Level Up (A5E) Should AD&D5E remove simple/martial weapon category as exotic weapons were removed from 5E?

[Horwath]

To me simple/martial weapons are just a needless hassle to have in D&D.

And would be easier to design/balance all kind of weapons if we had only one "power" category to think about.

And proficiency bonus, fighting styles, HDs, feats, other "martial" class features should be more than enough to describe what class is "more martial" than the other one.

with this idea base weapon damage would be:

1d10

properties:

light; -1 die size(1d10->1d8)
finesse; -1 die size
thrown(30/120); -1 die size
reach(10 ft); -1 die size
versatile; automatic for any 1handed, non-light, non-finesse weapon.

2Handed; +2 die size(1d10->2d6)
heavy(must be 2Handed); +1 die size(2d6->2d8)

some rules for combining properties:

heavy must be 2Handed also,
light cannot be heavy(doh) or 2handed
finesse cannot be heavy,
reach cannot be thrown,
2Handed cannot be thrown,

this way rapier stays at; 1d8 finesse. while longsword goes to 1d10(versatile 1d12)


Extra for ranged weapons:

shortbow: 1d6, 2Handed
longbow; 1d8, 2Handed, Heavy

handcrossbow: 1d8, light, Loading(Bonus action)
light crossbow: 2d6, 2Handed, Loading(Action)
heavy crossbow: 2d8, 2Handed, Heavy, Loading(Action)

crossbow expert feat reduces loading: bonus action to free action, Action to Bonus action.

 

[CubicsRube]

I'm a big fan of Shadow of the Demon Lords system, where weapons are gated by strength or dexterity.

If you want to be a rapier wielding mage? You can be if you invest in the dex. A greatsword wielding rogue? Bump up your str and you're good to go.

 

[Li Shenron]

How is that distinction a "hassle"? The main point of having simple VS martial weapons is to remove the hassle of listing down 15 weapons each time when describing a class proficiency. This way you can just write "proficiency in all simple weapons". Maybe we can remove "martial" and assume there are only simple and non-simple weapons, but then should we want to ever refer to any weapon except simple, we may just call it martial.

 

[tetrasodium]

The simple martial exotic split used to make sense and still could if your put back enough subjective disks on weapons. 5e reduced weapons to a damage die, an irrelevant damage type and a couple boolean flags like heavy finesse &versatile. In 3.5 simple weapons were pretty basic where you might have a good damage die or crit range or crit mod or dual damage type choice but one or more of the others were probably poor. Martial weapons turned things up a notch where you might see an ok and good combo or multiyok ones. Exotic weapons were purpose built niche things where you had a lot of weapons that were perfect for certain types of build uses... things hot kinda complex to describe but the patterns are easy to notice once you start looking at the lists.

Rather than removing them. A5e should make them matter on a distinct level again

 

[Horwath]

How is that distinction a "hassle"? The main point of having simple VS martial weapons is to remove the hassle of listing down 15 weapons each time when describing a class proficiency. This way you can just write "proficiency in all simple weapons". Maybe we can remove "martial" and assume there are only simple and non-simple weapons, but then should we want to ever refer to any weapon except simple, we may just call it martial.

removing the hassle is that all are proficient with all weapons.

you dont have simple or martial or exotic.
You have weapons.

 

[Bagpuss]

removing the hassle is that all are proficient with all weapons.

I think one of the fighters "things" is proficient in all weapons, giving it to everyone waters down it's appeal.

 

[Horwath]

I think one of the fighters "things" is proficient in all weapons, giving it to everyone waters down it's appeal.

fighting styles, action surge(1&2), extra attack(1,2&3), indomitable(1,2&3), and 5 different subclass features from lots of sub classes is more than enough to have fighter be different from wizard.

also that "thing" about the fighter is the same with barbarian, paladin and ranger. And rogue and bard get enough martial weapons that they do not care about other.

This opens op many more flavors to your character as you are not limited in design space by simple/martial split.

Do we really need any more rapier/shortsword rogues/bards?

 

[Bagpuss]

If you want to go that way I wouldn't be calling it AD&D 5E, more BD&D 5E.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

But what about the Weapon Master feat? If everyone was proficient in all weapons, this feat would become worthless!

 

[Horwath]

But what about the Weapon Master feat? If everyone was proficient in all weapons, this feat would become worthless!

it's worthless right now.