D&D 5E A quick guide to Homebrewing any weapon concept

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think I watched a program where they beheaded a load of ballistic jelly "people" using samurai swords, and they actually said that the real skill was in holding the sword in both hands but quite wide apart so when swinging, you could lever action your hands which would, somehow, create a really insane cut. So a possible application of skill over brawn. Meh - this is D&D not mythbusters - personally I'm quite comfy with finesse and heavy - though agree for that specific combo, you're going to need a banging weapon concept.

Skill is already covered by proficiency, and the lever action applied to a weapon by using both hands is precisely what I meant: its a force multiplier, and thus only relevant to weapons that require speed and force.

Well - this is kinda my point. You're reskinning existing "Best-fits", so it's partly a fudge. WotC themselves have a pretty robust system inbuilt once you un-pick it.....so why not just build it from the ground up? A Chakram is a balanced thrown Ranged weapon (not melee like a javelin) that isn't finesse and perhaps has the loading property (too heavy to throw more than one per turn)...why not use the rules WotC use to build it (a 1d6 thrown ranged weapon)?

If the stats that fit the weapon are already on the weapons table, why not just use them rather than having to rebuild from the ground up?
(By the way, note that a ranged weapon, even a thrown one, defaults to using Dex. If you want someone to be able to apply Str to hit and damage, you need to give it finesse. )

Ah yes - definitely (though personally I houserule draw and throw for darts and daggers). Maybe have a half-loading property or something that nullifies the thrown penalty on ranged weapons......hmm....I'll look into it.

Something else that might be worth considering and/or changing the rules for if you implement your new system: interaction with feats. For example darts, as a ranged weapon can be used with the extra damage from sharpshooter, whereas daggers can't.
Likewise pressure from players who want the best of both worlds in being able to dump Str but still get the damage of a Great Weapon Master feat user.

As for Monk weapons - which is a valid point - I'm not majorly sure what the criteria were for selecting which weapons were monk weapons. But it feels more like something the class would identify rather that a specific weapon property....I'll have to have a think on that... .

I think the criteria were a mix of the fantasy and RL weapons associated with some of the eastern martial art styles. So you've got repurposed farming implements and 'peasant' weapons like clubs (sai, tonfa, nunchaku), staff (bo, jo, hanbo) etc. Alongside the more mythological shuriken and "ninja-sword".

I understand what you mean when you say that whether a weapon is considered a 'monk weapon' is probably best put in the monk class description. But your system is all about creating new weapons individually, so people will be coming up with new weapons all of the time. Having a 'monk weapon' designation will save you having to update the monk class features every time someone comes up with a new weapon variant that they want their monk to use.

 

[Hillsy7]

If the stats that fit the weapon are already on the weapons table, why not just use them rather than having to rebuild from the ground up?

Well yes, obviously. Though worth a sense check as there are a couple of weapons that don't follow WotC own apparent weapon design rules (Dagger, hand axe, trident, whip)

(By the way, note that a ranged weapon, even a thrown one, defaults to using Dex. If you want someone to be able to apply Str to hit and damage, you need to give it finesse. )

Interesting - never noticed that. So in fact, mechanically, the Thrown property on the Dart is kinda pointless other than as a reason the range is so short and oddly it's finesse that allows the use of strength. I might fold that and the "Draw and throw" mechanic that would allow multiple throws all under 1 property that makes a "thrown Ranged" a 'thing'.......so melee thrown is restricted to the 1 draw and 1 throw, but not a Thrown Ranged weapon.

Something else that might be worth considering and/or changing the rules for if you implement your new system: interaction with feats.

Yeah I thought a bit about that. The one-handedness of Heavy I think would be ok with GWM as you'd be giving up OA, duelling, GWF and so on. As you pointed out finesse heavy would be an incredibly difficult concept to imagine, an would be incompatible with a versatile finesse sword (Unlike GWF). I think it would make for some interesting changes.

I think the criteria were a mix of the fantasy and RL weapons associated with some of the eastern martial art styles. So you've got repurposed farming implements and 'peasant' weapons like clubs (sai, tonfa, nunchaku), staff (bo, jo, hanbo) etc. Alongside the more mythological shuriken and "ninja-sword".
I understand what you mean when you say that whether a weapon is considered a 'monk weapon' is probably best put in the monk class description. But your system is all about creating new weapons individually, so people will be coming up with new weapons all of the time. Having a 'monk weapon' designation will save you having to update the monk class features every time someone comes up with a new weapon variant that they want their monk to use.

That's a fair point. I suppose there could be a weapon score max (nothing over a 7) can be a monk weapon. Maybe....I dunno......I'd have to think on where martial weapons would fit in (there's already the ban on Heavy stuff)

 

[cbwjm]

Because its not an easy weapon to use, and requires a bit more training than for example, a spear. Its damage is low because tridents aren't a very good weapon.
The designers didn't balance all weapons against each other. Some weapons are included because they have a place in the world, rather than because they are an optimal choice for a player character to use.
If you wanted to play a character that used a trident, and weren't willing to take the couple of HP damage less for the sake of character, you could ask your DM if you could just have a triple-pointed spear, and use spear stats for example.

I'm all for reflavouring weapons but if your just going to reflavour a spear to what is essentially a trident then that kind of points out how useless the trident it.

Perhaps I've missed one but I don't think there is any other martial weapon which shares stats with a simple weapon. They should have either made it a simple weapon or used it as an opportunity to help round out the d8/d10 versatile martial weapons.

 

[Hillsy7]

I'm all for reflavouring weapons but if your just going to reflavour a spear to what is essentially a trident then that kind of points out how useless the trident it.

Perhaps I've missed one but I don't think there is any other martial weapon which shares stats with a simple weapon. They should have either made it a simple weapon or used it as an opportunity to help round out the d8/d10 versatile martial weapons.

According to the rules built into WotCs own weapon design system it ought to be a d8/d10....The trident is one of the few that break their own rules. The Handaxe, dagger and whip are others.

It was one of the reasons I pulled everything apart. Some the weapons had arbitary capabilities, or were unique and so needed heavy flavour. For instance, when you have GWF, there's no reason to take the greataxe. So if someone really wanted an axe, they lost out mechanically. If you wanted a flail instead of a warhammer, you just had to give up versatile, there was no other choice. If you want a Light simple weapon, there's no point taking the club over the light hammer (save shillelagh). Consequently I saw people being funnelled down the same weapon choices time and again, which seemed a shame.....So, I thought I'd try and find where the balance is with their own rules, and take away the specificity of weapon names.

Now the designs are unique, but the balance is all in the abilities.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm all for reflavouring weapons but if your just going to reflavour a spear to what is essentially a trident then that kind of points out how useless the trident it.

Yes. That is my point. It is a pretty bad weapon.
Hence why I suggested reflavouring a better weapon if a player insisted on using one but didn't want to use the current stats.

Perhaps I've missed one but I don't think there is any other martial weapon which shares stats with a simple weapon. They should have either made it a simple weapon or used it as an opportunity to help round out the d8/d10 versatile martial weapons.

Its a weapon that requires more training than a spear, but is generally less effective. It was used in gladiatorial combat because it makes a lot of blood but probably won't end a fight too fast, and because of its associations with the mythology at the time. Not because it was actually a serious weapon.
The trident is like the greatclub, or hide armour: its there because the PCs will probably be having monsters use them against them, not because they are intended to be an optimal choice for a PC's main weapon.

According to the rules built into WotCs own weapon design system it ought to be a d8/d10....The trident is one of the few that break their own rules. The Handaxe, dagger and whip are others.

WotC don't have a points-based weapon design system. They don't have rules to break. They barely even have guidelines.

It was one of the reasons I pulled everything apart. Some the weapons had arbitary capabilities, or were unique and so needed heavy flavour. For instance, when you have GWF, there's no reason to take the greataxe. So if someone really wanted an axe, they lost out mechanically.

. . . unless you're a barbarian, or Half-Orc, or like swingier damage, or want your character to have a greataxe.
Its what? 0.5 damage difference?

Which weapons did you regard as having arbitrary capabilities? What were those capabilities?

If you wanted a flail instead of a warhammer, you just had to give up versatile, there was no other choice. If you want a Light simple weapon, there's no point taking the club over the light hammer (save shillelagh).

Clubs aren't generally as good weapons as even small hammers: Clubs have an entry because druids, more primitive peoples, and PCs in bar brawls will want to use those stats.
Lots of monk weapons probably boil down to club stats as well.

Consequently I saw people being funnelled down the same weapon choices time and again, which seemed a shame.....So, I thought I'd try and find where the balance is with their own rules, and take away the specificity of weapon names.

In general, people did tend to use similar weapons, although D&D doesn't reflect the pressures that led to weapons changing in history very well.
For a more fantasy feel, with lots of exotic weapons, you can reskin, or use your design system to match that feel better.

A good chunk of my houserules deal with the weapon table and properties. In general though, I chose to tweak rather than redesign.

 

[Hillsy7]

WotC don't have a points-based weapon design system. They don't have rules to break. They barely even have guidelines.

They kinda do, for 80-90% of their weapons. I pulled it apart and put it back together. The rules are pretty consistent.

. . . unless you're a barbarian, or Half-Orc, or like swingier damage, or want your character to have a greataxe.
Its what? 0.5 damage difference?

It's still an 8% drop. Now fight to fight you might not notice it, and it might not overly impact your fun, but it's still there.....Even the Barbarian Half orc still comes out lower average damage over time. Not by much, and I think there are specific builds based around Crits that do actually ping overall DPR in favour of the greataxe, but still....(And weirdly, I think spectacular crit power actually reduces average damage output further because of the chances of doing massive overdamage). I know it's piffling, and generally it probably wouldn't bother me (and yeah rolling a a bunch of 12s in a single combat is going to feel AMAZING at the table), but I'd prefer it if I didn't know the maths.

Now, you say you *want* swingier damage, or you *want* a greataxe. I'm totally there with that, and I hate it when people say "Oh you're an idiot if you take a short sword instead of a rapier", because screw-you-I-want-a-scimitar!!! But as it stands you have to take a mechanical disadvantage to make those choices. Personally, I'd say let people use what the want thematically and narratively, and apply the rules universally regardless of what the weapon is "Named".

Which weapons did you regard as having arbitrary capabilities? What were those capabilities?

Well Versatile is applied rather arbitrarily (Battleaxe but not warpick? Warhammer but not Flail?), The Handaxe d6 with perks, mace is a d6 without. Dagger Finesse but Sickle isn't?

The point being, Weapon choice would be fairer if WotC had just picked a "Chassis" for each group of weapon properties (Simple/Marital, Light, light thrown, Light Finesse, Medium, Medium Thrown, Medium finesse, versatile, heavy reach, heavy) and let the player put whatever skin they wanted over the top, rather than punishing a player for using a club, sickle, or Light Hammer instead of a Handaxe. And that's exactly what I've done.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's still an 8% drop. Now fight to fight you might not notice it, and it might not overly impact your fun, but it's still there.....Even the Barbarian Half orc still comes out lower average damage over time. Not by much, and I think there are specific builds based around Crits that do actually ping overall DPR in favour of the greataxe, but still....(And weirdly, I think spectacular crit power actually reduces average damage output further because of the chances of doing massive overdamage). I know it's piffling, and generally it probably wouldn't bother me (and yeah rolling a a bunch of 12s in a single combat is going to feel AMAZING at the table), but I'd prefer it if I didn't know the maths.

Fairly sure its well below 8% difference. The GWM user that you're talking about probably averages around 20 damage, of which 0.5 hp is pretty piffling. The extra crit damage dealt by a greataxe in the hands of a barbarian or halforc compared to a greatsword probably doesn't make up this difference, but if you like to see big numbers, it may be more fun.

Generally the crossover between people who have a strong enough character concept that they want to use a specific weapon, and the people to whom dealing 2.5% less damage is a dealbreaker is pretty small I've found.
Of course there is a much greater difference in effectiveness if you're you're comparing say, a club and a warhammer for a character with no Strength bonus. There, the choice of a club will reduce damage more meaningfully compared to choosing a warhammer. So you have to decide whether to accept that, or create a club that has the same stats as a warhammer - either through reskinning the warhammer or by building a new weapon with those stats in a system like yours.

Now, you say you *want* swingier damage, or you *want* a greataxe. I'm totally there with that, and I hate it when people say "Oh you're an idiot if you take a short sword instead of a rapier", because screw-you-I-want-a-scimitar!!! But as it stands you have to take a mechanical disadvantage to make those choices. Personally, I'd say let people use what the want thematically and narratively, and apply the rules universally regardless of what the weapon is "Named".


Well Versatile is applied rather arbitrarily (Battleaxe but not warpick? Warhammer but not Flail?), The Handaxe d6 with perks, mace is a d6 without. Dagger Finesse but Sickle isn't?

There aren't that many picks or flails that were used that were in the "either one or two hands" category. (Although some warhammers were, and they often had a spike on the back.)
Both handaxes and maces are around the d6 level, because they would seem to be more damaging than daggers and clubs, but less than full-out battleaxes and warhammers. Handaxes are generally considered to be throwable. Maces aren't.
Handaxes/hatchets are considered a weapon/tool with which even non-military farmers and peasants would have experience, and maces should be pretty simple to use, as just an metal-enhanced club. So both in the Simple weapons category.
Daggers/knives are small, quite light, and there is a popular perception of them being used by Dex-types. So finesse. They're known for being throwable, so Thrown property. Pretty much everyone will carry and use a knife or similar, so simple weapon.
Sickles are a tool used for harvesting that could be used as a weapon. Farmers/peasants rather than soldiers, so Simple weapon. Its heavier and badly balanced, and used to chop or pierce, so not finesse. Its not good for throwing, so no thrown. While bigger and heavier than a dagger, it isn't designed as a weapon, and its pretty definitely less damaging than a scimitar or handaxe, so d4 damage.

- That all seems pretty logical and not arbitrary to me.

The point being, Weapon choice would be fairer if WotC had just picked a "Chassis" for each group of weapon properties (Simple/Marital, Light, light thrown, Light Finesse, Medium, Medium Thrown, Medium finesse, versatile, heavy reach, heavy) and let the player put whatever skin they wanted over the top, rather than punishing a player for using a club, sickle, or Light Hammer instead of a Handaxe. And that's exactly what I've done.

WotC chose a mix of fairness tempered with realism. The current table isn't going to satisfy either hardcore simulationists, or people who insist that every weapon be balanced against every other weapon: its a middle ground.

People who have issues with it are encouraged to do exactly what you're doing: houserule different rules that you prefer.
(There are actually some systems/people who espouse having no weapons table at all, but having damage dice set by class, allowing you to use whatever weapon you like the image of with no loss in effectiveness.)

 

[Hillsy7]

OK - getting back on track from the typical theory hammer arguments about effective DPR, realism, and how important lamenting over a dice size is.......

I've added in some new properties (Fragile/Misfire, Specialist, Double-Weapon, Reliable, Fixed, Reloading, Bracer), and rebalanced the Weapon Score for weight.

I'm also considering adding in a 1d2 and 1d3 damage category to cater for some of the simpler, property heavy weapons in the PHB I've kinda had to fudge (I'm looking at you, Dagger, you greedy sonofb***h!!!!). Do you think this would be somewhat overkill for the sake of a couple of weapon choices?

 

[Yunru]

If you can weedle the Trident up to d12 damage, you can have it do 3d4, which is unique and thematic (each prong doing 1d4 effectively).

 

[Hillsy7]

If you can weedle the Trident up to d12 damage, you can have it do 3d4, which is unique and thematic (each prong doing 1d4 effectively).

You could use 3d3 for weapon skill 11, technically. So a trident could be:
Melee (2)
Heavy (+6)
Martial (+2)
Thrown (-1)

....giving you a WS of 9, or 11 if used 2-handed (3d3). See, It works...

Conversely you could as Fragile (2) (Bent tine on a roll of 1-2) from the additional rules instead of thrown.