OneDnD So shortsword is a simple weapon now...?

Lojaan

Adventurer
I wonder why they don't just create a matrix with every possible damage die, damage type, ability used applied. Call those combos they want as being "Martial". Then give examples of weapons that fall into each of those lines. Something like this (hopefully image attaches), but obviously built out. (and I just threw stuff in there, I haven't actually thought about this much further - like I am not sure Sap is a Dex weapon or not, maybe it's a "Both".)


If they don't have an example weapon that fits into a line, they explicitly can say that - but let the GM know "come up with your own weapon!" And weapons with special properties outside the matrix you would asterix (like the Scimitar above). This way GMs can just say "I created a weapon that has the stat line of a flail, but in my game I'm going to call it a "neck-breaker", and it costs 10GP."


If you do this on the 4 dimensions of: Damage Die (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, 2d6), Damage Type (B/P/S), Ability (STR/Dex/Both), Range/Melee and Simple/Martial you end up with maximum 216 combos. Some combos may not be allowed for whatever reason (balance?!?). Perhaps suggested price and weight range could be provided as a balancing effect - or other tags to balance...

Some combos will be exclusively Simple or Martial; and some will be Exclusively Ranged or Melee (for example, you probably wouldn't have a personal weapon that's a 2d6 ranged bludgeon weapon - Or maybe you would! (some sort of boulder sling requiring STR 16+ or something that's 2-handed and Loading)


You can then further differentiate between specific weapons with special tags as well as with price and weight (like the Pike v Halberd) - but these would be on a weapon by weapon basis and not a dimension on the matrix.


Or is this all too confusing for people...? Probably, I keep thinking of more use cases that I would want to create an exception or a new column. So probably not generally scalable. Ah well - fun thought experiment. I may still build this out.

Of course once I do, I'll share here

View attachment 262779
I think something like this would be great but I think it would belong in the DMG rather then the PHB.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
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?
A Ranger dual-wielding shortswords will be doing 4d6+DEX at level 1 (assuming both attacks hit and Hunter's Mark is active). At level 2, that will be increased to 4d6 +2*DEX (from the Dual Wielding Fighting Style).

We haven't seen the changes to Warriors yet, but currently with a two-handed weapon a level 1 Fighter is doing 2d6 + STR rerolling the 1s and 2s on the damage rolls. Which is way less than dual wielding.

I agree with the buff to Dual Wielding, but WotC does need to give something to balance out Two-Handed Fighting.
 

Lojaan

Adventurer
A Ranger dual-wielding shortswords will be doing 4d6+DEX at level 1 (assuming both attacks hit and Hunter's Mark is active). At level 2, that will be increased to 4d6 +2*DEX (from the Dual Wielding Fighting Style).

We haven't seen the changes to Warriors yet, but currently with a two-handed weapon a level 1 Fighter is doing 2d6 + STR rerolling the 1s and 2s on the damage rolls. Which is way less than dual wielding.

I agree with the buff to Dual Wielding, but WotC does need to give something to balance out Two-Handed Fighting.
I think hunters mark is only one per turn but you are right - it's still very good
 



Oh wow. I expect that will change to bring it in line with sneak attack but you are right - as is it is very powerful

Without concentration, this might be worth considering.

The fighter with a two handed weapon is not in a terrible shape however. Just a little bit behind in damage for 4 levels. After that, they should pull ahead a tiny bit.
 

Lojaan

Adventurer
One thing that I find weird is that apparently anyone can dual wield now but you still need special training to use a shield.

I feel that you should need the TWF fighting style to attack twice in the same action. Without it, it should still use your bonus action.
 


I feel that you should need the TWF fighting style to attack twice in the same action. Without it, it should still use your bonus action.
What would that actually achieve, save making things slightly more complicated?

Serious question, not sarcasm. Like, what's the actual goal, mechanically, of doing that?

The reason they've moved it out of being a Bonus Action is the virtually all "Bonus Action" attacks/shoves/etc. are being eliminated. In general they seem to want to make it so Bonus Actions are basically very rarely or perhaps even never "offensive". By doing this they make the game more straightforward, and they make character building less about finding a way to use your Bonus Action to do extra damage, which unfortunately, right now, it is.

As far as I can see, making it a Bonus Action again for some PCs would merely make the game slightly more complicated for those PCs, without in any way nerfing TWF in general, because people serious about it are likely to pick up the Fighting Style, either as a Fighting Style, or as a Feat.
 



UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
What would that actually achieve, save making things slightly more complicated?

Serious question, not sarcasm. Like, what's the actual goal, mechanically, of doing that?

The reason they've moved it out of being a Bonus Action is the virtually all "Bonus Action" attacks/shoves/etc. are being eliminated. In general they seem to want to make it so Bonus Actions are basically very rarely or perhaps even never "offensive". By doing this they make the game more straightforward, and they make character building less about finding a way to use your Bonus Action to do extra damage, which unfortunately, right now, it is.

As far as I can see, making it a Bonus Action again for some PCs would merely make the game slightly more complicated for those PCs, without in any way nerfing TWF in general, because people serious about it are likely to pick up the Fighting Style, either as a Fighting Style, or as a Feat.
In addition, the Ranger in particular was bonus action starved with Two Weapon Fighting as an allowed fighting style but all their damage booster spells being bonus action.
Now the melee ranger can get stuck in in turn 1 with an offhand attack and Hunter's Mark going. I think that this at least makes more thematic sense.
 

Lojaan

Adventurer
What would that actually achieve, save making things slightly more complicated?

Serious question, not sarcasm. Like, what's the actual goal, mechanically, of doing that?

The reason they've moved it out of being a Bonus Action is the virtually all "Bonus Action" attacks/shoves/etc. are being eliminated. In general they seem to want to make it so Bonus Actions are basically very rarely or perhaps even never "offensive". By doing this they make the game more straightforward, and they make character building less about finding a way to use your Bonus Action to do extra damage, which unfortunately, right now, it is.

As far as I can see, making it a Bonus Action again for some PCs would merely make the game slightly more complicated for those PCs, without in any way nerfing TWF in general, because people serious about it are likely to pick up the Fighting Style, either as a Fighting Style, or as a Feat.
This is a very fair call. Good point.

In this case I would make it that you need the TWF style to be able to use the bonus attack from having 2 light weapons at all. Drop the whole 'cannot add ability mod to the second attack' (which is very clunky) and just make it that you need that fighting style to use it. Don't have that style, can't do it. Just like you need to be proficient in shields to get their benefit.
 





An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top