D&D (2024) So shortsword is a simple weapon now...?

[Charlaquin]

What a weird choice. What are they even trying to fix here?

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

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 class

 

[Olrox17]

Allright. I guess simplification could be the reason, just not a reason I like very much. Seeing the short sword, a classic martial weapon, lumped together with clubs, daggers and sickles feels weird.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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?

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.

But that's what this document is for: presenting thoughts to the gamer public and getting their reaction. Do some playtesting with and see if it really causes problems, and submit it in the feedback.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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?

I would not want to be in melee as a standard wizard. If we use standard 5e as base, it is 2d6+3 damage (if dex 16) and lets assume 16 int, which leaves you at 7 hp max.
The fighter has either 2d6+6 two attacks strength based, or 2d6+3 (reroll 1s and 2s) strength based. 16 con for 13 hp and 1d10+1 hp as reserve.
Lets assume, the wizard used their arcane recovery spell for Mage Armor, so both have 16 AC.

The wizard better makes great use of his 2 level 1 spells he is left with.

Shield spell? Oh no hand free.
You can put back one weapon after round one. Pull it out in round 2 and put the otger one away in the current rules however.
Still the point remains. After casting shield twice, the wizard will be quite unhappy. So in a duel 1 vs 1, maybe the wizard has an edge, but against enemies all day long? Better be the fighter.

 

[Lojaan]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I want to add, that I see no benefit in adding the short sword to the simple weapon list. Although it is comparable in power to hand axes and daggers. (they have throw replacing one of the other short sword features).

I'd rather have rogues use d6 for daggers.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

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.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

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

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

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.