I don’t know if it works that way but I kind of want to go back to 2e JUST individually proficient by weaponShort sword,
d6 damage, light, finesse.
simple weapon.
so the "martial" version of it must then have d8 damage. To justify having proficiency.
remove light property and it goes to d10.
remove finesse and it goes to d12.
can we get d12 one-handed longswords please now?
Oh god noI don’t know if it works that way but I kind of want to go back to 2e JUST individually proficient by weapon
The base bard with "Weapons: Simple Weapons" can use it while more warrior group leaning bard archetypes can gain stuff like longsword/rapier/hand crossbow as appropriate rather than having it in the base class. Those weapons by extension have more design space to be great because they are not as available for useWhat a weird choice. What are they even trying to fix here?
Oh god no
I mean, they could have just had the bard being proficient with simple weapons plus the short sword. Seems like a very weird way to go about it.The base bard with "Weapons: Simple Weapons" can use it while more warrior group leaning bard archetypes can gain stuff like longsword/rapier/hand crossbow as appropriate rather than having it in the base class. Those weapons by extension have more design space to be great because they are not as available for use
I don’t think there will be a martial version, just as there isn’t a martial version of the hand axe.Short sword,
d6 damage, light, finesse.
simple weapon.
so the "martial" version of it must then have d8 damage. To justify having proficiency.
It looks to me like they’re getting rid of proficiencies with individual weapon types. All of the classes in this packet only have broad proficiency with simple or martial weapons, with the sole exception of rogues being proficient with “martial finesse weapons.” The weapon master feat now gives proficiency with all martial weapons instead of four weapons of your choice. I suspect the reason they moved short swords to simple was so bards and monks can just be proficient with simple weapons and have the short sword included in that.What a weird choice. What are they even trying to fix here?
I don't think it's weird if part of the reasoning is to minimize pointless edge cases. It also for example allows warrior class group features & generic feats to have notable features that depend on wielding a martial weapon that bards don't by default qualify for with an edge case weapon proficiency unless they take an archetype that slants towards the warrior group. If that's the case I'd expect to see a simple weapon sickle or the same shift applied to scimitar when we get the priest packet unless they just stop with the pointlessly vestigial scimitar prof on the base druid classI mean, they could have just had the bard being proficient with simple weapons plus the short sword. Seems like a very weird way to go about it.
I suspect that they are doubling down on the logic that the 1st level wizard likely only has a 12 or 14 Dex, isn't wading into melee combat if they want to live anyways, and the guy with the greatsword has other ways they they will be getting better at making things dead with melee weapons than simply the weapon damage dice.greatsword is 2d6, martial, heavy, STR based
I don't know if all classes will get simple weapon proficiencies, let's say that they do.
so now a halfling wizard can do 1d6+3 and 1d6 damage on 1st level, dex based, and fighter can do 2d6+3 Str based
wizard has 2 attacks with smaller damage, that means less chance of an overkill and more reliable chance to do some damage per round.
Vs. what? 3,5 more damage on AoO if it triggers, and you hit?
Is this a joke?
greatsword is 2d6, martial, heavy, STR based
I don't know if all classes will get simple weapon proficiencies, let's say that they do.
so now a halfling wizard can do 1d6+3 and 1d6 damage on 1st level, dex based, and fighter can do 2d6+3 Str based
wizard has 2 attacks with smaller damage, that means less chance of an overkill and more reliable chance to do some damage per round.
Vs. what? 3,5 more damage on AoO if it triggers, and you hit?
Is this a joke?
Any wizard who tried it would quickly end up a smear on the pavement so I really don't see it being an issue.greatsword is 2d6, martial, heavy, STR based
I don't know if all classes will get simple weapon proficiencies, let's say that they do.
so now a halfling wizard can do 1d6+3 and 1d6 damage on 1st level, dex based, and fighter can do 2d6+3 Str based
wizard has 2 attacks with smaller damage, that means less chance of an overkill and more reliable chance to do some damage per round.
Vs. what? 3,5 more damage on AoO if it triggers, and you hit?
Is this a joke?
They seem to really overvalue an average damage boost of 1. Unless martial weapons do fancy stuff, I don't see what they accomplish by forcing bards to use a shortsword over a rapier (likely dual wielding in the process). It seems so petty.The base bard with "Weapons: Simple Weapons" can use it while more warrior group leaning bard archetypes can gain stuff like longsword/rapier/hand crossbow as appropriate rather than having it in the base class. Those weapons by extension have more design space to be great because they are not as available for use
I think they want to ease back from the "Rapiers all the time" approach that 5e ended up in. It still seems to be the sword and board weapon of choice - but it's been deliberately locked out of two weapon fighting unless you take a feat (meaning that it isn't automatically the best rogue and two weapon ranger melee weapon), and it's only going to go to valour bards rather than most bards now.They seem to really overvalue an average damage boost of 1. Unless martial weapons do fancy stuff, I don't see what they accomplish by forcing bards to use a shortsword over a rapier (likely dual wielding in the process). It seems so petty.