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

[tetrasodium]

If you want distinction, then it should be logical.

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

Thy might be, but when they function differently on a mechanical level in d&d they are not

Back n 3.5 a light mace was 1h 1d6x2, heavy mace was 1d8x2 2 handed & the martial light hammer was 1d4x2 but could be used both melee & ranged with a 20ft range increment while a warhammer was a 1h melee weapon that was 1d8x3. in 5e you've only got 1 mace(d6) & everything has the same crit mod but things otherwise convert pretty well for comparison.

Here's some properties that I think could be fun:

Brutal 1/2 : When you roll that number, or below, on your damage dice, you automatically reroll your damage until you roll above said number
Offhand Defensive: When wielding this weapon in your off hand, you gain a +1 bonus to AC (Swordbreaker anyone?)
Twohanded Defensive: When wielding this weapon in two hands, you gain a +1 bonus to AC (iron staff or something?)
High Crit: When you land a critical hit with this weapon, add an extra dice to your damage roll. (might specify the extra die so you could have weapons that do d4 damage, but add d6 when they crit or something)
Swift: You gain advantage to your first attack with this weapon if you drew it as part of the attack action. (Good for katana and hidden daggers)
Two-Ended: This weapon can switch between two damage types whenever you attack with it.
Overwhelming: Whenever you score a critical hit with this weapon, you either push the target 5 feet or the target falls prone.

If proficiency dice rather than flat proficiency bonus gets used, setting a floor on the roll akin to brutal would be another way of differentiating some weapons from other

 

[Undrave]

If proficiency dice rather than flat proficiency bonus gets used, setting a floor on the roll akin to brutal would be another way of differentiating some weapons from other

Like a 'Precise' quality?

 

[Minigiant]

If proficiency dice rather than flat proficiency bonus gets used, setting a floor on the roll akin to brutal would be another way of differentiating some weapons from other
View attachment 125173

As a player I like the idea.
As a DM, I fear the amount of times the player will forget.

 

[tetrasodium]

Like a 'Precise' quality?

Sure... Precise, skillfull, whatever. Take rapier & other thrusting weapons designed to stab through gaps in armor as an example. 5e is too simple to compare but back in 3.5 the rapier & scimitar were both 1d6/18-20x2 with pierce/slash the only difference but if it couldn't roll below a 2 or 3 on the proficiency die & was /19-20x2 instead it would feel viscerally different in a character who could use either & there are tons of weapons that could reasonably be better in the eyes of one player while being mechanically equal or even worse than some other weapon in some or even every other way.

edit: @Minigiant I used it sparingly with magic weapons in one campaign & players loved them. Sure it was subjective if that one was better than the thing they already had or not but switching them to proficiency dice was more work than getting bob to remember the cool thing his magic doodad did & switching them wasn't that bad after the first session or so of occasional "oops" moments.

 

[Undrave]

In Martial Power, in 4e, they added new keywords to the powers of the Fighter and Rogue: Rattle and Invigorate.

When you hit an enemy with a Rattling power, and you are trained in the Intimidate skill, they take a -2 to their attack rolls.

When you hit an enemy with an Invigorating power, and you are trained in the Endurance skill, you gain Temporary hit points (I think it was based on CON?).

I think those were pretty neat concept... maybe we could take that concept and turn it into some types of properties of weapons? Or as some sort of Feats? The idea that your skills play into your choice of weapon would be neat.

Maybe my suggested 'Swift' quality only works if you're trained in Sleight of Hand?

 

[Haldrik]

I dont hate the simple versus martial categories. But now that @Horwath mentions it, they do seem superfluous.

For example, I feel no reason to assume a Wizard ever becomes proficient with any weapon. The Wizard fights magically with cantrips now. If the Wizard wants to swap one cantrip for one weapon that seems fine.

Each weapon proficiency is worth about a skill-tool proficiency. Four weapon proficiencies is worth proficiency with all weapons.

I like the idea of weapons having a Str or Dex prereq.

In the end, it seems like lumping all weapons into the same list is fine

 

[Aexalon]

How about divorcing weapons from damage die size entirely, and let it depend on skill/proficiency?

• An arming sword could be main-handed/slashing/defensive
• A maul could be 2-handed/crushing/brutal(2)
• A rapier could be main-handed/piercing/deadly
• A dagger could be off-handed/slashing/thrown(10m)

with

• off-handed = +0 dmg but can be used in, well, your off hand
• main-handed = +2 dmg
• 2-handed = +4 dmg (or whatever the maths should work out to),
• slashing/crushing/piercing the damage type
• defensive = +1 AC
• brutal(x) = reroll dmg die if x or lower
• deadly = extra damage die on crit
• etc.

But damage die size would start at 1d4 for everyone, and is modified by class abilities and feats. Fighters might start off with a die increase right at level 1, and they (and other classes) might gain more universal ones or group-specific ones as they advance (each class with their own progression), all with a cap of d12 (or d20 if you want a nice capstone for L20 fighters). A feat could increase your weapon die for all weapons or certain groups of weapons by 1. And having the ambidexterity feat means you have 2 main hands.

Oh, and a teacup is off-handed/piercing/innocious(advantage on skill checks to pass off the weapon as harmless), and Riddick's weapon damage die with, wel... anything, is d20.

 

[Undrave]

But damage die size would start at 1d4 for everyone, and is modified by class abilities and feats. Fighters might start off with a die increase right at level 1, and they (and other classes) might gain more universal ones or group-specific ones as they advance (each class with their own progression), all with a cap of d12 (or d20 if you want a nice capstone for L20 fighters). A feat could increase your weapon die for all weapons or certain groups of weapons by 1. And having the ambidexterity feat means you have 2 main hands.

I think that would be too much abstraction for most folks. They would comlain it doesn't feel like D&D.

 

[Minigiant]

In Martial Power, in 4e, they added new keywords to the powers of the Fighter and Rogue: Rattle and Invigorate.

When you hit an enemy with a Rattling power, and you are trained in the Intimidate skill, they take a -2 to their attack rolls.

When you hit an enemy with an Invigorating power, and you are trained in the Endurance skill, you gain Temporary hit points (I think it was based on CON?).

I think those were pretty neat concept... maybe we could take that concept and turn it into some types of properties of weapons? Or as some sort of Feats? The idea that your skills play into your choice of weapon would be neat.

Maybe my suggested 'Swift' quality only works if you're trained in Sleight of Hand?

Those feel more like maneuvers

When you make a melee weapon attack with an X and you are proficient in the Zskill, you may expend a superiority die. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll and the weapon gains the Y property.

Axes: Brutal 2 | Athletics
Dagger: Bleeding | Streetwise
Flail: Sweeping | Insight
Hammer: Ratting | Endurance
Maces: Rattling | Endurance
Pick: Brutal 2 | Athletics
Polearm: High Crit | Perception
Spears: High Crit | | Perception
Sword:: Swift | Sleight of Hand

I dont hate the simple versus martial categories. But now that @Horwath mentions it, they do seem superfluous.

For example, I feel no reason to assume a Wizard ever becomes proficient with any weapon. The Wizard fights magically with cantrips now. If the Wizard wants to swap one cantrip for one weapon that seems fine.

Each weapon proficiency is worth about a skill-tool proficiency. Four weapon proficiencies is worth proficiency with all weapons.

I like the idea of weapons having a Str or Dex prereq.

In the end, it seems like lumping all weapons into the same list is fine

I think the original intention was to both simulation training time and put warrior, priest, rogue, and arcanist classes on different tiers of combat ability.

Lump the weapons all up and you'll have to give every warrior class another combat feature at level 1. Don't do it right and you end up with 3e's mess of CoDzillas.

That's why I like the 4 tier system Basic-Simple-Martial/Exotic-Superior.

 

[Horwath]

I think that would be too much abstraction for most folks. They would comlain it doesn't feel like D&D.

I agree.

Base damage should be BASE damage.

class feature, feats, levels i general can add various bonuses, extra damage dice, extra effects, extra attacks per turn, etc...