D&D 5E [Homebrew] Weapon damage and keywords by Proficiency

[Blue]

Just playing around, what do you think about damage and keywords by proficiency. To allow simple weapons to be wielded more effectively in the hands of people who know how to get the most out of weapons, and also potentially make them viable choices for weapon wielders such that half the weapons table isn't mostly ignored.

It could also be the basis for adding in another column, perhaps called "Specialized" or "Mastery" that can grant even additional die and keywords if you have a feat/class feature to allow it. Perhaps racial weapons automatically upgrade to that if you also have them via Martial weapon proficiency, to keep that racial feature relevant.

Short sample chart:

	Simple	Martial	Specialized
Unarmed	1, light	d4, light, finesse	d6, light, finesse, versatile (d8)
Light Hammer	d4, light, throw (20/40)	d6, light, thrown (30/60)	d8, light, thrown (30/120)
Greatclub	d8, two handed	d10, two handed	2d6, two handed
Battleaxe	-	d8, versatile (d10)	d10, versatile (d12)
Greataxe	-	d12, two handed, heavy	2d8, two handed, heavy

 

[coolAlias]

It's kind of the opposite of what 5e is going for (simplicity), but I think it could be fun.

Definitely worth trying out at your table and seeing how it goes.

The only downside I can see is it could be overly punishing for non-martial characters, effectively making attacking with a weapon the least effective choice in all situations.

 

[Blue]

It's kind of the opposite of what 5e is going for (simplicity), but I think it could be fun.

Definitely worth trying out at your table and seeing how it goes.

The only downside I can see is it could be overly punishing for non-martial characters, effectively making attacking with a weapon the least effective choice in all situations.

It wouldn't be reducing the Simple damage categories ... well, I did reduce the Light Hammer range from (20/60 to 20/40). But it was leaving them so that damage doesn't change much. Martial proficiency was just making Simple weapons in the range of existing Martial weapons just so they could see some play. And even there I was trying to be careful - for example Great Club has Two Handed but not Heavy, so it was only d10 as a Martial, not d12.

Now, Specialized does make weapons more powerful. After sleeping on this, I'm wondering if that ends up becoming a feat tax to get where every weapon wielder would want it. If so, I should drop it off. It is already butting against the removal of abilities from earlier editions that made characters only good at one type of weapon and restricted magic item access (since a +1 weapon of another type was a downgrade for you).

 

[dave2008]

I like the idea. I've often thought that weapon damage / properties should be tied to proficiency / training in that weapon.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So, you are sort of going for weapon progression like BECMI? I would simply the chart aspect a bit more and just show the changes in damage/range.

It isn't a bad idea at all, but I would probably not bother since we already have house-rules for weapon properties although they are not tied into any sort of proficiency levels. And honestly, I waver a lot on how many house-rules to implement... there are times I just want to say, "Screw it, we are going back to strict RAW--no house-rules."

Still, it'll be interesting if you eventually post a full weapons' table.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Specialized seems like it could be a bit much perhaps, but I see nothing wrong with a simple weapon being more effective in the hands of a fighter type.

 

[coolAlias]

Personally, I kind of miss the weapon specialization rules from earlier editions for the sole fact that it helped differentiate one fighter from another.

I also miss certain weapons having bonuses to different techniques such as disarm, trip, etc., as well as the different crit ranges and all that.

I liked how each weapon could fulfill a niche, whereas in 5e, there don't seem to be many actual decision points with regard to weapon choice.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe more simply?

Unskilled = 1 damage
Trained = 1d4 damage
Simple = 1d6 damage
Martial = 1d8 damage
Superior = 1d10 damage
Deadly
... = 1d6 + 1d6 damage
... = 1d6 + 1d8 damage
... = 1d6 + 1d10 damage
... = 2d6 + 1d6
... = 2d6 + 1d8 damage
... = 2d6 + 1d10 damage
... = 3d6 + 1d6
... etcetera

So, these numbers are always true, depending on fighting skill.

From here on, there are several ways to go to handle weapons.
• The weapons dont matter, and are only for flavor, a martial artist can do as much damage with bare hands as with a sword.
• Weapons add their base damage to the fighting skill.
• Weapons have a maximum amount of damage. A dagger can only do max base damage 1d4, a longsword max base damage 1d8, and so on, depending on the fighting skill. So, someone unskilled could only deal 1 damage with a longsword. But also, a Martial expert could only do max base damage 1d4 with a dagger.

 

[bedir than]

As I'm in the grouping of people who think that Fighters have to be the best at doing martial damage since they don't have the support for the other two tiers of play (exploration, social). I like this. And I'd grant every starting Fighter specialization in two "types" of weapon with an additional at each granting of Extra Attack.

Types of weapon being: Swords, Bows, Crossbows, Hammers/Clubs, Axes, Polearms, maybe others?

I want a fighter buff that centers around their weapon choices. This may be it. The old UA Weapon Feats might also be it (with each Fighter getting one at 1st level).

 

[aco175]

I do not see any problems outright. I can see a dagger doing only 1d4 in the hands of the mage, 1d6 in the thief's hands and 1d8 in the fighter's. Maybe I am looking at it through the d8 rapier becoming only a d6 in the rogues hand and left at a d8 in the fighters. This may still be something for the Dex fighter to take, but the rogue either spends a feat or takes a level in fighter.