D&D 5E What I'd Like To See Added to 5E - Weapon Comparison

[Connorsrpg]

We might not have gone right back to the 1E days, but we have taken a lot of note of weapon qualities/properties over several editions and across games too (notably SAvage Worlds).

We wanted a little more reasons for choosing and greater choice of weapons too.

You might be interested in our expanded Weapon Qualities and tables of weapons: http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-equipment

Cheers, C

 

[pemerton]

If your foe is wearing a mail shirt, would you rather do 1d10 -5 damage with the cutlass (hitting, but scoring 0 damage on half your hits, and 1-5 points of damage the other half of the time when you hit), or would you rather do 1d6 -2 damage with the war hammer (hitting, but scoring 0 damage a third of the time, and 1-4 points of damage two thirds of the time when you hit).

Obviously, the warhammer is the better weapon against that foe.

Not to any great extent.

The expected outcome of an attack that does 1d10-5 min 0 (ie 0,0,0,0,0,1,2,3,4,5) is 1.5 damage per hit.

The expected outcome of an attack that does 1d6-2 min 0 (ie 0,0,1,2,3,4) is 1 2/3 (approx 1.7) damage per hit.

That's a very marginal difference.

A +3 STR mod makes it a little bigger: 1d10-2 min 0 (ie 0,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) is 3.6 damage per hit, whereas 1d6+1 is 4.5 damage per hit. And once you get to a +5 STR mod, the gap opens up to an average of +1 damage for the warhammer (6.5 vs 5.5 for an unmodified d10). Although at a certain point the STR mod will mean that the cutlass becomes equally armour piercing, and it will pull ahead again because 1d10 is just bigger than 1d6.

That's a fair bit of fiddliness for a relatively minor bonus that applies only within a certain band of STR bonuses.

 

[Water Bob]

The main issue, to me, is that this isn't really a meaningful differentiation. As your example pointed out, there is always a best option, and the entire system boils down to "are your players mathy enough and unattached to their weapons sufficiently to always pick the best option?".

It's not just a "best" option. It's a best option for a specific job.

Like my example from 2E AD&D with the gnolls earlier in the thread. If you are protecting the a keep on the borderlands, knowing that the gnolls are on the march and likely to storm the keep, you'll want archers on the battlements if it is likely that the gnolls are wearing leather armor. But, if you know that the gnolls typically wear chain, then you are better off manning your battlements with slingers.

The choice doesn't always come down to one best option. You've got to consider the weapon's ease of use (Speed Factor), it's likely damage, whether you can use a shield with it, how it performs against the type of armors that you are likely to face, and then figure what's best for you.

As a game designer, when you decide whether to implement variable weapon performance based on targets, you have two basic avenues of approach:

1) Make it really matter. Make it so that the longsword is effectively worthless against plate armor, and you need a warhammer to really succeed. Resistance/Vulnerability fall into this category.

You wouldn't make a longsword effectively worthless. You'd make the longsword not the superior choice in certain situations. In other situations, the longsword is a fine weapon.

And, as far as the rest of it, I gave examples of three good games and how they all three implemented weapon variation quite well--and all three did it differently than the other--in the OP.

You might be interested in our expanded Weapon Qualities and tables of weapons: http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-equipment

Cheers, C

Folks, this is pretty damn cool! And, worth a look!

Not to any great extent.

The expected outcome of an attack that does 1d10-5 min 0 (ie 0,0,0,0,0,1,2,3,4,5) is 1.5 damage per hit.

The expected outcome of an attack that does 1d6-2 min 0 (ie 0,0,1,2,3,4) is 1 2/3 (approx 1.7) damage per hit.

That's a very marginal difference.

A +3 STR mod makes it a little bigger: 1d10-2 min 0 (ie 0,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) is 3.6 damage per hit, whereas 1d6+1 is 4.5 damage per hit. And once you get to a +5 STR mod, the gap opens up to an average of +1 damage for the warhammer (6.5 vs 5.5 for an unmodified d10). Although at a certain point the STR mod will mean that the cutlass becomes equally armour piercing, and it will pull ahead again because 1d10 is just bigger than 1d6.

That's a fair bit of fiddliness for a relatively minor bonus that applies only within a certain band of STR bonuses.

Yes, you are correct. And, that's more on me for picking a bad example than it is on the game's system. I was writing, finishing a long post, and just happened to pick those two weapons to compare. Obviously, another comparison would have made for a better example.

 

[fjw70]

As far as the OP goes I would say using resistances and vulnerabilities of certain weapons vs armor types would be the best way to with 5e. It just extends a current mechanic instead of creating a new one.

 

[evilbob]

Am I the only one who would like to see this?

Couldn't say, but I can say I have the exact opposite opinion. I would rather my characters have [weapon] where "weapon" was whatever awesome thing they felt like wielding, based solely on their own choice and what they thought was cool, and no matter what it was it did d8 damage or whatever, maybe based on class or something (I think 13th Age did this?). If they could use it in creative ways, then awesome - there's something else it can do. Otherwise, no, the traps are too deep and too nasty. Not gonna make that axe-loving barbarian do -.5 average damage every single time for exactly no reason other than they want an axe instead of a greatsword.

That said: you mentioned variant rules, so you've really already solved your problem. Go nuts! That is definitely the point of 5.0 - whatever variant you want is expressly legit. So weapon it up! You've clearly done the research and thought a lot about it, so I'm sure you could make your own table and it'd be great.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You wouldn't make a longsword effectively worthless. You'd make the longsword not the superior choice in certain situations. In other situations, the longsword is a fine weapon.

And, as far as the rest of it, I gave examples of three good games and how they all three implemented weapon variation quite well--and all three did it differently than the other--in the OP.

If you're doubling the damage of a bludgeoning weapon, while halving the damage of a slashing weapon, then the slashing weapon is effectively worthless. The idiot with the sword will feel worthless, swinging for 4 damage while the near-identical ally with the hammer is swinging for 16. There's a very good chance that the slashing damage will be negligible in this combat, and the plated foe will drop entirely from bludgeoning damage.

And every single example falls into one of the two categories - it's either overwhelming, in which case you obviously switch weapons and it isn't even a question; or it's negligible, in which case you suffer a minor penalty that isn't enough to make you switch weapons, at the expense of extra complexity and paperwork.

Like my example from 2E AD&D with the gnolls earlier in the thread. If you are protecting the a keep on the borderlands, knowing that the gnolls are on the march and likely to storm the keep, you'll want archers on the battlements if it is likely that the gnolls are wearing leather armor. But, if you know that the gnolls typically wear chain, then you are better off manning your battlements with slingers.

There's also a practical aspect to this. When you're talking about characters other than hyper-competent PC-types, you have to worry about who you can find and what they're actually proficient in. It doesn't seem reasonable that you have your choice between 30 archers or 30 slingers, and it's just a matter of who you want to hire. I mean, where are they coming from? You could train up your own army, of course, but it's not really something you can do with foreknowledge of who is going to attack later.

 

[AtomicPope]

We might not have gone right back to the 1E days, but we have taken a lot of note of weapon qualities/properties over several editions and across games too (notably SAvage Worlds).

We wanted a little more reasons for choosing and greater choice of weapons too.

You might be interested in our expanded Weapon Qualities and tables of weapons: http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-equipment

Cheers, C

Great job! I can see this being part of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 5e

 

[Gadget]

While the Original Post makes some good points for his/her game, I'm not sure I would agree. My main counter points come under two main headings, which I'll outline below.

1) While everyone had different experiences with 1e, and I make no claim that mine was universal, it seemed that any weapon variety in the system was enforced by class restrictions and magic item availability. Clerics couldn't use edged weapons, therefore maces & hammers proliferated, not to mention and occasional dwarven thrower being in a treasure. Mages were limited to very few weapons, and darts seemed to be an option that was specifically created for them (and thieves, who suffered from a certain 'fragile' disposition at low levels as well). Paladins were always seeking the holy avenger, and most magic weapons seemed to appear in the form of magic swords, though I admit this is somewhat DM dependent. As for the various convoluted tables to differentiate weapons, they were a valiant attempt at verisimilitude, but felt a little ad-hock and too cumbersome to use in game play. As others have already pointed out, many monsters in the MM were not of the humanoid variety and weapon vs armor tables went unused and frequently forgotten when they did apply. I personally don't remember anyone who used the weapon speed tables or the weapon vs armor tables, though I'm sure others had different experiences. Also, any system that encourages the use of slings against mail wearing opponents over bows is questionable on the verisimilitude front, however much variety it purports to bring.

2) The expansion of the role magic and personal 'powers/abilities' play in the game. In 1e, magic using classes were not as prevalent as they are today; and even then many magic using classes (I'm thinking of mainly the divine magic ones) were somewhat limited in what they could do with magic in combat at lower levels. Now, all but 4 of the archetypes in D&D have some sort of magic/supernatural power about them. Even the mundane ones have things like feats and superiority dice to spend to give them options in combat that support their archetype without being so finicky and book keeping intensive (opinions may vary). This both obviates the need for--and takes up the some of the necessary mental overhead required for--a lot of the charts and tables for weapons in D&D combat.


D&D, over the years has drifted away from certain types of simulationism towards other kinds. What I mean by this is that instead of trying to simulate the details of medieval combat (poorly, IMHO) by adding on tables and modifiers to various weapons, it leans more toward character class options that support the archetype one desires to play. It is not a perfect match, and I can see some real merit in the offsets provided by the AD&D system, particularly in a more low magic, less high fantasy setting (a la Conan), as AD&D seems to be more based upon. It would be interesting to see it as a rules module extension, but I would not hold my breath waiting for WOTC to produce one.

 

[Water Bob]

I would rather my characters have [weapon] where "weapon" was whatever awesome thing they felt like wielding, based solely on their own choice and what they thought was cool, and no matter what it was it did d8 damage or whatever....

With our without armor mods, what would stop your players from doing this?

If they don't care about the damage and just want to go with what looks cool, then I doubt armor mods would change their decision.

If you're doubling the damage of a bludgeoning weapon, while halving the damage of a slashing weapon, then the slashing weapon is effectively worthless.

The mods I cited from previous additions did nothing to damage--only the attack roll was effected.

You might be talking about the Damage reduction system of the Conan game I cited. First, I was just using that as another example.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The mods I cited from previous additions did nothing to damage--only the attack roll was effected.

You might be talking about the Damage reduction system of the Conan game I cited. First, I was just using that as another example.

Resistance/vulnerability is what someone else suggested, for 5E, since 5E doesn't deal with fiddly little +1 or +2 bonuses. If it's not big enough for advantage/disadvantage, or resistance/vulnerability, then it's not worth tracking in 5E. Yet, if you decide that it is worth making this distinction, then advantage/disadvantage or resistance/vulnerability is probably too much; nobody is actually going to swing a sword at someone in plate, if there's such a huge penalty, and switching to a hammer is a trivial action.

If you really want to deal with minor bookkeeping, then the easiest answer is probably to just hand out minor DR to the various armor sets. Maybe plate can have DR 2/bludgeoning, and leather can have DR 2/slashing. I would definitely say that it's easier to modify the damage roll, rather than the attack roll.