New Weapons for 5e [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

malachi

2019-08-22, 01:00 PM

Without any judgment on a specific weapon. I do wholeheartedly wish they would establish weapons with minor secondary abilities or secondary abilities that only work with a feat. Whip being able to grapple with a feat similar to Tavern Brawler feat. Maybe axes able to Sunder with a feat.

I would just like some mechanical differences between the weapons.

What about a change to the Weapon Master feat?

Pick 4 weapons. If you pick a weapon you are not proficient with, you gain proficiency with that weapon. Additionally, you gain the following abilities when you yield a weapon selected with this feat (or perhaps with weapons you are proficient with):
- While wielding a whip, you may attempt to grapple or knock prone creatures who are in range of your weapon. An opponent grappled in this manner may only move closer to you.
- While wielding a polearm, you may attempt to grapple a creature in range.
- [things pulled from the various weapon-specific feats in UA articles]
- [other things]
- [MORE other things]

You could even potentially pull in parts of GWM / SHarpshooter / PAM (but probably pulling in the entirety of each feat would be bonkers). Allowing one feat to give GWM and Sharpshooter seems like it'd only benefit characters using both STR and DEX for switch hitting, and would be an excuse to weaken both feats (either remove the -5/+10 or the ancillary effects).

Misterwhisper

2019-08-22, 02:32 PM

Knuckledusters:

Simple weapon
1d4 bludgeoning damage
1/2 lb.
Light and unarmed.

Unarmed trait allows this weapon to modify the damage of unarmed strikes but are still considered unarmed.

Parrying dagger:

Martial weapon
1d4 piercing
1 lb
Light and parry

Parry trait allows this weapon to be used in the off hand even if the main hand weapon is not light. While wielding this. Weapon you gain a +1 ac.

3 section staff

Martial weapon
1d6 versatile 1d10 bludgeoning
2 lbs
Versatile and special.

This weapon may be used as two separate light weapon that allows for the use of a bonus action attack for 1d6 damage. Or the weapon can be used as a 1d10 two handed weapon with the reach property.

Correct Warhammer

Martial weapon
1d8 bludgeoning or piercing
2lbs

alchahest

2019-08-22, 02:32 PM

how about a martial spear, take long sword stats > replace "Slashing" with "piercing" and all your spartan fantasies can finally come true

KorvinStarmast

2019-08-22, 02:45 PM

how about a martial spear, take long sword stats > replace "Slashing" with "piercing" and all your spartan fantasies can finally come true Not a bad idea.

alchahest

2019-08-22, 02:47 PM

oh, and make it count for polearm master, I realised that this would be a new entry and thus not covered by the current feat or errata

Trickery

2019-08-22, 02:55 PM

Um. Is it just me, or could I take GWM and Dual Wielder and make dual-wielding power attacks with these things? Or just GWM and shield?

That's probably not good.

Want to address this. It's not good in the sense that it makes other weapons inferior for strength-based TWF on an optimized character. It's fine in the sense that it would result in damage comparable to PAM + GWM, trading +1 AC for reach.

This has been the age-old problem with TWF in 5e. Everyone knows it's bad, but people freak out if you try to change it OR if something comes out that's better. You can't win.

Here's one of mine:
Katar (or claws)
Special: these weapons modify unarmed strikes made with your hands. Unarmed strikes made with your hands deal slashing or piercing damage (your choice) and you may change their damage die to 1d6.

RickAllison

2019-08-22, 02:58 PM

They also added the hooked short spear and the repeating crossbow in Out of the Abyss, and we can reverse-engineer a boomerang off the magic item from Elemental Evil, but weapons are certainly limited.

Beleriphon

2019-08-22, 03:01 PM

I think the issue with the weapons is that they're supposed to represent very broad categories as they are. The longsword is any one handed sword that can also be used with two hands, the short sword is any relatively short stabbing weapon, the club is any smallish easy to use weapon that bashes heads in (nunchucks are an alternate example).

Adding a bunch of special rules for every possible type of named sword leads to bec-de-corbin-guisarme being different than a bill-guisarme which is different than the halberd-corbin-de-guisarme-bohemiam-ear-spoon. The game needs basically four pole arms: halberd (its an axe and a spear at the same time), pole axe, pole hammer, and spear. Even at that I can see the pole <weapon> being one stat line that does either bash, piercing or slashing damage (or two of the three) and the spear can be thrown. Even the much maligned pike (in 5E rules) is basically a spear on a pole!

D&D only needs functionally three kinds of swords: short stabbing swords, longer cut and thrust swords (usable in one or two hands), longest two-hands required swords. I'm not sure what kind of difference in D&D's system you expect to see between a zweihander, a claymore, a nodachi, a miao dao, or anything else that must have two hands to wield and is otherwise a sword (ie not a sword on a long stick a la the naginata).

If we want to have a different kinds of swords to differentiate between a falchion and a longsword I'm going to want my bearded ax to be different then a parashu. I certainly don't want it to be the same as my tabar, or my ono. :smallbiggrin:

KorvinStarmast

2019-08-22, 03:08 PM

oh, and make it count for polearm master, I realised that this would be a new entry and thus not covered by the current feat or errata If you read the 2018 errata for the PHB, you will find that the spear (all spears) was added to polearm mastery. :)

Trickery

2019-08-22, 03:08 PM

I think the issue with the weapons is that they're supposed to represent very broad categories as they are. The longsword is any one handed sword that can also be used with two hands, the short sword is any relatively short stabbing weapon, the club is any smallish easy to use weapon that bashes heads in (nunchucks are an alternate example).

Adding a bunch of special rules for every possible type of named sword leads to bec-de-corbin-guisarme being different than a bill-guisarme which is different than the halberd-corbin-de-guisarme-bohemiam-ear-spoon. The game needs basically four pole arms: halberd (its an axe and a spear at the same time), pole axe, pole hammer, and spear. Even at that I can see the pole <weapon> being one stat line that does either bash, piercing or slashing damage (or two of the three) and the spear can be thrown. Even the much maligned pike (in 5E rules) is basically a spear on a pole!

The bigger issue with the existing weapons is that they aren't interesting. There are a few interesting ones like the Lance or Hand Crossbow that have interesting features or feat support. But most of them are boring and mechanically crappy. The recent double scimitar shined a light on this issue by being an interesting and unique weapon.

DracoKnight

2019-08-22, 03:42 PM

GandalfTheWhite

2019-08-22, 05:10 PM

I want to preface this with the fact that I mean no offense: I did not ask y'all for feedback on the falchion. This wasn't a PEACH thread in Homebrew. This is a thread for sharing the weapons that have worked for your games. It's okay for y'all to think that maybe my version of the Falchion wouldn't work in your game. It works for mine.

Want to address this. It's not good in the sense that it makes other weapons inferior for strength-based TWF on an optimized character. It's fine in the sense that it would result in damage comparable to PAM + GWM, trading +1 AC for reach.

This has been the age-old problem with TWF in 5e. Everyone knows it's bad, but people freak out if you try to change it OR if something comes out that's better. You can't win.

It's good to know that it's still mostly in line with the options when feats get involved. I don't use feats in my game, so I wouldn't have known about how it would work in a game with feats.

JackPhoenix

2019-08-22, 05:24 PM

Kane0

2019-08-22, 05:30 PM

Not a fan of the double scimitar. Give me a gyrspike instead

suplee215

2019-08-22, 05:35 PM

I personally feel like any attempt to make the weapons more complicated is better served with magic items. I have never played older editions but every attempt I see to add more weapons almost always ends up with a mechanical advantage when a refluff of one of the weapons will do. In most cases. I did make 1 weapon that was slightly different. Even when making a weapon as exotic as a chakram in my game I just ruled it as a hand axe with martial property and the throwing distance of a spear.

LudicSavant

2019-08-22, 05:41 PM

Weapon: Falchion
Proficiency: Martial
Damage: 2d4
Weight: 4.5
Cost: 25gp
Properties: Heavy, Versatile (2d6)

Sound off with the weapons y'all have added to the game!

It's just better than a longsword and a greatsword in basically every way.

Trickery

2019-08-22, 05:44 PM

I wonder how many people would consider it "interesting" and "unique", if it wasn't overpowered compared to any other option, especially with the feat.

There are a couple of threads on that. In short, the weapon does high damage per attack without feats, but falls behind the damage of GWM, PAM GWM, or CBE SS (can catch up to CBE SS if you have extra opportunity attacks, ex: Sentinel). However, it allows a Dex build to do competitive melee damage and offers an AC boost (via the feat) to allow a Dex build to catch up to full plate AC.

So it's actually fine. People think it's overpowered because it's better than dual wielding, which is kind of like saying a caster is too good if they have more spells known than a Sorcerer.

Kane0

2019-08-22, 05:50 PM

So it's actually fine. People think it's overpowered because it's better than dual wielding

Which depending on your point of view could be a problem with the weapon, the way TWF works, neither or both.

JackPhoenix

2019-08-22, 05:51 PM

Longspear
Simple
2 gp
1d6 piercing
4 lb
reach, versatile (1d8)

GlenSmash!

2019-08-22, 06:34 PM

There are a couple of threads on that. In short, the weapon does high damage per attack without feats, but falls behind the damage of GWM, PAM GWM, or CBE SS (can catch up to CBE SS if you have extra opportunity attacks, ex: Sentinel). However, it allows a Dex build to do competitive melee damage and offers an AC boost (via the feat) to allow a Dex build to catch up to full plate AC.

And this is why I dislike it. Dex is supposed to be behind in AC on account of the fact that it's already ahead in Initiative, more common and damaging Saving throw type, and way more Skill proficiencies.

Oh and it was already ahead in switch hitting between Ranged and Melee. A Ranged based character is decent in melee just by picking up a rapier (much less the DBS) while the same is not true of a Strength character hucking javelins.

Dex didn't need the boost. Not in the slightest.

Trickery

2019-08-22, 06:50 PM

Galithar

2019-08-22, 07:21 PM

And this is why I dislike it. Dex is supposed to be behind in AC on account of the fact that it's already ahead in Initiative, more common and damaging Saving throw type, and way more Skill proficiencies.

Oh and it was already ahead in switch hitting between Ranged and Melee. A Ranged based character is decent in melee just by picking up a rapier (much less the DBS) while the same is not true of a Strength character hucking javelins.

Dex didn't need the boost. Not in the slightest.

Actually the same is true of a strength character throwing a javelin.

A Javelin is a simple melee weapon with the thrown property per the weapon table on of 149 of the PHB. As a melee weapon attack rolls are made with strength. The thrown property doesn't change the ability used for attack rolls, and a Javelin isn't a finesse weapon. Therefore ALL thrown javelins use Str mod + proficiency (assuming you are proficient of course) for the attack roll and 1d6 + Str mod piercing damage on a hit.

How is that not the same as a Dex character picking up a rapier?

Kane0

2019-08-22, 07:37 PM

Primarily the range, but also thrown weapons use up item interactions unlike ammunition weapons.

alchahest

2019-08-23, 12:11 PM

Longspear
Simple
2 gp
1d6 piercing
4 lb
reach, versatile (1d8)

this does more damage than a whip, while being simple instead of martial. and it's versatile instead of finesse. This is too much for a simple weapon.

Waterdeep Merch

2019-08-23, 01:00 PM

I posted my updated weapons system earlier this year here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23886616&postcount=13). I mostly added a bunch of throwing weapons and redesigned a lot of the class features and feats that interact with weaponry to better balance them and make certain styles more viable.

Trickery

2019-08-23, 01:36 PM

this does more damage than a whip, while being simple instead of martial. and it's versatile instead of finesse. This is too much for a simple weapon.

Longspear would be fine if it was martial, on the grounds that the whip is undertuned.

alchahest

2019-08-23, 02:05 PM

while I agree it could be martial, I am still leery of having a one-handed reach weapon (martial or not) that does decent damage. maybe if Reach only applies when used two handed?

Waterdeep Merch

2019-08-23, 03:14 PM

while I agree it could be martial, I am still leery of having a one-handed reach weapon (martial or not) that does decent damage. maybe if Reach only applies when used two handed?

Could give disadvantage to attacking enemies within 5 feet of you. Ever try using a large pole against something right in front of you? Ever try to do it with only one hand?

Trickery

2019-08-23, 03:14 PM

while I agree it could be martial, I am still leery of having a one-handed reach weapon (martial or not) that does decent damage. maybe if Reach only applies when used two handed?

I don't think we need to worry about it too much. Kensei can already use a whip and change its die to MA die, and there's also the spell sniper + booming blade trick.

A lot of times when something new comes along, such as a new combination of features, people are skeptical about it. And that's understandable. But this is D&D, not a video game, and DMs can be expected to houserule anything causing problems at their tables. I don't think we need to be too conservative with weapon design.

JackPhoenix

2019-08-23, 03:34 PM

this does more damage than a whip, while being simple instead of martial. and it's versatile instead of finesse. This is too much for a simple weapon.

It's literaly spear with reach instead of thrown.

RickAllison

2019-08-23, 03:47 PM

It's literaly spear with reach instead of thrown.

I mean, generally reach is always great while thrown is more of a gimmick unless it’s something you can carry in bulk.

JackPhoenix

2019-08-23, 06:34 PM

I mean, generally reach is always great while thrown is more of a gimmick unless it’s something you can carry in bulk.

Reach isn't "always great". It is a mixed bag... it actually lowers your ability to control opponent's movement through Opportunity Attacks, as they now have larger space to move around you where they don't provoke.

Nagog

2019-08-23, 07:01 PM

OP. If this choice renders all other choices less powerful/less useful, you have OP'd the weapon.
Recommendation. 1d10 versatile not 2d6, otherwise, no one ever chooses a 2H sword.

How is this dissimilar to the differences between a short sword and a scimitar? Scimitar costs more and deals slashing damage, but that's the only real difference. Therefore, scimitars are mechanically obsolete due to higher GP price. Also to be noted: 2d6 has a much higher likelyhood to deal adv. damage (6) than 1d10 (or 1d12 for that matter) due to higher number of dice. So while you potentially can deal more damage with 2d6 than you can with 1d10, the statistical odds of achieving that are low enough that the change is for the most part, negligible.

What about a change to the Weapon Master feat?

Pick 4 weapons. If you pick a weapon you are not proficient with, you gain proficiency with that weapon. Additionally, you gain the following abilities when you yield a weapon selected with this feat (or perhaps with weapons you are proficient with):
- While wielding a whip, you may attempt to grapple or knock prone creatures who are in range of your weapon. An opponent grappled in this manner may only move closer to you.
- While wielding a polearm, you may attempt to grapple a creature in range.
- [things pulled from the various weapon-specific feats in UA articles]
- [other things]
- [MORE other things]

You could even potentially pull in parts of GWM / SHarpshooter / PAM (but probably pulling in the entirety of each feat would be bonkers). Allowing one feat to give GWM and Sharpshooter seems like it'd only benefit characters using both STR and DEX for switch hitting, and would be an excuse to weaken both feats (either remove the -5/+10 or the ancillary effects).

How would one grapple with a polearm? Also, that sounds like a buffed Sentinel/Polearm Master combo, so I'd look into reworking it to stand out a bit more from the go-to combo. Perhaps being able to swing it across multiple squares to gain momentum, which would apply a (situational) damage bonus if the space next to you is open? Otherwise, here are a few other fun potential weapon uses:

Rebounding Hammer: You may throw a hammer weapon with a range of 10 feet. If it hits, it rebounds back towards you and you may use your bonus action to catch it. If it misses, it remains on the ground in the space of your target.

Grounded Staff: When wielding a quarterstaff or other polearm, you may sacrifice one of your attacks to firmly plant one end of the staff into the ground. Until the start of your next turn, you impose disadvantage on the next attack against you, as your staff becomes a solid barrier to interpose between you and your attacker

Deft Hands: You become proficient in throwing mundane weapons. When throwing a non-ranged melee weapon, the weapon deals it's normal damage, not including any modifiers to the weapon or your usual thrown attacks. The range of such a thrown weapon is 20 feet.

I think the issue with the weapons is that they're supposed to represent very broad categories as they are. The longsword is any one handed sword that can also be used with two hands, the short sword is any relatively short stabbing weapon, the club is any smallish easy to use weapon that bashes heads in (nunchucks are an alternate example).

Adding a bunch of special rules for every possible type of named sword leads to bec-de-corbin-guisarme being different than a bill-guisarme which is different than the halberd-corbin-de-guisarme-bohemiam-ear-spoon. The game needs basically four pole arms: halberd (its an axe and a spear at the same time), pole axe, pole hammer, and spear. Even at that I can see the pole <weapon> being one stat line that does either bash, piercing or slashing damage (or two of the three) and the spear can be thrown. Even the much maligned pike (in 5E rules) is basically a spear on a pole!

D&D only needs functionally three kinds of swords: short stabbing swords, longer cut and thrust swords (usable in one or two hands), longest two-hands required swords. I'm not sure what kind of difference in D&D's system you expect to see between a zweihander, a claymore, a nodachi, a miao dao, or anything else that must have two hands to wield and is otherwise a sword (ie not a sword on a long stick a la the naginata).

If we want to have a different kinds of swords to differentiate between a falchion and a longsword I'm going to want my bearded ax to be different then a parashu. I certainly don't want it to be the same as my tabar, or my ono. :smallbiggrin:

I think the purpose is moreso for mechanically different weapons, similar to spells that are thematically the same but mechanically different (Fire Bolt and Eldritch Blast, Delayed Fireball and Fireball, etc.). Having different options on the form and function of your weapon provides a lot more opportunity to mechanically customize a martial character to fit a role/aesthetic/capacity without relying on the DM providing various magic items or specifically themed weapons.

opaopajr

2019-08-24, 01:39 AM

This is a great topic!

Remember, so much of RPGs is throwing stuff out there, *maybe* playtesting it (thankfully 5e got some), and hoping it works for people. So don't feel beholden to read things like holy writ. :smallwink: Go have fun, make new stuff!

For me, first big thing is mix up B,P,S (bludgeon, slash, pierce) damage types, such as give some weapons two or more damage types. Example, a broadsword has been well documented as a great pierce and bludgeon weapon, as well as typical slash weapon.

Adding new properties is also a great idea. Humans on Earth have used netting and barbs to subdue prey -- on air, sea, and land, that would normally move out of range! -- for far longer than recorded history. Why is it absent in D&D, well, no one clamors for it! :smalltongue: If a setting has flying monsters, let alone flying spellcasters, that means humans would have adapted netting and barbs to remove that advantage ASAP -- just like we did to hunt prey either several tons heavier than us in the water, or far tinier and maneuverable than us in the air.

Here is my addition:

Blowgun: special (uses CON instead of DEX), [remove loading property]

Blowgun Needle: -- dmg. P. special (can hold poison/medicine dosage)
Blowgun Dart: 1d3 (+CON) dmg. P.
Blowgun Pellet: 1d2 (+CON) dmg. B.

JackPhoenix

2019-08-24, 06:09 AM

Adding new properties is also a great idea. Humans on Earth have used netting and barbs to subdue prey -- on air, sea, and land, that would normally move out of range! -- for far longer than recorded history. Why is it absent in D&D, well, no one clamors for it! :smalltongue: If a setting has flying monsters, let alone flying spellcasters, that means humans would have adapted netting and barbs to remove that advantage ASAP -- just like we did to hunt prey either several tons heavier than us in the water, or far tinier and maneuverable than us in the air.

You mean like the net? From the PHB?

opaopajr

2019-08-24, 08:54 AM

Nagog

2019-08-24, 09:27 AM

You mean like the net? From the PHB?

Net from PHB is a start! Rather clunky and uncompetitive in my experience, but a start! Nets came in a variety of sizes, employment styles, and were way more useful than personal flavor for "5e as Spec Ops Tactics." In fact, it is a great example on how the PHB alone is insufficient for all settings creativity! :smallsmile:

We could be, and should be!, making our own worlds with its own wonderous gear! :smallwink:

The Net from the PHB is far too useless. As a start to begin working with, pretty much everything will need tweaking, from the pitifully low DC10 Str check to remove it, to the ease of which it's destroyed. Picking up a net as a level 1 fighter is a bad option, and only gets worse over time. Personally I'd scrap the PHB net altogether and simplify it by just having it allow a grapple check to be made at a range of 15 feet. Str based attack roll, if it hits, you can roll to grapple rather than dealing damage. Perhaps add a mechanic to tie up the net and leave the creature inside grappled while you go do something else.

JackPhoenix

2019-08-24, 09:42 AM

Net from PHB is a start! Rather clunky and uncompetitive in my experience, but a start! Nets came in a variety of sizes, employment styles, and were way more useful than personal flavor for "5e as Spec Ops Tactics." In fact, it is a great example on how the PHB alone is insufficient for all settings creativity! :smallsmile:

We could be, and should be!, making our own worlds with its own wonderous gear! :smallwink:

No, nets are completely useless in battle. PHB depicts that well.

NNescio

2019-08-24, 09:55 AM

How is this dissimilar to the differences between a short sword and a scimitar? Scimitar costs more and deals slashing damage, but that's the only real difference. Therefore, scimitars are mechanically obsolete due to higher GP price.
Druids get scimitars and dual-wielding them is decent-ish at Level 1, especially if Shillelagh is not taken. Later on it becomes a backup weapon. They fill a certain niche. Not everything has to be competitive at all levels.

Also to be noted: 2d6 has a much higher likelyhood to deal adv. damage (6) than 1d10 (or 1d12 for that matter) due to higher number of dice. So while you potentially can deal more damage with 2d6 than you can with 1d10, the statistical odds of achieving that are low enough that the change is for the most part, negligible.

I don't get what you are trying to mean with "adv. damage". In any case, 2d6 has an average (expected value) of 7, while 1d10 has an average value of 5.5. +1.5 damage is far from statistically negligible.

The falchion is usually a one-hand weapon, being conceptually similar to a saber or machete (or the Chinese dao). Having it deal comparable damage to a greatsword when two-handing strains verisimilitude. Balance-wise, having it being superior to a greatsword in every way also feels... wrong-ish.

Not everything should be balanced assuming optimized GWM + PAM at all times.

No, nets are completely useless in battle. PHB depicts that well.

But what if I wanted to roleplay a retiarius? [/sadface]

Nagog

2019-08-24, 10:54 AM

Druids get scimitars and dual-wielding them is decent-ish at Level 1, especially if Shillelagh is not taken. Later on it becomes a backup weapon. They fill a certain niche. Not everything has to be competitive at all levels.

So if 1 class's proficiency in one and not the other is enough of a reason to keep both, make it so Barbarians aren't proficient with it. Boom, now it's unique enough to fill it's own role.

I don't get what you are trying to mean with "adv. damage". In any case, 2d6 has an average (expected value) of 7, while 1d10 has an average value of 5.5. +1.5 damage is far from statistically negligible.

Considering how quickly +1 weapons are typically dropped, 1-1.5 damage is very negligable. Unless you're playing with a hard-A DM who doesn't give any magic items, this weapon is balanced just fine. You won't be picking it up at level 1, and even if you did, you'd catch up to it's scaling within a level or two.

The falchion is usually a one-hand weapon, being conceptually similar to a saber or machete (or the Chinese dao). Having it deal comparable damage to a greatsword when two-handing strains verisimilitude. Balance-wise, having it being superior to a greatsword in every way also feels... wrong-ish.

A Quarterstaff is superior to a mace, a shortbow is better than a sling, and a dagger is better than a club. If having one weapon outclass another were not allowed, we'd have about 6 total weapons in D&D. Also keep note of how no classes will ever start with this weapon, it would have to be something they find/buy/work with their DM to start with. Considering things like Flame Tongues exist, this weapon is in no way unbalanced, particularly when you compare it to things like Flame Blade and Shadow Blade, available to casters (Not even martial classes) at level 4.

Not everything should be balanced assuming optimized GWM + PAM at all times.

I'm not assuming any build or feats at all. I'm comparing it to regular item/weapon/damage progression, and it checks out.

NNescio

2019-08-24, 11:24 AM

Considering how quickly +1 weapons are typically dropped, 1-1.5 damage is very negligable. Unless you're playing with a hard-A DM who doesn't give any magic items, this weapon is balanced just fine. You won't be picking it up at level 1, and even if you did, you'd catch up to it's scaling within a level or two.
Might as well bump the Greatsword to 2d8. And bump all other weapon dice up a category. As well as all cantrips. 1-1.5 damage is very negligible, right? Or to flip it around, if it's negligible then not adding it to the hypothetical weapon is fine too, right?

A Quarterstaff is superior to a mace,
Backup bludgeoning weapon. Light and not bulky, unlike staves.

a shortbow is better than a sling,
Ranged bludgeoning weapon. Useful against skeletons. Also some classes are proficient in slings but not shortbows (again, Druid).

and a dagger is better than a club.
Clubs are cheap (and can be improvised easily, which is why most improvised weapons take its stats). Also might not be viewed as a weapon in places that ban weapons. This all make it more of a last resort emergency weapon, or something the DM arms poorly-equipped NPCs with. (This also adds verisimilitude. That's part of the reason why the Commoner is armed with a club.)

If having one weapon outclass another were not allowed, we'd have about 6 total weapons in D&D. Also keep note of how no classes will ever start with this weapon, it would have to be something they find/buy/work with their DM to start with.
Huh, okay then. Exotic weapon proficiency, need to find an NPC and maybe complete a sidequest to get trained in. Like guns. Falchion still sounds kinda off though (it's usually a one-handed saber-like weapon, never mind what Fire Emblem thinks). Maybe call it an Elven Thinblade or similar. So it's an exotic weapon that requires specialized training to use effectively, justifying its superiority over the Greatsword (and from a simulationism point of view explains why not all NPCs decide to run around with it.)

Or maybe just make it a magic item (with a magically keen edge that comes as part of the package) that is supposed to be rare and not easily available to NPCs. I'm fine with PCs having stuff... just not anything that can be freely given to NPCs, since it has implications for the setting (and can be made concrete if the PCs decide to "arm the mob or local guards" or "run arms to mercenaries").

Considering things like Flame Tongues exist, this weapon is in no way unbalanced, particularly when you compare it to things like Flame Blade and Shadow Blade, available to casters (Not even martial classes) at level 4.

One part being unbalanced doesn't justify unbalancing everything else. Also those stuff have opportunity costs.

I'm not assuming any build or feats at all. I'm comparing it to regular item/weapon/damage progression, and it checks out.

If you just let the TWF match a 2H user damage for free, at no opportunity costs, that means TWF now becomes OP (and the new metagame) since they get better initiative and AC (at higher levels), along with better ranged weapons.

No free lunch. Things should have an opportunity cost.

Nagog

2019-08-24, 11:50 AM

Might as well bump the Greatsword to 2d8. And bump all other weapon dice up a category. As well as negligible. 1-1.5 damage is very negligible, right? Or to flip it around, if it's negligible then not adding it as fine too, right?

Here's the difference: Starting with a 2d8 great sword vs. finding one adventuring. You keep screaming that there isn't an opportunity cost and that this 1.5 damage will break the game and that we shouldn't do stuff to weapons because 1.5 damage is far too much to add to the range of damage a martial player is capable of. If you feel 1.5 damage is too much, don't allow it in your games. Boom, simple as that. I think it's fine, OP think's its fine, so in our games we'll allow it. If you feel we're wrong or stupid for doing so, deal with it.

Backup bludgeoning weapon. Light and not bulky, unlike staves.
Ranged bludgeoning weapon. Useful against skeletons. Also some classes are proficient in slings but not shortbows (again, Druid).
Clubs are cheap (and can be improvised easily, which is why most improvised weapons take its stats), making it more of a last resort emergency weapon, or something the DM arms poorly-equipped NPCs with.

Oh dang, you're right! these have different flavor, so they aren't comparable. If only OP or I had addressed having these weapons having different flavor or different uses, we'd have something to talk about. Perhaps one of us should make a thread about new weapons that have different flavor and different uses?

Huh, okay then. Exotic weapon proficiency, need to find an NPC and maybe complete a sidequest to get trained in. Like guns. Falchion still sounds kinda off though (it's usually a one-handed saber-like weapon). Maybe call it an Elven Thinblade or similar. So it's an exotic weapon that requires specialized training to use effectively, justifying its superiority over the Greatsword (and from a simulationism point of view explains why not all NPCs decide to run around with it.)

Or maybe just make it a magic item (with a magically keen edge that comes as part of the package) that is supposed to be rare and not easily available to NPCs. I'm fine with PCs having stuff... just not anything that can be freely given to NPCs, since it has implications for the setting (and can be made concrete if the PCs decide to "arm the mob or local guards").
[/QUOTE]

Like I said, have them find it while adventuring. if you feel having proficiency in a single weapon (rather than the broad range of firearms) and a sidequest is necessary for a PC to get 1.5 more damage per swing, go ahead and offer it to players. 99% of them will turn it down and use the time and resources they would have spent doing that to go buy a +2 weapon and be done with it.

One part being unbalanced doesn't justify unbalancing everything else. Also those stuff have opportunity costs.

It's not unbalanced at all. 1.5 damage, as I've said multiple times now, is nothing, not to mention that it's an average, not guaranteed. A +1 or +2 weapon will have a higher damage output because that is guaranteed damage. As, also stated multiple times, it has an opportunity cost of locating it, buying it, or otherwise coming across such a weapon.

If you just let the TWF match a 2H user damage for free, at no opportunity costs, that means TWF now becomes OP (and the new metagame) since they get better initiative and AC (at higher levels), along with better ranged weapons.
No free lunch. Things should have an opportunity cost.

If your DM allows you to just find 2 of these weapons, yeah then TWF is better than 2H. But the same also applies for any sort of magic weapon out there. Like, all of them. Not only that, but this is *not* a magic weapon, therefore it does not overcome resistances or immunities, and therefore is statistically weaker than said weapons. So no sh!t TWF is better than 2H if the TWF has 2 magic weapons and the 2H has run of the mill stuff.
Again, I've stated the opportunity cost. If you feel that cost should be higher because Io forbid the Fighter have 1.5 more damage per round, then go ahead and make it higher for your game, if you decide to use this at all.

NNescio

2019-08-24, 12:17 PM

Here's the difference: Starting with a 2d8 great sword vs. finding one adventuring. You keep screaming that there isn't an opportunity cost and that this 1.5 damage will break the game and that we shouldn't do stuff to weapons because 1.5 damage is far too much to add to the range of damage a martial player is capable of. If you feel 1.5 damage is too much, don't allow it in your games. Boom, simple as that. I think it's fine, OP think's its fine, so in our games we'll allow it. If you feel we're wrong or stupid for doing so, deal with it.

I'm stating how I would handle it. As well as any issues that could potentially pop up, which may be useful for other people who see your or OP's suggestions. Like you, I have a right to state my opinions here as well. I am doing so politely, in an entirely civil manner. I did not scream.

This isn't an echo chamber where only supportive, non-critique comments have the right to exist.

Like I said, have them find it while adventuring. if you feel having proficiency in a single weapon (rather than the broad range of firearms) and a sidequest is necessary for a PC to get 1.5 more damage per swing, go ahead and offer it to players. 99% of them will turn it down and use the time and resources they would have spent doing that to go buy a +2 weapon and be done with it.

Training can be done during downtime (actually that's the only RAW way to do it). Sidequests can be made a group activity, or be kept short and quickly finished while waiting for the other players to arrive.

(Not everyone plays by AL rules where things have lopsided costs and even downtime becomes a valuable resource to be rationed out.)

Oh dang, you're right! these have different flavor, so they aren't comparable. If only OP or I had addressed having these weapons having different flavor or different uses, we'd have something to talk about. Perhaps one of us should make a thread about new weapons that have different flavor and different uses?

These so-called "flavor functions" become valuable in certain campaigns (intrigue, stealth, diplomacy, etc.). Not everyone plays combat-heavy "Combat as Sport" sessions where the only thing that matters about equipment is what you write on your inventory sheet. And even pure fluff is relevant to this thread, nonetheless, because it describes how the weapon fits within the setting.

It's not unbalanced at all. 1.5 damage, as I've said multiple times now, is nothing, not to mention that it's an average, not guaranteed.

Like I said, if it's nothing, then there's no need to add it, right? Clearly you think it must be worth something.

A +1 or +2 weapon will have a higher damage output because that is guaranteed damage.

Output is calculated with expected value (greater variance is slightly undesirable, but this sort of made up by the increased crit damage anyway). Also that +1 or +2 weapon can be a +1 or +2 Falchion.

As, also stated multiple times, it has an opportunity cost of locating it, buying it, or otherwise coming across such a weapon.

I don't recall reading that part. At least not in this thread.

Though reading between the lines this time maybe I can sort of conjecture how you might balance it in your games if you cost it like a magic weapon (slightly below, I would say) and add the enchantment cost on top of it. In which case, yes, it is a valid opportunity cost, and valid way of balancing it.

If your DM allows you to just find 2 of these weapons, yeah then TWF is better than 2H. But the same also applies for any sort of magic weapon out there. Like, all of them. Not only that, but this is *not* a magic weapon, therefore it does not overcome resistances or immunities, and therefore is statistically weaker than said weapons. So no sh!t TWF is better than 2H if the TWF has 2 magic weapons and the 2H has run of the mill stuff.
Again, I've stated the opportunity cost. If you feel that cost should be higher because Io forbid the Fighter have 1.5 more damage per round, then go ahead and make it higher for your game, if you decide to use this at all.

1.5 more damage per attack. That stacks with magic weapon bonuses (you can't not let the player have an enchanted one or enchant an existing one, if you've already established it as a weapon type, no? Though I concede it would be relatively balanced if there is a significant added gold cost for this unique item but other magic items are made cheaply available like AL pricing). That get bumped up more in crits, and can be used with Booming Blade et al. (so casters who decide to gish [including martials with a caster archetype] also benefit).

I mean, fundamentally it doesn't break things too far for a pure TWF fighter, especially with more damaging options and combos being introduced with splatbook creep over time... but this can potentially synergize with those other options (Hexblade with the Falchion, hmm?), breaking balance even further.

JackPhoenix

2019-08-24, 12:22 PM

Snip

Falchion isn't some super-exotic weapon you'll have to take an epic quest to find. Any smith capable of forging a sword would be able to make one. Especially if scimitars are available... falchion and scimitar is essentially the same weapon. The difference is that one is European and the other middle-eastern.

Nagog

2019-08-24, 01:18 PM

I'm stating how I would handle it. As well as any issues that could potentially pop up, which may be useful for other people who see your or OP's suggestions. Like you, I have a right to state my opinions here as well. I am doing so politely, in an entirely civil manner. I did not scream.

My apologies for overreacting. I've seen far too many ideas on this forum shot down by folks who believe RAW is the only way to play and homebrew/house rules are evil, that when people start detracting from someone's idea, I tend to get all up in arms about it.

This isn't an echo chamber where only supportive, non-critique comments have the right to exist.

While true, the community as a whole isn't benefited by those who only tear down. Constructive criticism is always the way to go. I recognize you have been constructive in your criticism, but not everybody is so kind.

Training can be done during downtime (actually that's the only RAW way to do it). Sidequests can be made a group activity, or be kept short and quickly finished while waiting for the other players to arrive.
(Not everyone plays by AL rules where things have lopsided costs and even downtime becomes a valuable resource to be rationed out.)

If the training is done out of session, what is the opportunity cost for the player?

These so-called "flavor functions" become valuable in certain campaigns (intrigue, stealth, diplomacy, etc.). Not everyone plays combat-heavy "Combat as Sport" sessions where the only thing that matters about equipment is what you write on your inventory sheet. And even pure fluff is relevant to this thread, nonetheless, because it describes how the weapon fits within the setting.

So do the differences you posted. Sure my sling does the same damage as a dart, but a dart is much easier to conceal, but a sling can be used to throw other small items rather than the usual stone. So yes, they have their uses and different functions that don't translate into stats and the like very well, but so do swords. A shorter, heavier sword with the weight towards the hilt is almost always used defensively, as the balance near the hand allows for better maneuverability and the heavier weight provides more stopping power Weight towards the end of the blade provides more power in a swing at the cost of less accuracy. A light, thin sword is typically used for dueling, where stopping a heavy, forceful blow is not an issue. A flamberge is a two-handed weapon with a wavy blade built to cut the hafts of various polearms. None of these facts are represented by 5e stats. Some of them, like a defensive sword, would make great additions to the game to diversify martial fighting and make weapon choice actually matter beyond damage dice. This example in question, the Falchion, is a versatile weapon diversified from the longsword by it's curved design and upgraded damage. Not the most imaginative of upgrades, but still adds diversity to the available weapons.

Like I said, if it's nothing, then there's no need to add it, right? Clearly you think it must be worth something.

It's worth something because it's something else. Something new, something different. If I wanted the stats of a longsword, I'd reskin a longsword. But I don't, because every fighter I've ever played used the stats of a Longsword. It's old, it's gotten boring. Some variety in both style and function is what we need and what we're here to discuss.

Output is calculated with expected value (greater variance is slightly undesirable, but this sort of made up by the increased crit damage anyway). Also that +1 or +2 weapon can be a +1 or +2 Falchion.

Could be, although it would also be up to DM digression to give such an enchanted item out.

I don't recall reading that part. At least not in this thread.
Though reading between the lines this time maybe I can sort of conjecture how you might balance it in your games if you cost it like a magic weapon (slightly below, I would say) and add the enchantment cost on top of it. In which case, yes, it is a valid opportunity cost, and valid way of balancing it.

I stated it wouldn't be available as starting equipment, as no class would have it available in their "Starting equipment" list. To be fair to all parties, opportunity cost is forever and always in the hands of the DM, so it could be skewed either way.

1.5 more damage per attack. That stacks with magic weapon bonuses (you can't not let the player have an enchanted one or enchant an existing one, if you've already established it as a weapon type, no? Though I concede it would be relatively balanced if there is a significant added gold cost for this unique item but other magic items are made cheaply available like AL pricing). That get bumped up more in crits, and can be used with Booming Blade et al. (so casters who decide to gish [including martials with a caster archetype] also benefit).

I mean, fundamentally it doesn't break things too far for a pure TWF fighter, especially with more damaging options and combos being introduced with splatbook creep over time... but this can potentially synergize with those other options (Hexblade with the Falchion, hmm?), breaking balance even further.

Of course the damage difference could be increased with various classes/combos, but so could anything else. Those are considered balanced because they're RAW, so as long as this weapon coincides with the other weapons of similar form/function, they'll be capable of the same combos.

Falchion isn't some super-exotic weapon you'll have to take an epic quest to find. Any smith capable of forging a sword would be able to make one. Especially if scimitars are available... falchion and scimitar is essentially the same weapon. The difference is that one is European and the other middle-eastern.

They'd be considered exotic in areas they aren't typically used, particularly because the local area uses scimitars instead. Similar to the way that a chain could be used as a weapon. Chain is common among all societies, but one that is made to be a weapon is much harder to come by, and would be considered Exotic.

DracoKnight

2019-08-24, 02:37 PM

I stated it wouldn't be available as starting equipment, as no class would have it available in their "Starting equipment" list. To be fair to all parties, opportunity cost is forever and always in the hands of the DM, so it could be skewed either way.

Technically, a lot of the classes just say "Pick any martial weapon," so if the OP made this a martial weapon (which I would assume it is, based on its properties and damage and cost, then actually it's on most of the equipment lists - or most of the equipment lists that care about weapons.

RickAllison

2019-08-24, 02:52 PM

Optimally, we would break down the weapons table and assign values according to usefulness. Like downgrading the damage die if it has this trait, upgrading if it has this one, etc. Trying to figure out a balancing point in weapons for 5e is rough because the weapons as they are are not balanced. The classic example of this is the trident vs. the spear where the spear is identical in combat, but has better cost, encumbrance, and is simple. It becomes a bear because our main criteria for something being OP is whether it is across-the-board superior to other options of its type.

That being said, the “falchion” presented seems like a great common magic item-that-isn’t-magical. It is absolutely OP as a weapon on the table because it is a greatsword which becomes a better longsword when one-handed, that’s compatible with GWM and whose only drawback seems to be that Small races can’t use it.

Nagog

2019-08-24, 03:29 PM

Technically, a lot of the classes just say "Pick any martial weapon," so if the OP made this a martial weapon (which I would assume it is, based on its properties and damage and cost, then actually it's on most of the equipment lists - or most of the equipment lists that care about weapons.

Classify it as Exotic, or as a loot item. Technically a Flame Tongue can be a simple/martial weapon, but it isn't listed because it's exotic. Whatever list that is, put it there.

GandalfTheWhite

2019-08-24, 03:30 PM

That being said, the “falchion” presented seems like a great common magic item-that-isn’t-magical. It is absolutely OP as a weapon on the table because it is a greatsword which becomes a better longsword when one-handed, that’s compatible with GWM and whose only drawback seems to be that Small races can’t use it.

JFC, I'm really starting to regret making this thread. Did nobody read what I said? I'm not looking for feedback/discussion on the Falchion, I was more fishing for other cool weapons that other forumites have designed. And it's not broken in my experience because I don't allow feats at my table. If it breaks at your table because you allow feats, I think that says more about the feat.

If you just let the TWF match a 2H user damage for free, at no opportunity costs, that means TWF now becomes OP (and the new metagame) since they get better initiative and AC (at higher levels), along with better ranged weapons.

No. Just. No. Two-weapon fighting only works with Light weapons. This is not Light. Also, even if I did allow feats at my table and someone could take Dual Wielder, they'd still be a Strength build, if they're wielding double-falchions. It's not a finesse weapon. Being a TWFer does not automatically make you a DEX build.

GandalfTheWhite

2019-08-24, 03:32 PM

Classify it as Exotic, or as a loot item. Technically a Flame Tongue can be a simple/martial weapon, but it isn't listed because it's exotic. Whatever list that is, put it there.

Nope. It's martial. You don't have to put it in your games if you think it's too good.

RickAllison

2019-08-24, 03:45 PM

People have suggested other weapons, but in a discussion of adding new weapons, it makes sense to critique those that show up.

Nagog

2019-08-24, 04:36 PM

Nope. It's martial. You don't have to put it in your games if you think it's too good.

I'll probably use it in my games, but not as starting equipment, as I do allow feats in my games. That, and when a character starts out with the best possible weapon, they miss out on the joy of finding a newer, better weapon than the one they had. :)

People have suggested other weapons, but in a discussion of adding new weapons, it makes sense to critique those that show up.

Agreed. I've liked many of the ideas listed in this thread and will probably implement a few into play and see how well they work.

Sception

2019-08-26, 12:05 AM

I was workshopping a spiked chain / kusari gama a while back. Martial, two handed, reach, finesse, d6 piercing. basically a whip but two handed in exchange for +1 size damage die.

Doesn't beat out halberd for best reach damage (especially since it wouldn't qualify for PAM), and doesn't beat out rapier for best finesse damage, so at first glance it seemed pretty ok in the balance department, maybe even a bit on the low end, but I wanted to keep the damage lower than that of the current top finesse weapon. However, while there is another finesse/reach weapon already, the combination of finesse & two handed is unprecedented in the core rules, and I hadn't yet taken the time to look through everything in the game for problematic consequences of that before I got distracted by other projects.

Willie the Duck

2019-08-26, 08:51 AM

The bigger issue with the existing weapons is that they aren't interesting. There are a few interesting ones like the Lance or Hand Crossbow that have interesting features or feat support. But most of them are boring and mechanically crappy. The recent double scimitar shined a light on this issue by being an interesting and unique weapon.

I think the big issue is that, at least as far as I can guess at designer intent, weapons aren't supposed to be too interesting, in and of themselves. It seems that it requires feats (if they are used) or fighting styles (for the classes that get them) before the differences between weapons are more than mostly 'can you use Dex with this?' or 'can you use one in each hand?,' etc. I can theorize that this might benefit people new to the game, as there aren't the huge swath of decisions to make that something like 3e certainly did give. Also perhaps someone getting back into the game from basic-classic D&D might appreciate it (although late-edition BECMI certainly did have inter-weapon differences).

As others have pointed out with the GWM setup (regardless of whether it specifically is appropriate in strength or not) is that, well, the system as it is is already in place. If we house-rule in new weapons with new options, there will undoubtedly be interactions between the two. I agree that DMs can be expected to houserule problems at their tables (especially given that we're already talking about house rule weapons), but one should be cognizant of what old mechanics will interact with new mechanics that you introduce (your players certainly will, and cry foul when you shut down the brilliant little idea they lovingly crafted when you introduced the new items). Certainly one should start doing some thinking along the lines of 'this rule was made without this option available. Should I change it so as not to interact with this?'

Do you have design documents or quotes from the devs saying that Dex is intended to be behind in those ways?

The problem with this argument is that it applies to anything anyone says.No one has any design documents supporting nearly anything. What was intended or not is for the most part a black box. If you ever do find the devs on a good day and get them talking about what parts of the design were intended, I have some questions on Polearm master with shields and one-handed quarterstaves.

I want to preface this with the fact that I mean no offense: I did not ask y'all for feedback on the falchion. This wasn't a PEACH thread in Homebrew. This is a thread for sharing the weapons that have worked for your games. It's okay for y'all to think that maybe my version of the Falchion wouldn't work in your game. It works for mine.

JFC, I'm really starting to regret making this thread. Did nobody read what I said? I'm not looking for feedback/discussion on the Falchion, I was more fishing for other cool weapons that other forumites have designed. And it's not broken in my experience because I don't allow feats at my table. If it breaks at your table because you allow feats, I think that says more about the feat.

You decided to share a house rule, and now you are upset that people are critiquing it?

You should realize that there is a long and storied history of this. Mostly involving Katanas, but falchion works just as well. Even without feat support, this weapon is like a longsword, except better in every way for any character who would choose to wield it*, and in fact better than a greatsword for anyone (given that a greatsword was already heavy). So while it probably doesn't break your game (and we can leave behind whether this + GWM is overpowered or right on track), it is a strictly better option, meaning that the people that really liked falchions thematically just got a windfall, while people who liked longswords or two-handers now feel that their preferred theme just got hosed.
*Heavy, the part of the trait which is a penalty (so, not how it interacts with the GWM feat), is a real game-balancing koan -- certainly if your party only has halfling str-based melee types, finding that +3 weapon with the heavy quality is a real problem. But for the human or half orc character, it has no downsides. So it's a real riddle on whether a weapon should be allowed more benefit for also being heavy.

Regarding it saying more about the feat than your weapon, no, it does not. It says something about how the feat and the weapon interact, nothing more, nothing less.

Trickery

2019-08-26, 02:49 PM

The problem with this argument is that it applies to anything anyone says.No one has any design documents supporting nearly anything. What was intended or not is for the most part a black box. If you ever do find the devs on a good day and get them talking about what parts of the design were intended, I have some questions on Polearm master with shields and one-handed quarterstaves.

I asked the question in response to a statement that Dexterity is supposed to be behind strength for melee damage. I've heard that statement before, but never from any of the designers. Or at the table. The people who say that Dexterity is intended to do less damage than strength in melee seem to only exist on the internet.

Saying something is supposed to be a certain way or is intended to be that way is not the same as saying that you think it should be that way. That's why I asked the question that I did.

It's like a meme or something. And I'm wondering if that argument has any basis. People are angry that dexterity is the better stat for most builds (aside from barbarians, most paladins, about half of fighters, and the occasional rogue). That seems to be where the argument comes from. And it's troubling. Every time I see anything suggested that could be used on a dexterity build, even if it's a step to the side and not a step forward, you can guarantee that someone will say absolutely no because dexterity is already "too good." Which is not a good argument from a design perspective. It artificially limits new things that can be introduced.

malachi

2019-08-26, 03:13 PM

How is this dissimilar to the differences between a short sword and a scimitar? Scimitar costs more and deals slashing damage, but that's the only real difference. Therefore, scimitars are mechanically obsolete due to higher GP price. Also to be noted: 2d6 has a much higher likelyhood to deal adv. damage (6) than 1d10 (or 1d12 for that matter) due to higher number of dice. So while you potentially can deal more damage with 2d6 than you can with 1d10, the statistical odds of achieving that are low enough that the change is for the most part, negligible.

How would one grapple with a polearm? Also, that sounds like a buffed Sentinel/Polearm Master combo, so I'd look into reworking it to stand out a bit more from the go-to combo. Perhaps being able to swing it across multiple squares to gain momentum, which would apply a (situational) damage bonus if the space next to you is open? Otherwise, here are a few other fun potential weapon uses:

Rebounding Hammer: You may throw a hammer weapon with a range of 10 feet. If it hits, it rebounds back towards you and you may use your bonus action to catch it. If it misses, it remains on the ground in the space of your target.

Grounded Staff: When wielding a quarterstaff or other polearm, you may sacrifice one of your attacks to firmly plant one end of the staff into the ground. Until the start of your next turn, you impose disadvantage on the next attack against you, as your staff becomes a solid barrier to interpose between you and your attacker

Deft Hands: You become proficient in throwing mundane weapons. When throwing a non-ranged melee weapon, the weapon deals it's normal damage, not including any modifiers to the weapon or your usual thrown attacks. The range of such a thrown weapon is 20 feet.

I was thinking of grappling with a polearm as stabbing them and pinning them with it.
Also, I was suggesting this Weapon Master feat as a way to replace (and tone down) the GWM, PAM, SS, and CBE feats (I think I got all of them), so I wouldn't suggest implementing it in a game that had those problematic feats.

Maybe:
- While wielding a heavy weapon without the reach property and make an attack with advantage, you may instead give yourself disadvantage to deal +10 damage on the attack. (Or maybe the BA attack after kill/crit from GWM?)
- While wielding a reach weapon in two hands, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack when they enter your reach. (from PAM)
- You may spend your movement on your turn to ignore half cover and three quarters cover with your ranged weapon attacks OR to remove disadvantage for making an attack at long range. (But not both, both features would apply to all attacks made during that turn. Toned-down SS, to allow cover/distance to still have some meaning for this character)
- Being within 5 feat of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage to attacks you make with crossbows. (CBE)
- When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed melee weapon, you can use your bonus action to make an attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. (Weakened CBE, so it now doesn't allow an extra BA attack every turn due to the ammunition property requiring a free hand, but this requires you to have two hands)
- You may spend a BA or spend your movement to ignore the loading quality of crossbows for one turn.

Optimally, we would break down the weapons table and assign values according to usefulness. Like downgrading the damage die if it has this trait, upgrading if it has this one, etc. Trying to figure out a balancing point in weapons for 5e is rough because the weapons as they are are not balanced. The classic example of this is the trident vs. the spear where the spear is identical in combat, but has better cost, encumbrance, and is simple. It becomes a bear because our main criteria for something being OP is whether it is across-the-board superior to other options of its type.

Here's a set of rules I came up with a while back for making weapons that seem to be balanced with existing options, with an analysis of what weapons don't match this.

A) Choose a 'weight' of the weapon, which sets the base damage
-- Light: d4, can be used with TWF without a feat
-- Medium: d6, Versatile (d8)
-- Heavy: Two-handed, d10

B) Choose any number of features:
-- Finesse: Use Dex, loses Versatile property if Medium, slashing/piercing melee weapons only, EDIT: Cannot be used with 2 hands
-- Thrown: 30/60 range, non-heavy [NOTE: I picked a random range. There seems to be a bit of difference in throwing distances I didn't know how to account for]
-- Martial: +1 die size
-- Reach: -1 die size, 10 ft reach, martial only
-- Loading: +1 die size, max 1 attack/turn, ranged only
-- Ranged: -1 die size, -2 total if heavy, cannot be light
-->> 30/120 range for d6 or less
-->> 80/320 range for d8
-->> 100/400 range for d10
-- Mounted: +1 die size, disadv to hit targets in 5 ft, one-handed while mounted, heavy only

C) Choose one of Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing

Weapons that end up being better than PHB in my system (other than throwing distance):
Greatclub (d8 > d10)
Dart (d4 > d6) --
Trident (d6/d8 > d8/d10)
Whip (d4 > d6)
Blowgun (1 > d8) -- this one is particularly troublesome to me

Weapons that end up being worse than PHB in my system (other than throwing distance):
Handaxe (d6 > d4)
Shortbow (range dropped from 80/320 to 30/120)
Longbow (range dropped from 150/600 to 80/320)

Misterwhisper

2019-08-26, 05:47 PM

I was thinking of grappling with a polearm as stabbing them and pinning them with it.
Also, I was suggesting this Weapon Master feat as a way to replace (and tone down) the GWM, PAM, SS, and CBE feats (I think I got all of them), so I wouldn't suggest implementing it in a game that had those problematic feats.

Maybe:
- While wielding a heavy weapon without the reach property and make an attack with advantage, you may instead give yourself disadvantage to deal +10 damage on the attack. (Or maybe the BA attack after kill/crit from GWM?)
- While wielding a reach weapon in two hands, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack when they enter your reach. (from PAM)
- You may spend your movement on your turn to ignore half cover and three quarters cover with your ranged weapon attacks OR to remove disadvantage for making an attack at long range. (But not both, both features would apply to all attacks made during that turn. Toned-down SS, to allow cover/distance to still have some meaning for this character)
- Being within 5 feat of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage to attacks you make with crossbows. (CBE)
- When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed melee weapon, you can use your bonus action to make an attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. (Weakened CBE, so it now doesn't allow an extra BA attack every turn due to the ammunition property requiring a free hand, but this requires you to have two hands)
- You may spend a BA or spend your movement to ignore the loading quality of crossbows for one

Here's a set of rules I came up with a while back for making weapons that seem to be balanced with existing options, with an analysis of what weapons don't match this.

A) Choose a 'weight' of the weapon, which sets the base damage
-- Light: d4, can be used with TWF without a feat
-- Medium: d6, Versatile (d8)
-- Heavy: Two-handed, d10

B) Choose any number of features:
-- Finesse: Use Dex, loses Versatile property if Medium, slashing/piercing melee weapons only
-- Thrown: 30/60 range, non-heavy [NOTE: I picked a random range. There seems to be a bit of difference in throwing distances I didn't know how to account for]
-- Martial: +1 die size
-- Reach: -1 die size, 10 ft reach, martial only
-- Loading: +1 die size, max 1 attack/turn, ranged only
-- Ranged: -1 die size, -2 total if heavy, cannot be light
-->> 30/120 range for d6 or less
-->> 80/320 range for d8
-->> 100/400 range for d10
-- Mounted: +1 die size, disadv to hit targets in 5 ft, one-handed while mounted, heavy only

C) Choose one of Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing

Weapons that end up being better than PHB in my system (other than throwing distance):
Greatclub (d8 > d10)
Dart (d4 > d6) --
Trident (d6/d8 > d8/d10)
Whip (d4 > d6)
Blowgun (1 > d8) -- this one is particularly troublesome to me

Weapons that end up being worse than PHB in my system (other than throwing distance):
Handaxe (d6 > d4)
Shortbow (range dropped from 80/320 to 30/120)
Longbow (range dropped from 150/600 to 80/320)

The problem is going to be traits for classes with odd proficiencies like rogue and monk.

Also might want to add that finesse can’t be on a heavy weapon.

Although I would so take an Estoc.

Base 1d10 heavy two handed
Piercing
Finesse
Reach
Martial

In the plus side a finesse spear as martial would be nice.

Reminds me of a very obscure weapon in 3.0

The thrusting point.
Exotic weapon, two handed and only 1d4 damage but crits 18 - 20 x 4

opaopajr

2019-08-27, 07:05 AM

No, nets are completely useless in battle. PHB depicts that well.

Disagree. Nets were very useful for ambushes and anybody can Hide. But as written 5e version is lackluster.

I can only imagine the lack of imagination on how to convert a lasso, another very useful herding weapon, into 5e given the "text as holy writ" attitude here. :smalltongue:

The assumption that weapons are only as relevant as in the heat of battle is telling. :smallwink: There's been playing of 5e too long as Fantasy Spec. Ops. Tactics if that's limit of imagination. Examples on earth here very much put that tunnel vision to rest. (Psst! That's why so many farming implements are the ancestors to so many weapons: repurposing and filling niches. :smallcool:)

People have suggested other weapons, but in a discussion of adding new weapons, it makes sense to critique those that show up.

Criticism is fair, if it contributes relevantly. :smallamused: Trying to keep in mind "balance" with the breadth of optional rules and variant archetypes is a way to distract without contributing, however, be it intentional or accidental. Spells do not go through similar scrutiny and are officially churned out like candy by WotC (read: original post's lament) -- and we are left to approve or deny for our table on a case-by-case basis. Gear and weaponry is just like spells in being an asset, and is logically assumed to be subject to table-specific campaign approval. :smallsmile:

The question here is why the forum pushback? We can imagine nonsense from magic spells but cannot imagine nonsense from a fictive world's normal gear (let alone extrapolate answers already made from earth into a new context)? Why? Are we playing too tightly to publisher approval versus our localized imaginations? :smallwink: This is not an MMO or Boardgame, it's bigger and more flexible than that. It's Imagination Land! :smallcool:

JNAProductions

2019-08-27, 08:42 AM

Disagree. Nets were very useful for ambushes and anybody can Hide. But as written 5e version is lackluster.

I can only imagine the lack of imagination on how to convert a lasso, another very useful herding weapon, into 5e given the "text as holy writ" attitude here. :smalltongue:

The assumption that weapons are only as relevant as in the heat of battle is telling. :smallwink: There's been playing of 5e too long as Fantasy Spec. Ops. Tactics if that's limit of imagination. Examples on earth here very much put that tunnel vision to rest. (Psst! That's why so many farming implements are the ancestors to so many weapons: repurposing and filling niches. :smallcool:)

Criticism is fair, if it contributes relevantly. :smallamused: Trying to keep in mind "balance" with the breadth of optional rules and variant archetypes is a way to distract without contributing, however, be it intentional or accidental. Spells do not go through similar scrutiny and are officially churned out like candy by WotC (read: original post's lament) -- and we are left to approve or deny for our table on a case-by-case basis. Gear and weaponry is just like spells in being an asset, and is logically assumed to be subject to table-specific campaign approval. :smallsmile:

The question here is why the forum pushback? We can imagine nonsense from magic spells but cannot imagine nonsense from a fictive world's normal gear (let alone extrapolate answers already made from earth into a new context)? Why? Are we playing too tightly to publisher approval versus our localized imaginations? :smallwink: This is not an MMO or Boardgame, it's bigger and more flexible than that. It's Imagination Land! :smallcool:

Some imbalanced spells are not a reason to have imbalanced weapons too.

Nagog

2019-08-27, 09:24 AM

I think the big issue is that, at least as far as I can guess at designer intent, weapons aren't supposed to be too interesting, in and of themselves. It seems that it requires feats (if they are used) or fighting styles (for the classes that get them) before the differences between weapons are more than mostly 'can you use Dex with this?' or 'can you use one in each hand?,' etc. I can theorize that this might benefit people new to the game, as there aren't the huge swath of decisions to make that something like 3e certainly did give. Also perhaps someone getting back into the game from basic-classic D&D might appreciate it (although late-edition BECMI certainly did have inter-weapon differences).

While true, there are still a wide variety of spells and such for casters, and I think new players having a large selection of weapons and things would actually help them to develop their martial characters a little further than race and class. How do they fight? Where are they from (that such a weapon is available)? Etc. Veterans of such games will know the deal, and if they have a problem with the large selection, make a basic choice and move on. Choosing a starting weapon only happens once per martial character, if they don't like having options, that's a shame but there are already plenty of options.

As others have pointed out with the GWM setup (regardless of whether it specifically is appropriate in strength or not) is that, well, the system as it is is already in place. If we house-rule in new weapons with new options, there will undoubtedly be interactions between the two. I agree that DMs can be expected to houserule problems at their tables (especially given that we're already talking about house rule weapons), but one should be cognizant of what old mechanics will interact with new mechanics that you introduce (your players certainly will, and cry foul when you shut down the brilliant little idea they lovingly crafted when you introduced the new items). Certainly one should start doing some thinking along the lines of 'this rule was made without this option available. Should I change it so as not to interact with this?'

I feel the same, GWM and many of the other martial based feats toe the "Unbalanced" line so heavily that whenever a conversation about martials happens, GWM and PAM come up as reasons to not give martials any more than they have, when in reality those builds are so unbalanced that doing anything else is vastly inferior. Perhaps what Martials need (either instead of or alongside new weapons) are feats along the same scaling as PAM and GWM that appeals to these (and other) weapon styles?

Some imbalanced spells are not a reason to have imbalanced weapons too.

If said spells are RAW, then they contribute to the overall scaling of the game, and are therefore, in their own weird way, balanced. Denying martial characters the same extremes ends up nerfing their overall scaling compared to those who have access to these spells.

Willie the Duck

2019-08-27, 10:29 AM

While true, there are still a wide variety of spells and such for casters, and I think new players having a large selection of weapons and things would actually help them to develop their martial characters a little further than race and class. How do they fight? Where are they from (that such a weapon is available)?

I don't know what to say about that except that some people will want that, and some people really won't (or at least have the option not to). Certain people, particularly the old TSR-era gamers that WotC wanted to bring back, and a portion of the new-to-gaming people, who would really rather play around with a character's personality and hopes and dreams and all those kind of things and really just grab a weapon of the shelf without much thought. It is my theory that serving this type of gamer is why WotC put most of the mechanical complexity of weapons behind opt-in gates like feats and fighting style.

I feel the same, GWM and many of the other martial based feats toe the "Unbalanced" line so heavily that whenever a conversation about martials happens, GWM and PAM come up as reasons to not give martials any more than they have, when in reality those builds are so unbalanced that doing anything else is vastly inferior. Perhaps what Martials need (either instead of or alongside new weapons) are feats along the same scaling as PAM and GWM that appeals to these (and other) weapon styles?

If said spells are RAW, then they contribute to the overall scaling of the game, and are therefore, in their own weird way, balanced. Denying martial characters the same extremes ends up nerfing their overall scaling compared to those who have access to these spells.

I feel that there are at least two gamestyles of play within D&D -- the kind where the wizard is overjoyed to get access to fireball and the fighter might pick Medium Armor Master because it fits their theme (or just put ASIs towards both Strength and Dex, because they want to play a longsword and longbow-using fighter like they did in 2e, or any other example you see fit) -- and the kind where the wizard would never bother with fireball when there are spells which can resolve entire encounters, etc. etc. etc., and martials need things like PAM and GWM to feel that they keep up. The problem, from a design level, is that both styles of play do exist, and if you bring batman wizards into MAM fighter-style games, or PAM-GWM fighters into fireball wizard games, it can feel like a mismatch.

Regardless, yes, there should be more options for high-power martials than 1-2 specific weapon/feat combos.

malachi

2019-08-27, 11:49 AM

The problem is going to be traits for classes with odd proficiencies like rogue and monk.

Also might want to add that finesse can’t be on a heavy weapon.

Although I would so take an Estoc.

Base 1d10 heavy two handed
Piercing
Finesse
Reach
Martial

In the plus side a finesse spear as martial would be nice.

Reminds me of a very obscure weapon in 3.0

The thrusting point.
Exotic weapon, two handed and only 1d4 damage but crits 18 - 20 x 4

Hrm, yes, I had intended to make finesse only apply to 1-handed weapons (which prevents Versatile and Heavy), but I kind of derped on the writeup :p I'll go back and edit that part.
So that Estoc would only be d6 (but would be 1-handed).

If I were to rejigger things without holding to the existing weapon chart, I'd probably allow 2-handed finesse weapons, but not Heavy finesse weapons. And I'd definitely allow some kind of finesse spear / staff without needing to be a monk.

Tiadoppler

2019-08-27, 11:53 AM

(I am restraining myself from critiquing the OP's sample weapon, and instead attempting to answer the original question/request as written)

I just started a new campaign, so I had the opportunity to do a nice thorough session zero to walk through various houserules I'm using with my players. Here are some additional weapons, and some modified weapons that our campaign has been using for the last month, without any real balance issues.

Longsword has been split into three different weapons. The Longsword is for people who usually fight two-handed, but might want the option of using it one-handed sometimes. The Hand-and-a-half sword is the opposite, while the Arming sword is for warriors who only use their weapon one-handed and want to save a bit of money.

The premise is that longswords are designed mainly for two-handed use, and they're a bit awkward to wield in one hand. Longswords are famous and cool and great in many ways, but one-handed arming swords (some of the most common swords in history, from the Roman Spatha on up) need some love.

Arming sword (10gp) 1d8 slashing (2 lb).
Hand-and-a-half sword (15gp) 1d8 slashing (3 lb) Versatile(2d4)
Longsword (15gp) 1d6 slashing (3 lb) Versatile(1d10).

Trident has been rewritten for more flavor. A trident's many striking points give you a high chance of doing some damage, even if the target is dodging or obscured. However, they also make it more difficult to strike at a specific weak point.

Trident (5gp) 1d4 piercing (4 lb) Special (attacks made with a Trident never gain advantage or suffer from disadvantage), thrown (range 20/60), versatile (2d4).

Some common work tools have been statted out, to provide things for peasants to hold.

Felling Axe (5gp) 1d10 slashing (10 lb) Heavy, two-handed
Knife (1gp) 1d2 slashing (1 lb) Finesse, light
Pickaxe (5gp) 1d10 piercing (10 lb) Heavy, two-handed
Pitchfork (2gp) 1d4 piercing (4 lb) Versatile(1d8)
Scythe (2gp) 1d8 slashing (8 lb) Two-handed
Sledgehammer (5gp) 1d10 bludgeoning (10 lb) Heavy, two-handed

Added a long spear, as a simple weapon that you'd give out to your peasant army. Also, a martial war spear, representing medium (6-8 foot) length spears with long blades.

Spear, long (5gp) 1d8 piercing (8 lb) Heavy, reach, two-handed
War spear (15gp) 1d6 piercing (5 lb) Versatile (1d10)

Added a Saber, a slashing version of a rapier.

Saber (25gp) 1d8 slashing (3 lb) Finesse

Cikomyr

2019-08-27, 09:22 PM

Throwing Needles
Simple Ranged Weapon. Damage : 1 Piercing.
Thrown. Range 15/60

5/1 sp.

opaopajr

2019-08-28, 06:37 PM

Some imbalanced spells are not a reason to have imbalanced weapons too.

And who defines balance? Or are we chasing the dragon? Does this add anything meaningful besides an excluded middle? :smallwink: We've all seen these games on fora throughout the years.

edit: and thanks to those who have added gear to this topic! I have an old "item grenade" design for a 'Color Spray'-slash-'Glitterdust' (old D&D spell to reveal invisibility) equivalent. I'll go look for it and throw it in here to keep the ideas going.
I even had a breakdown explaining the logic in its design process. :smallcool:

opaopajr

2019-08-28, 07:14 PM

NNescio

2019-08-29, 01:44 AM

Here we go! :smallcool: (dusts off an old lovely)

Glitter Bomb
1 gp
Finely ground, colorful, shimmering powder in a bag. As an action, the contents may be thrown as a 15' cone blast of sparkly dust, clinging to things and creating a Heavily Obscured Area for one round. Creatures within the blast may be Blinded for one round — affecting 6d10 HP worth of creatures, starting with lowest HP creature — even if they later leave the Heavily Obscured Area.

This also reveals in following rounds any illusions disrupted by physical contact in the blast, including invisible things (or creatures), as the dust either goes through and doesn't coat them or exposes their silhouette. It takes three [Use an Object] actions to thoroughly brush off enough glittering dust so as to not reveal yourself, affecting Stealth rolls with Disadvantage in Light Obscurement. (Some GMs may want to use the glittery floor coating for further tracks, Survival (WIS) checks.)

Rogues are supremely adept in this equipment and may attempt two alternate uses:

a) Whips accurately the glitter towards the known eyes of targets within the blast. Succumbing targets receive Blind condition for two round instead of one. Creature has to have known and accessible eyes for this to work.

b) Snaps the glittery dust in a fine spray, catching enough air to linger before settling to earth. Heavy Obscured Area lasts for two rounds instead of one. Moderate and greater breezes in the area (15+ mph) can disperse this faster as GM determines.

----------------

And here is a link to the old topic where there was a lengthy and fruitful aesthetic exchange explaining my design rationale. :smallsmile:
Glitter Bomb design chat topic, forum TheRPGsite. (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34065-5e-the-Columns-to-this-palace-are-an-inch-short/page2&highlight=5e%2C+glitter)

Later on in the topic I also added my ideas about Hooked and Barbed keywords onto weapons. Hope it gets some imaginations flowing! :smallsmile:

Go forth, create, make merry! :smallsmile: And if you can explain why your setting likes your created item and what it adds (or replaces) at your table!

This is so beyond the pale I think it's safe to say by this point that this item is utterly unbalanced.

Seriously, a far better version of Color Spray that can be spammable virtually at-will because it only costs 1GP per use. (it's still OP even if it costs 50GP like Alchemist's Fire and Holy Water) And it also doubles as a concentration-free mini Fog Cloud, even if the target is immune to getting blinded. Also presumably mundane and hence can't be Dispelled, Counterspelled, and still works in an AMF. (Hello, Mister Beholder! Time to wreck your day!) What.

Everyone will grab this. Doesn't matter if they're not a rogue; that's just a cherry on top of the ice-cream sundae. Familiars, Unseen Servants and Tiny Servants can also use this. Denying line of sight is a crucial strategy in high-level combat (also low-level ones, but really), due to how many powerful abilities (spells, curses, auras, teleports, etc.) key off LoS.

This isn't "chasing the dragon". The sheer unbalanced nature of this item is manifestly clear. Heck this is even better than 3.5e Glitterdust in some ways, and that spell was a popular GOD Wizard pick that shuts down most encounters.

From an aesthetics PoV it also runs into issues with how strangely the glitter bomb interacts with HP of surrounding creatures (Sleep and Color Spray have the "it's magic" excuse), and also how long the effect lingers (seriously, try throwing a bag of glitter in the air; it doesn't block vision entirely for 6~12 secs. 3.5e Glitterdust also doesn't do that.)

(Suggestion in case someone wants to implement a similar item: Maybe swap out the Blinded condition for Disadvantage on attacks and ability checks that rely on vision, and Heavily Obscured for Lightly Obscured. Keep the "foils invisibility" clause, but make it removable with a single action. Also bump up the cost. Still useful for rogues, especially if they have some way to hide in Lightly Obscured conditions.

Or maybe turn it into an Uncommon magic item consumable. Or a Rare one with 1d6 uses.)

Edit:

Moving away from critique and dusting off some old campaign notes:

Sling Staff
Martial
1 gp
1d6 bludgeoning
5 lb
Ammunition (range 80/320), two-handed, special

Special: You may use the sling staff as an improvised weapon to perform melee attacks. When used this way, treat the sling staff as a 1d6 bludgeoning melee weapon with the versatile (1d8) property. You are considered proficient in this attack if you are proficient with quarterstaves (or improvised weapons in general). The sling staff does not otherwise count as a quarterstaff for the purposes of benefiting from spells, feats, class features or other game effects. Attacks made this way also do not benefit from enhancement bonuses.

Halfings may treat sling staves as simple weapons.

--
Realistically speaking, this should be a simple weapon instead of martial (halfing or no), but I don't want it to be better than Short Bows since it deals bludgeoning damage (a rare option for ranged attacks other than some short-ranged options like the basic sling and throwing weapons) and can be used as an improvised quarterstaff (kinda). Am I too paranoid though? Should I just downgrade the sling staff to simple (and maybe shorten the long range even if it makes it an oddball among other 80' normal range weapons)? Or let it count fully as a quarterstaff instead? In any case, the special text is also too verbose.

--

Edit: Toned down language.

samcifer

2019-09-01, 03:37 PM

Not sure if it's been covered, but what about adding the Chakram? Here's my take in it:

Chakram
Cost: 5 gp
Damage: 1d6
Weight: 1 lb.
Properties: Light, finesse, thrown (range 26/60), Special: If thrown, this weapon returns to your hand at the end of the attack, hit or miss.

Moxxmix

2019-09-02, 11:40 PM

While nets are kinda meh, particularly for a martial weapon, they should be able to serve as a template for certain improvised weapons.

Dirt In Your Eyes [thrown, finesse, range: 5/10]: If you hit a large or smaller creature using an appropriate improvised weapon (eg: cape, hat, glassful of whiskey, fistful of dirt, etc), the creature is blinded until it removes the obstacle. You do not provoke opportunity attacks from the creature you hit for the rest of the turn. When you attack with this weapon, any additional attacks you may have available this turn can only be used to shove or grapple.

A creature can use its action to make a DC10 Dex check to remove the effect from itself or another creature within reach. Otherwise the effect goes away at the start of your next turn.

Acquiring: Generally requires an Object Interaction (and free hand) to pick up before making the attack.
Thrown: You don't have the weapon anymore after using it.
Finesse: Either Str or Dex should be viable attack stats, depending on the exact item.
Range: Only really works at melee range, but you might have a chance at up to 10' out. Can't expect the attack to maintain coherence beyond that.
Other: Can't be used to set up solo sneak attacks, but is very useful for escaping, and providing more cinematics to the combat.

Best used in barroom brawl type fights.

Sindal

2019-09-03, 08:06 AM

Waterdeep Merch

2019-09-03, 11:32 AM

I'll settle for giving , say, the warpick something unique to make it slightly more attractive. It's there but I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it. Like I dunno. An alternative 1d6 bludgeoning damage (hitting it with the hammer side)

I couldn't find anything concrete on what a warpick is supposed to be despite that it's really just a war hammer with a spike.

The options that are there are enough for me personally. Weapons become special when you find magical ones.

Hence my homebrew warpick that doubles as a flamethrower that I made for fun (burning hands bonus action)

If you just made the "war pick" the back end of a war hammer as an option for dealing piercing damage, that would more or less equal its historical truth.

And that would even be a pretty good perk if you created/modified your enemies to have resistances and vulnerabilities to different physical damage types beyond the MM's usual all-or-nothing. It doesn't take much- just think about each enemy as you go to use them for a second, then pick a strong resistance and a weak one.

olskool

2019-09-16, 12:45 PM

I think one interesting way to handle making fights more interesting would be to award Special Effects both on Criticals but also if someone rolls higher than needed to hit. A roll of 10 or more over your To Hit number could allow SEs like...

1) Disarm opponent unless they save versus STR. 2-Handed weapons having ADVANTAGE on the roll.
2) Trip opponent unless they save versus DEX.
3) Outmaneuver opponent (giving them DISADVANTAGE next round) unless they save versus INT.
4) Substitute damage for a STUN effect (opponent helpless for 1 round) unless opponent rolls a CON save.
5) Entangle opponent (whips & chains) unless they save versus DEX.

In addition to the normal Critical Hits, on a Crit with a 10 over Success roll, you could add other effects like...

1) Sunder Weapon. The opponent's weapon must save versus a DC equal to the Critical Damage inflicted or be broken. Wooden weapons like spears and staves roll at DISADVANTAGE, normal hafted weapons have no modifiers. Steel weapons (swords & daggers) roll with ADVANTAGE.
2) Blind opponent. The opponent must save versus INT or fight as if in total darkness until they spend 1D3 rounds cleaning out their eyes of blood, dust, dirt or whatever was used to blind them.
3) Knockdown opponent (bludgeoning weapons) unless they make a STR Save versus a DC equal to the bludgeoning damage inflicted.
4) Impale an opponent (piercing weapons) unless they make a CON save versus a DC equal to the damage done. The impaled individual will suffer 1/2 damage and DISADVANTAGE until the weapon is removed.
5) Slash opponent (Slashing weapons) unless they make a CON save versus a DC equal to the damage done. A slashed opponent will suffer DISADVANTAGE until the wound is bound (with a healing proficiency check) and lose 1 point of CON per 10-minute turn due to bleeding. They will also be easier to track as they leave a blood trail everywhere they go. If CON drops to 0, they fall unconscious and begin to die.

These are just some of the effects that could be employed.

opaopajr

2019-09-16, 11:59 PM

Yay, this topic is back! :smallcool:

This is so beyond the pale I think it's safe to say by this point that this item is utterly unbalanced.

Seriously, a far better version of Color Spray that can be spammable virtually at-will because it only costs 1GP per use. (it's still OP even if it costs 50GP like Alchemist's Fire and Holy Water) And it also doubles as a concentration-free mini Fog Cloud, even if the target is immune to getting blinded. Also presumably mundane and hence can't be Dispelled, Counterspelled, and still works in an AMF. (Hello, Mister Beholder! Time to wreck your day!) What.

Everyone will grab this. Doesn't matter if they're not a rogue; that's just a cherry on top of the ice-cream sundae. Familiars, Unseen Servants and Tiny Servants can also use this. Denying line of sight is a crucial strategy in high-level combat (also low-level ones, but really), due to how many powerful abilities (spells, curses, auras, teleports, etc.) key off LoS.

This isn't "chasing the dragon". The sheer unbalanced nature of this item is manifestly clear. Heck this is even better than 3.5e Glitterdust in some ways, and that spell was a popular GOD Wizard pick that shuts down most encounters.

From an aesthetics PoV it also runs into issues with how strangely the glitter bomb interacts with HP of surrounding creatures (Sleep and Color Spray have the "it's magic" excuse), and also how long the effect lingers (seriously, try throwing a bag of glitter in the air; it doesn't block vision entirely for 6~12 secs. 3.5e Glitterdust also doesn't do that.)

(Suggestion in case someone wants to implement a similar item: Maybe swap out the Blinded condition for Disadvantage on attacks and ability checks that rely on vision, and Heavily Obscured for Lightly Obscured. Keep the "foils invisibility" clause, but make it removable with a single action. Also bump up the cost. Still useful for rogues, especially if they have some way to hide in Lightly Obscured conditions.

Or maybe turn it into an Uncommon magic item consumable. Or a Rare one with 1d6 uses.)

Color Spray was waaaaay stronger in older D&D, it was an encounter-ender. This is nowhere as strong, but thanks for complimenting it as being way stronger than 5e Color Spray! :smallsmile: And yes, people should totally buy lots of these bags to get away from combats! You are reenforcing my desired design is working as intended! :smallbiggrin:

Yes, it temporarily blinds opponents. It leaves a short-term mini-FogCloud. It temporarily ruins Invisibility. It disrupts spell Line of Sight. AND it does it for the low, low price of 1 GP. :smallsmile: Yup, excellence as charged! :smalltongue:

Yet it is restricted to a 15' cone, for a mere round (or two). :smallfrown:

So it is a limited, small-sized hazard. Yet it changes the combat state enough to alter tactics, possibly even enough to disengage and re-try another strategic encounter. And it is strong enough to be worth using by nearly anyone. :smallsmile: Excellent! Sounds like it is working as intended. I hope you & others like it and 'sprinkle' it in your homegames! :smallwink: (I made a 'punny'!)

In the future I want to explore how to adjust PHB Caltrops, Alchemical Fire, and Ball Bearings to be similarly beloved and affordable items. :smallcool:

Let's keep the fun ideas coming, everyone! :smallsmile:

opaopajr

2019-09-17, 12:20 AM

I'll settle for giving , say, the warpick something unique to make it slightly more attractive. It's there but I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it. Like I dunno. An alternative 1d6 bludgeoning damage (hitting it with the hammer side)

I couldn't find anything concrete on what a warpick is supposed to be despite that it's really just a war hammer with a spike.

The options that are there are enough for me personally. Weapons become special when you find magical ones.

Hence my homebrew warpick that doubles as a flamethrower that I made for fun (burning hands bonus action)

It's like a Warhammer with more Pick than Peen (like "claw : peen" on a regular hammer). You could just make Warhammer the larger version that can accept versatile, yet do some inverse parallelism in its damage type damage value. So Warhammer does more Bludgeon over Pierce, and Warpick retains being single-handed yet has Pierce over Bludgeon:

Keyword Trait
Flexible - Weapon has another damage type (which may also have another damage value).

Warpick. 5 gp. P 1d8. flexible, B 1d6.

Warhammer. 15 gp. B 1d8. versatile 1d10. flexible, P 1d4 (versatile 1d6).

(Warhammer's pick-side is nowhere near longer than a dagger. It is a shorter & wider punch, yet has more force behind it. I could see the argument for 1d6, but it is not a priority.)

Hjkryan2007

2020-07-31, 08:29 PM

Khopesh. Requires Exotic Weapon proficiency. 1d6 slash damage, you can use your action to Disarm or Trip your opponent.

Sception

2020-08-01, 07:01 PM

most weapons I've thought about adding to the game have been well enough represented by what's already there. Scimitar is good enough for kopesh for me, longsword good enough for katana, etc. Not that custom rules for such is inhetently a bad idea, i've just found the existing rules to be 'good enough'

As a fan of the shadar-kai, spiked chains and similar but more historically grounded chain and rope weapons (kusari-gama, rope dagger, meteor hammer, etc) are a notable exception, so I've sketched out the following:

Spiked chain: two handed, finesse, reach, d6 piercing damage, with varients that change up the damage die (meteor hammer is bludgroning, kusari gama is slashing vs adjacent enemies and bludgeoning against non-adjacent enemies, etc).

Basically, they're two handed whips that gain +1 damage die over regular whips. They could arguably still be fair at d8 damage, but i didn't want to introduce a homebrew weapon with damage due equal to the existing most damaging finesse weapons. I am inclined to make it a monk weapon, but am unsure weather a monk weapon with reach might be problematic in terms of outclassing other monk weapon options.

In addition to the weapons themselves, I've tinkered with a racial feat boosting their utility -

Shadar Kai Chain Fighting feat (requires shadar kai race) grants advantages when wielding one of these chain weapobs, including: lets you use the shove maneuver on enemies up to the weapon's reach, lets you shove in any direction, not just away, lets you use your choice of athletics of acrobatics when shoving, and lets you make an attack as a bonus action against one enemy you successfully shoved or knocked prone that turn.