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

[Saeviomagy]

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

There's a best option. At the start of the fight, the players crunch the numbers and choose the option that does the most damage. That's the extent of the gameplay added here. Do some maths, hit harder.

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.

Good thing you have 30 archers and 30 slingers and they somehow can't all be on the battlements at once.

Again - this is exactly what I mean above: you do some maths at the start of combat and hit harder as a result.

Also - slings doing more vs chain than arrows is idiotic.

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.

Those already exist. All of your versions of different performance vs armor are just changing the damage output and making people do maths in order to do the most damage. If you implement such a system, you just reward people for carrying a golf bag of weapons and doing maths.

 

[Water Bob]

Also - slings doing more vs chain than arrows is idiotic.

Hmm...not all would agree with you. Read This Thread.

A couple of quotes...

Edward I was still using elite slingers recruited from Sherwood forest in the late 13th and early 14th centuries - and they were equipped just like ancient slingers. And medieval English historians reported that slingshots by English and Irish slingers were capable of injuring men even through medieval knights' armour, which at that time was a mixture of chain and plate. (See the Wargames Research Group's Armies of Feudal Europe and Armies of The Middle Ages. Froissart also reports a slingshot at the battle of Najera in 1367 during the Hundred Years War cracking a helmet in two.)

And, this...

I've given you the evidence that slings were more effective at penetrating armour than bows were in ancient times - and still effective against even better armour and still used as late as the Hundred Years' War. They may have had a lower rate of fire, since the slingshot had to be swung round the head repeatedly to build up power before releasing it. For the same reason they may have needed to be more spread out. I don't know what their accuracy was like relative to bows - but that they were better against armour is not in doubt. Every ancient historian confirms it.

 

[guachi]

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 using the 5e idea of weapon properties and expanding on them for many more weapon types. This is the kind of thing that a 5e version of the 2e Arms & Equipment Guide would have if WotC ever bothered to make a supplement not tied to an AP, which they won't.

 

[Hriston]

Obviously, I am in favor of at least trying this out in my own games, or I wouldn't have bothered converting the tables. I'd keep the modifiers on the attack roll, however, and not, as some have suggested, use damage resistance/vulnerability to model the effects of various weapons versus different types of armor. Here's why: in D&D the benefit of armor is represented by your AC. The attack roll is, in part, the attempt to overcome the protection that AC provides. Once you have scored a hit, damage is dealt not to the armor, but to the creature wearing it. What, for example would happen to a skeleton who is vulnerable to bludgeoning damage is wearing armor that is also vulnerable to that type of damage? Would it take quadruple damage? Also, armor that confers resistance to certain types of damage to the wearer is magical in nature, and creates such an effect separately from its functioning as a suit of armor.

Also, as for the modifiers being big enough to be meaningful, check out my conversion which I provided a link to up-thread. We're talking about a bonus of between +3 and +6, and penalties between -2 and -5. There are no +1's. I'd implement this within the context of a limited number of weapon proficiencies as well, so that the focus is not on selecting from a large number of weapons to choose the absolute "best" weapon, but rather from the small number of weapons with which the character has already chosen to equip him or herself.

 

[Hussar]

Note that vulnerabilities never stack in 5e, so, no, a skeleton would not take double damage. OTOH, you could significantly strengthen skeletons by giving them appropriate armour to counter their vulnerability.

 

[MerricB]

Hmm...not all would agree with you. Read This Thread.

Interesting thread! I've been playing a lot of hex'n'counter wargames over the past few years, especially the Great Battles of History series by Berg & Herman, so it's interesting to see how other people approach the effectiveness of various weaponry. I've played through Berg's take on the Battle of Najera, and - now having some idea of the circumstances of the battle - it's hard to make much proper judgement on the effectiveness of the slings, especially as they were on the losing side (which was rather outmanoeuvred!).

I found a site with a translation of Froissart's description of the battle (http://www.maisonstclaire.org/resources/chronicles/froissart/book_1/ch_226-250/fc_b1_chap241.html), where slings are mentioned twice:

"The fight now began in earnest on all sides; for the Spaniards and Castillians had slings, from which they threw stones with such force as to break helmets and scull-caps, so that they wounded and unhorsed many of their opponents. The English archers, according to their custom, shot sharply with their bows, to the great annoyance and death of the Spaniards. On one side, there were shouts of “Castille, for king Henry!” on the other, “St. George, for Guienne!”"

"The Spanish commonalty made use of slings, to which they were accustomed, and from which they threw large stones which at first much annoyed the English: but when their first cast was over, and they felt the sharpness of the English arrows, they kept no longer any order."

Amusingly enough, the slings in the first description are wounding and unhorsing the English, while the archers are annoying and killing the Spaniards!

(These are, of course, longbows. The self bows (short bows) are typically not so well thought of!)

Cheers!

 

[Connorsrpg]

Thanks people. Would it worth submitting a proposal re new weapon qualities to En5ider?

 

[tgmoore]

Thanks people. Would it worth submitting a proposal re new weapon qualities to En5ider?

I would buy it. I like how your systems adds depth without being overly complex.

 

[Hriston]

Amusingly enough, the slings in the first description are wounding and unhorsing the English, while the archers are annoying and killing the Spaniards!

(These are, of course, longbows. The self bows (short bows) are typically not so well thought of!)

Longbows and shortbows are typically classed as self bows, which means nothing more than that they are made from a single piece of wood, as opposed to a composite bow, which they seem to have left out of the weapon list for 5E.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Hmm...not all would agree with you. Read This Thread.

A couple of quotes...

Both of those quotes are from the same guy who thinks that mass x velocity tells the whole tale of projectile effectiveness. The first quote doesn't really address the argument of slings vs bows at all, it merely states that slings were not wholly ineffective. The second quote is more of the same, plus its final unsupported sentence.