Idea: streamline weapons to make them more versatile in narrative application, more fun for players, and more accessible to beginners.
A weapon’s effect is based on the character’s proficiency level and how it is used in any particular action instead of deriving and limiting a weapon’s damage and features from it’s listing. Proficiency no longer relates to the weapon type, but the character’s skill with weapon usage. For example, “Simple Weapon Proficiency” would mean “simple proficiency with weapons” rather than “proficiency with simple weapons”.
When a character chooses a weapon, they describe the weapon and determine what damage type(s) it deals (Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing). This makes the difference between a dagger and a greatsword narrative rather than mechanical, allowing a player to make their character appear and behave more like they envision rather than making them choose between imagery and mechanical effect.
Simple Weapon Proficiency (1 damage type)
Light 1-hand: 1d4/Finesse
Thrown: 1d4/Finesse(20/60)
1-hand: 1d6
2-hand: 1d8*/Heavy
Martial Weapon Proficiency (2 damage types)
Light 1-hand: 1d6/Finesse
Thrown: 1d6/Finesse(30/120)
1-hand: 1d8*/Finesse
Reach: 1d10/Heavy
2-hand: 1d12*/Heavy
* = Players/DMs can decide between 1d8 and 2d4, 1d12 and 2d6
A character’s proficiency is based on class, and sometimes specialization. Martial Weapon Proficiency can be taken as a feat (see below).
Proficiencies by Class
Barbarian: Martial
Bard: Simple
*College of Valor: Martial
Cleric: Simple
*Tempest and War Domain: Martial
Druid: Simple
Fighter: Martial
Monk: Simple
Paladin: Martial
Ranger: Martial
Rogue: Simple
*Assassin: Martial(?)
Sorcerer: Simple
Warlock: Simple
Wizard: Simple
Martial Weapon Proficiency Feat
I’m still working on how to best work this. 5E conventions seem to point toward the need for additional benefits beyond access to the Martial Weapon Proficiency table. I am experimenting with a variety of options, but also struggling on how to handle this for characters that gain MWP as a class feature. Would they gain these additional benefits with their class feature or have to choose between over-paying on the feat and not getting the benefits that feat-taking characters gain?
Option: Expert Weapon Proficiency
Expert Weapon Proficiency (3 damage types)
Light 1-hand: 1d8*/Finesse
Thrown: 1d8*/Finesse(40/200)
1-hand: 1d10/Finesse
Reach: 1d12*/Finesse
2-hand: 2d8
Expert Weapon Proficiency Feat
Required to be level (4 or 8?)
Gain access to the Expert Weapon Proficiency table and others benefits still in question.
Optional Naming Convention: Weapon Competency, Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Expertise/Mastery.
About me:
I love extensive lists of weapons. I’ve built characters around the weapons they use, and few character builds made me more enthusiastic than my 3.5 Warmace dual-wielder. Palladium’s Compendium of Weapons, Armour & Castles was probably my favorite book of the 90s, and Spycraft’s Modern Arms Guide was an absolute thrill. One of my favorite parts of building a campaign setting is creating/customizing the available weapons, and it’s hard to find one of my notebooks that doesn’t have at least one page with a list of new/expanded d20 weapons. I mention all this to illustrate that I love weapon lists and the ability to select the optimal weapon from a complicated list of weapons.
However, my recent experience of DMing those unfamiliar with the conventions of the game made me realize that the 5E weapons system, while more simplified than its predecessors, is still rather unfriendly to the new player that wants to imagine their character in a heroic way. From the “how do I choose the best weapon?” questions to the inevitable moment that they realize they didn’t choose the right weapon for a particular scenario, it can be a source of frustration.
This made me remember some of my frustrations with weapons over my D&D career. I remember wanting a Dex-based character to use the cool imagery and superior crit range of the curved and sharp scimitar, but the 3.5 rules wouldn’t allow it to be used with the Weapon Finesse feat even though it was statistically nearly-identical to the rapier. While most DMs would allow the rules to the blurred on this matter, some would rule that a Dex-based character would have to use Str for scimitar attacks or use a different weapon. Similar frustrations occurred with the “badass” factor of a melee fighter with 2 daggers being fundamentally inferior to one with 2 shortswords, and having to rely on various DM interpretations of how to handle the mechanics of throwing a mace. My experiences of attacking skeletons with piercing weapons and other damage-type DR/Resistant opponents resulted in damage-type stress, and an endless carousel of characters that were always equipped with the ability to deal Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing damage at a moment’s notice.
While I love lists of weapons, I’ve realize that they serve as a set of limitations, when they could serve of a set of options for imaginative players. A new player with SWP could say “I have two awesome knives, one for stabbing and one for cutting” and use them in tandem one round, throw one the next round, and use the one still in hand to make an epic two-handed attack in the third round. The DM can consult the table for how to easily handle each attack type, and the player won’t have to worry about having picked the correct weapon.
Questions and Concerns:
Is it broken?
I don’t think it is, but it could be.
Is Damage-type still a limitation?
It is still a limitation, because using a piercing weapon on a piercing-resistant opponent still sucks. However, I feel like this is a more-intrinsic part of the game, and one that can’t be done away with as easily.
Is Finesse still a limitation?
Yes. I’m not convinced that this alternative rules system would be best served by making all weapons finesse weapons. It would seem to tilt the power scale to Dex by too much. I’m still open to ideas on this matter.
Why place these limitations on the Bard and Rogue?
It seems to be the right way to handle their proficiency. Bard is already one of the more-martial spellcaster classes and giving them MWP seems to only further skew that dynamic. Rogues will be sneak-attacking for extra damage as often as possible, so they don’t really miss out much for not having martial damage. The statistical loss is minimal, while the narrative gain for these, and other SWP classes are immense.
Is this more fun?
I think it can be, but it depends on the players.
Why isn’t there a Simple Reach option?
While townsfolk do use pitchforks, I figured the ability to use it at reach might be a benefit of those with martial training. Since 5E didn’t give any Simple weapons the Reach property, I didn’t either. I toyed with the idea, but the damage scale didn’t fit nicely, so I left it out. It could be included as a 1d6/Heavy.
What about bows and crossbows?
These are already pretty streamlined, but could be included thus:
Simple Weapon Proficiency (1 damage type)
Quick Shot: 1d6 (80/320)
Precise Shot: 1d8 (80/320)/Loading
Martial Weapon Proficiency (2 damage types)
Quick Shot: 1d8 (100/400)
Precise Shot: 1d10 (150/600)/Loading
Expert Weapon Proficiency (3 damage types)
Quick Shot: 1d10 (125/500)
Precise Shot: 1d12 (200/800)/Loading
(This is flawed because of hand use. I haven’t put as much thought into this. I suppose it would be best for them to all be 2-hand attacks, but I am uncertain.)
What about the special weapons, such as the Lance, Whip, Blowgun, or Net?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shouldn’t the EWP 2-hand be 1d14?
Yes, it should! I even have d14s! However, most players and DMs do not own a d14, and many aren’t even aware of their existence. So, I hopped it up to 2d8.
I would greatly appreciate almost-any and almost-all feedback on this. You won’t hurt my feelings, but I would be grateful for ideas on how to fix the problems and address the feat issue more than I would appreciate suggestions of scrapping the idea and shutting up (though, these will surely occur).
Thank you for your time, and happy gaming!
A weapon’s effect is based on the character’s proficiency level and how it is used in any particular action instead of deriving and limiting a weapon’s damage and features from it’s listing. Proficiency no longer relates to the weapon type, but the character’s skill with weapon usage. For example, “Simple Weapon Proficiency” would mean “simple proficiency with weapons” rather than “proficiency with simple weapons”.
When a character chooses a weapon, they describe the weapon and determine what damage type(s) it deals (Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing). This makes the difference between a dagger and a greatsword narrative rather than mechanical, allowing a player to make their character appear and behave more like they envision rather than making them choose between imagery and mechanical effect.
Simple Weapon Proficiency (1 damage type)
Light 1-hand: 1d4/Finesse
Thrown: 1d4/Finesse(20/60)
1-hand: 1d6
2-hand: 1d8*/Heavy
Martial Weapon Proficiency (2 damage types)
Light 1-hand: 1d6/Finesse
Thrown: 1d6/Finesse(30/120)
1-hand: 1d8*/Finesse
Reach: 1d10/Heavy
2-hand: 1d12*/Heavy
* = Players/DMs can decide between 1d8 and 2d4, 1d12 and 2d6
A character’s proficiency is based on class, and sometimes specialization. Martial Weapon Proficiency can be taken as a feat (see below).
Proficiencies by Class
Barbarian: Martial
Bard: Simple
*College of Valor: Martial
Cleric: Simple
*Tempest and War Domain: Martial
Druid: Simple
Fighter: Martial
Monk: Simple
Paladin: Martial
Ranger: Martial
Rogue: Simple
*Assassin: Martial(?)
Sorcerer: Simple
Warlock: Simple
Wizard: Simple
Martial Weapon Proficiency Feat
I’m still working on how to best work this. 5E conventions seem to point toward the need for additional benefits beyond access to the Martial Weapon Proficiency table. I am experimenting with a variety of options, but also struggling on how to handle this for characters that gain MWP as a class feature. Would they gain these additional benefits with their class feature or have to choose between over-paying on the feat and not getting the benefits that feat-taking characters gain?
Option: Expert Weapon Proficiency
Expert Weapon Proficiency (3 damage types)
Light 1-hand: 1d8*/Finesse
Thrown: 1d8*/Finesse(40/200)
1-hand: 1d10/Finesse
Reach: 1d12*/Finesse
2-hand: 2d8
Expert Weapon Proficiency Feat
Required to be level (4 or 8?)
Gain access to the Expert Weapon Proficiency table and others benefits still in question.
Optional Naming Convention: Weapon Competency, Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Expertise/Mastery.
About me:
I love extensive lists of weapons. I’ve built characters around the weapons they use, and few character builds made me more enthusiastic than my 3.5 Warmace dual-wielder. Palladium’s Compendium of Weapons, Armour & Castles was probably my favorite book of the 90s, and Spycraft’s Modern Arms Guide was an absolute thrill. One of my favorite parts of building a campaign setting is creating/customizing the available weapons, and it’s hard to find one of my notebooks that doesn’t have at least one page with a list of new/expanded d20 weapons. I mention all this to illustrate that I love weapon lists and the ability to select the optimal weapon from a complicated list of weapons.
However, my recent experience of DMing those unfamiliar with the conventions of the game made me realize that the 5E weapons system, while more simplified than its predecessors, is still rather unfriendly to the new player that wants to imagine their character in a heroic way. From the “how do I choose the best weapon?” questions to the inevitable moment that they realize they didn’t choose the right weapon for a particular scenario, it can be a source of frustration.
This made me remember some of my frustrations with weapons over my D&D career. I remember wanting a Dex-based character to use the cool imagery and superior crit range of the curved and sharp scimitar, but the 3.5 rules wouldn’t allow it to be used with the Weapon Finesse feat even though it was statistically nearly-identical to the rapier. While most DMs would allow the rules to the blurred on this matter, some would rule that a Dex-based character would have to use Str for scimitar attacks or use a different weapon. Similar frustrations occurred with the “badass” factor of a melee fighter with 2 daggers being fundamentally inferior to one with 2 shortswords, and having to rely on various DM interpretations of how to handle the mechanics of throwing a mace. My experiences of attacking skeletons with piercing weapons and other damage-type DR/Resistant opponents resulted in damage-type stress, and an endless carousel of characters that were always equipped with the ability to deal Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing damage at a moment’s notice.
While I love lists of weapons, I’ve realize that they serve as a set of limitations, when they could serve of a set of options for imaginative players. A new player with SWP could say “I have two awesome knives, one for stabbing and one for cutting” and use them in tandem one round, throw one the next round, and use the one still in hand to make an epic two-handed attack in the third round. The DM can consult the table for how to easily handle each attack type, and the player won’t have to worry about having picked the correct weapon.
Questions and Concerns:
Is it broken?
I don’t think it is, but it could be.
Is Damage-type still a limitation?
It is still a limitation, because using a piercing weapon on a piercing-resistant opponent still sucks. However, I feel like this is a more-intrinsic part of the game, and one that can’t be done away with as easily.
Is Finesse still a limitation?
Yes. I’m not convinced that this alternative rules system would be best served by making all weapons finesse weapons. It would seem to tilt the power scale to Dex by too much. I’m still open to ideas on this matter.
Why place these limitations on the Bard and Rogue?
It seems to be the right way to handle their proficiency. Bard is already one of the more-martial spellcaster classes and giving them MWP seems to only further skew that dynamic. Rogues will be sneak-attacking for extra damage as often as possible, so they don’t really miss out much for not having martial damage. The statistical loss is minimal, while the narrative gain for these, and other SWP classes are immense.
Is this more fun?
I think it can be, but it depends on the players.
Why isn’t there a Simple Reach option?
While townsfolk do use pitchforks, I figured the ability to use it at reach might be a benefit of those with martial training. Since 5E didn’t give any Simple weapons the Reach property, I didn’t either. I toyed with the idea, but the damage scale didn’t fit nicely, so I left it out. It could be included as a 1d6/Heavy.
What about bows and crossbows?
These are already pretty streamlined, but could be included thus:
Simple Weapon Proficiency (1 damage type)
Quick Shot: 1d6 (80/320)
Precise Shot: 1d8 (80/320)/Loading
Martial Weapon Proficiency (2 damage types)
Quick Shot: 1d8 (100/400)
Precise Shot: 1d10 (150/600)/Loading
Expert Weapon Proficiency (3 damage types)
Quick Shot: 1d10 (125/500)
Precise Shot: 1d12 (200/800)/Loading
(This is flawed because of hand use. I haven’t put as much thought into this. I suppose it would be best for them to all be 2-hand attacks, but I am uncertain.)
What about the special weapons, such as the Lance, Whip, Blowgun, or Net?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Shouldn’t the EWP 2-hand be 1d14?
Yes, it should! I even have d14s! However, most players and DMs do not own a d14, and many aren’t even aware of their existence. So, I hopped it up to 2d8.
I would greatly appreciate almost-any and almost-all feedback on this. You won’t hurt my feelings, but I would be grateful for ideas on how to fix the problems and address the feat issue more than I would appreciate suggestions of scrapping the idea and shutting up (though, these will surely occur).
Thank you for your time, and happy gaming!
