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

[Steampunkette]

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.

1) It's a -lot- simpler, even with it's 5 levels, than a "Build a Weapon" system, which is what you initially designed.

2) There's only 3 Categories. B/S/P. The five levels are a characters Proficiency over the weapon. So you would give every character class a starting proficiency rank for weapon type (Basic Slashing, Simple Piercing, Skilled Bludgeoning, for a Cleric as an example).

3) All those features work for classes that have those improvements, but does nothing for Rogues, Warlocks, or other characters who want to flex their character's different-from-standard combat style without having to multiclass. Which is where the ability to turn a Dagger into a d10 weapon is pretty attractive. Or, y'know, Baseball Bat people unconscious with an amusing "Thwack".

4) I treat Versatile and Finesse as similar 'cause while Finesse reduces MAD for certain characters, I use a homebrewed "Hand and a Half" fighting style that keys off versatile weapons, which makes it more attractive than baseline Versatile's "Deal 1 damage more on average and 2 more damage maximum".

All that said, of course, I do not treat them as -equal-. Only similar. Bludgeoning Weapons kinda suck in the 5-tier thing I put forward. They max out at d10 on Master level and are all Versatile. Meanwhile Piercing Weapons (Including things like Spears and Picks) are Finesse and cap at 1d12. And then you get into the question of Resistances, where only 6 creatures are specifically resistant to Slashing, 8 for Bludgeoning, and 10 for Piercing. Though it should also be noted that 2 are -immune- to slashing, so even the least-resisted weapon damage type has it's foibles.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

Looking at normal 5e my weapon system goes:
-Base D6 damage, any type

Raise the Die-Size:
-2-handed (or Versatile when wielded in 2-hands)
-Heavy
-Martial
-Loading

Lowers the Die-Size:
-Light
-Reach
-Ammunition

Limiters:
-Heavy must be 2-handed
-Light must be 1-handed
-Finesse must be 1-handed
-Thrown must not be Heavy

Now if you gave everyone all weapon proficiencies by these rules, removed the martial category, and added martial as a weapon skill level where you could increase the die-size of all weapons by 1 that sounds perfect to me. Weapons are designed to be intuitive so it makes sense for everyone to be able to pick up a sword and know how to use it. It also makes sense that a trained professional can do more damage than someone who just picked up a sword. I could even go for a 'master' skill level that Fighters or something get where it is another +1 die size and d12 gets converted to 2d6.

 

[jmucchiello]

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).

Switching between one handed and two handed should not use your object interaction as you are doing it as part of the attack action. Just like drawing the first weapon and attacking is not an object interaction.

 

[Ace]

I dunno. I've heard that slings are actually pretty hard to use, and from what I've seen (from videos) scythes require a bit of skill to use. At least to mow grass. I imagine that a PC who uses a scythe is kind of using it like a weirdly-shaped axe.

A war scythe has a straight blade and in D&D terms is a glaive . Grim Reaper style scythes aren't used as weapons but hey its rule of cool.

Slinsg take some practice, more than bows I'd guess but are largely a cultural preference . I'm fine with the way D&D does them though they are probably a martial weapon.

 

[Horwath]

Looking at normal 5e my weapon system goes:
-Base D6 damage, any type

Raise the Die-Size:
-2-handed (or Versatile when wielded in 2-hands)
-Heavy
-Martial
-Loading

Lowers the Die-Size:
-Light
-Reach
-Ammunition

Limiters:
-Heavy must be 2-handed
-Light must be 1-handed
-Finesse must be 1-handed
-Thrown must not be Heavy

Now if you gave everyone all weapon proficiencies by these rules, removed the martial category, and added martial as a weapon skill level where you could increase the die-size of all weapons by 1 that sounds perfect to me. Weapons are designed to be intuitive so it makes sense for everyone to be able to pick up a sword and know how to use it. It also makes sense that a trained professional can do more damage than someone who just picked up a sword. I could even go for a 'master' skill level that Fighters or something get where it is another +1 die size and d12 gets converted to 2d6.

Adding one die increase or some property seems like a good way to describe martial characters.

Now, depending on final weapon list in A5E and their old/new properties, I could make following rule.

Everyone can use all weapons with proficiency.

But if you are not proficient with that weapon in your class description, reduce the damage die one step or lose one weapon property that is worth about the same. I.E. wizard with shortsword; 1d6, light, finesse, would use it as 1d4 weapon or lose light or finesse property of the weapon.

Similar, class with all martial weapon proficiencies would increase damage die of all simple weapons by one step. Or maybe add a weapon property that could be appropriate for that weapon.

 

[AtomicPope]

After playing a LOT of 5e I actually want to steal something that was lost in tail end of 4e with weapon mastery and exotic weapons. What would separate martial classes from other classes is having Fighting Style: Exotic Weapon. Back in 1e the Unearthed Arcana had Weapon Specialization, which I felt should have been a Fighting Style too but that's for another thread. There's no reason why Exotic Weapons should be a mere proficiency just because they were in the past. Instead, we could have a list of either Exotic Weapons or maybe Exotic Weapon Traits. If we went with the latter then it you could have a modular approach that allowed players to build their weapon:
1) Chain Whip: Reach, Grab (finesse and light weapons only), may make grappling attacks
2) Dual Weapon: cannot be heavy, gains Dual property
3) Repeating: ranged weapon with load property gains Magazine (10) property

Just a short list that can easily be added to. Alternatively, we get an armory of weapons where 99% of them don't get used. This alternate approach would allow the Fighter or Ranger to take Exotic Weapon: Chain Whip and then apply it to say Daggers or Dual Weapon and apply it to Long Swords.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I think the real question is, if I were trained in the foil and I picked up an epee, could I use it like I'd use a foil? Or are there such differences in the way the two swords are made that they would be useless or nearly useless to someone who wasn't trained in their individual use? (I seriously don't know; I never got to try out any swords.)

Personally, I wouldn't mind having small weapon categories (piercing swords versus slashing swords, for instance) rather than simple/martial.

Well, the main difference between the foil and epee is your target area. They're both sport weapons based off of the rapier. You can stab someone in the leg with an epee and it will count, but is ignored with the foil. To answer the spirit of your question, an arming sword, katana, or rapier would likely do the same amount of damage but are wielded differently. You can do it, but it would feel clumsy to use katana techniques with a rapier and vice versa.

If you wanted to look at amount of training and body mechanics I would look at:

1H Hafted (Mace, Hammer, Hatchet) (Easy)
2H Hafted (Maul, Battle axe) (Moderate)
1H Stabbing (Javelin, Spear) (Easy)
2H Stabbing (Long Spear) (Easy, Moderate with a shield)
1H Bladed (Gladius, Arming Sword) (Hard)
2H Bladed (Greatsword) (Hard)
Polearms (Halbard, Glave) (Varies, Moderate to Hard?)
Dagger, Knife (Easy)

Using a sword takes some skill to use proficiently, in attack and defense. Just smacking someone off-edge doesn't help you much. But, it doesn't matter too much which side of a mace you strike your opponent with. If you are comfortable with a mace (heavy object on the end of a stick) you can probably use a hatchet reasonably well (sharp heavy object on the end of a stick). The angle of attack matters more, but it can be arguable if you want to go into the next level of abstraction.

Spears are ubiquitous as the main weapon for the rank and file. Either short and throwable or long for reach. Both with and without shields.

Daggers are their own thing. Easy to use, but with some fighting styles of their own- usually highly mobile.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

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

I don't like it.
The wizard being as proficient with weapons as the fighter seems wrong...
but...
I could imagine adding str or dex requirements for different weapons.
That way a wizard is proficient, if they meet the strength requirements.

In 4e, some classes increased the damage die of certain weapons. I would like that in 6e.

 

[Horwath]

I don't like it.
The wizard being as proficient with weapons as the fighter seems wrong...
but...
I could imagine adding str or dex requirements for different weapons.
That way a wizard is proficient, if they meet the strength requirements.

In 4e, some classes increased the damage die of certain weapons. I would like that in 6e.

Str or Dex are kind of "soft" requirements.

let's say you have 6th level wizard and 5th level fighter, both use a 1Handed weapon, 1d10 base damage, STR based.
Fighter has 18 STR, wizard has 12(a lot for an average wizard, but wizard want's to be somewhat competent in non magic combat), but how competent is a wizard really.

Let's use AC17(good number for to challenge 5th level characters, but not too high to see hits connect rarely).

Fighter has +7 attack, fighting style for damage of 1d10+6 and two attack.
Wizard has +4 attack, damage 1d10+1 and only one attack.

Fighter has DPR of 12.65, Wizard has DPR of 2.6
Almost 5 times lower.

Even if we give wizard a +3 weapon and fighter deals only half damage as target has resistance to non-magic weapons, fighter will do slightly more damage even then.

Wizard would have to have STR a lot higher than fighter's to even get close to having same damage(if using same weapons and not a caricature of a situation described above).

 

[tetrasodium]

Str or Dex are kind of "soft" requirements.

let's say you have 6th level wizard and 5th level fighter, both use a 1Handed weapon, 1d10 base damage, STR based.
Fighter has 18 STR, wizard has 12(a lot for an average wizard, but wizard want's to be somewhat competent in non magic combat), but how competent is a wizard really.

Let's use AC17(good number for to challenge 5th level characters, but not too high to see hits connect rarely).

Fighter has +7 attack, fighting style for damage of 1d10+6 and two attack.
Wizard has +4 attack, damage 1d10+1 and only one attack.

Fighter has DPR of 12.65, Wizard has DPR of 2.6
Almost 5 times lower.

Even if we give wizard a +3 weapon and fighter deals only half damage as target has resistance to non-magic weapons, fighter will do slightly more damage even then.

Wizard would have to have STR a lot higher than fighter's to even get close to having same damage(if using same weapons and not a caricature of a situation described above).

The bard playtest also had a bunch of functionally different bard focus items, it's possible wizards could have similar that might be classed as "weapons". If so hat would be an improvement in some ways by allowing wizards & other casters to differentiate themselves based on the focus items that fit their roles in a party while allowing them an avenue for shiny toys to populate the "loot" fund by the party.