But the one thing I do not agree on is changing the idea of changing the Martial Die to based on Weapon Die. This is a lesson it looked as though they learned but now look to throw away. What you're going to have is, again, just a handful of desirable weapons as most players will simply gravitate towards the highest die weapons in lieu of everything else. The d6 Martial Die opened up a whole range of character concepts as viable/desirable which they are now closing the door to.
And while I'm not opposed to their idea of turning extra die damage into multiple attacks they will have to keep a close eye on weapons or abilities that allow you to impose conditions on each of those attacks.
You're right that with a simple change to swap a xd6 with, say, xd12 or 2xd6 (in case of a dwarf with a greataxe), it's a no-brainer to pick the biggest/baddest weapon you can find. However, that said, there is no reason why they can't also bake in disincentives to trade off that d12 of extra damage for a maneuver that, while powerful and useful, consumes that die without its magnitude contributing to the effect. What I'm saying is, there is a design space for a short-sword and shield using fighter with certain killer maneuvers using them BECAUSE he's not trading off so much damage to trigger his maneuvers.
Then it remains to balance status effects with "dead" a bit better, but e.g. this tradeoff already exists with, say, Parry, where currently you would trade off d12 + d6 damage with Deadly Strike for d6 DR. And obviously Parry could not simply use the straight up weapon die since d12 is too much DR to give PCs. But in the maneuver system, as it already stands, we already have your offensive output traded in for maneuvers, it just remains to balance a bit (ok, a lot), better the benefits of a maneuver-focused fighter who may chose a different weapon other than the most damaging one, if it has reach or trip or disarm as properties baked in.
The big issue is whether a d8 + shield + parry/other maneuvers can be balanced vs d12s of pure damage. I think it can, and it's worth the effort to try. Don't forget, there is such a thing as overkill too, and not all maneuvers should use the straight up weapon die to fuel their effects. They already do not. Consuming a d12 is a lot more costly in terms of opportunity cost vs a d6 or d8 weapon to trigger a maneuver, it's just a question of making maneuvers good enough (at least in certain circumstances), that it's worthwhile to do that. Don't forget, a guard might focus more on knocking you out, so damage is not a priority, or a slaver might not want to damage his potential profits by injuring you too much, so instead focused on trying to disarm + catch you with his man-catcher or net. There are plenty of reasons to not focus on the greataxe or greatsword all the time, especially if AC + maneuver benefits of a shield get better. For example, the parry benefit of a weapon might be always d6 per MDD, but different shields might give different die, independent of the weapon die. I don't think that's too complicated, since it already sort of works that way, but in reverse (it's always d6 now and your weapon hardly matter, which
sucks)
The way to balance the sword + board guy with the big sword guy is not by making the damage the same, it's by the combined contributions of AC, Parry, survivability, etc.
Someone already posted on here math that battle axe + shield is more optimal than greataxe in facing hordes of skeletons at level 1. Maybe making MDDs == the weapon die pushes it too far in the greataxe's favour, but there are other ways to tame that. Balance != does the same effect. It means having the same amount of fun.
If you want to do the most damage, use the biggest sword. Case closed. If you want to last longer against multiple enemies, use a shield. This is basic stuff IMO. The maneuver system + MDDs shouldn't exist just to turn your weapon choice into mere fluff.
