Variant weapon table

[Blue]

The armor and shield bits of versatile feel too fiddly for the final result if +1 against some opponents. While flavorful, I think would be more 5e-ish to just wrap it all up as a plain, always on +1 bonus.

I know that lessens the feel you were going for, with maces and picks better able to breach armor.

I agree it's too fiddly, but also think it's too irrelevant.

Only a fraction of humanoids will be wearing heavy armor or wearing shields. In a urban campaign that would be a reasonable ability. But humanoid are only a small percentage of foe types. Most foes have natural armor and weapons, making the ability useless against well over 95% of foes.

Unless you want to extend it out. Say, Natural Armor +5 or higher counts as heavy armor - this way it makes sense that a dragon's scales are plate are both better attacked by a weapon with that bonus. Not sure what the equivalent of shields is though.

 

[Sadras]

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.

This increases the importance of weapon selection and becomes a combat tactic on its own.
Your magical [insert weapon] is now not the most ideal weapon in all situations.
Encumbrance (if one uses it) is now affected the more weapons one carries.
As for swapping them on the fly - well sure if you one is carrying them all on ones self.

To answer you question, the goal being served is that it allows tables a greater level of granularity should they desire it.

 

[Ganymede81]

This increases the importance of weapon selection and becomes a combat tactic on its own.
Your magical [insert weapon] is now not the most ideal weapon in all situations.
Encumbrance (if one uses it) is now affected the more weapons one carries.
As for swapping them on the fly - well sure if you one is carrying them all on ones self.

To answer you question, the goal being served is that it allows tables a greater level of granularity should they desire it.

I really don't see "I draw my war pick instead of my flail" as a meaningful or tactical combat choice, nor is burdening every character with an extra three pounds of weaponry a meaningful sacrifice.

All your doing here is introducing a brainless and automatic pseudo-choice that clutters both the rules and characters' inventory sheets. It is fiddliness for fiddliness' sake.

 

[Sadras]

I really don't see "I draw my war pick instead of my flail" as a meaningful or tactical combat choice, nor is burdening every character with an extra three pounds of weaponry a meaningful sacrifice.

I'm not here to convince you of anything I'm merely reflecting what some tables like. Perhaps you missed my should they (i.e. the gaming table) desire it part of my reply.

As for meaningful tactical combat - do you remember when the wizard had to select which spells to learn for the day based on challenges he assumed he was going to face. Well this is similar - the fighter selects the weapons and equipment he will carry with him into a dungeon.
If he might face a dragon, he might opt to select a weapon of reach and that has a benefit (i.e. property) against thick armour like a lucerne hammer or a ben de corbin. A dragon, given its threatening reach might opt to push away the melee fighter with the a sword, thereby forcing the fighter to close distance every round and having to suffer attacks of opportunity.

As for burdening characters. Some players enjoy playing a more granular game. Others do not play with encumbrance at all. It is all good.

All your doing here is introducing a brainless and automatic pseudo-choice that clutters both the rules and characters' inventory sheets. It is fiddliness for fiddliness' sake.

So badwrongfun?

 

[MarvelousMax]

Why change the pike if the lance now already offers the ability for small creatures to have a reach weapon?

 

[jaelis]

Fair point!

 

[guachi]

I like these changes. I've never come up with changes or seen changes I ever liked enough to consider using. I doubt the Versatile changes would ever see use as I've never actually seen anyone use a Versatile weapon two-handed yet.

 

[jaelis]

I like these changes. I've never come up with changes or seen changes I ever liked enough to consider using. I doubt the Versatile changes would ever see use as I've never actually seen anyone use a Versatile weapon two-handed yet.

Thanks, my concept was that the versatile stuff would be there for people who like that kind of thing, but easy to ignore if not. Perhaps I was wrong about it being easy to ignore

 

[Satyrn]

. . . I've never actually seen anyone use a Versatile weapon two-handed yet.

I've seen it once at my table, when the party's fighter dropped his shield to two-hand his longsword.

. . . my table's also seen a character two-hand a non-versatile weapon, when my dumb half-orc with a morningstar followed the fighter's example.

 

[Ganymede81]

So badwrongfun?

You so painfully missed the point.

Thankfully, I just realized you're not the OP and are instead some random guy that's mixing up the rules from 5th edition and 3rd edition. Carry on.