There's simplicity, and then there's treating-your-players-like-they're-simpletons.
The weapons we choose for our characters are more than just tools. They are extensions of lethal intent made manifest through role-playing. They are how our characters face the monsters that want to kill them. As such, each one deserves to be distinctive in a non-redundant way.
The current play-test weapons can stand a little more complexity without compromising the 'firebrand of simplicity' that seems to define every new version of the D&D core rules. Right now, weapons are too dull and uninspiring, brought on by a lack of meaningful properties to differentiate them from each other.
Moreover, the list of weapons is clearly smaller than what we are accustomed to seeing from D&D. Many weapons are missing, like the kukri, the falchion, the gauntlet, the guisarme, the khopesh, the punching dagger, the ranseur, and the shortspear. The mace was once broken into light and heavy versions, rather than just 'mace', as was the flail, as was the pick.
Now while I agree that some weapons needed to be simplified, I think the reason they were condensed or omitted stems entirely from the complexity which has been stripped away from all weapons, to the point where even the current 'reduced' list still includes redundant options. To illustrate what I mean, here are the latest play-test weapons by ascending damage and weapon groups. This allows us to examine where they overlap.
Basic Weapons seems to be modelled after 'tools commoners might wield'. As well, none of these weapons deals 1d8 damage without also being two-handed. Still, there are problems. For example, there is no meaningful difference between the spear and trident. We can give the spear a range of 20/80 (lower than javelin), but that makes it superior to the trident. Raising the trident damage to 1d8 on the Basic Weapon chart is one option, but doing so dictates that it should also be made two-handed, which invalidates the trident and net fighting style. The solution? Graduate the trident to a Martial Weapon, even if it was intended to template a commoner's pitchfork. Lastly, if unarmed strikes and one-handed improvised objects deal the same damage, what incentive is there to improvise a one-handed object? This is easily solved by lowering the unarmed strike to 1d3 damage.
Here we see the first two-handed weapon dealing less than 1d8 damage (the spiked chain), but it has reach, so perhaps that can be considered balanced. Again, there are problems. After separating swords into piercing and slashing types, the rapier and short sword are functionally identical. Second, why is a katana the only Eastern weapon in the list and why the ruddy heck is it two-handed? The katana and wakizashi should be married together, one in each hand. Drop the katana for now, but make it a finessable bastard sword when it comes back (so that it's superior to a quarterstaff). The dagger and possibly the short sword should sport two damage types, namely piercing and slashing. That alone would differentiate the short sword from the rapier, but not by much. Some additional complexity is needed to create meaningful differences between these weapons as well.
There is less redundancy on the Martial Weapon chart, but some oddities stand out. The throwing axe does more damage than the handaxe, but can't be thrown as far for some reason. Sure, I suppose that's balanced, but it would feel more consistent if these weapons were fused together and given a shorter throwing range (certainly less distance than a javelin) and kept on the Basic Weapon chart (as a commoner weapon). Another quirk of this weapon chart is the bastard sword. It can only be wielded two-handed -- for the first time in D&D history -- despite having long been established as a one or two-handed weapon. The problem can be solved by simply treating the bastard sword as a longsword when wielded single-handedly and a bastard sword when wielded two-handed.
No redundancy here, but the halberd should also double as a spear dealing 1d6 damage. If we give the halberd 1d10 damage for the spear point, it makes the longspear redundant. Secondly, the maul weighs way too much. No weapon from any of these charts should weigh more than 15 pounds. If we move to an encumbrance system that accounts for awkwardness, that becomes a different matter.
-----
Name / Price / Damage / Weight / Properties / Group Simple Missile Weapons (Attack: Dexterity modifier) Crossbow, hand / 10 gp / 1d6 piercing / 3 lb. / Range 30/120, special / Crossbow Sling / 1 sp / 1d4 bludgeoning / 1/2 lb. / Range 30/120 / Sling Dart / 5 cp ea. / 1d4 piercing / 1/2 lb. / Range 30/120 / Spear Improvised object / — / 1d2 bludgeoning / — / — / —
-----
The crossbow shows up for the first time, but with a galling restriction. An action is needed to reload. Considering that bows do not suffer this restriction, can be fired at greater distances, and only deal 1 less average point of damage, crossbows will be largely passed over by adventurers. Sure, you can fire crossbows while prone and behind cover (albeit with a -2 penalty according to the current prone rules), but in order to make them no less useful than bows, they needs some kind of advantage. Regarding range, the hand crossbow feels short changed next to the dart and sling. I don't think a range of 50/200 would break the bank. Lastly, I think that ranged improvised objects can deal at least 1d3 damage, for the simple reason that 1d2 is pitiful.
-----
Name / Price / Damage / Weight / Properties / Group Martial Missile Weapons (Attack: Dexterity modifier) Shortbow / 25 gp / 1d6 piercing / 2 lb. / Range 80/320, two-handed / Bow Crossbow, light / 25 gp / 1d8 piercing / 6 lb. / Range 80/320, two-handed, special / Crossbow Throwing hammer / 2 gp / 1d6 bludgeoning / 7 lb. / Range 20/80 / Hammer Javelin / 5 sp / 1d6 piercing / 5 lb. / Range 30/120 / Spear
-----
Giving a throwing hammer a separate entry seems a little nonsensical to me. Is anybody really going to carry around multiple 7 pound hammers just for throwing away? No. Instead, add a straightforward 'hammer' to the Basic Weapon chart (definitely a commoner weapon) and give the weapon a throwing range. Done. Looking ahead at Heavy Missile Weapons, if the longbow out-ranges the heavy crossbow, then the shortbow should out-range the light crossbow.
-----
Name / Price / Damage / Weight / Properties / Group Heavy Missile Weapons (Attack: Dexterity modifier) Crossbow, heavy / 50 gp / 1d10 piercing 10 lb. / Range 100/400, two-handed, special / Crossbow Longbow / 50 gp / 1d8 piercing 3 lb. / Range 150/600, two-handed / Bow
-----
Nothing redundant here, but in conclusion I reiterate that additional weapon distinctions are needed. The question then becomes how to differentiate weapons without making them too complicated.
In D&D 3rd edition, we had critical threat ranges, critical multipliers, damage types, and weapons that were ideal for certain combat manoeuvres. In D&D 4th edition, we had proficiency bonuses and special properties. In 5th edition, I think the answer lies somewhere in between. There needs to be additional weapon properties, weapons that deal more damage on a critical, and weapons that are compatible with certain fighting styles. As well, some weapons can be assigned to multiple groups while others can inflict more than one damage type (like the morningstar), but not at the expense of making other weapons redundant.
See below for the Revised Weapons and Weapons Properties by Group.
There's simplicity, and then there's treating-your-players-like-they're-simpletons.The weapons we choose for our characters are more than just tools. They are extensions of lethal intent made manifest through role-playing. They are how our characters
Revised Weapons The following changes detail revisions made to current D&D play-test weapons.
Editorial History (30 September 2012) -Changed the Weapon Property of maces to balance against armoured opponents.
Editorial History (23 September 2012) -Changed the Weapon Property of bows to create less overlap with Sniper feat. -Changed the Weapon Property of mace to balance against armoured opponents. -Changed the Weapon Property of unarmed in keeping with two-weapon fighting.
Editorial History (21 September 2012) -Removed range from spear and trident to account for new Weapon Property by Group. -Made sweeping changes to all Weapons Properties by Group, except axe, dagger, and shield.
Editorial History (18 September 2012) -Throwing hammer changed to hammer and moved from Martial Missile Weapon to Basic Weapon. -Handaxe and throwing axe combined into handaxe with higher damage and reduced range. -Spear gains throwing range. -Staff added to Basic Weapons. -Unarmed strike damage lowered to less than club. -Trident moved to Martial Weapons with increased damage and throwing range. -Slashing damage added to dagger and short sword. -Katana removed from Finesse Weapons to join Eastern Weapons in future. -Bastard sword gains different damage when wielded one-handed and two-handed. -Halberd gains spear piercing damage for the weapon point and also counts as Spear. -Maul weight reduced by 10 pounds. -Simple Missile Weapon improvised object damage increased to match unarmed strike.
Martial Missile Weapons (Attack: Dexterity modifier) Crossbow, light / 25 gp / 1d8 piercing / 6 lb. / Range 80/320, two-handed, special / Crossbow Javelin / 5 sp / 1d6 piercing / 5 lb. / Range 30/120 / Spear Shortbow / 25 gp / 1d6 piercing / 2 lb. / Range 100/400, two-handed / Bow Throwing hammer / 2 gp / 1d6 bludgeoning / 7 lb. / Range 20/80 / Hammer
Heavy Missile Weapons (Attack: Dexterity modifier) Crossbow, heavy / 50 gp / 1d10 piercing / 10 lb. / Range 100/400, two-handed, special / Crossbow Longbow / 50 gp / 1d8 piercing / 3 lb. / Range 150/600, two-handed / Bow
Weapon Properties by Group Axe: Can reroll the minimum damage result once per attack and add amounts together. Bow:Can impose disadvantage to opponent rolls on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Crossbow: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents. Dagger: Can add Strength and Dexterity modifier to melee damage while keeping one hand empty. Flail: Can trip opponents prone on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage. Hammer: Can stun opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Mace: Can add Strength and Dexterity modifier to melee damage against armoured opponents. Pick: Can restrain opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Shield: Can push opponents back 5 feet on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage. Sling: Can knock opponents unconscious on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Spear: Gain 10 feet normal range (40 feet maximum range) by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra range. Staff: Gain reach by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra 5 feet. Sword: Can disengage or coup de grace as a move instead of an action. Unarmed: Can make two unarmed attacks or while keeping both hands empty, both of which deal half damage. Can do the same if one or both hands are wielding one-handed improvised weapons. Whip: Can disarm opponents wielding one-handed weapons on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage.
Revised WeaponsThe following changes detail revisions made to current D&D play-test weapons.Editorial History (30 September 2012)-Changed the Weapon Property of maces to balance against armoured opponents.Editorial History (23 September 2012)-Changed
I don't think any version of D&D has done a good job differentiating weapons. 1st and 2nd editions tried things like different weapon speeds and different effects against different armors, but the result was mostly tedious as opposed to interesting. I suppose bludgeoning/ piercing/ slicing is something, but it is generally pretty insignificant. In most editions, long lists of weapons were largely ignored as many weapons were simply inferior to others in every aspect.
Surely a spear would have a very different combat feel than a longsword, and it would be nice to have every weapon play differently in the game as well. I don't think that can be accomplished without either abandoning the traditional D&D combat mechanic or dramatically adding complexity. Of course, I would love to be proven wrong here.
I don't think any version of D&D has done a good job differentiating weapons. 1st and 2nd editions tried things like different weapon speeds and different effects against different armors, but the result was mostly tedious as opposed to interesting.
Surely a spear would have a very different combat feel than a longsword, and it would be nice to have every weapon play differently in the game as well. I don't think that can be accomplished without either abandoning the traditional D&D combat mechanic or dramatically adding complexity. Of course, I would love to be proven wrong here.
Allow me to take you up on that challenge. Here's a simple differentiating mechanic for the spear.
Spear: All spears have a stabbing head on the end of a long shaft. You can have reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack.
Done.
Allow me to take you up on that challenge. Here's a simple differentiating mechanic for the spear.Spear: All spears have a stabbing head on the end of a long shaft. You can have reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack.Done.
@Angrygodofmilk: Ok, now can I have a rule that represents daggers being better at close quarters than swords?
How about maces ignoring armour?
Rapiers being ineffective against armour?
Something that makes an axe feel different to a sword?
It's not that these rules are hard to create, it's just that once you start adding them it's hard to know where to stop. Enter the complexity that square64 was talking about.
@Angrygodofmilk: Ok, now can I have a rule that represents daggers being better at close quarters than swords?How about maces ignoring armour?Rapiers being ineffective against armour?Something that makes an axe feel different to a sword?It's not that
Second, why is a katana the only Eastern weapon in the list and why the ruddy heck is it two-handed? The katana and wakizashi should be married together, one in each hand. Drop the katana for now, but make it a finessable bastard sword when it comes back (so that it's superior to a quarterstaff).
Please don't do that! The katana should either stay as it is, or be the same as a bastard sword. I don't want a super-sword that's superior to all weapons, and even less so if that sword is a distinctly Japanese weapon. Sorry but I'm fed up of anime fans telling me that European swords are rubbish (which is how it appears when the Japanese sword is finessable but does the same damage as the European one which relies solely on strength (i.e. brute force and ignorance)). I've been making the case for a long time that martial weapons should rely on an average of strength and dex bonuses, to make them different from simple weapons, and I've no problem including the katana amongst that table, but I do NOT want a 1d10 finesse weapon of Japanese origin, and if they do this then I will ban it from all of my games, and refuse to play any game in which that sword isn't banned.
Alternatively, if the hand-and-a-half sword can perform in the same way, I've no problem with the katana doing so as well. I don't mind it being there, and I don't mind it being a decent weapon. What I don't want is "Japanese = good, European = rubbish".
The wakisashi could probably be covered by the scimitar, as a general curved single-handed cutting sword, covering things like those two, sabres, cutlasses etc.
Please don't do that! The katana should either stay as it is, or be the same as a bastard sword. I don't want a super-sword that's superior to all weapons, and even less so if that sword is a distinctly Japanese weapon. Sorry but I'm fed up of anime
The Katana and Wakizashi were not typically dual wielded. I think one individual (and perhaps those he taught) used it in that way - but that is not how it was typically used. (edit: Miyamoto Musashi)
And it was typically used two handed - even if not for every strike, the other hand was always there to add power when necessary.
On the other hand - if the introduce a feat to use the Bastard Sword one-handed, it might well apply to the Katana as well. I'd just as soon such a feat never exist - but if it does.....
And, yes - it is a bit jarring to see Oriental weapons on the chart. But ya know what? The entire weapon and armor chart has traditionally been a mish-mash of weapons and armors from many different regions and time periods. Is a Japanese weapon that out of place, all things considered?
As for the particular implementation - I don't see making it a finesse weapon as remotely part of "Japan-good; Euro-bad". And I see no sign of a Japanese super-weapon. I see it as a recognition that the way one traditionally fights with a Katana is very different from the way one fights with a traditional sword. It;s style of use can be compared to what one would expect for a finesse weapon.
This doesn't make it better or worse - it just makes it different.
So - forget what they call it: Do you object to the existence of a two-handed finesse weapon (I was a bit surprised the first time I noticed it). Or do you just object to such a weapon being called a katana?
Also - it is a d8 weapon, not a d10 weapon.
Carl
The Katana and Wakizashi were not typically dual wielded. I think one individual (and perhaps those he taught) used it in that way - but that is not how it was typically used. (edit: Miyamoto Musashi)And it was typically used two handed - even if
It's not that these rules are hard to create, it's just that once you start adding them it's hard to know where to stop. Enter the complexity that square64 was talking about.
Indeed. I think if we tread forward carefully, we can add a modicum of complexity without compromising simplicity for the sake of weapon individuality.
Ok, now can I have a rule that represents daggers being better at close quarters than swords?
When you hit with a dagger in melee combat while holding nothing in your off-hand, add your Dexterity or Strength modifier to the damage (whichever is higher).
You take disadvantage on attack rolls against armoured opponents, but advantage against opponents without armour while holding a buckler in your off-hand.
Something that makes an axe feel different to a sword
When you hit with a two-handed axe attack, reroll the lowest weapon damage result until the roll is higher.
Indeed. I think if we tread forward carefully, we can add a modicum of complexity without compromising simplicity for the sake of weapon individuality.When you hit with a dagger in melee combat while holding nothing in your off-hand, add your Dexteri
First off, it doesm't seem like weapon mechanics are the focus for this round of the playtest. That being said, I find the ideal way to truly convey the differences in the weapons comes down to DM narration and player roleplaying. The weapon stats are never going to be that interesting. There is no real difference between the long sword and the battle axe stat wise. However, I will narrate every hit made differently depending on which weapon is used. I rarely go with, "you hit it," unless the fight has dragged on to long. Thats were the different feels come from. Making them seem part of the world.
First off, it doesm't seem like weapon mechanics are the focus for this round of the playtest.That being said, I find the ideal way to truly convey the differences in the weapons comes down to DM narration and player roleplaying. The weapon stats ar
Second, why is a katana the only Eastern weapon in the list and why the ruddy heck is it two-handed? The katana and wakizashi should be married together, one in each hand. Drop the katana for now, but make it a finessable bastard sword when it comes back (so that it's superior to a quarterstaff).
Please don't do that! The katana should either stay as it is, or be t a distinctly Japanese weapon. Sorry but I'm fed up of anime fans telling me that European swords are rubbish (which is how it appears when the Japanese sword is finessable but does the same damage as the European one which relies solely on strength (i.e. brute force and ignorance)). I've been making the case for a long time that martial weapons should rely on an average of strengthhe same as a bastard sword. I don't want a super-sword that's superior to all weapons, and even less so if that sword is and dex bonuses, to make them different from simple weapons, and I've no problem including the katana amongst that table, but I do NOT want a 1d10 finesse weapon of Japanese origin, and if they do this then I will ban it from all of my games, and refuse to play any game in which that sword isn't banned.
Alternatively, if the hand-and-a-half sword can perform in the same way, I've no problem with the katana doing so as well. I don't mind it being there, and I don't mind it being a decent weapon. What I don't want is "Japanese = good, European = rubbish".
The wakisashi could probably be covered by the scimitar, as a general curved single-handed cutting sword, covering things like those two, sabres, cutlasses etc.
Id join that cause
Please don't do that! The katana should either stay as it is, or be t a distinctly Japanese weapon. Sorry but I'm fed up of anime fans telling me that European swords are rubbish (which is how it appears when the Japanese sword is finessable but does
That being said, I find the ideal way to truly convey the differences in the weapons comes down to DM narration and player roleplaying. The weapon stats are never going to be that interesting.
I disagree. I think well designed game mechanics can be interesting.
There is no real difference between the long sword and the battle axe stat wise. However, I will narrate every hit made differently depending on which weapon is used. I rarely go with, "you hit it," unless the fight has dragged on to long. Thats were the different feels come from. Making them seem part of the world.
While a descriptive dungeon master (and players for that matter) are usually welcome at any gaming table, the fact that a battle axe and longsword are mechanically identical still leaves many players cold.
Well if they haven't started yet, now would be a good time.I disagree. I think well designed game mechanics can be interesting.While a descriptive dungeon master (and players for that matter) are usually welcome at any gaming table, the fact that a b
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />As for the particular implementation - I don't see making it a finesse weapon as remotely part of "Japan-good; Euro-bad". And I see no sign of a Japanese super-weapon. I see it as a recognition that the way one traditionally fights with a Katana is very different from the way one fights with a traditional sword. It;s style of use can be compared to what one would expect for a finesse weapon.
The implication, though, is that Japanese weapons require skill, finesse and dexterity, while European weapons require nothing more than brute force (i.e strength). I was, however, referring to the OP's proposal, not to its current implementation (which I'm okay with).
Also - it is a d8 weapon, not a d10 weapon.
I'm not that bothered by it being a two-handed 1d8 damage finesse weapon, because that isn't that overpowered, and as long as the quarterstaff remains as an alternative, and the shortsword remains as a one-handed 1d6 finesse weapon (so there is at least one European sword that uses skill and finesse ), then I've no problem with the katana in its current incarnation.
What will bother me is if the katana becomes a 1d10 finesse weapon, like the OP was suggesting, thereby making it superior to all weapons, or if they nerf the quarterstaff.
The implication, though, is that Japanese weapons require skill, finesse and dexterity, while European weapons require nothing more than brute force (i.e strength). I was, however, referring to the OP's proposal, not to its current implementation (wh
Weapon Simplicity I am in favour of adding more complexity with weapons. I liked the critical threat range of 3E, it had a nice way of diferentiating the scimitar and the longsword. Axes and Maces are better against armour, but allot less versatile than blades.
I would do something like this: Mace DMG d8 CRIT 20 ×2 SPECIAL +2 dmg vs. armoured opponents Battle axe DMG d8 CRIT 20 ×3 SPECIAL +1 dmg vs. armoured opponents Longsword DMG d8 CRIT 19-20 ×2 SPECIAL +1 AC vs. melee attacks Scimitar DMG d6 CRIT 18-20 ×2 SPECIAL +1 AC vs. melee attacks
NOTE: This is just an example and certainly not saying its the best option
I certainly don't think weapon choices should be purely for 'the look of it' , I think there should be a clear mechanic behind it so that players use diferrent kinds of weapons depending on the siatuation.
RE: Katana To me the katana should be similar to a bastard sword mechanically (d8 dmg one-handed, d10 dmg two-handed). Realistically, a katana isn't balanced so its in fact harder to fight with (which is why 3Es version of all katanas being +1 to hit is ridiculous) it does make sense that it would be an exotic weapon however. Also a katana is meant to cut only (not bludgeon) so it is infective against armour. I do think WOTC should make historical research on weapons before entering stats, the Japanese having better arms than Europeans is just myth.
Scimitar Sorry to say, but this isn't a finesse weapon, you can use a longsword with more finesse. A scimitar is a hacking weapon. I don't agree that a certain dark elf ranger should dictate how a weapon functions simply because he happens to be agile. But then again, realistically, dexterity (though I would argue with intelligence) is the best stat to use as an attack modifier for all weapons. Mechanically though strength makes more sense.
FINAL THOUGHTS Magic seems to stand as the only complexity right now. Meaning you can't give flavour to your gear other then making it magical. Even masterwork is boring as heck. You mean to tell me that smithing only have two levels of quality? Good and Masterwork? Seems lame to me. Who needs to dwarves if all you need is a level 1 artisan to make a masterwork item? Heck little johny can make a weapon as good as Bruenor Battlehammer with those rules. I really think there needs more complexity it terms of mundane gear, put more emphasis on the items themselves and their quality - not everything is about magic.
Weapon SimplicityI am in favour of adding more complexity with weapons. I liked the critical threat range of 3E, it had a nice way of diferentiating the scimitar and the longsword. Axes and Maces are better against armour, but allot less versatile th
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />As for the particular implementation - I don't see making it a finesse weapon as remotely part of "Japan-good; Euro-bad". And I see no sign of a Japanese super-weapon. I see it as a recognition that the way one traditionally fights with a Katana is very different from the way one fights with a traditional sword. It;s style of use can be compared to what one would expect for a finesse weapon.
The implication, though, is that Japanese weapons require skill, finesse and dexterity, while European weapons require nothing more than brute force (i.e strength). I was, however, referring to the OP's proposal, not to its current implementation (which I'm okay with).
Looks to me like the implication is that at least seven Euopean weapons (three of them swords) require skill, finesse and dexterity. So I'm pretty sure your implication isn't implied at all.
What will bother me is if the katana becomes a 1d10 finesse weapon, like the OP was suggesting, thereby making it superior to all weapons, or if they nerf the quarterstaff.
I agree with the former - and the latter. How good the katana should be has nothing to do with how good people think the katana should be; it's pure mechanics and no two-handed finesse weapon should do more than 1d8 - just because that's the way the numbers work. Whether they call it a Katana or not is ... fluff. That said - there could in theory be a race that has Katana as a special weapon and does d10 (Kenku would be my choice). But that is a separate matter also driven by bare mechanics.
On a related note: In both of the last two feedback packets I've lobbied for a change to staff.
Not the quarterstaff - the staff.
The quarterstaff is, legitimately, a finesse weapon which requires special training to use.
The quarterstaff is not the iconic weapon of clerics and wizards.
The iconic weapon of the wizard is a a staff that is more of a walking stick. Far closer to a shillelagh than it is to a quarterstaff. I've been arguing that they need to add a new weapon to the equipment list: The staff. The staff is a basic weapon in the club group and the staff is the weapon that wizards (as a class weapon proficiency) and clerics (as a basic weapon) are known to use.
Lets dump this idea of wizards walking around proficient in the quarterstaff - and also give clerics back their staff (which seems to alternate packets whether or not they have proficiency in).
Carl
The implication, though, is that Japanese weapons require skill, finesse and dexterity, while European weapons require nothing more than brute force (i.e strength). I was, however, referring to the OP's proposal, not to its current implementation (wh
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" /> The quarterstaff is, legitimately, a finesse weapon which requires special training to use.
The quarterstaff is not the iconic weapon of clerics and wizards.
The iconic weapon of the wizard is a a staff that is more of a walking stick. Far closer to a shillelagh than it is to a quarterstaff. I've been arguing that they need to add a new weapon to the equipment list: The staff. The staff is a basic weapon in the club group and the staff is the weapon that wizards (as a class weapon proficiency) and clerics (as a basic weapon) are known to use.
Lets dump this idea of wizards walking around proficient in the quarterstaff - and also give clerics back their staff (which seems to alternate packets whether or not they have proficiency in).
Agreed! The quarterstaff is an awesome weapon that is so underrated in these games. Which is why I like it as it is now.
However, I think the iconic wizards' weapon should be different, to more represent the fact that it's a stick of wood that they hit things with. Create a separate staff for use in the Simple Weapons table.
I don't mind it being the cleric's weapon so much, because clerics have, traditionally, had some training in combat in previous D&D games.
Agreed! The quarterstaff is an awesome weapon that is so underrated in these games. Which is why I like it as it is now.However, I think the iconic wizards' weapon should be different, to more represent the fact that it's a stick of wood that they hi
What will bother me is if the katana becomes a 1d10 finesse weapon, like the OP was suggesting, thereby making it superior to all weapons, or if they nerf the quarterstaff.
To be clear, I was talking about my 'proposed' version of the bastard sword (1d8 one-handed, 1d10 two-handed). I was not suggesting that the katana should deal 1d10 across the board. The katana (once reintroduced along with a host of other Eastern-themed weapons) would work the same way, but have the option of being finessable. Remember, Finesse Weapons do not force wielders to attack with their Dexterity. They can use Strength if they prefer.
To be clear, I was talking about my 'proposed' version of the bastard sword (1d8 one-handed, 1d10 two-handed). I was not suggesting that the katana should deal 1d10 across the board. The katana (once reintroduced along with a host of other Eastern-th
On a related note: In both of the last two feedback packets I've lobbied for a change to staff.
Not the quarterstaff - the staff.
The quarterstaff is, legitimately, a finesse weapon which requires special training to use.
The quarterstaff is not the iconic weapon of clerics and wizards.
The iconic weapon of the wizard is a a staff that is more of a walking stick. Far closer to a shillelagh than it is to a quarterstaff.
Agreed. The 'staff' will make a fine addition to the Basic Weapon list.
I think it's time to compose a 'Revised Weapon' chart in the post I ear-marked after the original post of this thread, bringing some of these ideas together.
I'm starting to get idea on how to add complexity without compromising simplicity. It can go two ways. On the one hand, we can create invidualized rules for all weapons. On the other hand, we can create individualized mechanics for each weapon 'Group', of which there are currently fifteen: Axe, Dagger, Bow, Crossbow, Flail, Hammer, Mace, Pick, Shield, Sling, Spear, Staff, Sword, Unarmed, and Whip. In the latter case, any generic rules that can be agreed upon would apply all weapon in that Group. At that point, it would then be relatively simple matter of avoiding damage redundancy within a weapon Group.
I am already more inclinded towards the latter approach for the sake of preserving simplicity, although I think there may still be certain weapons that deserved specialized/stylized mechanics of their own. One step at a time.
Agreed. The 'staff' will make a fine addition to the Basic Weapon list.I think it's time to compose a 'Revised Weapon' chart in the post I ear-marked after the original post of this thread, bringing some of these ideas together.I'm starting to get id
I don't mind it [quarterstaff] being the cleric's weapon so much, because clerics have, traditionally, had some training in combat in previous D&D games.
I don't mind it one way or the other. I think its more important in the context of the wizard.
But they seem to be unable to make up their mind about clerics and quarterstaffs.
This at least gives clerics a staff weapon they can use so that items like Snake Staff work.
Carl
I don't mind it one way or the other. I think its more important in the context of the wizard.But they seem to be unable to make up their mind about clerics and quarterstaffs.This at least gives clerics a staff weapon they can use so that items like
On a related note: In both of the last two feedback packets I've lobbied for a change to staff.
Not the quarterstaff - the staff.
The quarterstaff is, legitimately, a finesse weapon which requires special training to use.
Well if you want to get historically accurate about the quarterstaff, you need to remove it from the equipment list entirely.
Instead, put it in a list of fighting styles (that may or may not get modeled in game mechanics) along with halfstaff.
Take a six-foot-or-so staff and paint a red stripe around it at its midpoint. Then paint a blue stripe halfway between an end and the red stripe. In quarterstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the blue stripe; in halfstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the red stripe.
But the staff is the same.
(There is a third staff-fighting style... singlestick. It uses a much shorter staff and resembles a mix of sword techniques and club techniques.)
Well if you want to get historically accurate about the quarterstaff, you need to remove it from the equipment list entirely.Instead, put it in a list of fighting styles (that may or may not get modeled in game mechanics) along with halfstaff.Take a
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Take a six-foot-or-so staff and paint a red stripe around it at its midpoint. Then paint a blue stripe halfway between an end and the red stripe. In quarterstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the blue stripe; in halfstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the red stripe.
But the staff is the same.
This exactly. "Halfstaff" style (holding it in the middle and attacking with both ends) is not generally recommended, and usually used for show-fighting. "Quarterstaff" style has the staff wielded more like a spear.
But it should still be called "quarterstaff" for the same reason that the single-handed sword is still called "longsword" - everyone identifies easily with it.
The katana (once reintroduced along with a host of other Eastern-themed weapons) would work the same way, but have the option of being finessable. Remember, Finesse Weapons do not force wielders to attack with their Dexterity. They can use Strength if they prefer.
I'm aware of that, but having the option to forego strength and use only dexterity is exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that you can do that with an eastern sword, but not with a western sword, heavily implies that eastern swords are inherently superior. Even more so when dex is used for damage as well. This will result in a host of ninja-type characters all using this supposedly exotic weapon, because they're so awesomely agile (despite having no physical strength).
Or did you mean it can be a 1d8 two handed finesse weapon, a 1d8 one handed martial weapon or a 1d10 two handed martial weapon? That I wouldn't object to, however I think that with the katana and the hand and a half, there should be a strength requirement to using it one-handed. I also think that, if that's the case, the hand and a half needs something else, because otherwise, the katana is basically a version of it that can be finessed (i.e. a superior version of it).
While we're on the subject, I don't think we need a shortsword, longsword, hand and a half sword AND a two-handed sword. I think the shortsword should be the standard single-handed arming sword (single handed 1d6 finesse piercing), the longsword should perform the roles of both the longsword and the hand and a half (one-handed = 1d8 slashing, two-handed = 1d10 slashing AND piercing), and the two hander should stay where it is.
In fact, I think the shortsword should also do slashing damage, but as a martial weapon.
Basically, my suggestion would be: fewer weapons, but more complicated rules with the ones that we have. This would also negate the need for the golf-bag, if several weapons can be used in different ways.
This exactly. "Halfstaff" style (holding it in the middle and attacking with both ends) is not generally recommended, and usually used for show-fighting. "Quarterstaff" style has the staff wielded more like a spear.But it should still be called "quar
On a related note: In both of the last two feedback packets I've lobbied for a change to staff.
Not the quarterstaff - the staff.
The quarterstaff is, legitimately, a finesse weapon which requires special training to use.
Well if you want to get historically accurate about the quarterstaff, you need to remove it from the equipment list entirely.
Instead, put it in a list of fighting styles (that may or may not get modeled in game mechanics) along with halfstaff.
Take a six-foot-or-so staff and paint a red stripe around it at its midpoint. Then paint a blue stripe halfway between an end and the red stripe. In quarterstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the blue stripe; in halfstaff fighting, you'll usually have your hands on each side of the red stripe.
But the staff is the same.
(There is a third staff-fighting style... singlestick. It uses a much shorter staff and resembles a mix of sword techniques and club techniques.)
And in neither case does what it is or how it is used resemble the classic image of a wizard with a staff.
Nothing else is historically accurate - why should that be? If 'historically accurate' even has meaning in a game of pretend wizards and warriors.
But reflecting the iconic archetypes of genre literature is a reasonable goal for an RPG.
Carl
Well if you want to get historically accurate about the quarterstaff, you need to remove it from the equipment list entirely.Instead, put it in a list of fighting styles (that may or may not get modeled in game mechanics) along with halfstaff.Take a
I completely agree that the weapons need an overhaul. I may have mentioned it before, but I have no issue mentioning it again: no weapon should be useless or skippable, or already invalidated right on the weapons chart.
I realize life has some bad choices. Still, there is no reason to spend the extra starting gold on rapier, when a shortsword does the same job. (heck, if you exclude blugeoning vs. slashing, the quarterstaff waaaay out performs the katana on gold to effectiveness alone)
I like the idea of spears gaining reach if you are willing to take advantage. I would like to see a concise, hopefully one time list, (not expanded to sell a rule breaking armory book) of extra traits weapons can have.
Generic though it may be, Gamma World 4e had the best option for weapons I've seen a while. At least the seemingly most balanced.
I completely agree that the weapons need an overhaul. I may have mentioned it before, but I have no issue mentioning it again: no weapon should be useless or skippable, or already invalidated right on the weapons chart.I realize life has some bad ch
The one handed sword called a longsword .... is that sufficiently annoying to go back and smack the games originators with a Knights Sword or Arming Blade or some other short sword.
The one handed sword called a longsword .... is that sufficiently annoying to go back and smack the games originators with a Knights Sword or Arming Blade or some other short sword.
I completely agree that the weapons need an overhaul. I may have mentioned it before, but I have no issue mentioning it again: no weapon should be useless or skippable, or already invalidated right on the weapons chart.
I realize life has some bad choices. Still, there is no reason to spend the extra starting gold on rapier, when a shortsword does the same job. (heck, if you exclude blugeoning vs. slashing, the quarterstaff waaaay out performs the katana on gold to effectiveness alone)
I like the idea of spears gaining reach if you are willing to take advantage. I would like to see a concise, hopefully one time list, (not expanded to sell a rule breaking armory book) of extra traits weapons can have.
Generic though it may be, Gamma World 4e had the best option for weapons I've seen a while. At least the seemingly most balanced.
This is why I prefered the 3E way of grouping weapons. Basic, Martial and Advanced (Exotic).
While some weapons did less damage, they balanced them by giving them features like Light and Reach and those that were all around better required a feat. Mathematically, all the weapons were pretty much balanced.
I really think weapons is one of those things 3E got right and we should go back to that model (with some revisions)... the current model is incredibly boring, you are essentially just choosing a weapon for what it looks like. I like that the rules have been made simple, but that is just too simple.
This is why I prefered the 3E way of grouping weapons. Basic, Martial and Advanced (Exotic).While some weapons did less damage, they balanced them by giving them features like Light and Reach and those that were all around better required a feat. Mat
Revised Weapons The following changes detail revisions made to current D&D play-test weapons.
Weapons Name / Price / Damage / Weight / Properties / Group
Heavy Weapons (Attack: Strength modifier) Halberd / 10 gp / 1d10 slashing and 1d6 piercing / 15 lb. / Reach, two-handed / Axe and Spear
Weapon Properties by Group Axe: Can reroll weapon damage on a minimal result and add the amounts together. Bow: Gain advantage when you spend one turn aiming without being damaged. Flail: Gain advantage on attacks against opponents with shields when wielding a flail two-handed. Hammer: Can stun opponents on a critical hit for one turn, but only if an additional attack also succeeds. Mace: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents when wielding a mace two-handed. Pick: Can roll weapon damage on a critical hit and add the total to maximized damage. Sling: Can knock opponents unconscious on a critical hit for one turn, but only if an additional attack also succeeds. Spear: Gain 5 feet to reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack. Staff: Can knock opponents prone instead of dealing damage, but take disadvantage for that attack. Sword: Can disengage and coup de grace as a move action when wielding a sword. Unarmed: While holding nothing in either hand, can make two unarmed attacks, but only add Strength modifier once. Whip: Can restrain opponents on a critical hit for one turn, but only if an additional attack also succeeds.
I cut out a lot of your list to save space, only kept the things I wanted to ask/talk about.
Halberd needs to be clarified, right now a halberd does 1d10+1d6+Str which is highly superior to everything. I think you meant to say "1d10 slashing or 1d6 piercing" since you realistically aren't hitting someone with the axe-head and spear-point at the exact same time.
With axe weapons and pick weapons, I'm reading your ability as "if you roll a 1, you reroll and add that 1 to your damage" for axes, and effectively doubling the damage for picks on a critical, as they maximize and then roll again. With Axes I'm concerned about increasing the damage if you roll minimum multiple times, but that is unlikely. I'd change picks because from what I've heard criticals are already going to be crazy amounts of damage and that gets ridiculous (If I heard correctly during the Penny Arcade game they are looking into multiple levels of crits, meaning at LV 1 you roll a 1d6 in addition to max damage, but at LV 10 you roll 3d6. Add doubling the damage die and nothing will survive a crit from a pick.)
With Flails and maces I'm unsure why you have to be wielding the weapon in two-hands, particularly with flails it is the design of the weapon which we are discussing, and that doesn't change despite how many hands you wield it with. Also, would you consider a monster with scales (dragons or lizardfolk) or rocky hide or some other such natural defense as having armor? I think that is an important consideration when having weapons gain advantage or disadvantage against what an opponent has, since it has the potential to cause debate between players and DMs.
With Hammers, Slings, and whips I'm confused. They have an effect on a crit, as long as another attack hits the enemy? So I get a crit, then next turn if I hit them I get the effect? or is it when an ally hits? I think you meant to say you roll the d20 again after the crit, similiar to 3.X when you had to confirm a crit, but your phrasing is open to a lot of interpretation.
Why is the bows ability to sacrifice your turn for an advantage next turn, but only if you take no damage. Any ranged weapon could be aimed and sacrifing an attack for an advantage doesn't seem to be a very appealing option. Do you have some other ideas for bows, perhaps to reflect their speed compared to other ranged weapons?
Why do we get a disadvantage for using a spear for reach, are you picturing a shorter spear so the balance would be off at the extended range? I just don't get this ability as most spears were made for attacking at a difference.
I don't see how the staff can be used for tripping, but other weapons with a long haft, like a spear, could not. Or a whip which is traditionally (i DnD) used for tripping people. This might need to be rethought. Also, I don't understand how swords allow you to disengage and do a coup de grace as a move, but not diseangage and attack. Actually, I'm kind of confused by the logic of this one, could you explain your reasoning here?
When unarmed, does a small shield like a buckler prevent you from attacking twice. Actually, if we are picturing a 1-2 punch how does holding a mug or some other small improvised weapon prevent this. Another ablity I think you need to examine more closely.
Sorry about the long post, just hoping for clarity
I cut out a lot of your list to save space, only kept the things I wanted to ask/talk about.Halberd needs to be clarified, right now a halberd does 1d10+1d6+Str which is highly superior to everything. I think you meant to say "1d10 slashing or 1d6 pi
I still say there's no need for a glaive AND a halberd. They're basically the same weapon! Just have a single polearm that can take the name glaive, halberd, bill, or whatever, and have it perform as an axe or spear (at the wielder's choice).
Not sure if the spear's reach should give Disadvantage. A better idea would be granting Advantage to enemies within the 5' reach, if your current target is more than 5' away.
I'm also not convinced we need two spears. Just have one spear, that can be used single-handed for 1d6 damage, or two-handed as a reach weapon for 1d10 damage (must have the relevant proficiency to do this). They didn't make spear in varying lengths, a spear was a spear. With only one hand, people simply gripped it further up the shaft, thereby sacrificing reach.
I like the shortsword being able to do both types of damage, but that makes the rapier and the scimitar useless, so they need something else. I still think the shortsword should be only slashing if it's a martial weapon. The rapier should, therefore, do more damage to compensate for its weakness.
I also like the idea of axes being able to re-roll damage.
And I still say the longsword can do the work of the bastard sword, so there isn't a need for both.
I still say there's no need for a glaive AND a halberd. They're basically the same weapon! Just have a single polearm that can take the name glaive, halberd, bill, or whatever, and have it perform as an axe or spear (at the wielder's choice).Not sure
Either make everything close to the same, or make every type of weapon have advantages and disadvantages.
I'm not a fan of the 'here is the long list of possible weapons, and here is the only one you'll want to use because it's the best' type of weapon list.
Many people have an idea of what type of character they want, and most don't want to gimp themselves in order to do it. I hate games where every halfling is running around with scimitars like they are pretending to be Aladdin.
I'd like to see them add the 4E weapon proficiency bonus into DnD Next. Since the bonuses are not as high anymore it could be -1/0/+1. The high damage unwieldy weapons could be -1 and the light finesse types could be +1. That would fit into the game the same way heavy armor and dex bonuses do. It gives a player the chance to decide what kind of character they want to be without making a 'wrong' choice that will gimp them in combat.
I'm in favor of going one of two ways.Either make everything close to the same, or make every type of weapon have advantages and disadvantages.I'm not a fan of the 'here is the long list of possible weapons, and here is the only one you'll want to us
I still say there's no need for a glaive AND a halberd. They're basically the same weapon! Just have a single polearm that can take the name glaive, halberd, bill, or whatever, and have it perform as an axe or spear (at the wielder's choice).
Not sure if the spear's reach should give Disadvantage. A better idea would be granting Advantage to enemies within the 5' reach, if your current target is more than 5' away.
I'm also not convinced we need two spears. Just have one spear, that can be used single-handed for 1d6 damage, or two-handed as a reach weapon for 1d10 damage (must have the relevant proficiency to do this). They didn't make spear in varying lengths, a spear was a spear. With only one hand, people simply gripped it further up the shaft, thereby sacrificing reach.
I like the shortsword being able to do both types of damage, but that makes the rapier and the scimitar useless, so they need something else. I still think the shortsword should be only slashing if it's a martial weapon. The rapier should, therefore, do more damage to compensate for its weakness.
I also like the idea of axes being able to re-roll damage.
And I still say the longsword can do the work of the bastard sword, so there isn't a need for both.
Well you are half right. Realistically, a Longsword and a Bastard sword are essentially the same, the bastard sword is only being a type of longsword specifically designed to be 'a hand and a half'. The word longsword is more arbitruary and refers to a long list of medieval swords that all function relitevely the same. Truthfully though the Longsword does refer to the hand and a sword of the middle ages while D&D's longsword is more of an Arming Sword. All in all, I agree about ditching the bastard sword as long as they give an option to use a longsword with two hands, else you need the bastard sword.
A glaive and a halberd are two completely different animals though. They are both polearms but the halberd has much more functionality and versatilaty. Halberd: A concave axe blade, a spear point and a hook at the end of a long shaft Glaive: A curved blade at the end of a long shaft, sometimes also bearing a hook (glaive-guisarme). Historically a halberd was simply a better weapon, it was more versatile, did a better job at dismounting riders and the damage wasn't much different. But in D&D terms I would either give more damage to the glaive or give it a lower crit threat range or perhaps better reach.
Prsonally I thought they were being generous really, because I can name some 20 polearms off the top of my head right now.
Boar spear Lance Trident Pike Awl pike Bec de corbin Lucerne hammer Halberd Bardiche Glaive Fauchard Voulge Ranseur Spetum Spontoon War scythe Bill Military fork Partisan Ox tongue spear Sovnya Brandistock
Id like to see things like a Pike (spear with a 15-20 ft. reach), Awl Pike (long reach spear that was effective against armour), Military fork (long reach spear used to lift siege ladders and the like)... basically polearms that have other specific uses then tripping/unhorsing
Yet another reason why weapons are way to simplistic in D&D Next, weapons have a purpose, its not just about the damage
Well you are half right. Realistically, a Longsword and a Bastard sword are essentially the same, the bastard sword is only being a type of longsword specifically designed to be 'a hand and a half'. The word longsword is more arbitruary and refers to
I know about the longsword/arming sword thing (though I wouldn't insist on renaming it because too many people are too used to the fact that a longsword is a single-handed weapon that does 1d8 damage).
With polearms, though, I'm pretty sure that they were called the same thing whatever head was put on it, and the different names are purely regional. What the English would call a bill, the Germans would call a halberd, the French would call a voulge, etc. Whatever its name, it was, basically, a pole with a funny shaped head on it.
The bardiche, on the other hand, are different. It's more of an axe than a polearm, and I think the glaive more resembles a straightened scythe. Pikes are much longer (and much later as well - they're not medieval weapons), lances are for horseback use only, boar spears aren't much different from spears (their main difference is the bar underneath the head that stops a boar sliding down the shaft and goring the person holding it). However, those weapons aren't currently in the game.
If they could implement each one with different rules, I'd be in favour (I too think the D&D weapons are too simplistic), but when the only difference is damage, it hardly seems worth having a huge list of polearms with every possible head when they all do the same damage.
I know about the longsword/arming sword thing (though I wouldn't insist on renaming it because too many people are too used to the fact that a longsword is a single-handed weapon that does 1d8 damage).With polearms, though, I'm pretty sure that they
Halberd needs to be clarified, right now a halberd does 1d10+1d6+Str which is highly superior to everything. I think you meant to say "1d10 slashing or 1d6 piercing" since you realistically aren't hitting someone with the axe-head and spear-point at the exact same time.
With Axes I'm concerned about increasing the damage if you roll minimum multiple times, but that is unlikely.
You would only roll the additional damage once. This is to avoid the 4th edition brutal weapon property, where you kept rerolling every time you rolled a 1. Now, if you roll a 1, roll again and add the two values.
I'd change picks because from what I've heard criticals are already going to be crazy amounts of damage and that gets ridiculous (If I heard correctly during the Penny Arcade game they are looking into multiple levels of crits, meaning at LV 1 you roll a 1d6 in addition to max damage, but at LV 10 you roll 3d6. Add doubling the damage die and nothing will survive a crit from a pick.)
I hadn't heard this, and that was after listening to the Penny Arcade interview. I think you are talking about Combat Superiority dice. My understanding of critcal hits is that they simply maximize your weapon damage.
With Flails and maces I'm unsure why you have to be wielding the weapon in two-hands, particularly with flails it is the design of the weapon which we are discussing, and that doesn't change despite how many hands you wield it with.
I added the two-handed distinction as a give-and-take sacrifice. To gain access to this weapon property, you must forgo the use of a shield.
Also, would you consider a monster with scales (dragons or lizardfolk) or rocky hide or some other such natural defense as having armor? I think that is an important consideration when having weapons gain advantage or disadvantage against what an opponent has, since it has the potential to cause debate between players and DMs.
I considered this, but don't think that 5th edition will detail natural armour like 3rd edition did. The most simplistic ruling here is that no, natural hide and scale (and whatever else) is not considered armour because it is a biological part of the creature. By contrast, manufactured armour is worn externally by a creature and can therefore inflict damage when bashed into their body by a particular type of weapon, like a mace.
With Hammers, Slings, and whips I'm confused. They have an effect on a crit, as long as another attack hits the enemy? So I get a crit, then next turn if I hit them I get the effect? or is it when an ally hits? I think you meant to say you roll the d20 again after the crit, similiar to 3.X when you had to confirm a crit, but your phrasing is open to a lot of interpretation.
Correct, it would work like a confirmation critical roll.
Why is the bows ability to sacrifice your turn for an advantage next turn, but only if you take no damage.
This is added because taking damage represents an interruption from aiming. You will note that crossbows gain advantage against armoured opponents all the time (keeping in mind that crossbows also take a standard action to reload). A bow wielder who uses a standard action (and a move action) to aim gains advantage against 'any' opponent instead of just armoured targets.
Why do we get a disadvantage for using a spear for reach, are you picturing a shorter spear so the balance would be off at the extended range? I just don't get this ability as most spears were made for attacking at a difference.
You only gain disadvantage if you use the 'extra' reach of a spear. If your spear already has reach, then you attack normally.
I don't see how the staff can be used for tripping, but other weapons with a long haft, like a spear, could not. Or a whip which is traditionally (i DnD) used for tripping people. This might need to be rethought.
It's simply an arbitrary choice for now, open to change. I would prefer to make a whip used for disarming.
Also, I don't understand how swords allow you to disengage and do a coup de grace as a move, but not diseangage and attack.
This should have been coup de grace (or) disengage as a move action. Both of these actions normally require an action to perform. While brandishing the length and sharpness of a sword, these actions become more efficient employed.
When unarmed, does a small shield like a buckler prevent you from attacking twice. Actually, if we are picturing a 1-2 punch how does holding a mug or some other small improvised weapon prevent this. Another ablity I think you need to examine more closely.
Hands free simply means you are more unencumbered and capable of fists fighting. I left improvised weapons out of the equation because yes, while they can be an extension of your hand, like a flagon or a mug, they can also be more unwieldy.
Sorry about the long post, just hoping for clarity
Not at all. Thanks for the feedback. These ideas are still being defined.
Correct.You would only roll the additional damage once. This is to avoid the 4th edition brutal weapon property, where you kept rerolling every time you rolled a 1. Now, if you roll a 1, roll again and add the two values.I hadn't heard this, and that
I like the shortsword being able to do both types of damage, but that makes the rapier and the scimitar useless, so they need something else. I still think the shortsword should be only slashing if it's a martial weapon. The rapier should, therefore, do more damage to compensate for its weakness.
It's true, but this also creates a problem. The Finesse Weapons are similar to the Basic Weapons in that any time one deals 1d8, it becomes a two-handed weapon. These weapons may therefore need some individual properties beyond the proposed properties of their Weapon Group.
Rapier: Disadvantage against opponents wearing heavy armour and advantage against unarmoured opponents if the rapier wielder also uses a buckler.
Scimitar: Can apply Strength or Dexterity to damage.
It's true, but this also creates a problem. The Finesse Weapons are similar to the Basic Weapons in that any time one deals 1d8, it becomes a two-handed weapon. These weapons may therefore need some individual properties beyond the proposed propertie
I'd like to see them add the 4E weapon proficiency bonus into DnD Next. Since the bonuses are not as high anymore it could be -1/0/+1. The high damage unwieldy weapons could be -1 and the light finesse types could be +1.
Something like this would certainly go a long way towards differentiating weapons without adding too much complexity. As it currently stands, however, the melee classes have instead been given higher attack bonuses.
Something like this would certainly go a long way towards differentiating weapons without adding too much complexity. As it currently stands, however, the melee classes have instead been given higher attack bonuses.
The perfected version of what you're proposing might make a great module ("Realistic/Tactical Weaponry"). Some groups, especially new ones, might not want to deal with each weapon's individual abilities, but certainly some goups would gladly welcome the chance to have some more complexity in their weapons.
The perfected version of what you're proposing might make a great module ("Realistic/Tactical Weaponry"). Some groups, especially new ones, might not want to deal with each weapon's individual abilities, but certainly some goups would gladly welcome
Rapier: Disadvantage against opponents wearing heavy armour and advantage against unarmoured opponents if the rapier wielder also uses a buckler.
That might work. It'd certainly make the weapon behave more realistically. I love rapiers, but really, they're not going to be much good against armoured foes. They can't punch through armour, and you're going to struggle to hurt someone when you can ONLY go for the armpits.
Scimitar: Can apply Strength or Dexterity to damage.
Can't you do that anyway? ^_^
That might work. It'd certainly make the weapon behave more realistically. I love rapiers, but really, they're not going to be much good against armoured foes. They can't punch through armour, and you're going to struggle to hurt someone when you can
I'd change picks because from what I've heard criticals are already going to be crazy amounts of damage and that gets ridiculous (If I heard correctly during the Penny Arcade game they are looking into multiple levels of crits, meaning at LV 1 you roll a 1d6 in addition to max damage, but at LV 10 you roll 3d6. Add doubling the damage die and nothing will survive a crit from a pick.)
I hadn't heard this, and that was after listening to the Penny Arcade interview. I think you are talking about Combat Superiority dice. My understanding of critcal hits is that they simply maximize your weapon damage.
With Flails and maces I'm unsure why you have to be wielding the weapon in two-hands, particularly with flails it is the design of the weapon which we are discussing, and that doesn't change despite how many hands you wield it with.
I added the two-handed distinction as a give-and-take sacrifice. To gain access to this weapon property, you must forgo the use of a shield.
Why is the bows ability to sacrifice your turn for an advantage next turn, but only if you take no damage.
This is added because taking damage represents an interruption from aiming. You will note that crossbows gain advantage against armoured opponents all the time (keeping in mind that crossbows also take a standard action to reload). A bow wielder who uses a standard action (and a move action) to aim gains advantage against 'any' opponent instead of than just armoured targets.
Why do we get a disadvantage for using a spear for reach, are you picturing a shorter spear so the balance would be off at the extended range? I just don't get this ability as most spears were made for attacking at a difference.
You only gain disadvantage if you use the 'extra' reach of a spear. If your spear already has reach, then you attack normally.
Crits: It was during the game ran by Chris Perkins. I think it was either Omen or Jim who critted, and Chris started explaining that they were working with new crit rules, where you added a number of dice (this changing every few levels) on top of the max damage. I might be able to find the spot where they were talking about it, but its a 2 hr set of youtube videos so it will be hard to track down.
Flails ect: I understand the desire to have a give and take, but other weapons gain advantages without additional penalties because of their design (ie the Crossbow) and you did not add additional restirctions to them. I'm not saying you are wrong, but people might call foul.
Bows: I see it in concept, but still disagree in practice. From how much people are complaining about the rogues "hide then strike" I don't think they would be happy with a property that caused them to spend their turn to use. Also, from your reply you are saying it is their entire turn (standard and move) correct?
Spears: That makes this an even worse property, because it means the spears with reach gain no property. I recognize almost all reach weapons are some kind of spear or polearm, but it seems to defeat the purpose of giving weapons special properties.
I hadn't heard this, and that was after listening to the Penny Arcade interview. I think you are talking about Combat Superiority dice. My understanding of critcal hits is that they simply maximize your weapon damage.I added the two-handed distinctio
Weapon Properties by Group Axe: Can reroll weapon damage once after a minimal result and add the amounts together. Dagger: While keeping one hand empty, add Strength or Dexterity modifier to weapon damage. Bow: Gain advantage when you spend one turn aiming. Crossbow: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents. Flail: Gain advantage on attacks against opponents with shields when wielding a flail two-handed. Hammer: Can stun opponents on a critical hit for one turn, but only if a confirmation attack also succeeds. Mace: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents when wielding a mace two-handed. Pick: Can roll weapon damage on a critical hit and add the total to maximized damage. Shield: Can push opponents back 5 feet instead of dealing damage, but take disadvantage for that attack. Sling: Can knock opponents unconscious on a critical hit for one turn, but only if a confirmation attack also succeeds. Spear: Gain 5 feet to reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack. Staff: Can knock opponents prone instead of dealing damage, but take disadvantage for that attack. Sword: Can disengage or coup de grace as a move action when wielding a sword. Unarmed: While holding nothing in either hand, can make two unarmed attacks, but only add Strength modifier once. Whip: Can restrain opponents on a critical hit for one turn, but only if a confirmation attack also succeeds.
As a DM, cannot emphasize how much I do not want to memorize a whole chart full of special properties just because I say an orc is holding a spear instead of a battleaxe.
As a DM, cannot emphasize how much I do not want to memorize a whole chart full of special properties just because I say an orc is holding a spear instead of a battleaxe.
I'll also add that it would have been nice to see all weapons have an "advanced" ability that you could only make use of with training. This might have been something neat to give to the fighters pre-CS, but i think that ship has sailed.
I'll also add that it would have been nice to see all weapons have an "advanced" ability that you could only make use of with training. This might have been something neat to give to the fighters pre-CS, but i think that ship has sailed.
Or just go the other way and make it more simple. If you have ever seen the tests done to swords on deadliest warrior you will know that most weapons are much easier to classify.
a axe would be a cleaving weapon. A short sword would slash or pierce. A bow would pierce. A javalin or spear would impale. a bo staf would be bludgeoning. a maul would be crushing.
if they went with the more simplified list then there would be less of a chance for min/ maxing.
Or just go the other way and make it more simple. If you have ever seen the tests done to swords on deadliest warrior you will know that most weapons are much easier to classify.slashingcleavingbludgeoningcrushingpiercingimpalinga axe would be a clea
Or just go the other way and make it more simple. If you have ever seen the tests done to swords on deadliest warrior you will know that most weapons are much easier to classify.
a axe would be a cleaving weapon. A short sword would slash or pierce. A bow would pierce. A javalin or spear would impale. a bo staf would be bludgeoning. a maul would be crushing.
I quite like that idea too! More damage types would help to negate the need for a lot of special properties. It makes sense too - slashing is more of a drawing cut (leaving a gaping wound) rather than a remove-limbs-from-bodies cut.
Only problem is a) coming up with new rules for what is immune to what (it needs to make some difference otherwise it's pointless) - a bludgeoning weapon like a quarterstaff might work against a skeleton, but against a stone golemn, you'd have to use a crushing weapon like a hammer or mauler; and b) people aren't going to like that, and will insist that it makes combat too complicated - but really, I think learning three more damage types (most of which are likely to be logical anyway) will be easier than learning a whole range of special properties.
I quite like that idea too! More damage types would help to negate the need for a lot of special properties. It makes sense too - slashing is more of a drawing cut (leaving a gaping wound) rather than a remove-limbs-from-bodies cut.Only problem is a)
Crits: It was during the game ran by Chris Perkins. I think it was either Omen or Jim who critted, and Chris started explaining that they were working with new crit rules, where you added a number of dice (this changing every few levels) on top of the max damage. I might be able to find the spot where they were talking about it, but its a 2 hr set of youtube videos so it will be hard to track down.
I thought you were taking about the podcast. I went looking for those videos a couple of weeks ago to no avail. Maybe they are easier to find now. If you can link them, please do so. I'll do the research.
Flails ect: I understand the desire to have a give and take, but other weapons gain advantages without additional penalties because of their design (ie the Crossbow) and you did not add additional restirctions to them. I'm not saying you are wrong, but people might call foul.
To be honest, I cry foul at the Action reload time required for crossbows. This property was designed to justify that time.
Bows: I see it in concept, but still disagree in practice. From how much people are complaining about the rogues "hide then strike" I don't think they would be happy with a property that caused them to spend their turn to use. Also, from your reply you are saying it is their entire turn (standard and move) correct?
Yes, the whole turn, but the bow wielder is by no means forced to take aim every time. If they do, however, they gain advantage on that attack.
Spears: That makes this an even worse property, because it means the spears with reach gain no property. I recognize almost all reach weapons are some kind of spear or polearm, but it seems to defeat the purpose of giving weapons special properties.
That's why I worded the ability as currently written.
Spear: Gain 5 feet to reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack.
As such, a spear would have 10 feet reach and a long spear would have 15 feet reach. Making attacks with the 'extra' reach, however, would be rolled with distadvantage (as the wielder must overextend themselves).
I thought you were taking about the podcast. I went looking for those videos a couple of weeks ago to no avail. Maybe they are easier to find now. If you can link them, please do so. I'll do the research.To be honest, I cry foul at the Action reload
As a DM, cannot emphasize how much I do not want to memorize a whole chart full of special properties just because I say an orc is holding a spear instead of a battleaxe.
That's why I kept all these Properties by Weapon Group both simple and optional to implement. If you forget to use them, no problem. Nothing is broken and the game continues seemlessly. If you start craving actual distinctions between weapons, it's there for you.
That's why I kept all these Properties by Weapon Group both simple and optional to implement. If you forget to use them, no problem. Nothing is broken and the game continues seemlessly. If you start craving actual distinctions between weapons, it's t
Or just go the other way and make it more simple. If you have ever seen the tests done to swords on deadliest warrior you will know that most weapons are much easier to classify.
a axe would be a cleaving weapon. A short sword would slash or pierce. A bow would pierce. A javalin or spear would impale. a bo staf would be bludgeoning. a maul would be crushing.
I quite like that idea too! More damage types would help to negate the need for a lot of special properties. It makes sense too - slashing is more of a drawing cut (leaving a gaping wound) rather than a remove-limbs-from-bodies cut.
Only problem is a) coming up with new rules for what is immune to what (it needs to make some difference otherwise it's pointless) - a bludgeoning weapon like a quarterstaff might work against a skeleton, but against a stone golemn, you'd have to use a crushing weapon like a hammer or mauler; and b) people aren't going to like that, and will insist that it makes combat too complicated - but really, I think learning three more damage types (most of which are likely to be logical anyway) will be easier than learning a whole range of special properties.
Actually - what they will object to is c: The golf bag syndome. If there are a wide range of damage types and immmunities or resistances to weapon damage types are anything other than extremely rare - some people feel obligated to carry a dozen weapons around so they always have the right weapon for the situation.
Carl
I quite like that idea too! More damage types would help to negate the need for a lot of special properties. It makes sense too - slashing is more of a drawing cut (leaving a gaping wound) rather than a remove-limbs-from-bodies cut.Only problem is a)
Crits: It was during the game ran by Chris Perkins. I think it was either Omen or Jim who critted, and Chris started explaining that they were working with new crit rules, where you added a number of dice (this changing every few levels) on top of the max damage. I might be able to find the spot where they were talking about it, but its a 2 hr set of youtube videos so it will be hard to track down.
I thought you were taking about the podcast. I went looking for those videos a couple of weeks ago to no avail. Maybe they are easier to find now. If you can link them, please do so. I'll do the research. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Bows: I see it in concept, but still disagree in practice. From how much people are complaining about the rogues "hide then strike" I don't think they would be happy with a property that caused them to spend their turn to use. Also, from your reply you are saying it is their entire turn (standard and move) correct?
Yes, the whole turn, but the bow wielder is by no means forced to take aim every time. If they do, however, they gain advantage on that attack.
Spears: That makes this an even worse property, because it means the spears with reach gain no property. I recognize almost all reach weapons are some kind of spear or polearm, but it seems to defeat the purpose of giving weapons special properties.
That's why I worded the ability as currently written.
Spear: Gain 5 feet to reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack.
As such, a spear would have 10 feet reach and a long spear would have 15 feet reach. Making attacks with the 'extra' reach, however, would be rolled with distadvantage (as the wielder must overextend themselves).
If you were looking a few weeks ago it's no wondder you couldn't find them, they only posted them 6 days ago
I thought you were taking about the podcast. I went looking for those videos a couple of weeks ago to no avail. Maybe they are easier to find now. If you can link them, please do so. I'll do the research...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').
Or just go the other way and make it more simple. If you have ever seen the tests done to swords on deadliest warrior you will know that most weapons are much easier to classify.
a axe would be a cleaving weapon. A short sword would slash or pierce. A bow would pierce. A javalin or spear would impale. a bo staf would be bludgeoning. a maul would be crushing.
I quite like that idea too! More damage types would help to negate the need for a lot of special properties. It makes sense too - slashing is more of a drawing cut (leaving a gaping wound) rather than a remove-limbs-from-bodies cut.
Only problem is a) coming up with new rules for what is immune to what (it needs to make some difference otherwise it's pointless) - a bludgeoning weapon like a quarterstaff might work against a skeleton, but against a stone golemn, you'd have to use a crushing weapon like a hammer or mauler; and b) people aren't going to like that, and will insist that it makes combat too complicated - but really, I think learning three more damage types (most of which are likely to be logical anyway) will be easier than learning a whole range of special properties.
Actually - what they will object to is c: The golf bag syndome. If there are a wide range of damage types and immmunities or resistances to weapon damage types are anything other than extremely rare - some people feel obligated to carry a dozen weapons around so they always have the right weapon for the situation.
Carl
I wasn't clear enough ... I call it Carl syndrome where you use too few words ... instead of listing every weapon and all the basic stats for every weapon make a simple weapon chart based off weapon skill and have the damage based off what type of damage the weapon does. Then add in if it is finess etc on that. So you would take a Katana as a finess slashing/ piercing weapon off the folowing chart. A long sword would be a slashing/ piercing weapon with no finess of the same chart.
weapon type
untrained damage
trained damage
weapon mastery damage
slashing
1D4
1D6
1D8
cleaving
1D8
1D10
1D12
bludgeoning
1D4
1D6
1D8
crushing
1D8
1D10
1D12
piercing
1D4
1D6
1D8
impaling
1D8
1D10
1D12
I quite like that idea too! More damage types would help to negate the need for a lot of special properties. It makes sense too - slashing is more of a drawing cut (leaving a gaping wound) rather than a remove-limbs-from-bodies cut.Only problem is a)
While Dexterity or Strength is an option for attacks with Finesse Weapons, I didn't think Strength was an option for damage.
As far as I can tell, the damage modifier uses the same ability as the attack modifier.
Besides, if you're using dex to attack, why would you want to use strength for damage? Surely if you're using dex to attack, it's because it's the superior stat, so why would you elect to use an inferior one?
Personally I don't like dex being used for damage anyway. I think melee damage should always be strength based, whatever weapon you use. Having dex based attacks and damage is just going to encourage more people to neglect strength, and we'll have 6 strength 18 dex ninjas pwning everyone with their katanas, while the 13 strength 15 dex fighter sucks by comparison no matter which weapon he uses.
While Dexterity or Strength is an option for attacks with Finesse Weapons, I didn't think Strength was an option for damage.[/quote]As far as I can tell, the damage modifier uses the same ability as the attack modifier.Besides, if you're using dex to
This is pretty much the exact opposite of what I would like to see in D&D. I'd like to preserve flavourful mechanical distinctions between weapons rather than simplistic generic uniformity.
This is pretty much the exact opposite of what I would like to see in D&D. I'd like to preserve flavourful mechanical distinctions between weapons rather than simplistic generic uniformity.
If we use your idea then you will have more min/max from weapons. If you don't care about that then that is fine.
If you don't want min/ max then the only way I can see how to avoid this is to go with different stats for every weapon ala 1E/ 2E method or to go super simple chart kinda like mine.
Thoughts?
@AngrygodofmilkIf we use your idea then you will have more min/max from weapons. If you don't care about that then that is fine. If you don't want min/ max then the only way I can see how to avoid this is to go with different stats for every weapon a
This is pretty much the exact opposite of what I would like to see in D&D. I'd like to preserve flavourful mechanical distinctions between weapons rather than simplistic generic uniformity.
What about a third way, a la WFRP 2nd Edition Old World Armory, where every weapon did 1d10 + SB(+/- a bit, but most are SB), but each weapon has different qualities? A bit better suited to a gritty, high lethality style of play, but it's still an example that you don't have to memorize a huge chart of weapon qualities to have each weapon be flavorfully and mechanically distinct.
What about a third way, a la WFRP 2nd Edition Old World Armory, where every weapon did 1d10 + SB(+/- a bit, but most are SB), but each weapon has different qualities? A bit better suited to a gritty, high lethality style of play, but it's still an ex
If we use your idea then you will have more min/max from weapons. If you don't care about that then that is fine.
If you don't want min/max then the only way I can see how to avoid this is to go with different stats for every weapon ala 1E/2E method or to go super simple chart kinda like mine.
What about a third way, a la WFRP 2nd Edition Old World Armory, where every weapon did 1d10 + SB(+/- a bit, but most are SB), but each weapon has different qualities? A bit better suited to a gritty, high lethality style of play, but it's still an example that you don't have to memorize a huge chart of weapon qualities to have each weapon be flavorfully and mechanically distinct.
I'll be honest lads, I'm not sure any of these approaches will do. The simplistic chart is too generic. The 1st/2nd edition version of a weapons is too modifier heavy and chart dependant. The Warhammer Fantasy approach is, well, Warhammer. D&D would never go for it. If the past two editions have taught us anything, WotC likes to create their own mechanics (even if we can recognize their origins from other games).
The Weapon Properties by Group is still a work in progress by my way thinking. They are fifteen different properties whose memorization will largely be shouldered by the players for their specific weapons. It wouldn't be a burden for the dungeon masters. Even so, I'ds hazard to guess that we have more precise recall of D&D rules than anything we learned during high or college. I don't think a list of even fifteen weapon properties will create an undue strain on our capacity to learn D&D rules -- provided the design of each property is intuitive to the weapon and straightforward.
Axe: Can reroll weapon damage once after a minimal result and add the amounts together.
I think axe is one of the most straigthforward weapon properites and good template for simplicity.
Dagger: While keeping one hand empty, add Strength and Dexterity modifier to weapon damage.
The same can be said for dagger.
Bow: Gain advantage when you spend one turn aiming.
I recently simplified this property to remove the interruption rule.
Crossbow: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents.
Also extremely straightforward. Feel free to disagree.
Flail: Gain advantage on attacks against opponents with shields when wielding a flail two-handed.
This property needs improvement in my opinion. During 3rd edition, flails were good for disarming and tripping. Maybe the mechanic for knocking opponents prone can be transfered from the staff weapon group to flails?
Hammer: Can stun opponents on a critical hit for one turn, but only if a confirmation attack also succeeds.
I like the special effect on a critical mechanic, but I am not crazy about the confirmation roll. Is it really needed?
Mace: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents when wielding a mace two-handed.
It's been suggested that the two-handed requirements are excessive. What about halve damage against armoured opponents on any hit that misses by an amount equal to the armour bonus?
Pick: Can roll weapon damage on a critical hit and add the total to maximized damage.
This rule needs to change now that I have watched the latest D&D live game and glimpsed how critical hits might work. That being said, having seen those rules, I think high critical weapons would be preferable.
Shield: Can push opponents back 5 feet instead of dealing damage, but take disadvantage for that attack.
I really like how this property incorporates shield rushing. Alternatively, what about simply granting the push back on critical hit?
Sling: Can knock opponents unconscious on a critical hit for one turn, but only if a confirmation attack also succeeds.
A have a soft spot for slings. A well placed sling bullet can drop you. I imagine the critical hit being a head shot. Again, is the confirmation roll even needed?
Spear: Gain 5 feet to reach when wielding a spear, but take disadvantage for that attack.
Knowing that this 5 feet is in addition to any reach a spear 'already' has, is disadavantage for the 'extra' reach fair? I'm inclinded to say yes.
Staff: Can knock opponents prone instead of dealing damage, but take disadvantage for that attack.
Alternatively, what about giving the extra reach property to staves instead of spears?
Sword: Can disengage or coup de grace as a move action when wielding a sword.
Swords are best when continually sharpened and good at keeping opponents at a distance. I thought to represent those qualities by making the disengage and coup de grace actions faster to perform with swords (a move instead of an action). How does that sound?
Unarmed: While holding nothing in either hand, can make two unarmed attacks, but only add Strength modifier once.
It never made sense to me that only one punch could be thrown per round in D&D. That said, I restricted the Strength modifier damage even if both unarmed strikes hit. Does anybody think that both unarmed strikes should benefit from the Strength modifier instead? Moreover, should an improvised one-handed weapon be interchangeable with these unarmed attacks?
Whip: Can restrain opponents on a critical hit for one turn, but only if a confirmation attack also succeeds.
Again with the confirmation roll. Is this even necessary? Also, whips in 3rd edition were used for disarming and tripping. Should that be represented here instead of the restrained condition?
I'll be honest lads, I'm not sure any of these approaches will do. The simplistic chart is too generic. The 1st/2nd edition version of a weapons is too modifier heavy and chart dependant. The Warhammer Fantasy approach is, well, Warhammer. D&D would
As a DM, cannot emphasize how much I do not want to memorize a whole chart full of special properties just because I say an orc is holding a spear instead of a battleaxe.
I'm right there with this guy, (or girl I don't judge). The idea of properties to make weapons stand out is a nice idea. I just don't think these long lists of special descriptions is really the way to go. I still have a hard time remembering what weapon properties there are in 3.x/Pathfinder. I would like a simpler version of things. The short list is a good start but I want the weapons listed. I will still lean toward the idea that making weapons stand out is on the players and DM.
I'm right there with this guy, (or girl I don't judge).The idea of properties to make weapons stand out is a nice idea. I just don't think these long lists of special descriptions is really the way to go. I still have a hard time remembering what wea
I'm with angrygodofmilk on this one - DMs might not like memorizing weapon properties, but they're doing the same thing now with damage types, and the downside is that players find weapon damage types a meaningless distinction because they're passive and reliant on enemy immunities/resistences.
I'd much rather have active qualities like those suggested above, because then the player can feel immediately and first-hand what their weapon choices mean when they play.
I'm with angrygodofmilk on this one - DMs might not like memorizing weapon properties, but they're doing the same thing now with damage types, and the downside is that players find weapon damage types a meaningless distinction because they're passive
That is quite a bit for a DM to look through for one attack. You need to check on of 14 damage sources, then look through the entire list of weapons to apply that damage type, then look for any resistances or special abilities of the monster... for each attack.
That type of thing if presented should definetly be a module to add or ignore.
That is quite a bit for a DM to look through for one attack. You need to check on of 14 damage sources, then look through the entire list of weapons to apply that damage type, then look for any resistances or special abilities of the monster... for e
That is quite a bit for a DM to look through for one attack.
Again, the burden of memorization is more on the player than the dungeon master. A typical player will choose their favoured weapon and stick with that damage dealer for their adventuring career. As such, they thoroughly know what their weapon does without ever involving the dungeon master. On the DM side, most monsters fight with their natural weapons, which requires no additional game knowledge whatsoever.
If, as a dungeon master, you throw a lot of villains at the characters who wield manufactured weapons, then you can either use the special properties or not. The players won't forget them, but the DM might. Fortunately none of them make or break game balance if forgotten. That being said, if you are a dungeon master who uses a lot of manufactured weapons, then you are probably invested in knowing the properties by group. Well, to make that learning curve easier, I have tried making each proposed property intuitive to the weapon group.
As for memorizing a list of fifteen special properties, we already do that now with D&D 3rd and 4th edition, except those are individualized weapon properties (not a single property for an entire group of weapons).
Again, the burden of memorization is more on the player than the dungeon master. A typical player will choose their favoured weapon and stick with that damage dealer for their adventuring career. As such, they thoroughly know what their weapon does w
As for memorizing a list of fifteen special properties, we already do that now with D&D 3rd and 4th edition, except those are individualized weapon properties (not a single property for an entire group of weapons).
I guess so, I am comming from 2E with only a little experiance in playing 3e and 4e.
I guess so, I am comming from 2E with only a little experiance in playing 3e and 4e.
What about a third way, a la WFRP 2nd Edition Old World Armory, where every weapon did 1d10 + SB(+/- a bit, but most are SB), but each weapon has different qualities? A bit better suited to a gritty, high lethality style of play, but it's still an example that you don't have to memorize a huge chart of weapon qualities to have each weapon be flavorfully and mechanically distinct.
I'd be in favour of this too, because to me, weapons are about more than just damage. It'd have to be reworked, though, because D&D doesn't have an attack/parry mechanic (well it does, but having a property only affect one class seems a bit silly).
But most people aren't going to want that anyway, because "omg it slow teh game down too much!!11!". I suggested a similar system once, where different weapons would be better against different opponents; swords would ignore one point of dex AC, blunts would ignore 1 point of armour AC and axes would ignore 1 point of shield AC etc, but people didn't like that. They just want "roll to hit, roll damage, job done."
Besides, you won't need to memorise it, because you would have a copy of the weapons list within easy reach! It's amazing what a resourceful GM can do.
I'd be in favour of this too, because to me, weapons are about more than just damage. It'd have to be reworked, though, because D&D doesn't have an attack/parry mechanic (well it does, but having a property only affect one class seems a bit silly).Bu
That is quite a bit for a DM to look through for one attack.
Again, the burden of memorization is more on the player than the dungeon master. A typical player will choose their favoured weapon and stick with that damage dealer for their adventuring career. As such, they thoroughly know what their weapon does without ever involving the dungeon master. On the DM side, most monsters fight with their natural weapons, which requires no additional game knowledge whatsoever.
If, as a dungeon master, you throw a lot of villains at the characters who wield manufactured weapons, then you can either use the special properties or not. The players won't forget them, but the DM might.
Agreed. I'd also note that: once you write it down on the character sheet it's there.
Also - it shouldn't be very difficult to add it right onto the monster stat bloc from straight out of the DMG, requiring no memorization.
Here's an example:
Bugbear
Medium Humanoid (Goblin) Armor Class 14 (leather, shield) ...blah blah blah... ACTIONS Melee Attack—Large Morningstar: +2 to hit (reach 5 ft.; one creature).Flail: advantage against opponents with shields when used two-handed. ...blah blah blah>>>
A handful of words difference.
Again, the burden of memorization is more on the player than the dungeon master. A typical player will choose their favoured weapon and stick with that damage dealer for their adventuring career. As such, they thoroughly know what their weapon does w
Also - it shouldn't be very difficult to add it right onto the monster stat bloc from straight out of the DMG, requiring no memorization.
Here's an example:
Bugbear
Medium Humanoid (Goblin) Armor Class 14 (leather, shield) ...blah blah blah... ACTIONS Melee Attack—Large Morningstar: +2 to hit (reach 5 ft.; one creature).Flail: advantage against opponents with shields when used two-handed. ...blah blah blah>>>
Indeed. The more we have this discussion, the more Weapon Properties by Group (rather than individualized weapon properties like every previous edition of D&D) makes the most sense. Also, it still feels like D&D rather than burrowing too much mechanic from other game systems.
[/quote]Indeed. The more we have this discussion, the more Weapon Properties by Group (rather than individualized weapon properties like every previous edition of D&D) makes the most sense. Also, it still feels like D&D rather than burrowing too much
Weapon Properties by Group Axe: Can reroll the lowest result of weapon damage once per attack and add the amounts. Dagger: Can add Strength and Dexterity modifier to weapon damage while keeping one hand empty. Bow: Gain advantage after spending previous action aiming without moving before next action. Crossbow: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents. Flail: Can trip opponents prone on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage. Hammer: Can stun opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Mace: Can double Strength modifier againsts armoured opponents. Pick: Can restrain opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Shield: Can push opponents back 5 feet on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage. Sling: Can knock opponents unconscious on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Spear: Gain 10 feet short range (40 feet long) by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra range. Staff: Gain reach by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra 5 feet. Sword: Can disengage or coup de grace as a move instead of an action. Unarmed: Can make two unarmed attacks while keeping both hands empty. Can also make two attacks when wielding one-handed improvised weapons. Whip: Can disarm opponents wielding one-handed weapons on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage.
All right, Weapon Properties by Group have been updated in the second post after the original one.For ease of review, here there are again:Weapon Properties by GroupAxe: Can reroll the lowest result of weapon damage once per attack and add the amount
Also - it shouldn't be very difficult to add it right onto the monster stat bloc from straight out of the DMG, requiring no memorization.
Here's an example:
Bugbear
Medium Humanoid (Goblin) Armor Class 14 (leather, shield) ...blah blah blah... ACTIONS Melee Attack—Large Morningstar: +2 to hit (reach 5 ft.; one creature).Flail: advantage against opponents with shields when used two-handed. ...blah blah blah>>>
Indeed. The more we have this discussion, the more Weapon Properties by Group (rather than individualized weapon properties like every previous edition of D&D) makes the most sense. Also, it still feels like D&D rather than burrowing too much mechanic from other game systems.
Except for 4E which had weapon properties by group buried in the Expertise feats.
Carl
[/quote]Indeed. The more we have this discussion, the more Weapon Properties by Group (rather than individualized weapon properties like every previous edition of D&D) makes the most sense. Also, it still feels like D&D rather than burrowing too much
Weapon Properties by Group Axe: Can reroll the lowest result of weapon damage once per attack and add the amounts. Dagger: Can add Strength and Dexterity modifier to weapon damage while keeping one hand empty. Bow: Gain advantage after spending previous action aiming without moving before next action. Crossbow: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents. Flail: Can trip opponents prone on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage. Hammer: Can stun opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Mace: Can double Strength modifier againsts armoured opponents. Pick: Can restrain opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Shield: Can push opponents back 5 feet on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage. Sling: Can knock opponents unconscious on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Spear: Gain 10 feet short range (40 feet long) by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra range. Staff: Gain reach by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra 5 feet. Sword: Can disengage or coup de grace as a move instead of an action. Unarmed: Can make two unarmed attacks while keeping both hands empty. Can also make two attacks when wielding one-handed improvised weapons. Whip: Can disarm opponents wielding one-handed weapons on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage
Not a big fan of the Axe bonus - it seems generally uninteresting and does nothing more than increase the damage (although in a less predictable way). I'd rather see something more like (maybe) the Axe feat from 4E which gave them a big bonus against prone targets. An axe is also different in that you can throw them - even if they aren't really designed for it (there are even competitions for throwing regular wood axes). I'm not sure whether that would make a good feature since the PCs generally don't want to throw their weapons away - but I thought I'd toss it out there. ....
Bow roughly duplicates a feat - so I'm not sure that's a good idea unless they want to dump Sniper.
Crossbow - what I've always wanted for crossbow was something like: You are not penalized for firing a crossbow while prone (i.e. - crossbow doesn't suffer a penalty - normally a -2 - when used by a prone character - which it really shouldn't). Besides which I am highly opposed to automatic advantage ever. Advantage shouldn't be something granted by something as trivial as choice of weapon.
A couple of others seem a bit strong (double strength damage) but I'll let those go for now. If there was a way to justify using a different stat for the bonus damage, that would be better (as with the dagger).
At some point I need to look up what they were using at one point since they started down a similar path once.
Carl
Not a big fan of the Axe bonus - it seems generally uninteresting and does nothing more than increase the damage (although in a less predictable way). I'd rather see something more like (maybe) the Axe feat from 4E which gave them a big bonus agains
I agree that properties like so is too much to remember.
Like I said, 3E had it right, its one of those things I feel we should go with the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude'.
Each weapon was balanced based on damage, type and critical threat range. You could essentially make three different types of swords in the same bracket simply by changing the critical threat range/multiplier. All of which was fairly easy to remember... then some special weapons like polearms had bonuses to trip/disarm, but generally weapons had no special properties, just had to remember the damage and critical properties.
I agree that properties like so is too much to remember.Like I said, 3E had it right, its one of those things I feel we should go with the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude'.Each weapon was balanced based on damage, type and critical threat r
Like I said, 3E had it right, its one of those things I feel we should go with the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude'.
Each weapon was balanced based on damage, type and critical threat range. You could essentially make three different types of swords in the same bracket simply by changing the critical threat range/multiplier. All of which was fairly easy to remember... then some special weapons like polearms had bonuses to trip/disarm, but generally weapons had no special properties, just had to remember the damage and critical properties.
It wasn't just polearms. If you don't believe me, you can review them all at this SRD link to D&D 3rd edition. Many of these individualized weapons had 'multiple' properties.
It wasn't just polearms. If you don't believe me, you can review them all at this SRD link to D&D 3rd edition. Many of these individualized weapons had 'multiple' properties.
I like how weapons were treated in the Conan RPG. In addition to your normal DnD stats (it's a D20 game) weapons had Armor Piercing (armor used a DR style, rather than AC), Hardness, and Hit Points. Breaking weapons was an issue, and was a useful combat tactic, so minor differences in Hardness and HP were important. There were essentially 6 different "knife/dagger" weapons that played differently with small changes to their stats.
I'd love to see something like Armor Piercing in the game, though it does work best with a damage resistance system. Historically armor penetration was one of the primary reasons different weapons existed. Knights used their swords almost exclusively on unarmored combatants. For other knights they would always use a pick, or an axe, or a mace with spikes/flanges. Real swords break on armor (and against other swords, for that matter).
Now DnD is not the real world, so HP and AC are all well and good, but we run into trouble trying to make historical weapons unique and playable, without addressing the reasons they were created for.
Within Conan, the AP worked like a Strength bonus that only counted against overcoming the DR of the armor. It did nothing against an unarmored opponent. The same thing might work with AC, come to think of it. It would only count as a bonus to hit against the armor's AC (not dex bonuses). A lot of 5ed abilities seem to count a roll to hit over 10 as a "hit" that might be absorbed by armor, or dodged with dexterity. The same logic could be applied: If your roll was over 10 then you can add your AP to overcoming the armors AC.
Dodgy characters still get out of the way, no hit. For light armor, it's kinda useless, as a roll over 10 will likely hit leather anyway, but that still fits the ideal. It might be a good idea to tackle that Death Knight with a Katara en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katara_(dagger) rather than a broadsword, because you'll get a small boost to your attack bonus and a greater chance of connecting for some damage. A AP bonus of +4 or more should only exist in the most dedicated anti-armor weapons, but a 1-2 bonus could be sprinkled on weapons with historical anti-armor use. It would add useful flavor and variety, without nerfing the Heavy armor crew too badly, and wouldn't effect the light/no armor players at all. Like the katara, piercing weapons might not do as much raw damage as their non-piercing relatives, but they would increase the ability to hurt the walking tanks, at least a little.
I like how weapons were treated in the Conan RPG. In addition to your normal DnD stats (it's a D20 game) weapons had Armor Piercing (armor used a DR style, rather than AC), Hardness, and Hit Points. Breaking weapons was an issue, and was a useful c
I'll also add that it would have been nice to see all weapons have an "advanced" ability that you could only make use of with training. This might have been something neat to give to the fighters pre-CS, but i think that ship has sailed.
The '80s D&D Weapon Mastery (Master set, or Rules Compendium p77-78) does what you describe. Yep, that ship sailed... 27 years ago.
The '80s D&D Weapon Mastery (Master set, or Rules Compendium p77-78) does what you describe. Yep, that ship sailed... 27 years ago.
Crossbow - what I've always wanted for crossbow was something like: You are not penalized for firing a crossbow while prone (i.e. - crossbow doesn't suffer a penalty - normally a -2 - when used by a prone character - which it really shouldn't).
That strikes me as the kind of rule that should go away for crossbows at some point during play-test, especially considering my next point.
Besides which I am highly opposed to automatic advantage ever. Advantage shouldn't be something granted by something as trivial as choice of weapon.
Crossbows are the most penalized weapon in the current play-test. Bows are faster, can shoot farther, and only deal 1 less point of average damage. This makes crossbows an impractical mechanical choice by comparison (especially considering the prone attack penalty you cited above). As crossbows take an action to reload, they need some kind of property to outset their inferior rate-of-fire. Granting 'conditional' automatic advantage against armoured opponents does that.
Ah! So it is. That will need some redesign then. Here's a thought.Bow: Can impose disadvantage on opponent rolls until the end of their next turn by attacking with disadvantage.The idea here is that, in addition to hurting your opponent, you can aim
Crossbows are the most penalized weapon in the current play-test. Bows are faster, can shoot farther, and only deal 1 less point of average damage. This makes crossbows an impractical mechanical choice by comparison (especially considering the prone attack penalty you cited above). As crossbows take an action to reload, they need some kind of property to outset their inferior rate-of-fire. Granting 'conditional' automatic advantage against armoured opponents does that.
Well, in real life, the crossbow was easy to use - anyone could point it, shoot it, and figure out how to reload it in a matter of seconds. Bows, however, took a lot more practice to get anywhere near your target.
So maybe the mechanical advantage crossbows should have is that almost anyone can use them, while only martial trained characters can use bows.
I doubt WotC will include something that works differently against someone wearing a different type of armour. They stopped doing that in 3rd edition (the closest they came to that is with "touch" and "flat-footed" ACs), so I doubt they'll bring back something that works better against someone wearing different armour.
Well, in real life, the crossbow was easy to use - anyone could point it, shoot it, and figure out how to reload it in a matter of seconds. Bows, however, took a lot more practice to get anywhere near your target.So maybe the mechanical advantage cro
I'll also add that it would have been nice to see all weapons have an "advanced" ability that you could only make use of with training. This might have been something neat to give to the fighters pre-CS, but i think that ship has sailed.
The '80s D&D Weapon Mastery (Master set, or Rules Compendium p77-78) does what you describe. Yep, that ship sailed... 27 years ago.
I need to find a copy of this, so I can either cry at its loss, or be thankful for it.
The '80s D&D Weapon Mastery (Master set, or Rules Compendium p77-78) does what you describe. Yep, that ship sailed... 27 years ago. [/quote]I need to find a copy of this, so I can either cry at its loss, or be thankful for it.
Interesting. I don't think I would just port the whole thing over as is, but interesting.
I also share some agreement with the folks who are saying, "the memorization of the the weapon effects falls on the player using it". Just because monster has a battle axe doesn't mean he has to be super sexy with it. If he is, it can easily be written into his stats (be it pluses to hit or what not) without worry. I feel the same way about spell casting bad guys. I don't want to flip through the game grimoire; just list his attacks in stat block form please.
I think one thing you difinitely run into with all those neat, "on a critical hit" options is that two weapon fighting now becomes the king of status effects. Sword in one hand to disengage as a move, hammer in the other to stun on a crit. Maybe hammer and pick, or just two hammer to increase my chance to stun...
You can get around this by stating the extra bite of the weapon only applies to "main hand"...or you can be happy that twf gets more chances to stun with slightly less chance to damage.
Interesting. I don't think I would just port the whole thing over as is, but interesting. I also share some agreement with the folks who are saying, "the memorization of the the weapon effects falls on the player using it". Just because monster ha
Well, in real life, the crossbow was easy to use - anyone could point it, shoot it, and figure out how to reload it in a matter of seconds. Bows, however, took a lot more practice to get anywhere near your target.
So maybe the mechanical advantage crossbows should have is that almost anyone can use them, while only martial trained characters can use bows.
I agree and that's interesting.
Crossbow: Can be used proficiently regardless of training with weapons.
Unfortunately, that would remove any reason for players 'not' to choose the highest damage-dealing crossbow. And if we exclude certain crossbows from the list, then it ceases to become a 'Weapon Property by Group'.
I doubt WotC will include something that works differently against someone wearing a different type of armour. They stopped doing that in 3rd edition (the closest they came to that is with "touch" and "flat-footed" ACs), so I doubt they'll bring back something that works better against someone wearing different armour.
The crossbow property wouldn't work differently against someone with different armour. It would work the same against 'any' manufactured armour. The advantage granted by crossbows with this property isn't particular. It applies equally to 'all' armoured opponents. The balancing mechanic is that crossbows take an action to reload.
I agree and that's interesting.Crossbow: Can be used proficiently regardless of training with weapons.Unfortunately, that would remove any reason for players 'not' to choose the highest damage-dealing crossbow. And if we exclude certain crossbows fro
I think one thing you difinitely run into with all those neat, "on a critical hit" options is that two weapon fighting now becomes the king of status effects. Sword in one hand to disengage as a move, hammer in the other to stun on a crit. Maybe hammer and pick, or just two hammer to increase my chance to stun...
You can get around this by stating the extra bite of the weapon only applies to "main hand"...or you can be happy that twf gets more chances to stun with slightly less chance to damage.
Hehe. I'm inclined to allow both weapons to enjoy their Weapon Property by Group, but my 'inner DM' (who insists on balanced game mechanics) kiboshes that inclination. And when I really let that inner DM take over, he goes a little further by saying that any attacks with 'reduced damage' can't benefit from the Weapons Properties by Group.
Your solution (main weapon only) is likely the compromise.
That said Austinwulf, which of the existing Weapon Properties by Group would you tweak and how?
Hehe. I'm inclined to allow both weapons to enjoy their Weapon Property by Group, but my 'inner DM' (who insists on balanced game mechanics) kiboshes that inclination. And when I really let that inner DM take over, he goes a little further by saying
Also - it shouldn't be very difficult to add it right onto the monster stat bloc from straight out of the DMG, requiring no memorization.
Here's an example:
Bugbear
Medium Humanoid (Goblin) Armor Class 14 (leather, shield) ...blah blah blah... ACTIONS Melee Attack—Large Morningstar: +2 to hit (reach 5 ft.; one creature).Flail: advantage against opponents with shields when used two-handed. ...blah blah blah>>>
Indeed. The more we have this discussion, the more Weapon Properties by Group (rather than individualized weapon properties like every previous edition of D&D) makes the most sense. Also, it still feels like D&D rather than burrowing too much mechanic from other game systems.
Except for 4E which had weapon properties by group buried in the Expertise feats.
Carl
And buried in individual powers.. A fighter with weapon masters strike for instance... nicely versatile.
[/quote]Indeed. The more we have this discussion, the more Weapon Properties by Group (rather than individualized weapon properties like every previous edition of D&D) makes the most sense. Also, it still feels like D&D rather than burrowing too much
Weapon Properties by Group Axe: Can reroll the lowest result of weapon damage once per attack and add the amounts.
I'm not super fond of this. One of the Axe's overlooked properties is its wonderful ability to sneak over top of a shield. Its very situational, and might be a bit too crunchy for some, but I wouldn't mind something as simple(maybe) as "weapons with the Axe property always ignore the armor bonus from a shield when used in melee" So if the monster is using a shield, the guy with the axe drops its AC vs him by 1 (currently), or said another way, against people with shields, axe wielders gain +1 to hit. (backwards from 4th)
Dagger: Can add Strength and Dexterity modifier to weapon damage while keeping one hand empty.
Using current non-dice rolling character creating rules, I can have a character with an 18 dex and a 15 strength (human) who gets to do 1d4+6 (+7 at 4th) or a Halfing doing 1d6+5 (1d6 +6 at 4th) You would always lead with your dex on this build for the extra AC to replace the lack of shield, and its favor of the rogue style. I think the best 1 handed you are going to do vs. this is a dwarf with 1d10 +3, or a human with 1d8+4. By 4th level, the halfling daggerist is doing the same max damage as the human with a better minimum, and one less than the dwarf, but still with a better minimum. Feels a bit too good to me. Dungeons and Daggers. Keep it simple. "Daggers may always be drawn as a free action/no action"
Bow: Gain advantage after spending previous action aiming without moving before next action.
As said before, redundant with sniper. Honestly, I think blowing a turn with any aimed weapon should give you advantage. (you sacrifice a round of damage for a round of great accuracy/maybe sneak damage) Shouldn't cost a feat as it currently does. I like your "on a crit" options. "on a crit, target movement drops to 5ft a turn"
Crossbow: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents.
Crossbow, crossbow, poor maligned crossbow. I used to like the old days of, "if your crossbow is knocked pre combat, you win initiative!" As is, every thief would sit back with crossbows, (and the noble background, so their retainers could reload them for them) to get sneak every round. Maybe on a crit, the crossbow bolt knocks a target prone.
Mace: Can double Strength modifier againsts armoured opponents.
1, I'd call it "club". 2, I think that's way too good. Maybe on a crit clubs do double strength damage.
Pick: Can restrain opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn.
I'd treat Picks like an axe that's piercing instead of slashing (or crushing, whatever axes are these days)
Spear: Gain 10 feet short range (40 feet long) by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra range.
again, this is something that I think should be an anytime action for anything thrown. If you willingly sacrifice accuracy (which disadvantage really does) you get some extra reach. This is far to situational for anyone to really want it. (kinda like restraint on the pick, I think) Instead, I'd let all spears, (excluding darts) allow you to make a reaction attack vs anyone "charging" or any natural weapon attacks. Damage would be your Strength mod only. So basically if a bear/charging orc/hydra is snapping at you, you can poke them for 4 damage, or keep them away from you because of the promise of that 4 or 3 damage.
Staff: Gain reach by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra 5 feet.
again, the bow, the spear. Staves should get a bunch of little things like "can count as two one handed weapons for the purposes of two weapon fighting feats". Staves are cheap, and right now, very sexy as a 1d8 finese weapon. They don't need a lot to make them better.
Unarmed: Can make two unarmed attacks while keeping both hands empty. Can also make two attacks when wielding one-handed improvised weapons.
only as a part of two weapon fighting, so it keeps the half damage. Unarmed should be something that is improved directly by specialty or class (monk)
Any I didn't mention I thought were decent as is, though "stunned" and "unconcious" may need to be looked at.
Since you asked, my 2 copper pieces, (or if you are following the copper thread, my two pieces of a copper ;) )I'm not super fond of this. One of the Axe's overlooked properties is its wonderful ability to sneak over top of a shield. Its very situa
Can reroll the lowest result of weapon damage once per attack and add the amounts.
I'm not super fond of this. One of the Axe's overlooked properties is its wonderful ability to sneak over top of a shield. Its very situational, and might be a bit too crunchy for some, but I wouldn't mind something as simple(maybe) as "weapons with the Axe property always ignore the armor bonus from a shield when used in melee" So if the monster is using a shield, the guy with the axe drops its AC vs him by 1 (currently), or said another way, against people with shields, axe wielders gain +1 to hit. (backwards from 4th).
I agree that this this is too crunchy for most games. In the abstract and stylized combat of D&D, axes are no better at getting past shields than any other weapon. The axe in particular was historically preferred against armoured opponents over swords to cleave through metal. The extra damage is meant to replicate that.
Dagger: Can add Strength and Dexterity modifier to weapon damage while keeping one hand empty.
Using current non-dice rolling character creating rules, I can have a character with an 18 dex and a 15 strength (human) who gets to do 1d4+6 (+7 at 4th) or a Halfing doing 1d6+5 (1d6 +6 at 4th) You would always lead with your dex on this build for the extra AC to replace the lack of shield, and its favor of the rogue style. I think the best 1 handed you are going to do vs. this is a dwarf with 1d10 +3, or a human with 1d8+4. By 4th level, the halfling daggerist is doing the same max damage as the human with a better minimum, and one less than the dwarf, but still with a better minimum. Feels a bit too good to me. Dungeons and Daggers. Keep it simple. "Daggers may always be drawn as a free action/no action."
Drawing 'any' weapon no longer requires an action in 5th edition. As for dagger keeping up with other weapon damage, thank you very much for the math, and yes, I am perfectly happy with that result. Rogues will still be much easier to hit than heavily armoured opponents with their shields in one hand and battleaxes or warhammers in the other.
Mace: Can double Strength modifier againsts armoured opponents.
1, I'd call it "club". 2, I think that's way too good. Maybe on a crit clubs do double strength damage.
The goal here is to represent how maces are effective against armoured opponents. Considering all the monsters that our characters will inevitably fight, many of whom rely on natural armour instead of manufactured armour, this property feels 'conditionally good' at best.
Spear: Gain 10 feet short range (40 feet long) by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra range.
again, this is something that I think should be an anytime action for anything thrown. If you willingly sacrifice accuracy (which disadvantage really does) you get some extra reach. This is far to situational for anyone to really want it. (kinda like restraint on the pick, I think) Instead, I'd let all spears, (excluding darts) allow you to make a reaction attack vs anyone "charging" or any natural weapon attacks. Damage would be your Strength mod only. So basically if a bear/charging orc/hydra is snapping at you, you can poke them for 4 damage, or keep them away from you because of the promise of that 4 or 3 damage.
Right now, a spear cannot be thrown at all, which just feels counter-intuitive. There is no shortspear in the game, so we can't look there for satisfaction. That leaves us with the javelin, and, apparently, the 'dart' (which is now considered a spear). As such, I have to disagree with your 'situational' assessment of this property. It allows players to throw spears, longspears, and tridents when they previously could not, albeit with disadvantage. That's pretty handy, especially considering that multiple 'disadvantage' conditions don't stack. (Throwing spears between their normal and maximum range also grants disadvantage.)
When it comes to granting a reaction attack versus charging opponents, I think the 'Ready an Action' rule covers that mechanic best.
Staff: Gain reach by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra 5 feet.
again, the bow, the spear. Staves should get a bunch of little things like "can count as two one handed weapons for the purposes of two weapon fighting feats". Staves are cheap, and right now, very sexy as a 1d8 finese weapon. They don't need a lot to make them better.
The ability to use a quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon isn't a bad idea, although I imagine that becoming an individualized weapon property in future play-test packages.
Unarmed: Can make two unarmed attacks while keeping both hands empty. Can also make two attacks when wielding one-handed improvised weapons.
only as a part of two weapon fighting, so it keeps the half damage. Unarmed should be something that is improved directly by specialty or class (monk).
This is an excellent point. Both attacks should be halved in keeping with two-weapon fighting. I will make this change immediately.
I'm not super fond of this. One of the Axe's overlooked properties is its wonderful ability to sneak over top of a shield. Its very situational, and might be a bit too crunchy for some, but I wouldn't mind something as simple(maybe) as "weapons wit
With those dagger numbers, I would be tempted to go duelist fighter. (4th ed made me a huge fan of strong damage before the dice ever hit the table)
On the spears, its not just "charging" foes, but the beasts I'm thinking about as well. When I think of the idea of battling a bear, or some other large creature that might be standing toe to toe with me, I think of the spear as that weapon I'm making little jabs with to keep the creature back so it doesn't rush in on me. The quick and possibly detering poke is what I was going for.
With those dagger numbers, I would be tempted to go duelist fighter. (4th ed made me a huge fan of strong damage before the dice ever hit the table)On the spears, its not just "charging" foes, but the beasts I'm thinking about as well. When I think
You can get around this by stating the extra bite of the weapon only applies to "main hand"...
That's not a bad idea, actually, and could be a good way to implement two weapon fighting. In fact, I'd go one further, and say that the "extra bite" only works if you're only using one weapon.
This would allow for two-weapon fighting to work as normal (i.e. without penalties and what-have-you) but with single weapon style still being a viable alternative (disadvantage to attacks would still apply if you don't have the relevant ability/skill/whatever).
Crossbow: Can be used proficiently regardless of training with weapons.
Unfortunately, that would remove any reason for players 'not' to choose the highest damage-dealing crossbow. And if we exclude certain crossbows from the list, then it ceases to become a 'Weapon Property by Group'.
Good point. Maybe the heavy crossbow should take even longer to reload (blasphemy, I know, but that's part of the trade-off of having such a powerful weapon!) :
Light crossbow: takes a standard (or move) action to reload (meaning you can reload and shoot in the same turn as long as you don't move) Heavy crossbow: takes a whole turn to reload
Compared to bows, wed have:
Shortbow: can be reloaded as a free action (meaning you can shoot as many times as you have attacks per round) Longbow: can be reloaded as a free action, but only if you shoot using a full action (meaning you can shoot as many times as you want if you don't move, but if you do move you can only shoot once)
That's not a bad idea, actually, and could be a good way to implement two weapon fighting. In fact, I'd go one further, and say that the "extra bite" only works if you're only using one weapon.This would allow for two-weapon fighting to work as norma
Good point. Maybe the heavy crossbow should take even longer to reload (blasphemy, I know, but that's part of the trade-off of having such a powerful weapon!) :
Light crossbow: takes a standard (or move) action to reload (meaning you can reload and shoot in the same turn as long as you don't move) Heavy crossbow: takes a whole turn to reload
I wouldn't mess with bows at all, but it does seem wonky that a heavy crossbow and hand crossbow take equally long to reload.
I would suggest an action and move for the heavy crossbow, an action for the light crossbow, and a move for the hand crossbow.
If such a change were implemented, then yes...
Crossbow: Can be used proficiently regardless of training with weapons.
...might be a more viable Weapon Property by Group.
I wouldn't mess with bows at all, but it does seem wonky that a heavy crossbow and hand crossbow take equally long to reload.I would suggest an action and move for the heavy crossbow, an action for the light crossbow, and a move for the hand crossbow
That's not a bad idea, actually, and could be a good way to implement two weapon fighting. In fact, I'd go one further, and say that the "extra bite" only works if you're only using one weapon.
This would allow for two-weapon fighting to work as normal (i.e. without penalties and what-have-you) but with single weapon style still being a viable alternative (disadvantage to attacks would still apply if you don't have the relevant ability/skill/whatever).
On further reflection, I agree that the 'Weapon Properties by Group' should only work if the weilder is attacking with 'one weapon'.
Said differently, the Weapon Properties by Group don't apply when weapon damage is reduced.
This automatically excludes Two-Weapon Fighting (which halves both attacks), resistence (which halves certain attacks), and damage reduction (granted from being intoxicated), but doesn't diminish a combatant who wields a weapon and shield at the same time (but only attacks with one or the other).
On further reflection, I agree that the 'Weapon Properties by Group' should only work if the weilder is attacking with 'one weapon'.Said differently, the Weapon Properties by Group don't apply when weapon damage is reduced.This automatically excludes
All right, it feels like this thread can begin to 'tentatively' explore some individualized weapon properties.
For example, the quarterstaff seems rife with previously mentioned possiblities.
Quarterstaff: Can be treated as two finesse weapons for the purposes of Two-Weapon Fighting.
The rapier, scimitar, and short sword still need to be differiented as well.
Rapier / 25 gp / 1d6 piercing / 2 lb. / — / Sword Scimitar / 25 gp / 1d6 slashing / 4 lb. / — / Sword Short sword / 10 gp / 1d6 piercing and slashing / 3 lb. / — / Sword
As I suggested earlier:
Rapier: Advantage against unarmoured opponents when wielding a buckler in off-hand.
The short sword can simply enjoy the benefits of being both a piecing and slashing weapon, leaving the scimitar, which is historically lauded as an ideal slashing weapon while riding.
Scimitar: Advantage when attacking unarmoured opponents on the ground while mounted.
All right, it feels like this thread can begin to 'tentatively' explore some individualized weapon properties.For example, the quarterstaff seems rife with previously mentioned possiblities.Quarterstaff: Can be treated as two finesse weapons for the
I think that this disscussion is on a route to miss some of the game's most cherished elements.
If one would want to change something in a game that he loves, then one should think what he loves in a that game and idealize through that it's most important elements. Only by doing that can he/she change without ruining something that he loved once.
So, what's D&D core elements? Well, I think they are:
different roles to play, each with it's own strungth and weakness, that work together better then one alone in a long run.
the feeling of a very diffrent place, that is very much familiar, and through that, a feeling of having your place in that world.
risks and chances and rewards for them.
tactical combat.
smooth gameplay.
I think that's it. I think the NEXT is working great towords this, as mostly any other D&D edition did, at this fassion:
Well, D&D invented roles: Fighter, Cleric Thief and Wizard. and that's not the issue on this chart so next.
The feeling of having your place in the world at NEXT is the best since 2nd edition on my accont, (or that's just me), but it touches this chart's theme , so i'll describe it bellow...
risk and rewords. well we still have dice, XP and treasure. so next...
Tactical combat is one of this chart's main issue;
and smooth gameplay is the other one.
Reading between the lines above, you can easily understand that the difference between weapons has two porpuses: tactical and theme/world/personalization (aka regarding the world and the connection with your character and you). Well the second reason is a very acute one, for it gives the players the way to feel different and yet - to connect. that is very important. the first reason is for more fun in battles, or in other words, less bore in battles. because more options means you have more you have more ways to do things, and to do it Cool! The problem with more options is that it moves on the same with simplicity, which contracts from the smothness of game (unless you are a pure power gamer, that remembers everything and so are your play mates ).
So, if what we want is complexity, we can add more and more rules. but if all we want is the option to be different but not less tactical, or more complex, then what we need is few rules with many different names. like saying: I want to use a katana, and that's fine, but it has the same rules as every other one and a half sword. when I slash someone with the katana, everybody will imagine it's a katana and see the damage done as a cut done by a katana. and i will do my meditation with the katana, and clean it with a the same ceremonial move before sheathing it and so forth. still, it will do the same damage as a beastard sword. that's it.
All one have to do to follow this option is to make from every weapon a category, and add many names and descriptions to each category. like Curved Blades: Scimitar, Tulwar, Ugigatana, Cutlass, Saif, Kilij, Sabre. Dex; 1d8; 15 gp; 3 lb; and so on.
I think the developing team should choose that option, because it is the one that idealizes the core principles and purposes of the game. More options for individualism, but less game machanics to remember and to encumber the game. after that, adding Specialities that embrace one sword name over the other is a matter of few rules but many exeptions.
What do you say?
I think that this disscussion is on a route to miss some of the game's most cherished elements.If one would want to change something in a game that he loves, then one should think what he loves in a that game and idealize through that it's most impor
like saying: I want to use a katana, and that's fine, but it has the same rules as every other one and a half sword. when I slash someone with the katana, everybody will imagine it's a katana and see the damage done as a cut done by a katana. and i will do my meditation with the katana, and clean it with a the same ceremonial move before sheathing it and so forth. still, it will do the same damage as a beastard sword. that's it.
Actually, the katana in Next is, so far, very different to the hand and a half sword. As I've said before, I'm okay with it as a 1d8 two-handed finesse weapon, as long as the quarterstaff remains a 1d8 two-handed finesse weapon. I'm also okay with it as a 1d10 slashing martial weapon, as long as the hand and a half remains the same. I'm also okay with it being able to do both 1d8 as a finesse weapon and 1d10 as a martial weapon.
I know, that's not what your post was about. So, to continue...
All one have to do to follow this option is to make from every weapon a category, and add many names and descriptions to each category. like Curved Blades: Scimitar, Tulwar, Ugigatana, Cutlass, Saif, Kilij, Sabre. Dex; 1d8; 15 gp; 3 lb; and so on.
I quite like that idea, and I've supported it before. There's no need for so many weapons with such minor differences, when everyone will just use the higher damage one anyway. I'd rather something simple like:
Finesse weapons: Short blade (dagger/dirk/poiniard) - 1d4 piercing, can be concealed Small sword (arming sword, rapier, sidesword) - 1d6 piercing Curved sword (scimitar, cutlass, sabre, hanger, wakisashi) - 1d6 slashing Small two-hander (katana, elf sword) - 1d8 slashing
Martial weapons: Axe (one-handed) - 1d8 slashing, whatever special property axes end up with One handed sword (longsword, falchion, Chinese broadsword) - 1d8 slashing, whatever special property swords end up with Large sword (longsword or katana as two-handed martial weapon) - 1d10 slashing
Heavy weapons: Polearm (glaive, bill, halberd etc) - 1d10 slashing/piercing, belongs to axe and spear group Two handed axe (greataxe, bardiche, bearded axe) - 1d10 slashing Two handed sword (greatsword, flamberge, claymore, that huge Japanese one whose name I don't know...Daisho or sth?) - 1d12 slashing Spear - 1d10, reach, can be used one-handed for 1d6 damage and no reach Two handed blunt (heavy mace, footman's flail, mauler etc)
etc
Actually, the katana in Next is, so far, very different to the hand and a half sword. As I've said before, I'm okay with it as a 1d8 two-handed finesse weapon, as long as the quarterstaff remains a 1d8 two-handed finesse weapon. I'm also okay with it
I'm glad you like this idea, Ranger. Although it's close to mine, I think you simplified too much with yours. I have to give you the credit for your quickness and deligency for the fast implementation of this.
There are two main kinds of simplifications in the world: reductionism and idealism. There is a big difference between them: Reductionism is taking one feature of something, one characteristic that belong to it, and putting it as the only thing that characterize it and all other things that have the characteristics too. Idealizm is like reductionism but instead it chooses the most important charactaristic, it's ideal, and puts that instead of the something and any other that share that ideal.
For example, When you take Michaelangelo's chapel works, and your 5th grade nephew's work onwith paper and crayons, you can reductionize them and say they are both paintings, or you can idealize them and say, well, that Michaelangelo's work is a work of art. With all the respect to your nephew...
It's important to do that with the weapons when you categorize them, for no hammer will sit quietly with a cudgel in the same house, even though they both bludgeon their target.
Second, but not less important is for the game's sake, never make hierarchy between weapons in the same level of proffesion, for it will simply make any player that does the calculations (even subconciously) to choose the best one. the same level should be defferent manifastations of one statistic. My intension is, taking for example the heavy weapon group. saying like every weapon ther gets 6 points to distribute between it's abillities. lets say the axes are the most desicive of the weapons, so we put all 6 points to increasing damage level, giving us 1d12 with this group. Next, we look up to the big blades, and say they are more lightwight and flexible in executing the attack. well we should put 1 point to the hit chance or something else, giving us an advantage in one place but decreasing damage, because we now have only 5 points to put to damage, giving us just 1d10... And so on... change what was said before, but again, you do the implantations better and faster then me, I just got the principles. Now no weapon will have an advantage over the other, and so it's left only for style to give us the reason for choosing one weapon over the other.
I hope our chat here will get the attention of more poeple, so we'll get more opinions and possibly the attention of the stuff!
I'm glad you like this idea, Ranger.Although it's close to mine, I think you simplified too much with yours.I have to give you the credit for your quickness and deligency for the fast implementation of this.There are two main kinds of simplification
There are two main kinds of simplifications in the world: reductionism and idealism.
Ooooo! Attack of the "isms"! Here's another one. Preservationism.
I deliberately preserved the long list of weapons in my proposal for two reasons.
One, generic gaming systems, however successful, have never enjoyed widespread appeal. People, especially D&D players, seem to revel in gritty lists of death-dealing implements when buying equipment for their heroes. The latest play-test list of weapons is already smaller than we are accustomed to seeing, with many simplications already applied (especially to flails, maces, and picks).
Two, 5th edtion is trying to make a nostalgic D&D for all players across all editions. You are not going to accomplish that with choices like 'blunt weapon', 'curved blade', 'one-handed sword', and ... roll play the rest.
Ooooo! Attack of the "isms"! Here's another one. Preservationism.I deliberately preserved the long list of weapons in my proposal for two reasons.One, generic gaming systems, however successful, have never enjoyed widespread appeal. People, especiall
Two, 5th edtion is trying to make a nostalgic D&D for all players across all editions. You are not going to accomplish that with choices like 'blunt weapon', 'curved blade', 'one-handed sword', and ... roll play the rest.
True, I suppose.
However, the only way of dealing with that is to a) cut the list of weapons (so we have longsword and scimitar but no falchion or hanger), or b) have a list of weapons that's incredibly long, containing weapons with minute differences, just to please the people who want awlspikes.
Also, things like "scimitar" and "katana" have a distinctly Eastern feel to them, while "rapier" is distinctly Italian, and "longsword" is German. I'd prefer to either not have the regional classifications (you can say "cutlass" all you want, but it's still a "scimitar" to everyone else), or have one type of weapon that covers several. Unless we do have the scimitar and cutlass as separate weapons, but if we include absolutely everything then the table might get a bit hefty.
True, I suppose.However, the only way of dealing with that is to a) cut the list of weapons (so we have longsword and scimitar but no falchion or hanger), or b) have a list of weapons that's incredibly long, containing weapons with minute differences
Do both. Make the simplistic weapon chart then add a book that lists each weapon and gives more detail about what culture it is from and shows a couple of examples. 2nd did a great job of that with the arms and equipment guides and several other books.
Do both. Make the simplistic weapon chart then add a book that lists each weapon and gives more detail about what culture it is from and shows a couple of examples. 2nd did a great job of that with the arms and equipment guides and several other book
It's going to be a long one, my apologies. I find your disparaging reply offensive, (attack of the isms...). I have no problem with you disagreeing with my reply, but you shouldn't make a lough of anyones way of expression.
Now, according to your reply, I have no chance of convincing you of any of my thoughts to be right. Why would I say that? Because one that is used to preserve everything can't be open minded. Well, I know you are not that person according to your revisions in your chart following poeple advices, and your many other posts. Even though, I will go on with my reply: If one would have read the explanation of Idealism, one would understand that Preservationism is a kind of Idealism: It idealize the Past. A person who idealize the past thinks the past was the Golden Age and since then, everything is worst, so everyone should allways work to reaccomplish what was before. Walk backwards. Do you know who else is preservationist? Well, most of the middle aged Europe was preservational mandatory of the Church and the Pope. They burned or punnished most revolutionalists for that. Most radical religion organisation today are preservationalist organizations, saying that the true good was when thier first prophet/s was/were alive, and we should allways try to be as good as they were to achive the final enlightenment. Think good and name what they truelly achive... You can't be open minded if you think the past was as good as could ever be. You have to belive that there is always something new to learn and to change that would lead to a better resault. That's the main idea behind modern thought and Sience. So be my guest and lough of isms, but you still think through them, you think through words, you see the world through words, you should know that for being a person that play RPGs , for that is mostly a game with words. Now, I don't really think that you are that close minded (Forgive me if I'm wrong) so I'll continue with viewing your chart and ask the question again. I'll touch only some places so you'll see the faults, and after that I'll explain what I think.
I will criticize as a power player, because you removed the issue of roleplaying the weapon yourself by your response.
Is the only reason for anyone to carry a club instead of any improvised weapon is because of the mace class with the special abbility you gave it? well, if you ask mostly anyone, swinging a wooden chair is kind of using a club, so maybe you can have the same ability to the improvised weapon. maybe any blunt wooden improvised weapon is a club? especially if they hit the same!
Spear and trident are so much the same, though I can buy five spears for 1 trident. I guess as a power player, No One will buy a trident. Did you know: It's easier to make a simple trident (not a martial one) then a spear because of the blade at the spear edge. Trident is more metal but much less worktime. You take a metal rod, sharpen it's ends to be pin like, than bend them and tie to a wooden pole. Very sturdy.
Shortsword and Rapier. Again, So alike, yet the shortsword have the advantage TWICE. For it can pierce And slash, and costs 2.5 times less. Why did everybody abbandoned this great weapon for rapiers at the Renaissance?
And once again the twins: Longspear and Glaive. Although practicly diffrent weapons to use and to look at, they have the same statistics. The longspear have the advantage agian for being 3 times ligher and half the price. Why ho why should any "reasonal" player take the glaive?
I think that filling a table with many categories (weapons) that have the same statistics is like writing one categorie many times in the same table. You want a table full? Why don't you put a few more Longswords? they'll do that job. Everybody loves more longswords! Ho! they are the same! Right! Change that longsword to Crusader sword and that longsword to cross-sword and the other to arming sword, but they are still The Same. same statistics. You made an EXCELENT table, but you made the same fault you are against when you have put weapons that are twins.
What Ranger and me proposed is to insert all the related weapons that have the same statistic in one categorie. Then, make sure the categories are even, so no power player will choose one categorie over the other for it's statistics, and all is left to choose is your style.
Ofcourse dear Drycanth (may I call you Dry?) gave the final word here. You can always do everything, and sell it for more money! That's a perfect solution, even with the sarcasm. Well, Dry is so right, because giving a simplistic weapon table in the core is better for everyone, and adding an add-on for weapon freaks (count me in) afterwards will satisfy the rest.
other out of topic things to consider: Scythe, no matter how you turn it, will never be an axe. it's not heavy headed. it's a blade and very much works like a flax. Trust me, I did used a traditional scythe for harvest. War pick. It's a War weapon. What does it do out of the Martial section? I read your post of moving the trident to the martial section. well, if it's better then farmer's trident, you should call it a War Trident.
Well, dear Milkgod,It's going to be a long one, my apologies.I find your disparaging reply offensive, (attack of the isms...).I have no problem with you disagreeing with my reply, but you shouldn't make a lough of anyones way of expression.Now, accor
It's going to be a long one, my apologies. I find your disparaging reply offensive, (attack of the isms...). I have no problem with you disagreeing with my reply, but you shouldn't make a lough of anyones way of expression.
Let me make this clear right out of the gate. I have no patience for hypersensitivity on these threads. None. There was no offence intended with my post, but you have clearly 'imagined' offence.
Nip this in the bud Rydex. I can't help you to help yourself. If I wanted to give offence, I would have started with your atrocious spelling -- which I didn't -- deliberately. It's boorish, shows poor taste, and because I assume English is a second language for you. That you still attempt such long posts should be commended rather than ridiculed. Perhaps approaching English as a second language is also why you see imaginary offences where there are none (effectively missing nuances).
If one would have read the explanation of Idealism, one would understand that Preservationism is a kind of Idealism: It idealize the Past.
Let me stop you right there. I can see that you wax historical after this quote, but it's largely self-indulgent and entirely irrelevant. My stance is not even remotely theoretical. My stance regarding preservation of D&D nostalgia is both pragmatic and purportedly in-line with stated design intentions. Like many people on these boards, I know role-playing games well, including their history. I have seen what games succeed, what games receive critical acclaim (but still fail), and what games fail outright. My knowledge is not special. It's actually quite commonplace and easily acquired. As such, I believe that preserving D&D nostalgia is an excellent 'marketing' decision.
I will criticize as a power player, because you removed the issue of roleplaying the weapon yourself by your response.
There are lots of 'strong' opportunities to role-play in D&D. Your choice of weapon is not one of them. I would set your role-playing ambitions a little higher. It's a lethal tool that can stand to be more robustly defined (certainly more than bone-dry statistics like those offered by the lastest play-test package).
the only reason for anyone to carry a club instead of any improvised weapon is because of the mace class with the special abbility you gave it? well, if you ask mostly anyone, swinging a wooden chair is kind of using a club, so maybe you can have the same ability to the improvised weapon. maybe any blunt wooden improvised weapon is a club? especially if they hit the same!
An improvised weapon has to represent more than just a wooden chair. It has to represent virtually any object and any substance that is haphazardly grabbed by characters. With that in mind, the weapon 'type' shouldn't stand in the way of common sense. A broken bottle is not a bludgeoning weapon. It's a piercing weapon. A DM has to make such calls on-the-fly. So truthfully, an 'improvised weapon' encompasses a wide array of possibilities. Attaching special properties to such a broad heading is futile. To that end, and for the sake of simplicity, it has been given none (owing to the 'breakable' nature of such objects).
Spear and trident are so much the same, though I can buy five spears for 1 trident. I guess as a power player, No One will buy a trident. Did you know: It's easier to make a simple trident (not a martial one) then a spear because of the blade at the spear edge. Trident is more metal but much less worktime. You take a metal rod, sharpen it's ends to be pin like, than bend them and tie to a wooden pole. Very sturdy.
First, the price of mundane weapons becomes completely inconsequential after the first level of character advancement, if not the first 'gold-laden' encounter. Second, the trident does 1 more point of average damage than a spear (in the Revised Weapons chart). In mechanical terms, that would be 'significant'.
Shortsword and Rapier. Again, So alike, yet the shortsword have the advantage TWICE. For it can pierce And slash, and costs 2.5 times less. Why did everybody abbandoned this great weapon for rapiers at the Renaissance?
First, a revised rapier with an individualized weapon property was proposed earlier in this thread, but can be found most recently in this post. Second, identifying the 'era' from which a weapon heralds is pointless. D&D weapon charts (and armour charts for that matter) have consistently featured armoury from 'throughout' history, but all of which have been made simultaneously available to our characters. The reality is that many of these weapons were trumped by each other, but that has never been represented mechanically 'in game'. I'm not about to start.
And once again the twins: Longspear and Glaive. Although practicly diffrent weapons to use and to look at, they have the same statistics. The longspear have the advantage agian for being 3 times ligher and half the price. Why ho why should any "reasonal" player take the glaive?
This is an excellent point that escaped me. One of these two weapons is going to need an individualized weapon property.
What Ranger and me proposed is to insert all the related weapons that have the same statistic in one categorie.
Then, make sure the categories are even, so no power player will choose one categorie over the other for it's statistics, and all is left to choose is your style.
What you suggest, imposing a generic standard on all weapons, has never been well received by players and leaves most one them cold, as per my original reply to you. It is also counter-intuitive to my original post. The point of this thread is that I 'don't' believe players are simpletons who need 'overly' simplified rules (especially where armour and weapons are concerned).
You can always do everything, and sell it for more money! That's a perfect solution, even with the sarcasm. Well, Dry is so right, because giving a simplistic weapon table in the core is better for everyone, and adding an add-on for weapon freaks (count me in) afterwards will satisfy the rest.
Now you're getting it! This was never a philosophical exercise. It was a practical revision made with widespread (rather than limited) appeal in mind. If you cater to the 10% of people -- who prefer either broadly generic or historically accurate game design -- then you ignore the 90% who don't care about either extreme. You also lose out on that profit.
Let me make this clear right out of the gate. I have no patience for hypersensitivity on these threads. None. There was no offence intended with my post, but you have clearly 'imagined' offence. Nip this in the bud Rydex. I can't help you to help you
Let me make this clear right out of the gate. I have no patience for hypersensitivity on these threads. None. There was no offence intended with my post, but you have clearly 'imagined' offence.
Nip this in the bud Rydex. I can't help you to help yourself. If I wanted to give offence, I would have started with your atrocious spelling -- which I didn't -- deliberately. It's boorish, shows poor taste, and because I assume English is a second language for you. That you still attempt such long posts should be commended rather than ridiculed. Perhaps approaching English as a second language is also why you see imaginary offences where there are none (effectively missing nuances).
The disrespect you clearly present in the last post was only little obsecured at the recent one. I mourn the time I spent trying to insert some sense and to be respectful of your work here. I know you started this thread, but it doesn't give you the rights to it. It's still WotC's forum. One's hypersensitivity is other's Insensitivity. I will not respond farther to your thread for you respond with intolerance. Which is an aspect of inopendmindness. Wish you well.
The disrespect you clearly present in the last post was only little obsecured at the recent one.I mourn the time I spent trying to insert some sense and to be respectful of your work here.I know you started this thread, but it doesn't give you the ri
As for creating differences between a glaive and longspear, I was premature in giving you credit for identifying another twin in the revised weapon charts. The former deals slashing damage and the latter deals piercing damage. The 5th edition of D&D will continue featuring monsters with damage reductions versus certain damage types to make these distinctions relevant.
True, it's a fine line, but in this particular case ... I won't be held hostage by your hypersensitivity.Same to you.As for creating differences between a glaive and longspear, I was premature in giving you credit for identifying another twin in the
I'm concerned about these new Weapon Attack (and Magic Attack) values. I don't like them on a visceral level. Okay, I'll be more specific. They don't feel like D&D and they make me think that the design team is losing touch with what D&D should feel like.
The lead designers have talked a lot about their 'bounded accuracy' system, which sounds good on paper (to keep monsters versus chatacters relevant longer), but starting classes off with a +2 or +3 attack values strikes me as more than a little arbitrary, counterintuitive, and plain ole screwy, especially considering how generic weapons have become in the play-test. Right now, damage is the ONLY mechanical difference separating weapons. How freaking boring is that? There's no decision. You take the highest damaging weapon. Done. Picking weapons used to be more enjoyable than that.
Weapon Properties by Group Axe: Can reroll the minimum damage result once per attack and add amounts together. Bow:Can impose disadvantage to opponent rolls on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Crossbow: Gain advantage on attacks against armoured opponents. Dagger: Can add Strength and Dexterity modifier to melee damage while keeping one hand empty. Flail: Can trip opponents prone on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage. Hammer: Can stun opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Mace: Can add Strength and Dexterity modifier to melee damage against armoured opponents. Pick: Can restrain opponents on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Shield: Can push opponents back 5 feet on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage. Sling: Can knock opponents unconscious on a critical hit until the end of their next turn. Spear: Gain 10 feet normal range (40 feet maximum range) by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra range. Staff: Gain reach by taking disadvantage on any attack using the extra 5 feet. Sword: Can disengage or coup de grace as a move instead of an action. Unarmed: Can make two unarmed attacks or while keeping both hands empty, both of which deal half damage. Can do the same if one or both hands are wielding one-handed improvised weapons. Whip: Can disarm opponents wielding one-handed weapons on a critical hit, or by taking disadvantage on an attack without dealing damage.
I like how the original poster designed these Weapon Properties by Group, creating thematically appropriate effects for different weapons. That's certainly one place to build differences between weapons, but why not 'borrow' a little from 4th edition as well (it wasn't all bad) and reincorporate proficiency bonuses. That would kill two birds with one stone. Not only would weapons feel 'that much more' unique (moving beyond their bare damage values), but it could also eliminate those seemingly arbitrary mathematical (accuracy bounded) +2 and +3 attack values granted to classes at 1st level.
For that matter, different holy symbols and implements could also have proficiency bonuses, so long as they also come with their own Implement Properties by Group as well. Nothing too specific. Just broad differences, similar to what the original poster created with weapons.
I'm concerned about these new Weapon Attack (and Magic Attack) values. I don't like them on a visceral level. Okay, I'll be more specific. They don't feel like D&D and they make me think that the design team is losing touch with what D&D should feel
)
).
So, to continue...
