D&D (2024) 1d&d needs to do better with weapon math than we are seeing.

[tetrasodium]

Who the heck is your social circle, that this is going to be the reaction of the players in your groups?

Ignoring the factual inconsistency of the claim that there is only one 2d6 weapon, you don't seem to be taking into account the other weapon properties.

As to "the reaction", no I can't answer that for a simple reason. The reason is because the question is simply a rephrasing of the ever popular defense of 5e's "you need to find different players". If you wanted an answer & did not intend to just suggest finding new players until the mechanical problem is ignored, the onus is on you to explain why a proficient dex based PC would choose a weapon other than rapier or longbow & why a strength based 2h user would choose a weapon other than the 2d6 pair. The black box weapon mastery properties can not solve the problem with any semblance of balance because fighters are going to be able to change them & the properties themselves would need to make up for a severe mechanical disadvantage.

The presence of a second 2d6 weapon doesn't change anything, that's the problem. The weapon properties are not ignored, they are currently a black box & I highly doubt they will be enough to correct the problem for reasons already listed. even if those properties are so incredibly game changing that they overcome the damage problem to make things like finesse based short sword scimitar whip or dagger a solid choice over rapier when a PC is proficient in all 5 it just shifts the nonchoice from weapon damage die to weapon mastery property.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Knowing why the players in your groups would react with such unreasoning hate against someone that they play alongside might suggest solutions to such social disfunctions. Does the DM have a history of deliberately and unjustifiably messing with the players so they are already predisposed to such unpleasant reactions?
This is just such a foreign situation that I don't feel comfortable suggesting ways to resolve this, but on the other hand, it is a vastly more important issue than a minor gripe about a proposed set of rules not yet started on the feedback process.

If you wanted an answer & did not intend to just suggest finding new players until the mechanical problem is ignored, the onus is on you to explain why a proficient dex based PC would choose a weapon other than rapier or longbow & why a strength based 2h user would choose a weapon other than the 2d6 pair. The black box weapon mastery properties can not solve the problem with any semblance of balance because fighters are going to be able to change them & the properties themselves would need to make up for a severe mechanical disadvantage.

The presence of a second 2d6 weapon doesn't change anything, that's the problem. The weapon properties are not ignored, they are currently a black box & I highly doubt they will be enough to correct the problem for reasons already listed. even if those properties are so incredibly game changing that they overcome the damage problem to make things like finesse based short sword scimitar whip or dagger a solid choice over rapier when a PC is proficient in all 5 it just shifts the nonchoice from weapon damage die to weapon mastery property.

You evidently know enough about these "black box" properties to make such a bombastic and disparaging post about a system that uses them.

I, however, do not, and therefore cannot in good faith comment on the weapon table at such a level.
I can merely point out things that are visible on the table at the moment, such as Rapiers not having the Light property, so the Dex-based PC may not be able to dual-wield them as easily etc.

 

[tetrasodium]

Knowing why the players in your groups would react with such unreasoning hate against someone that they play alongside might suggest solutions to such social disfunctions. Does the DM have a history of deliberately and unjustifiably messing with the players so they are already predisposed to such unpleasant reactions?
This is just such a foreign situation that I don't feel comfortable suggesting ways to resolve this, but on the other hand, it is a vastly more important issue than a minor gripe about a proposed set of rules not yet started on the feedback process.

That was explained initially & the math for that why has been spelled out in what some ,ight consider excessive depth given the anydice. numbercrunching links provided. Please attempt to sing the virtues of a system of weapons so lacking in subjective merits that the weapons themselves revolve aropund a single point that is also entirely objective rather than blaming my players for what can be termined at a glance with only the most basic of math.

You evidently know enough about these "black box" properties to make such a bombastic and disparaging post about a system that uses them.

I, however, do not, and therefore cannot in good faith comment on the weapon table at such a level.
I can merely point out things that are visible on the table at the moment, such as Rapiers not having the Light property, so the Dex-based PC may not be able to dual-wield them as easily etc.

The numbers themselves make an extremely high bar that weapon mastery properties would need to overcome. I'm saying that they would probably introduce new problems & possibly just shift the single point of objective merit if those properties were to be capable of meeting or exceeding that bar. You are defending the system's math as so acceptable that my players were worthy of scorn & pointing to them as the solution.

 

[the Jester]

I really don't see a big problem here. We don't yet know what the mastery traits are like, but even without them, sometimes a pc chooses a weapon for flavor. Sometimes that weapon is on a monster and it's okay if it's not-optimal because it makes that monster's numbers work. Sometimes the magic item you found isn't the ideal weapon for any of the party's pcs. Or if you don't run it that way as a dm, choose a different weapon to give as loot, one that is aimed at a pc.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Abilities that allow a PC to reroll ones or reroll ones & twos creates serious problems in further forcing that option above all other trash options though because those are pretty common. Setting aside the sole dual die weapon, ...

I'll admit I am not really seeing the serious problem or why it is bothering you so much.

First, there are two martial weapons with 2d6 (Maul and Greatsword). Let's assume you want to be a heavy [edit: great] weapons fighter and choose that fighting style (not every fighter will want that, of course). Let's also assume you are not concerned with damage type. That leaves choices for:

2d6 -- Average: 8.33.
a Greatsword (Graze)
b Maul (Topple)

1d12 -- Average 7.33
a Greataxe (Cleave).
So is cleave going to be worth losing 1 point damage? We'll see, but possibly. For some players, the psychological benefit from an increased likelihood of getting max damage alone will appeal.
b Lance: reach (Push).
So according to the leaked table, the lance is changing a great deal -- as written now, it is functionally a great spear, a weapon that's been sadly lost in 5e. Is having reach worth losing 1 point of damage? Absolutely.

1d10 -- Average 6.3, with reach.
a Glaive, reach (Cleave)
One point of damage less than Greataxe, for reach (absolutely worth it). Two points less than the 2d6 weapons for reach. Depends again on the precise nature of cleave.
b Halberd, reach (Topple)
Straight trade of reach vs 2 points damage, against the Maul.
c Pike, reach (Push)
BAD CHOICE: Lance is strictly better (unless they have forgotten to mark the "special" features of the Lance).

1d8 (1d10) -- Average 6.3 when used 2-handed; can be small sized
a Battleaxe (flex)
b Longsword (flex)
c Warhammer (flex)
For these three, the only difference is the damage type, and there is no functional difference between battleaxe and longsword. That makes one of them a BAD CHOICE (let's say Battleaxe, but it doesn't matter which).

d. Trident (topple)
Terribly implemented in the PHB, the Trident is now a great weapon choice: better damage than a spear, and the only martial weapons option with a thrown range. It doesn't completely displace the halberd because it's a different damage type.

These four offer two points less damage, but are the only option for small fighters. Since several races are small. this has to be available. For a Medium fighter, these weapons are better with the duelling ability: average damage is 6.5. It's a reasonable weapon for that choice: less than 2 points damage in exchange for +2 AC. Completely reasonable.

I would keep Trident in the mix, though, since it has a thrown property.

For small greatweapon fighters, -2 damage per attack functions as a size penalty, and will be an accepted choice.

So the new weapon tables give seven reasonable choices for a heavy weapon fighter, one duplicate, and two bad choices.

There are four (five if we include flex) Mastery abilities -- I'll assume four. Unless they are hugely imbalanced, that means five reasonable choices for a M sized fighter include: Greatsword, Lance, Maul, Glaive, Trident, with Greataxe and Halberd not far behind. And additional options for a S sized fighter. This is almost certainly better range of choice than the 5e weapon table offers, and doesn't take into account a polearm master feat or a GWF feat, damagetype featsw, or damage type itself.

This is not to say there aren't problems with the new table:

• the pike is not needed (or else the lance is wrong)
• there should be some differentiation between a longsword and battle axe
• additional errors affect smaller weapons -- e.g. the short sword is listed among martial weapons, apparently reversing the earlier playtest packet claim it was becoming a simple weapon, etc.

But the problems are not with the range of damage at the top end of the scale.

 

[tetrasodium]

Let's assume you want to be a heavy weapons fighter and choose that fighting style (not every fighter will want that, of course). Let's also assume you are not concerned with damage type. That leaves choices for:

2d6 -- Average: 8.33.
a Greatsword (Graze)
b Maul (Topple)

1d12 -- Average 7.33
a Greataxe (Cleave).
So is cleave going to be worth losing 1 point damage? We'll see, but possibly. For some players, the psychological benefit from an increased likelihood of getting max damage alone will appeal.
b Lance: reach (Push).
So according to the leaked table, the lance is changing a great deal -- as written now, it is functionally a great spear, a weapon that's been sadly lost in 5e. Is having reach worth losing 1 point of damage? Absolutely.

1d10 -- Average 6.3, with reach.
a Glaive, reach (Cleave)
One point of damage less than Greataxe, for reach (absolutely worth it). Two points less than the 2d6 weapons for reach. Depends again on the precise nature of cleave.
b Halberd, reach (Topple)
Straight trade of reach vs 2 points damage, against the Maul.
c Pike, reach (Push)
BAD CHOICE: Lance is strictly better (unless they have forgotten to mark the "special" features of the Lance).

1d8 (1d10) -- Average 6.3 when used 2-handed; can be small sized
a Battleaxe (flex)
b Longsword (flex)
c Warhammer (flex)
For these three, the only difference is the damage type, and there is no functional difference between battleaxe and longsword. That makes one of them a BAD CHOICE (let's say Battleaxe, but it doesn't matter which).

d. Trident (topple)
Terribly implemented in the PHB, the Trident is now a great weapon choice: better damage than a spear, and the only martial heavy weapons option with a thrown range. It doesn't completely displace the halberd because it's a different damage type.

These four offer two points less damage, but are the only option for small fighters. Since several races are small. this has to be available. For a Medium fighter, these weapons are better with the duelling ability: average damage is 6.5. It's a reasonable weapon for that choice: less than 2 points damage in exchange for +2 AC. Completely reasonable.

I would keep Trident in the mix, though, since it has a thrown property.

For small greatweapon fighters, -2 damage per attack functions as a size penalty, and will be an accepted choice.

So the new weapon tables give seven reasonable choices for a heavy weapon fighter, one duplicate, and two bad choices.

There are four (five if we include flex) Mastery abilities -- I'll assume four. Unless they are hugely imbalanced, that means five reasonable choices for a M sized fighter include: Greatsword, Lance, Maul, Glaive, Trident, with Greataxe and Halberd not far behind. And additional options for a S sized fighter. This is almost certainly better range of choice than the 5e weapon table offers, and doesn't take into account a polearm master feat or a GWF feat, damagetype featsw, or damage type itself.

This is not to say there aren't problems with the new table:

• the pike is not needed (or else the lance is wrong)
• there should be some differentiation between a longsword and battle axe
• additional errors affect smaller weapons -- e.g. the short sword is listed among martial weapons, apparently reversing the earlier playtest packet claim it was becoming a simple weapon, etc.

But the problems are not with the range of damage at the top end of the scale.

Two problems with that analysis. The first is simple math With reroll ones & twos the average of 2d6 is no longer 8.33, under those conditions a PC needs to shift from simple average to probability. Under those conditions the PC has a 66.67% chance of rolling 8 or better & an astounding 81.48% chance of rolling a 7 or better. No single die weapon can hold a candle to that hurricane of certainty. This also still hasn't addressed the elephant of longsword/rapiers & longbows for 1h str/dex & ranged weapon users where there is one weapon that is objectively best to the point of being the only real choice.



Second is a huge problem with your analysis being mistargeted in a way that ignores the complaint. You are trying to sell bad math to a player when the OP was created because the current setup is unfair to GMs who are denied the ability to give a nice magic weapon to players that will deliberately (by virtue of not being the most optimal weapon choice) not be the last magic weapon they ever obtain unless given one objectively better in every way than what is already objectively best before enchantments.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Two problems with that analysis. The first is simple math With reroll ones & twos the average of 2d6 is no longer 8.33, under those conditions a PC needs to shift from simple average to probability. Under those conditions the PC has a 66.67% chance of rolling 8 or better & an astounding 81.48% chance of rolling a 7 or better. No single die weapon can hold a candle to that hurricane of certainty. This also still hasn't addressed the elephant of longsword/rapiers & longbows for 1h str/dex & ranged weapon users where there is one weapon that is objectively best to the point of being the only real choice.

Hurricanes and elephants; right.

Tell me what numbers you want to use. I chose to accept the revised numbers in your post 9, but if you don't like them, the provide an alternative so we know what we are talking about. Is your concern the % chance of rolling 7 or higher before stength/Dex mods? If so, please say so.

I didn't mention longbows and rapiers because they were not part of your OP, and introduce different variables (finesse and range)

Second is a huge problem with your analysis being mistargeted in a way that ignores the complaint. You are trying to sell bad math to a player when the OP was created because the current setup is unfair to GMs who are denied the ability to give a nice magic weapon to players that will deliberately (by virtue of not being the most optimal weapon choice) not be the last magic weapon they ever obtain unless given one objectively better in every way than what is already objectively best before enchantments.

It feels like you are moving the goalposts here, and introducing yet another variable (options available to DMs) that again aren't in your OP. But if we want to talk about "bad math", then you should at least acknowledge that the comparison for a Heavy [edit: great] weapon fighter using a heavy weapon should not be an unmodified average martial weapon.

With the dueling fighting style, for instance, a longsword is going to do +2 with the die average, or 6.5, with a range 3-10 (50% of rolling 7 or better, to use your revised baseline), and that character could have +2 AC. So maybe not quite as one-sided as you suggest. Now I'm sure you know this already

So, to help me, perhaps you could restate the complaint clearly, without hyperbole, so we can see what you are actually upset about: x is doing too much damage when compared to y.

 

[tetrasodium]

Hurricanes and elephants; right.

Tell me what numbers you want to use. I chose to accept the revised numbers in your post 9, but if you don't like them, the provide an alternative so we know what we are talking about. Is your concern the % chance of rolling 7 or higher before stength/Dex mods? If so, please say so.

I didn't mention longbows and rapiers because they were not part of your OP, and introduce different variables (finesse and range)


It feels like you are moving the goalposts here, and introducing yet another variable (options available to DMs) that again aren't in your OP. But if we want to talk about "bad math", then you should at least acknowledge that the comparison for a Heavy weapon fighter using a heavy weapon should not be an unmodified average martial weapon.

With the dueling fighting style, for instance, a longsword is going to do +2 with the die average, or 6.5, with a range 3-10 (50% of rolling 7 or better, to use your revised baseline), and that character could have +2 AC. So maybe not quite as one-sided as you suggest. Now I'm sure you know this already

So, to help me, perhaps you could restate the complaint clearly, without hyperbole, so we can see what you are actually upset about: x is doing too much damage when compared to y.

The goalposts have not moved, you just kept ignoring them by declaring them to be hyperbpole & moving on to the matter of telling me why the problem is my players... Take this from the OP

Most of these weapons are likely to be mechanically rated as "unusable" by players & the math will support their venom should the dm dare expect them to waste precious ink/graphite/bits adding one to the list of loot. That's a situation that is grossly unfair to DMs.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The goalposts have not moved, you just kept ignoring them by declaring them to be hyperbpole & moving on to the matter of telling me why the problem is my players... Take this from the OP

Most of these weapons are likely to be mechanically rated as "unusable" by players & the math will support their venom should the dm dare expect them to waste precious ink/graphite/bits adding one to the list of loot. That's a situation that is grossly unfair to DMs.

I have shown, to my own satisfaction at least, that this is not true (and of course I didn't mention your players at all). We'll have to disagree.

 

[Kinematics]

There are four (five if we include flex) Mastery abilities -- I'll assume four.

I'd say that Flex is a pretty nice mastery ability. It allows you to get the full damage of a weapon like a longsword even if using sword+shield. You can also combine it with the Dueling fighting style to get a base average damage of 7.5 (rather than the 6.5 you mentioned in a later post, which presumably was calculated using 1d8 when used one-handed).

That's even better than getting the reroll when using it two-handed (6.3 average), and in fact puts them above even the 1d12 weapons (7.3 when factoring in reroll), though honestly close enough to consider them tied.

Essentially you have 3 weapon tiers for two-handed weapons:

• Pure damage. These are heavy weapons with either 1d12 or 2d6 damage (7.3 or 8.3 with rerolls), which also allow for use of the Great Weapon Master feat.
• Defensive. These are 1d10 versatile weapons with Flex, allowing them to get the higher damage value when used one-handed, which means they can be combined with a shield. The average damage is on par with 1d12 weapons (7.5), but they can't use the Great Weapon Master feat. These can also be used in dual-wielding, though the details on how that would work in the new rules is fuzzy.
• Reach. These are 1d10 weapons (6.3 average with rerolls) with reach. They can get Polearm Master (excluding the pike) and Great Weapon Master feats to complement them.

Only two weapons get the Cleave mastery — the greataxe and the glaive. It's some sort of AOE effect (I can't find the exact description), which suggests a decent potential boost in the damage you can do. I'd guess that it's a reasonable compensation for the slightly smaller die average.

Overall, I would not feel that any of the above categories would be shortchanging me if I chose from one of them. There's also enough value in the non-2d6 weapons that I in no way think that 2d6 represent the only viable weapon options.

The only weapon I agree is probably not good is the pike.

1d8 (1d10) -- Average 6.3 when used 2-handed; can be small sized
a Battleaxe (flex)
b Longsword (flex)
c Warhammer (flex)
For these three, the only difference is the damage type, and there is no functional difference between battleaxe and longsword. That makes one of them a BAD CHOICE (let's say Battleaxe, but it doesn't matter which).

I'd say these are all equivalent, and none of them would I describe as a "bad" choice. At best, it's a flavor difference between sword and axe. I don't see how they could further differentiate the battleaxe and the longsword without breaking the Flex option.

Two problems with that analysis. The first is simple math With reroll ones & twos the average of 2d6 is no longer 8.33, under those conditions a PC needs to shift from simple average to probability. Under those conditions the PC has a 66.67% chance of rolling 8 or better & an astounding 81.48% chance of rolling a 7 or better. No single die weapon can hold a candle to that hurricane of certainty. This also still hasn't addressed the elephant of longsword/rapiers & longbows for 1h str/dex & ranged weapon users where there is one weapon that is objectively best to the point of being the only real choice.

You are misinterpreting the probability issues. The 8.33 average for the 2d6 is still very much relevant. Yes, there is a higher probability of rolling an 8 or better, but that's because 2/3 of all rolls will be a 7, 8, 9, or 10. An 11 has the same odds as a d12, and you only have half the chance of rolling a 12. You get more certainty in the result by getting fewer extremes.