D&D 5E Making weapon choice matter

[Charlaquin]

This is not unique to versatile weapons. As clarified in this Crawford tweet, proper two-handed weapons, such as the greatsword or maul, can also be used in this fashion.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford...ww.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/02/2-weapon-casting/

Yes, Crawford does often give terrible rulings over Twitter. If you’re more interested in following his rulings than in insuring there are compelling reasons to use different weapons, that’s your choice.

There are several Crawford tweets on point detailing that, while weapons like hand crossbows and slings may make attacks one-handed, they still require two hands to feed ammunition into the weapon. As such, I'd dispute the notion that you could use these weapons effectively with a melee weapon in your other hand.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford...u/2015/08/22/can-you-load-two-hand-crossbows/

I happen to agree with his rulings on this matter, but that doesn’t mean you can’t use slings and hand crossbows effectively with another weapon in the other hand.
1. Sheathe your melee weapon with your free object interaction for the turn.
2. Load your ranged weapon as part of your attack with it (as per the loading property, this does not take up your one free object interaction for the turn).
3. Use your action to attack with your ranged weapon with one hand.
4. If you want to attack with your melee weapon, you’ll need to do it on another turn anyway, since you can only take one action per turn. In that case, use your free object interaction to unsheathe it as part of the attack.

Basically, you can’t dual-wield with one of the weapons being a one-handed ranged weapon, but you can use a one-handed ranged weapon and a one-handed melee weapon in such a way as to be able to use either one each turn without having to waste any actions to draw one after stowing the other.

Presumably, the OP was interested in reasoning for why someone would choose one over the other when they have a meaningful choice between the two, not when exigent circumstances meant that one wasn't really a choice.

Sure, and I don’t disagree that by RAW there’s is little to no reason not to use the most damaging option available to you. I was just answering what the RAW reasons might be.

 

[Satyrn]

I think you'd have to give each weapon something truly interesting that only it can do. Like:

A flail can smash armor instead of dealing damage
A battleaxe can hew limbs off on a crit.
A longsword can break a weapon instead instead of just disarming.

Etc, etc, etc. The real trick would be figuring out something interesting that a light crossbow can do that doesn't mame sense for a heavy crossbow, something that stops you from saying "why wouldn't I just use the heavy crossbow?"

 

[Ganymede81]

Yes, Crawford does often give terrible rulings over Twitter. If you’re more interested in following his rulings than in insuring there are compelling reasons to use different weapons, that’s your choice.

You might be confusing Mearls with Crawford. Mearls gives rulings while Crawford's tweets carry the weight of the official FAQ or rules in the book.

 

[ro]

I always found that weapon choice was something I decided on when making the character. I have a picture of a guy with 2 daggers, or a londsword and shield. A bastard sword is just a longsword with 2 hands. An axe guy may not pick up the magical longsword we found unless that is the only magic we found in the last few adventures. I tend to stick with the weapon type they started with.

Not getting a lot of weapons at first level would not impact my PCs.

I can see the penalty of -1 to hit with large weapons and +1 with small weapons, sort of like the weapon speed of 1e/2e. Although we mostly ignored that. A flat +1/-1 is simple and easy to incorporate.

Thank you for your input! I like hearing the perspective of how changes would affect actual play! So would your characters be bothered if they had to change weapons throughout play? Or what about having a single style of weapon that improves over time?

First there are two key cre decisions to be made... Do you want weapon choice down to sub type level to be an impactful mechanical tactical choice... So that odds are most "front line fighters" use the same weapon chosen for its numbers?

Second - Are the rows on the weapons table actual locked in weapons types or are they in a more abstract ways representations of a fighting style?

Ie can a "saber" set of game stats be applied in game to an Elven Moonaxe? Can a greatsword stats be applied to a Dwarven WarAxe?

I would like weapon choice, all the way down to subtype, to be impactful mechanically.
I would also be inclined to say that weapons should be archetypal, and each in the weapon table should be a unique combination that could be applied to any weapon.

Looking at weapons in the PHB, we have three categories: properties, damage, and damage type.

The properties are:
ammunition, finesse, heavy, light, loading, range, reach, special, thrown, two-handed, versatile

Damage:
d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, 2d6

Damage type:
bludgeoning, piercing, slashing

There is some correlation between properties and damage:
All heavy weapons are two-handed.
All two-handed melee weapons are heavy.
All ammunition weapons and ranged.
All d10 weapons are reach.
All d10 and d12 weapons are heavy and two-handed.
Light weapons are only d4 and d6.

 

[Charlaquin]

You might be confusing Mearls with Crawford. Mearls gives rulings while Crawford's tweets carry the weight of the official FAQ or rules in the book.

Sure, which means DMs are free to disregard them just as they are with all of the official rules. Seems a bit silly to me that in a thread specifically about house ruling weapons to differentiate them better, we would be overly concerned with preserving an official rule that makes versatile weapons less distinct from two-handed weapons.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Kobold Press had some weapon variants that had new properties. It seemed like a good way to keep the PHB weapon list what it is, but add some variety options for those that wanted it.

 

[Ganymede81]

Sure, which means DMs are free to disregard them just as they are with all of the official rules. Seems a bit silly to me that in a thread specifically about house ruling weapons to differentiate them better, we would be overly concerned with preserving an official rule that makes versatile weapons less distinct from two-handed weapons.

Yeah, but the tenor of your posts seemed much more in line with the rules as-is as opposed to suggesting how they could be improved with DM tweaks.

I mean, your original post disputed the OP's premise of requiring rules changes.

 

[ro]

I've been looking through the weapon table, and thinking about some changes, and here is what I have come up with.

Melee
There should be three of each of the following, one each of bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing:

d4
d6
d8
2d4?
light d4
light d6
versatile d6/d8
versatile d8/d10
heavy/two-handed d10
heavy/two-handed d12
heavy/two-handed 2d6

There should be Reach weapons for each of d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and 2d6. These could be divided evenly among the damage types:
Reach, bludgeoning d4
Reach, bludgeoning d6
Reach, piercing d8
Reach, slashing d10
Reach, piercing d12
Reach, slashing 2d6
Reach, bludgeoning or slashing 2d4?

Special weapons can be scattered about as now.
Finesse weapons are all d4, d6, or d8 piercing weapons and d4 or d6 light slashing weapons.

Total: 10 each of bludgeoning, piercing, slashing for minimum 30 total melee weapons, 6 of which are reach weapons. Add 3 more if creating 2d4 weapons.

Ranged Melee

Improvised Thrown:
All melee weapons can be thrown with the following ranges:
d4 10/20
d6 20/30
d8 20/40
d10 15/30
d12 10/15
2d6 5/15

Ranged

Thrown:
d4 20/40 throwing knife, light, piercing or slashing (finesse)
d6 30/60 throwing axe, light, slashing (finesse)
d8 50/100 spear, piercing (finesse)
d10 80/300 javelin, piercing

Other ranged weapons come in tiers, having minimum levels when you can use them, if you have proficiency.
Gaining martial weapon proficiency lowers the minimum levels by 5 for bows and crossbows, or 4 for slings.

Slings: ammunition, bludgeoning, one-handed, not flanked by creatures/objects >= your height
d4 30/60 hand sling
d6 50/100 light sling, L4
d8 80/300 hunter's sling, L8
d10 160/480 martial sling, L12
d12 440/1320 great sling, L16

Bows: ammunition, piercing, two-handed
d4 100/150 shortbow
d6 150/250 hunter's bow, L5
d8 250/500 martial bow, heavy, L10
d10 400/1200 longbow, heavy, L15

Crossbows: ammunition, piercing, +2 attack, two-handed, loading
d4 30/60 hand crossbow, light, one-handed
d6 60/100 light crossbow
d8 100/300 full crossbow, L5
d10 300/900 heavy crossbow, heavy, L10

Total: 17 ranged weapons

 

[Sunseeker]

What's the point, really?

I mean, what is the goal of "making weapon choice matter"? Is it to keep fighter-types from grabbing whatever weapon they can get their hands on in a fight? Because that's sort of a theme of fighter-types. If so, what is the goal in undercutting the versatility of the fighter-type?

From an RP perspective, my weapon choice matters because it helps define my character's visuals and overall theme. But if I'm a generalist then using every weapon is my theme. Right now, the rules support both of these things.

So I come back to the question of: what is the goal in "making weapon choice matter"?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, but the tenor of your posts seemed much more in line with the rules as-is as opposed to suggesting how they could be improved with DM tweaks.

I mean, your original post disputed the OP's premise of requiring rules changes.

Sorry, that wasn’t my intent. I actually agree with the premise, I just prefer homebrew to change as little as possible in the existing rules while still accomplishing its design goals, so I was responding to the questions with how they already meet the design goal of giving players reasons to use them over other weapons.