Community

Nov 30, 2012 -- 8:48PM, Angrygodofmilk wrote:

Right away, there is no meaningful difference between the spear and 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. This would invalidate the 'trident and net' fighting style. As such, the trident was graduated to a Martial Weapon.

I think the trident should also allow you to pin a weapon.  Those prongs are  actually very usefull in combat.   I think that the trident and spear should be one or two handed.  Clearly they are different weapons and I wouldn't roll them up into one weapon and call it a spear.    

Nov 30, 2012 -- 8:48PM, Angrygodofmilk wrote:

The katana is the only overtly Eastern weapon on the list, and oddly two-handed. The katana and wakizashi should be married together, one in each hand. The katana has been dropped for now but should be earmarked for another chart (possibly Eastern Weapons). 

The Katana is there because our modern culture has an odd  fascination with that weapon.   As a result, many campaign settings have eastern elements in them (like the forgotten realms).  There is however no logical reason why it should be on the list at all.   It's just an iron age sword and there really isn't anything special about it.   It's just a Bastard sword.  

Nov 30, 2012 -- 8:48PM, Angrygodofmilk wrote:

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 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 bastard sword on this chart can be treated as a longsword when wielded single-handedly and a bastard sword when wielded two-handed.

Yes, throwing axes are different than hand axes.   One is balanced for throwing and the other isn't, but both can be thrown.    The bastard sword should be one or two handed.  

Nov 30, 2012 -- 8:48PM, Angrygodofmilk wrote:

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 entirely too much. No weapon from any of these charts should weigh more than 15 pounds, even if D&D moves to an encumbrance system that accounts for awkwardness.

Many polearms like the Halberd should also have a hook feature that allows you to pull or knockdown your opponent.   Dismounting options should also be available to these wepaons when the mounted combat rules are presented in the playtest.    Actually, there are many weapons that should have dismounting capabilities, including the two handed sword.      The long spear is just a simple spear weapon and isn't as specialized as the Halberd.  I see no reason why the haulberd's blade can't do the same damage as a long spear.    It's basically 3 weapons in one a spear, an axe, and a hook.   

Nov 30, 2012 -- 8:48PM, Angrygodofmilk wrote:

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 are destined to be 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 need some kind of advantage. Regarding range, the hand crossbow feels short-changed next to the dart and sling. Improving the range to 50/200 certainly donesn't break the bank. Lastly, the damage of improvised objects has been increased to 1d3 for the simple reason that 1d2 is pitiful.

Crossbows don't require the training that a bow does and that's it's main advantage in war.  That doesn't really translate well into the game, except that most guards and/or untrained soldiers would be using them.     I would remove the penalty from firing while prone or behind cover and I'd give it a free shot at the start of the encounter if already pre-loaded.     Perhaps 5e can include a take Aim action that grants a +1 attack and a free shot on the surprise round.    

Nov 30, 2012 -- 8:48PM, Angrygodofmilk wrote:

Giving the throwing hammer a separate entry seems a little nonsensical to me. Carrying around multiple 7 pound hammers for the sole purpose of chucking them feels more than a little ridiculous. 

A dwarf might just do that.   Still the entry needs to be there for those magical hammers that return to your hand. 

I think a lot of effort is being put into fixing the details of something that doesn't even have a big picture yet.  My "big picture" is that there are far too many weapons and far too few armors in the latest playtest.  I think weapons and armor - as a concept - shouldn't be so overly complex, but they also shouldn't be meaningless.  Weapons are far too complex at the moment with far too many options, and armor needs better grading of advancement - or else leave it out entirely and make it effectively a one-time character creation choice like weapons.

Personally, I dislike "max Dex" anything for armor, and I'm glad it hasn't shown up yet.  The idea that you could find a better piece of armor but it makes your total defense worse is just unintuitive and needlessly frustrating.  I prefer the often-thrown-around idea of minimum Str instead:  it's a more obvious mechanic and for what its worth, it's more like actually using armor ("realistic" is a word I am hesitant to use).  I also like the idea of taking out "fantasy-only" weapons and making them more of an options package, but I also know that things like spiked maces still hold a place in some people's hearts, and it's not like we can't just houserule that sort of thing.

Dec 5, 2012 -- 7:17AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Dec 4, 2012 -- 4:15AM, ren1999 wrote:

Chain Armor is better at defending against piercing damage, a fine idea.

What?  Chain sucks against piercing weapons.    It's great against slashing however.  

I'm glad I wasn't the only one with that thought. I saw the DR against piercing damage idea and thought "wait....what?"

Maille is definitely less protective against piercing attacks, as those attacks can get into and in-between the rings and split them. Against a slashing attack, however, they enable the force to be spread out a bit, and thus it isn't as effective.

The only downside I see here is going the same route as the confusing "Armor vs. Damage Type" table from 1st Edition (and maybe 2nd; I don't remember and don't have my books handy).

Dec 5, 2012 -- 10:15AM, Mand12 wrote:

D&D weapons cannot, and should not, be bound by medieval realism because not all D&D campaign settings are based on medieval realism.

I see no reason for it not to be a module for those who want it. I'm fine with a relatively simple core that sits roughly in the middle of the scale, with modules handling the "excess fantasy" or "excess realism" ends of the scale.