Swords,Maces n stuff

[Aramax]

Ok I know this would add a layer of complexity to 5e but let me throw this out there--
What if weopon groups each had some reason to use them
for example:
Swords +1 to hit
Maces -some kind of bonus verses metal armour
Axes-highest damage
spears-best criticals
I know it will never happen but I can hope...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4e actuall does some of this...
Not consequently enough, but it was a beginning.

(superior weapons/simple weapons somehow defeated it... but miltary weapons are quite balanced and most weapons have a reason to be used.)

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'd love to see clear differentiation between weapons - possibly on the effect that they have on a crit (e.g. maces daze 1 round on a crit, axes to extra damage) or the effect they have in general use (e.g. spears automatically do double damage against someone who has charged you - a kind of automatic 'set spears against charge')

 

[Aramax]

Wow,I really wasnt expecting any support on this....

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really want weapon choice to matter more in 5E than it has in the past. Replacing the small numerical differences with moderate functional differences would make that kind of choice a lot more meaningful and interesting. Weapons that boost defense, weapons that move an enemy when they hit, weapons that weaken foes when they hit them, weapons that are effective against armor, weapons that can halt movement... If many of the effects seen in 4E powers were given to weapons as special weapon-specific effects, rather than specific class powers, I think it would benefit the game a lot. It could make thinks like the choice between using a Mace and an Axe a lot better than it has been.

 

[Tallifer]

Ok I know this would add a layer of complexity to 5e but let me throw this out there--
What if weopon groups each had some reason to use them
for example:
Swords +1 to hit
Maces -some kind of bonus verses metal armour
Axes-highest damage
spears-best criticals
I know it will never happen but I can hope...

Fourth Edition does many things in this vein. Certain weapons had better chances to hit, certain did more damage, certain had higher minimum damage.

But more than this, Fourth Edition has many feats, styles and powers specifically designed to reinforce the strength of each weapon. There are even paragon paths built around specific weapons.

However, I do agree that Fifth Edition should refine those ideas (not all of them worked well).

I think one of the biggest issues for certain weapons and armour is the economy in 4th edition: beginning characters can buy plate armour and a two-hander, so no one is ever so poor that he need buy a club. But I think the solution there is simply to add optional rules for zero level characters (or as someone pointed out an entire five level sub-tier: most games would start at Heroic Tier, but some could start at Adventurer Tier with card tricks instead of cantrips, quilted armour and rusty farm tools.)

 

[trancejeremy]

Most editions had something that did this. 1st Ed AD&D has the speed factors and the armor adjustment (which most people ignored), BECMI had Weapon Mastery, even 3rd Edition had different criticals and the bizarre obsessions over weapon size (was it absolute or scaled to the character)

 

[nnms]

I also wouldn't mind a bit of a return to historical accuracy when it came to weapons. A longsword is a bastard sword. They're the same thing. The shorter one handed sword was often called an arming sword or a knight's sword. Warhammers were not mauls with huge heads.

I guess I'm just tired of the weird Final Fantasy giant weapons approach in D&D. Or the weapon bristling with nonsensical spikes and flourishes. Like the dragon born's sword on the cover of the 4E PHB1. Or the impossibly gigantic pink crystal axe on the 4E PHB2.

 

[Sammael]

My Fatebinder system includes special abilities for both weapon groups (e.g. all axes deal more damage on a critical hit) and individual weapons (e.g. battleaxe has armor piercing 2).

The playtest shows that it's a bit fiddly (particularly when creating NPCs), but it greatly enhances the differences between weapons and makes them feel much different from one another.

I'd love for D&D to include this as an option (as the highest complexity dial, for those who want it).

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd like weapon damage to be a bit more linked to character Hit Points, in a simulationist sense.

For example, in Pendragon RPG, a character's damage is equal to his/her Strength+Size/6 in d6s. So if a character has a Strength of 14 and a Size of 12 (14+12/6) it equals 4d6 (round down). If you then understand that the HP total is equal to Constitution+Size, then you can already see a relationship in a simulationist sense.

Now D&D Basic actually did this in a way. The Hit Dice used to generate HP per level where actually equitable with the damage levels of weapons. A Fighter, for example had a HD of D8 per level, and usually dealt out damage of D8 with a sword. A Thief would have a D6 HD per level, and usually carry a Short Sword (damage D6), A Wizard had D4 HD and carried a dagger (D4), and so on.

It wasn't exact, but actually, I think there is some notion that if Class HD goes up per level, they are essentially able to take a number of eqitable combat blows equal to their respective level before they are likely to drop.

Or something like that anyhoo...

Beyond that, you could simply classify damage types into polyhedral dice types:

D4 Unarmed Brawling
D6 Daggers, Sling Shots, Darts
D8 Short Swords, Maces, Morning Stars, Spears, Arrows, 1 Handed Axe (throwing), Hammers
D10 Swords (Broad or 1 handed Long), Long Spears and other polearms, Heavy Axe.
D12 Two Handed (Bastard) Swords and Two Handed Battle Axes.

Howzat?

The Hit Dice per level could tally in with these, perhaps.