Should Weapons Be More Distinctive?

[Amechra]

Every so often, someone will bring up the fact that weapons are pretty same-y in 5e. This isn't really anything new, but 5e pushes it further than prior editions by making the three weapon damage types almost interchangeable, and by avoiding features that affect specific weapons (AKA, no weapon focus).

This makes me wonder whether or not we should just cut out the middleman and go with broad weapon categories instead. I mean, the game essentially only has six distinct non-special melee weapons: Light, Heavy, Heavy Polearm, One-Handed, Polearm, and Versatile. Sometimes these weapons can be Finesse or Thrown, or they might deal less damage because they're simple... but really, those are your choices. Why not just make those the only weapons, buff them across the board (while simultaneously removing Heavy Polearm, because that's just double-dipping) and let players flavor them as they please (and maybe drop the "Heavy Polearm" category)?

And why even have a distinction between Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing? Why not just have weapons deal (nonmagical) Force damage? I mean, sure, you'd have to change around a bunch of Resistances and Immunities... but that's not terribly hard.

[sithlordnergal]

I feel like weapons should be more distinctive. That said, I think it would be better to make the choices matter a bit more instead of just making broad categories. I came from 3.5, and back then if you were a melee combatant, you'd want a nice variety of damage types. The Morningstar was one of the best secondary weapons to cary around because it did Bludgeoning and Piercing, and that mattered.

Fighting a Skeleton? Those guys reduced the damage from Piercing and Slashing weapons. Fighting a Zombie? If I remember right, they reduced damage from Bludgeoning. So bring that back. Skeletons have resistance to all Piercing damage, be it magical or mundane, but are vulnerable to Bludgeoning, Zombies gain Bludgeoning resistance, ect.. If you add just a few more resistances and vulnerabilities to the three melee damage types, you suddenly make everything matter. Suddenly there's a reason for a Rogue to bring a non-Finesse weapon into battle. Suddenly there's a reason for the Paladin to use more than just their longsword that they're had since level 1.

[Luccan]

There was a UA that had feats that made damage types for weapons more unique, with specific extra effects for weapons of a given type. I'd start by taking those feats and making at least parts of them standard to the weapons, no feat needed

[Dienekes]

To answer the question of the title. Yes.

To answer the question of the first post, which seems to be “should we just streamline weapons down to the basics.” I’m more ambivalent towards. I’d prefer if there was more a reason to choose between each weapon so they actually play differently.

But that might be a bit much for 5e.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I'll go further. I've posted this idea before.

I dont care what you want to call your weapon or what you think its made of. As Chuck Yeager said, "It's the man, not the machine." Concept: The weapon's damage depends on who is wielding it.

A one handed weapon in the hand of a HD d6 does 1d4, in the hand of a HD d8 does 1d6, in the hand of a HD d10 does 1d8, and in the hand of a HD d12 does d10.

If used two handed, move up one die category for damage OR use 2 dice of one die category down. There's your 2 handed sword (2d6) or longsword two handed (d10). Yes, it makes the greataxe in the hands of a barbarian a 2d8 weapon. The weapons was too swingy in damage to begin with, this makes it more consistently deadly.

Each weapon can have two additional descriptors (light, finesse, heavy), but reach, thrown, and ranged weapons lose one die category. Thus a 2 handed ranged weapon for a HD d8 does d6, and in the hands of a HD d10 does 1d8. You want a throwable sword? You got it. There's no mass behind a thrown weapon, and it's about mass and velocity.

As you can see, this allows the players to get their rocks off about what they are wielding, and keeps it ALMOST exactly the same. So your wizard can Gandalf a 1 1/2 handed sword, doing d4 one handed, d6 two handed without rewriting all of the rules.

This de-emphasizes the simple/martial distinction, but preserves it at the same time. I'd let nonmartial types choose ONE weapon they are proficient in from the martial category and call it a day.

Yes, this idea is ripped directly off of R.A. Salvatores' RPG.

[cutlery]

Would one level of barbarian be enough to get 2d8 axes? That seems fun.

[heavyfuel]

A one handed weapon in the hand of a HD d6 does 1d4, in the hand of a HD d8 does 1d6, in the hand of a HD d10 does 1d8, and in the hand of a HD d12 does d10.

I understood absolutely nothing. What's a HD?

[Kurt Kurageous]

Would one level of barbarian be enough to get 2d8 axes? That seems fun.

Yes. Yes, it does. Point being, martials are always getting nerfed by 'realism.'

[Kurt Kurageous]

I understood absolutely nothing. What's a HD?

HD is a hit die.

[Dienekes]

Yes. Yes, it does. Point being, martials are always getting nerfed by 'realism.'

Eh, I’m kinda thinking this doesn’t make martials better so much as anyone wanting to play a gish will want to dip a level of barb.

[heavyfuel]

HD is a hit die.

I never would've guessed it meant that in this context. Okay, I understood it now.

The suggestion is the opposite of what OP asked for though. Instead of more variety now there's zero variety

[Morty]

Should? Maybe. Could? Probably not. 5E just doesn't have a lot of room for more variety among weapons. The variety that exists is largely superfluous and for appearances' sake. Damage types are a decoration and making them more important wouldn't improve the game - all they accomplish is make some weapons deal less damage sometimes, so you need to swap to another one. Unless you're a finesse weapon user, in which case you're restricted to piercing and slashing. Or an archer, who only has piercing damage. "Welp, I'm facing skeletons, better put down my axe and pick up a hammer" isn't particularly tactical. And depending on the GM's choice of enemies, it might not come up at all... or might heavily favor one particular damage type.

The versatile tag is entirely inconsequential and crossbows are a minor damage bump that costs a feat to use with multiple attacks, so they're likewise unnecessary. The weapons table would be better off boiled down to a few broad categories that you can describe as you please. I'm very sceptical as to the possibility of anything more.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The suggestion is the opposite of what OP asked for though. Instead of more variety now there's zero variety

Answer #1. Yes there is. In this variant, the DM can accommodate the player who wants to use the most outrageous oversized multihorned exotic material anime weapon and the player who wants to wield a Falchion or Chinese Dao. Variety is achieved.

Answer #2. No, you're right. The OP was talking about damage types, and the variant 'rules' I outlined don't help at all.

3.5/PF made it worthwhile to carry around what another poster called a "golf bag" of weapons doing various damage types/combinations for optimal use against various beasties and baddies. 5e opted for simplification. Do you remember the weapons table in AD&D that listed plusses and minuses to hit for each weapon versus each of the various armor classes? I do. There were like a dozen polearms for starters, sword-breaker weapons, on and on, each with its own strengths and weaknesses versus armor. Lots of variety. I don't want to go back to that.

I would like to see more utility in damage type, but I'm not in charge of anything except my own table. Yes, the variant 'rules' I outlined are a solution seeking a problem. They do seem to answer the call for more weapon nouns.

[stoutstien]

I folded the big combat feats into the weapons to good effect.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Eh, I’m kinda thinking this doesn’t make martials better so much as anyone wanting to play a gish will want to dip a level of barb.

True, it doesn't make martials any better except maybe the Barbarian. So maybe multiclassing (which I don't generally allow) to make gishiness.

[heavyfuel]

Answer #1. Yes there is. In this variant, the DM can accommodate the player who wants to use the most outrageous oversized multihorned exotic material anime weapon and the player who wants to wield a Falchion or Chinese Dao. Variety is achieved.

Answer #2. No, you're right. The OP was talking about damage types, and the variant 'rules' I outlined don't help at all.

Well, OP's complaint seemed more along the lines of "mechanical variety" instead of "fluffy variety". Fluffy variety is already plenty in the Weapons table and even more so when you consider the "refluff" rule to allow different weapons (like the nunchuck being a refluffed quarterstaff)

[Kurt Kurageous]

Well, OP's complaint seemed more along the lines of "mechanical variety" instead of "fluffy variety". Fluffy variety is already plenty in the Weapons table and even more so when you consider the "refluff" rule to allow different weapons (like the nunchuck being a refluffed quarterstaff)

Well put, it is fluff that I propose. This is fussing around the edges stuff.

You want to change mechanics? Well, that's not fluff, and it requires a serious study of the game design and its underlying assumptions and principles. In short, only WotC folks can do that. Personally, I loathe every new mechanic that comes out for every new class they create. I loathe it because as a DM, they are giving me MORE rules to remember, MORE things to factor in, MORE...MORE...MORE!!! Its almost like each UA is a professional development session I have to attend in order to stay on top of the latest thingy they put out.

And they NEVER tell us what the niche is for, what is this new thing supposed to do, how does it fit in ecology, what was the source material (novels? movies?) that inspired this...nothing. Zero context.

We can fuss around the edge, or write our own RPG and quit 5e. But we can't rewrite new/different mechanics for 5e and still claim to be playing 5e. Only WotC can do that.

[Dienekes]

Well put, it is fluff that I propose. This is fussing around the edges stuff.

You want to change mechanics? Well, that's not fluff, and it requires a serious study of the game design and its underlying assumptions and principles. In short, only WotC folks can do that. Personally, I loathe every new mechanic that comes out for every new class they create. I loathe it because as a DM, they are giving me MORE rules to remember, MORE things to factor in, MORE...MORE...MORE!!! Its almost like each UA is a professional development session I have to attend in order to stay on top of the latest thingy they put out.

And they NEVER tell us what the niche is for, what is this new thing supposed to do, how does it fit in ecology, what was the source material (novels? movies?) that inspired this...nothing. Zero context.

We can fuss around the edge, or write our own RPG and quit 5e. But we can't rewrite new/different mechanics for 5e and still claim to be playing 5e. Only WotC can do that.

Then we aren’t playing 5e. Who cares?

Personally love a good homebrew, made a few and use a few more when I GM. So far none of my players have ever declared that we then weren’t playing 5e because of a few personal edits.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

More distinctive weapons; meaning big mechanical differences between a one handed sword, mace, and axe and between an epee, rapier, saber, and cutlass can be great in a simulationist game and 5e is not such a game. I say this as someone who LARPs and pushes for rules to better reflect the real capabilities of weapons as opposed to "a hit is a hit" which skews heavily for reach and not committing to your swings.

The most distinctive weapons though are in Dungeon World where all characters get their damage dice from their class instead of their weapons. Weapons just have adjectives on them that describe the kinda of attacks you can make with them. The Fighter class has a signature weapon ability that lets you select special adjectives like Massive, Armor Piercing, Versatile (has two weapon reaches), et cetera and they describe the weapon and why it has these traits. Leveling up they can select the blacksmithing skill allowing them to cannibalize magic weapons to enhance their signature weapon.


In this middle of the road between simulationist and storytelling neither of these work for 5e.

[Unoriginal]

Personally I think the monsters should have more vulnerabilities, or at least not automatically have resistance/immunity to non-magic bludgeoning, slashing, piercing all in one package. Ex: monster with resistant scales isn't protected against bludgeoning, or plants being much more affected by slashing than by bludgeoning or piercing. That way the differences between weapons would be increased without needlessly complicating the rules.

That being said WotC really needs to errata the trident now, it's been years and they've already admitted they forgot to change it before the PHB went into printing

[Kurt Kurageous]

Personally I think the monsters should have more vulnerabilities, or at least not automatically have resistance/immunity to non-magic bludgeoning, slashing, piercing all in one package. Ex: monster with resistant scales isn't protected against bludgeoning, or plants being much more affected by slashing than by bludgeoning or piercing. That way the differences between weapons would be increased without needlessly complicating the rules.

Ditto. So the rule would be to nerf monsters with resistance/immunity to nonmagic (but not nonsilvered) weapons down one category (resistance to normal, immunity to resistance)?

I'm not YET willing to redo my entire abbreviated compendium. But I'm now contemplating it. And goose/gander, are we willing to say the same for PC armors? Ring/chain is vulnerable to missile weapon piercing and narrow blade (rapier, dagger) weapons, all light armors vulnerable to bludgeoning?

[Hal]

There was a UA that had feats that made damage types for weapons more unique, with specific extra effects for weapons of a given type. I'd start by taking those feats and making at least parts of them standard to the weapons, no feat needed

This did seem like a great addition. I think adding Fighting Styles that do something similar would likewise be a good addition. It would lend towards a martial class that feels like a weapon master.

[Catullus64]

Last week (I think it was last week? The flow of time in quarantine is convoluted) I posted a thread complaining about how same-y the weapons mostly feel, and proposed a system that would give more powerful monsters successive resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities to the three weapon damage types, such that one would be ineffective even with a magic weapon, one would be ineffective only without a magic weapon, and one would be effective with a nonmagic weapon and even more effective with one.

The feel I got from reading replies was that people were resistant to the idea of differentiating the damage types too much, because it "screwed over" martial characters with a particular weapon damage type. I said there what I'll say now: having situations pop up for which your character is unprepared is a good thing, and having enemies against whom your favored weapon is ineffective is a very good thing. As it is, with the weapon damage types more or less equivalent outside of some edge cases, those situations seldom come up with weapons beyond the magical/nonmagical divide.

[Sception]

I miss the way 4e handled weapon types. I get that 4e was... "controversial", but there were lots of good ideas in 4e that 5e just kind of dropped, and one of them was having weapon categories like 'sword (short sword, long sword, scimitar, rapier), axe (hand axe, battle axe, great axe), spear (short spear long spear trident), hammer, polearm, flail, etc etc.

Sure, maybe your long sword, battle axe, and war hammer are the same in stats and damage die, but by putting them in the 'sword', 'axe', and 'hammer' categories lets them work with different feats and 'powers' - aka class features. You could have combat styles by category of weapon, for instance. We almost have stuff like that now, but it's a lot less clear and adaptable, and in some cases more exploitable, than if we just had explicit weapon categories like 4e did.

[Morty]

Last week (I think it was last week? The flow of time in quarantine is convoluted) I posted a thread complaining about how same-y the weapons mostly feel, and proposed a system that would give more powerful monsters successive resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities to the three weapon damage types. The feel I got from reading replies was that people were resistant to the idea of differentiating the damage types too much, because it "screwed over" martial characters with a particular weapon damage type. I said there what I'll say now: having situations and enemies pop up for which your character is unprepared is a good thing, and having enemies against whom your favored weapon is ineffective is a very good thing. As it is, with the weapon damage types more or less equivalent outside of some edge cases, those situations seldom come up with weapons beyond the magical/nonmagical divide.

It's not a good thing because it doesn't create interesting scenarios or challenges. All it ever does is "well shoot, I guess I'll do less damage this encounter" or "time to spend an action swapping weapons, then do the same thing I'd normally do". At best, it'll just make the martial character target different enemies.

[Catullus64]

It's not a good thing because it doesn't create interesting scenarios or challenges. All it ever does is "well shoot, I guess I'll do less damage this encounter" or "time to spend an action swapping weapons, then do the same thing I'd normally do". At best, it'll just make the martial character target different enemies.

If this were a video game, where combat = attacks, I'd agree. But I've found that at tabletop, having your primary combat tool marginalized encourages creativity. Players start using Grapples, Shoves, Disarms, the Help action more often. They start looking for unique features of your environment to exploit, or things they can use as improvised weapons. Maybe it forces them to run away and search for a means of harming the creature effectively, motivating exploration.

Even putting that aside, the problems you cite don't really seem like problems to me. Swapping weapons isn't an action, you can drop a weapon and ready a new one as part of interacting with the environment on your turn. And if a player realizes their attacks are ineffective against one enemy and switches to attacking others, that's not broken gameplay, that's just tactics.

[Unoriginal]

Ditto. So the rule would be to nerf monsters with resistance/immunity to nonmagic (but not nonsilvered) weapons down one category (resistance to normal, immunity to resistance)?

Not how I would do it, personally. At least not systematically for all monsters.

I also think that considering vulnerability/normal/resistance/immunity to be different points of the same scale is a false friend.



And goose/gander, are we willing to say the same for PC armors? Ring/chain is vulnerable to missile weapon piercing and narrow blade (rapier, dagger) weapons, all light armors vulnerable to bludgeoning?

Armor affects AC in 5e, not damage. I think reworking that would enter the "needlessly complicating the rules" zone.

[cutlery]

The feel I got from reading replies was that people were resistant to the idea of differentiating the damage types too much, because it "screwed over" martial characters with a particular weapon damage type. I said there what I'll say now: having situations pop up for which your character is unprepared is a good thing, and having enemies against whom your favored weapon is ineffective is a very good thing. As it is, with the weapon damage types more or less equivalent outside of some edge cases, those situations seldom come up with weapons beyond the magical/nonmagical divide.

Frankly, with GWM/PAM/SS/CBE, I'd be inclined to do this and make bludgeoning damage the most rare type. Slashing and piercing are effectively preferred damage types already.

But, at the same time I don't think martials in general need nerfing.

[NaughtyTiger]

I folded the big combat feats into the weapons to good effect.

are you saying the UA weapon specific feats are automatically available to martials?

[JNAProductions]

I would do one of two things, if I felt the need.

I would either make each weapon distinct (while probably pruning the weapon table to only distinct weapons) in a significant way...

or...

I would make the weapons wholly irrelevant. You get damage based on your class while wielding a weapon, regardless of what the weapon is.

[stoutstien]

are you saying the UA weapon specific feats are automatically available to martials?

Not UA feats but Pam, GWM, SS, and so on are in some parts all are just available depending on weapon on question.
I'll have to see what actually gets printed in the next splat book to see what to do with crusher and whatnot.

[Man_Over_Game]

Every so often, someone will bring up the fact that weapons are pretty same-y in 5e. This isn't really anything new, but 5e pushes it further than prior editions by making the three weapon damage types almost interchangeable, and by avoiding features that affect specific weapons (AKA, no weapon focus).

This makes me wonder whether or not we should just cut out the middleman and go with broad weapon categories instead. I mean, the game essentially only has six distinct non-special melee weapons: Light, Heavy, Heavy Polearm, One-Handed, Polearm, and Versatile. Sometimes these weapons can be Finesse or Thrown, or they might deal less damage because they're simple... but really, those are your choices. Why not just make those the only weapons, buff them across the board (while simultaneously removing Heavy Polearm, because that's just double-dipping) and let players flavor them as they please (and maybe drop the "Heavy Polearm" category)?

And why even have a distinction between Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing? Why not just have weapons deal (nonmagical) Force damage? I mean, sure, you'd have to change around a bunch of Resistances and Immunities... but that's not terribly hard.

It's a valid point. If there's no difference, make there be no difference. If there should be a difference, there needs to be a difference.

Right now, we have the worst of both worlds, where we have a bunch of options that are mostly meaningless.

It's the same reason we have the Light trait on the Hand Crossbow: It's for a false sense of realism. A meaningless gesture to make it feel more fleshed out than it actually is.

Given, I don't think that it was intentional - I think that the teams responsible for weapons, feats, classes, and monster powers were all separated and didn't talk much - but that's what we're left with.

[Unoriginal]

It's a valid point. If there's no difference, make there be no difference. If there should be a difference, there needs to be a difference.

Right now, we have the worst of both worlds, where we have a bunch of options that are mostly meaningless.

It's the same reason we have the Light trait on the Hand Crossbow: It's for a false sense of realism. A meaningless gesture to make it feel more fleshed out than it actually is.

Given, I don't think that it was intentional - I think that the teams responsible for weapons, feats, classes, and monster powers were all separated and didn't talk much - but that's what we're left with.

I honestly doubt that anything in 5e was done to give a "sense of realism".

[Dienekes]

I miss the way 4e handled weapon types. I get that 4e was... "controversial", but there were lots of good ideas in 4e that 5e just kind of dropped, and one of them was having weapon categories like 'sword (short sword, long sword, scimitar, rapier), axe (hand axe, battle axe, great axe), spear (short spear long spear trident), hammer, polearm, flail, etc etc.

Sure, maybe your long sword, battle axe, and war hammer are the same in stats and damage die, but by putting them in the 'sword', 'axe', and 'hammer' categories lets them work with different feats and 'powers' - aka class features. You could have combat styles by category of weapon, for instance. We almost have stuff like that now, but it's a lot less clear and adaptable, and in some cases more exploitable, than if we just had explicit weapon categories like 4e did.

This is kind of what I’ve done.

I split weapons into one of the following groups: Thrusting Blade, Striking Blade, Axe, Maul, Polearm, Bow, Crossbow, and Special.

Each weapon group allowed a few methods of using the weapon. For example Mauls could trade accuracy for damage or knockdown the target. While Spears could extend their reach and prepare to counter a charging opponent.

And Fighting Styles got replaced to granting different abilities involving the method of fighting rather than just passive bonuses.

So you could have a Two-Handed Fighting Style Axe that has a bunch of abilities to deal a lot of heavy hits with high damage.

Or you could have a Shielded Fighting Style Axe that still gets the Axe’s hook and high damage ability, but now got things like Shield Block and Protector to go along with it.

And finally feats were replaced to focus on damage type.

So to continue with the axe example, a Warpick was part of the axe group but it did piercing damage, which allowed it to use special piercing attacks like running the opponent through or piercing weakpoint. Which were different from the standard axe’s slashing damage that led to a sweeping attack or a bleed attack.

It was very fun when I tested it. Essentially creating a matrix of weapon, combat style, and damage type that all worked together to make the end result feel distinct from what other weapons were doing.

[Deathtongue]

5E D&D has much fewer customization options and much less in the way magical weaponry than 3E/4E/probably 2E, so I say go for it.

I'd rather have new weapons be straight-up more powerful than more distinctive, though. There needs to be for a way for martials (or at least people with Extra Attack) to have more variety and power at higher levels than going 'lol, multiclass or take a feat'. For example, a non-magical Zweihander or Mercurcial Longsword that was not only straight-up more powerful than the base Greatsword/Longsword but the Zweihander had the property of exploding die and the Mercurcial Longsword did extra damage to characters who haven't moved and/or stood up from prone.

[JNAProductions]

5E D&D has much fewer customization options and much less in the way magical weaponry than 3E/4E/probably 2E, so I say go for it.

I'd rather have new weapons be straight-up more powerful than more distinctive, though. There needs to be for a way for martials (or at least people with Extra Attack) to have more variety and power at higher levels than going 'lol, multiclass or take a feat'. For example, a non-magical Zweihander or Mercurcial Longsword that was not only straight-up more powerful than the base Greatsword/Longsword but the Zweihander had the property of exploding die and the Mercurcial Longsword did extra damage to characters who haven't moved and/or stood up from prone.

That seems like a bad idea, just in concept.

Martials keep with damage just fine-generally the complaints I see about them are more in relation to out of combat capabilities or lack of choice. Bigger numbers doesn't help either of those, but does make them even better at what they're already more than good enough at.

[DarknessEternal]

Ban the bonus attack action on Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert.

This solves all the problems.

[JNAProductions]

Ban the bonus attack action on Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert.

This solves all the problems.

That... That seems contrary to what's being talked about. If weapons are to be made more distinctive, diminishing feats the distinguish weapons seems ill-advised.

[animewatcha]

5e was supposed to be the K.I.S.S. edition. I don't know about 4e but in 3.5e, this would be exotic weapons where you sack a feat. Some Exotics were OP. Some were useless. Closest thing that 5e has is the double bladed scimitar ( is a martial ). Also to get a weapon proficiency you don't have would require what? 750 gold and a year with an 'expert' ? Not starting at level 1 would mean <insert OP exotic weapons here> would be backstory instead of downtime

[Sorinth]

I'll go further. I've posted this idea before.

I dont care what you want to call your weapon or what you think its made of. As Chuck Yeager said, "It's the man, not the machine." Concept: The weapon's damage depends on who is wielding it.

A one handed weapon in the hand of a HD d6 does 1d4, in the hand of a HD d8 does 1d6, in the hand of a HD d10 does 1d8, and in the hand of a HD d12 does d10.

If used two handed, move up one die category for damage OR use 2 dice of one die category down. There's your 2 handed sword (2d6) or longsword two handed (d10). Yes, it makes the greataxe in the hands of a barbarian a 2d8 weapon. The weapons was too swingy in damage to begin with, this makes it more consistently deadly.

Each weapon can have two additional descriptors (light, finesse, heavy), but reach, thrown, and ranged weapons lose one die category. Thus a 2 handed ranged weapon for a HD d8 does d6, and in the hands of a HD d10 does 1d8. You want a throwable sword? You got it. There's no mass behind a thrown weapon, and it's about mass and velocity.

As you can see, this allows the players to get their rocks off about what they are wielding, and keeps it ALMOST exactly the same. So your wizard can Gandalf a 1 1/2 handed sword, doing d4 one handed, d6 two handed without rewriting all of the rules.

This de-emphasizes the simple/martial distinction, but preserves it at the same time. I'd let nonmartial types choose ONE weapon they are proficient in from the martial category and call it a day.

Yes, this idea is ripped directly off of R.A. Salvatores' RPG.

This seems problematic with multiclassing and would cause a bunch of dipping where every martial is going to want to dip one level of Barbarian.

As a concept I'm not opposed to class based damage for weapons but it would probably be better if it worked more like Monk's unarmed damage and the damage scaled with level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's my stab at this (pun intended):

Note: these supplant the weapon feats in existence entirely.



Group | Weapons
Axe (Chopping) | greataxe, battleaxe, war pick, halberd, handaxe
Bow | longbow, shortbow
Crossbow | hand/heavy/light crossbow
Crushing | greatclub, mace, flail, maul, morningstar, warhammer, light hammer, quarterstaff, club
Polearm | glaive, halberd, lance, pike, trident, spear
Heavy Blade (Cutting) | glaive, greatsword, longsword, scimitar
Light Blade (Finesse/Stabbing) | dagger, rapier, shortsword, sickle, scimitar
Throwing | Handaxe, javelin, light hammer, sling, dart, dagger
Exotic | Trident, whip, blowgun, net


Every class gets one Weapon Talent at class level X (thinking 3-6). All non-full-casters get an additional one at level Y, and fighters, and barbarians get another at Z.



Blade Opportunist
Useable with cutting blades and stabbing blades. Targets you hit with opportunity attacks have their speed reduced by 10 feet until the end of their next turn.

Throwing Expert
Usable with thrown weapons and slings. The ranges (both normal and far) of qualifying weapons are doubled and you may draw any number of thrown weapons as part of the action used to throw them. You ignore the loading property of slings.

Nimble Blade
Usable with stabbing blades. When you attack with a qualifying weapon and miss, you can use your reaction to reroll the attack.

Deadly Axe
Useable with axes. You can reroll any 1s on a damage roll made with an axe but must take the second result. When you score a critical hit with an axe, add your proficiency bonus to the damage dealt.

Hammer Rhythm
Usable with crushing weapons. When you miss with an attack using a qualifying weapon, the target takes bludgeoning damage equal to your Strength modifier. This damage shares any properties such as coming from a magical weapon, etc. with the damage dealt by the weapon itself, although it does not trigger any additional effects that may apply on a hit.

Reliable Strike
Usable with cutting blades. When you hit with an attack using a qualifying weapon and roll less than half of the maximum damage, you instead deal half the maximum damage.

Polearm Gamble
Usable with polearms. When an enemy enters your reach while you wield a polearm, you can use your reaction to make an attack against them. If you do, you have advantage on this attack but that enemy has advantage on its next attack against you until the end of its next turn.

Deep Gash
Usable with axes and cutting blades. When you hit with an attack on your turn, the target must make a Constitution saving throw against a DC of 8 + your Strength modifier + your proficiency bonus. On a failed save they take damage equal to half your average weapon damage at the beginning of their next turn. This talent does not stack--each creature may only take extra damage once per creature with this talent on a given turn.

Balanced Blades
You can use two weapon fighting with a rapier and a dagger. If you do, you gain +1 AC and opportunity attacks against you are at disadvantage.

Knockdown Strike
Usable with polearms and quarterstaffs. Once per turn when you hit an enemy on your turn using a qualifying weapon, you can take the Shove action against them without spending an action and without the normal size restrictions.

Street Thug
Crushing weapons that lack the two-handed property count as finesse weapons for you (and are thus eligible for sneak attack). In addition, when you hit a target with a qualifying weapon, you can attempt to stun it instead of dealing damage. The target must make a Constitution saving throw against a DC of 8 + your weapon attack modifier. On a failed save, it is stunned until the end of your next turn but takes no damage. On a success it takes half damage instead. Once you use this portion of the feature, you must complete a short rest before you can do so again.

Kneecapping Strike
Once when you hit a creature with a crushing weapon on each of your turns your turn, you can force the target to make a Constitution saving throw with a DC of 8 + your Strength modifier + your proficiency bonus. On a failed save the target’s speed is reduced by 10 feet. Hobbled targets can reattempt the saving throw at the end of each of their turns, ending the effect on a success.

Hobbling Shot
Once per turn when you hit with a bow, you can force the target to make a CON save against a DC of 8 + your Dexterity modifier + Proficiency. On a failed save the target takes 1 damage for every 5 feet they move until the end of their next turn.

Crossbow Expert
You ignore the loading property of crossbows. Once per turn when you attack with a crossbow, the bolt continues past the target. Make an attack roll against the first enemy beyond your original target on the 5-foot-wide line between you and your target extending out to the range of the weapon. They have half cover on this attack. If you hit with your first attack, this second attack deals half damage; otherwise it deals normal damage.

Sharpshooter
You are no longer at disadvantage on attacks up to the far range of your bow or crossbow or against prone targets. Cover is reduced by one step--total cover to ¾ cover, ¾ cover to half-cover, and half cover to no cover when you use a bow or crossbow.

Close-Quarters Archer
You are no longer at disadvantage when making ranged weapon attacks when an enemy is within 5 feet of you. When you hit a target within 10 feet of you with a ranged weapon attack from a bow or crossbow you can Disengage as a bonus action.

Exotic Weapon Master
Once per turn you gain advantage on both attack roll and damage done (if any) when using an exotic weapon. Attacks using nets deal 1d4 damage and no longer have disadvantage on attacks made with an enemy within 5 feet.

Extended Reach
When you wield a polearm or a whip you can use features and spells that involve a melee weapon attack out to the full reach of your weapon.

Furious Blow
Once per turn when you take the Attack action while wielding an axe you can choose to make one of the attacks at disadvantage. If you hit with this attack, it deals 2 extra dice of damage.

Master Poisoner
Requires poisoner’s kit proficiency
You can create poison for 1/4 the cost (25gp for a basic vial) and can apply it as a bonus action. A single vial of poison can coat 1 non-throwing weapon, 3 throwing weapons or arrows/bolts, or up to 10 blowgun darts. The DC of your poisons increases by your proficiency modifier.

[Kurt Kurageous]

This seems problematic with multiclassing and would cause a bunch of dipping where every martial is going to want to dip one level of Barbarian.

As a concept I'm not opposed to class based damage for weapons but it would probably be better if it worked more like Monk's unarmed damage and the damage scaled with level.

You are right, this variant suggestion was NOT done considering multiclassing. My rule would have to have something to counter the universal barbarian dip. Perhaps saying the modal hit die is the hit die for your weapon. Otherwise, all future sorcs and warlocks would be former barbarians.

I generally don't allow multiclassing. I also have not implemented this variant (yet).

[Luccan]

You are right, this variant suggestion was NOT done considering multiclassing. My rule would have to have something to counter the universal barbarian dip. Perhaps saying the modal hit die is the hit die for your weapon. Otherwise, all future sorcs and warlocks would be former barbarians.

I generally don't allow multiclassing. I also have not implemented this variant (yet).

I don't think I agree with class based damage at all (not if it replaces weapon damage entirely), but I am curious how your system handles monks. Do they have class damage dice and then martials damage dice? If they're the same that seems like it could either result in a boost early on potentially tapering out at high levels or an overall nerf, depending on which way you leaned.

[GeoffWatson]

Depends on the setting.
If the PCs are mainly fighting other humanoids, then distinctive weapons and armour rules could work well. Make some weapons good in each situation, but no weapon is best in all cases.

If they are fighting a wider variety of monsters, then the enemies will be distinctive enough, and this sort of rule is probably not needed.

[Hytheter]

I don't think making enemies distinctive is really the point Geoff.

[DarknessEternal]

That... That seems contrary to what's being talked about. If weapons are to be made more distinctive, diminishing feats the distinguish weapons seems ill-advised.

Only 6 weapons exist if you allow them.

[Telwar]

I always found, among other things, that 5e's insistence on having B/P/S damage types with minimal ability to customize your weapons around them to be a little silly. 4e it made more sense, since the exotic weapons and feats were there to support them. And B/P/S really only matters mostly with skeletons and oozes.

So IMNAAHO if there's very little to support having different physical damage types, then those really shouldn't be something to worry about, and instead you should just have the 13th Age designations of 1h vs 2h, simple vs martial, and move on with your life.