Personally, some of the entries on the weapons table irk me. Yes, houseruling is possible, but if I could I'd have the table edited as follows.
Club - Finesse. Gives rogues their sap/blackjack, but also works with the tonfa, jutte, or nunchuk concepts. Fictional example: Daredevil, Marvel Comics.
Quarterstaff - Finesse. Classic twirly weapon. Gives wizards a reason to use a staff instead of a dagger. Fictional example: Gambit, Marvel Comics.
Spear - Finesse. Classic twirly weapon. Fictional example: Prince Oberyn, Game of Thrones/ASoIaF.
Sling - Range (80/320). The history buff in me hates how slings never get the credit they deserve in modern fiction. I can swallow the lower damage to balance that you can use it with a shield, but at least make the sling's range equal, if not greater, than a shortbow's.
Trident. This is nothing but a spear used by common fishermen (and fishermen-themed gladiators); why it has a separate entry, and why it's martial, is beyond me.
None of these changes are gamebreaking either: the only significant change to gameplay I can see is Dex-based polearm master quarterstaff builds, which is fine. You give up reach and a small amount of damage.
Yes, I would edit the weapon table if I felt I had the time to devote to it.
Clutchbone wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
I don't see the need for a lot of those changes. I think a Rogue should be able to sneak attack with any weapon that they are proficient in. I just houseruled that in with a bit preventing the GWF/sneak attack interaction.
I'm really not sure about throwing finesse around so much. The fictional examples given would also have rather high strengths as well.
Finesse isn't a matter of how "twirly" a weapon is. "Twirly" works as a display and performance (such as Oberyn's flourishes with the spear when he wasn't engaged with his opponent), but not in actual combat. (You'll notice he doesn't "twirl" when actually engaged.)
Finesse is a matter of whether a weapon in the hands of a high-strength character like Bruce Lee or Conan would be more effective, or just the same effectiveness as in the hands of a low-strength character of high dexterity such as perhaps Merry or Pippin.
The actual changes I made to the table were just in allowing bows to use either Str or Dex, and making Quarterstaves Two-handed rather than Versatile I think.
i would give great swords reach, definitely.
I've always felt that creating dozens of distinct weapons is a little cumbersome (and then you see all of the noble knights of Totally-Not-Europe-You-Guys-Wink-Wink wielding kukri and scimitars). I'd rather see a sort of weapon creation system that allows you to replicate anything you need to via a simple formula. Player is free to call it whatever they want to (I have a really big scimitar that's two-handed and deals 1d10 guys). A lot of people are just going to zero in on the mechanically superior choice anyways, and that would give them some incentive to repackage it into something more aesthetically pleasing to the player.
If I did I would have to go to armor next.
If I were going to redo the weapon tables, I would probably want to normalize damage by weapon size, and give each weapon category a special ability of some kind.
A mace, war pick, sword, and axe would all do the same damage, but have a minor effect of some kind making them different. (It might not even need to be inherent to the weapon, but rather simply be a different feat effect or class ability dealing with them.)
But then, in order to get as many different weapons on the table as I want, I'd have to come up with a lot of minor special abilities, and this would probably make the result too crunchy for most people.
Quarterstaff should not be versatile and D6 damage (two-handed).
Or be D4 bludgeoning/ D6 (Versatile) if you must keep the Gandalf with "Sword and Staff" look
Currently the being 1D6/1D8 Versatile quarterstaff seems just better than the greatclub and many other simple weapons.
(Although I'm kinda ok with the spear keeping it's stats, even though it's very similar to a quarterstaff )
I'd go with the last Gamma World system. Have light/heavy melee or ranged with each tied to a choice out of two stats. Flavour call the weapon what you'd like and then just use keywords to add complexity.
Bloodscythe wrote:
As mentioned earlier the "twirly" uses of spear and quarterstaff are by monk style characters anyhow and is simply solved by taking a level in monk. Mmonks can multiclass well with an armored character, people just fixiate on the unarmored defense ability and don't realize that a suit of chainmail is as good AC as the most defensive monk at level 1 and while the monk eventually scales higher than plate it takes 16 levels to do so. No reason a fighter who wants to twirl a staff cant take 1-4 levels of monk to get there. Heck 4 ki points can be very useful.
I'd change a very few minor things, for example the issue that mace is more expensive and heavier than a quarterstaff, but the quarterstaff has more features.
Also expanding on that, I'd probably add stronger versions of each weapon that nobody can start with but that can be bought with gold (unlike magic items), because I like the idea of adventurer's collecting money and actually being able to use it for something that helps them with combat.
Same for armor.
Needs at least 8 more types of polearm.
Needs at least 8 more types of polearm.
Clutchbone wrote:
Veleria wrote:
I would just replace a weapons table with rules for making weapons. I know I have posted them a few times on this board already.
But basically, it works by the more restriction the weapon has, the higher the damage it does while the more special abilities it has, the lower the damage die.
Also, characters can claim to be wielding whatever they want and you can determine the damage die. Characters with "martial weapon" proficiency just do more damage with the exact same weapons. If you are a Fighter with a club, you just deal 1d6 instead of the Wizard's 1d4 because you know how to use it better.
The spear probably needs to be broken up into several different weapons in the very least.
I would make weapon categories so people don't get so caught up on the physical description of their weapons so much.
Something like:
Two Handed Martial Weapon - Heavy property, Two-handed property, deals 2d6 or 1d12 damage, piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning (die size and damage type set at creation)
Two Handed Reach Martial Weapon - Heavy property, two-handed property, reach property, deals 1d10 damage, piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning (type set at creation)
One Handed Finesse Martial Weapon - Finesse property, deals 1d8 damage, bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage (type set at creation)
One Handed Versatile Martial Weapon - 1d8 damage, 1d10 damage when wielded with 2 hands, deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage (type set at creation)
etc., etc.
If someone wants a two-handed or versatile scimitar because they like the mental image for their character concept, I'm not the type to tell them they have to use a weaker weapon than possible or to choose something that doesn't fit their concept. If the half-orc barbarian wants a big, curved sword instead of a greataxe but still wants the potential for large criticals, the shape of the weapon doesn't affect the in-game mechanics.
There is so many problem with the weapon table.
I would rework it to make all the weapon feel unique and have a mechanical reason to exist.
For example I would give the Mace the Heavy property (making it unique and comparable to the quarterstaff who deal the same damage while also being versatile) it make sence since a mace is a heavy club and now mace user can use great weapon master feat.
the trident need some love. at the moment, the trident is worst the the spear (being heavier) and is martial compare to simple. The difficulty is we need to give it a boost compare to the spear, cannot be more powerfull then the longsword, and need to be different from the glaive/halbert. Thrown propertie give it a uniqueness and a special property which is good. I would remove the versatile and give it a base damage of d8 reach. So the trident would be a d8 piercing weapon, that can be thrown and with reach (and available with polearm master) making it different from longsword who got the versatility to do d10 damage glaive and halbert requiring 2 hand and dealing d10
the glaive and the halbert are exactly the same mechanic, and like we saw with the multiple sword, they were suppose to simplify the weapon list (club are also nunchuku, dagger are also kukri etc...) so glaive and halbert should become the same weapon or something should be done to differenciate them.
To differenciate them I would use the same diffenciation then the greatsword and great axe: one do 1d4+1d6 damage and the other do 1d10 damage. 1d4+1d6 is more reliable and will give a higher average, while the 1d10 will have bigger spike with crits (just like the greatsword and great axe comparaison)
Twirly != finesse. In fact you could argue it's the opposite of finesse and in actual combat neither the spear nor the quarterstaff was used in a twirly fashion (at least not in Europe). In fact the quarter staff and the spear are almost identical in use ,both of them are used to thrust at the enemy despite the common perception of quarterstaves being swung. I agree that adding finesse to the club would be good because it allows the rogue to use a sap however I think the more elegant solution is to remove the finesse requirement of sneak attack entirely and open it up to any weapon the rogue is proficient in. That way rogues will actually use their Longwood proficiency occasionally and they get access to a sap. If you do that I would suggest adding a clause to greatweapon fighting so that it doesn't work with sneak attack dice.
As for what I would do with the weapon table I'm torn between doing absolutely nothing (it's pretty good as it is) or maybe add an official arming sword and tweak the longsword. It might look something like this. Arming sword 1d8 slashing (perhaps finesse which would make the most sense but I worry about it becoming another rapier where it's objectively the best choice) and the longsword would be 1d6 versatile 1d10 slashing. I think i'll just stick with the base weapon table though.
Anyway that's just my two pennies 
if you're having fun you're doing it right, therefore the best weapon table is the table that best fits with what you enjoy and what fits in your game.
DemoMonkey wrote:
We need to add
THE BOHEMIAN EARSPOON!
Most stronk of weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_earspoon
I can edit the weapon table and I do.
I put a line through Unarmed Strike.
It does annoy me that a wizards traditional weapon is a staff and he really sucks with it. I guess it's just there for decoration. I reskinned shocking grasp to be magical blunt damage with a staff to make me feel better.
Who else misses 3.5E's weapon table? It had a few issues with it, but I think it had a lot more variety and options.
Ah. Recalled another change I made: Allowing most swords to deal either Slashing or Piercing damage, on a swing-by-swing basis.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
I like simple weapon selections so I won't complain. I kinda wish weapon damage would just be based on class.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Alright, so I set up a weapon calculator like we had back in 3E and 4E. It largely worked in those editions, and it largely works now. Putting it together highlighted a few of my issues with the current weapon system.
1) There are 10 properties to deal with, but most of them are simply restrictions on who can use what. There is too little variety in the weapons because of this.
2) Heavy is clearly weighted as a "drawback" on weapons, as there are two-handed weapons (or versatile weapons) that aren't heavy and are weaker than similar heavy weapons (greatclub < maul; shortbow < longbow; light crossbow < heavy crossbow). But heavy is not a drawback on the weapon itself; it does nothing to make the weapon less effective for medium-sized characters, they only weaken them for small characters, who get nothing in return for it.
3) Similar to Heavy, Loading is clearly weighted as a "drawback" on weapons. The problem here is that loading is only a drawback for those who have multiple attacks, and thus is only a drawback at 5th level for less than half of the classes. This creates an odd situation where there's no reason for anyone to use a shortbow/longbow (except for the obscene range of the longbow, which likely won't ever come into play) over a light/heavy crossbow until 5th level and only if they're a certain class.
Now, ignoring those issues, I came up with a very simple calculator. It runs off a point system; total the points, positive and negative, to determine if the weapon is balanced. Weapons are balancing around 3 points; only 9 weapons fall outside of this.
Weapon Damage
1: 1
1d4: 2
1d6: 3
1d8: 4
2d4: 4
1d10: 5
1d12: 6
2d6: 6
Weapon Properties
Ammunition: +1; range determined by other things
Finesse: +0
Heavy: -1
Light: +1
Loading: -1
Martial: -1
Reach: +1
Thrown: +1; range determined by other things
Two-Handed: -1
Versatile: +0 (In effect, while used in two-hands, the weapon gains the two-handed property in order to increase its damage die by 1 step)
The weapons which fall outside this metric are:
Dagger: Coming in at 4 points, it would be balanced if it were a Martial Weapon; compared to the short sword, it deals less damage but has thrown. My suggestion is to remove Thrown from the standard dagger, suggest people use darts as "throwing daggers", and add a martial weapon with the old dagger's stats. (The dagger has always been too strong for a simple and as strong as a martial since 3E).
Handaxe: Oh boy. The Handaxe comes in at 5 points. Compared to the light hammer, it is a straight upgrade (different damage types do not matter, as evidenced by tons of other weapon pairs). I'd make it martial and drop its damage down to 1d4, making it equal to my dagger, just slashing.
Javelin: It also comes in at 4 points, making it balanced if it were a martial weapon. It's a larger dart, sort of, I get it, but the dart isn't "Light". This one is a hard one to change. Clearly it should deal more damage than the dart. I'd feel bad making it martial.
Light Hammer: Just like the dagger, it comes in at 4 points. It's a club, but with throwing. Make it martial.
Spear: Ah, the spear. No wonder you were the chosen weapon of humanity for so long. It comes in at 4 points, making it balanced if it were a martial weapon. I'd take throwing off it.
Whip: The whip comes in at 2 points, making it a weak weapon. It either needs its damage increased to 1d6, or it needs to have its reach increased to +10 reach (double reach!). I liked how it used to be treated as a ranged weapon, but that was complicated for some, I suppose.
Blowgun: Why is this martial? It comes in at a dismal 0 points. Maybe it should get a point for being silent, but that's a circumstantial bonus that I think is balanced by an equally sound circumstance of having to hit bare flesh (or at least not solid armor). Another circumstantial benefit could be that the target might not know they were hit, making it good for injecting slow acting poisons. All weapons can deliver poison. Make it simple, codify those 2 bonuses, and maybe it'll be fine.
Heavy Crossbow/Longbow: Here's one big oops of the system; the two big bows come in at 2 points. This is because they have so many negative traits; heavy, martial, two-handed, and loading for the crossbow. But if heavy weren't priced as a negative trait to balance these, then 6 martial melee weapons are suddenly imbalanced. Things could be rejiggered; maybe versatile and finesse should each cost a point, but that would skew a few more weapons out of balance (the flail, morningstar, and war pick have neither versatile or finesse, and no simple weapons are heavy).
An argument COULD be made that finesse should "cost" something, but you'd have to redo the stats. Maybe only light weapons can be finessed, but then what happens to the rapier? I understand the notion that finessed weapons should deal less damage, but again: rapier, rapier, rapier.
1 point off isn't the end of the world, but it does show why certain weapons get used over others. The handaxe really stands out as a great weapon for the rare weapon using non-martial character, but I've thrown it on martial builds before (I want to play a twfing hand-axe wielding ranger).
As for other changes I'd make, ones that aren't related to balance; I'd make the greatclub heavy and give it a 1d10 damage die. The greatclub is equal to a two-handed quarterstaff, so why take the greatclub?
Contrarily, I wouldn't let "any" weapon be finessed. There's a lot more that I would apply finesse to, like spears and staffs, but I wouldn't want it on heavy weapons and I wouldn't want it on things like axes and hammers. I miss 4E's weapon categories for this reason.
Clutchbone wrote:
I'm thinking something along the lines of
melee ranged
Fighter 1d12 1d10
Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin 1d10 1d8
Cleric, Druid, Monk, Bard, Rogue 1d8 1d6
Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock 1d6 1d4
I'd make the wizard 1d12 melee just to tempt them.
<Insert maniacal DM laughter here>
What happens if someone multiclasses?
Clutchbone wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
I've updated the first post with my ideal weapons table.
Simple Weapons
Light, finesse, thrown 30/60 1d4 (dagger, light hammer, hand axe)
Thrown 20/40 1d6 (light spear, club)
Two-handed 1d8 (quarterstaff, greatclub)
Martial Weapons
Light, finesse 1d6 (shortsword, rapier)
Versatile 1d8/1d10 (Longsword, battleaxe, spear)
Heavy, two-handed 1d12 (greataxe, greatsword)
Heavy, two-handed, reach 1d10 (glaive, halberd)
Basically, there would only be categories of weapons and it'd be up to the player what particular weapon they were using. This sort of change would necessitate changes to class proficiencies though.
EDIT: In case that wasn't clear, the parenthetical weapons are just examples for each category. You could use a versatile martial weapon and call it a quarterstaff or a trident or a really big knife.
Endarrion wrote:
I'd personally start readjusting how damages work with each type of armor. It'd make the game more complex, since you'd have to remember "Longbows don't even harm a man in fully tempered Plate Armor at a range beyond 30ft." and "A War Pick is great against Plate Armor, but it's never coming out again, once it's stuck in there." Different types of armors would afford different forms of protection.
Clutchbone wrote:
Endarrion wrote: