Greataxe, greatsword, and a little math

[Gardens & Goblins]

Trying to make both weapons equally attractive within the constraints of the damage per attack design parameter either leads to equality or the introduction or additional mechanical elements.

That is to say, we can either make them do the same damage and/or let players re-fluff their weapon however they wish* or add extra rules in attempt to make each weapon a 'meaningful choice' over the other, with the classic boons and trade-offs.

Even then, some classes and setups will still benefit more from one than the other. But then.... we need to be clear of our design objective. Are we trying to address the damage disparity between these two weapons or are we trying to make them equally appealing to all classes? We can't have it all.


*It's not a two-handed sword (a large, slashing, heavy bladed object), it's a two-handed axe (a large, slashing, heavy bladed object).

 

[GlassJaw]

The (over-)simplified weapon chart is one of my least favorite parts of 5E. I completely understand the design goals but they went too far and removed much of any real choice that goes into selecting a weapon. I like to factor in both mechanical and flavor reasons when selecting a weapon. 5E removed mostly all of the mechanical reasons, and if anything, pigeon-hole some characters into very limited options.

I have some solutions that are somewhat of a hybrid of 3E and 5E but extra damage dice make 5E's crit system tricky to work with, at least not without making the system overly complicated (increasing crit range really skews damage when extra dice are factored in).

 

[Kobold Boots]

Trying to make both weapons equally attractive within the constraints of the damage per attack design parameter either leads to equality or the introduction or additional mechanical elements.

That is to say, we can either make them do the same damage and/or let players re-fluff their weapon however they wish* or add extra rules in attempt to make each weapon a 'meaningful choice' over the other, with the classic boons and trade-offs.

Even then, some classes and setups will still benefit more from one than the other. But then.... we need to be clear of our design objective. Are we trying to address the damage disparity between these two weapons or are we trying to make them equally appealing to all classes? We can't have it all.


*It's not a two-handed sword (a large, slashing, heavy bladed object), it's a two-handed axe (a large, slashing, heavy bladed object).

Of course you’re correct.

The issue I’ve had with D&D over the years is that designers have either over complicated or under complicated the weapons and initiative rules and missed the middle ground that allows for the minimum of fiddly bits to achieve scalability and support options.

You can have realism and skill and diverse weaponry that matters inside an easy to use D&D framework. The pendulum just keeps swinging back and forth too far with each edition to find the middle. Of course, I find my proposal to be the middle but that’s my middle. Yours may be placed differently.

Be well
KB

 

[Kobold Boots]

The (over-)simplified weapon chart is one of my least favorite parts of 5E. I completely understand the design goals but they went too far and removed much of any real choice that goes into selecting a weapon. I like to factor in both mechanical and flavor reasons when selecting a weapon. 5E removed mostly all of the mechanical reasons, and if anything, pigeon-hole some characters into very limited options.

I have some solutions that are somewhat of a hybrid of 3E and 5E but extra damage dice make 5E's crit system tricky to work with, at least not without making the system overly complicated (increasing crit range really skews damage when extra dice are factored in).

Exactly. Which is why the answer isn’t additional dice, but rather an escalating single damage die.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sigh. You clearly don't intend to discuss seriously.

No, not really. I prefer weapons to be mechanically differentiated, not just a cosmetic choice. I like choices to be meaningful. And I'm quite happy for some choices to be "better" than others.

Having Greataxes and Greatswords be identical It's kind of like saying "Oath of the Ancients" Paladin is identical to "Oath of Devotion" but wears green armour instead of white armour.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Yes, but that grown man, if he's not a PC, is a commoner with very few hit points, so the damage differential of the two weapons is less meaningful, if not meaningless.

Exactly! Hit Points are so nebulous that the potential size of a wound from a weapon is quite meaningless when you consider how much HP it should reduce.

 

[GlassJaw]

Exactly. Which is why the answer isn’t additional dice, but rather an escalating single damage die.

You misunderstood what I meant.

By "extra dice" I mean things like sneak attack, smite damage, etc. When you change the crit range (a la 3ed), you really skew the damage output for classes that have abilities that add extra dice. If you alter the 5E weapon chart such that some weapons have expanded crit ranges, it becomes a no-brainer for a rogue or paladin to use one of those weapons.

Extra damage dice weren't an issue in 3ed because they weren't factored into the crit at all. That's not the case in 5E (or 4E, even though the crit systems are slightly different).

Your escalating damage die solution won't solve that problem.

 

[Kobold Boots]

You misunderstood what I meant.

By "extra dice" I mean things like sneak attack, smite damage, etc. When you change the crit range (a la 3ed), you really skew the damage output for classes that have abilities that add extra dice. If you alter the 5E weapon chart such that some weapons have expanded crit ranges, it becomes a no-brainer for a rogue or paladin to use one of those weapons.

Extra damage dice weren't an issue in 3ed because they weren't factored into the crit at all. That's not the case in 5E (or 4E, even though the crit systems are slightly different).

Your escalating damage die solution won't solve that problem.

True, and thanks for the clarification.

In the "escalating damage die" solution, any extra damage ability is not added to critical and is a flat amount based on proficiency level with the weapon and the nature of the ability. The only variable damage is the base die.

There's a separate incapacitation or assassination rule that handles the desire to take someone out without doing massive damage but that's tied to the victim being surprised or otherwise restrained first.

 

[pogre]

The (over-)simplified weapon chart is one of my least favorite parts of 5E. I completely understand the design goals but they went too far and removed much of any real choice that goes into selecting a weapon. I like to factor in both mechanical and flavor reasons when selecting a weapon. 5E removed mostly all of the mechanical reasons, and if anything, pigeon-hole some characters into very limited options.

We're on opposite sides of the fence here. I would go hand-weapons (sword, axe, mace) and two-handed weapons (battleaxe, two-handed sword). I would also get rid of damage types - it just does not add that much to the game.

 

[GlassJaw]

In the "escalating damage die" solution, any extra damage ability is not added to critical and is a flat amount based on proficiency level with the weapon and the nature of the ability. The only variable damage is the base die.

That is certainly a solution, but it does change the core mechanics and balance of 5E. 5E is predicated on extra damage dice getting doubled. If you remove that, I'm concerned you are actually hindering the classes that rely on that damage.

Everyone complains about the paladin's spike damage but if you remove the doubled smite damage on a crit, you are fundamentally changing the math for that class. That's fine for a home game but I'm considering publishing something on DMs Guild and one of my design goals is to make the weapon chart more mechanically interesting without changing the core math (too much).