D&D 5E Weapon oddities

[Kobold Stew]

3. Unarmed strike. Why isn't an unarmed strike a light weapon? Right now you can't two-weapon fight with two fists, or use an unarmed strike as an off-hand weapon, because unarmed strike doesn't have the Light property.

Actually, the more I think of it, the more I'd prefer unarmed strike to have the versatile (1d4) property: so that if both hands are free, you can actually do damage.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

We might guess that it isn't intended to be "fists" specifically. It is fists, elbows, knees, feet, headbutt, or whatever is appropriate.

Yes, but that's still silly. You can't kick with both feet, or punch and kick, or headbutt follow-up with a knee to the groin, etc. Making unarmed strikes Light opens up all of those options.

 

[Shiroiken]

This is not a rule that I can find in D&D Basic. The only restriction for Small characters is Disadvantage on attacks using weapons with the "heavy" trait. Small characters can use a Longsword one handed for 1d8 or two handed for 1d10.

Hmm. I missed that change from the playtest. I must say, I do not approve, and hope for an option or I'll have to homebrew it.

Without said option, they probably should add versatile to most of those weapons (especially flail, which was used 2 handed by footmen).

 

[bganon]

In the playtest, making unarmed attacks not light was a fix to prevent multiclass monk abuse. It's a bit gamey, but I was OK with it – for non-monks it doesn't seem sensible anyway to allow "dual-wielding" shortsword or whatever + unarmed, and monks get their own extra attacks through flurry.

As for making mechanically identical weapons distinct – I'm happy to leave at least some of that to feats. That way those who really care can make their choice important, and the people who choose based on fluff aren't penalized. The trident vs. spear thing does seem stupid, though.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

In the playtest, making unarmed attacks not light was a fix to prevent multiclass monk abuse. It's a bit gamey, but I was OK with it – for non-monks it doesn't seem sensible anyway to allow "dual-wielding" shortsword or whatever + unarmed, and monks get their own extra attacks through flurry.

It may not be sensible -- unarmed attacks only do 1 point + attribute, which means for all non-TWF-style-fighters they only do 1 point of damage as a bonus attack. But since it is such a minor difference, why not allow it? Fix monks instead, if that's the problem; simply state that flurry and TWF can't be used together.

 

[Jiggawatts]

Given that battleaxe and longsword both do 1d8 slashing (versatile 1d10), that's a logical and consistent and consistent change.

I prefer to have the weapons be slightly mechanically different just to make for interesting choices. I think 2d6 vs. 1d12 (or 2d4 vs 1d8) makes for an interesting choice since they are more or less equivalent and the player can choose between slightly more reliable damage or a slightly higher chance of max damage.

That was my point though, the morningstar is not 2d4, the mace is not 1d6+1. Having a 2d6 weapon is ridiculous, it doesnt follow the same pattern as anything else on the weapon list, and 2d6 is an upgrade over 1d12.

Then again, I have no problem with flavor (and potentially damage type) being the only differentiater between weapons, as is the case of longsword vs warhammer vs battleaxe.

Though I will agree with you regarding the spear and trident, being that martial weapons should be at least somewhat better than simple weapons.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, but that's still silly. You can't kick with both feet, or punch and kick, or headbutt follow-up with a knee to the groin, etc. Making unarmed strikes Light opens up all of those options.

Yes. I'm guessing they want those options open for monks, or people with specific training byway of feats or the like.

I find it funny how often I need to say this - this is *Basic*. Not all options we can think of are open. Stop talking like they are somehow being weird or nonsensical for not having all options available, when they told you up front not all options are available!

 

[obsid]

You cant make Quarterstaff finesse and two-handed. Because then people will multiclass figher/rogue and get GWF. Can you imagine 10d6 sneak attack re-roll 1s and 2s?

No weapon currently has two-handed melee and finesse for a reason.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I also like weapon oddities, some weps are better. That is fine by me.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I find it funny how often I need to say this - this is *Basic*. Not all options we can think of are open. Stop talking like they are somehow being weird or nonsensical for not having all options available, when they told you up front not all options are available!

Yeah, but as we've been told the Equipment section is a direct lift from the PHB, limitations built into the equipment design aren't likely to change, other than exceptions built into an *optional* feat system.

You can have a *Basic* game that doesn't limit options; the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.