Variant weapon table

[Anakzar]

War hammers where made to combat heavy plate armor historically. They were not really used as a blunt weapon instead the point was used to punch a hole in the armor.

 

[jaelis]

War hammers where made to combat heavy plate armor historically. They were not really used as a blunt weapon instead the point was used to punch a hole in the armor.

AFAIK you are exactly right, but I think in DnD terms that weapon is best described as a pick. For better or worse, the dnd warhammer is a hefty mallet. I'm happy to respect that

 

[jaelis]

Other than having rapier in the table, this is good.

Trust me I thought a lot about that too. Could make it 1d6 vs opponents in heavy armor and I would call it fair. But that get's fiddly again in a more significant way, and also I think the bar for nerfing something should be a little higher that for improving something.

 

[jaelis]

One of the last campaigns I had involved a PC that would kill opponents if he damaged them to 10HP or less. Every time he hit something he would immediately ask if they were 10 or less. This became a bit aggravating and I fear some of what you have would be the same. I like the flavor, but think if will be a bit unwieldy in some games.

If you put the onus on the player it may work better. Some sort of shield bonus or advantage 1/rest when using certain weapons.

I don't totally get what you're saying here, could you elaborate? You are worried about players asking if their opponent is wearing heavy armor? I haven't found that to be too annoying. Or is it a different property you're thinking of?

 

[aco175]

I don't totally get what you're saying here, could you elaborate? You are worried about players asking if their opponent is wearing heavy armor? I haven't found that to be too annoying. Or is it a different property you're thinking of?

I just do not want to have a system that is too picky that I have players asking at the start of each fight "What kind of armor is he wearing, is that heavy or medium?" "I pull out my battle ax using my free action." Kill that bad guy move to the next. "What kind of armor is he wearing, is that heavy or medium?" "That's light, OK I pull out my longsword as part of my attack action." Kill that bad guy move to the next. Etc...

Putting the deal on the player frees up DM work and questions that were not there before. Kind of like meeting skeletons and the players know to have their character pull out bludgeoning weapons.

 

[Coroc]

Quarterstaff should be 1d6 and two handed only. Then you can leave great Club at d8 which would represent the wooden (softer than steel) material

Rename Greatsword to longsword, rename Longsword to bastard sword, introduce an arming sword which does 1d8 slashing 1h only.
The mace damage should be 1d8 and it should not be versatile. Same with flail and warhammer, they are not versatile.
Introduce a two handed flail 2d4 blunt instead and a Lucern hammer 1d10 piercing, both reach both polearm master.

Up the crossbow damage to light 1d10 and heavy 1d12 to reflect their kinetic energy.

Other than that, great work kudos.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=6802949]Anakzar[/MENTION]

And besides swingy poleweapons like halberds and to a point maces/axes with a spike they were the only weapons effective at all for combating plate armor on foot.

 

[Satyrn]

I see where you're going, and hadn't really considered that. Two initial concerns: would you need to boost longswords too, to make them comparable in some way? And, does it nerf heavy armor too hard?

--
Could do something like each type of versatile weapon gets +2 vs a particular armor type. Like the longsword vs light armor, battleaxe vs medium armor, morningstar vs heavy armor.

I don't think it nerfs armor too hard, since a 1d8 at +2 isn't very much better than 2d6 at +0.

I considered that. I really don't think the longsword needs to be boostec to match since it's getting the damage bonus against everything. I think it's okay if it's worse than a mace against heavy armor, especially since that's the only time the mace is improved by two-handing it.

And it only really nerfs the armor if the opponent has a mace (etc). When it's the player in heavy armor, the DM can keep the armor from being nerfed by sparingly use the mace against them. When it's the player with the mace, they're actually getting something out of the change.

I think all of that is what you said you want to be doing with this system change - encourage or reward the player to use different weapons based on the situation.

You shouldn't be afraid of making a weapon the situationally best.

 

[Ganymede81]

Wouldn't these versatility rules just encourage PCs to carry around several weapons and swap them on the fly as the situation warrants? At that point, these situational +1s become an ersatz blanket +1.


I don't see how that serves any goal here.

 

[Lidgar]

Trust me I thought a lot about that too. Could make it 1d6 vs opponents in heavy armor and I would call it fair. But that get's fiddly again in a more significant way, and also I think the bar for nerfing something should be a little higher that for improving something.

Totally get that, and agree with your thoughts. I would have substituted "saber" for it (1d8 slashing), but I am Lowkey about such things.