D&D 5E weapon damage

Squidmaster

First Post
As the packets have rolled out, we have seen lots of changes in the way weapons work. Is there any reason that any of the standard D&D weapons need to do damage that is expressed by rolling more than one die? I find it to be a needless complication that requires modifications to other rules and potentially could make the game take longer at the table.

Why does a greatsword need to do 2d6 damage, while a greataxe does 1d12. Those weapons could be better differentiated by the special properties they may or may not possess. Maybe they don't even need to be differentiated at all in the basic rule set.

I'm curious what you think about this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I agree Squidmaster. No good reason for it, and makes other rules more versatile if it's always one die.
 

I like the different dice. It provides a meaningful difference and tradeoff between the two weapons. You can take the greatsword, with higher average damage but a lower probability of max damage, or the greataxe, with lower average damage but a higher probability of max damage.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Critical hit rules.

The greatsword deals better average damage on a hit (7 vs 6.5) than a greatae (or a maul) but less on a crit (15.5 vs 18.5).

Greatswords are for regular great weapon users.
Greataxes and mauls are for "crit fisherman".
 

Squidmaster

First Post
I agree about the trade-off, but doesn't this squash more creative affixes to various weapons? For what it's worth, I think that the current weapon damage and its complexity is somewhat hidden to the average or beginner player.
 


fjw70

Adventurer
Critical hit rules.

The greatsword deals better average damage on a hit (7 vs 6.5) than a greatae (or a maul) but less on a crit (15.5 vs 18.5).

Greatswords are for regular great weapon users.
Greataxes and mauls are for "crit fisherman".

I havent been following DDN that closely so I had to go yo the document to see what the critical hit rules are.

Another difference between the 2d6 and the 1d12 is that the 2d6 toll is more reliable and will roll the average or boles up it much more often.
 

frankthedm

First Post
I agree Squidmaster. No good reason for it, and makes other rules more versatile if it's always one die.
Agree. Game ties far too much to the particular weapon rather than tying it to the wielder.

If everyone did a die of damage with a weapon they were competent with, lets say 1d6 plus a numeric modifier adjusted by weapon size and special skills with the particular weapon, I think the game would be far better off. Then again, maybe I have too much WFRP2E on the brain.
 

Squidmaster

First Post
I admit I'm not up to the challenge of creating D&D Next worthy weapon affixes. I really like the simplification of the game, but it does create difficulties in areas like this. This does not really provide a solution to this challenge, but I would really like to see an affix for some simple weapons that allows for wielders to increase the damage die if they are also proficient with martial weapons. I think that would be a cool way to allow warrior characters to effectively use historically classic weapons such as the mace and spear.

I admit that I'm intrigued by the notion of simplifying weapons even further. That would then allow for a bevy of feats to make individual weapon standout for interested wielders.
 

Kursk

Banned
Banned
As the packets have rolled out, we have seen lots of changes in the way weapons work. Is there any reason that any of the standard D&D weapons need to do damage that is expressed by rolling more than one die?

Yes, absolutely! Unless little annoying changes are made, how do they expect to advertise (and sell) a new version of the game?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top