin...list goes on). Oh and I let AoE spells crit: just making the save passive and rolling 'spell power' instead and you need to roll separately for any enemy hitten. Alternatively treat a 1 in the save as a 'critical failure' that's the same but players feel better if they roll a 20.

[Willie the Duck]

Spearheads yes, quite a lot! You can get one at auction for under $1k or less most times.

Not the hafts for the most part for anything older than 18thC, but there are plenty of sources noting the size of said spear types, and also the Queen Mary Rose wreck has preserved Yew longbows, arrows and yes, even Spears of ash and oak.

The only thing mysterious about medieval weapons is trying to apply blanket terms across hundreds of types of the same weapon.

I really meant the dealership, but this is neat too.

[Luccan]

I have very little I feel I can meaningfully contribute, but since the Trident frustrates me as well, I'll suggest a name: Forked Spear. Several variations of a "forked spear" design exist, but this can also cover a trident. Slightly less specific, thought I feel the main problem with the Trident is that it doesn't do anything unique (which kind of defeats the purpose of it being a specific or slightly less specific weapon type). I think you should consider giving it a disarming property or something, though I'm not sure if that's how forked spears were ever used.

[The Jack]

A lot of this looks like adding fiddly details added to a system that's already got plenty of fiddly details, but very little else.

The overwhelming majority of what I've wrote makes changes to the base weapon table. It wouldn't be "adding" fiddly details but correcting them.

The only thing I've suggested that add complexity (or "fiddlyness"), were +1 against x, cheaper poisons (and that's really an optional section), a d10/12 bow with a str requirement and more sling options, and an optional rule where new weight'n chain weapons would be reach once a turn rather than reach every turn.

But, if you think a weapon table update should be less "balance" and more -LOOK AT THIS COOL DOUBLE SPIKED CHAIN- then you're in the wrong thread. "Needs a few fixes" was in the title, not "more exciting entries". Don't see why you'd come in here to **** on someone else's work. I thought pretty hard on the best way to make most changes.

[Talionis]

I totally agree that weapons were screwed up in this addition. I would like to have seen each weapons be slightly unique and provide small +1 benefits to different things, to really push weapon choices matter, but they don't change the game. This could also be the differences between the different pole arms. I also think they should've had a lot more Polearm Mastery type feats so that martial characters could tailor to particular weapons.

At the same time, I'm not really a homebrew fan, I prefer the arbitrary rules from Wizards to trying to balance something for a playgroup and have the playgroup then disagree with my ideas of balance.

[ErHo]

I really meant the dealership, but this is neat too.



Yes sir!

http://www.angelswords.com/

You can visit the forge by appointment and check it all out or catch it a Texas Renaissance festival, Scarborough(dallas), and occasionally Colorado, Wisconsin and New York.

[CTurbo]

I houseruled that the regular Morningstar is a one handed weapon only that does 1d4 piercing and 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and the Great Morningstar is a heavy two handed weapon that does 1d6 piercing and 1d6 bludgeoning damage with the same weight as the Great Maul.

I've always been a fan of the Morningstar and hate to see it get ignored.

I also gave the Warpick and Flail the Versatile property for 1d8(1d10) to match the Battleaxe/Longsword because why not. I'd gladly allow a Great Flail that did 2d6 Piercing or a Triple Headed Flail that does 3d4 bludgeoning with maybe 1d4 damage to yourself if you roll a 1.

I like the Spiked Chain too. It's Finesse, two handed, reach, 2d4 Slashing damage and you deal half damage to yourself if you roll a 1.

I like rewarding characters for using rarer weapons.

I've never adjusted the Trident, but if I had a player wanting to use it, I would come up with something. I agree it's a little lame that it's stats are identical to spear

I could see giving the Pike a +15 ft reach with disadvantage at 5ft.

I also like double weapons(Double Sword, Urgrosh etc) and have allowed a player to use a quarterstaff with the Dual Wielder feat for the extra +1 AC and 1d8 for each attack. I love the flavor there.

[Eric Diaz]

I houseruled that the regular Morningstar is a one handed weapon only that does 1d4 piercing and 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and the Great Morningstar is a heavy two handed weapon that does 1d6 piercing and 1d6 bludgeoning damage with the same weight as the Great Maul.

I've always been a fan of the Morningstar and hate to see it get ignored.

I also gave the Warpick and Flail the Versatile property for 1d8(1d10) to match the Battleaxe/Longsword because why not. I'd gladly allow a Great Flail that did 2d6 Piercing or a Triple Headed Flail that does 3d4 bludgeoning with maybe 1d4 damage to yourself if you roll a 1.

I like the Spiked Chain too. It's Finesse, two handed, reach, 2d4 Slashing damage and you deal half damage to yourself if you roll a 1.

I like rewarding characters for using rarer weapons.

I've never adjusted the Trident, but if I had a player wanting to use it, I would come up with something. I agree it's a little lame that it's stats are identical to spear

I could see giving the Pike a +15 ft reach with disadvantage at 5ft.

I also like double weapons(Double Sword, Urgrosh etc) and have allowed a player to use a quarterstaff with the Dual Wielder feat for the extra +1 AC and 1d8 for each attack. I love the flavor there.

I like the morning-star too! I tried adding 1d4 piercing damage on a crit, but 1d4+1d4 is a great solution (although not so great for barbarians).

"Damage to yourself if you roll a 1" is very harsh to fighters, I think... I'd prefer "next attack made with this weapons gets disadvantage".

[georgie_leech]

I have very little I feel I can meaningfully contribute, but since the Trident frustrates me as well, I'll suggest a name: Forked Spear. Several variations of a "forked spear" design exist, but this can also cover a trident. Slightly less specific, thought I feel the main problem with the Trident is that it doesn't do anything unique (which kind of defeats the purpose of it being a specific or slightly less specific weapon type). I think you should consider giving it a disarming property or something, though I'm not sure if that's how forked spears were ever used.

To my knowledge, forked spears tended to come in two varieties: ones with "straight" prongs that came off of the shaft at a slight angle for fishing, and proper combat ones. Most of the combat spears had smaller wings that were meant to keep the spear from sticking in whatever you stabbed, with progressively bigger wings depending on you wanted stabbed. It's harder to keep a charging horse or a really big boar from pushing past the wings, compared to a person. The really forked things tended to be ceremonial. Which is a common thread with a lot of the impractical weapons, really. :smallwink:

[JNAProductions]

The overwhelming majority of what I've wrote makes changes to the base weapon table. It wouldn't be "adding" fiddly details but correcting them.

The only thing I've suggested that add complexity (or "fiddlyness"), were +1 against x, cheaper poisons (and that's really an optional section), a d10/12 bow with a str requirement and more sling options, and an optional rule where new weight'n chain weapons would be reach once a turn rather than reach every turn.

But, if you think a weapon table update should be less "balance" and more -LOOK AT THIS COOL DOUBLE SPIKED CHAIN- then you're in the wrong thread. "Needs a few fixes" was in the title, not "more exciting entries". Don't see why you'd come in here to **** on someone else's work. I thought pretty hard on the best way to make most changes.

The changes are rather fiddly. There's basically no "+X against Y" in 5E.

And it's a valid critique.

[The Jack]

Pay attention to the phrasing. "A lot of this..." I've suggested two new properties which apply to two current weapons and a few new entries. Neither property would be game-changing and they're simple and intuitive (the chain goes around shields, the spike is anti-armour!) . Forgive me if I dislike inaccurate generalizations and mostly-straw uses of the term "fiddly". For all I know, some of you seem to be thinking fixing the spears is fiddly.


I'd be fine with just making said martial weapons (Flail,warpick ) versatile or have them do 2d4.

[JNAProductions]

That's the fiddly element, yeah. But what counts as a shield? The Skeleton in the MM is listed as wearing armor scraps, but the picture includes a shield. Do you get the bonus then? Dragons have thick hide-does that count as heavy armor? What about Iron Golems?

I don't have much of an issue with the rest of it (I'm not really FOR it, either-but it's not bad) but the fiddly elements do not fit with 5E's design philosophy.

[opaopajr]

Historically Blowguns were extremely accurate and fast, enough to reliably hunt small birds and rodents with at least a second shot. Its 5e Loading property makes zero sense. Also it should work off of CON or STR, if anything, because it's based on lung power, not agility. If you can wield two darts or handaxes and fire both in a round, you can do the same with a Blowgun. Even Extra Attack doesn't bother me, because if you can Ammo slings & regular bows with Extra Attack & Action Surge, you can do the same with a Blowgun.

I'd redo its materiel readout as such, for simplicity's sake:

Blowgun -- Ammo, Finesse, (range 30/120).
Flechette Ammo -- 1 dmg
(optional: Dart Ammo -- 1d3)

(And before someone thinks their clever joking about hyperventilating tier 3+ Blowgun Fighters, go play a brass instrument and get back to me. It's in no way hard to control one's force of breath within six seconds. In fact, it takes less agility coordination. Otherwise a third of jazz bands would be passing out left and right onstage. "Computer says, 'naw...'")

I'd also make regular Dart have the Light property. Even with TWF, and the Dual Wielder feat, without the Ammo property it'll never have throughput equal to regular bows. It's not a problem waiting to happen.

Dart -- 1d4 p. Light, finesse, thrown (range 20/60)

[BB944]

Hey,

Just wanted to chime in here...

I cannot agree more with a lot what has been said, and I have in the past made many changes to weapons and Armor... but I never ended up using them..... (the changes) because they were imbalanced and hard to stay consistent with ... that was until I purchased this:

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/218782/The-Comprehensive-Equipment-Manual-Revised?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45469

AMAZING!!!!

It adds additional weapon properties so that different weapons have different flavors. The properties are not broken at all and never do they involve +1 in any way. Give a try and you will totally enjoy the pole ax and the spike chain as well as the many different flavors of swords, each bringing different properties to the battle.

This was, hands down, the best 13 bucks i have ever spent... and I was in the Navy and went on 2 deployments lol