D&D 5E A matter of weapons

[aco175]

Weapon speed would add some things to make certain weapons more appealing, but does so at slowing the game down by adding another layer. I do not know if just having some weapons add to initiative would be easier. A dagger or club gives +1, while a longsword or spear could be +0. You can even give polearm and great axes get -1.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I agree with you. I'd rather be able to skin the weapon whatever I want and not worry that it's a sub-optimal choice. If I want a guy who fights with a heavy maul I'm not penalized because I didn't pick the most damaging two handed weapon, I just want to be able to tell the story of my character.

Often if there are differentiation between them each archetype has a very limited choice of the optimal for them that restricts it even further if you don't want to gimp yourself. And I'd rather just be able to describe my character how I envision and not have to worry.

Yep. and it takes away from my verisimilitude as well. Any time a choice is being made for metagaming reasons as opposed to what the character him or herself might choose, that chips away the fun/realism for me. For example, in real life, people choose all kinds of weapons, not the one that does the max DPR. Either from cultural choices, or what just looks cool are the real reasons. So in the game, if you never have a PC using a scimitar because the longsword does more DPR, that just chips away at the fun for me. Just look at all the "Don't ever choose a great axe if you can use a great sword" comments we've had since 5e came out. For what? An extra .5 DPR? Screw that, my barbarian wants a great ax, and he'll get a great axe because that's what fits the theme.

Unified damage dice fixes that problem, IMO.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Weapon speed would add some things to make certain weapons more appealing, but does so at slowing the game down by adding another layer. I do not know if just having some weapons add to initiative would be easier. A dagger or club gives +1, while a longsword or spear could be +0. You can even give polearm and great axes get -1.

Weapon speed is tricky in terms of both realism and the actual mechanics.
Give someone a longsword and you can be pretty sure they'll be attacking before the guy with the dagger.
When does the weapon adjust your initiative? When you roll? If you're not holding a dagger when initiative is rolled do you adjust your initiative when you draw one? etc.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I also miss the 2e weapon speed initiative modifiers.

There are optional weapon speed rules on pages 270-271 of the DMG. They aren't as robust as the old 2e rules, but I (and my group) find them sufficient for the way we play. It prompted the party barbarian to stop using a greataxe (which, being two-handed and heavy, had a -4 initiative modifier) in favor of a mace-axe (which, being only two-handed had a modifier of just -2).

Weapon speed is tricky in terms of both realism and the actual mechanics.
Give someone a longsword and you can be pretty sure they'll be attacking before the guy with the dagger.
When does the weapon adjust your initiative? When you roll? If you're not holding a dagger when initiative is rolled do you adjust your initiative when you draw one? etc.

We use the modifiers from he DMG (as stated above) in a slightly modified form. We roll individual initiative every round, but the players don't announce their actions ahead of time. They use the modifier associated with the weapon or action they use most often, and if they decide to do something else they go last in the round. It isn't perfect, but it works well for us. I suppose I should also point out that, as our group is me and three players, this process doesn't become a huge time sink. I also just roll once for my side and have all the monsters go at the same time unless they are of dramatically different types (i.e. have dramatically different modifiers to their initiative).

Doing it this way hits a good balance of realism vs. playability for us.

 

[jmucchiello]

I never understand people who object to the idea of class based weapon damage but find it acceptable for monks to have it.

Otoh, having class based weapon damage encroaches on the need for the monk.

Different point: i wish there were more per-weapon rules like reach, finese, etc., eg flails and morningstars bypass shields. Silly in practice but hey, it's a game.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using EN World mobile app

 

[Eubani]

Yep. and it takes away from my verisimilitude as well. Any time a choice is being made for metagaming reasons as opposed to what the character him or herself might choose, that chips away the fun/realism for me. For example, in real life, people choose all kinds of weapons, not the one that does the max DPR. Either from cultural choices, or what just looks cool are the real reasons. So in the game, if you never have a PC using a scimitar because the longsword does more DPR, that just chips away at the fun for me. Just look at all the "Don't ever choose a great axe if you can use a great sword" comments we've had since 5e came out. For what? An extra .5 DPR? Screw that, my barbarian wants a great ax, and he'll get a great axe because that's what fits the theme.

Unified damage dice fixes that problem, IMO.

Keep in mind that warriors throughout history have often chosen weapons because they are better at killing the opposition (the dpr of real life) this was mainly in answer to the equipment or tactics/formations the enemy used. You bring heavy armour we will bring hammers because they will do more damage for example. Damage was a concern so a character aiming for more damage is not for the most part aiming to kill "verisimilitude" (I hate that word it has killed so many good mechanics and taken so much away from martial characters, during playtesting it became shorthand for lack of imagination and I refuse to acknowledge what HP are instead of just meat).

 

[Harzel]

I agree with you. I'd rather be able to skin the weapon whatever I want and not worry that it's a sub-optimal choice. If I want a guy who fights with a heavy maul I'm not penalized because I didn't pick the most damaging two handed weapon, I just want to be able to tell the story of my character.

Often if there are differentiation between them each archetype has a very limited choice of the optimal for them that restricts it even further if you don't want to gimp yourself. And I'd rather just be able to describe my character how I envision and not have to worry.

Wanting to use a thematically appropriate weapon is an understandable desire, but there is something here that I am not clear on. Is this (lack of mechanical differentiation) your preference for mechanics in general, or just gear, or is there something special about weapons that I am not getting? Take armor for example. If for thematic reasons I want my character to wear leather, or, for that matter, be butt naked, but I don't want to "gimp myself", are you down with all armors having the same effect or perhaps no effect at all? (If this sounds like sarcasm or a strawman, I apologize in advance as that is not my intent - I really don't see the difference.)

 

[Roadkill101]

I like for choice of weapon to based on fluff and flavor reasons instead of mechanical ones (the damage die seeming to be the primary of these sorts). To counter-act the damage die being a factor, I rule that damage is determined by use; one handed melee and hurled projectiles use 1d6 and two-handed melee and "powered" projectiles use 1d8, with the exception that fighters (archetypical) use one die size larger than those given ( 1d8/1d10 ). Unarmed damage is 1-2, Improvised weapons deal one die size less.

 

[Blue]

Wanting to use a thematically appropriate weapon is an understandable desire, but there is something here that I am not clear on. Is this (lack of mechanical differentiation) your preference for mechanics in general, or just gear, or is there something special about weapons that I am not getting? Take armor for example. If for thematic reasons I want my character to wear leather, or, for that matter, be butt naked, but I don't want to "gimp myself", are you down with all armors having the same effect or perhaps no effect at all? (If this sounds like sarcasm or a strawman, I apologize in advance as that is not my intent - I really don't see the difference.)

I think the clearest answer for this is that while I love 5e, my preferred game is 13th Age, a d20 OGL made by lead designers from 3ed & 4e that shares a lot of philosophy with 5e. But weapons and armor as basically small, light or simple, heavy or martial and if it's one or two hands and the differences in wielding them is by class. So you could have a one handed martial you call a longsword, and I could have a one handed martial I call a rapier, and she could have a one handed martial that's bamboo with shark teeth embeeded in it, and they are the same (if we're the same class). Armor is either none, light or heavy and is also by class. Describe it as you want. (And yes, that means a paladin gets more out of heavy armor (AC 16) then a cleric (AC 14) even if they both can use it.

So I guess it is that there is still options - do I want to go one-handed and shield? Do I want to use this cool magic weapon I'm not proficient with and take a penalty to hit? But once you've got your mechanical choice, let your stylistic choice go free. If I want to describe my fighter dual wielding as rapier and parrying dagger or as a pair of tonfas because it fits my character's story better, don't force the description to be some else to avoid a mechanical penalty.

 

[Salamandyr]

Would definitely like to see weapons matter more...and not to encourage more warrior types to autofocus on one weapon and never use any other one. A person who only ever trains and uses one weapon to the exclusion of all others is an athlete, not a warrior.

One thing to do is ditch feats (cuz they need to), and instead take those interesting mechanical options that have been sequestered off in them and put them into the weapons themselves. Imagine a "pole arm" property for glaives, halberds, and pikes (and the inevitable lucerne hammer, whenever it's added) that lets you make an opportunity attack when someone enters your reach. And a "great weapons" property that allows a bonus action cleave. Since the designers of the feats decided the cool thing about longswords, warhammers, and battleaxes was the shield you used with them (shield mastery), I don't have an easy option for those...and honestly, I haven't come up with one.

You'd actually have reason to switch weapons in combat--to be able to take advantage of various weapon properties. Proficiency in all weapons would be a real benefit, instead of just a ribbon.