OneDnD Rebalancing melee weapons for 5.5E

[DEFCON 1]

What are you people talking about? Shortsword is martial...

Did you not read the latest playtest packet?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Did you not read the latest playtest packet?

Oh! I had missed that.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Hoping the spear gets some love this edition. Especially now it can't even use polearm master.

1d6/1d8 versatile, reach would be what i'd like to see with it. Spear not having reach is silly.

 

[Horwath]

Hoping the spear gets some love this edition. Especially now it can't even use polearm master.

1d6/1d8 versatile, reach would be what i'd like to see with it. Spear not having reach is silly.

spear, 1Handed, simple, reach 10ft, d6(V d8) should have been from the start.

then add martial version for d8(V d10) damage.


longspear, simple, 2Handed, reach 10ft, d10 damage


pike should be simple weapon also.

Pike, simple, 2Handed, Heavy, reach 10ft, d12 damage

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it would be an improvement if martial weapons went with more but smaller dice rather than big dice. a 3d4 greatsword or greataxe has the same max as 2d6 & 1d12 but better min & more reliable average

Spoiler: Likewise with the other shifts

• .1d12 → 1 & 6.5
  • 2d6 → 2& 7
  • 3d4 → 3 & 7.5
• 1d10 → 1 & 5.5
  • 1d4+1d6 → 2& 6
• 1d8 → 1 & 4.5
  • 2d4 → 2 & 5

The average doesn't change significantly but two things happen that very much reflect the greater skill needed to use martial weapons. Firstly the average roll trends slightly towards the middle rather than min or max making 1+attrib impossible & a 1+1+attrib roll fairly uncommon compared to the much more common +1+(≠1)+attrib roll. Secondly it does reduce the odds of max+max+attrib rolls but any ability that shifts a roll of 1 or 2 roll up to an automatic 2 or 3 becomes much more valuable. The reroll 1&2 of GWF in both 2014 5e & the expert packet should shift from reroll 1s &2s just to a straight 1&2=3 just to save us all time of watching bob reroll all his 1s & 2s then recalculate the result every attack every round

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think it would be an improvement if martial weapons went with more but smaller dice rather than big dice. a 3d4 greatsword or greataxe has the same max as 2d6 & 1d12 but better min & more reliable average

Spoiler: Likewise with the other shifts

• .1d12 → 1 & 6.5
  • 2d6 → 2& 7
  • 3d4 → 3 & 7.5
• 1d10 → 1 & 5.5
  • 1d4+1d6 → 2& 6
• 1d8 → 1 & 4.5
  • 2d4 → 2 & 5

The average doesn't change significantly but two things happen that very much reflect the greater skill needed to use martial weapons. Firstly the average roll trends slightly towards the middle rather than min or max making 1+attrib impossible & a 1+1+attrib roll fairly uncommon compared to the much more common +1+(≠1)+attrib roll. Secondly it does reduce the odds of max+max+attrib rolls but any ability that shifts a roll of 1 or 2 roll up to an automatic 2 or 3 becomes much more valuable. The reroll 1&2 of GWF in both 2014 5e & the expert packet should shift from reroll 1s &2s just to a straight 1&2=3 just to save us all time of watching bob reroll all his 1s & 2s then recalculate the result every attack every round

This is what we did with Katanas and wakizashis in a game we played. We made them long swords and short swords.

Katana did 2d4 and V 2d5
wakizashi did 2d3.
this was just to reflect that these weapons were of greater quality than the average long sword. It was a small change.
It synergized with Two Handed Weapon Fighting Style which allowed you to reroll 1s and 2s. When you used the Katana in two hands and were rolling 2d5, it really skewed your damage higher. But it seems like a small advantage and not overly broken.

 

[Sacrosanct]

IMO, I think the approach is wrong to begin with. Instead of simple and martial weapons, there should be simple and martial training. No one will ever agree 100% over what is a simple weapon and what should be a martial weapon, but we can all agree that certain classes might only be simply trained with weapons and others more robust martial training.

Base damage a based on training. That reflects how a short sword in a fighters hand will be more effective than in a wizards hand.

And no, complex tables would be a mistake. Most people don’t want them. We’ve seen this over and over, starting with 1e and how each weapon did something different, and most players ignored it.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

IMO, I think the approach is wrong to begin with. Instead of simple and martial weapons, there should be simple and martial training. No one will ever agree 100% over what is a simple weapon and what should be a martial weapon, but we can all agree that certain classes might only be simply trained with weapons and others more robust martial training.

Base damage a based on training. That reflects how a short sword in a fighters hand will be more effective than in a wizards hand.

And no, complex tables would be a mistake. Most people don’t want them. We’ve seen this over and over, starting with 1e and how each weapon did something different, and most players ignored it.

varying damage based on training is a super way of doing it.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

double-post:
I wonder if you could go even further and have classes unlock certain features for weapons. So, on top of there being higher damage for martial weapon training, even though short sword is finesse but only rogues get access to finesse at first level. Only fighters, barbarians and rangers can use long swords in one hand as a versatile weapon. (as an example)

 

[leonardozg]

IMO, I think the approach is wrong to begin with. Instead of simple and martial weapons, there should be simple and martial training. No one will ever agree 100% over what is a simple weapon and what should be a martial weapon, but we can all agree that certain classes might only be simply trained with weapons and others more robust martial training.

Base damage a based on training. That reflects how a short sword in a fighters hand will be more effective than in a wizards hand.

And no, complex tables would be a mistake. Most people don’t want them. We’ve seen this over and over, starting with 1e and how each weapon did something different, and most players ignored it.

Would you agree to do the same with spells? Remove spell damage, base spell damage on magic training?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Would you agree to do the same with spells? Remove spell damage, base spell damage on magic training?

Isn’t spell training a class feature, the same way martial training is a class feature? Those without spellcasting feature can’t cast spells while those who have it can. Seems pretty straightforward. Unless you are suggesting full casters get access to more powerful versions of spells. I’ve seen that in systems before.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Would you agree to do the same with spells? Remove spell damage, base spell damage on magic training?

Probably not. Anyone, even a wizard, can pick up a sword and try to use it. Same can't be said for spells. You either can, or you can't.

 

[Horwath]

Isn’t spell training a class feature, the same way martial training is a class feature? Those without spellcasting feature can’t cast spells while those who have it can. Seems pretty straightforward. Unless you are suggesting full casters get access to more powerful versions of spells. I’ve seen that in systems before.

It's called up-casting.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It's called up-casting.

Which is all part of the spellcasting feature. I was just trying to understand the point they were trying to make

 

[leonardozg]

Probably not. Anyone, even a wizard, can pick up a sword and try to use it. Same can't be said for spells. You either can, or you can't.

Yeah, I'm not changing the way classes have access to simple/martial weapons or spells, my question was regarding damage calculation mechanics. You suggested that, for those who can pick up a weapon (everyone), damage could be based on martial training, my question was analogous: for those who can pick up spells, would you like spell damage to be based on spellcasting training? Let's say we could have 3 levels of martial/spellcasting training and weapon/spell damage could be damage dice multiplied by this training level. Do you think this is a good approach or do you think it is only good for martial training?

 

[ECMO3]

Right now the weapon table looks little bit chaotic with some weapons having little sense in their traits and their damage.

For this I will take for base from 3.5e simple 1Handed weapon that has d8 damage and critical of 20/×2(the default and only weapon crit range in 5E)
as 5E does not have 1+1/2 str bonus for 2Handed melee attack, Versatile property is non-value, that is it's free for all non-finesse, non-light, non-thrown weapons

thrown property is little buffed and universal at 40/120 ft range
if you feel that because of some "legacy" theme some light weapons that do not have thrown property but should have some, give them 20/40 thrown property for free.

to have all properties used, table will have both simple and martial weapon damage in same row.
make your own examples for weapons, these are just placeholder names.

Weapon traits	Simple weapon damage	example	Martial weapon damage	example
1Handed, Versatile	d8(d10)	mace	d10(d12)	longsword
1Handed, Thrown	d6	javelin	d8	trident
1Handed, finesse	d6	long knife	d8	rapier
1Handed, light	d6	club	d8	arming sword
1Handed, reach, Versatile	d6 (d8)	spear	d8(d10)	partisan
1Handed, finesse, light	d4	dagger	d6	shorsword
1Handed, finesse, reach	d4	whip	d6	dagger whip
1Handed, finesse, thrown	d4	dart	d6	throwing hammer
1Handed, light, thrown	d4	pillum	d6	throwing axe
1Handed, finesse, light, thrown	d3	throwing knife	d4	chakram
2Handed, heavy	2d6	warmace	2d8	greatsword
2Handed	d12	greatclub	2d6	claymore
2Handed, heavy, reach	d12	pike	2d6	pole-ax
2Handed, reach	d10	longspear	d12	glaive
2Handed, finesse	d10	bo staff	d12	elven courtblade
2Handed, finesse, reach	d8	elven spear	d10	spiked chain

I like the current set up and this is just about as chaotic as the current table but less thematic.

IMO if you go this route the damage on a lot of the weapons should be lower. I would change the following:
1handed reach - 1d2 simple, 1d4 martial
2handed heavy - 1d8 simple, 1d12 martial
2handed heavy, reach - 1d3 simple, 1d10 martial
2handed reach - 1d3 simple, 1d8 martial
2handed finesse - 1d6 simple, 1d8 martial
2 handed, finesse, reach - 1d4 simple, 1d6 martial

A better system if we want to simplify is to put this on the character instead of the weapon - if you have proficiency in simple weapons you do 1d6 if you use strength, 1d4 if you use dexterity. If you have Martial Weapons proficiency these are 1d8 and 1d6 respectively. Do away with all the other properties.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't know if they need to be rebalanced, but at least made more interesting.

'More' is being a bit generous, TBH.

Though I'm not sure if this couldn't be relieved via feats.

 

[CubicsRube]

I would have tk check the balance, but my inclination wluld be to have set damage for the weapon (the average) no str/dex mod, and instead use the hit die of your main class and add to that.

So a fighter wielding a dagger would do 1d10+3, while a wizard with same would only do 1d6+3

 

[Horwath]

I would have tk check the balance, but my inclination wluld be to have set damage for the weapon (the average) no str/dex mod, and instead use the hit die of your main class and add to that.

So a fighter wielding a dagger would do 1d10+3, while a wizard with same would only do 1d6+3

this is some 13th age/D&D hybrid.

I like it.

same trait values:

find some base damage,

let's say 5. Nice number.

martial: +1 damage
2Handed: +2 damage
heavy: +1 damage
light: -1 damage
finesse: -1 damage
reach: -1 damage for 2Handed, -2 for 1Handed
thrown(40/120): -1 damage
2 damage types: -1 damage
Versatile: +1 damage when used 2Handed
ranged: loading, Action +0 damage
ranged: loading, Bonus action, -1 damage
ranged: loading free, -2 damage
ranged: range 40/120: +0 damage
ranged: range 80/320: -1 damage
ranged: range 150/600: -2 damage

 

[ehren37]

They should crib from PF and have properties that trigger if you hit by 10+. Disarm with flails, knockdown with hammers, ongoing bleeds, etc. Siloing any degree of complexity to spells and spells alone is poor design.

As it stands, a 1 or 2 point difference in damage by weapon type is dull. I'd rather see mechanics matter in an interesting tactical way rather than a minor math bump.