Super Simple Weapons

[mrpopstar]

It would be the ideal weapon for a guerrilla.

TRUE!

 

[mrpopstar]

I think that [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] is really onto something with the medium weapon being 1d8 versatile. I like how middling and vanilla that sounds for the standard longsword.

 

[mrpopstar]

I think [MENTION=6890747]ro[/MENTION] brings up a good point about my current nomenclature for the weapon names. Size isn't as evocative as some of the other words we could use. Rounding back on a musing I had early on in the thread, I like the idea of using properties to describe the weapons...

[table="width: 650"]
[tr]
[td]Name[/td]
[td]Damage[/td]
[td]Properties[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Simple Melee Weapons[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Light weapon[/td]
[td]1d4[/td]
[td]Finesse, light, thrown (range 20/60)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Versatile weapon[/td]
[td]1d6[/td]
[td]Versatile (1d8)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Great weapon[/td]
[td]1d8[/td]
[td]Two-handed[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Martial Melee Weapons[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Light weapon[/td]
[td]1d6[/td]
[td]Finesse, light, thrown (range 20/60)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Versatile weapon[/td]
[td]1d8[/td]
[td]Versatile (1d10)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Great weapon[/td]
[td]1d12[/td]
[td]Heavy, two-handed[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Reach weapon[/td]
[td]1d10[/td]
[td]Heavy, reach, two-handed[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]​

Note that the only weapons with the light property are light weapons, the only weapons with the versatile property are versatile weapons, etc. It seems complicating at first, but nothing is truly upset.

EDIT: Pushing so far as to make further ripples in the game...

[table="width: 650"]
[tr]
[td]Name[/td]
[td]Damage[/td]
[td]Properties[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Hand weapon[/td]
[td]1d4[/td]
[td]Finesse, light, thrown (range 20/60)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Simple weapon[/td]
[td]1d6[/td]
[td]Finesse, light, versatile (1d8)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Martial weapon[/td]
[td]1d8[/td]
[td]Versatile (1d10)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Great weapon[/td]
[td]1d12[/td]
[td]Heavy, two-handed[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Reach weapon[/td]
[td]1d10[/td]
[td]Heavy, reach, two-handed[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]​

If I was going to reduce that much, I wouldn't be opposed to adding "ranged weapon 1d6 ammunition (range 80/320), two-handed" and calling it done given the untamed joys of wielding a ranged weapon in this edition. #decisionsdecisions

I would also concede a finesse 1d8 weapon on the grounds that it isn't the dice I have a problem with, it's the forced rapier aesthetic. Also, we all agree the quarterstaff should have the finesse property, amiright?

 

[Yaarel]

[TABLE="width: 650"]
[TR]
[TD]Name[/TD]
[TD]Damage[/TD]
[TD]Properties[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Hand weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d4[/TD]
[TD]Finesse, light, thrown (range 20/60)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Simple weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d6[/TD]
[TD]Finesse, light, versatile (1d8)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Martial weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d8[/TD]
[TD]Versatile (1d10)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Great weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d12[/TD]
[TD]Heavy, two-handed[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Reach weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d10[/TD]
[TD]Heavy, reach, two-handed[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

I would also concede a finesse 1d8 weapon on the grounds that it isn't the dice I have a problem with, it's the forced rapier aesthetic. Also, we all agree the quarterstaff should have the finesse property, amiright?

Yeah, the staff is finesse.

This arrangement looks good. It makes sense to call the standard weapon a ‘martial’ weapon.

I am less sure about a ‘simple’ weapon. The stats of ‘1d6 finesse versatile’ is how I stat the katana. It is hard to refer to a katana as simple. Maybe call the category ‘finesse’ weapon?

Calling daggers ‘hand’ weapons, works.

 

[Yaarel]

Weird weapons.

Some weapons are weird, rapier is one of them. I would stat rapier as ‘1d4 finesse reach’. Its blade is very thin but very long, about a meter, and has ‘reach’, same length as a reallife longsword, like a claymore. The rapier is nearly useless versus armor, or at least is at a disadvantage, but the low damage helps to represent that. It qualifies as light, since wielding two rapiers is a thing. Still as a finesse weapon with reach, a high Dexterity warrior can make effective use of it.

It is appropriate if the rapier has no place on a standard weapons table. If creating a renaissance setting, the DM can easily add it as a special weapon as part of the special setting features.

 

[Laurefindel]

I like this last version best as a sublimation of the weapon table. One table, no simple/martial split, you can decide of the aesthetics of your weapon to fit a category you like.

Yes that means that the 1d8 finesse non-light weapon is not represented, but that is not a big loss to the game. That leaves only ranged weapons, which in the spirit of simplification could be a single category, but I find it a bit more difficult to bring the short bow and the heavy crossbow in the same category. Perhaps a separate table for ranged weapons, something like:

Simple ranged weapons 1d6 damage, two handed range (60-120)
Martial ranged weapons 1d8 damage, two handed, range (60-120)
Mechanical ranged weapons, 1d10 damage, two handed, loading, range (60-120)

 

[Satyrn]

EDIT: Pushing so far as to make further ripples in the game...

[table="width: 650"]
[tr]
[td]Name[/td]
[td]Damage[/td]
[td]Properties[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Hand weapon[/td]
[td]1d4[/td]
[td]Finesse, light, thrown (range 20/60)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Simple weapon[/td]
[td]1d6[/td]
[td]Finesse, light, versatile (1d8)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Martial weapon[/td]
[td]1d8[/td]
[td]Versatile (1d10)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Great weapon[/td]
[td]1d12[/td]
[td]Heavy, two-handed[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Reach weapon[/td]
[td]1d10[/td]
[td]Heavy, reach, two-handed[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]​

I'd suggest calling the Simple weapon a Peasant weapon except that you want to keep the Simple/Martial nomenclature.

I don't like "Hand" as a name. It feels clunky when saying "hand weapon" while every other name sounds good like that. I'd call it Light (and make it the only one with that property) . . . and then give every class Simple Weapons proficiency with only Simple weapons while those with Martial Weapon proficiency get everything.

 

[mrpopstar]

Yeah, the staff is finesse.

This arrangement looks good. It makes sense to call the standard weapon a ‘martial’ weapon.

I am less sure about a ‘simple’ weapon. The stats of ‘1d6 finesse versatile’ is how I stat the katana. It is hard to refer to a katana as simple. Maybe call the category ‘finesse’ weapon?

Calling daggers ‘hand’ weapons, works.

The trouble with finesse weapon is the fact that the finesse property is shared by two weapons. I thought about it a lot, and I think it has to be an unshared term to avoid all confusion. (I really like finesse weapon as a name for it, though!)

Weird weapons.

Some weapons are weird, rapier is one of them. I would stat rapier as ‘1d4 finesse reach’. Its blade is very thin but very long, about a meter, and has ‘reach’, same length as a reallife longsword, like a claymore. The rapier is nearly useless versus armor, or at least is at a disadvantage, but the low damage helps to represent that. It qualifies as light, since wielding two rapiers is a thing. Still as a finesse weapon with reach, a high Dexterity warrior can make effective use of it.

It is appropriate if the rapier has no place on a standard weapons table. If creating a renaissance setting, the DM can easily add it as a special weapon as part of the special setting features.

I would go with exotic weapon. The special property needs a weapon to be attached to!

I like this last version best as a sublimation of the weapon table. One table, no simple/martial split, you can decide of the aesthetics of your weapon to fit a category you like.

Yes that means that the 1d8 finesse non-light weapon is not represented, but that is not a big loss to the game. That leaves only ranged weapons, which in the spirit of simplification could be a single category, but I find it a bit more difficult to bring the short bow and the heavy crossbow in the same category. Perhaps a separate table for ranged weapons, something like:

Simple ranged weapons 1d6 damage, two handed range (60-120)
Martial ranged weapons 1d8 damage, two handed, range (60-120)
Mechanical ranged weapons, 1d10 damage, two handed, loading, range (60-120)

I like simple ranged and martial ranged. The system assumes that bow-wielders exist at two tiers.

I was thinking along the lines of ranged weapon and loaded weapon. But that definitely would have an effect on damage output for some builds.

I'd suggest calling the Simple weapon a Peasant weapon except that you want to keep the Simple/Martial nomenclature.

I don't like "Hand" as a name. It feels clunky when saying "hand weapon" while every other name sounds good like that. I'd call it Light (and make it the only one with that property) . . . and then give every class Simple Weapons proficiency with only Simple weapons while those with Martial Weapon proficiency get everything.

I support light weapon, but there are a lot of implications to taking that property away from the 1d6 weapon (e.g. two-weapon fighting as it currently stands would see a reduction in damage output).

 

[Satyrn]

I support light weapon, but there are a lot of implications to taking that property away from the 1d6 weapon (e.g. two-weapon fighting as it currently stands would see a reduction in damage output).

I forgot to mention upping its damage to 1d6 since I was also upgrading it to a weapon for those with martial proficiency (and moving it below the Simple Weapon on the table)

I'm sorta moving back to throwing short swords, but that still feels fine to me, especially as daggers and hatchets and other throwing weapons would be decent (and don't carry the dissatisfication that comes from "rolling" a d4)

 

[mrpopstar]

I forgot to mention upping its damage to 1d6 since I was also upgrading it to a weapon for those with martial proficiency (and moving it below the Simple Weapon on the table)

I'm sorta moving back to throwing short swords, but that still feels fine to me, especially as daggers and hatchets and other throwing weapons would be decent (and don't carry the dissatisfication that comes from "rolling" a d4)

Would the 1d4 weapon not have the light property then?

(Totally support throwing short swords! LOL)

EDIT: Throwing any weapon results in 1d4 as per the rules, so it is meaningful to have a 1d6 thrown weapon.