Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 8987569" data-attributes="member: 23484">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 <s>heavy</s> [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 7.33a 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 sizeda 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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the pike is not needed (or else the lance is wrong)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">there should be some differentiation between a longsword and battle axe</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul>But the problems are not with the range of damage at the top end of the scale.</blockquote>

Verification