Weapons table issues

[JoeCrow]

So, here's my first stab at a revised weapons table.

(finesse and heavy are properties, not weapon types)


Name Price Damage Wgt Properties Group

Simple Weapons
Club 1 sp 1d4 bludgeon 3 lb - Mace
Dagger 2 sp 1d4 pierce 1 lb Finesse Dagger
Greatclub 2 sp 1d8 bludgeon 15 lb Two-handed Mace
Handaxe 5 sp 1d4 slash 5 lb Range 30/120 Axe
Improvised Object - 1d4 bludgeon - - -
Improvised Object, Large- 1d6 bludgeon - Two-handed -
Mace 5 gp 1d6 bludgeon 8 lb - Mace
Morningstar 15 gp 1d8 bludgeon/pierce12 lb - Mace
Quarterstaff 2 sp 1d8 bludgeon 4 lb Two-handed, finesse Staff
Scythe 5 sp 1d8 slash 10 lb Two-handed, large Axe
Sickle 2 sp 1d6 slash 5 lb - Sword
Spear 5 sp 1d8 pierce 5 lb Range 20/80, set Spear Trident 3 gp 1d6 pierce 6 lb Two-handed Spear
Unarmed Strike - 1d4 bludgeon - - -


Martial Weapons
Bastard Sword 35 gp 2d4 slash 10 lb Large Sword
Battleaxe 10 gp 1d8 slash 10 lb - Axe
Flail 10 gp 1d8 bludgeon 10 lb - Flail
Falchion 15 gp 2d4 slash 5 lb - Sword
Glaive 10 gp 1d10 slash 15 lb Reach, two-handed, large Spear
Greataxe 30 gp 1d12 slash 15 lb Two-handed, large Axe
Greatsword 50 gp 1d12 slash 10 lb Two-handed, large Sword
Halberd 10 gp 1d10 slash 15 lb Reach, two-handed, large Axe
Lance 10 gp 1d12 pierce 10 lb Reach, two-handed, large, mount Spear
Longsword 15 gp 1d8 slash 5 lb - Sword
Maul 10 gp 1d12 bludgeon 25 lb Two-handed, heavy Hammer
Pike 10 gp 1d10 pierce 10 lb Reach, two-handed, large Spear
Pollaxe 15 gp 1d10 pierce/bludgeon15 lb Reach, two-handed, largeStaff
Rapier 35 gp 1d6 pierce 3 lb Finesse Sword
Scimitar 20 gp 1d6 slash 4 lb Finesse Sword
Shield 10 gp 1d6 bludgeon 7 lb - Shield Shortsword 10 gp 1d6 pierce 3 lb Finesse Sword
Warhammer 15 gp 1d8 bludgeon 8 lb - Hammer
War Pick 5 gp 1d6 pierce 6 lb - Pick

Simple Missile Weapons
Crossbow, Light 35 gp 1d8 pierce 6 lb Range 80/320, load Crossbow
Crossbow, Hand 75 gp 1d6 pierce 3 lb Range 30/120, load Crossbow
Crossbow, Heavy 50 gp 1d10 pierce 10 lb Range 100/400, load Crossbow
Dart 5 cp/1 1d4 pierce 1/2 lb Range 30/120 Spear
Improvised Object - 1d2 bludgeon - Range 10/40 -
Sling 1 sp 1d4 bludgeon 1/2 lb Range 30/120 Sling

Martial Missile Weapons
Javelin 5 sp 1d6 pierce 2 lb Range 30/120 Spear
Longbow 50 gp 1d8 pierce 3 lb Range 150/600, two-handed Bow
Longbow, Composite 150 gp 1d8 pierce 3 lb Range 200/800, two-handed Bow
Shortbow 25 gp 1d6 pierce 2 lb Range 80/320, two-handed Bow
Shortbow, Composite 75 gp 1d6 pierce 2 lb Range 120/500, two-handed Bow
Throwing Axe 5 gp 1d6 slash 7 lb Range 20/80 Axe
Throwing Hammer 2 gp 1d6 bludgeon 7 lb Range 20/80 Hammer


Properties:

Range: x/xx, 1st number is normal range, 2nd is max range, attacks beyond normal have disadvantage
Reach: Adds 5 ft to range, attacks within 5 ft have disadvantage and drop die type
Two-handed: Requires 2 hands to use, or take disadvantage and drop die type
Finesse: Use either Str or Dex modifier to attacks
Large : Can't be used by Small characters
Load: Action to reload, or take disadvantage
Mounted: Must be used on a mount, or take disadvantage and drop die type
Set: Can be set vs charging foes for double damage

Hey, is there some way to put reasonably formatted tables in a post that I'm just not getting? Coz that table wasn't nearly that ugly in TextEdit.

So, yes, I changed Heavy to Large and changed the way Reach and Two-handed work. I stole it from the crossbow rules; seemed like a useful mechanic. I added the die-type drop to discourage rules lawyers from finding ways to get Advantage and start waving greataxes around one-handed. You know they're gonna try it.

What's the general consensus?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I would enjoy being able to use a spear and shield in combination. I see no reason why it can't be like the bastard sword, but gaining reach in two hands instead of damage.

 

[slobo777]

What's the general consensus?

Generally good. I like the "gain disadvantage and drop a die type" mechanic.

Problem with Reach weapons: The ruling on attacking "inside" your reach combines somewhat unfairly with the disengagement rules, meaning once someone has closed with you, you will suffer an attack of opportunity for backing off. You could (a) allow reach weapons users an AoO versus someone moving from "in reach" to "inside reach" or (b) drop the "inside reach" mechanic. I'm generally for option b as the extra "realism" is only partial, and there a bunch of fighting options for a spear wielder who's been closed on which you'd need to further support - if only for the gamist purpose of making a fighter with a spear a viable character - if you go for option a or something like it.

 

[Grydan]

So, here's my first stab at a revised weapons table.

...

What's the general consensus?

lol, well, you didn't exactly solve my rapier issues.

You made it even more expensive, while increasing it to the weight of the short sword.

Now the two weapons are statistically identical, but one must pay a 25 gold premium to call your short sword a rapier for no mechanical benefit whatsoever.

 

[radja]

dnd sometimes really screws up with weapons.

-the Falchion: a 1 one-handed heavy blade. looks a lot like a machete with a crossguard.
-the warhammer: You appear on the battlefield with a big block of iron on a stick? you're dead. it's an inferior mace. get rid of the dnd warhammer. rename the pick to a warhammer, which would be more accurate.

one thing I always missed is an extra sling weapon. crossbows come in varieties (heavy, hand, etcetera), and so do bows. Like these ranged weapons, there is also another sling weapon: the staff-sling (fustabilus), which would nicely complete the missile weapon category.

 

[JoeCrow]

Problem with Reach weapons: The ruling on attacking "inside" your reach combines somewhat unfairly with the disengagement rules, meaning once someone has closed with you, you will suffer an attack of opportunity for backing off. You could (a) allow reach weapons users an AoO versus someone moving from "in reach" to "inside reach" or (b) drop the "inside reach" mechanic. I'm generally for option b as the extra "realism" is only partial, and there a bunch of fighting options for a spear wielder who's been closed on which you'd need to further support - if only for the gamist purpose of making a fighter with a spear a viable character - if you go for option a or something like it.

Simplest solution to that problem is drop the reach weapon and draw your backup blade. Draw's not an action in this edition. Also, base spear's not a Reach weapon, just the pike, the halberd, the glaive, the lance, and the pollaxe.

lol, well, you didn't exactly solve my rapier issues.

You made it even more expensive, while increasing it to the weight of the short sword.

Now the two weapons are statistically identical, but one must pay a 25 gold premium to call your short sword a rapier for no mechanical benefit whatsoever.

So, bump the rapier's damage up to 1d8, you think? I was on the fence about that. It was 1d8 in 4th, but 1d6 in 3rd, where it first showed up on the standard table. I figure the rapier requires a higher level of technical expertise to make than a stock shortsword, so the price seemed right. Hadn't realized I upped the weight that much, though. Oops.

 

[JoeCrow]

dnd sometimes really screws up with weapons.

-the Falchion: a 1 one-handed heavy blade. looks a lot like a machete with a crossguard.
-the warhammer: You appear on the battlefield with a big block of iron on a stick? you're dead. it's an inferior mace. get rid of the dnd warhammer. rename the pick to a warhammer, which would be more accurate.

one thing I always missed is an extra sling weapon. crossbows come in varieties (heavy, hand, etcetera), and so do bows. Like these ranged weapons, there is also another sling weapon: the staff-sling (fustabilus), which would nicely complete the missile weapon category.

I thought about making the warhammer bludgeoning/piercing for the standard type with the spike on the back. Think that might work?

As for the falchion, I figured that it could cover your basic heavy-bladed one-handers, your katzbalgers and kreigsmessers and dussacs and whatnot. That's why I booted it up to 2d4.

There was a staff-sling in the 2nd edition weapons table. I don't remember anybody ever using it, though. It had a crap ROF and range. I dunno how well the real one worked.

 

[Baumi]

By the way, realistically or not, I loved that the heavy crossbow used Str instead of Dex in the first playtest .. it finally gave the Str-Fighter a good ranged Weapon (with the Disadvantage of needing an Action to reaload, but that was a good balancing point). Sadly they dropped it in the second Version...

My Weapon Pet Peaves are that the Quaterstaff and Sling are usually one off the worst weapon, even though they are quite effective and were used a lot. I was surprised that the Quaterstaff has now is finaly a good weapon thanks to beeing in the Finesse Group with d8 damage (which off course followed by an outcry how unrealistically and unbalanced this is)! 8D

 

[Someone]

Katana: 1d8 damage finesse weapon, two handed.
Staff: 1d8 damage finesse weapon, two handed.

Silly samurai. They could have saved so much money...

 

[Baumi]

Katana: 1d8 damage finesse weapon, two handed.
Staff: 1d8 damage finesse weapon, two handed.

Silly samurai. They could have saved so much money...

As I said ... a soon as the Quaterstaff is actually usefull there is an outcry about it! And who cares about the money, after the first Adventure no one cares about mundane Equipment-Cost anymore.