Greataxe, greatsword, and a little math

[Paul Farquhar]

As others have pointed out, the problem lies with the quarterstaff, which is OP in this edition. Probably because of the coolness factor. In earlier editions it was 1d6 and required 2 hands. And I houserule that Polearm Master works with a spear. Who doesn't? Or follow 3rd edition and have longspear (with reach) and shortspear as different weapons.

5e really has too few different weapons, not too many.

 

[seebs]

How so? The numbers I cite don't include crits, but the opportunity to crit will multiply the base damage by the same factor in every case.

No. Greatsword gets +1d6, greataxe gets +1d12. This is an intentional design decision.

 

[jaelis]

No. Greatsword gets +1d6, greataxe gets +1d12. This is an intentional design decision.

I fear you are misreading the crit rule, see http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-little-math&p=7382881&viewfull=1#post7382881

 

[GlassJaw]

And, as it happens, players who select inferior weapons for role playing reasons tend to be luckier when it comes to finding magic items they can use. Funny, that.

I'm not of the belief that you have to sacrifice good design in order to support or provide "role-playing" options. In fact, I think it's lazy design. Even if option A is statistically "inferior" to option B, you can still make the choice between them somewhat interesting mechanically.

In addition, for players that do tend to focus on mechanical reasons for their choices, the developers have provided a clearly superior option (the quarterstaff), which is also bad design.

 

[jaelis]

I like your proposal, OP. I'd not thought of that as an option.

I've thought of two others. One is the easy idea of letting a PC choose 2d6 or 1d12 for his greataxe/sword and go from there. He can't choose each attack, obviously. That would be silly. But state "this is my greataxe. It does 2d6 damage"

The second is to allow rerolls on a greataxe of 1-4 when used with GWF. With 2d6 there are four values that can be rerolled (1 and 2 on either die) and rerolling a 1-4 on a d12 also allows 4 possible values for a reroll.

How about this for GWF style:
When you roll a 1, 2, or 3 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll one die and use the new result. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.

The difference being that a greatsworder who rolls a 1 and a 2 would only get to reroll the 1. That seems just as simple as the current rule. Doing the math, it is worth +1.19 hp for a greatsword, compared to +1.13 hp for a greataxe, pretty close.

(Recall the existing rule gives +1.33 for the sword and +0.83 for the axe, almost a factor of 10 bigger differential.)

It works because the sword is about three times more likely to reroll, but the axe gets about three times more benefit from a reroll.

 

[GlassJaw]

As you know, the weapon charts are not of huge concern to me, but as this thread shows - it does to a lot of folks. Why don't you do a DMs' Guild piece called Weapon Charts That Make Sense*? Borrow some ideas from Trailblazer about making weapons choices more meaningful. I think a lot of folks would appreciate it.

That's the plan! I've been working on it on and off for the 6 months or so. Have a good foundation but haven't put a lot of effort into it yet.

*I'm sure you could make a catchier title!

Current working title is "Weapons Expanded", but that's a bit boring as well.

5e really has too few different weapons, not too many.

I agree completely, and I want to address this as well. Trick is not deviate too far from the current weapon list while providing interesting options and more differentiation between the weapons. I have some ideas for additional weapon qualities but it can get more nuanced very quickly, which I feel starts to deviate from 5E's philosophy.

 

[jaelis]

That's the plan! I've been working on it on and off for the 6 months or so. Have a good foundation but haven't put a lot of effort into it yet.

Better hurry, mine will be ready soon

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not of the belief that you have to sacrifice good design in order to support or provide "role-playing" options. In fact, I think it's lazy design. Even if option A is statistically "inferior" to option B, you can still make the choice between them somewhat interesting mechanically.

In addition, for players that do tend to focus on mechanical reasons for their choices, the developers have provided a clearly superior option (the quarterstaff), which is also bad design.

"Balance" sucks the life and soul out of RPGs.

A greatclub is the weapon of a Neanderthal. A greatsword is the product of sophisticated metalwork and engineering. It is ridiculous to suppose that they should be even close in effectiveness.

 

[BookBarbarian]

No. Greatsword gets +1d6, greataxe gets +1d12. This is an intentional design decision.

This is not true of crits in general, which double dice, only true of Special abilities like a Barbarian's Brutal Critical and a Half-Orcs Savage Attacks which specifically say die, and not dice.

We've been over this in the thread already.

Edit: Ninja'd. I'm too slow again.

 

[BookBarbarian]

"Balance" sucks the life and soul out of RPGs.

A greatclub is the weapon of a Neanderthal. A greatsword is the product of sophisticated metalwork and engineering. It is ridiculous to suppose that they should be even close in effectiveness.

While I can see the appeal of damage dice based on class instead of weapon, I do agree that sub par options exist in the Weapons table in no small part to be used by DMs for cultures that are less technologically advanced than others. The PC may encounter a culture where the Mail Shirt is the height of advanced armor for example, and be baffled by a fighter's Plate Armor.