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

[Jmarso]

My thought on the scythe is that in a medieval setting it is more of a farming implement, making it a makeshift or improvised weapon at best. Maybe reflect that in its damage stats. Slings strike me as the 'common man's' ranged weapon. Takes some practice, yes, but a hungry peasant kid growing up in a medieval village with no books, TV, or internet would have his whole childhood and youth to get proficient at it, playing at soldier and hunting small game. This is someone who spends their entire early life outdoors, for the most part, with not many choices when it comes to overcoming boredom. You could make the same argument for the short bow, I guess. Maybe it would be better to swap those two our on their respective lists.

 

[Faolyn]

Slings strike me as the 'common man's' ranged weapon. Takes some practice, yes, but a hungry peasant kid growing up in a medieval village with no books, TV, or internet would have his whole childhood and youth to get proficient at it, playing at soldier and hunting small game. This is someone who spends their entire early life outdoors, for the most part, with not many choices when it comes to overcoming boredom. You could make the same argument for the short bow, I guess. Maybe it would be better to swap those two our on their respective lists.

Oh, sure, but it seems that's almost more of a background/culture thing. Like they could be considered a martial weapon (maybe there needs to be a class between simple and martial) but it's granted by a lot of backgrounds or cultures.

 

[Kinematics]

If I was trying to grapple with categorization, I'd go something like:

Simple: Can be used without explicit training. A club, a club with a heavy end (mace or hammer), a dagger or knife, a hand axe, a big stick (quarterstaff or greatclub), a shortbow (doesn't take much strength), etc. "Proficiency" doesn't mean training, it just means any Joe off the street should be able to make use of most of the utility the weapon provides because it's just sort of built-in to everyday life (cooking, swinging your arm, hammering in a loose board, chopping wood, etc).

Everyone should have (potential) proficiency in simple weapons, even wizards and sorcerers and such. At most, I'd make simple weapon proficiency a part of a character's background, rather than its class. (For example, maybe the noble background doesn't do the everyday work that would lead to a basic assumed proficiency in simple tools and weapons.)

Side note: simple weapons with the 'thrown' trait (aside from darts) shouldn't be usable as thrown weapons without martial or specialized training. Throwing a weapon (such as a dagger) accurately is not something you learn from casual everyday work. It requires dedicated training. Explicit proficiency with the weapon (such as the wizard with daggers) would be sufficient to throw it, but not from just a general proficiency in simple weapons.

I'd also probably put the sling in the exotic weapons section, along with the whip, net, blowgun, and such. Thus, it would be considered a martial weapon rather than a simple one.

Martial: Requires a certain amount of explicit training to use — how to use the leverage of the weapon, how to block and parry, edge alignment (almost all slashing weapons are martial weapons), etc. Without training you just wouldn't be able to use it effectively.

Most training here easily carries from one weapon to another, even if they work different ways. A saber and a rapier are very difficult weapons in the fine technicalities, but the basics — parry, push, block, footwork, how to react to an opposing blade, etc — work for either one. If you want to truly distinguish them, you'd want to upgrade from mere proficiency up to full mastery. Mastery of the saber is very different from mastery of the rapier, which is different from mastery of a great axe, etc.

Proficiency in martial weapons should provide a range of general combat maneuvers, and mastery of a weapon should provide some unique maneuvers per weapon.

Large: Any heavy, reach, or non-ranged two-handed weapons. These could be either simple or martial, but have a minimum strength requirement, because the weight and length can be enough to swing you around if you're not careful.

I'd probably also consider making these weapons provide a flat damage bonus, and limit larger die sizes. Exact values aren't something I can work out right now, but something like having a greatclub that does 1d6+1 or +2 instead of 1d8, or something like that.


And as a peripheral idea, I'd probably also make it so that non-martial classes can choose to gain proficiency in a single weapon each time they gain an ASI, and martial classes can gain mastery in a weapon of their choice. Maybe your evil sorceress really likes to use whips, or the bard showed proficiency in his lead-lined guitar, El Kabong, or your Zorro expy is an expert with the rapier. Just a little extra flavor.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Personally, I'd expand on how AD&D 2E did weapon proficiencies. You get a number of proficiencies for specific weapons based on class with martial classes gaining more as a class feature at intervals of leveling. Then I'd create weapon groupings for weapons similar enough that being trained in one should at least let you pick up and use another without making a fool of yourself. I'd say that you can use any weapon within the same grouping of a weapon you are proficient in without penalty. I wouldn't have an "exotic" grouping. The thing that would make a weapon exotic is that it wouldn't have any weapons grouped with it(e.g. a whip or bola).

Then I'd give weapons features that allow them to stand apart from each other beyond basic damage(the idea has been discussed elsewhere in this thread), and allow characters to only use those features with weapons they are actually proficient with, not just in the same grouping. Then to give a way out of being pigeonholed into a weapon you may want to grow out of(due finding a specific magic weapon you may want to use or just refining your character's concept over time), I'd say that you can take a feat to specialize in any weapon within the grouping of a weapon you are already proficient with, and that the specialization feat automatically grants proficiency if you don't already have it.

The way I see it, this would give you ways to set one character apart from the next without overly limiting them as well as giving design space to weapons that would take advantage of your character's ability to specialize.

 

[Steampunkette]

So... here's what I'd do if I were narrowing weapon proficiencies to the 5 categories with really simple understandings.

Split Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing into 3 groups for each weapon type that have their own levels within the Basic through Master proficiency. And let people rank up their proficiency with a type (Bludgeoning, Slashing, or Piercing) as they gain levels and/or feats to do so.

Basic: B1d6, S1d4, P1d4
Simple: B1d8, S1d6, P1d4
Martial: B1d8, S1d8, P1d6
Advanced: B1d8, S1d10, P1d8
Master: B1d10, S2d6, P1d12

Bludgeoning: Any weapon meant to smack someone with no edge or point. All Bludgeoning weapons gain the Versatile weapon trait.
Slashing: Weapons meant to cut someone with a bladed edge. All Slashing weapons gain either the Versatile or Finesse weapon trait.
Piercing: Weapons meant to stab someone with a sharp point. All Piercing weapons gain the Finesse weapon trait.

So for someone like a Wizard with only Basic Weapon Proficiency, the d6 Bludgeoning Weapon (Quarterstaff, Club) would work fine. While a Rogue with Simple proficiency might prefer to use a Shortsword (1d6), a Dagger (1d4) or an Iron Shod Club (1d8) for their Sneak Attacking.

Of course, a Fighter with Master Proficiency and that Shortsword will hit for 2d6.

A Rogue who loves Daggers could work their way up to a 1d12 dagger by taking 3 extra levels of Weapon Proficiency: Piercing.

Is it particularly good at simulation? YMMV. But it'd be super simple, you must admit.

It also means two very important things: A weapon's type is much less important than the skill of the person wielding it (A Dagger in the hands of a Master is deadly, and a Katana in the hands of a Novice is far less so), and weapons themselves are less mechanically diverse while being significantly more narratively diverse. In that you can describe any Versatile Slashing Weapon as a Longsword, Shortsword, Battleaxe, Sickle, Etc.

 

[Faolyn]

Don't forget that LU has apparently added several new weapon properties!

 

[Jmarso]

Don't forget that LU has apparently added several new weapon properties!

I'm looking forward to seeing the final product!

 

[Horwath]

So... here's what I'd do if I were narrowing weapon proficiencies to the 5 categories with really simple understandings.

Split Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing into 3 groups for each weapon type that have their own levels within the Basic through Master proficiency. And let people rank up their proficiency with a type (Bludgeoning, Slashing, or Piercing) as they gain levels and/or feats to do so.

Basic: B1d6, S1d4, P1d4
Simple: B1d8, S1d6, P1d4
Martial: B1d8, S1d8, P1d6
Advanced: B1d8, S1d10, P1d8
Master: B1d10, S2d6, P1d12

Bludgeoning: Any weapon meant to smack someone with no edge or point. All Bludgeoning weapons gain the Versatile weapon trait.
Slashing: Weapons meant to cut someone with a bladed edge. All Slashing weapons gain either the Versatile or Finesse weapon trait.
Piercing: Weapons meant to stab someone with a sharp point. All Piercing weapons gain the Finesse weapon trait.

So for someone like a Wizard with only Basic Weapon Proficiency, the d6 Bludgeoning Weapon (Quarterstaff, Club) would work fine. While a Rogue with Simple proficiency might prefer to use a Shortsword (1d6), a Dagger (1d4) or an Iron Shod Club (1d8) for their Sneak Attacking.

Of course, a Fighter with Master Proficiency and that Shortsword will hit for 2d6.

A Rogue who loves Daggers could work their way up to a 1d12 dagger by taking 3 extra levels of Weapon Proficiency: Piercing.

Is it particularly good at simulation? YMMV. But it'd be super simple, you must admit.

It also means two very important things: A weapon's type is much less important than the skill of the person wielding it (A Dagger in the hands of a Master is deadly, and a Katana in the hands of a Novice is far less so), and weapons themselves are less mechanically diverse while being significantly more narratively diverse. In that you can describe any Versatile Slashing Weapon as a Longsword, Shortsword, Battleaxe, Sickle, Etc.

I like the idea, but it is completely opposite of my aim.
Also, I would not call 5 categories simple.
Maybe if you kept it at 3. Basic, Advanced, Master.
But we do not need 5 base damage dice categories to determine how someone is a good weapon user.
Having extra attack(s) feature, fighting style, battle maneuvers, even investment in STR or DEX is enough to describe someone as good or bad at fighting.

Also, I do not know why people value Versatile trait same as finesse? Versatile is next to useless, kind of like Rangers favored enemy.

 

[TwoSix]

Also, I do not know why people value Versatile trait same as finesse? Versatile is next to useless, kind of like Rangers favored enemy.

Versatile could be useful, but it requires that 1) You have some kind of action/BA/reaction/stance that benefits from having a hand free, and 2) Switching between one and two hands doesn't require an object interaction (in my games it doesn't, but I've never been clear on the RAW here).

 

[VanguardHero]

Versatile is next to useless, kind of like Rangers favored enemy.

Versatile is nearly useless constantly, Favored Enemy is a binary Useless or STRONG just usually Useless. Favored Enemy has always been a mess and it needs to be left behind. The Revised Ranger with a free floating non-concentration Hunter's Mark was far better but too interesting for Wizards :|