Obsolete Weapons

[Mad_Saulot]

Howdy, I'm starting a game soo and was despairing about the obsolete weapons on the weapons list, you know the ones, picks and hammers, there seem to be literally no reason to play them except for character image at the cost of effecttiveness, so I was thinking about doing something to bring them u to reasonable useability, picks and hammes are armour piercing weapons, designed to overcome and armoured opponent (historically anyway) yet the DnD 5e system doesnt have armour piercing rules except in the form of plus to hit, so Ihave a couple ideas.

First is to make it so picks and hammers always cause 1 point of damage automaticaly as long as the roll to hit was over 10.

Or

Give picks and hammers +1 to hit if the target is wearing armour.

What do you lot think about this?

[ad_hoc]

Howdy, I'm starting a game soo and was despairing about the obsolete weapons on the weapons list, you know the ones, picks and hammers, there seem to be literally no reason to play them except for character image at the cost of effecttiveness,

Magic ones are worth using.

[Theodoxus]

It's fine. 5E is built around an idea I'm finding increasingly frustrating and sad the promises made during its roll out weren't kept - primarily that the base game would be welcoming to new players, but that DMs would be given the levers of power to make tuning adjustments to the game to make is as complex as they'd like.

In a way, we were - at least, we were given permission (at least in a non-AL game) to do whatever we wanted. However, WotC never actually ported over anything that would help us adjudicate rulings that would keep the game fair and balanced.

I've moved away from base 5E for that very reason. But this doesn't help you...

The largest problem with going the route you are, is suddenly other things make less sense - then you start a RockPaperScissor type deal; slashing deals more or hits more easily against light armor; ditto piercing vs medium and bludgeoning vs heavy... then you're tracking what armor your enemies are using, what weapons your players are using. When they swap from using a bow to a sling because it's more effective... Suddenly you're developing feats to overcome the problems, or shore up weaknesses so your players aren't mad when you pull out a new trick... and before you know it, you've moved so far out of the realm of base 5E, you realize you've invented a new game.

Sometimes it's ok to realize there are inferior weapons your players don't want to use... and if you really want them to see the light of play, I'd counter with "only have those weapons appear when they find magic weapons." :smallbiggrin:

[Mad_Saulot]

I suppose it could be argued that inferior weapons are inferior because to access the good weapons you need martialproficiency, if a peasant can use a weapon thatequiviliant to a martial weapon then that reduces the values of martial classes.

[Petrocorus]

I don't get it.

What is the mechanical difference between the warhammer and the longsword beside the damage type?

The war pick lacks the versatile property, but it's less costful and the versatile property is only situationally useful.

So what are the problems with this weapons?

[Mad_Saulot]

Aye theres nothing wrong with the warhammer or maul really, I was thinking more about light maces and flails rather than the obviously superior warhammer.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

Check out the UA that came out some time ago that had weapon specific feats. I really liked them. Otherwise just reskin what ever weapon you want. Other than the dmg die, what's the difference between a long sword and a spear? They have the same properties.

Just tell your DM you want your weapon to be flavored a certain type. Want a flax? Reskin a great axe! Want a pick/mace, but Bad ass? Reskin a battle axe! Flavor and reskin can basicly achieve what ever you want.

[Zhorn]

If you could apply those bonuses in a virtual table top game, or any other method of having a computer track the calculations I can see it working out rather favorably, but otherwise those kind of bonuses feel like a pain in the backside to track.
Good for computer games, less ideal for tabletop.

[Petrocorus]

Aye theres nothing wrong with the warhammer or maul really, I was thinking more about light maces and flails rather than the obviously superior warhammer.

Ah OK. Then i think the problem is not in the weapon themselves.

The problem with simple weapon is that the PC that need to use them are the ones who are not proficient with martial weapon. And these PC tend to have a bad strength score, which lead to want a finesse weapon. So they will do better with a dagger than with any other simple weapon for a lot of them, Shillelagh users excepted.

I believe this is the main reasons this weapons are not used often.

For the flail and other martial weapons, this is just a matter of taste. Almost all non-finesse one-handed weapon have a 1d8 damage dice. The damage type are roughly equivalent in most campaign and the versatile property is situational. So you're not losing anything relevant by using a flail, a morningstar, or a war pick instead of a longsword.

[Quoz]

The line between most simple weapons and tools is already pretty blurry, so you can add out of combat uses if you like. A club can also be a crowbar, adding advantage to strength checks where leverage can be applied. A pick can auto crit when attacking objects. Using a maul to drive a spike and bar a door can increase the DC to force it open.

Simple weapons are mostly things that have other uses, so play that up a bit. Historically, it would also be common for there to be areas with laws against carrying weapons but where simple weapons that are also tools can be brought in with less suspicion.

[Weiser_Cain]

Have non-combat reasons to have hammers and picks.

[Mad_Saulot]

Cheers for the imput guys, food for thought.

And I never considered complete reskins like why cant a maul be a ball & chain if thats what the player or DM wants, good stuff.

[Tanarii]

War picks and Flails and Morningstars are not inferior unless you're planning to have your PC 2H a versatile weapon. Not many characters do that intentionally. Typically Valor Bards prior to level 3 using Longswords, and small Barbarians.

Maces are in a weird space. Non-magical, mostly they're used by Clerics (Life, Nature, Trickery, Forge). They frequently have Str as a secondary score and will occasionally melee, use shields so 1H, but have got good cantrips for ranged attacks, so thrown isn't as critical a property on their primary melee weapon.


Magic ones are worth using.Also this. Monks in particular are well positioned to call priority on any Simple magical weapon found.

[Yora]

Halberd and glaive seem to be redundant. Unless I am mistaken, they are mechanically identical.

[Neknoh]

A few solutions:

As mentioned: Have more out of game reasons to use axes and hammers, yes, a sword can hack, but you really do not want to use a sword to hack away at wood (then again, nor do you want to do this with a battle axe since the edge is pretty much as thinn or thinner than a sword, but hey' it's a fantasy game). You can also have more stone things to drive a pick or hammer into.

One idea for all hammers (this would include the maul and warhammer) is to either:

Offer all of them +1 to hit whilst offering blades +1 to damage.

Or: Make it so that you always deal your strength or proficiency bonus as damage, minus how much you missed by. This way, it will scale.

Strength +3
Enemy AC 15

Roll 12 (miss by 3 - 12, 13 and 14 all miss: 3-3 = 0 damage)
Roll 13 (miss by 2 - 13 and 14 both miss: 3-2 = 1 damage)
Roll 14 (miss by 1 - 14 misses: 3-1 = 2 damage)

Alternative:

Roll 14 = 3 damage
Roll 13 = 2 damage
Roll 12 = 1 damage

Depends on how nice you want to be.

This would be more realistic, as it would simulate better and worse hits and would reward players by getting close to the AC whilst not being an arbitrary "10+" when some enemies might have 11 AC and others might have 25

[Tanarii]

Halberd and glaive seem to be redundant. Unless I am mistaken, they are mechanically identical.
That's the flip side of balancing weapons so there's a 'point' to them all. You'd end up with a bunch of mechanically identical weapons. For example, a mechanically balanced Hand Axe should probably be brought down to 1d4 Thrown 20/60 Light, just like a Light Hammer.

Otoh you can't just look at the table in isolation. They clearly wanted a Str-based TWF option, and chose Hand Axes.

[HappyDaze]

Halberd and glaive seem to be redundant. Unless I am mistaken, they are mechanically identical.

Agreed. They might as well have just said "glaive/halberd" or even "pole arm" as a single entry.

[Dungeon-noob]

The document "Beyond damage dice" also gives new, seperate actions that can be performed with different weapons. Sounds like that might be up your alley.

[The Jack]

There aren't really 'obsolete' weapons just weapons that are WRONG.

There's a system in place, and a few weapons ignore that.

Reach and light reduce damage dice
Heavy,two handed, loading and martial increase the damage dice.


Weight, versatile and finesse are largely money issues. If you wanted a versatile morningstar/war pick, you just pay the warhammer price.



The handaxe is too powerful, it should be martial or do a d4. Light hammers and such are right, the handaxe is wrong.

The greatclub should do a d10

There's room for versatile reach weapons that do d6/d8

[Unoriginal]

Ah OK. Then i think the problem is not in the weapon themselves.

The problem with simple weapon is that the PC that need to use them are the ones who are not proficient with martial weapon..

What are you even talking about? Why would PCs *need* to use those weapons?




For the flail and other martial weapons, this is just a matter of taste. Almost all non-finesse one-handed weapon have a 1d8 damage dice. The damage type are roughly equivalent in most campaign and the versatile property is situational. So you're not losing anything relevant by using a flail, a morningstar, or a war pick instead of a longsword.

Yes, yes indeed. So what's your complain?




Simple weapons are mostly things that have other uses, so play that up a bit. Historically, it would also be common for there to be areas with laws against carrying weapons but where simple weapons that are also tools can be brought in with less suspicion.


One of the fun ones is the German's messer, aka "obviously just a knife."

[Neknoh]

"Hey, cutler's guild, I see that you're making swords, that's for us! The swordmakers! How dare you do that?"
"Oh no, no, no, look, it's just a very big knife, look at the handle, it's a completely different construction from a sword."
"I'll get the bailif!"

¤a few moments later¤

"Hmmm..... Hmmmm.... Nope, looks like a knife, sorry Swordguildleader, they're making knives, it's what they're allowed to do, nothing I can do about it."

[Petrocorus]

There's room for versatile reach weapons that do d6/d8
We got the quarterstaff and the spear.



The problem with simple weapon is that the PC that need to use them are the ones who are not proficient with martial weapon.


What are you even talking about? Why would PCs *need* to use those weapons?

Because they aren't proficient with martial weapons. If you're not proficient with martial weapons, and if you need to have a weapon, do you not need to use a simple weapon?





For the flail and other martial weapons, this is just a matter of taste. Almost all non-finesse one-handed weapon have a 1d8 damage dice. The damage type are roughly equivalent in most campaign and the versatile property is situational. So you're not losing anything relevant by using a flail, a morningstar, or a war pick instead of a longsword.


Yes, yes indeed. So what's your complain?

Where did i say i was complaining? I was on the contrary explaining that there's no need to complain about flail, war pick, and other less used martial weapons. These weapons are mechanically similar enough to longsword so using them is just a matter of taste.

Was my wording that bad? I'm not a native English speaker, but i reread myself and my post seems quite clear to me.

[Tanarii]

Because they aren't proficient with martial weapons. If you're not proficient with martial weapons, and if you need to have a weapon, do you not need to use a simple weapon?
Generally speaking, monk and some clerics are the only simple melee weapon only users that might care.

Warlocks tend to go Pact of the Blade Boon if they care, Bards have Longswords and Rapiers, Druids get scimitars, and Wizards and Sorcs typically avoid melee attacks entirely.

[Unoriginal]

Because they aren't proficient with martial weapons. If you're not proficient with martial weapons, and if you need to have a weapon, do you not need to use a simple weapon?

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.




Was my wording that bad? I'm not a native English speaker, but i reread myself and my post seems quite clear to me.

I sincerely apologize, it seems I somehow confused you with the writer of another post in this thread and didn't understand the chain of the conversation.

[The Jack]

We got the quarterstaff and the spear.


Neither of which have the reach property.

[Petrocorus]

Neither of which have the reach property.
Sorry, i misread this.



I sincerely apologize, it seems I somehow confused you with the writer of another post in this thread and didn't understand the chain of the conversation.
No problem, i was just wondering if i had lost my english all of a sudden.


Generally speaking, monk and some clerics are the only simple melee weapon only users that might care.

This is true. And does mean that some peoples need simple weapons.
What i'm trying to say is that the majority of these peoples, the ones who do not have access to martial weapon while still going to melee, are often focusing on Dex. Hence, they will ignore most of simple weapons because they don't have the finesse property.
The only PC that tend to have a Str build while not having proficiency with some martial weapon, AFAIK, are the Forge, Nature and Life Cleric. And the Nature cleric can access to Shillelagh. And these Cleric can choose a Dex build or get proficiencies through race. Monks can use them with a Dex build, but they will eventually be better with unarmed strikes.

The point that i was trying to make, in answer to the OP's original point, is that this is the reason why so many simple weapons are overlooked. Most PC just don't need this overlooked weapons. This is due to the system and not to the mechanical features of these weapons themselves. And i don't think this is a bug, but rather a feature. Not having access to martial weapon is IMHO intended as a weakness. Simple weapons are for simple peoples, not for PC ;)

[JumboWheat01]

And then there's the Trident, which has the same base things as the Spear (1d6/1d8 versatile, 20/60 throwing,) except it also costs more, weighs more, requires martial weapon proficiency AND isn't affected by the latest change to Polearm Mastery which allows Spears to benefit from them.

I'm somewhat fine with martial weapons being made "obsolete" by other martial weapons, and with simple weapons being made "obsolete" by martial weapons, but a martial weapon being out-done by a simple weapon?

[HappyDaze]

And then there's the Trident, which has the same base things as the Spear (1d6/1d8 versatile, 20/60 throwing,) except it also costs more, weighs more, requires martial weapon proficiency AND isn't affected by the latest change to Polearm Mastery which allows Spears to benefit from them.

I'm somewhat fine with martial weapons being made "obsolete" by other martial weapons, and with simple weapons being made "obsolete" by martial weapons, but a martial weapon being out-done by a simple weapon?

Hey, sometimes a simple knife beats a nuke.

Ace Levy:
Sir, I don't understand. What goods' a knife in a nuke fight? All you have to do is press a button, sir.

Career Sergeant Zim:
Put your hand on that wall trooper. PUT YOUR HAND ON THAT WALL!

Career Sergeant Zim:
The enemy can not press a button... if you have disabled his hand. Medic!

[Misterwhisper]

Hey, sometimes a simple knife beats a nuke.

Ace Levy:
Sir, I don't understand. What goods' a knife in a nuke fight? All you have to do is press a button, sir.

Career Sergeant Zim:
Put your hand on that wall trooper. PUT YOUR HAND ON THAT WALL!

Career Sergeant Zim:
The enemy can not press a button... if you have disabled his hand. Medic!

Starship Troopers, good book, garbage movie.

[Tanarii]

The point that i was trying to make, in answer to the OP's original point, is that this is the reason why so many simple weapons are overlooked. Most PC just don't need this overlooked weapons. This is due to the system and not to the mechanical features of these weapons themselves. And i don't think this is a bug, but rather a feature. Not having access to martial weapon is IMHO intended as a weakness. Simple weapons are for simple peoples, not for PC ;)
Kinda sorta. It's more just that they're really only applicable to 2 classes. But I dont think we're ultimately disagreeing. We both think thats fine.

(Simple ranged are a different matter, some full casters can take advantage of Light Crossbows.)

[Petrocorus]

Kinda sorta. It's more just that they're really only applicable to 2 classes. But I dont think we're ultimately disagreeing. We both think thats fine.

Indeed, i don't think that anything to be changed.



(Simple ranged are a different matter, some full casters can take advantage of Light Crossbows.)
Yes, Light Crossbows (or bows for those proficient) can be better than attack cantrip for many builds up to level 4.

[ad_hoc]

And then there's the Trident, which has the same base things as the Spear (1d6/1d8 versatile, 20/60 throwing,) except it also costs more, weighs more, requires martial weapon proficiency AND isn't affected by the latest change to Polearm Mastery which allows Spears to benefit from them.

I'm somewhat fine with martial weapons being made "obsolete" by other martial weapons, and with simple weapons being made "obsolete" by martial weapons, but a martial weapon being out-done by a simple weapon?

Why do people care about the cost and weight? Martial weapon proficiency is also not something that is spent on the use of a weapon. It's just a restriction on who can use it. It doesn't make the weapon worse.


Starship Troopers, good book, garbage movie.

It is a brilliant movie.

[CTurbo]

As DM, I really enjoy dropping magic uncommon weapons. My last group was using a +1 Pike, +1 Sickle, +1 Trident, and +1 War pick at one point lol

[Malifice]

Halberd and glaive seem to be redundant. Unless I am mistaken, they are mechanically identical.

Spears and tridents are worse.

The trident is the martial version of the spear, but worse in every way (same stats, just weighs and costs more).

[Unoriginal]

The trident was explained by Mearls, recently.

They toyed with the idea of making an 1d8 throwing weapon, but they figured people would likely go for the most damaging option and they didn't want every weapon throwers to be slinging tridents like no tomorrow. So they reduced the damage and stopped touching it.

It'd say they should have kept the 1d8 damage but reduced the range so there would be real pros and cons to using it, rather than making it redundant or the king of throwing weapons.

[Misterwhisper]

The trident was explained by Mearls, recently.

They toyed with the idea of making an 1d8 throwing weapon, but they figured people would likely go for the most damaging option and they didn't want every weapon throwers to be slinging tridents like no tomorrow. So they reduced the damage and stopped touching it.

It'd say they should have kept the 1d8 damage but reduced the range so there would be real pros and cons to using it, rather than making it redundant or the king of throwing weapons.

What they should have done was make it where having a build that throws could actually work. Their drawing rules kind of kill that plan for anyone other than rogues. Unless they get wonky builds.

[GreyBlack]

Howdy, I'm starting a game soo and was despairing about the obsolete weapons on the weapons list, you know the ones, picks and hammers, there seem to be literally no reason to play them except for character image at the cost of effecttiveness, so I was thinking about doing something to bring them u to reasonable useability, picks and hammes are armour piercing weapons, designed to overcome and armoured opponent (historically anyway) yet the DnD 5e system doesnt have armour piercing rules except in the form of plus to hit, so Ihave a couple ideas.

First is to make it so picks and hammers always cause 1 point of damage automaticaly as long as the roll to hit was over 10.

Or

Give picks and hammers +1 to hit if the target is wearing armour.

What do you lot think about this?

In older editions of D&D, you would receive a bonus to hit if the opponent was wearing certain types of armor. So (effectively), an opponent wearing plate would require an 18 on a roll if the player was using an axe, but only need a 17 if they were using a spear. Maybe look into that?

[VonKaiserstein]

I came here to suggest that very thing, Greyblack!

A lot of previous edition's complexity with weapons came from their interaction with armor types. Piercing was great against plate, but less effective against leather or padded, while slashing and crushing had their own advantages.

Then you had the really extreme interaction of dealing different damage to different sized targets, if you really want to go all out. That lance was magnificent against a dragon, but you could do more damage to a rat with a morning star.

Personally I think that's way too much complexity for 5e, and I'm uncertain if the to hit bonus is going to interfere with bounded accuracy, or inadvertently buff some of the weapons you're trying to balance- like giving +to hit with piercing makes rapier better as well as pick, so it's not really helping.

What you could do is just go by encounter. Maybe the pick gives advantage against constructs, or its optimized for being used while mounted. Or heck, give small weapons advantage against small targets because they're quicker and easier to maneuver.

[GlenSmash!]

Check out the UA that came out some time ago that had weapon specific feats. I really liked them. Otherwise just reskin what ever weapon you want. Other than the dmg die, what's the difference between a long sword and a spear? They have the same properties.

Just tell your DM you want your weapon to be flavored a certain type. Want a flax? Reskin a great axe! Want a pick/mace, but Bad ass? Reskin a battle axe! Flavor and reskin can basicly achieve what ever you want.

Man I loved Fell-Handed. I would roll a Hammer wielding Barbarian in a heartbeat if my DM allowed UA.

[Zanthy1]

My buddy is somewhat making his own rpg system, but one of the concepts he is using for weapons is having them fall into specific categories. Example:

Ranged light, medium, heavy, exotic (each with specific clip sizes, as this is sci-fi not fantasy)
Melee light, medium, heavy, exotic

All ranged light weapons do the same amount of damage, but can be flavored to look however the player feels. If I buy a light ranged it could be a crossbow if I wanted, or a pistol, whatever it looked like wouldn't matter, just that it fits into this category, does this amount of damage, and can hold this much ammo. The exotic ones are the only ones that are sorta spelled out, but even they have pretty free range on overall appearance.

What I am trying to get at, is if this type of system were used (or adopted) in your 5e campaign, then things like daggers, hammers, picks and the like would be light melee, longswords, war-hammers, and battle-axes would be medium, great-swords and greataxes would be heavy. So pick what you want, buy it, have it deal whatever the damage you determine is for its size, and then have it look however the player wants

[BigPixie]

Can u guys look at these homebrews I'm sorry that this isn't the right thread to do it but I just started. (Sorry Again)


Transform Attacker
7th-level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Until Dispelled
A creature that has done damage to you in the last turn makes a Con save or is transformed into a goblin until one of these three spells changes you back, either dispel magic, remove curse, or a wish spell


































Aquatic Wolverine
Large beast, unaligned

Armor Class
Hit Points 26(4d10 + 4)
Speed 20ft. swim 50 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
18 (+4) 10 (+0) 12 (+1) 3 (-4) 10 (0) 1 (-5)
Condition Immunities none
Senses passive Perception 10
Languages None
Challenge 1 (200 XP)
Pack Tactics. The Wolverine has an advantage on an Attack roll against a creature if at least one of the Wolverines' allies is within 5 ft. of the creature and the ally isn't Incapacitated.
Spikes. A creature that touches the Aquatic wolverine must make a DC 11 dex save or take 1d4 pirsing damage.

Actions
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5ft., one target. Hit 9 (1d10 + 4) Monstrosity





Strix
Medium monstrosity, unaligned

Armor Class 15 (natural armor)
Hit Points 65(10d6 + 30)
Speed 20ft., fly 80 ft
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
16 (+3) 18 (+4) 16 (+3) 7 (-2) 20 (+5) 7 (-2)
Condition Immunities frightened., stunned
Skills Perception +8
Senses passive Perception 18
Languages Jive
Challenge 6 (2,300 XP)
Actions
Agonizing Screech (Recharge 4-6) The strix howls and all creatures within 60 ft of the strix must make a DC 13 Constitution saving throw on a failed save takes 21 (6d6) thunder damage and is paralyzed until the end of their next turn, they take half as much on a made save and aren't paralyzed.

Claw Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d6) slashing damage.

Peck Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8(2d4) piercing damage.





















The 'Wizard'
Level Proficiency Bonus Features Cantrips Known Spells Known 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
1st +2 Dopey Casting 2 1 2 — — — — — — — —
2nd +2 Arcane Mistake 2 1 2 — — — — — — — —
3rd +2 Dipwad Caster 2 2 4 — — — — — — — —
4th +2 Ability Score Improvement 2 3 4 2 — — — — — — —
5th +3 ─ 2 3 4 3 1 — — — — — —
6th +3 Ability Score Improvement 3 4 4 3 1 — — — — — —
7th +3 Pathetic Mage 3 4 4 3 3 — — — — — —
8th +3 Ability Score Improvement 3 5 4 3 3 2 — — — — —
9th +4 Eldritch Loser 3 5 4 3 3 3 1 — — — —
10th +4 Useless Hex 4 6 4 3 3 3 1 — — — —
11th +4 –– 4 6 4 3 3 3 2 — — — —
12th +4 Ability Score Improvement 4 7 4 3 3 3 2 — — — —
13th +5 Ineffectual Vodoo 4 7 4 3 3 3 3 — — — —
14th +5 Ability Score Improvement 4 8 4 3 3 3 3 — — — —
15th +5 Oof! 4 9 4 3 3 3 3 — — — —
16th +5 Ability Score Improvement 9 10 4 3 3 3 3 — — — —
17th +6 ─ 4 10 4 3 3 3 3 1 — — —
18th +6 Fruitless Occultism 4 10 4 3 3 3 3 1 — — —
19th +6 Ability Score Improvement 4 10 4 3 3 3 3 2 — — —
20th +6 Pure Gravy 4 11 4 3 3 3 3 2 1 — —






Syke
4nd-level enchantment

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: touch
Components: V
Duration: 1 minute
A creature targeted by this spell believes that you are about to publicly troll them, and must use all of their movement trying to attack you, if they have enough movement to reach you then they are forced to use all their movement regardless. (LOL WATCH EM BURN ALL THEIR MOVEMENT XD)


Aromatic Weasel
Tiny beast, unaligned

Armor Class 17
Hit Points 67(1d4 + 5)
Speed 17ft.

STR
DEX
CON
INT
WIS
CHA
3 (-4)
16 (+3)
10 (+0)
3 (-4)
14 (+2)
5 (-3)

Skills Perception +4
Senses passive Perception 14
Languages None
Challenge 1/4 (50 XP)

Pack Tactics. These guys work together. Like super well, you don't even know.
Rancid Aroma All creatures within 30 ft of the weasel take 1 poison damage and are poisoned until they escape the aroma
Actions
Bite Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5ft., one target. Hit 1 piercing damage

[Mad_Saulot]

I think after reading all your posts I'll not mess with the weapon system at all, except to make simple weapons more functional, if I buff'd simple weapons it would remove some of the value of martial proficiency and fighters, and fighters dont need no nerfin'.

But it's been very interesting reading all your comments and its getting me into the frame of mind to game, cheers o/

[The Jack]

The trident was explained by Mearls, recently.

They toyed with the idea of making an 1d8 throwing weapon, but they figured people would likely go for the most damaging option and they didn't want every weapon throwers to be slinging tridents like no tomorrow. So they reduced the damage and stopped touching it.

It'd say they should have kept the 1d8 damage but reduced the range so there would be real pros and cons to using it, rather than making it redundant or the king of throwing weapons.


Handaxes get props over javelins because they're light weapons, even though javelins have twice the range.


They could've just put in heavy javelins and suggested an ammo limitation or a 'loading' property. Add Jarids and other nasty things to throw too for variety.

[GlenSmash!]

Handaxes get props over javelins because they're light weapons, even though javelins have twice the range.


They could've just put in heavy javelins and suggested an ammo limitation or a 'loading' property. Add Jarids and other nasty things to throw too for variety.

Light is a property I've always had a slight beef with as in game mechanics it really has nothing to do with weight and really means "balanced enough that it can be used for two weapon fighting without special training."

I probably would have used a different word, but oh well.

[Theodoxus]

Light is a property I've always had a slight beef with as in game mechanics it really has nothing to do with weight and really means "balanced enough that it can be used for two weapon fighting without special training."

I probably would have used a different word, but oh well.

I've been building a mashup between 4th and 5th editions, and noticed that too. For some reason, they needed/wanted/whatever to change the terminology and went from "off-hand" to "light" and other than nomenclature, nothing else changed. It's been a very interesting, and sometimes very baffling, process.

My only guess is that there was so much perceived backlash against 4th ed, that WotC (or perhaps the playtesters of Next - I wasn't too interested in the development to follow it) distanced themselves from anything remotely coming from 4th ed.

And this is a giant shame, for there are so many great ideas that lived in 4th... even as my homebrew steals from both, really, just porting 5Es proficiency, advantage, and spellcasting rules alone into 4th would make the system palatable to most die hard haters of the edition.

If I could find players, I'd be happy to run a pure 4th edition game; it's got more crunch than 5th and less complexity than 3rd... it's a happy medium.

[The Jack]

I'm of the firm belief that all GM's/Players should 'learn the system' and make weapons accordingly.

The following I feel are missing from the weapon table and work with the system
A d6 Simple two-handed reach weapon
A D6/D8 Martial Reach weapon.
A d4/6 simple Light/Versatile (maybe finesse) weapon
A D6/D8 martial Light/Versatile weapon (maybe finesse?)
A d8 martial throwing weapon
A D4 martial light reach weapon (the whip is weak, which aligns with reality but not mechanics)
A D6 Martial Sling. (actually you can get pretty insane with slings should you mess with two handed/heavy/loading properties. This might also be the case for throwing, but I don't think throwing should really be compatible with two handed)

Or, on another front;
A versatile morningstar that costs and weighs a little more.
A reach piercing d10 polearm that weighs and costs as much as a halberd, rather than a 'pike'. Arguably, the lance as we know it is a heavy lance, and a halberd-clone that can be used one handed on a mount could be a medium lance... perhaps.
A Reach polearm that does bludgeoning damage.

[CTurbo]

I've always been a big fan of the Morningstar so I have a standing house rule that the regular Morningstar does 1d4 piercing and 1d4 bludgeoning damage. I also allow a Great Morningstar that uses the same stats as the Maul and does 1d6 piercing and 1d6 bludgeoning damage.

I have no issue allowing the Warpick to have the versatile property or even allowing a larger Warpick that uses the same stats as the Greataxe.

I allow the spiked chain with stats directly out of 4e, but on a crit miss you have a 50% chance of damaging yourself.

[Petrocorus]

I allow the spiked chain with stats directly out of 4e, but on a crit miss you have a 50% chance of damaging yourself.

I like this version of the spiked chain (https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/races/1489-shadar-kai).