D&D 5E Weapon oddities

[doctorhook]

Already kinda is...

When making a melee weapon attack, a creature that doesn’t have a swimming speed (either natural or granted by magic) has disadvantage on the attack roll unless the weapon is a dagger, javelin, shortsword, spear, or trident.

[...]Even against a target within normal range, the attack roll has disadvantage unless the weapon is a crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is thrown like a javelin (including a spear, trident, or dart).

Unfortunately, the trident's biggest problem is that it's absolutely inferior to the spear overall, and even in this case, the trident has no advantages that the spear does not also offer.

 

[Boarstorm]

Unfortunately, the trident's biggest problem is that it's absolutely inferior to the spear overall, and even in this case, the trident has no advantages that the spear does not also offer.

But... but it's got THREE points, don't you see?

THREE!

 

[doctorhook]

But... but it's got THREE points, don't you see?

THREE!

I see you're arguing in favour of tripling its damage. Any opposed?

 

[Remathilis]

I see you're arguing in favour of tripling its damage. Any opposed?

Actually, 3d4 would be an interesting idea. GWF would break the Baator out of it though...

 

[Dausuul]

We might guess that it isn't intended to be "fists" specifically. It is fists, elbows, knees, feet, headbutt, or whatever is appropriate.

You must lash out with every limb, like the octopus who plays the drums.

 

[Dausuul]

However, when between two weapons, one is stronger, and the other offers no benefit at all....that is a problem. The only reason to take the weaker weapon is because it fits your character, but why should that force a player into an obviously bad choice?

In principle, I agree, but most of these differences are so small as to be meaningless. Yes, a flail is strictly worse than a warhammer (except for being 5 gp cheaper); but if I wanted to make a flail-wielding fighter, I wouldn't feel I was unduly gimping myself by giving up Versatile. The number of cases where that will come into play is vanishingly small.

Furthermore, until we see the feat list and the full array of class options, we don't really know the full capabilities of any of these weapons. Just look at the impact of Great Weapon Fighting on the greatsword to see how much difference such things can make.

 

[OpsKT]

In principle, I agree, but most of these differences are so small as to be meaningless. Yes, a flail is strictly worse than a warhammer (except for being 5 gp cheaper); but if I wanted to make a flail-wielding fighter, I wouldn't feel I was unduly gimping myself by giving up Versatile. The number of cases where that will come into play is vanishingly small.

Furthermore, until we see the feat list and the full array of class options, we don't really know the full capabilities of any of these weapons. Just look at the impact of Great Weapon Fighting on the greatsword to see how much difference such things can make.

Also, all things being equal, some weapons ARE better. Just a fact. Bringing a dagger to a fight with a man in full plate with a shield and longsword, unless you are just that much better you are going to be at a disadvantage, and probably dead.

 

[Stalker0]

Also, all things being equal, some weapons ARE better. Just a fact. Bringing a dagger to a fight with a man in full plate with a shield and longsword, unless you are just that much better you are going to be at a disadvantage, and probably dead.

Yeah...but that argument seriously removes one of the fun aspects of RPGs...the playing of highly varied archetypes. Dnd has always supported a lot of archetypes somewhat equally...even though in real life they would be hideously outmatched. That is one of its strengths, and not something you want to mess with heavily.

 

[Klaus]

1. Glaive vs. Halberd. They're identical right now. D&D halberds haven't traditionally been reach weapons; deleting reach from halberd would allow both of these weapons to be distinct.

My one change to these would be to make the halberd's damage "piercing or slashing", since the halberd evolved to be a versatile weapon. The glaive, otoh, is basically a reach sword (see naginata).

 

[Grazzt]

Your argument is sound, but Longsword will never become 2d4: it's too central a weapon in the game, and the experience of playing one of the basic weapons has to be basic as well. The overlap of these two is not a problem, I feel.

Agreed. Changing longsword to something other than 1d8 damage would be like removing the 3-18 ability range and just using modifier. Never happen. Sacred Cow.