D&D 5E [5e] Weapon Damage Option

[Wulffolk]

So taking aside all the extra 'attack action' options you've got.....I'm a little confused with the intention here.

The intention is to open up the choice of weapons more to the "Rule of Cool". Why should every Barbarian need to use a Great Axe in order to be "optimized". I like seeing one Barbarian with a Great Axe, another with a Battle Axe and Dagger, and maybe another with a Broad Sword and Shield. Each of those options should be relatively equally effective, with differences in tactical choices rather than just a difference in damage.

Look at how many different weapons or combos Conan has used, and each option was equally effective in Conan's hands due to his training. In 5e a Wizard with 20 Strength hits just as easily and just as hard as a Barbarian using the same weapon. That does not feel right to me.

Another possibility with this approach is that Feats or Weapon Styles can be used to add advanced maneuvers or tactics to give more options instead of just flat bonuses.

 

[Colder]

You'd need to rewrite monk's Martial Arts feature to give it a replacement for the damage increases.

 

[FrogReaver]

People on these forums seem to have a problem with rapier. I assume it is because they are d8 finesse weapons.

It's nothing to do with the mechanics. Rapier hatred is all for asthetic reasons.

 

[FrogReaver]

I remember reading a post a while back that mentioned another game using Hit Dice to determine damage, instead of the weapon. For example, a Fighter would do d10 damage regardless of weapon type, while a Barbarian would do d12 and a Wizard would do d6.

I don't remember which game or the specifics, but this stuck in my head. I liked the idea that a Fighter would be better with any weapon than a Wizard would be. This opened up the option for character's to choose "cool" options over optimized weapons, and solved the rapier issue. With this approach each weapon would have rider clauses that would give the player options.

For example:
Long Sword - Cutting, Parry, Versatile
Shield - Bashing, Cover, Block
Great Axe - Cutting, Cleave
Dagger - Piercing, Thrown, Grappling
Mace - Bashing, Stunning
Spear - Piercing, Reach, Versatile, Thrown

So a Fighter with a Long Sword and Shield would be able to choose to attack with the sword for cutting damage and use the shield to block the attacks of one opponent (adding half proficiency to AC as a bonus against one foe) or to bash with the shield and use the sword to parry one attack (adding half proficiency as a bonus against one attack) or drop the shield and use the sword two-handed for more damage (add half proficiency as a bonus to damage)

On the other hand, a Fighter using two Daggers would be able to choose between throwing one or attacking with both (adding half proficiency as a bonus to damage) and be able to use his daggers within grappling distance.


This is just a rough idea right now, and the rider clauses for the various weapons would need to be worked out, but what are your thoughts? Could something like this work for D&D? If so, what suggestions would you make?

Not a bad idea. I don't think its a good idea for D&D. Weapons having their own damage dice is a bit iconic. Nor do I think it resolves the optimization problem you think it will. One of those weapons is still going to be the general best for a particular character. The only way to get around that is to place cirucmstances in the game where it's rider isn't applicable. As such many different monsters would need abilities that bypassed certain weapon riders. But then it's more about campaign optimization than character optimization...

 

[Wulffolk]

You'd need to rewrite monk's Martial Arts feature to give it a replacement for the damage increases.

Yeah, I just haven't gotten that far yet. This thread started as a "thinking out loud" thing. I have been trying to figure out how to handle that. Have any ideas or suggestions?

 

[Hillsy7]

The intention is to open up the choice of weapons more to the "Rule of Cool". Why should every Barbarian need to use a Great Axe in order to be "optimized". I like seeing one Barbarian with a Great Axe, another with a Battle Axe and Dagger, and maybe another with a Broad Sword and Shield. Each of those options should be relatively equally effective, with differences in tactical choices rather than just a difference in damage.

Look at how many different weapons or combos Conan has used, and each option was equally effective in Conan's hands due to his training. In 5e a Wizard with 20 Strength hits just as easily and just as hard as a Barbarian using the same weapon. That does not feel right to me.

Another possibility with this approach is that Feats or Weapon Styles can be used to add advanced maneuvers or tactics to give more options instead of just flat bonuses.

1) If your only measure of "optimization" is DPR, give up now. There will always be an optimal DPR output. The greataxe does a lot of damage in the hands of a Barbarian. But he can't have a shield. A shield increases AC, and therefore survivability so a 'battleaxe and board' Barb is harder to hit, and therefore Reckless attack is better for him. A dual handaxe barbarian is badass for 2 reasons - 1 he gets rage damage on all his attacks, and 2, because he already uses his offhand attack for a third attack, the Totem path is highly beneficial giving awesome goodies while keeping 3 attacks (Take duel wielder feat and Double battleaxe baby!)

They all play differently even though they have different DPR values. Don't blame the build of the game for players only thinking about damage when there's other measures of optimization.

2) I am a half-Orc wizard with 18 STR and carry a maul (just in case I'm silenced). I'm big, strong and violent, but I'm trained in magic. However, I do 1d4+4 (6.5) when I clock people. Next to me is a Gnome Barbarian with 18 STR, he's carrying a small club, he does 1d12+4 (10.5), nearly double the damage....How?

3) Conan (20 STR, lvl 12) already does almost the same amount of basic damage with a warhammer (4.5+5+3=12.5) as a greataxe(6.5+5+3=14.5), as a longsword, as a mace, as a flail, as in fact any non-light weapon. And when he goes down to a handaxe (3.5+5+3=11.5), he can carry two!.....that's not a particularly big swing in damage.

4) Most (Optimized) Barbarians choose a greataxe because of the Great Weapon Master feats synergy with permanent advantage (Reckless Attack), and the Crit advantage over the greatsword.

5) Look - if you don't like the way Attack Actions work in D&D, then by all means go and play. You don't need to justify it by coming up with some odd reason concerning Conan's golf bag of weapons and DPR optimisers. Just rewrite the rules you want to and playtest to your hearts content, or at least be brazen about your intentions in the first place.

 

[Hillsy7]

It's nothing to do with the mechanics. Rapier hatred is all for asthetic reasons.

Agreed. Rename it an elfblade or Katana and go about your day......Mike Mearls isn't going to jump out of your wardrobe at 3am wielding an epee and swiss-cheese your feet if you do....

 

[Croesus]

While I like the general idea of tying weapon damage to class, how would this work with multi-classing? Does every character with a 1-level dip in barbarian or fighter do d12/d10 weapon damage?

 

[Wulffolk]

While I like the general idea of tying weapon damage to class, how would this work with multi-classing? Does every character with a 1-level dip in barbarian or fighter do d12/d10 weapon damage?

My initial reaction would be that the class with the highest level would determine what die to use. This might reduce the frequency of "dipping".

 

[Wulffolk]

You'd need to rewrite monk's Martial Arts feature to give it a replacement for the damage increases.

After a little thought, I suppose there wouldn't need to be any change to the Monk's Unarmed damage. The Monk would just be an exception to the rule.