If every feat/fighting style/weapon did the same damage how should they be different?

[Man_Over_Game]

For example, changing Polearm Master to increase the reach of your weapon as a Bonus Action, or GWM causing your missed attacks to attack a target adjacent to your first.

This could include cantrips, like Eldritch Blast, I just couldn't fit it into the title. How'd you do it?

[jmartkdr]

For example, changing Polearm Master to increase the reach of your weapon as a Bonus Action, or GWM causing your missed attacks to attack a target adjacent to your first.

This could include cantrips, like Eldritch Blast, I just couldn't fit it into the title. How'd you do it?

Two-weapon fighting (the style) would give you two chances to hit. Dueling would probably switch to some sort of defensive benefit (but self-only, as opposed to Protection's focus on others).

Dual Wielder (the feat) should probably be more of a defensive bonus.

[OldTrees1]

Same starting damage or same expected damage?

For example are we saying TWF and THF each start with 1d6+3 per attack or that they both end with an expectation of 9 damage? Equal start vs equal end result in different designs. If you want both then it is basically equal ends but with the designer having both arms tied behind their back. Still doable, but the legibility of the penmanship goes down and takes longer.

Or do you want there to be no differences related to damage? TWF makes the same 1 attack as THF does? Only have qualitative differences?

[Spiritchaser]

I wouldn’t do this, but if I did, I’d give heavy weapon master an advantage in damaging heavy armor. Possibly a bonus to hit or minimum damage on a near miss, or some such. Light weapons might have a similar advantage against high Dex targets, and so on.

I think there’s probably room in 5e for a system where some weapons are better against some types of armor Or defence, but only as a strict option, and an option I wouldn’t use.

I’ve got enough on my plate to badly stress my limited ability to multitask as it is.

[Man_Over_Game]

Two-weapon fighting (the style) would give you two chances to hit. Dueling would probably switch to some sort of defensive benefit (but self-only, as opposed to Protection's focus on others).

Dual Wielder (the feat) should probably be more of a defensive bonus.

I took a note from Miyamoto Musashi, who was mentioned in our real-world combat thread, who said that he would wield a weapon in one hand if he was against an easy opponent, a weapon with both hands against a tough opponent, and a weapon in each hand for multiple opponents. So to match realism and to give TWF its own niche that is different from any other playstyle, I wanted to make it good against numbers, IE Flanking.

So I needed an easy flanking system. The existing one (Advantage if an ally is adjacent) was too strong and not too fluid. So I changed it to:

"Gain +1 to attack rolls for every one of your target's other enemies that are adjacent to him" (so if there are 2 of your allies adjacent to him, you get +2 to hit). Having a second weapon in-hand means Flanking bonuses against you are reduced by 1, having a shield reduces flanking bonuses by 2. So someone with TWF can take on two adjacent targets before being flanked.

This means that characters who wield large weapons will generally deal more damage and have more access to their Bonus Actions/spells, but will end up taking more damage, with shield-users being the opposite, and TWF being a blend of both.


Same starting damage or same expected damage?

For example are we saying TWF and THF each start with 1d6+3 per attack or that they both end with an expectation of 9 damage? Equal start vs equal end result in different designs. If you want both then it is basically equal ends but with the designer having both arms tied behind their back. Still doable, but the legibility of the penmanship goes down and takes longer.

Or do you want there to be no differences related to damage? TWF makes the same 1 attack as THF does? Only have qualitative differences?

Roughly the same expected damage for the cost. TWF still ends up requiring a hand being occupied (harder spells) and your Bonus Action being used (a major conflict with many class features, especially Ranger), while also requiring a lot more investment than other builds without much gain.

Mostly the goal here is to look at a feature as a means of diversifying your class rather than a straight power creep. Replacing all of the options that increase damage that also don't change your tactics (GWM, PAM, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, etc) means we could have a dozen different playstyles instead of a dozen different ways of "+1 to Combat) (which is roughly all the same playstyle). For example, I could be a Battlemaster with either PAM and GWM, or Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter , and they'd play almost identically. Why have all this content if they all just lead to the same results? I think we really only need one "+1 to Combat" option, which we already have as the default (ASIs) that is universally beneficial for every single build/class in the game.

So if we have the "+1 to Combat" playstyle available already as an option that a player can take multiple times, what can we do with everything else?

[Knaight]

You'd have to change a fair amount about the system to make this happen, which means that how weapon differences work would come down to what else you change about them.

That said, if trying to keep things minimal this suggests revising damage and HP, then keeping the bulk of the rest of the system mostly the same.

Changing the decisions that can be made is probably the more interesting way to do this, but a more minimalist method would be tweaking a number of different variables for a few broad fighting styles. In a D&D context this also suggests a bit less in the way of "weapons as tools selected for a particular task" and a bit more in the way of "weapons as stylistic elements to express character", which means making the options mechanically balanced overall but distinct.

I'm thinking a handful of fairly minor bonuses that are a mix of straight stat increases to various things (dex saves, AC, attack, reach, range, initiative, etc.) bonuses to these stats under specific circumstances (AC at range, attack against higher/lower initiative enemies, bonuses in surprise rounds, weapon specific flanking, dex save bonus against area attacks, etc.). A particularly cute option that might be fun is a small jump bonus to polearms whenever you can pole vault with them.

[CheddarChampion]

Two-Handed Weapon Style: On a missed attack you still deal damage equal to your Str modifier.

Single Weapon Style: Every creature you hit suffers a -1 penalty to their attack rolls until the start of your next turn. Hitting a creature multiple times stacks the penalty.
*I'm not sure I like this one. I do like the idea of an active defense but making a simple+effective style for it has been strangely difficult this past 30 minutes.

Two Weapon Style: Whenever you make an attack with one weapon, you may make another attack with another weapon you are holding against a second creature within your reach. If you move after making the triggering attack you do not gain the additional attack. (Remove normal TWF rules about bonus action use.)
*I like this in theory: it makes a character much more effective against multiple foes. In practice, it might be too unreliable or even not come up in some fights. Hmm...

Archery Style: If you do not move on your turn you gain a +2 bonus to hit. You do not gain this benefit while riding another creature (such as a horse).

Protection Style: Whenever you or a creature within 5' of you is attacked you may use your reaction to impose disadvantage to the attack roll. Whenever you or a creature within 5' of you makes a dexterity saving throw you may use your reaction to apply advantage to the saving throw.

Defensive Style: You gain a +1 bonus to AC and to dexterity saving throws.

[Man_Over_Game]

Archery Style: If you do not move on your turn you gain a +2 bonus to hit. You do not gain this benefit while riding another creature (such as a horse).


I kinda like the idea of just implementing a -2 to hit if you're mounted, and then removing that penalty as part of the Mounted Combatant feat. It'd go well with your version of the Archery Style (which I like a lot more than the default), although I kinda expected that as more of a mechanic from the Sharpshooter feat.

Archery is available as a fighting style for fairly tanky classes (Ranger, Fighter) that are expected to be fighting near the front-lines, while Sharpshooter is about equally available to anyone that makes ranged attacks. Mobility is more important to those closer to the front lines, which is why I'd envision Archery supporting more hit-and-run while Sharpshooter supports standing still.

[Dienekes]

I wouldn’t. But if I was going to, I’d focus on weapon groups and work from there.

I’d start with making every weapon group follow a pattern like this:

Thrown*
Off-hand
One-handed
Versatile
Two-handed
Special*

*where applicable.

So let’s take axes as an example

Tomahawk: Thrown
Hatchet: Off-hand
Cavalry Axe: One-handed
Dane Axe: Versatile
Kern Axe: Two-handed
Poleaxe: Special

Spears would be:

Javelin: Thrown
Spike: Off-hand
Shortspear: One-handed
Dory Spear: Versatile
Pike: Two-handed
Lance: Special

And there would be other groups like Light Blade, Heavy Blade, Bludgeons, etc. Bows, Crossbows, and Guns would follow a similar but obviously different pattern.

Once I did that, I would divide each weapon group into a fighting style with a few tricks. Axes are impact weapons that can hook things, so I’d give them some attack variant that allows them to catch and push aside weapons, shields, and limbs while maybe allow some stagger condition or something to show the force of the blows you’re getting from these weapons. Spears easily have the reach advantage. Javelins can be thrown further than other thrown weapons. Dory spears and bigger get a natural +5 reach, and all of them can extend their reach further with a Bonus Action. I’d also see to make a Set Spears ability where you can get bonuses for preparing to engage an enemy coming into your Reach. Light Blades would be more about movement and having fast hands, stuff about feinting and repositioning seems the best fit. And so on.

Then I would make each of the key fighting styles also have their set of abilities possibly tied to Fighting Style. Two-handed weapons could cleave. Weapon and Shield might get protection and shield bashing as Bonus Actions. One weapon could get more movement abilities to get that swashbuckler feel. Two weapon could get like two-weapon reave and being able to catch an opponents weapon with their off-hand while still attacking with their main.

The goal would be to make essentially a matrix of fighting styles. Sure you’re using a two-handed weapon and they gain the two-handed fighting style techniques but are you two-handing a spear for the reach and area control, or a Light Blade estoc for the feinting and misdirection, or a Bludgeoning kanabo to smash in armor and knock down opponents with your strikes?

Each choice will make the warrior in question play differently.

[Man_Over_Game]

I wouldn’t. But if I was going to, I’d focus on weapon groups and work from there.

I’d start with making every weapon group follow a pattern like this:

Thrown*
Off-hand
One-handed
Versatile
Two-handed
Special*

*where applicable.

So let’s take axes as an example

Tomahawk: Thrown
Hatchet: Off-hand
Cavalry Axe: One-handed
Dane Axe: Versatile
Kern Axe: Two-handed
Poleaxe: Special

Spears would be:

Javelin: Thrown
Spike: Off-hand
Shortspear: One-handed
Dory Spear: Versatile
Pike: Two-handed
Lance: Special

And there would be other groups like Light Blade, Heavy Blade, Bludgeons, etc. Bows, Crossbows, and Guns would follow a similar but obviously different pattern.

Once I did that, I would divide each weapon group into a fighting style with a few tricks. Axes are impact weapons that can hook things, so I’d give them some attack variant that allows them to catch and push aside weapons, shields, and limbs while maybe allow some stagger condition or something to show the force of the blows you’re getting from these weapons. Spears easily have the reach advantage. Javelins can be thrown further than other thrown weapons. Dory spears and bigger get a natural +5 reach, and all of them can extend their reach further with a Bonus Action. I’d also see to make a Set Spears ability where you can get bonuses for preparing to engage an enemy coming into your Reach. Light Blades would be more about movement and having fast hands, stuff about feinting and repositioning seems the best fit. And so on.

Then I would make each of the key fighting styles also have their set of abilities possibly tied to Fighting Style. Two-handed weapons could cleave. Weapon and Shield might get protection and shield bashing as Bonus Actions. One weapon could get more movement abilities to get that swashbuckler feel. Two weapon could get like two-weapon reave and being able to catch an opponents weapon with their off-hand while still attacking with their main.

The goal would be to make essentially a matrix of fighting styles. Sure you’re using a two-handed weapon and they gain the two-handed fighting style techniques but are you two-handing a spear for the reach and area control, or a Light Blade estoc for the feinting and misdirection, or a Bludgeoning kanabo to smash in armor and knock down opponents with your strikes?

Each choice will make the warrior in question play differently.

Interesting. Could make each "Weapon Type" just a keyword, then tie specific mechanics to each of those keywords. So Melee adds +1 damage, Slashing adds +1 damage, Piercing adds +5 range to both throwing and melee ranges, and so on. Maybe have a list of exclusions in the case of specialized weapon combinations (for example, Light Spears don't get the +5 to their melee reach and instead get +1 to AC).

So people could basically make up what kind of weapon they wanted. Could be a cool subsystem that rewarded specialized builds that lean into the weaknesses/strengths of specific weapons.

[Dienekes]

Interesting. Could make each "Weapon Type" just a keyword, then tie specific mechanics to each of those keywords. So Melee adds +1 damage, Slashing adds +1 damage, Piercing adds +5 range to both throwing and melee ranges, and so on. Maybe have a list of exclusions in the case of specialized weapon combinations (for example, Light Spears don't get the +5 to their melee reach and instead get +1 to AC).

So people could basically make up what kind of weapon they wanted. Could be a cool subsystem that rewarded specialized builds that lean into the weaknesses/strengths of specific weapons.

Before I went to 5e, I actually tinkered with a weapon system that was similar to this.

I had key words [Set], [Hook], [Impact], [Light], [Massive], [Reach], [Aerodynamic], [Shielded], [Baskethilt], [Agile], [Anti-Armor], [Precise], and honestly a whole lot more. Each of which had it's own abilities and effects tied to it and interacted with the Maneuver system I had in place.

It allowed the creation of weapons but I had a lot of rules governing how things interacted. I remember you first had to pick the size of the weapon and that determined how many keys could be added to the weapon. With specialty weapons that cost more and require further training able to add one or two more. It then allowed you to make your weapon of choice.

But that was, I think too fiddly for 5e.

That said, if you want to further explore the idea you might want to look up Blade of the Iron Throne rpg which did what I was trying to do, but better. Admittedly for a much different system from D&D.

[Lupine]

And there would be other groups like Light Blade, Heavy Blade, Bludgeons, etc. Bows, Crossbows, and Guns would follow a similar but obviously different pattern.

Taking this idea and running with it, you could probably make fighting styles "trees" starting basic ones like "Fighting Style: Slashing" then taking slashing would let you choose between "Fighting Style: Blades" or "Fighting Style: Axes" the bonuses of which would stack with the "Fighting Style: Slashing" taken before. This would then be followed with a subset of "Light" "Medium" or "Heavy." Then, you key in certain traits to those subsets, and make a fighting style for those: Thrown and off-hand might go with Light, One-handed and Versatile might go with Medium, and two handed and special might go with Heavy.
Now, you make them improve over time. So, lets say I wanted to make a fighter with extreme specialization with throwing knives. I would have to take the the path Slashing-->Blades-->Light-->Thrown.
Hmm. That's four steps. We have four tiers. I think we can make something work: start with Slashing at Level one. Then, at level five, pick up Blades. Then light at level 10, and finally, thrown at level 15.
You could then make the feat "Weapon adept" to replace weapon master.
When you take this feat, you gain the following benefits:

You may increase your Strength or Dexterity by 1, up to a maximum of 20.
You may take a ranks of fighting style. They may be of the same tree or different.
You gain proficiency with four weapons of your choice. Each one must be a simple or martial weapon.


More to follow, but I'm a bit busy right now

[Lupine]

Am back now. This won't take as long as I thought it would.

The introduction of "light, heavy and medium" weapons also makes another interesting thing. light weapons get bonuses against lightly armored opponents, and penalties against heavy, and vice versa for heavy weapons, then light weapons feel conceptually different than the other two types.
Add in different classes of weapons (Axe, blade, spear, etc) having the ability to do interesting things --axes being able to disarm opponents, blades giving a slight boost to initiative, spears having longer reach for melee and range, a two handed Axe is going to feel different from a thrown axe, and VERY different from a thrown blade.

The conclusion to what I am saying is that, this would make each weapon feel different from each other weapon, as well as making weapon choice feel like it really matters in a way such that the character's choice of weapon actually speaks about them as a person. If you wrote the weapon type bonus correctly, you could also encourage classes to choose a weapon which their real-life counterparts picked. A berserker is going to want an axe, as it makes their attack feel stronger, as they bash their opponent's weapons from their hands. The assassin is doing to want a thrown blade, because it makes them feel more dexterous, as they flick a weapon into an enemy's throat with blinding speed.

Bludeoning:
Thrown: Light Hammer
Offhand: Club
One-handed: Mace
Versatile: Quarterstaff
Two Handed: Maul
Special: Flail

I'd love to split up Ranged weapons this way, but that sounds like a pain to do.

[w15p]

...
The introduction of "light, heavy and medium" weapons also makes another interesting thing. light weapons get bonuses against lightly armored opponents, and penalties against heavy, and vice versa for heavy weapons, then light weapons feel conceptually different than the other two types.
...
This seems wrong to me with heavy weapons against light armor -- what would cause a HUGE AXE to do less damage to a leather-clad fellow than a full tin can? Did you mean something different?


Two-Handed Weapon Style: On a missed attack you still deal damage equal to your Str modifier.

Single Weapon Style: Every creature you hit suffers a -1 penalty to their attack rolls until the start of your next turn. Hitting a creature multiple times stacks the penalty.
*I'm not sure I like this one. I do like the idea of an active defense but making a simple+effective style for it has been strangely difficult this past 30 minutes.

Two Weapon Style: Whenever you make an attack with one weapon, you may make another attack with another weapon you are holding against a second creature within your reach. If you move after making the triggering attack you do not gain the additional attack. (Remove normal TWF rules about bonus action use.)
*I like this in theory: it makes a character much more effective against multiple foes. In practice, it might be too unreliable or even not come up in some fights. Hmm...

Archery Style: If you do not move on your turn you gain a +2 bonus to hit. You do not gain this benefit while riding another creature (such as a horse).

Protection Style: Whenever you or a creature within 5' of you is attacked you may use your reaction to impose disadvantage to the attack roll. Whenever you or a creature within 5' of you makes a dexterity saving throw you may use your reaction to apply advantage to the saving throw.

Defensive Style: You gain a +1 bonus to AC and to dexterity saving throws.
So there are some interesting ideas in here (but see below), but one that seems missing to me is the use of a polearm on both ends -- I know it is kinda covered with PAM, but the mechanics on that have always seemed a little weak if the other end was a blade... I guess maybe there just isn't a weapon class in 5e for a double-bladed weapon...


...I kinda like the idea of just implementing a -2 to hit if you're mounted, and then removing that penalty as part of the Mounted Combatant feat. It'd go well with your version of the Archery Style (which I like a lot more than the default)...
When I read "You do not gain this benefit while riding another creature (such as a horse)" of the Archery Style, I thought exactly this.

[Lupine]

This seems wrong to me with heavy weapons against light armor -- what would cause a HUGE AXE to do less damage to a leather-clad fellow than a full tin can? Did you mean something different?

In my envisioned system, the penalty for using a heavy weapons vs a lightly armored fighter would be that it's harder to hit. In order to get the momentum required to effectively use a greataxe, it takes movements that are quick, but nonetheless telegraphing. A heavily armored fighter might see the attack coming, but would not have the ability to move fast enough to capitalize on it. The trade-off is that you can put more force in a swing against heavy armor, and thus deal more damage to them
Light weapons, on the other hand would have no such worries fighting lightly armored opponents, but their worry would be being able to actually damage a heavily armored opponent. Thus, their penalty is to damage. However, when fighting lightly armored people, you'll have an easier time hitting: after all, they have less time to react to your attacks since they don't take much "wind up" to use.
medium weapons would not have those penalties, but would also not have the benefits that come with them, making them a good all-rounder weapon type.