Did you not read the latest playtest packet?What are you people talking about? Shortsword is martial...![]()
Did you not read the latest playtest packet?What are you people talking about? Shortsword is martial...![]()
Oh! I had missed that.Did you not read the latest playtest packet?
spear, 1Handed, simple, reach 10ft, d6(V d8) should have been from the start.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.
This is what we did with Katanas and wakizashis in a game we played. We made them long swords and short swords.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
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
varying damage based on training is a super way of doing it.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?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.
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.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.Would you agree to do the same with spells? Remove spell damage, base spell damage on magic training?
It's called up-casting.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.
Which is all part of the spellcasting feature. I was just trying to understand the point they were trying to makeIt's called up-casting.
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?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.
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
'More' is being a bit generous, TBH.I don't know if they need to be rebalanced, but at least made more interesting.
this is some 13th age/D&D hybrid.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