Poll: How would you like to see weapons treated in the core rules of D&D 5th edition?

EDIT: Poll ended with 201 votes cast.




POLL LEGEND


OPTION ONE: Weapons should be simple and straightforward.

Mechanical details for weapons should not extend beyond damage (for example, 1d8) and damage type (for example, slashing).

OPTION TWO: Advanced weapon properties should be relegated to an 'optional' module.

If weapons are going to have more mechanical details beyond damage and damage type, make it an optional module to the game, seperate from the core rules of D&D.

OPTION THREE: Weapons in one Category and Group shouldn't deal identical damage.

Make sure that two weapons in the same Category (for example, Basic Weapons) are not mechanically identical to weapons in the same Group (for example, spear and trident both deal 1d6 piercing damage).

OPTION FOUR: Each weapon Group (Axes, Swords, etc.) should share a unique property.

Each weapon Group should be differentiated with their own special property, common to all weapons in that Group. For example:
(Disclaimer: You are not voting on these 'particular' properties, but properties 'like' them.)

Flails: Can trip opponents prone on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage.
Hammers: Can stun opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn.
Staffs: Gain reach by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra 5 feet.

Etcetera...

OPTION FIVE: Each weapon should have a unique special property that sets it apart.

Every single weapon should have their own unique property or properties that seperate it from all other weapons. For example:
(Disclaimer: You are not voting on these 'particular' properties, but properties 'like' them.)

Bastard Sword: Deals 1d8 damage when wielded one-handed or 1d10 damage when wielded two-handed.
Scimitar: Advantage on attacks against unarmoured opponents while mounted.
Whip: Disadvantage against armoured opponents and when disarming one-handed held objects without dealing damage.
Ecetera...
I vote none of the above. For me weapons should crit at different intervals like third edition. This helps distinguish weapons without becoming too complicated. Anything else is probably too much for a weapon unless it is regulated to a module.
 
I vote none of the above. For me weapons should crit at different intervals like third edition. This helps distinguish weapons without becoming too complicated. Anything else is probably too much for a weapon unless it is regulated to a module.

I think that varying critical damage mechanics would fall under the purview of weapon properties by Group or individual weapon properties (Options 4 or 5). I do, however, think that the days of critical multipliers (x4, x3, x2) and critical ranges (18-20, 19-20, 20) are gone.

I vote none of the above. For me weapons should crit at different intervals like third edition. This helps distinguish weapons without becoming too complicated. Anything else is probably too much for a weapon unless it is regulated to a module.

I think that varying critical damage mechanics would fall under the purview of weapon properties by Group or individual weapon properties (Options 4 or 5). I do, however, think that the days of critical multipliers (x4, x3, x2) and critical ranges (18-20, 19-20, 20) are gone.




I'd like to see Crit Ranges come back. And rather than crit multiplier, I'd like to see Crit Dice, so when you crit instead of dealing xd6 damage, you deal xdY damage where Y = the crit damage die. 
Yeah I don't want to see multipliers come back. Crit ranges however are a good way to distinguish weapons.

The problem with the individual weapons option in the poll is that it says in a module. I don't think this should be in a module. I also don't think weapons in nine category need to share attributes. Perhaps sword a cost 20 gold and has a normal crit range while a 40 gold version has 19-20
A broad pole doesn't address what should be in core, because in theory depending on modules, all of the above could exist. So I would rather vote on what is sufficient for the core, whith the premise of keeping it as simple and flexible as possible, with the intent to build on it in the future.
I want to vote 2 and 3

The core is just damage, damage type, and range.
The advanced group properties should be a module.
But no two weapons of the same group, handedness, and catergory should have the same damage. No stuff to have stuff. Such things should be modules.

For example the spear and trident should not just be d6 basic weapons. One should deal less damage to gain range or reach.
Then there should be an optional modules that gies the spear weapons a property.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I want to vote 2 and 3

The core is just damage, damage type, and range.
The advanced group properties should be a module.
But no two weapons of the same group, handedness, and catergory should have the same damage. No stuff to have stuff. Such things should be modules.

For example the spear and trident should not just be d6 basic weapons. One should deal less damage to gain range or reach.
Then there should be an optional modules that gies the spear weapons a property.



I voted 1 and 3, for similar reasons-- I'd prefer simple weapons that aren't duplicated.
I voted in the poll, but you can see my own proposal of what weapons should be like in my blog here.
I am fine with multiple weapons in the same category having the same damage die and type for the core rules. Let people pick the weapon that fits there character concept without punishing them for picking the "wrong" weapon. Those who want extra differentiation can get it through additional weapon rules, class features, or specialties.

BTW, I also feel the same way about armor (but that is a discussion for another thread).

I'd like the core to be simple and uniform: it's the core after all, and any complexity that can be stripped away should be stripped away and layered back on to taste in modules.  Simple lights do d4, simple one handers do d6, simple two handers do d10, martial lights do d6, martial one handers do d8, martial two handers do d12.  Any variations within that determine only damage type and reach.  No separate entries for longswords, cutlasses, sabers, scimitars, etc. that are either identical or traps - let players flavor their weapons as they see fit.  

Then I'd like to see a module that add consistent properties to weapon groups.   And I'd like to see a module that differentiates weapons within a group.  I don't much care what the properties are so long as they're balanced with the core options.  Maybe blades stick with core, blunt weapons have smaller dice but brutal 2, while axes have smaller dice but bigger crits or exploding (add an extra dice when you roll max damage).  I'd consider yet a third module for more complex properties like trip/disarm weapons (they're harder to balance and therefore it's conceivable a group might want to play with brutal/exploding/high crit/crit ranges without playing with trip/disarm).  

This is precisely the kind of area where modularity works best: everyone at the table can choose their own level of complexity but still play as equals in the same game.  There's absolutely no reason not to let everyone do as they like, because one person choosing more or less complexity doesn't change the next person's experience once bit, provided the options are all balanced (and balance is pathetically easy to achieve, at least if you don't go nuts with the special properties).  
I said 3 and 5.  I don't know if that's even a combination that was intended, but those two seemed like the most important things to me.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
Each weapon Group (Axes, Swords, etc.) should share a unique property.



This. 
Color me flattered.

Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

For a /simple/ core, something not unlike D&D GammaWorld's approach to weapons might be good.  That is, no specific weapons, just a few broad groupings.  You decide which group, and describe the weapon.


FREX:

Light Weapons:  used in one hand, using two-handed carries no befit.  Use DEX for attack.  1d6 damage.  Can be used as an off-hand weapon instead of a sheild, adding +1d6 to damage.

Versatile Weapons:  Use STR for attack.  Used in one had, 1d8 damage.  Used two-handed, 2d8 damage.

Heavy Weapons:  Used in two hands, Use STR for attack, 2d10 damage.


The logic here is pretty simple, it's a trade-off among damage, AC, and mobility.  Light weapons give you AC & mobility.  Versatile and heavy weapons give up AC & mobility (wearing heavy armor) for damage.  Versatile weapons can give up damage for AC from a shield.  Light weapons can get better damage by giving up AC from a sheild for a second weapon.  

The basic formula is also very obvious.  1d for one-handed weapons, 2d for using a weapon or weapons in both hands.  The trade-off for the extra die is lack of a shield.


Fairly simple, covers a wide range of melee weapons that the player can describe as he likes.


 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

A “unique property” is unnecessary. But a unique combination of properties is a good idea.
I want to vote 2 and 3.

You can. This poll allows you to make two choices (as per the pre-poll header).
I said 3 and 5.  I don't know if that's even a combination that was intended, but those two seemed like the most important things to me.

No two answers are wrong. Make any choice you like.
I like the idea of non-redundant weapon damage/types and groups of weapons that share a common property rather than focusing on individual unique weapons, but I still think that some weapons, a select few, need unique properties, like the Bastard Sword and Whip. Can I have three votes?
I went with Option #4. I like that certain groups get benefits that fit the overall "sameness" that they all share. Heavy Blades, whether it's a Bastardsword, Greatsword, Glaive, or Full Blade should be similiar in how you swing and use it because the principals behind such a style are simliar (but not exactly, I'm not looking for realism x100 here).

Id like to see some vs armor properties for each weapon. A  

bludgeoning weapon could be +1 vs Platemail. 

I rebember a old TV serie, Conquest, by History Channel. I think it should be seen by WotC designers.


The axe should be a offensive style. 

 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I wanted to vote for more than two things.  And by that, I mean I wanted to vote for all five of them.

Weapons should start off with a simple list, covering the basics:  "sword" "axe" "mace" etc. (option 1)

Weapons should have further information for those who care about more interesting aspects of them (option 2).  These aspects should include:

Associations within a weapon group (option 4), though not necessarily a specific property.
Unique variations within a weapon group (options 3 and 5). 
Power budget for every individual weapon (damage, reach, other properties, etc) (options 3, 4, 5).

The baseline values for the power budget are the numbers given for the simple list.  The power budget should be equivalent for weapon groups within a category (2h, 1h, ranged, etc) so as to not play favorites (e.g. swords are best option).
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Why does this poll take slashing/piercing distinctions as a given in the supposedly "simple" case? That often-arbitrary grouping and its cascading fiddliness throughout the ruleset is one of the most pointlessly overcomplicated things that the weapon rules have ever had.
I prefer weapons as mostly fluff. Nothing feels worse as a DM then when your new player finds a cool mini or pic that they want to model their character on, and then they realize that the awesome dagger wielding fighter then have in mind will be doing an awesome 1d4 damage, when another guy in the party is doing 1d12.

Right off the bat they are forced to confront optimization vs character concept. Does the enjoyment they receive from having a capable character in combat have to be mutually exclusive to having a sweet concept? Sadly in DnD it often does.

Due to stuff like this we modified 4e in the following way (with some specific rules for properties like reach which I won't get into here)

Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:

Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage

Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.

This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done. 
1 square =1 yard = 1 meter. "Fits all playstyles" the obvious choice Orzel is the mayor of Ranger-town. Favored enemies for Rangers
58033128 wrote:
Seems like community isn't going to give up calling mapless "Theatre of the Mind".  In the interest of equal pretentiousness, I'd like to start a motion to refer to map combat as "Tableau Vivant".  


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

I prefer weapons as mostly fluff. Nothing feels worse as a DM then when your new player finds a cool mini or pic that they want to model their character on, and then they realize that the awesome dagger wielding fighter then have in mind will be doing an awesome 1d4 damage, when another guy in the party is doing 1d12.

Right off the bat they are forced to confront optimization vs character concept. Does the enjoyment they receive from having a capable character in combat have to be mutually exclusive to having a sweet concept? Sadly in DnD it often does.

Due to stuff like this we modified 4e in the following way (with some specific rules for properties like reach which I won't get into here)

Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:

Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage

Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.

This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done. 



As a simple system, this is fantastic.  It also plays well when you think about hit points as abstraction.  (dodging, turning, etc).  Is it really the weapon itself that costs more energy to avoid wounds? Or is it the skill of the person using it.  I'd imagine it's much more taxing to avoid a blow from a master whip user than it is a novice kid who happened to pick up a great axe.  I guess the point is, if you argue for HP as abstraction (like many do) instead of actual damage, then the weapon used in the attack matters way less than the skill of the person using it, if at all.  Also, I very much like how it opens up a much wider range of weapon concepts while having minimal effect of mechanics.  If anything, it would shift the design focus for weapons away from raw damage output and into more unique properties and maneuvers for each specific weapon (Which can be included as part of a module, or ignored entirely with ease).

This reconciles quite nicely with the concept of CS dice.  In fact, they're already almost the same thing.  Used in conjunction, it would make for a very threatening fighter.

In short, I like much.  
OPTION FOUR: Each weapon Group (Axes, Swords, etc.) should share a unique property.

Each weapon Group should be differentiated with their own special property, common to all weapons in that Group. For example:
(Disclaimer: You are not voting on these 'particular' properties, but properties 'like' them.)

Flails: Can trip opponents prone on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage.
Hammers: Can stun opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn.
Staffs: Gain reach by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra 5 feet.

Etcetera...

The option seems popular - to have a unique property for each weapon group - but makes little sense.

For example:

Flail: A heavy military flail is a staff with a rod linked to it (sort of like nunchuku). This has no special advantage for tripping opponents. Likewise nunchuku would count as a flail, but it also has no special advantage for tripping.

Staff: I would group the “staff” in the club group, together with the mace, morningstar, and so on. Why is “reach” a unique weapon group property? Pretty much all polearms from glaives to great maces have reach.

Hammer: Even light offhand hammers have the stun property? Why it and not a mace? Holding a rock in ones hand would count as a member of the hammer group, does it get the “stun property”?

And so on.



A unique property for each group seems ill conceived.

I prefer weapons as mostly fluff.

Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:

Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage

Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.

This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done. 

As a simple system, this is fantastic.

I like this too.  The first time I played the 4E version of Gamma World it occured to me how well the simplified weapon table would work for D&D.  All you need to add is damage type (pick piercing, slashing, or blunt for your weapon) and pick whatever name you like.

In addition to heavy (or two-handed) weapons doing more damage, I would add light weapons, which would do less damage.  These would be for off-hand weapons, rogue weapons, etc.

And then totally include weapon modules that add in extra layers of complexity.

I'd like the core to be simple and uniform: it's the core after all, and any complexity that can be stripped away should be stripped away and layered back on to taste in modules.  Simple lights do d4, simple one handers do d6, simple two handers do d10, martial lights do d6, martial one handers do d8, martial two handers do d12.  Any variations within that determine only damage type and reach.  No separate entries for longswords, cutlasses, sabers, scimitars, etc. that are either identical or traps - let players flavor their weapons as they see fit.    

Yes, I've never seeb the pint of allthe differentweapon dice 2d4+1 1d6-1 2d6 1d12 why?

For a /simple/ core, something not unlike D&D GammaWorld's approach to weapons might be good.  That is, no specific weapons, just a few broad groupings.  You decide which group, and describe the weapon.


FREX:

Light Weapons:  used in one hand, using two-handed carries no befit.  Use DEX for attack.  1d6 damage.  Can be used as an off-hand weapon instead of a sheild, adding +1d6 to damage.

Versatile Weapons:  Use STR for attack.  Used in one had, 1d8 damage.  Used two-handed, 2d8 damage.

Heavy Weapons:  Used in two hands, Use STR for attack, 2d10 damage.


The logic here is pretty simple, it's a trade-off among damage, AC, and mobility.  Light weapons give you AC & mobility.  Versatile and heavy weapons give up AC & mobility (wearing heavy armor) for damage.  Versatile weapons can give up damage for AC from a shield.  Light weapons can get better damage by giving up AC from a sheild for a second weapon.  

The basic formula is also very obvious.  1d for one-handed weapons, 2d for using a weapon or weapons in both hands.  The trade-off for the extra die is lack of a shield.


Fairly simple, covers a wide range of melee weapons that the player can describe as he likes.


 

Another good,simple idea Ilike how it takes the crazyness of twfing and akes it like twohanders

Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:

Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage

Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.

This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done. 

and another good one hope the DNDN team is reading allthis

Id like to see some vs armor properties for each weapon. A bludgeoning weapon could be +1 vs Platemail.

Actually, I think those are the kind of bookkeeping nightmare modifiers that designers and players alike are hoping to avoid.
I'm all for going crazy with modifiers, crit ranges, crit bonuses, bonuses vs certain creature types, bonuses to certain maneuvers by weapon type ect...
In an optional module.

My only request is that whoever writes the weapon list actually look at a historical example of what they are about to stat, handle it a bit, mayhaps consult ARMA (not the SCA) and aim for some coherency.

But given the current armour list, I doubt there will be much attention paid. 
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
The option seems popular - to have a unique property for each weapon group - but makes little sense.

For example:

Flail: A heavy military flail is a staff with a rod linked to it (sort of like nunchuku). This has no special advantage for tripping opponents. Likewise nunchuku would count as a flail, but it also has no special advantage for tripping.

Staff: I would group the “staff” in the club group, together with the mace, morningstar, and so on. Why is “reach” a unique weapon group property? Pretty much all polearms from glaives to great maces have reach.

Hammer: Even light offhand hammers have the stun property? Why it and not a mace? Holding a rock in ones hand would count as a member of the hammer group, does it get the “stun property”?

And so on.



A unique property for each group seems ill conceived.



 
Agreed.

I prefer weapons as mostly fluff.

Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:

Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage

Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.

This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done. 

As a simple system, this is fantastic.

I like this too.  The first time I played the 4E version of Gamma World it occured to me how well the simplified weapon table would work for D&D.  All you need to add is damage type (pick piercing, slashing, or blunt for your weapon) and pick whatever name you like.

In addition to heavy (or two-handed) weapons doing more damage, I would add light weapons, which would do less damage.  These would be for off-hand weapons, rogue weapons, etc.

And then totally include weapon modules that add in extra layers of complexity.



    
And this, I like quite a bit. A simple, versatile system as the core. Then have specifics for all weapons as a module.
I prefer weapons as mostly fluff. Nothing feels worse as a DM then when your new player finds a cool mini or pic that they want to model their character on, and then they realize that the awesome dagger wielding fighter then have in mind will be doing an awesome 1d4 damage, when another guy in the party is doing 1d12.

Right off the bat they are forced to confront optimization vs character concept. Does the enjoyment they receive from having a capable character in combat have to be mutually exclusive to having a sweet concept? Sadly in DnD it often does.

Due to stuff like this we modified 4e in the following way (with some specific rules for properties like reach which I won't get into here)

Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:

Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage

Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.

This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done. 



0e all weapons did d6...  I seem to recall your idea being generated somewhere around 1979 or so.. its an oldy but a goody.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I vote none of the above. For me weapons should crit at different intervals like third edition. This helps distinguish weapons without becoming too complicated. Anything else is probably too much for a weapon unless it is regulated to a module.
 




I am with you on this one.

But given that classes start at +2 / +3 Weapon Attack Bonus (instead of +0/+1). I have a strong feeling WOTC intends on using the 4E proficiency system, which isn't all that bad.

As long as there is 'something' differentiating weapons, currently it’s too simplistic for my liking

I prefer weapons as mostly fluff. Nothing feels worse as a DM then when your new player finds a cool mini or pic that they want to model their character on, and then they realize that the awesome dagger wielding fighter then have in mind will be doing an awesome 1d4 damage, when another guy in the party is doing 1d12.

Right off the bat they are forced to confront optimization vs character concept. Does the enjoyment they receive from having a capable character in combat have to be mutually exclusive to having a sweet concept? Sadly in DnD it often does.

Due to stuff like this we modified 4e in the following way (with some specific rules for properties like reach which I won't get into here)

Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:

Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage

Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.

This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done. 


I like this system. Very simple, addresses an important issue, and you could apply it to most games without a hiccup. The core book could fit the entire optional rule set in a single column.
I prefer weapons as mostly fluff. Nothing feels worse as a DM then when your new player finds a cool mini or pic that they want to model their character on, and then they realize that the awesome dagger wielding fighter then have in mind will be doing an awesome 1d4 damage, when another guy in the party is doing 1d12.

Right off the bat they are forced to confront optimization vs character concept. Does the enjoyment they receive from having a capable character in combat have to be mutually exclusive to having a sweet concept? Sadly in DnD it often does.

Due to stuff like this we modified 4e in the following way (with some specific rules for properties like reach which I won't get into here)

Simple/Martial/Superior weapons/weapon proficiencies do not reflect the weapons themselves, but rather your skill with the weapon. So, if you want to use a longsword:

Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage

Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.

This has gone over really well with my players, who don't feel jipped anymore. Converting feats was tricky work but we got it done. 



0e all weapons did d6...  I seem to recall your idea being generated somewhere around 1979 or so.. its an oldy but a goody.



Cool. Channel the past to mold the future. Thanks for that tidbit.
1 square =1 yard = 1 meter. "Fits all playstyles" the obvious choice Orzel is the mayor of Ranger-town. Favored enemies for Rangers
58033128 wrote:
Seems like community isn't going to give up calling mapless "Theatre of the Mind".  In the interest of equal pretentiousness, I'd like to start a motion to refer to map combat as "Tableau Vivant".  


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Simple Training= 1d6 damage
Martial Training= 1d8 damage
Superior Training= 1d10 damage

Two handed weapons get bumped up a die for each category.

Simple is fine. Martial, by definition is a “superior” weapon.

Two-handed bump makes sense, and even corresponds well with bows.
Id like to see some vs armor properties for each weapon. A bludgeoning weapon could be +1 vs Platemail.

Actually, I think those are the kind of bookkeeping nightmare modifiers that designers and players alike are hoping to avoid.



Not me and my players. I hate platemail, and the idea of a mace having a bonus against plate was suggested by a player who certainly wont forget when he faces platemail.
Not much has changed over the past week. I'm calling this poll.
The clear and wide majority of those who voted (35%) believe that the weapons (as currently presented in the play-test document), can stand to be more robustly detailed in the core rules. Not so robust as to include individual weapon qualities, but enough so that each weapon group (axes, swords, etcetera) would share a common property.