Drakkoniss
2018-12-18, 02:35 PM
The Table: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AtE2-F-pUrJQnB532GEb2PO7fRdT
Over the course of many days of research, I have been considering the strongest and weakest points of the 5e weapons table. As a result of this, I have come up with a new table which expands upon the old options in certain cases (such as that of the rapier, which is alone, or the shortsword and scimitar, which are too narrow a selection, in my opinion) while striving to retain the simplicity and accessibility of the old/original table.
At the same time, I have added a limited selection of new weapons to the list, and altered the damage and properties of many of the old weapons to attempt to create a better balance across all categories. The main intention of this project is to make the viable/optimal weapon selection as broad as possible for various builds while not making weapons bland and nearly identical across the board. Additionally, I have strived to enable certain styles of play which may not have been viable at all, before. Hopefully, the variety and properties amongst the weapons will lend themselves naturally to interesting ideas during character creation.
Acknowledgements:
I would not have been able to get as far as I have with this project if not for the work of others. In particular, this thread by The Jack ( http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554664-The-5e-weapon-table-needs-a-few-fixes ), this table created by the Redditor known as Kryptopyr ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHOikK_rNxV_LOGsxZj_7EWwLzCWqBEt/view ), and the magnificent work on the blog https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com (which, I believe, is run by this forum's own Eric Diaz) have all inspired me and aided in either the methodology or contents of my own table.
It should be noted that certain items on my list have been taken directly from Kryptopyr's table, or the work on MethodsEtMadness.
In particular, Kryptopyr's "Quick-draw" mechanic is an excellent and necessary edition to D&D in that while ammunition extraction does not have any cost in the action economy (unless not worn in a quiver or the like), yet daggers and darts require an object interaction in order to be thrown. While this would be reasonable for normal thrown weapons, it is absolutely unreasonable when darts and daggers are explicitly used in such a way that they are fired off like arrows in certain archetypal fighting styles (which are thus invalidated in effect, by the game mechanics themselves).
On the other hand, I had already come up with my Technical weapon trait before I encountered his table (unless my memory is failing me), and once I came across his. I believe my option to be the more versatile trait, and that it will likely be more conducive to fun in play (though respondents are free to disagree; I encourage comparison, either way).
As for the weapons... I took his idea of the scythe, and then implemented a pitchfork as a complimentary weapon for the peasants.
I decided I liked the idea for a light, finesse option for Blunt weaponry, and felt the Tonfa was a logical weapon, and so I kept this name; however, I altered the damage to make it more in line with the shortsword and scimitar. This gave me inspiration to do more than simply give the shortsword piercing/slashing equal viability, as I had intended; rather, I also came up with the smallsword option, which would give a reasonable setup: all three damage types are available, as well as the single combination of two.
I had been contemplating creating an alternative or companion to the whip already by this point, but couldn't quite figure out the way to implement it. Kryptopyr's idea of the chain whip suited this purpose. However, to use a chain as a whip in real life in any reasonable matter does require the use of two hands, as far as I understand it. To compensate for this fact, I gave the chain whip additional damage, and would end up leaving it relying on strength for its bonus damage; whereas I would decide that the whip ought lose its finesse property, and would initially give it the normal version of Technical, but later conclude that it should be the only melee weapon that required dexterity for damage, rather than having strength as an option.
His nunchaku idea gave me inspiration to compare it to the flail. The flail had been the reason I had created the Technical property in the first place, so I decided that the nunchaku obviously needed it as well. I considered reducing its damage to 1d4, in order to not have it compete with the shortsword group too much, but eventually I decided against this. The fact that it does not have finesse in my version (but still requires strength for damage) suitably specializes the weapon, I think.
I did not think that the katana deserved its own entry. The longsword and katana are suggested to be identical in effect in the official handbooks for a reason: the fighting styles of both weapons, historically, are very similar; they both have two-handed main use, and CAN be used in one hand, albeit awkwardly. They can both be used to pierce or slice, and are about equally specialized for both. By this point, I had already added the Arming Sword (which makes for a reasonable kodachi, by the way, if anyone wants to use one of those), and thus made the longsword better fit its historical niche. I felt no compulsion to change it.
The double-bladed sword already has an official counterpart (the elven double scimitar), and so it does not need to be implemented as a separate entry. The official one also does not have Heavy, which is nice.
I had already thought of my version of Saber (spelled differently to his, but otherwise identical), which is an understandable and natural inclusion in the weapons catalog. I find it quite reasonable that we both came up with this. Multiple other people probably also arrived at the same weapon/conclusion.
I felt no need to give polearms special abilities. While this might be reasonable from a historic perspective [they were used differently in battle, and did have special intents like blade-catching or limb-hooking in mind], it would unfortunately go against 5e's simplicity of theme, in my mind, and give much more reason to use polearms than is reasonable. This is why I eventually decided to NOT increase polearm damage to 1d12 as I had initially intended. While it seems a bit silly to me that they should do the same damage as Longswords if the longsword is two-handed (read: used normally), the reach advantage and feat associated with them already produces enough of a mechanical advantage that giving them more damage would just damage build variety, I think.
Lasso is his, though I altered the language of the special ability a bit.
I did not think that Blowgun needed to have loading removed. Rather, I made it equal in damage to thrown darts, which are in fact its ammunition, as far as I understand it (or close enough). That it would deal such little damage seems ridiculous to me, given it only has a bit longer a range.
Giving darts the light property was his idea.
I came up with the idea of knives independently of him. (While I'm at it, I should point out that I found it necessary to give shuriken, daggers, and darts ALL quick-draw, but not knives, due to the fact that knives are more often intended as melee only weapons [or as multi-tools/utility survival items], though they can still be thrown. Daggers are often very much intended for the quick extraction, immediate use strategy, and thus they have a slight mechanical advantage.)
The Bola is his idea. They are two-handed in real life, though, so I changed the stats he gave for them to reflect that.
Shuriken are an excellent addition to the game as a slashing alternative to darts. They do not need to be strictly superior, though, even though they are martial, I think.
...
This leaves me to acknowledge one more thing: I took the better bows from Eric Diaz/the curator of MethodsEtMadness. This is because of the fact that I very much agree with him: the game definitely should incentivize use of both strength and dexterity in the same character. Many of my other decisions, it should be apparent, are to at least make that an apparent and interesting option for players.
Additionally: I agree with him on one more point. A weapon list by itself is not enough to represent a proper balancing of non-magical combat options in 5e. Feats and fighting styles are essential for such a proper rebalancing. However, I have not had the time to begin experimenting with such things, and I wanted to get this posted for the sake of critique/opinion/testing before potentially proceeding in that direction.
Finally: I actually decided to begin this task after having completed a redesign of armors in 5e. However, I wanted to post the weapon overhaul first. (For one, I did not have enough posts on this forum to do either, until today, and had not actually though to post either, before I had reached about this point in my process for weapons, which was multiple weeks after my armor work.) That list is made via inspiration and research among other sources as well, I should say, along with investigation of actual historical weights and functions of the items listed (as was the case with this list, coincidentally, particularly with regard to weight and damage type).
All critiques are welcome. I thank everyone who has worked on this issue, and all the people who shall respond to this post. (Please treat me kindly. Hehe~)
Over the course of many days of research, I have been considering the strongest and weakest points of the 5e weapons table. As a result of this, I have come up with a new table which expands upon the old options in certain cases (such as that of the rapier, which is alone, or the shortsword and scimitar, which are too narrow a selection, in my opinion) while striving to retain the simplicity and accessibility of the old/original table.
At the same time, I have added a limited selection of new weapons to the list, and altered the damage and properties of many of the old weapons to attempt to create a better balance across all categories. The main intention of this project is to make the viable/optimal weapon selection as broad as possible for various builds while not making weapons bland and nearly identical across the board. Additionally, I have strived to enable certain styles of play which may not have been viable at all, before. Hopefully, the variety and properties amongst the weapons will lend themselves naturally to interesting ideas during character creation.
Acknowledgements:
I would not have been able to get as far as I have with this project if not for the work of others. In particular, this thread by The Jack ( http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554664-The-5e-weapon-table-needs-a-few-fixes ), this table created by the Redditor known as Kryptopyr ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHOikK_rNxV_LOGsxZj_7EWwLzCWqBEt/view ), and the magnificent work on the blog https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com (which, I believe, is run by this forum's own Eric Diaz) have all inspired me and aided in either the methodology or contents of my own table.
It should be noted that certain items on my list have been taken directly from Kryptopyr's table, or the work on MethodsEtMadness.
In particular, Kryptopyr's "Quick-draw" mechanic is an excellent and necessary edition to D&D in that while ammunition extraction does not have any cost in the action economy (unless not worn in a quiver or the like), yet daggers and darts require an object interaction in order to be thrown. While this would be reasonable for normal thrown weapons, it is absolutely unreasonable when darts and daggers are explicitly used in such a way that they are fired off like arrows in certain archetypal fighting styles (which are thus invalidated in effect, by the game mechanics themselves).
On the other hand, I had already come up with my Technical weapon trait before I encountered his table (unless my memory is failing me), and once I came across his. I believe my option to be the more versatile trait, and that it will likely be more conducive to fun in play (though respondents are free to disagree; I encourage comparison, either way).
As for the weapons... I took his idea of the scythe, and then implemented a pitchfork as a complimentary weapon for the peasants.
I decided I liked the idea for a light, finesse option for Blunt weaponry, and felt the Tonfa was a logical weapon, and so I kept this name; however, I altered the damage to make it more in line with the shortsword and scimitar. This gave me inspiration to do more than simply give the shortsword piercing/slashing equal viability, as I had intended; rather, I also came up with the smallsword option, which would give a reasonable setup: all three damage types are available, as well as the single combination of two.
I had been contemplating creating an alternative or companion to the whip already by this point, but couldn't quite figure out the way to implement it. Kryptopyr's idea of the chain whip suited this purpose. However, to use a chain as a whip in real life in any reasonable matter does require the use of two hands, as far as I understand it. To compensate for this fact, I gave the chain whip additional damage, and would end up leaving it relying on strength for its bonus damage; whereas I would decide that the whip ought lose its finesse property, and would initially give it the normal version of Technical, but later conclude that it should be the only melee weapon that required dexterity for damage, rather than having strength as an option.
His nunchaku idea gave me inspiration to compare it to the flail. The flail had been the reason I had created the Technical property in the first place, so I decided that the nunchaku obviously needed it as well. I considered reducing its damage to 1d4, in order to not have it compete with the shortsword group too much, but eventually I decided against this. The fact that it does not have finesse in my version (but still requires strength for damage) suitably specializes the weapon, I think.
I did not think that the katana deserved its own entry. The longsword and katana are suggested to be identical in effect in the official handbooks for a reason: the fighting styles of both weapons, historically, are very similar; they both have two-handed main use, and CAN be used in one hand, albeit awkwardly. They can both be used to pierce or slice, and are about equally specialized for both. By this point, I had already added the Arming Sword (which makes for a reasonable kodachi, by the way, if anyone wants to use one of those), and thus made the longsword better fit its historical niche. I felt no compulsion to change it.
The double-bladed sword already has an official counterpart (the elven double scimitar), and so it does not need to be implemented as a separate entry. The official one also does not have Heavy, which is nice.
I had already thought of my version of Saber (spelled differently to his, but otherwise identical), which is an understandable and natural inclusion in the weapons catalog. I find it quite reasonable that we both came up with this. Multiple other people probably also arrived at the same weapon/conclusion.
I felt no need to give polearms special abilities. While this might be reasonable from a historic perspective [they were used differently in battle, and did have special intents like blade-catching or limb-hooking in mind], it would unfortunately go against 5e's simplicity of theme, in my mind, and give much more reason to use polearms than is reasonable. This is why I eventually decided to NOT increase polearm damage to 1d12 as I had initially intended. While it seems a bit silly to me that they should do the same damage as Longswords if the longsword is two-handed (read: used normally), the reach advantage and feat associated with them already produces enough of a mechanical advantage that giving them more damage would just damage build variety, I think.
Lasso is his, though I altered the language of the special ability a bit.
I did not think that Blowgun needed to have loading removed. Rather, I made it equal in damage to thrown darts, which are in fact its ammunition, as far as I understand it (or close enough). That it would deal such little damage seems ridiculous to me, given it only has a bit longer a range.
Giving darts the light property was his idea.
I came up with the idea of knives independently of him. (While I'm at it, I should point out that I found it necessary to give shuriken, daggers, and darts ALL quick-draw, but not knives, due to the fact that knives are more often intended as melee only weapons [or as multi-tools/utility survival items], though they can still be thrown. Daggers are often very much intended for the quick extraction, immediate use strategy, and thus they have a slight mechanical advantage.)
The Bola is his idea. They are two-handed in real life, though, so I changed the stats he gave for them to reflect that.
Shuriken are an excellent addition to the game as a slashing alternative to darts. They do not need to be strictly superior, though, even though they are martial, I think.
...
This leaves me to acknowledge one more thing: I took the better bows from Eric Diaz/the curator of MethodsEtMadness. This is because of the fact that I very much agree with him: the game definitely should incentivize use of both strength and dexterity in the same character. Many of my other decisions, it should be apparent, are to at least make that an apparent and interesting option for players.
Additionally: I agree with him on one more point. A weapon list by itself is not enough to represent a proper balancing of non-magical combat options in 5e. Feats and fighting styles are essential for such a proper rebalancing. However, I have not had the time to begin experimenting with such things, and I wanted to get this posted for the sake of critique/opinion/testing before potentially proceeding in that direction.
Finally: I actually decided to begin this task after having completed a redesign of armors in 5e. However, I wanted to post the weapon overhaul first. (For one, I did not have enough posts on this forum to do either, until today, and had not actually though to post either, before I had reached about this point in my process for weapons, which was multiple weeks after my armor work.) That list is made via inspiration and research among other sources as well, I should say, along with investigation of actual historical weights and functions of the items listed (as was the case with this list, coincidentally, particularly with regard to weight and damage type).
All critiques are welcome. I thank everyone who has worked on this issue, and all the people who shall respond to this post. (Please treat me kindly. Hehe~)