D&D (2024) Weapon and Armor categories and training in them. Do we still need them?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I can’t remember which game, but there is one where you just do your class’ HD in damage regardless of weapon choice. So a wizard can wield a sword, but it does 1d6 damage, while a paladin using it does 1d10. Pretty simple.

At least until a player figures out a dagger does the same damage as the sword, but is easier to hide and can be thrown. But you could apply some generalized modifiers to balance weapons. -1 if throwable, -1 if small, +2 if two-handed etc.

It's not like the monk's fists are bigger or sharper than anyone else's, they just use them better. HP, Armor, Damage, etc are all abstractions anyways.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Next thing you'll be telling me is that all pole arms are the same...

 

[Shiroiken]

Absolutely a NO for me. I want armor and weapons to become more meaningful, not less. While your armor table starts to move in my direction, I'd rather have a proficiency requirement for each armor, not a category.

I'm hoping for them to make a return in later editions with weapon choice mattering to how your character fights.

Agreed, but being based on the weapon, not a character build. I despised specialization, since it forced a character to rely on finding a magic weapon (or beg a spellcasting PC to make it for them). Instead, I'd love to see weapons having built in maneuvers that a proficient character can use. This means finding a magic weapon might completely change the way you fight, because an ax wielder fights different than a flail wielder would.

I'm clearly talking about myself (as a fighter player) and how paternalistic playtesters decided the fighter needed to be kept simple as a dedicated noob class.

I remember the contentious debates during the playtest. Given that I started in 1E, where the PHB assumes the player can read and figure out some rather complicated charts (e.g. weapon vs AC), the idea that there has to be a simple option feels condescending to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Agreed, but being based on the weapon, not a character build. I despised specialization, since it forced a character to rely on finding a magic weapon (or beg a spellcasting PC to make it for them). Instead, I'd love to see weapons having built in maneuvers that a proficient character can use. This means finding a magic weapon might completely change the way you fight, because an ax wielder fights different than a flail wielder would.

I'd rather DMs and adventures stopping the annoying practice of randomized treasure or at least make transference of magic properties easy and affordable.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Agreed, but being based on the weapon, not a character build.

not sure why you couldn't have both

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yeah, I'd love fighters having maneuvers based on weapon wielded. And more importantly, giving them all the maneuvers, so they arent hosed based on whatever gear they find.

Suggestions pulled out of my butt, balance untested.

Wide Sweep - Spend an action to attack a number of adjacent targets equal to your proficiency bonus. Requirement: 2 handed axe, sword, or hammer. At level 11 and 15 this attack deals an extra 1d8 and 2d8 damage respectively.

Deadeye - Spend a move action to gain advantage on your next ranged attack with a weapon or thrown object. At 11th level you ignore cover. At 15th level you ignore intervening objects and structures (or whatever language is necessary to let you ricochet shots around corners).

Armiger Defense - Action Requirement: Wearing Heavy Armor or using a Shield - Until your next turn, reduce B/P/S damage by your proficiency bonus plus your strength or constitution modifier (whichever is higher). If this reduces the damage received to zero, you may make a melee attack. You may only make one such attack against any individual each round. At level 11 and 15 the damage reduction increases by 3 and 6 respectively.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Did they outlived their purpose? And can we just get rid of them?

No they haven't, and no you can't.

Ok, you can obviously if you want to, but I don't even like how simple they made them in 5E.

I prefer individual weapons proficiencies because, let's be honest:

1) nobody knows how to use all weapons
2) most PCs (IME) have 2-4 weapons at most they use regularly.

As for armor, you do train in that as well. How to put it on, get used to its weight and balance, learn to maintain it, and most importantly how it is best used to protect you and just how far that protection extends.

I don't know if individual armor proficiencies would be necessary, but the three groups in 5E are distinct enough without going overboard IMO.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I appreciate the attempt to balance the weapons and armours logically. The official ones are a bit of a mess. With armours particularly there are just a lot of utterly pointless choices.

But I don't understand or approve the idea of getting rid of proficiencies. Having proficiencies allows us to have some weapons and armour that are better, the cost just is that you need a proficiency to use them. Also, the armour and weapon proficiencies are in the purview of the martial classes, so just giving their stuff to everyone for free seems really unfair. Martials really don't have too much unique stuff!

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have no horse in the race, but I will point out that it would be a great opportunity to finally kill "studded leather armor," which was never a thing. Add in what they thought they were describing under its proper name and give it the appropriate attributes.

You can add these to your game if you want:

Based on actual historical armors (even if you don't agree with the stats I put with them )...

 

[Umbran]

Is it even possible for you to comment on this topic without insulting other people?

Mod Note:
First off, I think you misunderstood. The post seems to be saying that the designers thought folks playing fighters weren't smart or didn't want complexity.

Second, even if they were being insulting, making the discussion about them is unlikely to be helpful.