Here is a weapon and damage system that I originally made after many years of playing 3.5, but I think it could work with 5th edition or the future edition of D&D. I have a complete weapon document as well where I categorized weapons into Light, Medium, and Heavy Weapons. It might require some changes to some feats or class features like Sneak Attack or Bonus Attacks in 5th, I had to do this for 3.5. Let me know what you think:
Light Weapons (such as Daggers or Rapiers or Unarmed Strikes) get 3 Attacks per round at 1d4 Base Damage per Attack, adding 1/2 Strength modifier to Damage. Two Weapon Fighting does not automatically grant an additional Attack.
Medium Weapons (such as a Battleaxe or Longsword) get 2 Attacks per round at 1d6 Base Damage per Attack, adding Strength modifier to Damage.
Heavy Weapons (such as Greatsword for example) get 1 Attack per round at 1d12 Base Damage per Attack, adding 2xStrength modifier to Damage. Reach Weapons are Heavy Weapons but only do 1d10 Damage. Grapple is a Heavy Weapon but only does 1d10 Damage.
A Bastard Sword (or Katana) can be used as either a Medium Weapon (one-handed) or a Heavy Weapon (two handed).
At certain level tiers (6/14/22/30, but this could change to fit 5th edition tiers), you gain +1 die of Base Damage to each Attack, but do not increase the number of Attacks. So at 6th level with a Light Weapon you would have 3 Attacks at 2d4 Base Damage each instead of 1d4 each like at 1st level. With a Medium Weapon you would then have 2 Attacks at 2d6 each, and Heavy would be 2d12 with 1 Attack then. Note that there are no minuses to each Attack like 3.5 had to complicate things, and 5th doesn't have minuses either.
Basically the maximum potential damage is exactly similar for the three categories, and almost exactly similar for the same Strength score. This system gives you the feel of a larger weapon doing more damage and being slower than a quicker less damaging weapon, without getting too complicated. It also opens up D&D so that a Dagger wielding Fighter can actually be effective and fun, and prevents the problem that 3.5 had and maybe 5th even has, where everyone just gravitates to the weapon that inflicts the most damage.
Criticals generally inflict +1 die Base Damage, so you would just roll 2d12 for a Greatsword (1d12 Base Damage) for example, then add any other modifiers such as 2xStrength modifier.
The magic system that I have also follows these same categories and damage tiers as well, with other changes such as a mana points system, so no more spell slots or spells per day just a scaling spell system with the same mana cap as Attack Bonus. This would need some modification for 5th as the maximum Attack Bonus in mine is still 5 higher than 5th edition (1+1/2 character level for mine, so maximum +11 at 20th level). The Mana system I have is also much simpler than the spell points or psionic systems that we have seen in other editions of D&D, and spells for better and worse are not as powerful or at least not as damaging at higher levels as they have been traditionally. There are other minor intricacies to the weapon and damage and magic systems but this is the gist of it.
I like it. A lot. You'd have to address on hit spell effecfs nd sneak attack, but I'm sure you know that.
(2.5+1/2str/dex)*3 is 7.5 +1.5str/dex
( 3.5+str/dex ) *2 is 7 +str/dex*2
6.5+(str*2) is heavy
They're almost the same
It isn't perfect unfortunately 
, and I am not a great mathmatician so the damage between categories and averages will probably not end up being equal with other modifiers and such taken into account. The way the math did work out the medium weapon could do a bit more strength modifier damage than the light weapon, and it does allow the use of a shield as well.
Interesting thought about wasting damage and it is indeed often a benefit to be able to attack multiple opponents rather than 1, but if you miss with the other attacks that damage gets wasted anyway. As you have mentioned I am still looking at all the variables to keep the heavy weapons from being possibly the worst choice. With 3.5 edition there are feats that can keep this from happening (I modified a lot of them accordingly), but for 5th edition it can become a slightly bigger potential problem (I have not modified these due to licensing/copy concerns), especially with the way that 5th grants a bonus action attack when dual wielding/two weapon fighting. (I removed this extra attack in 3.5 edition and changed two weapon fighting further). HIt points are so abstract that even with this potential problem I felt that players would notice the whittling down with light and medium weapons but then more often than not the single Heavy Attack would noticeably be more damaging giving the impression that it always did more anyway.
One thing I did do recently is grant Heavy Weapons a minimum damage of 3. I didn't do 3d4 instead of 1d12 because it complicated some other math and terminology. I was also trying to keep it simple to remember and keep the number of dice rolls down to help speed up gameplay and have less math for the DM when managing their opponents.
Some weapons are always going to be the best choice so to speak, but this was an attempt to reduce the "best choice" phenomenon of other editions while including more variety than 5th edition does, where the weapons all "feel" the same to me even with the fighting styles and finesse notations taken into account, since you only have 1 attack mostly. Also, might encourage players to use different weapons and tactics for different situations, gives a reason to use a weapon that has more attacks versus a hoard of enemies, or a big weapon versus a solo monster like a dragon for example.
Thanks for the response.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
....3rd didn't have a "highest damage" magnet on its weapons. Weapons were chosen based on how well they combined with the build. Typically, the go-to weapons had reach, trip-enabled, or a very large critical threat range, and once you'd settled on those properties and the handedness you wanted, only then did you choose damage. At the end of its run, the biggest damage-dealers could use brooms and still one-hit KO everything, simply because they held the broom in two hands.
5th is similar: weapon properties are designed to appeal to different classes. For instance, all simple melee weapons deal the same damage in the hands of a monk, and you can't use a greatsword and hope to trigger Sneak Attack (you could do this in 3e and 3.5). There's even some direct equivalents - for instance, there's virtually no difference besides aesthetic style between using a greatsword or a maul. Similarly, all the fighting styles open to a fighter mean that a dagger-using fighter is as valid as a swordsman or an archer (each with different strengths and preferences).
Without seeing similar adjustments throughout the system, such as to Sneak Attack or fighting styles, this system can't be evaluated. You admit these need to be changed, but make no proposal as to how; without making those changes, this system produces some weird results (like all paladins wanting to use light weapons, because that's three Divine Smites per round; likewise, barbarians will favor daggers, because rage adds a fixed damage per attack and there's minimal benefit to using larger dice because your system overrides how critical hits work in 5e).
Also, all your boasting of a mana system in the final paragraph falls victim to the usual problems with such systems - the spells themselves aren't designed with mana points in mind, so adding them in without adjusting the spells is a nightmare. (The 3.5 Unearthed Arcana spell points are a good example of this: they nerfed damage spells even more than the system already did, by setting the idea of "CL scaling = points spent", but that didn't change the effectiveness of spells that didn't care about CL, like most save-or-dies. An example of a point system from around that time that did work is 3.5 psionics, which you'll note redid just about every spell in the game to work with its paradigm.) Meanwhile, the changes you mention you've made for spells largely mirror the changes 5e did already, relative to 3.5: instead of each spell being an encounter-ending gamechanger, most of them got seriously toned down. The only ones that didn't were damage spells, which have been raised from "worthless" to "at least partially useful, depending on context and the caster's features".
Basically I'm seeing a partially-baked recipe here declaring it's the victor of the next Great British Bake-Off, and my reaction, as always, is [Citation Needed].
It's okay for two handers to deal more damage since they don't have shields.
If you have a50% miss chance, and 10 damage, then you're expecting 5 average against someone without a shield and 4 against someone with a shield. So two handed weapons can deal25% more damage than one handers.
If you assume everyone will reach Str 20, you'd be looking at 17 damage for one handed and 16.5 for two handed. You can boost two handed by 4 damage, to 21 or so. 2d10+ 2xStr would get you there.
Of course, you'd have to revise hp
What about thrown or ranged weapons? Do they use the same base assumptions and system?
What about monsters? You've not only got natural attacks (claws, bites, tentacles, etc.) but those that can wield weapons (a goblin with a shortsword or dagger for example)?
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
So a goblin with a shortsword is getting three attacks now instead of the one they would norrmally get? Wouldn't that drastically change the CR of the goblin? And dragons would be making eight attacks each action (three attacks with each claw and twice with its bite)!?
If ranged weapons work the same, does that mean you get three attacks every time you use a hand crossbow? What about a sling same thing? Since you can only interact with one object per turn (like drawing a weapon), how do you throw three daggers as an attack action? Is that limit relaxed as well?
LordCorwin wrote:
LordCorwin wrote:
Let's have another long discussion about katanas.
Nevvur wrote:
well then we will have the long and short of it all