D&D 5E Theorycrafting Versatile

[jgsugden]

The math behind weapons was well considered. It all has a reason. We may not all agree with all of these reasons, and many of us do not have enough visibility to see all of the ways in which these things play out, but the system works well and does what it is supposed to do. No fix is necessary for something that is not broken.

 

[Laurefindel]

I've been thinking about the Versatile property, particularly with reference to the Longsword. At the moment the Versatile property means that this is one-handed weapon that can be used two-handed. But what if that were reversed: what if Versatile were to mean that this is a two-handed weapon that can be used one-handed? This is a nice but important distinction.

So how about this: a Versatile weapon always uses the higher die but takes a -2 penalty to damage if used one-handed? This represents the possibility of a bad strike. And it has a corollary: any one-handed weapon can be used two-handed for extra power (+1 damage).

As mentioned before, your maths support even less use of the versatile quality than RaW, because 1d10-2 is inferior to 1d8 in every way. So I can't see why anyone would use a versatile weapon one-handed over a fixed 1d8 weapon. And if an equivalent 1d12 or 2d6 two-handed weapon exists, I don't see why anyone would take the 1d10 versatile (two-handed) weapon in the first place.

However, stating that a longsword, for example, is a 1d10 two-handed weapon (versatile 1d8 when wielded one-handed) is not without merit since it opens the weapon to GWM. It does prevent small races from wielding them altogether however, leaving halflings and gnomes with a very limited selection of weapon usable two-handed.

So I agree that versatile weapons are... unsatisfying?, but I don't think penalty to damage is the way to go.

 

[Yunru]

Another thing with Versatile increasing power, is it enables more than just damage.
You could have Versatile (Reach), for instance. It becomes much wordier to remove features though.

 

[jmartkdr]

I don't exactly follow. Would you mind spelling out the difference? How would this change the way that the weapon is used, in practice?

The only difference I see is which feats apply, or more accurately, don't apply: You could no longer dual-wield longswords.

 

[jmartkdr]

However, stating that a longsword, for example, is a 1d10 two-handed weapon (versatile 1d8 when wielded one-handed) is not without merit since it opens the weapon to GWM. It does prevent small races from wielding them altogether however, leaving halflings and gnomes with a very limited selection of weapon usable two-handed.

Only if you also add the heavy property; GWM doesn't refer to two-handedness at all. The only rules-interaction change would be making dual-wielding impossible.

 

[Laurefindel]

Only if you also add the heavy property; GWM doesn't refer to two-handedness at all. The only rules-interaction change would be making dual-wielding impossible.

very true

 

[Quartz]

As mentioned before, your maths support even less use of the versatile quality than RaW, because 1d10-2 is inferior to 1d8 in every way.

Yes. But the weapon can still be used one-handed. Unlike a greataxe or 2H sword. This is a fundamental change of perspective: currently in 5E a versatile weapon is a one-handed weapon that can be used two-handed whereas this is theorycrafting that a versatile weapon is a two-handed weapon that can be used one-handed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes. But the weapon can still be used one-handed. Unlike a greataxe or 2H sword. This is a fundamental change of perspective: currently in 5E a versatile weapon is a one-handed weapon that can be used two-handed whereas this is theorycrafting that a versatile weapon is a two-handed weapon that can be used one-handed.

Currently in 5E, a versatile weapon is a weapon which be used in one hand for 1d8 damage, or two hands for 1d10 damage. With this change, a versatile weapon will be a weapon that can be used in one hand for (1d10-2) damage, or two hands for 1d10 damage.

Changing perspective doesn't actually change anything about how it's used; it's just a label. Changing the damage die, however, does change how it's used; in this case, it would make players go out of their way to avoid using it in one hand. (And since they're never going to use it in one hand, they'll just pick up a greatsword instead; or they never actually cared about using it in two hands, so they'll pick up a morningstar instead. In either case, there's no reason to ever use a longsword.)

 

[Yunru]

Also 1d8 and 1d10-2 aren't equivalent at all.

 

[Laurefindel]

Yes. But the weapon can still be used one-handed. Unlike a greataxe or 2H sword. This is a fundamental change of perspective: currently in 5E a versatile weapon is a one-handed weapon that can be used two-handed whereas this is theorycrafting that a versatile weapon is a two-handed weapon that can be used one-handed.

I would agree if there was any equivalence, but as it is proposed, a “regular” one-handed weapon (1d8) deals better damage than 1d10-2, and a “regular” two-handed weapon (1d10 or 2d6) deals better damage than 1d10.

So regardless how you wield that versatile weapon, a regular 1h or 2h is a superior choice in every way, except in the uncommon situation when you must switch often between 1h and 2h in the same combat. I don’t see why most character would select such a weapon.

1d10-2 is a lot worse than 1d8. You have 20% chance of dealing less damage than the minimum of 1d8. Even if you rule that a minimum of 1 point of damage is dealt, you still have 30% chance of rolling minimum - that’s more than twice that of a d8 - without the odd chance of rolling more than 8.