I don't understand Weapons

[Bjarkmundur]

I get the need for multiple distinct weapons in a fantasy game. I understand that finesse weapons are a balance point, and that two handed weapons deal more damage than one handed weapons. I get that having minor differences like damage types, 2d6/1d12 and the versatile property is fun for a player when designing his character.

What I don't understand is the loading property. Why is it implemented? What does it change?

I've been mulling over this since yesterday and all I can think of is that it means that it just creates a weapon that single-attack classes will favor, and a property that can be ignored with a feat down the line. But none of this makes any sense from a development standpoint. I can't really imagine a game developer going "ah, let's give rogues and a stronger ranged weapon, but give fighters access to that same weapon with a feat!" And someone else going "excellent work Steve, a promotion to you!"

I'm saying this because if you were to design a loading weapon starting with the property, isn't the obvious way to balance that just saying "You can only shoot a weapon with the loading property once per turn, but it's damage is multiplied by the number of attacks you would be able to make with a non-loading weapon"

I am obviously missing something. But what is it?

[qube]

I can't really imagine a game developer going "ah, let's give rogues and a stronger ranged weapon, but give fighters access to that same weapon with a feat!" And someone else going "excellent work Steve, a promotion to you!"

...

I am obviously missing something. But what is it?I think it's the opposite way. This seems far more likely:

Steve: crossbows take longer to load. That's just realism
Bob: but wouldn't that make the weapon useless?
Steve: no no, some classes / levels simply use a single attack
Bob: but what if you really really really want to make a guy who fires a crossbow 8 times in a round.
Steve: Why 'd you want to do that?
Bob: the hand crossbow. some people like to make gunslingers.
Steve: ... wel, I guess we could make a feat for that.

[kazaryu]

I get the need for multiple distinct weapons in a fantasy game. I understand that finesse weapons are a balance point, and that two handed weapons deal more damage than one handed weapons. I get that having minor differences like damage types, 2d6/1d12 and the versatile property is fun for a player when designing his character.

What I don't understand is the loading property. Why is it implemented? What does it change?

I've been mulling over this since yesterday and all I can think of is that it means that it just creates a weapon that single-attack classes will favor, and a property that can be ignored with a feat down the line. But none of this makes any sense from a development standpoint. I can't really imagine a game developer going "ah, let's give rogues and a stronger ranged weapon, but give fighters access to that same weapon with a feat!" And someone else going "excellent work Steve, a promotion to you!"

I'm saying this because if you were to design a loading weapon starting with the property, isn't the obvious way to balance that just saying "You can only shoot a weapon with the loading property once per turn, but it's damage is multiplied by the number of attacks you would be able to make with a non-loading weapon"

I am obviously missing something. But what is it?

except rogues don't actually get heavy crossbow proficiency only light crossbow. its definitely a confusing design choice.

at a guess i'd say its an attempt to make crossbows somehow more realistic. because i mean...1 shot/6 seconds is..technically more realistic than 8 shots per second....technically.

[Valmark]

I'd imagine it's to balance them against a bow's smaller damage dice- with the hand crossbow being the outlier (I guess they figured hand crossbows would only be used in dual wielding?).

[Dualight]

Keep in mind that the hand crossbow is a simple ranged weapon, not a martial ranged weapon. The hand crossbow is compared to the shortbow, not the longbow. The hand crossbow is an outlier among the crossbows since it is much easier to use proficiently than the other crossbows.

[Valmark]

Keep in mind that the hand crossbow is a simple ranged weapon, not a martial ranged weapon. The hand crossbow is compared to the shortbow, not the longbow. The hand crossbow is an outlier among the crossbows since it is much easier to use proficiently than the other crossbows.

Nah, it's martial- you do compare it to heavy crossbows and longbows, where the only advantage is being light instead of heavy/two handed (I think that's the only one).

[diplomancer]

In thw relatively simple 5e system, there isn't much design room to separate weapons, even more between bows and crossbows (no "armor-piercing" weapons, for instance).
So giving bows better range and speed but less damage relatively to crossbows is the most obvious way to differentiate them.

[Dualight]

Nah, it's martial- you do compare it to heavy crossbows and longbows, where the only advantage is being light instead of heavy/two handed (I think that's the only one).
:facepalm
It is the light crossbow that is simple, not the hand crossbow, my bad. The hand crossbow is the one-handed, light martial weapon that crossbow experts use to mimic the fighter's Extra Attack a tier early. My bad.
Having played alongside a hand crossbow using Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter, I understand why the hand crossbow deals such poor base damage. 3 attacks/turn is a lot of firepower with the right(simple, PHB-only) set up.

[stoutstien]

:facepalm
It is the light crossbow that is simple, not the hand crossbow, my bad. The hand crossbow is the one-handed, light martial weapon that crossbow experts use to mimic the fighter's Extra Attack a tier early. My bad.
Having played alongside a hand crossbow using Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter, I understand why the hand crossbow deals such poor base damage. 3 attacks/turn is a lot of firepower with the right(simple, PHB-only) set up.
Don't feel bad. In a few of the different languages the source books are printed in they practically reversed them in translation.

On the topic at hand I think they were trying to keep the table simple and useable for both PCs and NPCs. For some trading multiple melee ranged attacks for a crossbow shot seemed like a straightforward trade. Loading is mostly just a lineage feature that will probably be phased out eventually. I have not own solution but it involved reworking the whole table fairly substantially. I just can't decide if I want ranged weapon attacks to have the damage based on the weapon and the ammunition proving minor augmentation or vice versa.

[False God]

It's a holdover from older game design where you would get "useful but clunky" items or features, and you could "buy off" their penalties with further investments.

Personally I tend to ignore the loading property entirely. Characters are limited in their attacks by the system itself, and none of the weapons do any level of damage that I'm worried about.

[Mastikator]

If light crossbows didn't have loading it would make the shortbow obsolete. Same goes for heavy crossbow vs longbow. (though longbow has a range advantage, but few dungeon rooms are ever bigger than 100ft in any dimension so it hardly matters)

[MrCharlie]

There is something to be said for leaving crossbows in as a low level option with the logic that "Well, crossbows are easier to use than a bow, so..."

The problem is that a lot of their tactical strengths over a bow, namely that you can use them from a wider variety of firing angles and positions, have much better accuracy at long range, and have the ability to hold a shot for longer once loaded, are usually ignored or don't work in DnD without some lengthy rules.

What a crossbow should be good for is popping out of full cover, taking at shot with maximum partial cover, and popping back into full cover before an enemy can target you with their own attacks. But because a bow can get the same cover bonus, takes the same amount of time to make multiple shots, and has more than enough range and no penalty for long range, the crossbow has no niche once it stops being meaningfully more damaging.

It's not like this is DnD's fault, the only way to really model this is with one of those systems that has speeds for every action, and that only works with a computer to handle the calculations automatically so combat isn't a slog. The alternative is to abstract it, and create special-use cases.

The best abstraction of what makes a crossbow good that I've seen is the following "You can only make one attack with a crossbow, but may multiply the damage you deal by the number of [extra attacks you can make per attack action]. This bonus applies to attacks [using your reaction] as well. Further, you may move five feet after shooting a crossbow and make a stealth check to hide at no penalty, so long as the target can no longer see you."

This is paraphrased from one of my friends homebrews for a pathfinder game, although its wording differently to conform with 5e rules (insert "extra attacks from BAB" and "of opportunity" for the bracketed text). It's also not perfect, but at least gives the crossbow a reason to exist.

[noob]

There is something to be said for leaving crossbows in as a low level option with the logic that "Well, crossbows are easier to use than a bow, so..."

The problem is that a lot of their tactical strengths over a bow, namely that you can use them from a wider variety of firing angles and positions, have much better accuracy at long range, and have the ability to hold a shot for longer once loaded, are usually ignored or don't work in DnD without some lengthy rules.

What a crossbow should be good for is popping out of full cover, taking at shot with maximum partial cover, and popping back into full cover before an enemy can target you with their own attacks. But because a bow can get the same cover bonus, takes the same amount of time to make multiple shots, and has more than enough range and no penalty for long range, the crossbow has no niche once it stops being meaningfully more damaging.

It's not like this is DnD's fault, the only way to really model this is with one of those systems that has speeds for every action, and that only works with a computer to handle the calculations automatically so combat isn't a slog. The alternative is to abstract it, and create special-use cases.

The best abstraction of what makes a crossbow good that I've seen is the following "You can only make one attack with a crossbow, but may multiply the damage you deal by the number of [extra attacks you can make per attack action]. This bonus applies to attacks [using your reaction] as well. Further, you may move five feet after shooting a crossbow and make a stealth check to hide at no penalty, so long as the target can no longer see you."

This is paraphrased from one of my friends homebrews for a pathfinder game, although its wording differently to conform with 5e rules (insert "extra attacks from BAB" and "of opportunity" for the bracketed text). It's also not perfect, but at least gives the crossbow a reason to exist.

Basically crossbows grants vital strike but updated to 5e?
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vital-strike-combat

[MrCharlie]

Basically crossbows grants vital strike but updated to 5e?
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vital-strike-combat
That's the effect in a nutshell, yeah. Vital strike didn't actually multiply damage, mind you, and what it did add was less than attacking twice. This was my buddies way of making a version of vital strike that was actually worthwhile on crossbows (regular vital strike basically existed for when you have to take a move action to be in a valid position, but was bad to be using every round).

To be fair, this isn't an actual X2 damage modifier even if it says it is a X2 damage modifier-because you roll fewer attempts to hit and therefore have worse odds of doing some proportion of the damage. What it really does is buff effects that add once/turn damage or to hit bonuses.

It's also ripe for abuse from certain multiclasses-take five fighter levels on a high level rogue and you get much more damage than if you actually made two attacks. It's not a great solution. It's got the gist of what I feel the ideal for crossbows is, though.

[Keltest]

I think a lot of it has to do with the robin hood/legolas fantasy. There arent a lot of amazing archer type heroes that use a crossbow, so consciously or not the design team drifted towards long/shortbows being the "heroic" weapon of archers, while crossbows are a sidearm or ranged weapon for the sneaky melee types to keep in emergencies or for doing things like throwing grappling hooks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think a lot of it has to do with the robin hood/legolas fantasy. There arent a lot of amazing archer type heroes that use a crossbow, so consciously or not the design team drifted towards long/shortbows being the "heroic" weapon of archers, while crossbows are a sidearm or ranged weapon for the sneaky melee types to keep in emergencies or for doing things like throwing grappling hooks.

Or for baddies/guards. Ever notice that very few NPCs use bows except dedicated archers? In the same vein, note how scimitars are the favored weapon of bad guys (bandits, etc)? Not longswords or shortswords.

[MrCharlie]

Or for baddies/guards. Ever notice that very few NPCs use bows except dedicated archers? In the same vein, note how scimitars are the favored weapon of bad guys (bandits, etc)? Not longswords or shortswords.
Now that you mention it, that's particularly perplexing because Scimitars are about the most expensive one-handed weapon in the game, tied with rapiers. It's really odd that a Noble npc and a Bandit npc use a weapon with the same cost...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Now that you mention it, that's particularly perplexing because Scimitars are about the most expensive one-handed weapon in the game, tied with rapiers. It's really odd that a Noble npc and a Bandit npc use a weapon with the same cost...

Supply and demand. All the bandits are buying up all the scimitars, so they're now expensive. But rapiers are fancy, so they're also expensive. /Blue

[Amechra]

You know what actually, legitimately annoys me about the weapon list?

Hand Crossbows are Light.

"Why is that annoying?", you might ask. Well, a weapon being Light is meaningless outside of using it with TWF... and ranged weapons can't be used with TWF. It reads to me as if the original intent was that you could, say, TWF with a shortsword in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other, but then someone on the writing team noticed that that didn't work because of how they set up dual wielding. And then, rather than fixing that, they threw in a feat that gives you a better-than-TWF bonus attack instead.

[MrCharlie]

You know what actually, legitimately annoys me about the weapon list?

Hand Crossbows are Light.

"Why is that annoying?", you might ask. Well, a weapon being Light is meaningless outside of using it with TWF... and ranged weapons can't be used with TWF. It reads to me as if the original intent was that you could, say, TWF with a shortsword in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other, but then someone on the writing team noticed that that didn't work because of how they set up dual wielding. And then, rather than fixing that, they threw in a feat that gives you a better-than-TWF bonus attack instead.
The fact you can't dual wield with a rapier bothers me more. Rapier/dagger is a common technique, yet the best I can do to mimic it is dagger/shortsword, which is manifestly inferior to shortsword/shortsword. I'm actually rather bothered by it when it comes to my swashbuckler class fantasy.

My other personal pet-peeve is the existence of darts and blowguns. Darts seem to occupy some weird space where they exist solely to be thrown ranged weapons, with no mechanical reason for their existence otherwise-in contrast to a thrown melee weapon. Given that I hate that these distinctions exist in the first place, and wish every relevant class feature or spell referenced the type of attack and not the weapon used to make it, I despise darts.

I also am still not sure why blowguns exist-even if they are meant to deliver poison without killing the target, they deal too much damage (as the DEX bonus is still added in), meaning that their entire existence is justified by three points of damage. It's silly, and there aren't even that many poisons that blowdarts work with!

[Amechra]

The dual wielding rules in general are just kinda weird in terms of what you can use them with.

I'm honestly a little baffled that 5e went with having a list of specific weapons, especially since some of them have no actual reason to exist (looking at you, trident, you strictly worse spear). Then again, I don't understand why bludgeoning/piercing/slashing are still their own unique damage types and not, say, non-magical force damage. I don't understand a lot of things.

[Amnestic]

I'm honestly a little baffled that 5e went with having a list of specific weapons, especially since some of them have no actual reason to exist (looking at you, trident, you strictly worse spear). Then again, I don't understand why bludgeoning/piercing/slashing are still their own unique damage types and not, say, non-magical force damage. I don't understand a lot of things.

There are some creatures where the different version of BPS matters - skeletons (vuln to bludgeon) and treants (resistant to B/P but not S) - but they're few and far between.

[MrCharlie]

The dual wielding rules in general are just kinda weird in terms of what you can use them with.

I'm honestly a little baffled that 5e went with having a list of specific weapons, especially since some of them have no actual reason to exist (looking at you, trident, you strictly worse spear). Then again, I don't understand why bludgeoning/piercing/slashing are still their own unique damage types and not, say, non-magical force damage. I don't understand a lot of things.
I think the B/P/S thing is mostly them not utilizing damage types, more than there being any problem with them. There are like, two monsters in the MM who care about which weapon you are using, skeletons and Rakshasa. Rakshasa care because of what's basically a meme (inspired by an old tv show, of all things) and skeletons care because of a surprising display of logic. Almost everything else, even enemies which should be outright immune to certain damage types, do not care about what weapon you are swinging.

And really, force damage is just generic "magic" damage when you get down to it. Disintegrate isn't really playing with planes or projections of force, it's undoing your chemistry, yet its force damage. The only real problem with it is that some sources of force damage ought to be magic bludgeoning damage instead, and the two types get conflated-it's not that bludgeoning should be force, it's that some force should be bludgeoning.

Edit: Right, Treants, that's three. I think the total number is still countable on one hand, maybe two if we include every source. Out of hundreds of monsters, that's terrible.

[PhantomSoul]

I think the B/P/S thing is mostly them not utilizing damage types, more than there being any problem with them. There are like, two monsters in the MM who care about which weapon you are using, skeletons and Rakshasa. Rakshasa care because of what's basically a meme (inspired by an old tv show, of all things) and skeletons care because of a surprising display of logic. Almost everything else, even enemies which should be outright immune to certain damage types, do not care about what weapon you are swinging.

Agreed -- I don't want things to go; I want them to matter. (Where WOTC seems to be eager to dump things instead of having them be interesting, impactful or meaningful :/ )

[Amechra]

That's the reason I'm baffled, honestly. B/P/S basically exists for legacy reasons, and doesn't really fit the "simpler" aesthetic that 5e's going for.

[PhantomSoul]

That's the reason I'm baffled, honestly. B/P/S basically exists for legacy reasons, and doesn't really fit the "simpler" aesthetic that 5e's going for.

I think existing in so many games and being so intuitive (different weapons should do different things, and these are lifelike things) probably play a big role too, they just couldn't be bothered to make it matter and/or decided it wasn't worth making matter. So the distinction fakes having depth, making it feel even more shallow when the veil is very, very soon lifted.

[Amnestic]

That's the reason I'm baffled, honestly. B/P/S basically exists for legacy reasons, and doesn't really fit the "simpler" aesthetic that 5e's going for.

If I had to guess, it's to straddle.
5e couldn't deviate too much from what DnD was historically (in feel/aesthetic, even if not mechanics) or like 4e before it it might be maligned as 'not true DnD' and they would lose players who stuck to 3.5 or it's "true successor" in Pathfinder. So they had to keep specific weapons in, and they had to keep in different weapon damage types, along with the occasional nod to their existence but for the most part it doesn't matter if you're doing B, P, or S.

So it is simpler, while also not being so simplified that grognards might go "buh where muh slashing damage???"

[stoutstien]

I like the difference between S/P/B as weaponfeatures but I also use resistance and vulnerability often. I swear they forgot about it when they put together half the MM. It's such an easy thing to slap on to give them more life and doesn't shift their rough CR difficulty. Giant *insert descriper* hide boars example.

[Angelalex242]

Weapons are easy! Hold the part that looks like handle, use the sharp or weighted part on the other guy!

Simple, right?

[Bjarkmundur]

so in general, most weapon properties in 5e are arbitrary, except for larger weapon = larger damage, and martial weapons>simple weapons?

And I'm not crazy for thinking 4e's weapons made a ton of sense in comparison?

[Guy Lombard-O]

The fact you can't dual wield with a rapier bothers me more. Rapier/dagger is a common technique, yet the best I can do to mimic it is dagger/shortsword, which is manifestly inferior to shortsword/shortsword. I'm actually rather bothered by it when it comes to my swashbuckler class fantasy.

Yes. Rapier/Dagger should definitely be one of the main options for TWF.


I also am still not sure why blowguns exist-even if they are meant to deliver poison without killing the target, they deal too much damage (as the DEX bonus is still added in), meaning that their entire existence is justified by three points of damage. It's silly, and there aren't even that many poisons that blowdarts work with!

I feel like both hand crossbows and blowguns do way too much damage. Blowgun should literally do 1 HP damage, with no Dex modifier allowed. It could maybe also have allowed poisons applied to the darts to last for 10 minutes instead of 1 minute, since the dart is so sheltered and stops the poison from drying/evaporating as quickly. Hand crossbows should only do 1-2 HP damage. They're underpowered toys compared to even a light crossbow.

Additionally, Sharpshooter's -5/+10 shouldn't work on darts, blowguns or hand crossbows. If you want to do real damage, use a real weapon.:smallmad:

[Bjarkmundur]

What would it look like if you had to use a Bonus Action to load a crossbow, but it would allow for -unlimited- number of attacks until the start of your next turn?

How much extra damage would that weapon need to deal for it to be viable, or competitive?

Are all weapons just decided with a balance spectrum in mind, rather than a strict powercurve?

"Why is this weapon 1d6 and this weapon 1d4?"
"jus' 'cause, that's why"

[Kane0]

You ready for some heresy?

Simple Weapons:
Dagger: 1d4 damage, Light, Finesse, Thrown (20' / 60')
Bludgeon: 1d6 damage, Light, Finesse
Javelin/Tomahawk: 1d6 damage, Light, Thrown (40' / 120')
Staff: 1d6 damage, Versatile
Spear: 1d6 damage, Reach
Sling: 1d6 damage Ranged, Ammunition (80' / 320')

Martial Weapons:
Axe/Flail/Hammer/Pick: 1d8 damage, Versatile
Polearm: 1d10 damage, Reach, Two Handed
Sword: 1d6 damage, Finesse, Light, Versatile
Zweihander: 1d12 damage, Two Handed
Bow: 1d8 damage Ranged, Ammunition (120' / 480'), Two Handed
Crossbow: 1d10 damage Ranged, Ammunition (100' / 400'), Loading, Two Handed

Buckler: +1 AC, interaction to don/doff, requires light armor proficiency
Shield: +2 AC, action to don/doff, requires medium armor proficiency

Bonus points for crossbow: give them a special feature that makes their ready-reaction attack stronger, because that's what they were really useful for (imagine sitting around during a castle siege waiting for someone to pop up on the battlements using a bow vs a crossbow).

Oh, forgot whip, net and lance. Those are still special.

[Witty Username]

I thought the hand crossbow thing with crossbow expert was to use a melee weapon in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other. It just happens to work with just the hand crossbow by RAW.

In not 5e, a single attack higher damage weapon could have uses. Like if damage reduction, the flat value kind, was a concern then a heavy crossbow makes sense, also it is helpful if a class gets multiple attacks without proficiency like bladesinger or swords bard if one wants sharper theme, if shortbow wasn't simple which I believe it is.

Legacy is the primary reason it exists.

[MrCharlie]

so in general, most weapon properties in 5e are arbitrary, except for larger weapon = larger damage, and martial weapons>simple weapons?

And I'm not crazy for thinking 4e's weapons made a ton of sense in comparison?
I don't really think 4e's weapons were much better.

But yeah, weapon properties are generally arbitrary; there are more outliers to "dice->property" rules than valid examples. About a third of the properties are only keywords for further interactions-Light, Heavy, Loading-and are generally unimportant themselves. Plus versatile matters solely because of one fairly common magic item.1

Outside of feat interactions, the only truly important properties are finesse, two-handed, thrown, ranged, and reach-these are the only properties that fundamentally change how a weapon works. Because the MM is so barren of interactions, the damage type is also unimportant.

Given that two-handed+thrown make no sense, ranged weapons can only be combined with two-handed weapons, and 5e designers dislike making two-handed finesse weapons, that means there is only room for-

1. Finesse weapons, finesse thrown weapons, and finesse reach weapons.
2. Two-Handed weapons, two-handed reach weapons.
3. Thrown weapons, and above combinations.
4. Reach weapons, and above combinations.
5. And ranged weapons and ranged two-handed weapons.

That's 9 weapons, plus one which lacks those properties. Outside of feat keywords, there are ten actual weapons in DnD.

If you want the weapons this corresponds with-Rapier, Dagger, Whip, Greatsword, Halberd, Javelin, none, Sling, Longbow, and a Longsword. They chose not to have a reach weapon that isn't finesse or two-handed. And the sling is stretching it.

Notice how that's basically every weapon actually used in 5e? The rest are filler because they are worse versions of those, or they are simple duplicates of those. The only three weapons not on that list are the spear, hand crossbow, and shortsword, which are there for feats or fighting styles.2

The end result is that most of the weapon list is dead space. This is a direct consequence of keeping the weapons but removing the properties from 3.5 e that made each weapon unique (crit range, multiplier, or misc. bonuses).

1 The Sun Blade, which shows up as a major plot item in two published adventures and as an item in a couple more, and makes versatile relevant by being a two-handed finesse weapon so that Rogues and a few other builds can trigger some interesting rules interactions.

2 Polearm master (one-handed weapon), Crossbow Expert, and Two-Weapon Fighting.

[Bjarkmundur]

You ready for some heresy?

Are you? (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/a36yri/finding_5es_missing_weapons_v20_simplified_and/)

The ready-action crossbow idea is actually a pretty good way to get across the difference of a crossbow vs. a longbow within existing mechanics. Although the only thing that I can think of is to just limit how long you can hold a readied attack with a longbow for. Like, it's not like crossbows are better at holding a readied attack, it's more that longbows are worse at doing so.



But yeah, weapon properties are generally arbitrary; there are more outliers to "dice->property" rules than valid examples.

....

That's 9 weapons, plus one which lacks those properties. Outside of feat keywords, there are ten actual weapons in DnD.



Oh wow.



It's a holdover from older game design where you would get "useful but clunky" items or features, and you could "buy off" their penalties with further investments.


Personally I tend to ignore the loading property entirely. Characters are limited in their attacks by the system itself, and none of the weapons do any level of damage that I'm worried about.

I figured something like this was going on, and you're absolutely right.

This thread is just filled with amazing comments, honestly xD

[Leon]

You ready for some heresy?

Simple Weapons:
Dagger: 1d4 damage, Light, Finesse, Thrown (20' / 60')
Bludgeon: 1d6 damage, Light, Finesse
Javelin/Tomahawk: 1d6 damage, Light, Thrown (40' / 120')
Staff: 1d6 damage, Versatile
Spear: 1d6 damage, Reach
Sling: 1d6 damage Ranged, Ammunition (80' / 320')

Martial Weapons:
Axe/Flail/Hammer/Pick: 1d8 damage, Versatile
Polearm: 1d10 damage, Reach, Two Handed
Sword: 1d6 damage, Finesse, Light, Versatile
Zweihander: 1d12 damage, Two Handed
Bow: 1d8 damage Ranged, Ammunition (120' / 480'), Two Handed
Crossbow: 1d10 damage Ranged, Ammunition (100' / 400'), Loading, Two Handed

Buckler: +1 AC, interaction to don/doff, requires light armor proficiency
Shield: +2 AC, action to don/doff, requires medium armor proficiency

Bonus points for crossbow: give them a special feature that makes their ready-reaction attack stronger, because that's what they were really useful for (imagine sitting around during a castle siege waiting for someone to pop up on the battlements using a bow vs a crossbow).

Oh, forgot whip, net and lance. Those are still special.



Looks good, much better than the horrid mish mash that 5e managed to "simplify" into with multiple essentially duplicate weapons and a stark lack of charm or flavor to differ them.

[Mastikator]

You ready for some heresy?

Simple Weapons:
Dagger: 1d4 damage, Light, Finesse, Thrown (20' / 60')
Bludgeon: 1d6 damage, Light, Finesse
Javelin/Tomahawk: 1d6 damage, Light, Thrown (40' / 120')
Staff: 1d6 damage, Versatile
Spear: 1d6 damage, Reach
Sling: 1d6 damage Ranged, Ammunition (80' / 320')

Martial Weapons:
Axe/Flail/Hammer/Pick: 1d8 damage, Versatile
Polearm: 1d10 damage, Reach, Two Handed
Sword: 1d6 damage, Finesse, Light, Versatile
Zweihander: 1d12 damage, Two Handed
Bow: 1d8 damage Ranged, Ammunition (120' / 480'), Two Handed
Crossbow: 1d10 damage Ranged, Ammunition (100' / 400'), Loading, Two Handed

Buckler: +1 AC, interaction to don/doff, requires light armor proficiency
Shield: +2 AC, action to don/doff, requires medium armor proficiency

Bonus points for crossbow: give them a special feature that makes their ready-reaction attack stronger, because that's what they were really useful for (imagine sitting around during a castle siege waiting for someone to pop up on the battlements using a bow vs a crossbow).

Oh, forgot whip, net and lance. Those are still special.
I'm not seeing any heavy property, does this mean GWM is deleted? Or moved to "two handed"?

[Keltest]

The fact you can't dual wield with a rapier bothers me more. Rapier/dagger is a common technique, yet the best I can do to mimic it is dagger/shortsword, which is manifestly inferior to shortsword/shortsword. I'm actually rather bothered by it when it comes to my swashbuckler class fantasy.

From my understanding, rapier/dagger in real life typically uses the dagger to deflect and protect yourself, in which case the closest you could come to that would probably actually be to use a rapier and a shield that has been fluffed as a main gauche or similar parrying dagger.

[Kane0]

I'm not seeing any heavy property, does this mean GWM is deleted? Or moved to "two handed"?
Yeah any melee weapon held in two hands, so versatile can also apply

[stoutstien]

From my understanding, rapier/dagger in real life typically uses the dagger to deflect and protect yourself, in which case the closest you could come to that would probably actually be to use a rapier and a shield that has been fluffed as a main gauche or similar parrying dagger.

Depends on the style in question. The real advantage of the the off hand weapon over the buckler is speed and it prevents someone from forcing you into a bad position because they have made it past your guard. Main gaunce, ring daggers, and sail guard daggers all were primarily used in this way and were sharp for a reason.
Of course smacking someone with your buckler is also a common occurrence. the system just doesn't have that level of depth to play with.

[Saelethil]

If anyone’s interested I did a theoretical rewrite of ranged weapons/combat in the homebrew section a couple weeks ago
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?640114-Changes-to-Ranged-Weapons

[qube]

Of course smacking someone with your buckler is also a common occurrence. the system just doesn't have that level of depth to play with.seems an adequate solution for a melee fumble - the other person sees an opening for a shieldbask / buckler bash / parry dargger riposte

[dafrca]

Outside of feat interactions, the only truly important properties are finesse, two-handed, thrown, ranged, and reach-these are the only properties that fundamentally change how a weapon works. Because the MM is so barren of interactions, the damage type is also unimportant.

Given that two-handed+thrown make no sense, ranged weapons can only be combined with two-handed weapons, and 5e designers dislike making two-handed finesse weapons, that means there is only room for-

1. Finesse weapons, finesse thrown weapons, and finesse reach weapons.
2. Two-Handed weapons, two-handed reach weapons.
3. Thrown weapons, and above combinations.
4. Reach weapons, and above combinations.
5. And ranged weapons and ranged two-handed weapons.

That's 9 weapons, plus one which lacks those properties. Outside of feat keywords, there are ten actual weapons in DnD.

If you want the weapons this corresponds with-Rapier, Dagger, Whip, Greatsword, Halberd, Javelin, none, Sling, Longbow, and a Longsword. They chose not to have a reach weapon that isn't finesse or two-handed. And the sling is stretching it.

Notice how that's basically every weapon actually used in 5e? The rest are filler because they are worse versions of those, or they are simple duplicates of those. The only three weapons not on that list are the spear, hand crossbow, and shortsword, which are there for feats or fighting styles.2

The end result is that most of the weapon list is dead space. This is a direct consequence of keeping the weapons but removing the properties from 3.5 e that made each weapon unique (crit range, multiplier, or misc. bonuses).

1 The Sun Blade, which shows up as a major plot item in two published adventures and as an item in a couple more, and makes versatile relevant by being a two-handed finesse weapon so that Rogues and a few other builds can trigger some interesting rules interactions.

2 Polearm master (one-handed weapon), Crossbow Expert, and Two-Weapon Fighting.

Very well done. :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

I am obviously missing something. But what is it? In the basic game, to separate martial weapons uses from simple weapons users. (Yeah, there is some overlap).

So giving bows better range and speed but less damage relatively to crossbows is the most obvious way to differentiate them. Yes, and they were trying to simplify the game and make it more accessible to new players. I like the smaller weapons table. (Though I think that the great club needs to be heavy/1d10/2h to differentiate it from the quarterstaff, personally).

On the topic at hand I think they were trying to keep the table simple and useable for both PCs and NPCs. Yeah.

If light crossbows didn't have loading it would make the shortbow obsolete. Yes.

Weapons are easy! Hold the part that looks like handle, use the sharp or weighted part on the other guy!

Simple, right? Or to phrase this differently: try not to overthink it. (Yes, I know, we overthink the heck out of stuff on GiTP). :smallsmile: (And IMO Hand crossbow needs to be 1d4).
so in general, most weapon properties in 5e are arbitrary, except for larger weapon = larger damage, and martial weapons>simple weapons?:smallwink:
It's a game. Play it. If you begin your understanding with "1d6 is the basic unit of damage for a medium-sized, attacking creature" and work from there, it becomes a lot clearer.

[Mastikator]

Yeah any melee weapon held in two hands, so versatile can also apply

Kensei Monks will love this for sure.

[dafrca]

Or to phrase this differently: try not to overthink it. (Yes, I know, we overthink the heck out of stuff on GiTP). :smallsmile:


It's like the game within a game. :smallbiggrin:

[Joe the Rat]

I've half a mind to extend the range on the Heavy Xbow to go full sniper, or add minimum height clearance for long range bow shots. (What's about right? half the distance?)

On a broader point, the key considerations are
1) Realism. Verisimilitude. Crossbows, particularly the heavies, have various mechanisms for drawing, rarely one-handed, and almost never loaded until after drawn back. Where the energy behind the shot does come out about the same, bows are drawn with shot in hand, and will have a leverage advantage, making an easier draw.

2) Not all weapons are equal. Sickle is a worse handaxe. Greatclub is a worse quarterstaff. Mace is worse than quarterstaff. The pick, flail, and morningstar are worse than the Main Martials from the lack of versatility, though this is situational. The wtf of the trident (They should have made it the d8 versatile piercer, dammit). Historically to the game, you know the Polearms table? almost all of them were slower, lower-damage weapons compared to the usual Heroic fare. So why were they there? for the NPCs. You can have inferior weapons, and in terms of ranged work the crossbow is generally treated as an inferior option (alongside slings). See also: Ringmail.

The one complication here is that inferior (for adventurer) gear is typically cheaper. The light/short and heavy/long are the same price. No reason for melee martials to not grab the shortbow instead of the light crossbow for those rare occasions you actually need to shoot something.


I think a lot of it has to do with the robin hood/legolas fantasy. There arent a lot of amazing archer type heroes that use a crossbow, so consciously or not the design team drifted towards long/shortbows being the "heroic" weapon of archers, while crossbows are a sidearm or ranged weapon for the sneaky melee types to keep in emergencies or for doing things like throwing grappling hooks.Indeed, I hear Tell of one hero crossbowman.

[MrCharlie]

I've half a mind to extend the range on the Heavy Xbow to go full sniper, or add minimum height clearance for long range bow shots. (What's about right? half the distance?)

On a broader point, the key considerations are
1) Realism. Verisimilitude. Crossbows, particularly the heavies, have various mechanisms for drawing, rarely one-handed, and almost never loaded until after drawn back. Where the energy behind the shot does come out about the same, bows are drawn with shot in hand, and will have a leverage advantage, making an easier draw.

2) Not all weapons are equal. Sickle is a worse handaxe. Greatclub is a worse quarterstaff. Mace is worse than quarterstaff. The pick, flail, and morningstar are worse than the Main Martials from the lack of versatility, though this is situational. The wtf of the trident (They should have made it the d8 versatile piercer, dammit). Historically to the game, you know the Polearms table? almost all of them were slower, lower-damage weapons compared to the usual Heroic fare. So why were they there? for the NPCs. You can have inferior weapons, and in terms of ranged work the crossbow is generally treated as an inferior option (alongside slings). See also: Ringmail.

The one complication here is that inferior (for adventurer) gear is typically cheaper. The light/short and heavy/long are the same price. No reason for melee martials to not grab the shortbow instead of the light crossbow for those rare occasions you actually need to shoot something.

Indeed, I hear Tell of one hero crossbowman.
I agree in general, but I would like to say that the war pick is secretly the best of the longsword clone squad. Why? It's cheap.

Versatile is only technically a good thing, so we can ignore that property entirely-leaving seven weapons that deal that coveted 1d8. Rapier is finesse and expensive, longsword/warhammer/morningstar are interchangeable, and the flail/battleaxe are identical but twice as expensive as the lowly war pick.

That means that the war pick, the most often overlooked one-handed weapon, is actually the best one. If you are actually buying one you save 5 gold from the nearest competitor, and if you're paranoid enough to buy one weapon of each damage type it's 10 gold cheaper than the nearest one-handed piercing weapon. It's also half as heavy, which further tips the scales.

The longsword is actually one of the worst of the lot, being heavier and more expensive than the others. It's just the most iconic. War picks are king.

...On the flip side, it's also the least valuable one to loot off your enemies, so there is that. Same logic means you pick a rapier if you have a starting equipment choice. Even if you use strength you can then sell it and buy two war picks, and have beer money left over.

(Bandits, on the other hand, are lovely 25 gold piggybanks, bless their oddly rich scimitar/crossbow wielding hearts).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree in general, but I would like to say that the war pick is secretly the best of the longsword clone squad. Why? It's cheap.

Versatile is only technically a good thing, so we can ignore that property entirely-leaving seven weapons that deal that coveted 1d8. Rapier is finesse and expensive, longsword/warhammer/morningstar are interchangeable, and the flail/battleaxe are identical but twice as expensive as the lowly war pick.

That means that the war pick, the most often overlooked one-handed weapon, is actually the best one. If you are actually buying one you save 5 gold from the nearest competitor, and if you're paranoid enough to buy one weapon of each damage type it's 10 gold cheaper than the nearest one-handed piercing weapon. It's also half as heavy, which further tips the scales.

The longsword is actually one of the worst of the lot, being heavier and more expensive than the others. It's just the most iconic. War picks are king.

...On the flip side, it's also the least valuable one to loot off your enemies, so there is that. Same logic means you pick a rapier if you have a starting equipment choice. Even if you use strength you can then sell it and buy two war picks, and have beer money left over.

(Bandits, on the other hand, are lovely 25 gold piggybanks, bless their oddly rich scimitar/crossbow wielding hearts).

However, there's the (mostly for reasons of iconicness) fact that most magic weapons are coded as *swords. How many magic war picks are there? Just the +X ones and a few other "generic" ones (Weapon of Warning and a couple others, IIRC).

Plus, there's no guarantee that you can sell loot off of bodies (the stuff they were using):
Weapons and armor used by monsters are rarely in good enough condition to sell.

[MrCharlie]

However, there's the (mostly for reasons of iconicness) fact that most magic weapons are coded as *swords. How many magic war picks are there? Just the +X ones and a few other "generic" ones (Weapon of Warning and a couple others, IIRC).

Plus, there's no guarantee that you can sell loot off of bodies (the stuff they were using):
True, although no feature in the game except the piercer/slasher/crusher feats require you to commit to using one type of melee weapon, so the decision making on what to buy is still the same. If you find a better weapon there is no reason not to use it. DnD 5e got that one right, at least.

That PHB text never made much sense, either thematically or in terms of game mechanics, but you are right of course.

[dafrca]

However, there's the (mostly for reasons of iconicness) fact that most magic weapons are coded as *swords.
As a GM I have, at times, tried to pay attention to that and re-skin magic items to other weapons for fun. Or if a character does make a different choice try and make sure once in a while their weapon of choice shows up.

I loved the reaction of a player when he found a glaive +3 Defender in one game. The look on his face was so worth it. He had resigned himself to not finding a magical pole arm so it was fun for me as the GM as well.

[Leon]

Indeed, I hear Tell of one hero crossbowman.

Have a +1 for that.

[Keltest]

That PHB text never made much sense, either thematically or in terms of game mechanics, but you are right of course.

Well presumably if you stab somebody to death through their plate armor, the plate armor will have a big weapon-sized hole in it that is no longer protecting a fairly vital area.

[MrCharlie]

Well presumably if you stab somebody to death through their plate armor, the plate armor will have a big weapon-sized hole in it that is no longer protecting a fairly vital area.
If I stab someone to death through plate armor, the plate armor sucked. Or my sword is awesome.

My problem with this justification is that some part surely must be salvageable, and the PCs never have to worry about this despite the incredible beating they take.

Plus, some enemies, like Nobles, will absolutely not have shabby equipment. I'd be surprised if their gear was just worth the cost of a regular breastplate or rapier.

[Keltest]

If I stab someone to death through plate armor, the plate armor sucked. Or my sword is awesome.

My problem with this justification is that some part surely must be salvageable, and the PCs never have to worry about this despite the incredible beating they take.

Plus, some enemies, like Nobles, will absolutely not have shabby equipment. I'd be surprised if their gear was just worth the cost of a regular breastplate or rapier.

You are greatly overestimating the disparity in the quality of "rich" versus "poor" equipment, as well as the durability of plate armor. If you knocked somebody down or pinned them so they took the full force of a blow that you could line up, a sword would absolutely pierce plate armor. They have that point on the end for a reason after all.

Rich people typically had *more* equipment, not super-duper-superior equipment. A suit of full plate or a chainmail hauberk could be fairly expensive, as well as a military-quality sword, shield, helmet, spear, etc...

A peasant conscript would most likely be using inherited equipment accumulated over the generations, assuming they had access to a full kit, unless their liege paid to have them equipped properly out of his own pocket.

[MrCharlie]

You are greatly overestimating the disparity in the quality of "rich" versus "poor" equipment, as well as the durability of plate armor. If you knocked somebody down or pinned them so they took the full force of a blow that you could line up, a sword would absolutely pierce plate armor. They have that point on the end for a reason after all.

Er.

No. You can't pierce plate with a sword. You can work through someone's armor, but only by sliding between plates. Plate armor of any quality over "rusted pile of junk" is impervious to a sword. Utterly. No matter the leverage.


Rich people typically had *more* equipment, not super-duper-superior equipment. A suit of full plate or a chainmail hauberk could be fairly expensive, as well as a military-quality sword, shield, helmet, spear, etc...

A peasant conscript would most likely be using inherited equipment accumulated over the generations, assuming they had access to a full kit, unless their liege paid to have them equipped properly out of his own pocket.
Honestly, a Peasant conscript would have had some padded armor or a simple gambeson.

...Which, by the way, is also very hard to pierce with a sword. You need leverage.

[Amechra]

Yeah... people wore armor because armor worked. Hollywood just has a really bad habit of having weapons go straight through it, because that looks more dramatic than, say, grappling someone in full harness to the ground and stabbing them in the armpits/throat/crotch.

[Gurgeh]

Yeah nah, you absolutely cannot puncture plate armour with a sword (or with any period-appropriate weapon). You'd struggle to even dent it with most pointed or edged weapons.

D&D has always been bad at this, and fifth edition has become especially bad at this by artificially inflating the defensive properties of worse armour for (entirely valid) game-mechanical reasons.

If you're kitted out cap-a-pied in the best late medieval/early modern armour you can get, then you are effectively invulnerable to anything that strikes the armour directly. The only way you're getting hurt is by massive blunt force or by a strike that's able to slip through the very small gaps.

[Kane0]

If you're kitted out cap-a-pied in the best late medieval/early modern armour you can get, then you are effectively invulnerable to anything that strikes the armour directly. The only way you're getting hurt is by massive blunt force or by a strike that's able to slip through the very small gaps.

At which point the DM smiles and places a Bulette or Wyvern on the field.

[Gurgeh]

I don't see the relevance. I'm not talking about game mechanics, I'm just pointing out that this:

If you knocked somebody down or pinned them so they took the full force of a blow that you could line up, a sword would absolutely pierce plate armor.
...is utter nonsense.

For what it's worth, though, said best-in-class armour would still provide tremendous protection against big dangerous animals and monsters - and far more, proportionally, than any safety you'd get by the (very) marginally better agility you'd have if you were buck naked and had a very slightly better chance of dodging outright.

[Trafalgar]

They made a lot of legacy decisions for weapons. Like daggers do 1d4hp damage, short swords do 1d6, and long swords do 1d8. Why? because that's the way its been since OD&D and B/X. And starting from there led to a lot of weird decisions because they didn't design the system from the ground up.

[noob]

They made a lot of legacy decisions for weapons. Like daggers do 1d4hp damage, short swords do 1d6, and long swords do 1d8. Why? because that's the way its been since OD&D and B/X. And starting from there led to a lot of weird decisions because they didn't design the system from the ground up.

But in older editions there was a lot of other factors for weapons.

[Witty Username]

Yeah... people wore armor because armor worked. Hollywood just has a really bad habit of having weapons go straight through it, because that looks more dramatic than, say, grappling someone in full harness to the ground and stabbing them in the armpits/throat/crotch.

And it sounds less silly than grabbing the blade and beating them over the head with the hilt. Even if that would work better for beating the armor.


I miss damage resistance being more common.
Weapon choice mattered alot more when basic enemies like zombies had resistance to bludgeoning and piercing weapons.
Skeletons needed to be crushed.
As I recall there were several kinds of basic enemies that needed to be fought with piercing weapons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Look. You can stab an elephant or dragon to death with a dagger, something that shouldn't be able to pierce its hide. Or bludgeon an earth elemental with your (magic) fists. And you're dealing with people and creatures that are potentially as strong as people can possibly get[1].

Remember, don't look at reality for your inspiration. 5e doesn't try to be realistic. Look at popular culture representations, tropes, and myth. Where stabbing through armor and where bashing it out of shape are common.

[1] in the archetypal sense, not in the "can lift certain weights under controlled, prepared situations" sense people love to use.

[deljzc]

In my campaign (and since we don't use feats), I got rid of pole arms all together. I mean, I still have stats for them, but they are so ineffective in a dungeon environment, they are kind of impossible to be practical.

As a person that played a long time ago (AD&D) and wanting to get back into 5e, I must admit I don't like it as much.

The whole system plays like a video game/WOW combat system. Lots of burst damage. Players are more like super heroes. It feels like World of Warcraft combat on paper. There are cooldowns and sequences and combos that work best, so you just rinse/repeat.

I liked the game harder. I liked low magic. I liked thinking more about realism rather than super hero stuff.

But that's just me. I completely understand WHY they are making the changes. And I certainly understand, when looking in the context of changing D&D towards the video game MMO crowd, how 5e has become so popular. You can't argue with success.

Some parts of 5e I like. Others not so much. I either homebrew it all almost completely from scratch (and not find many people to play with) or I just go with the flow and play as is.

[Witty Username]

What is wrong with reach weapons in a dungeon environment?
I personally like the extra 5ft reach, even without PAM.

[Valmark]

What is wrong with reach weapons in a dungeon environment?
I personally like the extra 5ft reach, even without PAM.

It's likely because reach weapons without investment might even be harmful- since you could end up dealing less AoOs.

Superior mobility, attacks from behind obstacles/from unreachable places, PAM+Sentinel, all stuff that actually turns reach into a benefit. I'm sure there's more.

In a dungeon environment this is harder to leverage, possibly.

[Amechra]

What is wrong with reach weapons in a dungeon environment?

Long weapons and cramped spaces tend not to mix very well — that said, D&D's rules kinda ignore that, just like they ignore that wielding two-handed melee weapons on horseback is a silly idea (because using one without chopping of your horse's head or falling off the horse would be pretty tricky — there's a reason that mounted fighters used lances that could stab past the horse's head or one-handed sidearms that they could use to attack people off to one side).

[Witty Username]

Oh, I was thinking from a gameplay perspective. I am aware of swinging a greatsword in small room type problems.
I thought that would be basically any two-handed weapon though.

[Amechra]

Pretty much. I'd imagine that a "real" adventurer would be more interested in weapons they could use in a cramped room, including unarmed fighting... but that's not the kind of fantasy that D&D was designed around, so we're all about the big battlefield weapons and armor.

EDIT: Like, the impression I've gotten is that proper two-handed weapons in general were something you specialized in, and generally didn't use unless you had buddies supporting you. Wielding a sword/spear/axe/club in one hand and using your off-hand for something else (which could include two-handing your weapon if necessary) would've been more common.

[Leon]

It's likely because reach weapons without investment might even be harmful- since you could end up dealing less AoOs.

Superior mobility, attacks from behind obstacles/from unreachable places, PAM+Sentinel, all stuff that actually turns reach into a benefit. I'm sure there's more.


Reach weapons without Feats still work just as well any any other weapon, Reach in 3.5 had the disadvantage of not being able to strike a target close to you but 5e has no such downside your not weaker than any other weapon. Thematically if you feel a Polearm has no place in a dungeon that's stylistic choice your making but one also wonders if your only fight in 5ft tunnels

[Witty Username]

Reach weapons without Feats still work just as well any any other weapon, Reach in 3.5 had the disadvantage of not being able to strike a target close to you but 5e has no such downside your not weaker than any other weapon. Thematically if you feel a Polearm has no place in a dungeon that's stylistic choice your making but one also wonders if your only fight in 5ft tunnels

Not to mention a spear would be more suited to tunnel fighting than a long sword, given that thrusting won't be interfered with as much as slashes.

Reasons I think every character should have a dagger/shortsword on hand.

[Joe the Rat]

I agree in general, but I would like to say that the war pick is secretly the best of the longsword clone squad. Why? It's cheap.

Versatile is only technically a good thing, so we can ignore that property entirely-leaving seven weapons that deal that coveted 1d8. Rapier is finesse and expensive, longsword/warhammer/morningstar are interchangeable, and the flail/battleaxe are identical but twice as expensive as the lowly war pick.

That means that the war pick, the most often overlooked one-handed weapon, is actually the best one. If you are actually buying one you save 5 gold from the nearest competitor, and if you're paranoid enough to buy one weapon of each damage type it's 10 gold cheaper than the nearest one-handed piercing weapon. It's also half as heavy, which further tips the scales.

The longsword is actually one of the worst of the lot, being heavier and more expensive than the others. It's just the most iconic. War picks are king.

A bit of zeitgeist? I've been contemplating a double-picker.

[Kane0]

Not to mention a spear would be more suited to tunnel fighting than a long sword, given that thrusting won't be interfered with as much as slashes.

Reasons I think every character should have a dagger/shortsword on hand.

You never know when you might be swallowed whole and have to cut your way out.

[GeoffWatson]

Oh, I was thinking from a gameplay perspective. I am aware of swinging a greatsword in small room type problems.
I thought that would be basically any two-handed weapon though.

Two-handed swords don't need much room. The improved leverage means you don't need to swing it as far as a one-handed weapon to strike a telling blow. Also, the old fighting manuals included techniques to use them while grappled.

[Trafalgar]

Two-handed swords don't need much room. The improved leverage means you don't need to swing it as far as a one-handed weapon to strike a telling blow. Also, the old fighting manuals included techniques to use them while grappled.

You can also use the Half Sword technique for close combat.


https://youtu.be/HP-tjSx2KBA

[Witty Username]

Two-handed swords don't need much room. The improved leverage means you don't need to swing it as far as a one-handed weapon to strike a telling blow. Also, the old fighting manuals included techniques to use them while grappled.

I didn't say it wasn't doable, but it is pretty straightforward that smaller and shorter weapons are at an advantage in tight spaces*. Given things like Samurai having two swords, one for indoor use and personal defense and a second for outdoor use and warfare follows this logic.
All I am saying is that it isn't going to be harder to use a spear in a corridor than a greatsword or maul, or whatever other optimized weapon. Maybe don't bring a halberd though.

*I realize a small miscommunication, when I say two-handed weapon I am referring to size not grip, using a small or short weapon in two hands for control or leverage could be useful restricted, but a weapon like a Scottish claymore is going to have some issues regardless.

[Valmark]

Reach weapons without Feats still work just as well any any other weapon, Reach in 3.5 had the disadvantage of not being able to strike a target close to you but 5e has no such downside your not weaker than any other weapon. Thematically if you feel a Polearm has no place in a dungeon that's stylistic choice your making but one also wonders if your only fight in 5ft tunnels

Aside from the fact that I've mentioned more then just feats, that's false. Reach means a larger threatened area- the thing is, a larger threatened area can mean enemies don't provoke AoOs because now they can move just fine within 10 feet of you instead of 5.

Just like it can mean an enemy can't go around you just as easy if [insert condition here], which is why I said that you need something that actually uses reach for it to be a benefit, which can be feats but can be a lot of other things.

Ironically 5 feet tunnels are great for reach weapons since you can attack from behind your buddy (assuming the enemy doesn't have reach as well and there's no terrain issue).

[Sneak Dog]

And it sounds less silly than grabbing the blade and beating them over the head with the hilt. Even if that would work better for beating the armor.


I miss damage resistance being more common.
Weapon choice mattered alot more when basic enemies like zombies had resistance to bludgeoning and piercing weapons.
Skeletons needed to be crushed.
As I recall there were several kinds of basic enemies that needed to be fought with piercing weapons.

On the other hand, there's the signature weapon line of thinking. Where a character should have a signature weapon, potentially even awesome magical signature weapon. Robin Hood and their bow. King Arthur and their sword. A paladin and their holy avenger. A fighter and their flaming sword. If then half the encounters promote/require you to use a different weapon, it's not really a signature weapon. If only one out of twenty encounters do this, it's fine.

After this, we get to loot distribution. If the system encourages carrying three different weapons because these resistances are so common, then a magic weapon should be about three times as common as a magic armour of roughly the same power level (assuming one armour functions against all foes). Then the fighter will be getting a magic weapon for each circumstance as commonly as an armour for each circumstance.
This feels awkward? Might be fine though.

[noob]

On the other hand, there's the signature weapon line of thinking. Where a character should have a signature weapon, potentially even awesome magical signature weapon. Robin Hood and their bow. King Arthur and their sword. A paladin and their holy avenger. A fighter and their flaming sword. If then half the encounters promote/require you to use a different weapon, it's not really a signature weapon. If only one out of twenty encounters do this, it's fine.

After this, we get to loot distribution. If the system encourages carrying three different weapons because these resistances are so common, then a magic weapon should be about three times as common as a magic armour of roughly the same power level (assuming one armour functions against all foes). Then the fighter will be getting a magic weapon for each circumstance as commonly as an armour for each circumstance.
This feels awkward? Might be fine though.

Imagine if each monster had exactly one damage reduction against one type of weapon damage.
You would merely need two weapons to always deal full damage.
Also having some encounters where you do not deal full damage can be fine so if two resistances is more uncommon than one it might still be fine to have only two weapons for the monster would not just need two resistances: he would need the two corresponding to the weapons you use.
You would not necessarily need 3 weapons even if damage reductions were very common.
If you look at dnd 3.5 magical weapon costs you see magical weapons costs exactly half of the cost of magical armour.
So making magical weapons two times more common than magic armour seems fair but three times seems a bit too much.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah nah, you absolutely cannot puncture plate armour with a sword (or with any period-appropriate weapon). You'd struggle to even dent it with most pointed or edged weapons.

Eh, pollaxe or a (proper, not fantasy 'oversized mallet') warhammer begs to differ, though where and how you hit the armor matters. As does couched lance driven with a rider and a horse's mass on the other end of it.


On the other hand, there's the signature weapon line of thinking. Where a character should have a signature weapon, potentially even awesome magical signature weapon. Robin Hood and their bow. King Arthur and their sword. A paladin and their holy avenger. A fighter and their flaming sword. If then half the encounters promote/require you to use a different weapon, it's not really a signature weapon. If only one out of twenty encounters do this, it's fine.

After this, we get to loot distribution. If the system encourages carrying three different weapons because these resistances are so common, then a magic weapon should be about three times as common as a magic armour of roughly the same power level (assuming one armour functions against all foes). Then the fighter will be getting a magic weapon for each circumstance as commonly as an armour for each circumstance.
This feels awkward? Might be fine though.

Of course, then you'll have fighters running around like https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/fcoc-vs-battles/images/2/2f/Weaponsmaster_1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20171204074549

[dafrca]

Of course, then you'll have fighters running around like https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/fcoc-vs-battles/images/2/2f/Weaponsmaster_1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20171204074549

Oh I thought that was a weapons merchant. LOL

:biggrin:

[Sneak Dog]

Imagine if each monster had exactly one damage reduction against one type of weapon damage.
You would merely need two weapons to always deal full damage.
Also having some encounters where you do not deal full damage can be fine so if two resistances is more uncommon than one it might still be fine to have only two weapons for the monster would not just need two resistances: he would need the two corresponding to the weapons you use.
You would not necessarily need 3 weapons even if damage reductions were very common.
If you look at dnd 3.5 magical weapon costs you see magical weapons costs exactly half of the cost of magical armour.
So making magical weapons two times more common than magic armour seems fair but three times seems a bit too much.

Hm, yeah. Then it'd be 2 weapons. Subtly different premise. Main point is that the signature weapon aesthetic likes 1 magic weapon (or a pair to be used as a pair).

One thing is that in 3.5 and Pathfinder, weapons cost double of what armour costs. Having a variety of weapons is rather expensive. In 5e shields equal weapons, but armour seems to be rarer.

Regardless, it's the aesthetic you aim for. Do you want a walking armoury with special tools for special jobs, or signature weapons? That is what weapon weaknesses and resistances affect. (The rarity mostly affects how sad the fighter gets when encountering a specific resistance/weakness that isn't one they've an awesome magic weapon they want to use for, and that's assuming they even get an awesome magic weapon they want to use!)

But for the OP, I think it's just a cautious nod towards crossbows usually taking a long time to load, while not making them use weirdly complex mechanics. Oh, and once per turn lets you shoot it on someone elses turn for massive damage. Once per round would be a better wording.

[MrCharlie]

Aside from the fact that I've mentioned more then just feats, that's false. Reach means a larger threatened area- the thing is, a larger threatened area can mean enemies don't provoke AoOs because now they can move just fine within 10 feet of you instead of 5.

Just like it can mean an enemy can't go around you just as easy if [insert condition here], which is why I said that you need something that actually uses reach for it to be a benefit, which can be feats but can be a lot of other things.

Ironically 5 feet tunnels are great for reach weapons since you can attack from behind your buddy (assuming the enemy doesn't have reach as well and there's no terrain issue).
Your friend gives cover in that situation (yes, cover can and does apply to melee attacks), but it does work and is a situation where out the box reach weapons are notably effective.

In general reach weapons are good because of feat and class feature interaction, exactly as you are saying. Numerous class features interact well with an extra 5 foot of range, particularly when combined with PAM to trigger AOO when they enter reach, or with abilities that require a melee attack like smite or sneak attack. That PAM is one of the better feats in the game is icing on top.


Eh, pollaxe or a (proper, not fantasy 'oversized mallet') warhammer begs to differ, though where and how you hit the armor matters. As does couched lance driven with a rider and a horse's mass on the other end of it.

Of course, then you'll have fighters running around like https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/fcoc-vs-battles/images/2/2f/Weaponsmaster_1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20171204074549
War picks can also do it. You need a pretty specialized weapon for it-a sword is about as bad a tool as it gets. You also aren't cutting through it-your either sundering the plates with sheer force, killing the poor sap inside the armor, or your piercing through it.

Also, crouched lance recipients have injuries more indicative of an industrial accident victim than anything.


Oh, I was thinking from a gameplay perspective. I am aware of swinging a greatsword in small room type problems.
I thought that would be basically any two-handed weapon though.
Halberd techniques can work pretty well in enclosed spaces, usually by virtue of turning every surface of the thing into a bladed, pokey, instrument of death. It depends on how cramped though.

And in general...If we're being realistic here, armored combat treatises basically come down to 90% grappling techniques and 10% "how to use a dagger". Plate was not only impervious to anything bladed, it was pretty damn resistant to everything else too.

The real problem with realism in DnD combat is that it contradicts class fantasy, specifically of knights in armor wielding swords in duels or against beasties, or renaissance dancing around in combat with quick wit and quicker blades. The truth is that combat was brutal and harsh, most battles came down to whomever had the best armor or the most buddies, and the sword was a prestige symbol, sidearm, and tool for cutting down untrained peasants running from battle. Fancy duelist swordplay was mostly limited to the historical version of alley fights. The spear/lance/pike, the mace, and the poleaxe were the tools of warfare.

Basically, the main reason why swords were used at all was because 24-hour armor is not a thing in history, and no one just wore their manifestly expensive plate to get groceries, not least of all because that would rust the damn thing and wear it out. Any form of armor could turn a sword blade, even a boiled leather jerkin, padded armors, or even paper armors, but none of them were comfortable.

[Kane0]

My default warrior loadout is spear, mace, dagger. Spear helps keep things at bay and can be used to check for traps or touch things you dont want to get near and is also handy for leverage and carrying stuff over your shoulder. Mace is the bit of everything weapon that works with a shield and will maim anything that for one reason or another poking doesnt work on. And the dagger as an emergency in case i get disarmed, swallowed whole, need to cut my roast venison, etc.