New Weapons for 5e

[alchahest]

Longspear

Simple

2 gp

1d6 piercing

4 lb

reach, versatile (1d8)

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

[Waterdeep Merch]

I posted my updated weapons system earlier this year here. I mostly added a bunch of throwing weapons and redesigned a lot of the class features and feats that interact with weaponry to better balance them and make certain styles more viable.

[Trickery]

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

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

[alchahest]

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

[Waterdeep Merch]

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

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

[Trickery]

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

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

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

It's literaly spear with reach instead of thrown.

[RickAllison]

It's literaly spear with reach instead of thrown.

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

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

[Nagog]

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

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

What about a change to the Weapon Master feat?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[opaopajr]

This is a great topic!

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

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

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

Here is my addition:

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

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

You mean like the net? From the PHB?

[opaopajr]

You mean like the net? From the PHB?

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

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

[Nagog]

You mean like the net? From the PHB?

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

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

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

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

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

[NNescio]

How is this dissimilar to the differences between a short sword and a scimitar? Scimitar costs more and deals slashing damage, but that's the only real difference. Therefore, scimitars are mechanically obsolete due to higher GP price.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nagog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NNescio]

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

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

A Quarterstaff is superior to a mace,

Backup bludgeoning weapon. Light and not bulky, unlike staves.

a shortbow is better than a sling,

Ranged bludgeoning weapon. Useful against skeletons. Also some classes are proficient in slings but not shortbows (again, Druid).

and a dagger is better than a club.

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

If having one weapon outclass another were not allowed, we'd have about 6 total weapons in D&D. Also keep note of how no classes will ever start with this weapon, it would have to be something they find/buy/work with their DM to start with.

Huh, okay then. Exotic weapon proficiency, need to find an NPC and maybe complete a sidequest to get trained in. Like guns. Falchion still sounds kinda off though (it's usually a one-handed saber-like weapon, never mind what Fire Emblem thinks). Maybe call it an Elven Thinblade or similar. So it's an exotic weapon that requires specialized training to use effectively, justifying its superiority over the Greatsword (and from a simulationism point of view explains why not all NPCs decide to run around with it.)

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

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

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

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

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

No free lunch. Things should have an opportunity cost.

[Nagog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

[NNescio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

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

[Nagog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DracoKnight]

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

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

[RickAllison]

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

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

[Nagog]

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

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

[GandalfTheWhite]

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

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

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

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

[GandalfTheWhite]

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

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

[RickAllison]

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

[Nagog]

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

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

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

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

[Sception]

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

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