| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1demon_idolJul 07, 2014 5:35:46 | I was writing up a cleric, and noticed that the mace, and the greatclub are much worse than other, lighter, cheaper simple weapons.
The mace does 1d6 points of damage and is one handed, while all of the other 1d6 damage one handed simple weapons are cheaper, lighter, and have extra qualities like light, or thrown, or versitile.
Likewise, the great club does 1d8 points of damage and is two handed, while a quarter staff does 1d8 damage when weilded in two hands, but is versitile, and lighter.
Instead the mace should do 1d8 points of damage, and the greatclub should do 1d10 points of damage.
At 1d8 points of damage, the mace is still worse than most of the martial weapons except the flail because it lacks special qualities like versitile, but is now a good option for a cleric because while it lacks special qualities, it does a little more damage.
At 1d10 points of damage, the greatclub becomes balanced with the versitile, lighter quarterstaff.
I think that the issue with the mace is more severe than the issue with the greatclub, because D&D is going to look very strange if there are very few clerics who weild a mace.
Note |
| #2nighteternalJul 09, 2014 19:18:23 | 1d6 has been the mace's damage since pretty much the dawn of time. Great club is a really cheap simple weapon with decent damage. If you grab a quarterstaff with two hands and whip it around like a baseball bat, you're pretty much turning it into a great club. Keep in mind the weapons are simple, meaning easy to wield and relatively low damage. If it helps, envision it like this. A simple weapon is intended for the unskilled fighter (typically) and is more likely to deliver a glancing blow over a fatal hit, where as a warhammer or maul (equivilant martial weapons) are well made for combat, perhaps more accurate, and can cause more devastating attacks. |
| #3Hurin88Jul 09, 2014 19:33:11 | Yes, but I think the OP's central point is still valid: that the weapons in 5e are somewhat lacklustre and redundant. The trident has similar problems: it is just a spear that is harder to use but not in any way better. Really, some minimal effort could have been put into differentiating these weapons, which would have made for more interesting and defining choices. |
| #4Sailing_Pirate_RyanJul 09, 2014 19:53:13 | Yeah, the weapons table is one of the few glaring failings in an otherwise great (IMO) game. It's not just one or two problems, but many things are off; the halberd and the glaive are the exact same weapon, even down to weight and cost, so why did they need separate entries on the table? |
| #5PolarisJul 09, 2014 19:58:11 |
|
| #6masterfat78Jul 09, 2014 22:23:05 | I am in the agreement that they messed up when it comes to weapons and armor. Maces are a waste mechanically. The only thing that varies weapons is their damage type and considering this is supposed too be a modern and new edition, Im ameazed they went with such a simple weapons system. If the phb or dmg desnt have a mod for weapons and armor I will make one myself and then spend the rest of my days taunting wizards as poor designers. |
| #7FFSAAJul 09, 2014 22:46:09 |
|
| #8RamzourJul 10, 2014 0:26:03 | Not every weapon needs to be somehow better than other weapons. Weapons in D&D don't just exist for the mechanics....they also exist for flavor, tradition, and story reasons. |
| #9pauln6Jul 10, 2014 1:08:02 | 1e differentiated the horseman's mace, that was designed for use from horseback and the heavier footman's mace. It would be nice to see that differentiation. Footman's mace would be quite heavy and likely a martial weapon as a result but you could use it as a bonus proficiency benefit of cleric builds that make use of blunt weapons like the life cleric. |
| #10RamzourJul 10, 2014 1:11:32 | Also remember that these are the Basic Rules. The PHB and/or DMG might have a more advanced weapon module. |
| #11PolarisJul 10, 2014 2:32:59 |
|
| (Reply to #10)Sailing_Pirate_Ryan |
|
| #13Joe_the_RatJul 10, 2014 5:48:51 | I don't have the basic pdf on hand, but aren't all of the simple melee weapons 1d6 or less for 1-handed, 1d8 for 2-handed? That seems to be intentional. 3e included the Morningstar as a simple (1d8, 1-handed) weapon. Now it's martial. While my experience with bludgeon-focused violence is limited, I'm not seeing how a wood bat with nails would require more training than a metal bat.
A simple weapon damage cap is the best explanation I have for this. |
| #14DemoMonkeyJul 10, 2014 7:58:48 | Could you add the "Versatile" property to maces? Historically, were the shafts long enough to get a good two-handed grip?
And, slightly off topic, why is a quarterstaff "Versatile" and not "Two-Handed"? Can they really be used to full effect in one hand? |
| #15docdoom77Jul 10, 2014 8:10:07 |
|
| (Reply to #14)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| (Reply to #2)demon_idol |
|
| #18PolarisJul 10, 2014 16:55:14 |
|
| #19jaelisJul 10, 2014 17:20:49 | In my not truly humble opinion:
Mace should be 1d6 (versatile 1d8) Quarterstaff should be 1d6 (two handed), with eventually some class features or feats available to make it more effective Spear should be 1d6 (versatile 1d10), but not thrown Javelin should be 1d6 (thrown) Handaxe should be martial: 1d6 (light, thrown) Trident should be 1d6 (versatile 1d10, thrown)
Add a simple weapon Heavy mace 1d10 (two-handed, heavy)
Oh, and a club should cost 2 cp and a greatclub 5 cp.
|
| #20demon_idolJul 10, 2014 17:41:43 | I think the problem the designers had with the weapons table was that they had elimated some of the mechanical knobs that let them tweak the potency of weapons. One major major knob from 3.5 being crit range. It might have behooved them to add a feature to two to the array of features that could be applied to weapons. Some features that could be added might include 'high crit' which would do 2 extra dice of damage on a critical instead of one, or 'double', which would allow, for example, a quarter staff weilder who is using the quarter staff in both hands treat either end as a d6 light weapon, or 'brace', which would allow an attack of opportunity against an opponent that charged the weilder.
|
| #21FFSAAJul 10, 2014 22:10:55 |
|
| #22RamzourJul 11, 2014 1:40:48 |
|
| #23RamzourJul 11, 2014 1:51:42 |
|
| #24DemoMonkeyJul 11, 2014 9:14:24 | “I think you are misunderstanding what the Two-Handed weapon property says. "This weapon requires two hands to use" --TwoHanded weapon property. That means you can't even really do damage with a 2H weapon unless you have two hands because the weapon is too unwieldy otherwise.
However, that doesn't STOP you from using two hands on other weapons. Just because the Staff doesn't have the TwoHanded property, doesn't mean you tie one hand behind your back while using it. Nothing is preventing you from using your off-hand every once in a while during the normal chaos of battle. On the other hand, just because you touch the staff with your extra hand doesn't automatically mean you gain the increased damage from the versatile property. Think about historical fighting with (non 2H) swords. A warrior might use his gauntleted hand on the flat of the blade to block an incoming attack.”
Ramzour
I think you are misunderstanding the point being made.
The quarterstaff has the Versatile property. That means it can be used one handed OR two-handed.
Because it can be used one-handed, you could use it and a shield at the same time. In such a circumstance, abstract or not, you are weilding it one handed to full (d6) effect.
Now i'm not one of those people who claim to be a master martial artist or medieval weapon expert, so I'm actually asking - can you really wield a quarterstff to full effect with just one hand? (Assuming you aren't a Maiar. And even Gandalf actually used Orcrist for melee.)
And if you CAN'T, it should have the Two-handed property instead of Versatile |
| #25docdoom77Jul 11, 2014 11:45:15 |
|
| #26RamzourJul 11, 2014 12:34:03 |
|