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

[tetrasodium]

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
• 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.

I'm going to add to the "probably too much abstraction" and toss on the addition of how this would massively cut down on the gms ability to make magic weapons/treasures by shifting so much of it into the class where it doesn't really belong. It's bad enough monks already kinda do that, making the other classes do the same would be a mess.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Well the Rattling and Invigorating tag were available on at-will powers (for Rogue and Fighters respectively). If we have to make it class feature then I feel like a Fighting style might be better than a limited maneuver...

That said, you gave me an idea:

Imagine the weapons table. Instead of having weapon training gating part of it vertically, what if it gated part of it HORIZONTALLY? Let me explain.

Anybody can pick up a Longsword, but if you do so with only the basic training of any adventurer, it's a d8 two-handed weapon. Get some Martial training and now you can use it one handed and benefit from the Versatile (d10) feature. Get advanced training and now you gain access to a new property, let's say, 'Swift', which activates with Sleight-of-hand training, allowing you to do the whole Samurai iaijutsu thing.

Anybody can pick a short sword, and for them it's a one handed d6 weapon. Pick up martial training and now you get access to the Finesse property. Add advanced training and now you get the High Crit (d6) property when you have Insight or Perception training.

Anybody can pick a longbow, but the range at which you don't get disadvantage for shooting at long range gets longer and longer with each step of training. Maybe throw in High Crit (d8) or something too.

And so forth. Maybe some weapon only get Reach at the third level (Quarterstaff if you're trained in Acrobatics?)

You don't get access to better weapon with training, you just get better at using them. Throw in the suggested STR minimum (11-13-15) and you got some nice granularity and weapons choice can become relevant beyond aesthetic and damage types.

 

[Minigiant]

Well the Rattling and Invigorating tag were available on at-will powers (for Rogue and Fighters respectively). If we have to make it class feature then I feel like a Fighting style might be better than a limited maneuver...

That said, you gave me an idea:

Imagine the weapons table. Instead of having weapon training gating part of it vertically, what if it gated part of it HORIZONTALLY? Let me explain.

Anybody can pick up a Longsword, but if you do so with only the basic training of any adventurer, it's a d8 two-handed weapon. Get some Martial training and now you can use it one handed and benefit from the Versatile (d10) feature. Get advanced training and now you gain access to a new property, let's say, 'Swift', which activates with Sleight-of-hand training, allowing you to do the whole Samurai iaijutsu thing.

Anybody can pick a short sword, and for them it's a one handed d6 weapon. Pick up martial training and now you get access to the Finesse property. Add advanced training and now you get the High Crit (d6) property when you have Insight or Perception training.

Anybody can pick a longbow, but the range at which you don't get disadvantage for shooting at long range gets longer and longer with each step of training. Maybe throw in High Crit (d8) or something too.

And so forth. Maybe some weapon only get Reach at the third level (Quarterstaff if you're trained in Acrobatics?)

You don't get access to better weapon with training, you just get better at using them. Throw in the suggested STR minimum (11-13-15) and you got some nice granularity and weapons choice can become relevant beyond aesthetic and damage types.

That sounds like 3.5 Fighter Weapon Focus.

Perhaps there could be tiers for Fighting styles. Advanced fighting styles with prerequisites.

Fighting Style

Sword Focus
Prerequisite: Proficient in any 4 swords.
When you are wielding a sword, your attacks have Keen

Sword Specialization
Prerequisite: Proficient in 2 martial swords.
When you are wielding a sword, your attacks have High Crit

Sword Mastery
Prerequisite: Proficient in 6 martial, exotic, or superior swords. Proficiency in Slight of Hand
When you are wielding a sword, your attacks have Swift.
Additionally, your proficiency bonus to Sleight of Hand is doubled.

 

[Bihlbo]

It's always seemed to me that making a distinction between the B/P/S damage types in 5e is more trouble than it's worth. Like, every time you mention a weapon you must list all three types. You have to make a weapon list with all three types in various modes and descriptions. And for what? The 1 to 2 monster types that have resistance to that damage type, and that you might run into at your level? Yes, at low levels when one weapon is interchangeable with another, it makes sense that you'd run around with a warhammer just in case you attack a skeleton that's resistant to your longsword. But once you get magic weapons you shouldn't need to care any longer. There should never be a point in the game when a +1 flaming longsword is worse than a mundane warhammer just because it cuts. But if you fight an ooze, you'll run into that.

I like the distinction between those who are trained to use a weapon and those who aren't. I also like that in 5e you can be a halbard-wielding wizard and the only downside is that you don't add your proficiency bonus to attacks.

But the weapons list always struck me as something that wasn't finished or properly developed before it went to print.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's always seemed to me that making a distinction between the B/P/S damage types in 5e is more trouble than it's worth. Like, every time you mention a weapon you must list all three types. You have to make a weapon list with all three types in various modes and descriptions. And for what? The 1 to 2 monster types that have resistance to that damage type, and that you might run into at your level? Yes, at low levels when one weapon is interchangeable with another, it makes sense that you'd run around with a warhammer just in case you attack a skeleton that's resistant to your longsword. But once you get magic weapons you shouldn't need to care any longer. There should never be a point in the game when a +1 flaming longsword is worse than a mundane warhammer just because it cuts. But if you fight an ooze, you'll run into that.

I like the distinction between those who are trained to use a weapon and those who aren't. I also like that in 5e you can be a halbard-wielding wizard and the only downside is that you don't add your proficiency bonus to attacks.

But the weapons list always struck me as something that wasn't finished or properly developed before it went to print.

You misunderstand why a flaming longsword (+1 or not) was better than some other weapon

Back when the flaming property was the equivalent if +1 cost (3.5dmg 224) there were a great deal more creatures with dr5/10/etc & it was easier to apply it to monsters as a gm. Making it so every attack that didn't bypass DR with damage type or material type was going to lose a significant chunk of damage right off the bat made it so a player could use that tricked out flaming longsword against skeletons or whatever) & sill do ok damage because the flaming portion completely bypassed both drX/damageType as well as drX/materialType. By using this DR property a GM could make a bbeg+minions with minions who were not just giant bags of HP resulting in either lower damage output or switching to a different weapon less powerful than their +5 holy avengers. Because resting for the night recovered your level in hp & you couldn't just get the cleric to upcast healing soells through all their spell slots it made the damage players gathered getting to or dealing with the bbeg with the need to occasionally use a second set of weapons more troubling to the players.

That DR would also favor characters who were specialized to reliably hit like a truck fewer times over the players who specialized in lots of weaker hits playing the law of averages. That favoring was great because those players who specialized in lots of little attacks were great at clearing up lesser baddies on the way to the big guy. In 5e, not only is there not really any good way to accomplish the one hit like a truck but resistance favors the guy making lots of little attacks with the multiplication of damage mods & fact that the hit like a truck things still in had a misunderstood (or badwrongfun) role when wotc made 5e those truck abilities into something players do for their entire attack chain & pretty much never not use.

edit: Not only that, a +2 weapon means that the pc wielding it needs to go up against higher AC critters for the same hit rate as a +1 longsword while a +1 flaming longsword has the same hitrate so less optimized players & players who might not be able to use a +# weapon (monk, wildshape, etc) are not hamstrung just to challenge bob if he had a +2 longsword

 

[Bihlbo]

No, I didn't misunderstand anything. And I'm well aware of what the outdated systems did. But maybe you aren't aware that we're talking about 5e.

 

[Undrave]

That sounds like 3.5 Fighter Weapon Focus.

Perhaps there could be tiers for Fighting styles. Advanced fighting styles with prerequisites.

Fighting Style

Sword Focus
Prerequisite: Proficient in any 4 swords.
When you are wielding a sword, your attacks have Keen

Sword Specialization
Prerequisite: Proficient in 2 martial swords.
When you are wielding a sword, your attacks have High Crit

Sword Mastery
Prerequisite: Proficient in 6 martial, exotic, or superior swords. Proficiency in Slight of Hand
When you are wielding a sword, your attacks have Swift.
Additionally, your proficiency bonus to Sleight of Hand is doubled.

I dunno about the Proficient prerequisite, but having more 'Advanced' Fighting style would be cool. I always felt that stuff like Polearm Mastery, Great Weapon Mastery and Sharpshooter were actually advanced fighting styles that were shoved into the Feat section late in the design process because "A Fighter gets tons of Feat!" was the 'design' of the 3.X Fighter and they wanted to bring that back.

No one would complain about Sharpshooter if it was something only an X level Fighter could get access to IF they had Archery as a Fighting style...Same for the others.

I could also see, if we go for my suggestion of different levels of proficiency, having the Fighter start with a Martial level of proficiency and only gain Focus in a weapon (or weapons) of their choice when they grow in level.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

I see your point. And as someone who himself keeps a look-out for vestigial rules that D&D could shed with few repercussions, I congratulate you for starting this discussion.

The divide was initially a codification of the advantage offered to "real fighters" over other classes with weapons.

But I can agree it no longer serves the purpose of balancing classes against each other.

The reason a Cleric or Sorcerer is weaker in martial combat than a Ranger or Paladin is only to a non-significant degree due to access to weapon categories. By the same token, getting racial access to martial weapons might in some theoretical scenario be a big deal. But really it isn't. By far the biggest differentiator is your class. A Bard or Rogue or Druid or Cleric - even one that can use a Greataxe - will never stand a chance in straight-up melee combat against a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger. AC, hp, armor and Strength allotment sees to that.

So it's not about the martial or simple weapons, except, possibly, at level 1.

Spelling out the restrictions in weapons training for Clerics or Sorcerers without the shorthand of "simple weapons only" wouldn't be unreasonable.

---

All this said, I must note that the hassle isn't really all that heavy a burden. So to me it would be a perfectly acceptable end to the discussion to conclude "no it doesn't do much, but it isn't hurting either, so we could keep it even with a weak justification".

On the other hand, let's nip the natural follow-up idea in the bud, the "if we keep it let us at least make it more significant". No, that does not necessarily follow. It is entirely okay for Level Up to keep a 5E rule that isn't too much of a bother, even if the only reason is because it was in 5E.

 

[CubicsRube]

I agree that I don't think the gating of weapn categories restrict much in the way of power.

A greatsword wielding wizard is still just as likely to use their spells than if they have a dagger.

The only thing weapons needs in 5e is a... "BROADSWORD"!

 

[Minigiant]

The reason a Cleric or Sorcerer is weaker in martial combat than a Ranger or Paladin is only to a non-significant degree due to access to weapon categories. By the same token, getting racial access to martial weapons might in some theoretical scenario be a big deal. But really it isn't. By far the biggest differentiator is your class. A Bard or Rogue or Druid or Cleric - even one that can use a Greataxe - will never stand a chance in straight-up melee combat against a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger. AC, hp, armor and Strength allotment sees to that.

So it's not about the martial or simple weapons, except, possibly, at level 1.

Spelling out the restrictions in weapons training for Clerics or Sorcerers without the shorthand of "simple weapons only" wouldn't be unreasonable.

I think this is key.

Originally, the simple/martial light/medium/heavy concepts were to make sure Warrior classes were better at combat than Priest and Rogue classes without the need to frontload them to heck.

Removing simple/martial means you have to add something to warriors that don't make them extremely tasty in multi/dual/sub/split classsing.