# Rebalancing melee weapons for 5.5E



## Horwath (Aug 30, 2022)

Right now the weapon table looks little bit chaotic with some weapons having little sense in their traits and their damage.

For this I will take for base from 3.5e simple 1Handed weapon that has d8 damage and critical of 20/×2(the default and only weapon crit range in 5E)
as 5E does not have 1+1/2 str bonus for 2Handed melee attack, Versatile property is non-value, that is it's free for all non-finesse, non-light, non-thrown weapons

thrown property is little buffed and universal at 40/120 ft range
if you feel that because of some "legacy" theme some light weapons that do not have thrown property but should have some, give them 20/40 thrown property for free.

to have all properties used, table will have both simple and martial weapon damage in same row.
make your own examples for weapons, these are just placeholder names.


*Weapon traits**Simple weapon damage**example**Martial weapon damage**example*1Handed, Versatiled8(d10)maced10(d12)longsword1Handed, Thrownd6javelind8trident1Handed, finessed6long knifed8rapier1Handed, lightd6clubd8arming sword1Handed, reach, Versatiled6 (d8)speard8(d10)partisan1Handed, finesse, lightd4daggerd6shorsword1Handed, finesse, reachd4whipd6dagger whip1Handed, finesse, thrownd4dartd6throwing hammer1Handed, light, thrownd4pillumd6throwing axe1Handed, finesse, light, thrownd3throwing knifed4chakram2Handed, heavy2d6warmace2d8greatsword2Handedd12greatclub2d6claymore2Handed, heavy, reachd12pike2d6pole-ax2Handed, reachd10longspeard12glaive2Handed, finessed10bo staffd12elven courtblade2Handed, finesse, reachd8elven speard10spiked chain


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

I don't know if they need to be rebalanced, but at least made more interesting.


----------



## Lojaan (Aug 30, 2022)

This is fine. Some odd choices but that's normal for a weapon list (throwing hammer is finesse but throwing axe is not?).

The main thing I would change is the versatile trait. Going up one damage die is insufficient. Make it that you can add 1.5 X STR mod for 2 handed weapons instead. Also nerf GWM so this is not OP.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

I don't want generic categories. I want more reasons to distinguish weapons from each other.

I want a reason to choose Glaive vs Halberd. They're not the same weapon and they shouldn't be reduced down to the same thing.

Here's a blog post that posits a couple different solutions - such as adding a "hacking" type for axes, or else adding weight for special effects on critical for slashing, piercing, or all types (bludgeoning are heaviest weapons, so they don't needed a special effect specific to them).


----------



## Horwath (Sep 14, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> I don't want generic categories. I want more reasons to distinguish weapons from each other.
> 
> I want a reason to choose Glaive vs Halberd. They're not the same weapon and they shouldn't be reduced down to the same thing.
> 
> Here's a blog post that posits a couple different solutions - such as adding a "hacking" type for axes, or else adding weight for special effects on critical for slashing, piercing, or all types (bludgeoning are heaviest weapons, so they don't needed a special effect specific to them).



I agree, but I do not thing that WotC will go with that.

Name of the weapon and design will mostly be flavor and weapon damage type: B, P or S

one additional trait:
*Adaptive:* this weapon has two damage types(B, P, S), every attack uses what is better for the weapon in respect for damage reduction

what attacking you can gain benefit of both weapon damage type feats if you have them: Crusher, Piercer, Slasher. You cannot use the feat if the target has damage immunity.
Reduce the damage die by one step for those weapons.
due to being complicated in desing, Adaptive weapons cannot be light or thrown.


----------



## codo (Sep 14, 2022)

One thing people are overlooking with the new crit rules is that it opens up more design space for weapons.  Now that you can't double extra damage dice on a crit you can more easily expand the crit range on weapons without rouges and paladins being brokenly overpowered.  
For example: Rapier: Finesse, one-handed, 1d6 damage, Crit Range 18-20.

Certain weapons can also add extra damage on a crit.  Maybe most heavy weapons and versatile weapons used in 2 hands can roll damage dice 3 times on a crit.  Just for fun make great axes roll dice 4 times on a crit.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Sep 14, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> This is fine. Some odd choices but that's normal for a weapon list (throwing hammer is finesse but throwing axe is not?).
> 
> The main thing I would change is the versatile trait. Going up one damage die is insufficient. Make it that you can add 1.5 X STR mod for 2 handed weapons instead. Also nerf GWM so this is not OP.



I think the primary thing here is that you can just make the weapon you want.  That the 'example' weapon is exactly that: an example.  And, from what I can see, strength based weapons have the highest damage dice, so maybe that's the benefit?

@Horwath I'm not sure Heavy is a benefit.  It's more of a penalty that should make your damage dice increase another increment.  Heavy REQUIRES 2 hands and small creatures have disadvantage to use them.  Some of the weapons on your list don't make this clear. 

For example:  a Glaive and a poleaxe.  One is (poleaxe) does slightly more minimum damage(2d6) and is Heavy(penalty) while a Glave does 1d12 can be wielded in one hand by a halfling.

Therefore, I suggest all 2 handed weapons have the Heavy property (unless they are versatile) and increase their Dice Value.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Sep 14, 2022)

codo said:


> One thing people are overlooking with the new crit rules is that it opens up more design space for weapons.  Now that you can't double extra damage dice on a crit you can more easily expand the crit range on weapons without rouges and paladins being brokenly overpowered.
> For example: Rapier: Finesse, one-handed, 1d6 damage, Crit Range 18-20.
> 
> Certain weapons can also add extra damage on a crit.  Maybe most heavy weapons and versatile weapons used in 2 hands can roll damage dice 3 times on a crit.  Just for fun make great axes roll dice 4 times on a crit.



If they are expanding crit ranges, then crit range can be added to a weapon at the expense of damage dice.


----------



## darjr (Sep 14, 2022)

Mike Mearls had mentioned that they toyed with the idea of weapons doing static damage. That way a rapier could do, say, 5 HP and a scimitar 9, and a great sword 13. It was an attempt to differentiate weapons from each other.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Sep 14, 2022)

These are the rebalancing I use at the table. I use to have varying crit range/number of die rolled ala 3e, but I havent decided if it would be a good addition.

Mundane Weapons

WeaponDamageTypePropertyHandsWeightCost & RarityClub1d4B-Off1Crossbow1d8PRanged ( 50/100), Reload2h2Dagger1d4PFinesse, Throw (10, 20)Off1Hammer1d6BThrow (10/ 20)1h1Handaxe1d6SFinesse, Throw (10/ 20)Off1Javelin1d6PThrow (20/ 40)1h1Mace1d6BVersatile +21h/2h2Mallet2d4B-2h2Quarterstaff1d6BReach +52h2Sling1d4BFinesse, Throw (30/60)1h-Spear1d6PReach +52h2Unarmed Strike1B-1h--


Martial Weapons (Requires 13  Strength)

WeaponDamageTypePropertyHandsWeightCost & RarityBattle axe1d8SVersatile +21h/2h2Flail1d8BReach +51h2Cestus1d6B-Off1Longsword1d8SVersatile +21h/2h2Pick1d8PVersatile +21h/2h2Saber1d8SFinesse1h2Shield1d4BAC + 2Off2Short sword1d6PFinesseOff1Shortbow1d6PRanged (40/80)2h1Warhammer1d8BVersatile +21h/2h2Whip1d4SFinesse, ReachOff1


Heavy Weapons (requires 15 Str)

WeaponDamageTypePropertyHandsWeightCost & RarityArbalest1d12Ranged (60/120), Reload2h3Bearded Axe1d12S-2h3Large Sword2d6S-2h3Halberd1d10SReach +52h3Heavy Flail1d10BReach +52h3Large Shield1d4BAC +2/+4 vs RangedOff3Long Bow1d8PRanged (50/100)2h2Maul2d6B-2h3Pike1d10PReach2h3



Cloth armors

TypeArmor ClassPropertyWeightCost & RarityTraveler’s Cloak10+Dex-1Clothing, Cold Weather10+DexAdvantage against cold weather1Clothing, Warm Weather10+DexAdvantage against hot weather1


Light armors (requires 11 Strength)

TypeArmor ClassPropertyWeightCost & RarityPadded Coat11+Dex-1Hides11+DexAdvantage against cold weather2Leather Vest12+Dex-1

Medium armors (requires 13 Strength)

TypeArmor ClassPropertyWeightCost & RarityReinforced Leather13+Dex (max 2)-2Brigandine14+Dex (max 2)Stealth Disadvantage2Chainshirt15+Dex (max 2)Stealth Disadvantage2HelmAC +1Perception Disadvantage1Heavy Cloak12+Dex (max 2)Advantage against cold weather1

Heavy armors (requires 15 Strength)

TypeArmor ClassPropertyWeightCost & RarityChainmail16Stealth Disadvantage3Cuirass17Stealth Disadvantage3Hauberk18Stealth Disadvantage3


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 14, 2022)

Personally, IMHO the weapons are not terrible, but there are some odd things going on with some. Is there any reason to use a blowgun at all? Anyone ever used one? and fix nets to at least be usable. I don't think a strength requirement will fly. If you're proficient with a weapon and using it ineffectively that's a reflection of your low strength having lower damage and you could just describe a weapon of the right size and weight for you. I'd also like to see better explained standardized damage for different size weapons.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Sep 14, 2022)

shadowoflameth said:


> fix nets to at least be usable



I personally move net to adventuring gear next to alchemist's fire, acid vial, hunter's trap, manacles, holy water and the likes. I feel it makes more sense than putting them in the weapon table and have barely any effects.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 14, 2022)

But what do you do with your net? In combat, as it is, it's a poor choice and there does not seem to be  a lot of trade off for that.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 15, 2022)

Ranged weapons:

I'm baffled by having crossbows and bows in both simple and martial category.

I've shot bows, crossbows, slings and guns.

and from the lot, sling is most difficult to learn to aim.
then bows, then crossbows, and easiest guns.

all crossbows should be simple weapons, all bows should be martial. together with the sling.

also crossbows should have reload of an Action.
Yes, it may be bad for fluidity of gameplay, but it can be compensated with large damage and decent range and being a simple weapon used by all.


Hand crossbow, simple
1Handed, light
damage: 1d8 P
range: 40/120
loading Bonus action
cost: 50GP

light crossbow, simple
2Handed
damage: 2d6 P
range: 60/240
loading Action
cost: 75GP

heavy crossbow, simple
2Handed, heavy
damage: 2d8 P
range: 80/320
loading Action
cost: 100GP

edit:
crossbow expert feat reduces loading time from Action to Bonus action and on hand crossbow from Bonus action to free action.
you still need two hands to reload a hand crossbow.
remove bonus action attack from the feat and add +1 DEX.


shortbow, martial
2Handed
damage: 1d6 P
range: 120/480
cost: 25GP

longbow, martial
2Handed
damage: 1d8 P
range: 150/600
cost: 50GP

sling, martial
1handed
damage: 1d6
range: 40/120
cost: 1GP


----------



## Eubani (Sep 15, 2022)

I think 4e got weapons largely right.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 15, 2022)

Eubani said:


> I think 4e got weapons largely right.



Yeah I didnt play 4e but recently looked up 4e Weapon groups and I really like how they were done, the range of weapon properties and how each weapon group had its own ‘feats’ to emphasise its use.

It really emphasized that the Players talent with a weapon was important to the weapons they chose, rather than tying the bonuses to the wepons themselves.

bring it back and give melee types free weapon expertise in their chosen group


----------



## Olrox17 (Sep 15, 2022)

The only thing 4e weapons got wrong is the accuracy difference (weapons with +2 to hit Vs weapons with +3) because accuracy was king and a small damage bump was never worth a -1 to hit.

As for OP’s weapon table, it’s designed well, but I doubt WotC would be willing to have weapons with d3 or 2d8 damage nowadays.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 15, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> The only thing 4e weapons got wrong is the accuracy difference, because accuracy was king and a small damage bump was never worth a -1 to hit.
> 
> As for OP’s weapon table, it’s designed well, but I doubt WotC would be willing to have weapons with d3 or 2d8 damage nowadays.



It was based on powers that dealt ×2, ×3, ×4 or more base weapon damage

3d10 with -1 attack was probably worth more than 3d8.


----------



## Olrox17 (Sep 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It was based on powers that dealt ×2, ×3, ×4 or more base weapon damage
> 
> 3d10 with -1 attack was probably worth more than 3d8.



Ad someone who played and DMed the crap out of 4e, and engaged in the CharOp forums, no, it never was.
The best 4e powers generally had powerful rider effects  on them on hit, and a couple points of damage were never worth a -5% chance of applying those riders.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 15, 2022)

I would start with.

*Simple Weapon* = 1d6 base damage
*Martial Weapon* = 1d8 base damage

Then modify damage and effects at the cost of comparable tradeoffs. Note, Versatile is equivalent to Twohanded except optionally usable onehanded. Something like.

_Die Sizes_
1 (minimum) › 1d4 › 1d6 › 1d8 › 1d10 › 1d12 › 2d6 (maximum)

*Ammunition (Dexterity only):* decrease die size twice
*Finesse (Dexterity):* decrease die size once
*Light (offhand):* decrease die size once
*Loading:* if ammunition, increase die size once
*Heavy (medium size only):* increase die size once
*Reach:* decrease die size once
*Reach Only (disadvantage within 5 ft):* no change
*Throw:* decrease die size once
*Twohanded or versatile:* increase die size twice



Examples:

SIMPLE WEAPONS
_Ammunitions_
Blowgun *1* pierce: ammunition, light, loading
Dart (weighted throw arrow) *1d4* pierce: ammunition, heavy
Light Crossbow *1d8* (!) pierce: ammunition, loading, twohanded
Shortbow *1d6* pierce: ammunition, twohanded
Sling *1d4* bludgeon: ammunition, loading
_Axes_
Hatchet 1d6 slash: −
_Blades_
Knife (!) *1d4* pierce: light
Machete *1d6* slash: −
_Rods_
Baton *1d4* bludgeon: finesse
Cane *1d4* bludgeon: light
Club *1d6* bludgeon: −
Greatclub 1d6 bludgeon: versatile (*1d10*)
Staff 1d4 (!) bludgeon: finesse, versatile (*1d8*)
_Spears_
Javelin *1d4* pierce: throw
Shortspear *1d4* pierce: light
Spear 1d6 pierce: heavy (!), throw, versatile (*1d10*)

MARTIAL WEAPONS
_Ammunitions_
Handbow *1d4* (!) pierce: ammunition, light, loading
Heavy Crossbow *1d12* (!) pierce: ammunition, heavy, loading, twohanded
Longbow *1d10* pierce: ammunition, heavy, twohanded
Shuriken *1d4* pierce: ammunition
_Axes_
Throwing Axe *1d6* slash: throw
Battleaxe *1d8* slash: versatile (*1d12*)
Greataxe *2d6* slash: heavy, twohanded
_Blades_
Dagger *1d4* pierce: finesse, light
Greatsword *2d6* slash: heavy, twohanded
Katana 1d6 slash: finesse (!), versatile (*1d10*)
Longsword 1d8 slash: versatile (*1d12*)
Rapier *1d6* (!) pierce: finesse
Scimitar *1d6* slash: light (no finesse!)
Seax *1d6* slash: light
Shortsword *1d6* slash/pierce: finesse
Spatha *1d8* slash: −
Sword *1d8* slash/pierce: finesse, heavy (!)
Throwing Knife *1d4* pierce: finesse, throw
_Rods_
Mace 1d8 bludgeon: versatile (*1d12*)
Nunchaku *1d10* bludgeon: finesse, twohanded
Throwstick *1d6* bludgeon: throw
_Spears_
Lance 1d8 pierce: heavy, mount (1d12), reach, versatile (*1d12*)
Longspear 1d8 pierce: heavy, throw, versatile (*1d12*)
Pike *1d12* pierce: reach only, twohanded
Trident 1d6 pierce: throw, versatile (*1d10*)


----------



## Horwath (Sep 15, 2022)

@Yaarel 
yeah, that is more or less my idea,
but I started at d8 simple, d10 for martial.
and versatile should be worse than dedicated 2Hander as then 2Hander does not make sense unless it's heavy

also I would not combine finesse and heavy properties


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> @Yaarel
> yeah, that is more or less my idea,
> but I started at d8 simple, d10 for martial.
> and versatile should be worse than dedicated 2Hander as then 2Hander does not make sense unless it's heavy
> ...



If the versatile is worse than twohanded then it becomes worthless.

Besides, in reallife, the only difference between a longsword that is onehanded, hand-and-half, and twohanded, is the shape of the grip and the preference of the user. Stat-wise, they are the same weapon.

When versatile is as good as two-handed, then the choice to wield two-handed or use a shield becomes tactically interesting.



The results for simple 1d6 base damage and martial 1d8 base damage look right.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 15, 2022)

I like having bastard sword become part of longsword in 5e. That was OK. But I would still like to see exotic weapons. If it's called the Special Property, that's OK too. Not a game breaking change but there are weapons, particularly the Net, blowgun and flail that no one has a reason to want that I can see other than flavor.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 15, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> If the versatile is worse than twohanded then it becomes worthless.
> 
> Besides, in reallife, the only difference between a longsword that is onehanded, hand-and-half, and twohanded, is the shape of the grip and the preference of the user. Stat-wise, they are the same weapon.
> 
> When versatile is as good as two-handed, then the choice to wield two-handed or use a shield becomes tactically interesting.



yes, but if 2Handed has same damage as 1Handed+versatile, there is no reason to produce 2Handed weapons at all.
why would you make a weapon that has fewer amount of potential users with no upside for it?



Yaarel said:


> The results for simple 1d6 base damage and martial 1d8 base damage look right.




most monsters are bags of HPs, I dont mind slight bump to damage.
and it looks nicer when you improve STR weapons and not reduce DEX weapons 

and I went with 3.5e base of simple mace. 1d8 damage.
longsword was also d8 but with 19-20crit range. since we do not have that in 5E, d10 is next logical step.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> yes, but if 2Handed has same damage as 1Handed+versatile, there is no reason to produce 2Handed weapons at all.
> why would you make a weapon that has fewer amount of potential users with no upside for it?



The greatsword (reallife renaissance zweihaender) is an odd weapon that D&D doesnt describe well anyway. It is more like a reach weapon that can only target a creature at reach, cant target adjacent creatures.

Other twohanded weapons inherently require two hands, like a bow or a pike.

Even for the sake flavor and "plot protection", the D&D mechanics need to ensure that the medieval Sword and Longsword are as good, if not better than the renaissance Greatsword and Rapier.



Horwath said:


> most monsters are bags of HPs, I dont mind slight bump to damage.
> and it looks nicer when you improve STR weapons and not reduce DEX weapons
> 
> and I went with 3.5e base of simple mace. 1d8 damage.
> longsword was also d8 but with 19-20crit range. since we do not have that in 5E, d10 is next logical step.



The 5e mace is a simple weapon and deals 1d6 damage, as the simple weapons should.

I would do the clubs as follows, tho.

_Simple Weapons_
Baton 1d4 bludgeon: finesse
Sap 1d4 bludgeon: light
Club 1d6 bludgeon: −
Greatclub 1d6 bludgeon: versatile (1d10)
Throwstick 1d4 bludgeon: throw

_Martial Weapons_
Nunchaku 1d10 bludgeon: finesse, twohanded
Mace 1d8 bludgeon: versatile (1d12)
Greatmace 2d6 bludgeon: heavy, twohanded


----------



## Horwath (Sep 15, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The greatsword (reallife renaissance zweihaender) is an odd weapon that D&D doesnt describe well anyway. It is more like a reach weapon that can only target a creature at reach, cant target adjacent creatures.
> 
> Other twohanded weapons inherently require two hands, like a bow or a pike.
> 
> ...



one of the reasons for base d8 is, fewer d4 weapons.
I really hate the d4 dice.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> one of the reasons for base d8 is, fewer d4 weapons.
> I really hate the d4 dice.



I sympathize. (There is an awesome 12-sided d4.)

But simple weapons are "simple" for a reason.

The martial weapons with their unusually heavier damage require extensive training to wield properly.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> one of the reasons for base d8 is, fewer d4 weapons.
> I really hate the d4 dice.



I feel the same way.  I find them to be dissatisfying to roll. since they do more of a "plop" than a "roll."


----------



## Horwath (Sep 15, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I feel the same way.  I find them to be dissatisfying to roll. since they do more of a "plop" than a "roll."



one more way to reduce the d4 weapons is to remove weapon categories and have all weapons at "martial" damage level all proficient with all weapons.

investment in str/dex, class features, weapon based feats, extra attack(s), attack riders(sneak attack, smite, battlemaster), fighting styles should be enough to separate a martial character from non martial.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> one more way to reduce the d4 weapons is to remove weapon categories and have *all weapons at "martial" damage level*



That might be for the best. Make all weapons martial weapons. Even reusable tools like knife, hatchet, and staff need training to wield effectively.

Besides, a spear feels it should be as effective as a martial weapon.

There is no point having "simple" weapons anymore.

Wizards now have cantrips instead of weapons. The Wizard class can have zero weapon proficiencies. But the allow swapping out one cantrip for one martial weapon.

Every other class should have effective weapons.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 15, 2022)

codo said:


> One thing people are overlooking with the new crit rules is that it opens up more design space for weapons.  Now that you can't double extra damage dice on a crit you can more easily expand the crit range on weapons without rouges and paladins being brokenly overpowered.



I have serious doubts as to whether that change is going to stick. But we'll see.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 15, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> That might be for the best. Make all weapons martial weapons. Even reusable tools like knife, hatchet, and staff need training to wield effectively.
> 
> Besides, a spear feels it should be as effective as a martial weapon.
> 
> ...



I dont care if every wizard is proficient with all weapons.

wizard with a greatsword and 8 str? yeah, big threat...


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Sep 16, 2022)

Maybe not being proficient lowers your dice by one.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Sep 16, 2022)

Regarding versatile, is it actually worth much? I think it is pretty much useless. People either use versatile weapon one-handed with a shield, or they choose a proper two-handed weapon.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Sep 16, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Regarding versatile, is it actually worth much? I think it is pretty much useless. People either use versatile weapon one-handed with a shield, or they choose a proper two-handed weapon.



Versatile would be much more useful if donning and doffing a shield wasn’t a full action.  In my experience, people rarely want to lose an action in a 5 turn combat just so they can do an average of 1 extra point of damage or gain a slight AC boost.  In our games, we hombrewed doffing a shield as an item interaction and donning a shield as a bonus and it makes versatile much better.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 16, 2022)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Versatile would be much more useful if donning and doffing a shield wasn’t a full action.



Donning I can see as a full action*, but doffing should be a free action.  Unless you mean strapping it to your back rather than simply dropping it to the ground or tossing it aside.

*according to p146 in the PHB they're both 1 action, although the sidebar on p190 in the PHB says you can draw or sheathe a sword as something you can do in tandem with your movement and action, so I don't know why it takes so much longer to drop a shield.  Sheathing a sword requires accuracy and concentration to find your scabbard, but dropping a shield somehow takes longer


----------



## Mind of tempest (Sep 16, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Right now the weapon table looks little bit chaotic with some weapons having little sense in their traits and their damage.
> 
> For this I will take for base from 3.5e simple 1Handed weapon that has d8 damage and critical of 20/×2(the default and only weapon crit range in 5E)
> as 5E does not have 1+1/2 str bonus for 2Handed melee attack, Versatile property is non-value, that is it's free for all non-finesse, non-light, non-thrown weapons
> ...



what in the name of the gods is a dagger whip or an elven courtblade/ spiked chain?
I recommend not putting a pure fantasy weapon in where a real one exists for that function.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Sep 16, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Donning I can see as a full action*, but doffing should be a free action.  Unless you mean strapping it to your back rather than simply dropping it to the ground or tossing it aside.
> 
> *according to p146 in the PHB they're both 1 action, although the sidebar on p190 in the PHB says you can draw or sheathe a sword as something you can do in tandem with your movement and action, so I don't know why it takes so much longer to drop a shield.  Sheathing a sword requires accuracy and concentration to find your scabbard, but dropping a shield somehow takes longer



Yeah, I mean dropping your shield on the ground.  We made donning a shield a bonus action mostly to make changing out a shield something that people would do in a fight.  Changing styles from defensive to offensive makes things more interesting, even if it's not realistic.  I usually have something to do with my bonus action so grabbing the shield off my back still costs me something.

But I agree.  As far as I know, most shields aren't 'strapped' to your arm by being tied on.  You should be able to throw it off onto the ground, even if it's a bit slower than just dropping an item.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Sep 16, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> what in the name of the gods is a dagger whip or an elven courtblade/ spiked chain?
> I recommend not putting a pure fantasy weapon in where a real one exists for that function.



I don't think the names of the weapons are the important part of this exercise.  If a weapon has finesse and reach and is two-handed, call it by whatever name you want.  It's the balance of weapons and the variety that counts. 

The OP even states:

"make your own examples for weapons, these are just placeholder names."


----------



## Gorck (Sep 16, 2022)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> But I agree.  As far as I know, most shields aren't 'strapped' to your arm by being tied on.  You should be able to throw it off onto the ground, even if it's a bit slower than just dropping an item.



I am by no means an expert in armor and weaponry.  But to the best of my limited knowledge, the only shield that would be "strapped" to one's arm is a buckler.

EDIT:  A quick Wikipedia search proved that I have no clue what I'm talking about.  Bucklers were hand-held, not strapped to the arm.  Now I must go consult my 3.5e PHB.

EDIT 2:  Page 124 of the 3.5 PHB says:
*Buckler:* This small metal shield is worn *strapped to your forearm*.
You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You
can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are
using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a twohanded
weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing
so because of the extra weight on your arm. This penalty stacks with
those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting
with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand,
you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Sep 17, 2022)

So, after looking at the weapons and trying to stat out the phb weapons, a dagger should be a martial and not a simple weapon. (Martial starts at 1d10, simple starts at 1d8) dagger has 3 riders on it which doesn’t work for a simple weapon because it drops damage below 1d4. 

If you made it martial(dagger: 1d4, small, thrown, finesse)  and then created:

throwing knife (1d4, thrown, small)
knife (1d4, small, finesse)
As simple weapons

The whole formula works better.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 17, 2022)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> So, after looking at the weapons and trying to stat out the phb weapons, a dagger should be a martial and not a simple weapon. (Martial starts at 1d10, simple starts at 1d8) dagger has 3 riders on it which doesn’t work for a simple weapon because it drops damage below 1d4.
> 
> If you made it martial(dagger: 1d4, small, thrown, finesse)  and then created:
> 
> ...



that is why I removed the Thrown property from dagger and made throwing knife with d3 damage and finesse, light and thrown propertied.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Regarding versatile, is it actually worth much? I think it is pretty much useless. People either use versatile weapon one-handed with a shield, or they choose a proper two-handed weapon.



Yeah, the 2014 Versatile property is worthless.

It is better to just treat versatile as the same thing as twohanded, but optionally usuable onehanded. Compare the claymore sword. It is primarily for twohanded use, even if one can wield it effectively onehanded.

For D&D, both twohanded and versatile should deal the same damage, bumping the base damage die upward two sizes.

Then versatile becomes a worthwhile choice, whether to use the versatile weapon onehanded with shield or with freehand for casting or grapple, or to use the weapon twohanded for more damage. It becomes worthwhile to alternate.

Note, that several twohanded weapons also have the heavy property, to nudge the damage die up one size.

For example:
Longsword 1d8 slash: versatile (1d12)
Greatsword 2d6 slash: twohanded, heavy

Then the difference between 1d12 (average 6.5) and 2d6 (average 7) is close enough that both weapons are good choices, even if the longsword is primarily wielded twohanded.





Horwath said:


> that is why I removed the Thrown property from dagger and made throwing knife with d3 damage and finesse, light and thrown propertied.



So the die sizes are?

1 › d3 › d4 › d6 › d8 › d10 › d12 › 2d6


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Sep 17, 2022)

Horwath said:


> that is why I removed the Thrown property from dagger and made throwing knife with d3 damage and finesse, light and thrown propertied.



Yeah.  I’m fine with D3s but some people were not liking that.  Was trying to find a different way of keeping d4s.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> So the die sizes are?
> 
> 1 › d3 › d4 › d6 › d8 › d10 › d12 › 2d6



d3 › d4 › d6 › d8 › d10 › d12 › 2d6 > 2d8


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


> d3 › d4 › d6 › d8 › d10 › d12 › 2d6 > 2d8



I now notice, you made the greatsword deal 2d8 damage. That seems too much, unless it has the "loading" property sotospeak, where only one attack per round is possible.

I would reserve the theoretical 2d8 damage for huge stationary weapons, like a harpoon bolted to a ship deck.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I now notice, you made the greatsword deal 2d8 damage. That seems too much, unless it has the "loading" property sotospeak, where only one attack per round is possible.
> 
> I would reserve the theoretical 2d8 damage for huge stationary weapons, like a harpoon bolted to a ship deck.



one handed and two handed melee weapons both have +STR mod to damage.
2Handed should have 1+1/2 str mod to damage, and since that is not 5E design, 2d8 compensates for that.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


> one handed and two handed melee weapons both have +STR mod to damage.
> 2Handed should have 1+1/2 str mod to damage, and since that is not 5E design, 2d8 compensates for that.



Yet in 5e, fighting with two weapons is suboptimal compared to fighting with a twohanded weapon.

In comparison, the twohanded weapon is already too good as-is.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Yet in 5e, fighting with two weapons is suboptimal compared to fighting with a twohanded weapon.
> 
> In comparison, the twohanded weapon is already too good as-is.



1. TWF is garbage. It's the worst style in 5E. Then again, it's the worst style IRL to use, so... realism I guess.
2. 2,5 damage on average(d8 vs 2d6) is not worth -2 AC
3. Shield is also an extra magic item slot.
4. monsters are bags of HPs so buffing STR weapons is no problem
5. remove -5/+10 part of those 2 feats if that is the problem.


----------



## Clint_L (Sep 18, 2022)

I think weapons could be simplified in general, but my only strong desire is for "reach" to be given an equalizing disadvantage, like disadvantage against adjacent targets. I really, really hate combinations like bugbear+polearm master. They are cheezy and make no sense.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 14, 2022)

Shortsword is a simple weapon now.

d6 damage, light, finesse.

this is too much.

add martial; its d8, light, finesse

remove light, d10 finesse

remove finesse, d12(versatile 2d6) = longsword.

2Handed should be 2 categories up, so it is better than versatile damage, that is 2d8.

2d8 plus Heavy would be 3d6? I guess?

Shortsword cannot stay simple with that properties, or lot's of melee weapons need to be buffed up. By a lot.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 14, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Regarding versatile, is it actually worth much? I think it is pretty much useless. People either use versatile weapon one-handed with a shield, or they choose a proper two-handed weapon.




Personally I think that in the unarmed strike rules they should add that you need a free hand to grapple.
That combined with that in the new grappling rules saying you have disadvantage on attacks except against the creature grappling you might lead to single weapon and free hand becoming interesting as a grapple tank build.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 14, 2022)

We don't need to increase weapon damage across the board. Players already carve through mobs without issue, and you inflate weapon damage, then you have to inflate spell damage, then you have to inflate mob hit points...what's the point?

2-h damage is fine; lots of players are choosing 2-h weapons, so apparently for them the -2 AC is worth it. Right now, a raging Barbarian swinging a great sword does 12 damage on an average hit at level 1. That's a lot - enough to one shot most other level 1 characters!

Most of these solutions are just adding complications and making some weapons the obvious winners (i.e. looking at the first chart, if you are using a 2-hand weapon and it is anything but a Great Sword, then you are doing it wrong). 1e had vastly complicated weapons properties but it was almost all pointless because there were actually only about 6 different weapons that players actually chose, because they were clearly superior.

Edit: Weapons need to be vastly simplified. Get rid of versatile property. Get rid of reach property. Get rid of heavy, light properties. Small 1-h (d4+throwable), simple 1-h (d6), martial 1-h (d8), 2-h (d12). 1-h available in strength or dexterity flavours, 2-h strength only. Players can fill in the blanks including damage type (i.e. "my 2-h weapon is a massive sword doing slashing damage"). The rules put way too much effort into details that complicate the game while adding nothing except occasional opportunities for abuse (bugbear/polearm master/sentinel). Let the players handle all the weapon flavour stuff.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 14, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> We don't need to increase weapon damage across the board. Players already carve through mobs without issue, and you inflate weapon damage, then you have to inflate spell damage, then you have to inflate mob hit points...what's the point?
> 
> 2-h damage is fine; lots of players are choosing 2-h weapons, so apparently for them the -2 AC is worth it. Right now, a raging Barbarian swinging a great sword does 12 damage on an average hit at level 1. That's a lot - enough to one shot most other level 1 characters!



mob HPs are already inflated.

most are just huge HP blobs and nothing else.

there are CR5 monsters with over 120 HP.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 14, 2022)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> Personally I think that in the unarmed strike rules they should add that you need a free hand to grapple.
> That combined with that in the new grappling rules saying you have disadvantage on attacks except against the creature grappling you might lead to single weapon and free hand becoming interesting as a grapple tank build.



If you want to grapple then sure, 1Handed weapon is a must, if you only plan to attack of shove with unarmed then you do not need free arms and good ol' "Leonidas" will do the trick just fine.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 14, 2022)

Horwath said:


> mob HPs are already inflated.
> 
> most are just huge HP blobs and nothing else.
> 
> there are CR5 monsters with over 120 HP.



Okay, if that is the case and you inflate weapon damage, then those just become mobs with 150 HP. What has been accomplished? Conversely, if you raise damage but don't inflate the mob HP then combat, already incredibly low-stakes most of the time, will become even easier.

What's the upside of raising player damage?


----------



## Horwath (Oct 14, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Okay, if that is the case and you inflate weapon damage, then those just become mobs with 150 HP. What has been accomplished? Conversely, if you raise damage but don't inflate the mob HP then combat, already incredibly low-stakes most of the time, will become even easier.
> 
> What's the upside of raising player damage?



upside is balancing weapon damage in respect to other weapons.

finesse needs a cost for using it. lower damage die
light needs a cost. lower damage die
same with thrown and reach.
martial weapons need to deal more damage than simple. its a class feature cost.
2Handed weapons need to have more damage than versatile as they are exclusive 2Handed usage. two steps higher than one handed weapons or one step higher than versatile.
Heavy again needs to raise damage die.


monsters need more abilities not HPs.
nothing more boring to fight than a sack of HP with a club.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 15, 2022)

Horwath said:


> upside is balancing weapon damage in respect to other weapons.
> 
> finesse needs a cost for using it. lower damage die
> light needs a cost. lower damage die
> ...



I think that by making the short sword a simple weapon, WotC just destroyed the assumption that simple weapons must be weaker than martial ones. We just have to accept that a select few simple weapons are just as good as their martial counterparts.
Or I guess we can criticize this approach in the next survey and see how it goes.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 15, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I think that by making the short sword a simple weapon, WotC just destroyed the assumption that simple weapons must be weaker than martial ones. We just have to accept that a select few simple weapons are just as good as their martial counterparts.
> Or I guess we can criticize this approach in the next survey and see how it goes.



either make one category of weapons and make all proficient with all weapons or make martial proficiency matter.
I have 0 problems with having all weapon on martial "power level".
It would be simpler. but even then weapons MUST be balanced within themselves using base damage and weapon traits/properties.
or we come back again to situation where is 5 or 6 weapons that everyone uses and the rest is waste of paper in PHB.

why is there dagger with d4 then?
for it's useless 20ft thrown range?
if the range was 40/120 atleast that would justify reduced damage comparing it to "simple shortsword".

this is just bad game design.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Oct 15, 2022)

What are you people talking about? Shortsword is martial...  

EDIT: Playtest; I get it now.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 15, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> What are you people talking about? Shortsword is martial...



Did you not read the latest playtest packet?


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Oct 15, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Did you not read the latest playtest packet?



Oh! I had missed that.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Oct 15, 2022)

Hoping the spear gets some love this edition. Especially now it can't even use polearm master.

1d6/1d8 versatile, reach would be what i'd like to see with it. Spear not having reach is silly.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 15, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Hoping the spear gets some love this edition. Especially now it can't even use polearm master.
> 
> 1d6/1d8 versatile, reach would be what i'd like to see with it. Spear not having reach is silly.



spear, 1Handed, simple, reach 10ft, d6(V d8) should have been from the start.

then add martial version for d8(V d10) damage.


longspear, simple, 2Handed, reach 10ft, d10 damage


pike should be simple weapon also.

Pike, simple, 2Handed, Heavy, reach 10ft, d12 damage


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 15, 2022)

I think it would be an improvement if martial weapons went with more but smaller dice rather than big dice. a 3d4 greatsword or greataxe  has the same max as 2d6 & 1d12 but better min & more reliable average


Spoiler: Likewise with the other shifts




.1d12 → 1 & 6.5
 2d6  →  2& 7
3d4  → 3 & 7.5

1d10  → 1 & 5.5
1d4+1d6 → 2& 6

1d8 → 1 & 4.5
2d4 → 2 & 5




The average doesn't change significantly but two things happen that very much reflect the greater skill needed to use martial weapons.  Firstly the average roll trends slightly  towards the middle  rather than min or max making 1+attrib impossible & a 1+1+attrib roll fairly uncommon compared to the much more common +1+(≠1)+attrib roll.  Secondly it does reduce the odds of max+max+attrib rolls but any ability that shifts a roll of 1 or  2 roll up to an automatic 2 or 3 becomes much more valuable.  The reroll 1&2 of GWF in both 2014 5e & the expert packet should shift from reroll 1s &2s just to a straight 1&2=3 just to save us all time of watching bob reroll all his 1s & 2s then recalculate the result every attack every round


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Oct 16, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think it would be an improvement if martial weapons went with more but smaller dice rather than big dice. a 3d4 greatsword or greataxe  has the same max as 2d6 & 1d12 but better min & more reliable average
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Likewise with the other shifts
> ...



This is what we did with Katanas and wakizashis in a game we played.  We made them long swords and short swords.

Katana did 2d4 and V 2d5
wakizashi did 2d3.
this was just to reflect that these weapons were of greater quality than the average long sword.  It was a small change.  
It synergized with Two Handed Weapon Fighting Style which allowed you to reroll 1s and 2s.  When you used the Katana in two hands and were rolling 2d5, it really skewed your damage higher.  But it seems like a small advantage and not overly broken.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 16, 2022)

IMO, I think the approach is wrong to begin with. Instead of simple and martial weapons, there should be simple and martial training. No one will ever agree 100% over what is a simple weapon and what should be a martial weapon, but we can all agree that certain classes might only be simply trained with weapons and others more robust martial training. 

Base damage a based on training. That reflects how a short sword in a fighters hand will be more effective than in a wizards hand. 

And no, complex tables would be a mistake. Most people don’t want them. We’ve seen this over and over, starting with 1e and how each weapon did something different, and most players ignored it.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Oct 16, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> IMO, I think the approach is wrong to begin with. Instead of simple and martial weapons, there should be simple and martial training. No one will ever agree 100% over what is a simple weapon and what should be a martial weapon, but we can all agree that certain classes might only be simply trained with weapons and others more robust martial training.
> 
> Base damage a based on training. That reflects how a short sword in a fighters hand will be more effective than in a wizards hand.
> 
> And no, complex tables would be a mistake. Most people don’t want them. We’ve seen this over and over, starting with 1e and how each weapon did something different, and most players ignored it.



varying damage based on training is a super way of doing it.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Oct 16, 2022)

double-post:
I wonder if  you could go even further and have classes unlock certain features for weapons.  So, on top of there being higher damage for martial weapon training, even though short sword is finesse but only rogues get access to finesse at first level.  Only fighters, barbarians and rangers can use long swords in one hand as a versatile weapon. (as an example)


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 17, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> IMO, I think the approach is wrong to begin with. Instead of simple and martial weapons, there should be simple and martial training. No one will ever agree 100% over what is a simple weapon and what should be a martial weapon, but we can all agree that certain classes might only be simply trained with weapons and others more robust martial training.
> 
> Base damage a based on training. That reflects how a short sword in a fighters hand will be more effective than in a wizards hand.
> 
> And no, complex tables would be a mistake. Most people don’t want them. We’ve seen this over and over, starting with 1e and how each weapon did something different, and most players ignored it.



Would you agree to do the same with spells? Remove spell damage, base spell damage on magic training?


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Oct 17, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> Would you agree to do the same with spells? Remove spell damage, base spell damage on magic training?



Isn’t spell training a class feature, the same way martial training is a class feature?  Those without spellcasting feature can’t cast spells while those who have it can.  Seems pretty straightforward.  Unless you are suggesting full casters get access to more powerful versions of spells.  I’ve seen that in systems before.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 17, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> Would you agree to do the same with spells? Remove spell damage, base spell damage on magic training?



Probably not.  Anyone, even a wizard, can pick up a sword and try to use it.  Same can't be said for spells.  You either can, or you can't.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 17, 2022)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Isn’t spell training a class feature, the same way martial training is a class feature?  Those without spellcasting feature can’t cast spells while those who have it can.  Seems pretty straightforward.  Unless you are suggesting full casters get access to more powerful versions of spells.  I’ve seen that in systems before.



It's called up-casting.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Oct 17, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It's called up-casting.



Which is all part of the spellcasting feature. I was just trying to understand the point they were trying to make


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 17, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Probably not.  Anyone, even a wizard, can pick up a sword and try to use it.  Same can't be said for spells.  You either can, or you can't.



Yeah, I'm not changing the way classes have access to simple/martial weapons or spells, my question was regarding damage calculation mechanics. You suggested that, for those who can pick up a weapon (everyone), damage could be based on martial training, my question was analogous: for those who can pick up spells, would you like spell damage to be based on spellcasting training? Let's say we could have 3 levels of martial/spellcasting training and weapon/spell damage could be damage dice multiplied by this training level. Do you think this is a good approach or do you think it is only good for martial training?


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Right now the weapon table looks little bit chaotic with some weapons having little sense in their traits and their damage.
> 
> For this I will take for base from 3.5e simple 1Handed weapon that has d8 damage and critical of 20/×2(the default and only weapon crit range in 5E)
> as 5E does not have 1+1/2 str bonus for 2Handed melee attack, Versatile property is non-value, that is it's free for all non-finesse, non-light, non-thrown weapons
> ...





I like the current set up and this is just about as chaotic as the current table but less thematic.  

IMO if you go this route the damage on a lot of the weapons should be lower.  I would change the following:
1handed reach - 1d2 simple, 1d4 martial
2handed heavy - 1d8 simple, 1d12 martial
2handed heavy, reach - 1d3 simple, 1d10 martial
2handed reach -  1d3 simple, 1d8 martial
2handed finesse - 1d6 simple, 1d8 martial
2 handed, finesse, reach - 1d4 simple, 1d6 martial

 A better system if we want to simplify is to put this on the character instead of the weapon - if you have proficiency in simple weapons you do 1d6 if you use strength, 1d4 if you use dexterity.  If you have Martial Weapons proficiency these are 1d8 and 1d6 respectively.  Do away with all the other properties.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 25, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know if they need to be rebalanced, but at least made more interesting.



'More' is being a bit generous, TBH.

Though I'm not sure if this couldn't be relieved via feats.


----------



## CubicsRube (Oct 26, 2022)

I would have tk check the balance, but my inclination wluld be to have set damage for the weapon (the average) no str/dex mod, and instead use the hit die of your main class and add to that.

So a fighter wielding a dagger would do 1d10+3, while a wizard with same would only do 1d6+3


----------



## Horwath (Oct 26, 2022)

CubicsRube said:


> I would have tk check the balance, but my inclination wluld be to have set damage for the weapon (the average) no str/dex mod, and instead use the hit die of your main class and add to that.
> 
> So a fighter wielding a dagger would do 1d10+3, while a wizard with same would only do 1d6+3



this is some 13th age/D&D hybrid.

I like it.

same trait values:

find some base damage,

let's say 5. Nice number.

martial: +1 damage
2Handed: +2 damage
heavy: +1 damage
light: -1 damage
finesse: -1 damage
reach: -1 damage for 2Handed, -2 for 1Handed
thrown(40/120): -1 damage
2 damage types: -1 damage
Versatile: +1 damage when used 2Handed
ranged: loading, Action +0 damage
ranged: loading, Bonus action, -1 damage
ranged: loading free, -2 damage
ranged: range 40/120: +0 damage
ranged: range 80/320: -1 damage
ranged: range 150/600: -2 damage


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 26, 2022)

They should crib from PF and have properties that trigger if you hit by 10+. Disarm with flails, knockdown with hammers, ongoing bleeds, etc. Siloing any degree of complexity to spells and spells alone is poor design.

As it stands, a 1 or 2 point difference in damage by weapon type is dull. I'd rather see mechanics matter in an interesting tactical way rather than a minor math bump.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 28, 2022)

ehren37 said:


> They should crib from PF and have properties that trigger if you hit by 10+. Disarm with flails, knockdown with hammers, ongoing bleeds, etc. Siloing any degree of complexity to spells and spells alone is poor design.
> 
> As it stands, a 1 or 2 point difference in damage by weapon type is dull. I'd rather see mechanics matter in an interesting tactical way rather than a minor math bump.



I would love to see this as part of a +/-5, +/-10 Degree of Success system with d20 tests. If you want to go old school, Cindi Rice's swashbuckling rules from Dragon magazine #232 in 1996 looks brutally complex nowadays but was the first time I saw this done and sold me on degree of success in combat.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 29, 2022)

I love the idea of those with martial weapon proficiency having special abilities linked to weapons as standard but the proliferation of saving throws would really drag down the game.  I would say the easiest thing to do is bring back minions - as in a label that a DM can attach to standard monsters against whom such moves automatically succeed.  For non minions, the weapon properties manifest on a crit with a save as normal plus battlemasters could spend superiority dice to achieve either additional results or to use weapon properties against non-minions without a crit.

Hell, the martial proficiency feat becomes more desirable if you get some cheese on top.

More generally, I think only applying strength to damage works.  It worked in 1e.  You could have static bonuses to crossbows (+1 to +3) which would make up for the loading requirement and bring back mighty bows that allow wielders to add strength to shortbows (capped at +2) and longbows.  You could have an additional requirement that mighty bows cannot be used if your strength is not high enough or while subject to the weakened condition.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 31, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I love the idea of those with martial weapon proficiency having special abilities linked to weapons as standard but the proliferation of saving throws would really drag down the game.



Simple, don't allow saving throws vs crit effects. The save was the target's AC, which the character critically overcame. You shouldn't get a save when the master swordsman beat your AC by 10, you just automatically bleed for their stat+proficiency bonus until you stop it.

Martial crits outside of specific situations (rogue/paladin smite) are pretty lame in 5E, so I see no real downside to throwing these on top of the paltry d8 your longsword fighter would normally add. If we really need to keep martials so simple a potato can play them, allow an extra d6 damage instead of the effect.

PF2E's crit effects are below for reference
Axe: Deal weapon damage to adjacent target if you would also hit their AC with your result
Bow: Pin target to adjacent surface. Target must spend bonus action and DC 10 athletics to move.
Club: Knock the target up to 10 feet back
Flail/Hammer: Target knocked prone
Knife: d6 persistent bleed damage
Polearm:  Move target 5' in your choice
Shield: Knock target back 5'
Sling: Target loses one action next turn 
Spear: Target is clumsy 1 until next turn (-1 AC and Dex based checks)
Sword: Target is flat footed until start of next turn

The nice thing about keeping critical success at 10+ AC is you avoid the situation where you can only be crit or missed, and it makes every "+1" count, as they increase the likelihood of critting/avoiding the crit.


----------

