D&D 5E Magic Items: DMs Thoughts.

[LapBandit]

Smaller dice weapons should increase the initiative of attack. D4 = +4, d6=+2

 

[Leatherhead]

If you're worried about trap options among melee weapons, I once made a revised set of melee weapon stats to remove them. If you use this, you should probably nerf Dueling or buff Great Weapon Fighting though (I like the reroll any damage die option). The other problem is this considers 2d6 damage one step up from 1d12 damage when it's really only a half step up, and there's no great way of changing this. I think 1d6+1d8 is a bit clunky.

If find it rather odd that you went to the trouble of differentiating the longsword and the battleaxe, but left the glave and the halbred similar. Was that an oversight or did you run out of options?

 

[Tormyr]

I don't know how we got on short sword vs longsword or any other similar weapons. I blame myself.

A Fighter wielding a club one handed and nothing in the other hand is significantly worse than one that weilds a longsword and shield.

The club is a trap option for fighters.

Its not some sort of "those darn power gamer kids" issue.

The thing is, the "trap" choices really are not that bad. The club does 2.5 (1d4) vs 4.5 (1d8) damage for a longsword. A level 20 fighter who hit 4 times would do 10 vs 18 damage. When the fighter has a strength of 20, the damage is 30 (4d4 + 20) vs. 38 (4d8 +20). The monsters a level 20 fighter is going to run up against are going to generally laugh at 8 damage a round. Sure it will add up, but it certainly is not that bad, and the damage modifier overshadows the difference between the two weapons.

How is the club fighter vs. the sword and board even a valid comparison? Of course the club fighter is worse, but the real reason the fighter with the club is worse than the fighter with the longsword and shield is that the first fighter did not bother to bring a shield for no good reason. If the first fighter has a shield, then the damage differential is roughly 8. This will be slightly more for crits and slightly less for misses.

After watching the Paladin at our table do 30 damage in a turn against a Huge creature with his dagger, I realized that the weapon does not matter so much. The damage output is really all about the class abilities and feats.

In the end, the "trap" choices would generally not be chosen anyway even if all the weapons did the same amount of damage. Fighters generally use martial weapons in pretty much any story. Barbarians generally use something that hits "hard" (translated: is big). The rogue uses light/finesse weapons. The tropes gravitate toward the "best" or almost "best" choice as it is. How many fighters would run around with a club as their main weapon anyway?

So are the "trap" options not quite as good? Yes. Is the difference enough to make a marked difference? Not really.

 

[Zelc]

If find it rather odd that you went to the trouble of differentiating the longsword and the battleaxe, but left the glave and the halbred similar. Was that an oversight or did you run out of options?

... I just didn't care about differentiating them I was fine leaving them as the same weapon.

As for the longsword vs. battleaxe, I wanted a 1d10 weapon and a 2d4+versatile weapon of each damage type. Since Longswords and Battleaxes are both slashing weapons, one of them ended up getting changed.

 

[Leatherhead]

... I just didn't care about differentiating them I was fine leaving them as the same weapon.

As for the longsword vs. battleaxe, I wanted a 1d10 weapon and a 2d4+versatile weapon of each damage type. Since Longswords and Battleaxes are both slashing weapons, one of them ended up getting changed.

Fair enough.

 

[Dausuul]

Real-world warriors hardly ever used daggers as their primary weapons, either. Historically, the dagger has been a sidearm or a concealed weapon, and that's how I usually see it used in D&D. (Though it would be nice if the rules supported rapier-and-dagger fighting better than they do.)

As for clubs, a club is a primitive weapon used when you haven't got anything better, only one step up from swinging a tree branch at people. The next step in its evolution is the mace, which should arguably be better than it is, but at that point you're looking at a d6 versus a d8, not a huge deal.

 

[Staffan]

I don't know how we got on short sword vs longsword or any other similar weapons. I blame myself.

A Fighter wielding a club one handed and nothing in the other hand is significantly worse than one that weilds a longsword and shield.

The club is a trap option for fighters.

Its not some sort of "those darn power gamer kids" issue.

The club is supposed to suck. It's the weapon you use when you don't have anything better at hand.

And the short sword does have selling points the long sword doesn't. It's a finesse weapon, so if you're a Dex-based fighter you would prefer that. It's also light, lending itself to dual-wielding.

Now, if you want to talk trap options when it comes to weapons, there are legitimate candidates, like the trident, war pick, and flail. But the short sword is not one of them.

 

[Bupp]

Before 5e came out I got rid of damage by weapon type and did damage by class instead. No matter what weapon a character used, they would roll whatever their classes hit die was for damage.

Barbarians tend to use a big weapon that hits hard, so it makes sense they to a d12.

Fighters roll a d10. No matter what weapon they use, they are deadly with it. A fighter should do more damage with a dagger than a wizard, and not just because of higher strength. His combat knowledge makes him more deadly.

The rogue in my game always used daggers and knives. Small, concealable and able to carry a couple hidden around their person. Not using short swords because they are the "better" option.

In fact, most of the characters in my game used "different" weapons. The dagger carrying rogue, spear and shield fighter. The dwarf fighter that dual wielded hand axes. They made these choices not because of what was the "best" option, but because of what they thought best fit the character, or what they thought was "cool".

When I started 5e, I wanted to start with RAW, but this conversation has me going back to the idea of damage as class.

 

[The Human Target]

Before 5e came out I got rid of damage by weapon type and did damage by class instead. No matter what weapon a character used, they would roll whatever their classes hit die was for damage.

Barbarians tend to use a big weapon that hits hard, so it makes sense they to a d12.

Fighters roll a d10. No matter what weapon they use, they are deadly with it. A fighter should do more damage with a dagger than a wizard, and not just because of higher strength. His combat knowledge makes him more deadly.

The rogue in my game always used daggers and knives. Small, concealable and able to carry a couple hidden around their person. Not using short swords because they are the "better" option.

In fact, most of the characters in my game used "different" weapons. The dagger carrying rogue, spear and shield fighter. The dwarf fighter that dual wielded hand axes. They made these choices not because of what was the "best" option, but because of what they thought best fit the character, or what they thought was "cool".

When I started 5e, I wanted to start with RAW, but this conversation has me going back to the idea of damage as class.

Yeah something along those lines is my preference.

 

[The Human Target]

The club is supposed to suck. It's the weapon you use when you don't have anything better at hand.

And the short sword does have selling points the long sword doesn't. It's a finesse weapon, so if you're a Dex-based fighter you would prefer that. It's also light, lending itself to dual-wielding.

Now, if you want to talk trap options when it comes to weapons, there are legitimate candidates, like the trident, war pick, and flail. But the short sword is not one of them.

You are correct, but I meant "shortswords are a trap for one handed weapon STR Fighters."