Weapon tweaks and a few new ones

[Ninjaman]

Some changes and additions the the 5e weapons I've thought about.

New weapons:

Martial weapons:
Arming sword, 15 gp, 2d4 slashing, 3lb.
Saber, 20 gp, 1d8 slashing, 3lb. Finesse
War axe, 10 gp, 2d4 slashing, 4lb.


Changes:

Simple Weapons:
Greatclub: 1d10 damage
Light hammer: 1d6 damage
Mace: Versatile (1d8)
Quarterstaff: 1d4 damage. Versatile still 1d8
Sickle: Finesse
Spear: Reach, no 5ft disadvantage

Martial Weapons:
Flail: 2d4 damage
Trident: 10 gp, 1d8 damage. Remove versatile
War pick: 10 gp, Versatile (1d10)

Remove morningstar. (Use warhammer or flail statline)

Houserule:
Shields can be ditched as a bonus action. Ditching a shield this way leaves it at the ground where you are standing. This makes versatile weapons slightly better.



Thoughts?

[Lalliman]

Really late to this, but: Most of the changes are good. I dunno about the spear having reach (how do you control such a long weapon with one hand?), but I understand the rationale. There are two that I take issue with though.

Arming sword, war axe and flail: Even with shields being easily ditchable, the versatile property is basically useless. Most characters who wield versatile weapons will have duelling style, which makes two-handing it actually worse. Even if you don't have duelling style, taking -2 AC by dropping your shield in return for +1 damage is a terrible trade and I can think of no situation in which it would be a genuinely good call to do so. If you're fighting casters who use mainly save-based attacks, maybe, but again the +1 damage is so small that I wouldn't risk it. Versatile is a property that exists for thematic purposes and for the off chance that you're caught without your full armaments available. All of this means that the arming sword, war axe, and your version of the flail are effectively straight upgrades over the longsword, battle axe, and warhammer; there's no real reason to use the latter anymore. The first two also make little sense thematically: D&D's classification of swords is nebulous enough that there is no real room for arming swords to be distinct from shortswords and longswords, and what would be the practical difference between a battle axe and a war axe? The names are basically synonyms.

Trident: You buffed the trident, but still left it inferior to the other martial weapons. Why?

[Ninjaman]

Thank you very much for taking time to respond.



Really late to this, but: Most of the changes are good. I dunno about the spear having reach (how do you control such a long weapon with one hand?), but I understand the rationale.
That is how spears were usually used historically, spear and shield were one of the most common, if not the most common, weapon combination your thousand of years. There's a few different ways it could be done, but one that I like is holding it overarm around the middle point but sliding it out as you thrust.



Arming sword, war axe and flail: Even with shields being easily ditchable, the versatile property is basically useless.
That would be true for the regular rules as well then. I don't disagree with your observation though.



Most characters who wield versatile weapons will have duelling style, which makes two-handing it actually worse.
That's true for the regular rules, my changes don't really affect that in any way.



Even if you don't have duelling style, taking -2 AC by dropping your shield in return for +1 damage is a terrible trade and I can think of no situation in which it would be a genuinely good call to do so. If you're fighting casters who use mainly save-based attacks, maybe, but again the +1 damage is so small that I wouldn't risk it. Versatile is a property that exists for thematic purposes and for the off chance that you're caught without your full armaments available. All of this means that the arming sword, war axe, and your version of the flail are effectively straight upgrades over the longsword, battle axe, and warhammer; there's no real reason to use the latter anymore
Arming sword, war axe and flail are probably generally better than longsword, battle axe, and warhammer, certainly for adventurers who are kitted out for combat all the time. Some reasons I can think off for both to exist though:
Barbarians and half-orcs might care due to Brutal Critical and Savage Attacks.
Casters might care, since they can use the weapons two handed. Might not matter much when they hit level 5, but before then it does.
If you're not wearing your shield, for instance if you are in an inn when a fight breaks out. DMs might need to enforce this more.
They would be used more by NPCs like nobles and merchants.

Reasons for flails over warhammers with the current rules, I can't think of any.

I think it makes sense that the more specialized weapon is the most efficient. Weapons used on battlefields historically were usually specialized.
I don't have much issue with one option being better than the other as long as it isn't straight up better all the time.



The first two also make little sense thematically: D&D's classification of swords is nebulous enough that there is no real room for arming swords to be distinct from shortswords and longswords,
There are swords that can't effectively be used two handed that should be more effective than shortswords are. Viking swords for instance, or the medieval arming sword which i used to name it. The distinction between shortswords and arming swords should be about blade length, where as the distinction between longswords and arming swords should be mostly grip length, (Long swords can be longer, but don't necessarily have to be).

[/QUOTE]and what would be the practical difference between a battle axe and a war axe? The names are basically synonyms.[/QUOTE]
Battle axes would have longer handles. The names are synonyms, because axes haven't been classified as much as swords. Having a longer handle is good when you need it, but when you don't you'd rather not have it.



Trident: You buffed the trident, but still left it inferior to the other martial weapons. Why?
The trident can be thrown, which means it's a longsword that trades versatile for the ability to be thrown, or an arming sword that trades slightly lower damage for the ability to be thrown.

[Man_Over_Game]

I like most of the changes.

I do not like the spear having reach, because it directly competes with the whip. I understand realism with history, but DnD is also a game that relies on balance. There's no other simple weapons that require Martial proficiency. With it being a one handed weapon, it's debatably better than the Heavy Two Handed equivalents (which only do +2 more damage). Thrown, 1d6, reach, versatile simple weapon?

Although, another way you could implement some of these things is by having most simple weapons having features that are unlocked by gaining martial proficiency. A club isn't too terribly different from a mace, for instance. There are javelins, spears, and tridents, who all kind of get in each-other's way as far as mechanics go. A Dagger can be thrown accurately by a Wizard, but the same Wizard can't use a crossbow.

I've also been a big fan of the Versatile feature being improved. As of right now, ditching a shield for +1 damage is almost never worth it. Even with your houserule, I'd still say it's not worth it. I'm not sure what the fix is, though. Everything I think of requires more room to work with, and moving one handed versatile weapons to 1d6 is too weak, moving the two handed versatile weapons to 1d12 is too much, and I don't see any other solutions present themselves without making up a new feature on the spot.

[Ninjaman]

I like most of the changes.
Thank you.


I do not like the spear having reach, because it directly competes with the whip. I understand realism with history, but DnD is also a game that relies on balance. There's no other simple weapons that require Martial proficiency. With it being a one handed weapon, it's debatably better than the Heavy Two Handed equivalents (which only do +2 more damage). Thrown, 1d6, reach, versatile simple weapon?
Originally it only had reach while using it in two hands. Would that be better?


Although, another way you could implement some of these things is by having most simple weapons having features that are unlocked by gaining martial proficiency. A club isn't too terribly different from a mace, for instance. There are javelins, spears, and tridents, who all kind of get in each-other's way as far as mechanics go. A Dagger can be thrown accurately by a Wizard, but the same Wizard can't use a crossbow.
That's certainly a very interesting idea, but not quite what I was going for. If you ever go further with that idea though I'd be very interested in seeing it.


I've also been a big fan of the Versatile feature being improved. As of right now, ditching a shield for +1 damage is almost never worth it. Even with your houserule, I'd still say it's not worth it. I'm not sure what the fix is, though. Everything I think of requires more room to work with, and moving one handed versatile weapons to 1d6 is too weak, moving the two handed versatile weapons to 1d12 is too much, and I don't see any other solutions present themselves without making up a new feature on the spot.
The problem is that if versatile weapons are generally worth it then they need to be as good as two handed weapons, and then two handed weapons would either be useful, or need to be even better, at which point sword and board would be outclassed.
I don't think it needs to be balanced. A weapon and shield need to be as good as a two handed weapon, and a versatile weapon needs to be worse than a two handed weapon, and therefore also worse than a weapon and a shield. Though it would be great if there could be some more specific situations where it was worthwhile.

[Lalliman]

That is how spears were usually used historically, spear and shield were one of the most common, if not the most common, weapon combination your thousand of years. There's a few different ways it could be done, but one that I like is holding it overarm around the middle point but sliding it out as you thrust.
I'm aware of how spears are wielded - another method is to prop the non-stabby end under your elbow to keep it in place so you can utilise most of the full length. What I meant to argue is: in D&D a reach weapon can hit people about 7 or 8 feet away (measuring from the edge of your square to the centre of the target's). That's a long way to reach with a typical one-handed spear, you'd have to really extend yourself. It's not that spears aren't long weapons, it's that D&D has no "pretty long weapon" category, only "short weapon" and "really long weapon". That's why I wouldn't classify it as reach. (Though I like how you can give it reach with the UA Spear Master feat - it can be used to reach far, it just takes more skill than with a polearm.) That said, I don't mind if you prefer to treat it as reach, it was just a throwaway comment.


Originally it only had reach while using it in two hands. Would that be better?
I would find this preferable, because the use of two hands would make it easier to maneuver the full length of the spear. But it's your call.


That's true for the regular rules, my changes don't really affect that in any way.
This was just building up to my point about the arming sword and co. As for those weapons, it's potayto-potahto. I wouldn't want to use them because I consider them bloat. I'm aware of the differences you stated, but to distinguish them would be incongruous with D&D's simplicity - why worry about the distinction between a longsword and an arming sword when a longsword and a warhammer are functionally identical against everything except skeletons? I also wouldn't want the longsword, the go-to fantasy weapon, to be a trap option. But it's ultimately a matter of taste, so if you prefer the historical accuracy of arming swords being the go-to weapon then that's valid too. To go along with that, it would be fun to also make a rule that further distinguishes piercing, slashing and bludgeoning damage.


The trident can be thrown, which means it's a longsword that trades versatile for the ability to be thrown, or an arming sword that trades slightly lower damage for the ability to be thrown.
I must've brain-farted about the trident's stats when I wrote that one.

[jiriku]

Martial weapons
I like the Sabre. Good call: a d8 finesse slashing weapon fills a gap in the roster of finesse weapons and makes dedicated finesse fighters better able to deal with foes that have resistance to piercing damage.

The various 2d4 weapons are balance-appropriate... but they're not filling a gap. I can already do essentially the same damage by one-handing a versatile weapon. I don't see what value these weapons add to justify the increased cognitive load on the game.

Simple Weapons
These make me uneasy. These changes either duplicate existing weapon options or create new options that are categorically better than the existing options. Adding a d10 weapon and a reach weapon narrows the performance gap between simple and martial weapon proficiency, which adversely affects class balance. This is a lot of cognitive load and a potential balance problem for... I don't see a benefit.


Homebrew is inherently bad. By this I mean that it always adds complexity to the game (making it harder to learn) and introduces cognitive load during gameplay (making it harder to play). To justify itself, any piece of homebrew added value of the new rules must more than offset the added complexity. Ask yourself, what are these weapons bringing to the game that makes them worth it? What value do they offer?

[Ninjaman]

I'm aware of how spears are wielded - another method is to prop the non-stabby end under your elbow to keep it in place so you can utilise most of the full length. What I meant to argue is: in D&D a reach weapon can hit people about 7 or 8 feet away (measuring from the edge of your square to the centre of the target's). That's a long way to reach with a typical one-handed spear, you'd have to really extend yourself. It's not that spears aren't long weapons, it's that D&D has no "pretty long weapon" category, only "short weapon" and "really long weapon". That's why I wouldn't classify it as reach. (Though I like how you can give it reach with the UA Spear Master feat - it can be used to reach far, it just takes more skill than with a polearm.) That said, I don't mind if you prefer to treat it as reach, it was just a throwaway comment.
7 or 8 feet wasn't an uncommon length of spears historically, and you need to add the length of your arm to your range as well, so even a 6 foot spear should do the trick. All spears shorter than that would classify as javelins.



I would find this preferable, because the use of two hands would make it easier to maneuver the full length of the spear. But it's your call.
It could have versatile to reflect that too, (1d4 damage normally and 1d6 versatile?) If it was realistic spears would have reach, because that was spear's whole deal. But I totally understand that it might make a simple weapon too good.



This was just building up to my point about the arming sword and co. As for those weapons, it's potayto-potahto. I wouldn't want to use them because I consider them bloat. I'm aware of the differences you stated, but to distinguish them would be incongruous with D&D's simplicity - why worry about the distinction between a longsword and an arming sword when a longsword and a warhammer are functionally identical against everything except skeletons? I also wouldn't want the longsword, the go-to fantasy weapon, to be a trap option. But it's ultimately a matter of taste, so if you prefer the historical accuracy of arming swords being the go-to weapon then that's valid too.
You're absolutely right, it is about taste, and if people don't lack these options then of course they shouldn't use them in their game. I made them because I've seen a lot of people say that weapons in 5e are quite bland, and I wanted to add some more options, without shaking the way weapons worked.



To go along with that, it would be fun to also make a rule that further distinguishes piercing, slashing and bludgeoning damage.
I agree, that would be great. A thing I've seen sometimes is adding effects to crits based on damage type, if they failed a con test, either against 8+stat+proficiency, or just against the damage like concentration is.
Something like:
Blunt would stun for a turn.
Pierce would stagger the target, halving their move until they gain life and giving them disadvantage on their next attack.
Slashing would deal extra bleeding damage over the next couple turns, not sure how much.

How does that look?



Martial weapons
I like the Sabre. Good call: a d8 finesse slashing weapon fills a gap in the roster of finesse weapons and makes dedicated finesse fighters better able to deal with foes that have resistance to piercing damage.
Thank you, it wasn't my idea though, I saw it somewhere else.



The various 2d4 weapons are balance-appropriate... but they're not filling a gap. I can already do essentially the same damage by one-handing a versatile weapon. I don't see what value these weapons add to justify the increased cognitive load on the game.
Yeah, you can do essentially the same thing, but you can't do quite the same thing. There is a difference between a one handed weapon, and a hand and a half weapon.
You mention cognitive load a lot in your post, but I think you are grossly overstating how much these changes would add, considering that all the weapons already work in ways similar to existing weapons, it's not adding massive changes.



Simple Weapons
These make me uneasy. These changes either duplicate existing weapon options or create new options that are categorically better than the existing options. Adding a d10 weapon and a reach weapon narrows the performance gap between simple and martial weapon proficiency, which adversely affects class balance. This is a lot of cognitive load and a potential balance problem for... I don't see a benefit.
Light hammer is the same as handaxe, just with bludgeon damage.
Mace is the same as the old quarterstaff.
Quarterstaff is made worse.
Sickle is still a worse dagger.

So I assume the only weapons you are referring to are the spear and greatclub.

1d10 damage is still a dice less than the martial two-handed weapons.
It isn't heavy though which means halfling barbarians can use it instead.
One dice size was already the difference between simple one handed weapons and martial one handed weapons, (1d6 and 1d8 respectively)

I agree that the spear might be too good for a simple weapon, though do you also think that if it needs to be two handed to gain reach? Then it would be 2 dice sizes under the martial options.
Or if it was 1d4 damage normally.


Homebrew is inherently bad. By this I mean that it always adds complexity to the game (making it harder to learn) and introduces cognitive load during gameplay (making it harder to play). To justify itself, any piece of homebrew added value of the new rules must more than offset the added complexity. Ask yourself, what are these weapons bringing to the game that makes them worth it? What value do they offer?
Again, how much do these weapons complicate the game? It just means you have to look at a PDF of this instead of where you usually look at weapons. These weapons aren't more complicated than the regular ones, they are just some different ones.

They increase options and remove some options being strictly worse than some other options, only the sickle and the quarterstaff being left I think, and the quarterstaff can be shillelagh'd.

[jiriku]

Again, how much do these weapons complicate the game? It just means you have to look at a PDF of this instead of where you usually look at weapons. These weapons aren't more complicated than the regular ones, they are just some different ones.

They increase options and remove some options being strictly worse than some other options, only the sickle and the quarterstaff being left I think, and the quarterstaff can be shillelagh'd.

(emphasis added)

We agree about the effect of these weapons. They are different and they add more options. But does "more options" make the game better in some way? How?

Please understand that I am not asking to be argumentative. I am hoping to prompt you to clarify your thoughts about WHY your game needs this homebrew. Are your players expressing dissatisfaction with their weapon choices? Do you feel that classes without martial weapon proficiency are too weak in melee and need a boost? Good homebrew fills a NEED. If it's not filling a need then it's just filling a page.

[Ninjaman]

We agree about the effect of these weapons. They are different and they add more options. But does "more options" make the game better in some way? How?

Please understand that I am not asking to be argumentative. I am hoping to prompt you to clarify your thoughts about WHY your game needs this homebrew. Are your players expressing dissatisfaction with their weapon choices? Do you feel that classes without martial weapon proficiency are too weak in melee and need a boost? Good homebrew fills a NEED. If it's not filling a need then it's just filling a page.

First of, I don't have a game, I am not a DM.
I made these because I thought the weapon options left some to be desired. Weapons that felt useless, like the flail, or unbalanced, quarterstaff vs mace and greatclub, or weapons that lacked for more flavorful reasons, like the arming sword and sabre.
I don't know if it works well, I haven't played with it. If I do DM a game I think I'll try them out, and see how they work. I think I'll want to fiddle with them a bit beforehand so I try something that has a better chance of being good. But I won't know for sure until I try it out.