D&D 5E Different Damage Die Sizes for Weaponry

[EzekielRaiden]

It's an interesting notion, but it doesn't play super nicely with some of 5e's existing design. For example, there are effects that allow you to reroll or alter one weapon die, and these are much less useful for the already-existing 2d6 weapons than they are for the "equivalent" 1d12 weapons. Adding in dice of different sizes makes this even more complicated, because now there's a meaningful choice between (say) rerolling the d6 vs the d4.

That said, I do appreciate the idea of weapon properties and keywords; I truly wish 5e had kept more of 4e's weapon properties (like brutal, high crit, and stout), and doubly that they'd kept the [W] notation that would make your suggestion completely compatible with the rules. E.g. if an attack does "3[W]," it means you roll three rolls of your weapon's damage dice, no matter what those dice are. So a 2d6 weapon used with a 3[W] effect would roll 3[2d6] = 6d6 damage, while a 1d12 weapon used with that same effect would do 3[1d12] = 3d12 damage.

As a possible middle-ground, you could consider expanding the range of the "1dX" vs "2d(X/2)" options. E.g., it's easy to create d2, d3, and d5 dice by just halving any even roll from a d4, d6, and d10. That could then give us 2d2, 2d3, 2d4, and 2d5 weapons, none of which exist in 5e as it stands. They'd be more reliable but slightly less potent than their 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, and 1d10 cousins (e.g. a 2d5 weapon has about half the chance of rolling 10 as a 1d10 does, but it can't roll a 1 and is less than half as likely to roll a 2.) Checking around online, it sounds like a homebrew falchion as a 2d4 weapon is a moderately common thing.

 

[Composer99]

I feel like this kind of thing would work better in a system where relatively small differences between weapons is an important part of gameplay. 5e D&D, at least, seems a poor home for such a mechanic.

 

[Steampunkette]

It's an interesting notion, but it doesn't play super nicely with some of 5e's existing design. For example, there are effects that allow you to reroll or alter one weapon die, and these are much less useful for the already-existing 2d6 weapons than they are for the "equivalent" 1d12 weapons. Adding in dice of different sizes makes this even more complicated, because now there's a meaningful choice between (say) rerolling the d6 vs the d4.

That said, I do appreciate the idea of weapon properties and keywords; I truly wish 5e had kept more of 4e's weapon properties (like brutal, high crit, and stout), and doubly that they'd kept the [W] notation that would make your suggestion completely compatible with the rules. E.g. if an attack does "3[W]," it means you roll three rolls of your weapon's damage dice, no matter what those dice are. So a 2d6 weapon used with a 3[W] effect would roll 3[2d6] = 6d6 damage, while a 1d12 weapon used with that same effect would do 3[1d12] = 3d12 damage.

As a possible middle-ground, you could consider expanding the range of the "1dX" vs "2d(X/2)" options. E.g., it's easy to create d2, d3, and d5 dice by just halving any even roll from a d4, d6, and d10. That could then give us 2d2, 2d3, 2d4, and 2d5 weapons, none of which exist in 5e as it stands. They'd be more reliable but slightly less potent than their 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, and 1d10 cousins (e.g. a 2d5 weapon has about half the chance of rolling 10 as a 1d10 does, but it can't roll a 1 and is less than half as likely to roll a 2.) Checking around online, it sounds like a homebrew falchion as a 2d4 weapon is a moderately common thing.

Or just buy some d5s.

I feel like this kind of thing would work better in a system where relatively small differences between weapons is an important part of gameplay. 5e D&D, at least, seems a poor home for such a mechanic.

You're not wrong. In a system where such a small difference were more important it would have a bigger impact. But... It's also a part of core 5e D&D to just use 1/2 values for monster attacks, and rolling the big damage on those comes across as more extreme. This would lean player-damage toward an average -very- significantly. This has the benefit of increased consistency.

The d6/d4 has a 50.1% chance of rolling a 4, 5, or 6. Compared to 1d10 having a 15% chance of rolling 4, 5, or 6, Or literally any other 3 numbers. 15% chance of rolling a 1, 3, or 5. 15% chance of rolling an 8, 9, 10.

So it could offer greater stability for players who want less "Swingy" weapons with a more consistent damage value. Especially on critical hits.

Still... It's coming apart at the seems between increased time, albeit a slight increase, particularly for new players. Hmm.

 

[ECMO3]

So I had a shower thought that I wanted to run past people. What would y'all think about using different sized dice-pairings to represent different weapons? A handful of weapons deal two dice of damage, but it's always the same dice in the pair.

A Glaive, for example, deals 1d10 damage as a polearm. What if another polearm, say a Lucerne Hammer or a Halberd, instead dealt 1d6+1d4?

Average damage 6, minimum damage 2, max damage 10. 4.17% chance of rolling either a 2 or a 10 with 4, 5, and 6 each having an equal 16.67% chance of showing. As compared to 2d5 dealing 10 or 2 on a 4% chance and 6 damage 20% of the time. (Who even owns d5s these days?). This particular method weights towards averages, like any double-dice rolling system does, but does so much more heavily than rolling two same-sized dice.

It would certainly give us a greater variety of potential weapon damage values with different averages and odds of reaching maximum damage. And thanks to the variety of dice available, we could add a pretty big spread.

The biggest deficiency that I can see is Confusion at the table over which dice to roll. But most players write their weapon's damage dice on their sheet so is it -really- that big a deal?

I think is complication for complications sake. I like what 5E did with weaponry. 1E had 30 different kinds of polearms and it was awful.

 

[Umbran]

And it's desperately unlikely you'll have more than one player at the table throwing 2 dice weapons in general.

But having different averages, different chances at higher or lower damage, and different dice bouncing in your hand as you roll are the goals.

Those are the goals, but only for one player? We're going to make the system have notably more bits in it, but we expect only one player at a table will be using it?

That doesn't sound like a good argument to support it.

 

[Steampunkette]

Those are the goals, but only for one player? We're going to make the system have notably more bits in it, but we expect only one player at a table will be using it?

That doesn't sound like a good argument to support it.

I dunno what to tell you, Umbran.

Outside of big tables (6+ players) there's usually only one person who uses a two-handed weapon or none. A Barbarian or Fighter type with a big sword or hammer, then the spellcaster(s), skill-user, and support person. Occasionally you get two of a kind, but it's rarely going to be two big fighter types taking the place of one of the other roles in a typical party. Even if there are two, one's probably going to dual-wield or go with sword and board or archery to differentiate themself from the other fighty.

But by the same token, every time you add a spell to a character class, or a new subclass, or a feat, or something else like that you're creating it for one player at the table, nine times out of ten, 'cause players generally try to spread out on styles and roles.

Just instead of only having a choice between d10, d12, or 2d6 weapon they'd also get d6+d4, or d8+d4 as options for rolling damage for their character's weapon attacks, just to add variety. Maybe even 3d4 if you wanna be crazy with it.

Though in retrospect... d8/d4 would make Great Weapon Fighting Style pretty attractive to a Half-Orc. Sure they'd miss out on the d4 part of the crit... but 3d8+2d4 rerolling 1s and 2s is pretty great compared to 5d6 rerolling the same.