Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 DavrosAerae Mar 24, 2015 15:25:39	Probably just being picky but has anyone else noticed the lack of diveristy in 5E when it comes to weapon and armor selection?   I like how they simplified everything but I expected to find in the PHB examples and variations of what is considered a "long sword" what is considered a "great sword", more than one kind of shield and preferably a buckler to get a partial AC bonus and still use versitile weapons at will, perhaps a variation to chain mail that doesn't incur a stealth penalty even if its crazy expensive.   I can understand that simplifying things and streamlining things means that some areas may not receive as much coverage but there isn't even a block of text that discuss shields in the armor section. Was the intent that everything no mater how it is shaped or appears in game is forced to function by the category you label it OOC?   For instance: A 3rd lvl Paladin decides that he wants to spend some of his wealth in his down time. He contracts the town carpenter and the town blacksmith to make him a new shield to adventure with. The Paladin is 6' tall and he would like a shield that is going to give him adequate coverage. He envisions what we would call a scuta (roman war shield) this shield costs him significantly more than every other shield for sale at the adventuring provisions shop.   1.) Does this shield immediately become magic armor an grant additional AC even though no magic was used in its construction? 2.) Is a katana the same as a long sword or do they have different parameters?  3.) Does the same apply to a Wakizashi compared to a short sword?  4.) If my chain mail is made out of mithril or adamantite would it then still require a STR of 13? 5.) Has there been any talk about this or is this typically something that is covered in an additional book release several years down the road?
#2 mellored Mar 24, 2015 15:37:57	A "longsword" is any weapon that does 1d8 slashing damage.  Could be any style. Buckler with versitile weapon (+1 AC with 1d10 damage) seems balanced enough.  So no reason not to add it. You can get medium armor that doesn't have a stealth penalty.  I think there's magical heavy armor as well.   He can already spend gold to get plate.  You don't fold need 20 ways to spend gold for AC.  It is not good way to balance.   1: No.  Though there are rules for crafting magic items in the DMG. 2: Yes.  It specificly mentions that katana's are longswords, somewhere. 3: Yes.  Along with any other version of a sword, dagger, rapier. 4: Those are considered magical items, and are in the DMG.  I forget what they do.  I think anyone can wear mitheral and adamatine prevents crits. 5: No. There really hasn't been talk about anything new.  Though i am hoping for some exotic weapons at some point.
#3 DavrosAerae Mar 24, 2015 16:17:33	mellored wrote:
#4 Varden_Khol Mar 24, 2015 16:24:43	I think the selection we've got is plenty. It seems to me that any DM can look at that list and use it to create any weapon they want. An exhaustive list would simply take up extra space by having Longswords/Sabres/Katanas/Cutlasses all with the same statline. This way you can pick up your wakazashi or kunai or whatever and find a good approximation somewhere on the list.   If you want extra rules for adamantine/custom built equipment etc. I feel like that's always going to boil down to a table-by-table judgement call.
#5 MechaPilot Mar 24, 2015 16:27:49	I'm not really upset with the lack of diversity so much as I am upset at the lack of uniqueness.   With the current weapon table, a player's weapon choice is largely dictated by the following questions: What is the highest damage melee weapon that I am proficient with, that I can afford, and that doesn't clash with my class features? What is the highest damage, longest ranged missile weapon that I am proficient with, that I can afford, and that doesn't clash with my class features?   Now some people will choose to go with a different weapon based on concept (kudos to those who do), but those questions dictate a LOT of weapon choices because of the lack of differentiation.  If it were up to me, weapon entries would look a little more like this:   Whip Cost: 2 gp Damage: 1d4 slashing Weight: 3 lb. Properties: Finesse, Reach. Special: When you hit an enemy with the whip you may attempt to grab, trip, or disarm them with the whip as a bonus action.
#6 Farmer42 Mar 24, 2015 16:51:15	For all practical purposes, a bronze sword would be mechanically identical to a steel version.  The two are fairly similar in overal performance and how they hold edges al long as you're comparing midieval steel to mid and late bronze age bronze.  Biggest differece is weapon-to-weapon, which really wasn't that common anyway.  Otherwise, hammered bronze holds an edge VERY well and is less likely to shatter than steel.  There's a reason that Rome used bronze armors clear up until the Fourth century CE.  Copper and tin aren't found together, and copper is, overal, more rare than iron.  That's why it fazed out.  But it's a practical and less likely to take environmental damage than any steel short of stainless.  If you don't believe me, look up copper swords.  Museums all over the world have a green sword or two that is a polish and sharpen away from being as combat ready today as it was three thousand years ago.
#7 LordTwig Mar 24, 2015 17:01:03	I also have been unable to find anything at all in the PHB or DMG that describes what weapons are. Certainly we can assume everyone knows what a sword is, but does everyone really know what a longsword is? How about a maul? My 10 year old didn't know what it was until I explained it to him. (He wanted a big two-handed hammer for his dwarf. I told him that basically is what a maul is.) So why can't we get weapon descriptions? They describe a book:   Player Basic Rules wrote:
#8 Vahnyu Mar 24, 2015 17:18:33	I distinctly recall a thread that someone made, where they presented an alternative to weapons, by allowing you to pick a damage type, and then make adjustments by adding properties (such as finesse, versatile, simple, etc) at the cost of lowering the damage die.   I think it might have been EnglishLanguage's or Lawolf's? I forget.
(Reply to #7) Macv12	LordTwig wrote:
#10 Greenstone.Walker Mar 24, 2015 17:59:37	I could see the weapon list getting simpler as well.   I think the game only needs three categories and a couple of modifiers.   Weapon type: Melee, Thrown, Ammo. Weapon size: 1H Light, 1H, Versatile, 2H, 2H Heavy. (I'm not sure the game really needs versatile weapons). Damage: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing.   Modifiers: Finesse, Reach.   Then you could say things like: Two-Weapon Fighting requires Melee 1H Light. Two-Weapon Fighting and Dual Wielder Feat requires Melee 1H Light and Melee 1H. Archery Style applies to Ammo. Sharpshooter Feat applies to Ammo. PoleArm Mastery applies to 2H Reach and 2H Heavy Reach.   However, this would go against the natural language goal of the writers of the game.
#11 Farmer42 Mar 24, 2015 18:04:48	Versatile exists because the difference between some weapons really is just how long the hilt is.  A "longsword" is actually usually a two handed weapon.  What we have is more traditionally a sword or a broadsword.  A bastward sword was the same blade length, but with a bit of extra hilt (hence why the proper term is hand-and-a-half sword.)  Those weapons are weighted differently from weapons intended for exclusively single hand use or exclusively for two hand use.  The Center of gravity and weight is different, so the swing and hit differently and allow for mor or less use of the body.  Pomel-gripping a one-handed sword with your off-hand will not deal the same amount of damage as two-handing a bastard sword, even though the blades are likely identical down to the tang length.
#12 DavrosAerae Mar 24, 2015 18:28:36	Farmer42 wrote:
(Reply to #9) LordTwig	Macv12 wrote:
#14 DavrosAerae Mar 24, 2015 18:41:41	Okay I agree that the katana is probably a bad example, its just that it seems what used to be my favorite part of dreaming up characters (3.5e) was all the art and flavor text about what weapons were and what they were useful for, what classes predominately used...that kind of thing. I mean just looking at the adventuring gear section screams that they could have gone into a little more detail about the items that are used in combat. I get that the idea is to emphasize less on the combat aspect of d&d this time around and more on the role playing aspect but the gaming kit has a more detailed description than the shield section...I do however like the fact that the section on oil specifically states how it can be used in combat.
(Reply to #12) Farmer42	DavrosAerae wrote:
(Reply to #14) LordTwig	DavrosAerae wrote:
(Reply to #7) LordTwig	LordTwig wrote:
#18 mellored Mar 25, 2015 5:24:23	LordTwig wrote:
#19 abs1nth Mar 25, 2015 6:08:19	LordTwig wrote:
#20 ChrisCarlson Mar 25, 2015 7:39:25	I recall (a few editions ago, at least) in Warhammer Fantasy RPG, all one-handed weapons did 1d6. Two-handers did 2d6. That's it. You described what it looked like.
#21 mellored Mar 25, 2015 7:40:52	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#22 DaomSlayer Mar 25, 2015 8:40:55	LordTwig wrote:
#23 masterfat78 Mar 25, 2015 19:31:19	One of the things that bugs me is that a longsword and a battleaxe are completely identical. I dont mind that the base damage is the same but you use each weapon differently in combat. All other edition have had some sort of variance on weapons to represent this(except basic, but thats basic). Now I could homebrew and houserule some stuff in the game but I would also have to rework some class abilities in the process and that just seems to be too much of a bother. My new players havent noticed it, but my veteran players have mentioned it.
#24 ChrisCarlson Mar 25, 2015 19:48:04	Don't forget the trident!
(Reply to #23) Farmer42	masterfat78 wrote:
#26 seti Mar 26, 2015 5:07:04	The longsword/battleaxe and spear/trident thing bothers me. Maybe have different effects on a crit, or allow for different damge types. ie: a longsword can be slashing or piercing, and a battleaxe can be high crit. Maybe a trident also can be high crit. I remember 'high crit' was a thing in 4e, and sort of a thing in 3e/3.5/PF. Another option that 4e used was the 'brutal' quality. Brutal 1 meant you re-rolled any 1 on the damage die. I also would want something like a morningstar and a war pick/lucern hammer to be piercing or bludgeoning; players choice.   In general, I think 5e handles weapons pretty well, though. Being the DIY edition, just house rule weapons a lot. Make them as complicated as your table wants. I've done that with every edition of D&D I've DMed, anyway. I put bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing as damage types back into 4e, for example. I hated not having them anymore.
#27 RCanine Mar 26, 2015 8:46:58	MechaPilot wrote:
#28 FFSAA Mar 26, 2015 9:13:38	seti wrote:
(Reply to #28) CCS	FFSAA wrote:
(Reply to #5) FrogReaver	MechaPilot wrote:
#31 Illithidbix Mar 26, 2015 13:58:19	Give the relatively simple list of properties for weapons, and the Simple/Martial division. There are only so may variety of weapon that can really exist. Some already have pretty much identical stats (e.g. longsword/battle axe)   I'm quite happy to see the demise of the Exotic Weapon catagory myself.   I'm fairly happy with this myself, although I do miss the education-through-D&D of weapon types.
#32 FFSAA Mar 26, 2015 14:24:48	CCS wrote:
#33 Greenstone.Walker Mar 26, 2015 17:29:06	masterfat78 wrote:
#34 LordTwig Mar 26, 2015 17:54:33	Eh. I'm okay with weapons doing the same damage. Is a hit from a longsword that much different than a hit from a battle axe? There might be some situations where one might be better than the other, but they specifically removed that type of granularity to make the game simpler, faster and easier to run. All of which has made the game a lot more fun IMHO.
#35 SeamusTheBard Mar 27, 2015 7:21:38	DavrosAerae wrote:
(Reply to #33) Pompadour64	Greenstone.Walker wrote:
#37 Farmer42 Mar 27, 2015 12:13:50	Haft weapons will, on average, do more damage on a hit than a similar size and weight blade weapon.  It's because a hafted weapon focuses the weight on one point.  THey swing faster, adjust slower, and hit harder.  That's why a small hand axe is batter at cutting trees and branches than a sword.  So if you're going to give two dice to a weapon, it should probably be the hafter ones like axes, ahmmers, and maces.
(Reply to #37) Pompadour64	Farmer42 wrote:
(Reply to #38) Farmer42	Pompadour64 wrote:
#40 BRJN Mar 27, 2015 19:33:50	DavrosAerae wrote:
#41 arnwolf666 Mar 27, 2015 20:06:08	I've often thought that a system of damage based on fighting styles would be preferable to a system of damage based on weapon type.
#42 masterfat78 Mar 28, 2015 9:17:04	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #42) Chameleon-X	masterfat78 wrote: