Super Simple Weapons

[Yaarel]

I'm trying to understand the motivation for simplifying all things martial in your games. Weapons and armor are already quite simplified compared to past editions but are different enough from each other to have roles. Maybe spears did get the shaft a little but it's a tiny difference in damage between a sword and a spear and certainly that difference wouldn't stop any one at my table from taking a spear as an conceptual choice. Also there are good reasons to sometimes use a shortsword or dagger instead of a rapier. I'm surprised you are finding so much homogeneity.

Making things so bland for weapon users when they are already bland compared to spell casters just baffles me. Spellcasting is significantly more complicated than weapon use . You are putting racing tires on an ice cream truck.

It sounds like you have a couple of juvenile players trying to outdo each other in DPR or one berating the other for choosing a hand axe over a javelin or something.

The goal is to remove unnecessary complications, so the player can recognize and focus on the significant choices.

 

[ro]

I like these ideas. Here are mine inspired by yours.

First, the weapons table become ideas for role-playing purposes.
Things change thusly:

Weapon damage die = hit die. Addresses aforementioned caster w/ rapier > barbarian with dagger funniness.
Two-weapon or two-handed fighting = advantage on damage rolls. Retains choice of shield vs power decision.
Add Dex to all attack rolls. Accuracy uses one stat.
Add Str to all damage rolls. Power uses another. This makes the two stats less independently powerful and promotes MADness, making martial casters more difficult to pull off.
Thrown 15/30 feet, one-handed. Simple one-handed ranged attacks.
Fired 60/120 feet, two-handed. Simple two-handed ranged attacks: no shield = more distance. Limit to regular combat distance to make melee not so overcome against ranged.
Limit spell ranges to 60/120, adding in ranged disadvantage even to saving throws. Don't let magic overpower martial range. Draw everything back into running range. Only the fastest monsters reach or exceed 120 ft in movement when taking the Dash action.

Make armor more interesting, and choose weapons based on how they interact with enemy defenses. Your character might need to carry around more than one weapon now! Each weapon damage type gains +1 to attack and damage rolls against one armor type, and -1/-1 against another.

Bludgeoning: +1/+1 v. heavy armor, -1/-1 v. light
Piercing: +1/+1 v. medium, -1/-1 v. heavy
Slashing: +1/+1 v. light, -1/-1 v. medium

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Possible to go simpler?

Remove the distinction between simple and martial. Moreover, part of the goal is to use a simple weapon effectively, such as a dagger. All the more reason to remove the distinction between martial and simple.

Tiny 1d4 (light, finesse, throw)
Small 1d6 (light, finesse)
Medium 1d8 (versatile)
Large 1d10 (heavy, two-hand, reach)
Huge 1d12 (heavy, two-hand)

This makes sense to me, because Strength-based character classes already have martial weapon proficiency anyway. The reason why wizards would use a dagger rather than a greataxe is because wizards have higher Dexterity than they have Strength.

Plus, it would kill off the ridiculous notion of a Dexterity-based paladin, once and for all.

 

[mrpopstar]

Possible to go simpler?

Remove the distinction between simple and martial. Moreover, part of the goal is to use a simple weapon effectively, such as a dagger. All the more reason to remove the distinction between martial and simple.

Tiny 1d4 (light, finesse, throw)
Small 1d6 (light, finesse)
Medium 1d8 (versatile)
Large 1d10 (heavy, two-hand, reach)
Huge 1d12 (heavy, two-hand)

I wouldn't remove the simple and martial distinctions because it's still meaningful for non-martial classes to be limited to the lower end of the damage spectrum.

It's important to me also that all of the reference points within the game (e.g. terms like simple and martial) remain intact. — Super simple without reinvention!

I'm trying to understand the motivation for simplifying all things martial in your games. Weapons and armor are already quite simplified compared to past editions but are different enough from each other to have roles. Maybe spears did get the shaft a little but it's a tiny difference in damage between a sword and a spear and certainly that difference wouldn't stop any one at my table from taking a spear as an conceptual choice. Also there are good reasons to sometimes use a shortsword or dagger instead of a rapier. I'm surprised you are finding so much homogeneity.

It's a thought exercise, the benefit of which is a clearer understanding of the most basic elements of the weapon and armor tables.

Making things so bland for weapon users when they are already bland compared to spell casters just baffles me. Spellcasting is significantly more complicated than weapon use . You are putting racing tires on an ice cream truck.

In the view of those collaboratively contributing to this discussion, a simplified weapons table makes things more robust and flavorful by opening up all possibilities at each reference point of damage. That would be the opposite of bland, and far from baffling.

It sounds like you have a couple of juvenile players trying to outdo each other in DPR or one berating the other for choosing a hand axe over a javelin or something.

I have absolutely no idea where you found the basis for such an assertion as nothing could be further from the truth. You've made it clear that you don't find value in the discussion pertinent to this thread, and now you're being insulting. Please don't do that.

 

[mrpopstar]

Possible to go simpler?

Remove the distinction between simple and martial. Moreover, part of the goal is to use a simple weapon effectively, such as a dagger. All the more reason to remove the distinction between martial and simple.

Tiny 1d4 (light, finesse, throw)
Small 1d6 (light, finesse)
Medium 1d8 (versatile)
Large 1d10 (heavy, two-hand, reach)
Huge 1d12 (heavy, two-hand)

This makes sense to me, because Strength-based character classes already have martial weapon proficiency anyway. The reason why wizards would use a dagger rather than a greataxe is because wizards have higher Dexterity than they have Strength.

Plus, it would kill off the ridiculous notion of a Dexterity-based paladin, once and for all.

YES!

How do you two (and others!) feel about...

[table="width: 650"]
[tr]
[td]Name[/td]
[td]Damage[/td]
[td]Properties[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Simple Melee Weapons[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Tiny weapon[/td]
[td]1d4[/td]
[td]Finesse, light, thrown (range 20/60)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Small weapon[/td]
[td]1d6[/td]
[td]Finesse, light[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Medium weapon[/td]
[td]1d6[/td]
[td]Versatile (1d8)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Martial Melee Weapons[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Large Weapon[/td]
[td]1d8[/td]
[td]Versatile (1d10)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Huge Weapon[/td]
[td]1d10[/td]
[td]Heavy, reach, two-handed[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td] - Gargantuan Weapon[/td]
[td]1d12[/td]
[td]Heavy, two-handed[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]​

...I think it's important that there is a simple versatile weapon for those who wish to two-handed fight with only simple weapon proficiency.

Biggest question: Should scale move from tiny to huge, or from small to gargantuan? (I prefer the latter.)

 

[ro]

YES!

How do you two (and others!) feel about...

[TABLE="width: 650"]
[TR]
[TD]Name[/TD]
[TD]Damage[/TD]
[TD]Properties[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Simple Melee Weapons[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Small weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d4[/TD]
[TD]Finesse, light, thrown (range 20/60)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Medium weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d6[/TD]
[TD]Finesse, light, versatile (1d8)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Martial Melee Weapons[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Large Weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d8[/TD]
[TD]Versatile (1d10)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Huge Weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d10[/TD]
[TD]Heavy, reach, two-handed[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] - Gargantuan Weapon[/TD]
[TD]1d12[/TD]
[TD]Heavy, two-handed[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

...I think it's important that there is a simple versatile weapon for those who wish to two-handed fight with only simple weapon proficiency. Two-handed finesse is not a rapier, in the end.

Biggest question: Should scale move from tiny to huge, or from small to gargantuan? (I prefer the latter.)

For actual weapon sizes, it should probably go from diminutive to large. Huge and gargantuan would mean that your weapons are 15-20 ft long, which is ridiculous and would be impossible to wield.

 

[mrpopstar]

For actual weapon sizes, it should probably go from diminutive to large. Huge and gargantuan would mean that your weapons are 15-20 ft long, which is ridiculous and would be impossible to wield.

I think it's fair to assume that a huge weapon does not have the same dimensions as a huge creature.

 

[ro]

I think it's fair to assume that a huge weapon does not have the same dimensions as a huge creature.

I mean, from the perspective of everyday language I agree with you, but 5e defines those words not just for creature size but also object size.

 

[mrpopstar]

I mean, from the perspective of everyday language I agree with you, but 5e defines those words not just for creature size but also object size.

This is true, mostly kinda. Objects are described using the standard sizing nomenclature present throughout the game, but those sizes are not codified such that using those same terms for weapons confuses things unnecessarily.

I'm not against the idea of starting at tiny, but a "diminutive" weapon sounds useless. LOL

 

[Satyrn]

a "diminutive" weapon sounds useless. LOL

It would be the ideal weapon for a guerrilla.