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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
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?
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.
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.
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.
