Improving the Weapon List (input requested)

[Sindri]

Let me start by saying that the 5e weapon table is not anywhere near as bad as the armor table. For the most part it all works, and the problems there are can be ignored with only a little bit of effort. But the longer I look at it, the more a bunch of little things annoy me.

Why does a staff in one hand deal the same damage as a mace, while costing 1/25th as much, with no drawbacks whatsoever? And then when you put a second hand on it, it does the same damage as a greatclub for less than half the weight? So why would anybody ever use a greatclub or a mace when the simple staff dominates both? And then you look at the spear, and its only advantage over the staff is the ability to throw it. Apparently taking the pointy metal part off doesn't reduce the lethality at all unless you're dealing with an opponent immune to bludgeoning damage.

Why is a pike apparently significantly shorter than a lance?

Why is a warhammer versatile, when a warpick is not?

Why does a rapier deal just as much damage as a longsword, before you even apply your dex bonus?

Why does each weapon only have a single damage type? Why can a halberd never be used to stab something, or a shortsword never used to hack? Why is a morningstar exclusively piercing damage?

Why do we use separate lines on the table for battleaxe and longsword when they're mechanically exactly the same? Likewise the glaive and the halberd, or the war pick and the morningstar. And the only difference between a trident and a spear is that the trident requires an additional proficiency for absolutely no benefit.

And yet for all the reduplication, there still seem to be things missing. Why are there no two-handed finesse weapons? No spears long enough to get Reach?
So, I finally started thinking about how to fix things.

I want to rework the existing weapons so they all "follow the same rules" instead of some dramatically superior or inferior for no apparent reason.

I want to be able to add new weapons to the list in seconds, because there's no possible way to model every implement that people have ever used to kill each other with.

I want it all to be easy to remember, so you never have to look things up.

I've seen some other systems make things very easy by putting them in three generic categories; Seventh Sea for example just has 'light', 'dueling' and 'heavy' for melee weapons and it's up to you to define whether that heavy weapon is a sword or an axe or a polearm. Stars Without Number does something similar. And I like the concept, but I think that D&D kind of demands more detail than that with the differences in character build and fighting style reacting differently to the specifics of your equipment.

I do think the way to go is to not bother naming and modeling individual items, but rather groups that all have the same mechanical outcome. So like, once you've decided your build uses a martial versatile slashing weapon, that's as far as the rules care and it could be a longsword or an axe or a katana or an unusually large scimitar or whatever fits your style. And I played around with making a list of categories that covers everything, but the list was inconveniently long and I couldn't come up with good names for half of them and the players were never going to bother to remember any of it.

So I eventually settled on a simple* three-step process for modeling almost all weapons.

*simplicity not guaranteed

Essentially, you pick traits which increase or decrease the damage die by steps as a tradeoff for other advantages/disadvantages.
d4, then d6, then d8, then d10 or 2d4, then d12 or 2d6, then 2d8, then 2d10...
With a d4 being the minimum, so if the traits you pick would reduce the weapon below that you need to add others that increase the damage or rework from the beginning.



First, how big is it?




Light
d4
can be dual wielded without a feat, gains Finesse without further penalty, cannot have Reach


One-Handed
d6



Versatile
d6/d8
cannot have Finesse


Two-Handed
d8



Heavy
d10
applies Disadvantage when used by Small characters





Second, what tech/skill level does it require?




Improvised
-1 damage
not technically a weapon. Alternatively, a weapon being used incorrectly (striking with the flat or pommel of a sword, the haft of an axe, or using a staff one-handed


Simple
no change



Martial
+1 damage
needs extra proficiency



Third, does it have Finesse? If the weapon is Light, this is automatic. If it's One-Handed, Two-Handed, or Heavy, you reduce the damage die by one.
(I don't allow Versatile finesse weapons, because I figure anything that can be used with finesse with both hands, you would lack the leverage to use it nearly as gracefully in just one, and anything that can be used with finesse in one hand is either too small or too finely balanced to get any real benefit out of putting your other hand on it)

Those three steps are enough to cover the majority of weapons, but we can add a few more for unusual weapons. For example,


Is it used to attack from further away than normal?




Reach
-1 damage
can be used to attack from up to 10 feet away


Extended Reach
-2 damage
can be used to attack from 5ft further away, Repeatable


Close Combat Penalty
+1 damage
applies Disadvantage to attacks made against targets within 5ft


Extended Close Combat Penalty
+1 damage
increases distance in which Disadvantage is applied to attacks, and adds 5ft in which attacks cannot be made, Repeatable


So the typical polearm like a Halberd or Glaive would start as a Heavy Martial weapon (2d6 or d12), then add one level of Reach knocking it down to a d10.
A Lance goes back up to d12 by adding close combat penalty.
And now we can finally properly model a Pike; start with the lance, give it extended reach for a total of 15, and extended close combat penalty so attacks within 10ft are at disadvantage and attacks within 5ft can't be done, and you have a weapon that is very useful for formation fighting or for using a readied action to interrupt a cavalry charge, but useless in a duel.

And finally, add a potential step for gimmicks. These are mostly GM fiat.
Say somebody has a ridiculous anime protagonist sword, or a comically large hammer they looted from a giant. You can apply the Unwieldly trait to it, adding 2 steps to the damage die in exchange for all attacks being made with disadvantage. Or it could be something subtler, like how the Lance can be used in one hand but only while mounted, in exchange for using a d12 instead of 2d6 (lower average result, but not by a full step).

So, going back to the weapon table in the book and putting everything on it through the new system you end up with


Simple




Club, Dagger, Light Hammer, Sickle
d4
Light, Finesse


Hand Axe, Javelin
d6
One-Handed


Spear, Trident, Mace
d6/d8
Versatile


Staff
d6
Two-Handed, Finesse


Greatclub
d10
Heavy


Martial




Rapier, Scimitar, Shortsword
d6
Light, Finesse


Battleaxe, Flail, Longsword, Morningstar, War Pick, Warhammer
d8/d10
Versatile


Greataxe, Greatsword, Maul
d12/2d6
Heavy


Glaive, Halberd
d10
Heavy, Reach


Lance
d12
Heavy, Reach, Close Combat Penalty, One-Handed if on horseback


Pike
d10
Heavy, Extended Reach (15), Extended Close Combat Penalty (5/10)


Whip
d4
One-Handed, Finesse, Reach



With the major changes being
-Greatclub is Heavy but does more damage
-Staff stops dominating the entire Simple table, but gains Finesse
-Rapier is nerfed (but dex-based fighters can play with a new d10 finesse weapon like the spadone or one of hundreds of fancy polearms)
-Pike completely reworked so it makes sense now

and minor changes being
-clubs gain Finesse
-hand axe stops being Light
-mace becomes Versatile
-flail, morningstar, and war pick stop being inferior to swords, axes, and hammers
-tridents are simple, making them likespears instead of strictly worse than spears

Then we can start casually adding new weapons.
You want a really long spear? I can give you a simple heavy reach weapon that does a d8, same as a normal spear in both hands. Or if you want it made light enough for short people to use it, swap Heavy for Two-Handed but it only does a d6.
You want a smaller spear that lets you use the extra leverage to compensate for your lack of upper body strength? Swap Versatile for Two-Handed and add Finesse; it only does a d6 but you can use dex now.
Want a sword that's too long to be used in one hand, but too light to cleave through things with brute force like a greatsword does, relying on speed and precision to get the upper hand? Martial, Heavy, Finesse, d10 damage. Use those same stats for a polearm that's too short to get Reach.
You want to get really fancy with a kusari-gama or meteor hammer? Let's start with a heavy martial weapon, then give it a 15ft extended reach with no close quarters penalty, and Finesse to cap it off. d4 damage.
You want one of those ridiculously long pikes that was used exclusively for messing up opposing pike squares? Martial, Heavy, Extended Reach all the way out to 25ft, extended close combat penalty so it can't hit anybody within 15ft of you, then Unwieldly on top. Now you can do a d10 damage to somebody between 15 and 25 feet away, but always roll to hit with disadvantage.
You want your fighter to use a mace or a spear for style purposes, but don't want to be penalized for picking a weapon that's too easy for other people to use? Just kick it up to Martial status, and increase the damage die by one step accordingly.
(I might also kick the Javelin up to Martial, make it a d8, and introduce Short Spear in its old slot as a Simple)

This also produces a nice table of improvised weapons:


one-handed
d4
chair leg, bottle, rock, staff in one hand...


versatile
d4/d6
fireplace poker, table leg, stool, the flat of a longsword...


two-handed, finesse
d4
broomstick, rake...


heavy
d8
pitchfork, chair, mining pick...


heavy, reach
d6
laundry pole...


heavy, unwieldly
d12
entire table, unhinged door...



So, how do damage types work again?
I'm generally going to say 'whatever makes narrative sense'. Lots of swords and polearms can be used for piercing or slashing, and you would decide which when you make the attack. Other things are fairly strictly defined, like a spear always doing piercing and an axe always doing slashing. Some, like the Morningstar and some kinds of Mace, would actually do piercing and bludgeoning simultaneously; if a target is particularly vulnerable to one but not the other you would consider the attack to be half and half, so a morningstar would do 1.5x damage against a skeleton (vulnerable to blunt, normal to pierce), and .75x damage to a xorn (resistant to piercing, normal to blunt).

What about throwing weapons?
Again, I think this comes down mostly to 'what makes narrative sense'.
But as a general rule the normal Thrown trait (20/60 range) seems to be something that can be applied to any kind of Light weapon (daggers, light hammers, etc), to One-Handed weapons only if they don't do blunt damage (like a hand axe), and to Versatile weapons only if they deal exclusively piercing damage (like the spear or trident).
There's also an extended range Throwing quality, which we see only in One-Handed Piercing weapons like the Javelin (by RAW this is 30/120, I say it should be downgraded slightly to 30/90 because a javelin having the same range as a sling is silly).

Okay, how do you determine weight and price?
lol I dunno.
I feel like in general sharp weapons should cost more, while blunt weapons should weigh more since they need more force to get the same effect. Weapons with multiple damage types should cost more than less flexible things. Finesse weapons should usually cost more and weigh less than their equivalents.
But really, I haven't worked out a coherent system for any of this. Keep using the numbers in the RaW, or ask the GM on a case by case basis for things that aren't there.

Where do dedicated ranged weapons come into this?
Honestly, I don't have any problems with ranged weapons as written. At least not until you get into firearms, and that's a whole different kettle of fish.
I would add a Staff Sling (martial, d6 damage, say... 50/150 range, can be used to launch grenade-like missiles), but leave the rest of it untouched.

Other things I'm thinking about:
Should Versatile weapons always count as Two-Handed when used by Small characters? It seems silly for a gnome to be sword-and-boarding with a blade twice his own height. This would mean that a small Martial character would be choosing between a one-handed sword that does a d6 and a two handed sword that does a d10, just like a medium character chooses between a d8 in one hand and a d12/2d6 in two.

What do people think?

[Saelethil]

I really like this, my only real disagreement is that I would allow versatile weapons to have the finesse property if you’re going to allow 2 handed finesse but I understand your reasoning.
I would also consider adding a step below 1d4 of 1 + mod. Blowguns already do this but I don’t feel as strongly about this one.

[Breccia]

Because of how closely your results line up with RAW, this feels less of a "make all weapons simpler" post and "this is how to make a new weapon balanced" recipe book. Which is not a bad thing to have.

[Sindri]

I really like this, my only real disagreement is that I would allow versatile weapons to have the finesse property if you’re going to allow 2 handed finesse but I understand your reasoning.
I would also consider adding a step below 1d4 of 1 + mod. Blowguns already do this but I don’t feel as strongly about this one.

Can you come up with any examples of weapons that would qualify for Finesse in both one hand and two? I'm flexible on that point if there's a counterexample, but I couldn't think of one.

As for 1 damage weapons... yeah I could see that. It would be no better than punching somebody up close, but on a reach weapon it could be something so light and flexible that it can't do much damage but can still be used to interrupt/distract targets and trigger abilities that require you to make contact.

[Saelethil]

Can you come up with any examples of weapons that would qualify for Finesse in both one hand and two? I'm flexible on that point if there's a counterexample, but I couldn't think of one.

As for 1 damage weapons... yeah I could see that. It would be no better than punching somebody up close, but on a reach weapon it could be something so light and flexible that it can't do much damage but can still be used to interrupt/distract targets and trigger abilities that require you to make contact.

I can’t really think of any real world weapons that would fit but I could imagine that elvish infantry might carry special spears with both the versatile and finesse properties. There could even be “special forces” spears that are Martial, Reach, Finesse, and Versatile. I would imagine they would be difficult to find and expensive to commission but I could see them existing in a game world. Otherwise a character that wants to be a spearman would have to carry one for one handed and another for two handed fighting which works well enough but I’d rather just let one weapon do both.

[GalacticAxekick]

Interesting! I came up with a similar "build a weapon" flowchart!

Every weapon is balanced against the hypothetical featureless weapon (melee, one-handed, 1d10 damage).
Every positive feature (finesse, light, reach, etc) decreases the weapon's damage die by one stage.
Every negative feature (two-handed) increases its damage die by one stage.
Being versatile is considered neither positive nor negative.
Being thrown (20/60) is considered neither positive nor negative
Being thrown (100/300) is positive
Being simple decreases the weapon's damage die by one stage.

Going by this flowchart, you get this list (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/pF3pQAU8c).

Just note that a few weapons on my list have unique properties (the net, lasso, garrote, boomerang and lance) which don't abide by the positive-negative rule the other properties do.

[Baniff]

I have nearly the exact same weapon list in my home rule folder. It's such a simple, intuitive change. Well done, us.

I'll be stealing your extended reach rule. Do you need Heavy and Two Handed? They've
always seemed redundant to me.

[Sindri]

I can’t really think of any real world weapons that would fit but I could imagine that elvish infantry might carry special spears with both the versatile and finesse properties. There could even be “special forces” spears that are Martial, Reach, Finesse, and Versatile. I would imagine they would be difficult to find and expensive to commission but I could see them existing in a game world. Otherwise a character that wants to be a spearman would have to carry one for one handed and another for two handed fighting which works well enough but I’d rather just let one weapon do both.

I could maybe see a spear that uses Finesse when it's in two hands, and can be used without finesse in one? But the way you get the finesse quality on a spear is by using the length of the shaft and the leverage that gives you to move faster and more precisely with much less raw strength; when you only use a single hand you have much less leverage and you just can't do any of the fancy maneuvering. A one-handed spear is very effective, don't get me wrong, but it's effective in a very simple, brutally practical manner, not a graceful one.

[Saelethil]

I'll be stealing your extended reach rule. Do you need Heavy and Two Handed? They've
always seemed redundant to me.

I personally think it’s interesting to keep them separate. It leaves room for something like a beefy set of knuckle-dusters.

[Sindri]

I have nearly the exact same weapon list in my home rule folder. It's such a simple, intuitive change. Well done, us.

I'll be stealing your extended reach rule. Do you need Heavy and Two Handed? They've
always seemed redundant to me.

Heavy means 'not useable by Small characters without extra penalties'. So there are definitely two handed weapons that small people can use, which are distinctly less powerful than the Heavy weapons, even if a Medium character wouldn't really notice the difference.

That said, if you're not trying to give something finesse, and you're not worried about throwing it, there's no reason to pick One-Handed or Two-Handed when you could just call it Versatile and get the best of both worlds. For a lot of people, the Light, Versatile, and Heavy categories are the only ones that matter.

[GalacticAxekick]

Can you come up with any examples of weapons that would qualify for Finesse in both one hand and two? I'm flexible on that point if there's a counterexample, but I couldn't think of one.First, I'd expand the definition of "versatile". I'd say any weapon which is better used with both hands free is "versatile", even if one hand isn't touching the weapon. The rapier is versatile (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/fencing-hand-drawn-illustration-freehand-sketching-competitive-fencing-two-sportmen-athletes-match-hand-drawn-136971471.jpg).

Next, I'd reiterate that finesse weapons deal damage not due to force, but due to contact! A finesse weapon is to other weapons what a kitchen knife is to a meat cleaver! It's slicing vs chopping!

Therefore, the longsword is a finesse weapon, and the rapier a versatile weapon. Both are finesse and versatile.

[Sindri]

First, I'd expand the definition of "versatile". I'd say any weapon which is better used with both hands free is "versatile", even if one hand isn't touching the weapon. The rapier is versatile (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/fencing-hand-drawn-illustration-freehand-sketching-competitive-fencing-two-sportmen-athletes-match-hand-drawn-136971471.jpg).

Next, I'd reiterate the definition of "finesse". While most melee weapons are safe to the touch, because they only deal damage with FORCE (e.g. a meat cleaver, an axe), finesse weapons deal damage with CONTACT, and can be used with next to no force (e.g. a kitchen knife, a dagger). I'd say a longsword just as much a slicing weapon as a chopping weapon, and therefore a finesse weapon.

The longsword and the rapier are both finesse and versatile.

If your definition of Finesse is dealing damage on contact instead of with force, a longsword is absolutely not that. You can hold a longsword by the blade while you smash somebody with the crossguard. A rapier on the other hand was initially designed for wealthy duelists who didn't have the raw strength to use a real war sword, and so should clearly use dex instead of str but also do less damage.

The benefit gained from using a single one-handed weapon and leaving your other hand empty is depicted in the Dueling Fighting Style, available as a feat or with a single level dip in fighter. The Versatile trait on a weapon is specifically for using that weapon in both hands and there's just no room for another hand on the hilt of a rapier... and if there was it would reduce your reach and speed so much as to be detrimental.

[GalacticAxekick]

If your definition of Finesse is dealing damage on contact instead of with force, a longsword is absolutely not that. You can hold a longsword by the blade while you smash somebody with the crossguard. A rapier on the other hand was initially designed for wealthy duelists who didn't have the raw strength to use a real war sword, and so should clearly use dex instead of str but also do less damage.I can drag my finger along an axe's blade without a scratch.

If I drag my finger along a longsword's blade I'm losing a finger.

That's finesse.

There are ways to grip a longsword's blade safely in order to shorten it, strike with the pommel, etc. Just like there are ways to grip a dagger's blade before you throw it.

In both cases, you aren't gripping it like a baseball bat, carefree. You're gripping it carefully, most likely with gloved hands. Many longswords have unsharpened sections on the blade called ricassos to make these sorts of grips less dangerous.


The benefit gained from using a single one-handed weapon and leaving your other hand empty is depicted in the Dueling Fighting Style, available as a feat or with a single level dip in fighter.Leaving your off hand empty is not depicted by the Dueling Fighting Style. Dueling Style only requires that you have no WEAPON in your off hand. The hand can carry a shield and be an active part of the fight, which is not the same as the empty handed technique fencers use.


The Versatile trait on a weapon is specifically for using that weapon in both handsRules As Written, yes. But this is the homebrew forum. I'm suggesting a homebrew rule that expands the Versatile trait to include empty-handed styles, because nothing else in the game depicts that.

[Sindri]

I can drag my finger along an axe's blade without a scratch.

If I drag my finger along a longsword's blade I'm losing a finger.
...
Leaving your off hand empty is not depicted by the Dueling Fighting Style. Dueling Style only requires that you have no WEAPON in your off hand. The hand can carry a shield and be an active part of the fight, which is not the same as the empty handed technique fencers use.

If you sharpen a longsword to a razor edge like you describe, you'll damage the blade the first time you hit an armored target with it. And continually grinding away at it to keep that edge will wear away the metal until there's no sword left after a few months. The edge of a war sword is more of a wedge than a knife blade.

But you make a good argument for rewriting the Dueling style. As it stands, not only does it allow for a shield in the off-hand, but it also falls behind two-weapon style for defensive purposes. And dueling is more about precision than increased damage regardless. So, how about instead of 'if you use a single weapon you get +2 damage' we say 'if you have an open hand, you get +1 AC and +1 to hit'? That makes its defensive applications equivalent to two-weapon fighting, though not as good as using a shield, and in exchange gives you one of the few ways to improve your attack bonus?

[GalacticAxekick]

If you sharpen a longsword to a razor edge like you describe, you'll damage the blade the first time you hit an armored target with it. And continually grinding away at it to keep that edge will wear away the metal until there's no sword left after a few months. The edge of a war sword is more of a wedge than a knife blade.Slashing of any kind is ineffective against an armored target. Longswords weren't designed to defeat armored targets. They're designed to shear flesh!

The German school of fencing, for example, is divided into two disciplines. Blossfechten ("bare fighting") is the primary discipline that includes the slices, chops and thrusts the longsword was designed for. Harnischfechten ("armored fighting") is a secondary discipline which focuses on blunt strikes and wrestling techniques that can take an opponent to the ground and hold them long enough for you to jab between pieces of armor.

All this to say, the longsword was designed to slice. It's a finesse weapon.


But you make a good argument for rewriting the Dueling style. [...]I'm not arguing for rewriting dueling style. I LIKE that it allows for a shield.

My argument was that nothing in the game rewards an empty hand. Instead of erasing Dueling Style to put this reward in its place, I think that reward should be added elsewhere. Expanding the definition of Versatile offers that reward without getting rid of any beloved features.

[Sindri]

I'm not arguing for rewriting dueling style. I LIKE that it allows for a shield.

My argument was that nothing in the game rewards an empty hand. Instead of erasing Dueling Style to put this reward in its place, I think that reward should be added elsewhere. Expanding the definition of Versatile offers that reward without getting rid of any beloved features.
Versatile is, in essence, a +1 damage for putting a second hand on a one handed weapon. Which also doesn't seem to properly model the benefits of an open off-hand. Plus, it's mutually exclusive with the Dueling style as written, since that relies on not using your second hand on the weapon.

I think that the best way to model the advantages of a single-handed fighting style is, well, a Fighting Style which relies on a single one handed weapon and no shield to improve your mobility or precision, giving you +1 to hit and AC. Call it Fencing or something if you don't want to lose (or rename) the existing Dueling style?

Meanwhile the RaW Dueling style can be kept for when you just want raw damage... though I don't like how it makes a longsword or other versatile weapon do more damage in one hand than two, meaning that picking up a shield stops being a tradeoff and becomes just a pure upgrade. Maybe extend it to apply to any time you use a single melee weapon, so you can duel with greatswords?

[Amechra]

What you could do is reword Versatile so that you get the boosted damage die if you wield the weapon in one hand and nothing in the other hand. Then using a longsword with the Dueling Style would be d8+2+Str with a shield and d10+2+Str without one.

EDIT: And this is what I get for coming into the conversation at the end...

[GalacticAxekick]

What you could do is reword Versatile so that you get the boosted damage die if you wield the weapon in one hand and nothing in the other hand. Then using a longsword with the Dueling Style would be d8+2+Str with a shield and d10+2+Str without one.

EDIT: And this is what I get for coming into the conversation at the end...This is EXACTLY how I'd like versatile reworded! Thanks!

[somerandomhuman]

as a medieval arms and armor nerd I would like to post my opinions on what should classify as versatile.
note: i am going to say what I think is realistic. I understand that gameplay is more important.
You can absolutely have two handed weapons that are finesse. I forget the names but there are many anti armour swords that are 2 handed and have a PoB that is basically in the hilt. the weight of a fairly typical 2 handed sword, the longsword, is less than the weight of two glaudus, a thrust oriented weapon. It is also important not to confuse edge sharpness with weight distribution. a katana is generally sharpened slightly sharper than a longsword but the longsword has more quick movements and fancy maneuvers (no diss on the katana).

[Sindri]

as a medieval arms and armor nerd I would like to post my opinions on what should classify as versatile.
note: i am going to say what I think is realistic. I understand that gameplay is more important.
You can absolutely have two handed weapons that are finesse. I forget the names but there are many anti armour swords that are 2 handed and have a PoB that is basically in the hilt. the weight of a fairly typical 2 handed sword, the longsword, is less than the weight of two glaudus, a thrust oriented weapon. It is also important not to confuse edge sharpness with weight distribution. a katana is generally sharpened slightly sharper than a longsword but the longsword has more quick movements and fancy maneuvers (no diss on the katana).
Oh there are absolutely two-handed finesse weapons. I would probably go so far as to say that in the real world there are more two-handed weapons that I would consider to be finesse-based than there are one-handed finesse weapons, since increased leverage means brute force is much less important. That was one of the big reasons I did this rewrite.

But are there any versatile finesse weapons? Weapons that can be used in either one hand or two, and count as finesse both ways? (Without changing the definition of finesse I mean?) I couldn't think of any. Maybe a few that would have finesse in two hands and still be used in one, but without anywhere near the speed or precision since you lose that leverage.

So you would end up with something that's like, 1d8 with finesse in two hands, 1d6 with no finesse in one hand, and that would be something too niche for most players to ever choose outside of an emergency so I don't see a lot of value in the added mechanical complexity.

[Kane0]

Im interested in some additional weapon qualities to add into the list too. Perhaps somethibg like Brutal which drops the damage die a step but gives you 'advantage' on the weapon's damage die

[Sindeloke]

Im interested in some additional weapon qualities to add into the list too. Perhaps somethibg like Brutal which drops the damage die a step but gives you 'advantage' on the weapon's damage die

For my steampunk setting, I introduced "mechanical," which means "the damage from this weapon is 100% reliant on its intrinsic physical properties, and nothing the user does is going to make that greater or lesser." Or, in mechanical terms, "you do not add any ability score modifier to your damage with this weapon." It's a malus worth one increase in damage die, and currently goes on crossbows (great range, okay damage) and guns (great damage, okay range), which are both Simple weapons. I'm still trying to model a taser/cattle prod type melee weapon but I'm not happy with it yet.

The idea is that... the common, Pathfinder-style model of guns is to be like "guns are incredibly lethal, they have really high damage dice, but that means they're restricted to martial weapons and have finicky drawbacks like misfire in order to be balanced," and that's sort of the exact opposite of why we traded up, as a species, from bows to guns. Bows are just as lethal as guns, they can even pierce armor. It's just, they also require decades of training and tremendous physical strength that actually warps your skeleton to get there. You can learn to shoot a gun in five minutes - not that you'll hit anything you're aiming at - and the very first shot you ever make, as well as every single shot after that, will be lethal if it hits. So guns become the heavy armor of the weapon table, letting you deal high ranged damage even if your Dexterity is negative.

Chains, flails, and whips are a good candidate for a property like "entangling: this weapon counts as a free hand when making grapple attempts, and if you score a critical hit with it, you may immediately make a grapple or trip attempt against your target as a bonus action."

[rel]

Extra qualities are always a fun source of extra power and utility for the often boring martial classes.

Under this system they would act like positive properties, reducing the damage die but adding a rider effect.

Debilitate - by spending a bonus action or extra attack after making a successful hit you cause the target to suffer disadvantage for 1 round. On a critical hit this effect happens automatically.

Rend armour - by spending a bonus action or extra attack after making a successful hit you confer advantage to the next attack made against the target. On a critical hit this effect happens automatically.

Parry - spend a bonus action or extra attack to inflict disadvantage on the next attack made against you. On a critical hit this effect happens automatically.

Disarm - spend a bonus action or extra attack after a successful hit to make your opponent drop what they're holding. On a critical hit this effect happens automatically.

Mystic - attacks with this weapon treat applicable damage immunity as damage resistance instead. A critical hit with this weapon ignores applicable damage resistance.

And for a negative property and the potential for even more damage we have

unreliable - If the first attack made during the round rolls a 1 then the weapon breaks and cannot be used until it is repaired, a process that takes a short rest to complete.

[Breccia]

Im interested in some additional weapon qualities to add into the list too. Perhaps somethibg like Brutal which drops the damage die a step but gives you 'advantage' on the weapon's damage die

So, math guy here, I've seen variants of what you're talking about. Just flat-out bonus damage. Good news, they're all easy to calculate. Bad news...they don't really do what you're asking for.

1) Reroll damage dice of 1.
2) Reroll damage dice of 1 until they stop being a 1. (This is easy to do online, by the way)
3) Damage dice explode -- if you roll maximum on any damage die, roll again and add.
4) What you suggested, roll twice for damage and take the higher.

Let's see some examples.

Weapon A: 1d4
Weapon B: 1d8
Weapon C: 2d6

Weapon A0 has an average of 2.5
Weapon A1 has an average of 2.875
Weapon A2 has an average damage of 3, since you can only roll a 2, 3, or 4 equally likely. It's basically 1d4 -> 1d3+1
Weapon A3 is the winner with an average damage of 3.125, found by averaging 1, 2, 3, and 4+2.5. Yes, exploding dice could continue to explode, the chance is low enough that I'm handwaving it, as you can see, it's already winning, adding more won't help.
And Weapon A4 has an average damage of 3.125 also. Huh. Could be coincidence.

So with d4 exploding dice win, because in reality they'd get more than 3.125 because you could roll 4, 4, something. And yet, I'll handwave that possibility later, you'll see why.

Also, none of these are the same as rolling the next die up. 1d6 is consistently better.

Weapon B0 has an average damage of 4.5
Weapon B1 has an average damage of 4.9375
Weapon B2 is really 1d7+1 and therefore has an average of 1+4=5
Weapon B3, again re-rolling just once for simplicity rather than accuracy, gets 5.0625 but is not the top dog because...
Weapon B4 has an average of 5.8125 so, yep, it was totally coincidence.

I don't think a more accurate value for exploding d8 will change the results here by much. The first three are roughly equal, but "damage advantage" just zooms ahead here.

Now I'll pause here and point out that none of these are the same as "goes up to the next die". B1, B2, and B3 are all less than 1d10 on average. B4 is actually higher.

I did 1d10 as well, but the results from 1d8 basically continued. The average of "highest of 2d10" is 7.15 which, once again, is higher than 1d12 on average. The other 3 are, just like 1d8, in increasing order but all roughly 6.

Then C and...okay, when we say "damage dice have advantage" did we mean each individual die? Because without doing a single calculation, I can tell you "best of 2d6"x2 is going to be higher than "best of 2d6 vs 2d6". Well, let's get to it.

Weapon C0 has an average of 7, 3d5 + 3.5
Weapon C1 gets 7.8333...
Weapon C2 gets 8, again, 1d5+1 twice.
Weapon C3 gets 8.16666... and yes, in case you haven't figured it out, mathematically X1 X2 X3 will always be in order, and X1 and X3 will always average to X2.
"Best of 2d6 vs best of 2d6" is god-awful to work with, but, the average is about 8.7
And finally, if each die is rolled separately with advantage, it's 8.9444...
Interesting, considering the average of 1d8 is 4.5 and 2d8 is 9.

I didn't bother doing 2d8 2d10 etc. because players don't get to use weapons that do that.

In the end, for 1d4 and 1d6, it's always 1->2->3->4->next die up. With 1d8 and higher, it's 1->2->3->next die up->4. Rolling "damage with advantage" is always the best and sometimes worth going down a damage die.

Multiple dice of the same type don't change that, with the exception that "best of 2d6 vs 2d6" is a little lower than "best of 1d6 vs 1d6, twice" but still better than the other three options.

Nothing I did here is all that difficult, meaning many D&D players, seeing a damage dice setup, will easily identify which weapons are better than others. Therefore, they'll all reach the same conclusion: going down from a 1d12 to 1d10 w/advantage, or 1d10 down to 1d8 with advantage, is worth it. Nothing else is.

...unless you play a game where the next step up from 1d6 is 1d7 because you play online. Then 1, 2, and 3 are all roughly equal, 3 always being slightly better, and 4 shouldn't be allowed because it's OP.

[Sindri]

The real cost of the more complex dice rolling systems is in table time. Rolling more dice, and thinking about the results of them, takes longer. Even when you're playing online and the computer does all the math for you, you need to think about and type in a more complex command, which means a few more precious seconds are spent on every one of your turns, other players get less time in the spotlight, and fewer fun things happen before the session ends.

So yes, by modifying your d10 weapon to actually do 2d8k1 you get a third of a point of extra damage, which comes from nowhere with no explanation or in-universe tradeoff, so literally everybody should do that except for the part where it doesn't make sense, and that it reduces the amount of fun in the game by a very small but noticable amount (unless you're really just here to throw dice and do math).

So as a GM, I don't like it and wouldn't allow it.

There are times when you want to give Advantage or Disadvantage on a damage roll for a specific uncommon circumstances, like if you're using a broken weapon or the target has been made particularly vulnerable in some dramatic way, and that works because a) it's rare enough to not be a big time cost, b) the time cost it does add is during a dramatic moment, and c) it takes the place of figuring out and explaining a more complicated bonus. But that should not be part of your ordinary order of operations for every single ordinary attack.

[Matuka]

I gotta be honest man, the main reason I buy some weapons over others has little to do with there effectiveness or price. I buy them because I like the way they look in the hands of my character in my head. For Example: The Greatsword does 2d6, he Greataxe does 1d12. So at the very least, the Greatsword will get a 2 while the Greataxe will only get a 1, so statistically the Greatsword is the better weapon. But i much prefer the look of a Greataxe. It just feels bigger and more badass in my mind. I only used a Greatsword once and it was because it was magic. Plus, after character creation, who buys weapons? If I want something, I loot it off a corpse, either one I have found or one I have made.

[Kane0]

So, math guy here, I've seen variants of what you're talking about. Just flat-out bonus damage. Good news, they're all easy to calculate. Bad news...they don't really do what you're asking for.

-snip-

Therefore, they'll all reach the same conclusion: going down from a 1d12 to 1d10 w/advantage, or 1d10 down to 1d8 with advantage, is worth it. Nothing else is.


Neat, thanks for the breakdown! Sounds like it would sit nicely next to Versatile as a trait that isn't a straight up improvement but still carries a benefit.
I'm guessing for cases of two base damage dice like the greatsword, [2d6] vs [3d4 take best 2] is still about the same?

[Composer99]

This does seem to be a great-minds-think-alike kind of situation (or so I'd like to think). If there's anything helpful in the "weapon generator" I came up with a while back - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?615554-Weapon-Generator - please do feel free to check it out.

I would say on a bit of a critical note that while multiple damage types is probably fine, splitting a single weapon's damage in the style of...


if a target is particularly vulnerable to one but not the other you would consider the attack to be half and half, so a morningstar would do 1.5x damage against a skeleton (vulnerable to blunt, normal to pierce), and .75x damage to a xorn (resistant to piercing, normal to blunt).

is IMO getting too far out of the 5e design aesthetic.

Better in that case to have such a weapon deal 1d4 or 1d6 of each damage type, depending on its base damage, if you want to go down this road. For instance, a 1d8 morningstar could be 1d4 piercing and 1d4 bludgeoning, while a 1d10 polearm that is meant to do both piercing or slashing could be 1d4 of one type and 1d6 of the other.

(Personally I'd be inclined to say that any weapon with multiple damage types should count as either the most favourable or least favourable damage type, depending on how restrictive you want the mechanic to be, instead of including any sort of damage splitting.)

[PhantomSoul]

is IMO getting too far out of the 5e design aesthetic.

Better in that case to have such a weapon deal 1d4 or 1d6 of each damage type, depending on its base damage, if you want to go down this road. For instance, a 1d8 morningstar could be 1d4 piercing and 1d4 bludgeoning, while a 1d10 polearm that is meant to do both piercing or slashing could be 1d4 of one type and 1d6 of the other.

(Personally I'd be inclined to say that any weapon with multiple damage types should count as either the most favourable or least favourable damage type, depending on how restrictive you want the mechanic to be, instead of including any sort of damage splitting.)

I'd give it a consistent main type, to keep things even simpler. In this case, probably 1d4 Bludgeoning with the Spiked Property (adds 1d4 Piercing Damage), just because I imagine Spiked being more reusable than a Bludgeoning equivalent (though that would make as much sense or more).

[Breccia]

I'm guessing for cases of two base damage dice like the greatsword, [2d6] vs [3d4 take best 2] is still about the same?

I haven't looked at that specifically, but based on what I did look at, 2d6 will be stronger than 3d4 best 2. The average of 2d6 is 7. The best 2 of 3d4 would have to be a 3 and a 4 to keep up. I don't see that happening often.

[Sindri]

I gotta be honest man, the main reason I buy some weapons over others has little to do with there effectiveness or price. I buy them because I like the way they look in the hands of my character in my head. For Example: The Greatsword does 2d6, he Greataxe does 1d12. So at the very least, the Greatsword will get a 2 while the Greataxe will only get a 1, so statistically the Greatsword is the better weapon. But i much prefer the look of a Greataxe. It just feels bigger and more badass in my mind. I only used a Greatsword once and it was because it was magic. Plus, after character creation, who buys weapons? If I want something, I loot it off a corpse, either one I have found or one I have made.

A greatsword is better in general, doing an average of 7 instead of an average of 6.5. The greatsword is also more predictable/reliable, with a not-quite-bell curve distribution where rolling a 7 is six times as likely as rolling a 2 or a 12, while the greataxe is more likely to do either maximum or minimum damage, so a lot of chaotic types prefer the axe for thematic purposes.

But the real advantage of a greataxe over a greatsword is there are several abilities in the game which grant you an extra damage die of whatever kind your weapon does; using that a greatsword goes from 2d6 to 3d6, averaging 10.5, but the greataxe goes from 1d12 to 2d12 and an average of 13.

That's why I figured you should be allowed to pick either one at the same tier of damage die, with the d12 being considered slightly lower but not a whole step lower for when you have a very small bonus like how a lance can be used in one hand if you're mounted.

[Breccia]

But the real advantage of a greataxe over a greatsword is there are several abilities in the game which grant you an extra damage die of whatever kind your weapon does; using that a greatsword goes from 2d6 to 3d6, averaging 10.5, but the greataxe goes from 1d12 to 2d12 and an average of 13.

Which, of course, brings up a related question: is an increased threat range worth lowering the damage die one step?

Since crits reroll all damage dice and (other than what you said) most bonuses to damage, like Str or Sneak Attack, are static by swing, all that matter is
1) The weapon's threat range, and
2) The natural 1d20 roll you need to hit

Generally speaking, the higher the 1d20 roll you need to hit, the better the high-critting weapon compares. Problem is, it's also a harder target to hit, which is bad news in any situation.

I did four variants of this:

A) 1d12 crits on a 20, vs 1d10 crits on a 19+

Does the extra 5% chance that you get 2d10 vs 1d12 make up for the loss? Um...not really, no. The 1d10 (19) is better only if you need to roll a natural 17, 18 or 19. At 20, the 1d12 takes back over as expected, but at anything lower the crit bonus for the 1d10 on a 19 just doesn't seem to matter. 5% of an extra 5.5 is just too easy to overcome.

B) 1d8 crits on a 20, vs 1d6 crits on a 19+

This was even worse. The 1d6 (19) was lower on every single option, except needing a natural 19 to hit.

So it doesn't look like a threat range is worth it, not by the weapon's damage dice alone at least.

But you mentioned adding a damage die. Does this change anything of value?

C) 3d6 crits on a 20, vs 2d12 crits on a 19+

I don't know what you were expecting to see here. The 2d12 is objectively the better weapon at all times.

D) 3d6 crits on a 19+, vs 2d12 crits on a 20

This isn't a ton better. The 3d6 (19) does more damage, if you need a natural 18 or 19 to hit. If you need a natural 20 to even hit, then (a) my house rules say that's not a crit, and (b) the 2d12 just stomps. If you need a 17 or lower, the 2d12's higher base damage cleans up.

I could not find a situation where reducing a weapon's damage die one step but increasing the threat range by 1 ever reasonably helped. So when does it help?

Redoing A and B above, I increased the threat range of the lower die weapon to 18. And, as this adds an effective flat damage boost, the 1d10 (18) weapon is actually equal if you need to roll an 11, and better for a 12 through 19.

For completion's sake, I gave both weapons to a Champion, who I then said adds +1 to threat range. The 1d10 (18) was now tied at 12 and better on a natural roll of 13 through 18.

I then compared 1d8 vs. 1d6 (18) and the results were less encouraging. The 1d6 (18) was the same if you need a natural 15 to hit, better on 16 through 19.

In order to make increased threat range a bonus good enough to reduce the damage one die, barring other abilities, you need to increase the threat range by at least two.

It's kind of a shame. I have fond memories of straight blades critting on a 19-20, curved blades 18-20, axes critting for x3 and picks for x4. Unfortunately the 5E rules for crits would require you to dramatically increase the threat range of the weapon for the weapon to equal or exceed the next damage die. I suppose you could make an excuse to bring a second weapon for really tough fights, but that's about it. Mathematically, at least.

[Sindri]

Which, of course, brings up a related question: is an increased threat range worth lowering the damage die one step?

Since crits reroll all damage dice and (other than what you said) most bonuses to damage, like Str or Sneak Attack, are static by swing, all that matter is
1) The weapon's threat range, and
2) The natural 1d20 roll you need to hit

Other than the Champion power, I'm not aware of anything in 5E that changes crit range... which means that things which interact with crit range in this system haven't been examined nearly as much.

In particular? Advantage. By rolling to hit twice, you nearly double the chance of getting a critical, whatever your range is. On an ordinary 'need a nat 20' attack, it goes from 5% chance of double damage to 9.75% chance. On a 19-20, it goes from 10% to 19%. On an 18-20, it goes from 15% to 27.75%.

So, let's run the full simulation.

First let's put a PC up against an "evenly matched" opponent, so they hit on an attack roll of 11+ and miss on 10-.

With a normal 20-20 crit range, 50% of attacks are misses, 45% are normal hits, and 5% are crits for double damage. The total damage per attack, over a large number of attacks, is 55% of the weapon's damage.

Same weapon, with Advantage, 25% of attacks are misses, 9.75% are crits, 65.25% are normal hits, so average damage per attack is 84.75% of the weapon's damage.

With a 19-20, 50% are misses, 10% are crits, 40% are normal hits. Average total is 60% of the weapon's damage. Compare that to the 20-20, your damage has increased by 9% (.6/.55). If you're trading a -1 damage for an increased crit range, it's only worth it if your base damage on a normal hit is more than an 11 after the change, 12 before.

19-20, with Advantage, 25% are misses, 19% are crits, 56% are normal hits. Average total is 94% of the weapon's damage. .94/.8475 is a 10.9% increase in damage, so the trade-off is worth it if your base damage is higher than 9.16 after the change, 10.16 before. Still fairly lackluster.

With 18-20, 50% are misses, 15% are crits, 35% are normal hits, average total is 65%. So going from a 19-20 to an 18-20 gives you an 8.3% increase in damage, worth the tradeoff only if your base damage per attack is more than 12.

18-20 with advantage, 25% miss, 27.75% crit, 47.25% hit, average damage is 102.75% of a single hit, compared to 19-20 that's a 9.3% increase.

But that was all assuming an opponent you need an 11 to hit. Let's do it again for, say, one you only need to roll a 6, and one you need to roll a 16.

For the opponent who is easy to hit
Without advantage you have a 25% chance of missing, and the chance to crit is the same as before, so
20-20 you do an average of 80% of your weapon damage
19-20 you do an average of 85%, a 6.25% increase over 20
18-20 you do an average of 90%, a 5.88% increase over 19
With advantage you have only a 6.25% chance of missing, so
20-20 you do 103.5%
19-20 you do 112.75%, an 8.94% increase
18-20 you do 121.5%, a 7.76% increase.
Making the increased crit range even less valuable.

For the opponent who need a 16 to hit,
Without advantage you have a 75% chance of missing, so
20-20 you do 30%
19-20 you do 35%, a 16.7% increase, worth the trade if your base damage is greater than 6 (after the change, 7 before)
18-20 you do 40%, a 14.3% increase
With advantage you have a 56.25% chance of missing, so
20-20 you do 53.5%
19-20 you do 62.75%, a 17.3% increase, worth the trade if your base damage is greater than 5.78 after the change
18-20 you do 71.5%, a 13.9% increase

Taking this to the greatest extreme, an opponent that needs a 19 to hit
no advantage, 90% chance of missing
20-20 has 5% chance of crit, 5% chance of hit, 15% damage
19-20 has 10% chance of crit, 0 chance of hit, 20% damage, 33.3% increase, worth it if your average damage is more than 3 after the change or 4 before
Advantage, you have a 81% chance of missing
20-20 has 9.75% chance of crit, 9.25% chance of hit, 28.75% damage
19-20 has 19% chance of crit, 0 chance of hit, 38% damage, 32.2% increase

Conclusions:
1: increasing the crit window further has diminishing returns; the benefit of going from 18-20 to 17-20 is smaller than going from 19-20 to 18-20, which is in turn smaller than going from 20 to 19-20.
2: attacking with advantage increases the effects of expanding crit range significantly... until you pass a tipping point where the probability of a crit is greater than the probability of a normal hit.
3: the effect of increased crit range will never be more than a 33.3% increase in your damage, and most of the time will be closer to a 9% increase.

So, if you are playing by strict RAW and so a crit doubles the damage die of the weapon itself but does not do anything to your str/dex modifier, style bonuses, sneak attacks, etc. increasing the crit range at the expense of damage die is not worth it. I mean, if you need to roll a 19 to hit the guy anyway swapping a d8 to a d6/19-20 will give a slight benefit, but outside of that very narrow niche, titan-sized weapons, or magic that increases damage on crits specifically, it's a bad trade.

However if you're running with the common house rule that crits double everything, increased crit range suddenly becomes very attractive... in the right circumstances. That ~9% increase in damage for dropping from a d8 to a d6 would be beneficial if you're adding more than ~7.6 damage to a hit from other sources, like sneak attack dice. This means that the exotic, impractical weapons that do lower damage in exchange for high crit rates are worthless in the hands of amateurs or normal soldiers, but in the hands of assassins or really elite warriors they help, which is nice thematically.

[Breccia]

So, if you are playing by strict RAW and so a crit doubles the damage die of the weapon itself but does not do anything to your str/dex modifier, style bonuses, sneak attacks, etc. increasing the crit range at the expense of damage die is not worth it. I mean, if you need to roll a 19 to hit the guy anyway swapping a d8 to a d6/19-20 will give a slight benefit, but outside of that very narrow niche, titan-sized weapons, or magic that increases damage on crits specifically, it's a bad trade.

The "only double the dice" does make the numbers far easier to run...but yes, also means the effect isn't that great. I fully admit I didn't think of looking at Adv/Dis when looking at weapon damage dice, and I'm retroactively going to pretend I did that on purpose because of all that work you did.

And making weapon rules based on every single possible class/subclass/feat/rulebook option is insane. A weapon that only is better, if you're a blessed Champion on a Thursday, will be great if your group runs on Thursdays, the party has a cleric, and the party has a Champion. For everyone else, it's not worth the damage die drop. We start to wander into "leave the damage dice alone and make it a regional or feat-unlocked weapon" and save yourself the math.

[Sindri]

I don't think it's too specific to have an effect that is good if you have a lot of things that add heavy damage to a single attack, but bad if you're making lots of little attacks. None of the ways to add +8 or more to your damage rolls are exactly easy to do, at least at low-medium levels, but there are a whole lot of different routes you could take to get there.

High level sneak attacks, flaming swords, divine smite, or combinations of fighting style/rage and massive strength would all make a low-damage high-crit range weapon viable, while leaving it as a (minor) penalty to common soldiers and generic monsters. So you can use this to model all sorts of 'awesome but impractical' weapons if you're in that kind of campaign, things that don't make much sense but get turned into the signature of a great hero or villain.

[Amechra]

So, math guy here, I've seen variants of what you're talking about. Just flat-out bonus damage. Good news, they're all easy to calculate. Bad news...they don't really do what you're asking for.[...]

Fun fact: it's actually really easy to calculate the expected damage for exploding dice. The expected damage X for an n-sided die with average value A is X = (n/n-1)A.

...

On the general topic of the thread, I feel like a better model for "this weapon is good at precise strikes" would be to have a weapon deal more damage when attacking with advantage. Maybe daggers deal 1d4 damage normally, but they deal 1d8 damage instead if you're attacking with advantage?

Part of the issue here is that weapons in 5e are very bare-bones. They're essentially just damage dice with tags that let them be used with a variety of features (for example, the "two-handed" tag just means that you can't combine that weapon with a shield or use it while two-weapon fighting). Heck, the damage types they deal tend to barely matter, since you can count the number of creatures that have resistance, immunity, or vulnerability to a specific "physical" damage type on both hands — in a lot of campaigns, you need to spend an ASI to make the fact that your spear deals piercing damage (and not, say, bludgeoning damage) relevant.

[Breccia]

Fun fact: it's actually really easy to calculate the expected damage for exploding dice. The expected damage X for an n-sided die with average value A is X = (n/n-1)A.

Thanks. Yeah, I knew there was some formula out there, but as it turned out in my calculations, it didn't matter. The effect of adding a third reroll had no effect on its placement.