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

[Horwath]

Maybe. But the point is whether a cleric or fighter who need saw a khopesh or shuriken in their life should be able to just pick it up off a dead foe and use it properly without penalty.

maybe not the same second.
but in a day sure.

If you know how to fight with a longsword then you will know how to fight with a katana or kopesh.

same way when you buy a new gun that you never saw in your life.
But, it's a gun. you take it one day to the range, you sight it in, and you are good to go. It does not matter if it is an AK47, a Glock 17, a Famas or AR15. It's the same thing when you sight it in. You just need to be more beefier for some guns. But that is another topic about weapons and min STR for them

not worth a feat or a multiclass level.
hell, it's not worth a tool proficiency

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't mind the distinction. I believe there should be two categories of weapons (those that require special training and lots of practice to use properly, and those that do not), and as long as the rules reflect this somewhat, I'll be cool with it.

Regardless of how they are classified, I don't want to hand-wave proficiency with weapons. Saying "all fighters everywhere are fully trained in all weapons from all lands and all time periods" just sounds silly to me. It's just as silly as saying "no commoners know how to use any weapons of any kind unless it's something they keep in the barn." So regardless of how the weapons are categorized, the way that characters become proficient with them really could use an overhaul IMO.

 

[Horwath]

I don't mind the distinction. I believe there should be two categories of weapons (those that require special training and lots of practice to use properly, and those that do not), and as long as the rules reflect this somewhat, I'll be cool with it.

Regardless of how they are classified, I don't want to hand-wave proficiency with weapons. Saying "all fighters everywhere are fully trained in all weapons from all lands and all time periods" just sounds silly to me. It's just as silly as saying "no commoners know how to use any weapons of any kind unless it's something they keep in the barn." So regardless of how the weapons are categorized, the way that characters become proficient with them really could use an overhaul IMO.

If you want distinction, then it should be logical.

By style, not by simple/martial. Mace and hammer are 99% same weapon.

you should then have proficiency categories.

1Handed weapons
1handed finesse weapons
2Handed weapons
2Handed finesse weapons

Thrown weapons
reach weapons.

last 2 are added proficiency to existing proficiency from first 4 categories.

and
ranged weapons.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

maybe not the same second.
but in a day sure.

If you know how to fight with a longsword then you will know how to fight with a katana or kopesh.

same way when you buy a new gun that you never saw in your life.
But, it's a gun. you take it one day to the range, you sight it in, and you are good to go. It does not matter if it is an AK47, a Glock 17, a Famas or AR15. It's the same thing when you sight it in. You just need to be more beefier for some guns. But that is another topic about weapons and min STR for them

not worth a feat or a multiclass level.
hell, it's not worth a tool proficiency

Remember, guns became popular because it was very to train new recruits on mass to load and fire them. Weeks rather than the years it took to train archers.

You could certainly group up simple weapons and say proficiency in one gives proficiency in all. Crossbows for example.

But there is a difference between being able to pick up and swing a weapon and being trained in it. Sure you could pick up training faster if you are trained in a similar weapon, but you can't pick up a new weapon and instantly be just as good with it.

Instead, spend some downtime to learn a martial weapon in the same group as one you know. Spend more downtime learning a new weapon group.

 

[Minigiant]

Mace and hammer are 99% same weapon.

They really arent.
A mace's smaller and multiple heads make it much easier to use than a warhammer. Warhammers' heads would make fighing with them closer to using a battleaxe in my opinion.

The issue is that the warhammer and mace are given different dice.
The difference should be proficiency and properties.

 

[aco175]

Sure, that works. I don't know what the difference between exotic & advanced is though. I was thinking more like

• basic (slings, daggers, darts, clubs)
• simple (d4 + some two handed weapons like great club)
• militia (d6 weapons + light crossbow & some two handed pole arms)
• martial (d8 & versatile weapons)
• advanced & exotic

Maybe put proficiency with the big two handers as a fighting style or feat that martial classes have easy access too

When I read 'militia' weapons I started thinking that this could tie to the soldier background. This also could tie to other backgrounds where certain weapons are given if you are from certain locations or professions.

I can see fighters having more weapons. I can also see gaining more weapons as you advance in level.

I do like the simplicity of the OP after I use it a bit to get the feel. There could be levels of training to get the bigger damage die or classes that get it. It could just free up someone saying that they are using an X and someone else using a Y, but they both are 1d8 one-handed and maybe one has versatile.

I think overall I would favor a more expanded list and not a simplified list for a more crunchier feel.

 

[CubicsRube]

I agree.
I would go with 4-5 weapon proficiencies.

• Basic
• Simple
• Martial
• Exotic
• Advanced

Wizards don't even get simple weapons. They just get clubs, staves, daggers, darts,and the basic crossbow. Commoner weapons.

I would take a different approach.

I would have:

• Hammers, Clubs and Axes
• Swords
• Polearms
• Ranged Weapons
• Exotic Weapons
• Unarmed/Grappling

And then give everyone proficiency with a dagger as a minimum.

 

[Minigiant]

I would take a different approach.

I would have:

• Hammers, Clubs and Axes
• Swords
• Polearms
• Ranged Weapons
• Exotic Weapons
• Unarmed/Grappling

And then give everyone proficiency with a dagger as a minimum.

So where do flails and picks go?
And I don't get lumping all ranged weapons together

I'd go with

• Basic
  • dagger, dart, sling, quarterstaff, light crossbow
• Simple
  • club, greatclub, handaxe, javelin, light hammer, mace, shortbow, sickle, spear
• Martial
  • battleaxe, flail, glaive, greataxe, greatsword, halberd, hand crossbow, heavy crossbow, heavy flail, lance, longbow, longsword, maul, morningstar, net, pike, polehammer, polemace, rapier, scimatar, shortsword, trident, warpick, warhammer, whip
• Superior
  • bastard sword, falchion, heavy javelin, long axe, longspear, repeating crossbow, throwing knife, war axe
• Exotic
  • billhook, chakram, double axe, double sword, fork, katar, khopesh, kukri, macuahuitl, sai, shuriken, spiked chain, scythe

I am up for weapon groups like axes, swords, and hammers that could have bonuses applied via Fighting styles or variant rules.

 

[CubicsRube]

So where do flails and picks go?
And I don't get lumping all ranged weapons together

With axes and hammers. Logic is that due to their weight distribution and striking style there should be similarities.

You could definately split out bows, crossbows and slings, but that might be too granular.

 

[CleverNickName]

There are lots of other categories that could be used instead of "Simple," "Martial," and "Exotic."

Sort them by shape (Axes, Bows, Hammers, Blades, Polearms...)
Sort them by application (Archery, Fencing, Hunting, Improvised, Jousting, Personal Defense...)
Sort them by combat role (Archer, Cavalry, Infantry, Siege...)
Sort them by damage type (Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing)
Sort them by era (Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Age of Faerie, Age of Dragons, Age of Magic...)
Sort them by region (African, Asian, European, Polynesian...)
Sort them by training requirement (Basic, Expert, Advanced, Master...)

The trouble is, while each of these methods makes sense in its own way, they don't really work in a universal fantasy game sense. If there was never a Stone Age or a continent called "Asia," for example, you can't really group the equipment by era or region unless you make them extremely campaign-specific and define those regions/eras first.

The method that make the most sense to me is Application. If all of the weapons are sorted by how they are used, it makes it a little more sensible to assign them out to different classes and backgrounds. For example: NPC commoners, Rangers, and characters with the Outlander background might gain proficiency with a couple of weapons from the Hunting list. Fighters, NPC soldiers, and characters with the Noble background might have proficiency with a handful of Jousting or Fencing weapons. Most everyone would be proficient with a Personal weapon like a cane, staff, or dagger. And so on.