My personal homebrew is if the base weapon has the Heavy property, the mithral version does not. all other rules still apply (so no one-handing the greatsword, but small races can use them now). If the base weapon does not have the Heavy or Light property, it now has the Light property.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Usually I just let them overcome damage resistance/immunity as if they're silver and give them immunity to corrosion, like a Rust Monster's rusting attack or the corrosive properties of some slimes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But if the weapon isn't heavy anymore, then it would deal less damage right?
The damage would be the same. Damage isn't only based on weight. It's magic =)
Besides magic, weight has a lot less to do with damage than you'd expect.
Sure, fantasy flies in the face of reality, but realistically, a one handed weapon isn't going to weigh more than 3lbs. That's just the amount of weight we can easilly swing over and over, while controling 2 to 3ft away from our body. Most blacksmithing hammers weigh more than a warhammer, but deal WAAAAAY less damage. The hammer is 4# and about 1ft long. The warhammer is about 3# and 3ft long meaning it'll accelerate waaaaay faster and hit with more force. Besides that, a smith's rounding hammer or cross peen hammer (a very agressive hammer) will deal damage on a thin edge that's a little over 1in long. The warhammer will have a pyramid shape that might get up to 1in wide at the widest, but comes to a point instead of an edge to focus the energy better. The pyramid shape then has four edges that also focus energy allowing it to punch deeper into armour than a cone spike could... and a smith does not want to put holes in things with his hammer (that's what punches are for).
TLDR: As long as it can be accelerated faster, or hit on a finer point, the weight won't matter. Heck, bullets punch through stuff like a warhammer and they weigh less, are easier to deform and break, AND have the wrong shape. They just accelerate really fast.
But if the weapon isn't heavy anymore, then it would deal less damage right?
The damage would be the same. Damage isn't only based on weight. It's magic =)
Besides magic, weight has a lot less to do with damage than you'd expect.
Sure, fantasy flies in the face of reality, but realistically, a one handed weapon isn't going to weigh more than 3lbs. That's just the amount of weight we can easilly swing over and over, while controling 2 to 3ft away from our body. Most blacksmithing hammers weigh more than a warhammer, but deal WAAAAAY less damage. The hammer is 4# and about 1ft long. The warhammer is about 3# and 3ft long meaning it'll accelerate waaaaay faster and hit with more force. Besides that, a smith's rounding hammer or cross peen hammer (a very agressive hammer) will deal damage on a thin edge that's a little over 1in long. The warhammer will have a pyramid shape that might get up to 1in wide at the widest, but comes to a point instead of an edge to focus the energy better. The pyramid shape then has four edges that also focus energy allowing it to punch deeper into armour than a cone spike could... and a smith does not want to put holes in things with his hammer (that's what punches are for).
TLDR: As long as it can be accelerated faster, or hit on a finer point, the weight won't matter. Heck, bullets punch through stuff like a warhammer and they weigh less, are easier to deform and break, AND have the wrong shape. They just accelerate really fast.
The reason I mentioned it is because it seem that part of the damage done by heavy weapons, is the fact that they are heavy and big, with long swing arcs etc. Less weight, same swing arc, I expect less damage.
But it was just curious question, DnD doesn't simulate reality.
Not sure I like simply removing the Heavy property, the disadvantage for Small creatures isn't just about weight but size as well. A Halfling is still going to have trouble wielding a greatsword no matter the weight, never mind a glaive or a halberd. I would definitely be fine with a reduced weight and resistance to corrosion from things like Oozes and Rust Monsters. I'd even be ok with it ignoring resistance to non-magical b/p/s damage even if the weapon wasn't "enchanted" with a +X or other effects.
But if the weapon isn't heavy anymore, then it would deal less damage right?
The damage would be the same. Damage isn't only based on weight. It's magic =)
Unless you wanted it for the -5/+10 component of Great Weapon Master ;-)
It's funny because the Heavy property is usually treated as a drawback (as evidenced by increasing the base damage die in the guide to create your own weapons) but many builds have a vested interest in pursuing it just because of the feat.
I remember wanting to reskin a glaive into a long heavy spear for a paladin and already published weapons weren't satisfying for me because they usually lack the Heavy property.
Not sure I like simply removing the Heavy property, the disadvantage for Small creatures isn't just about weight but size as well. A Halfling is still going to have trouble wielding a greatsword no matter the weight, never mind a glaive or a halberd. I would definitely be fine with a reduced weight and resistance to corrosion from things like Oozes and Rust Monsters. I'd even be ok with it ignoring resistance to non-magical b/p/s damage even if the weapon wasn't "enchanted" with a +X or other effects.
Part of it might be the theme or feel of the game. Anime characters and 40k characters swing around oversized weapons all the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I feel like heavy is a weird property in 5e. It specifically hampers Small sized creatures and that's it. I feel like it's a holdover from previous versions, like how Paladins had to be Lawful Good.
Not sure I like simply removing the Heavy property, the disadvantage for Small creatures isn't just about weight but size as well. A Halfling is still going to have trouble wielding a greatsword no matter the weight, never mind a glaive or a halberd. I would definitely be fine with a reduced weight and resistance to corrosion from things like Oozes and Rust Monsters. I'd even be ok with it ignoring resistance to non-magical b/p/s damage even if the weapon wasn't "enchanted" with a +X or other effects.
Part of it might be the theme or feel of the game. Anime characters and 40k characters swing around oversized weapons all the time.
And before them, 80s cartoon characters and action figures were doing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But if the weapon isn't heavy anymore, then it would deal less damage right?
The damage would be the same. Damage isn't only based on weight. It's magic =)
Besides magic, weight has a lot less to do with damage than you'd expect.
Sure, fantasy flies in the face of reality, but realistically, a one handed weapon isn't going to weigh more than 3lbs. That's just the amount of weight we can easilly swing over and over, while controling 2 to 3ft away from our body. Most blacksmithing hammers weigh more than a warhammer, but deal WAAAAAY less damage. The hammer is 4# and about 1ft long. The warhammer is about 3# and 3ft long meaning it'll accelerate waaaaay faster and hit with more force. Besides that, a smith's rounding hammer or cross peen hammer (a very agressive hammer) will deal damage on a thin edge that's a little over 1in long. The warhammer will have a pyramid shape that might get up to 1in wide at the widest, but comes to a point instead of an edge to focus the energy better. The pyramid shape then has four edges that also focus energy allowing it to punch deeper into armour than a cone spike could... and a smith does not want to put holes in things with his hammer (that's what punches are for).
TLDR: As long as it can be accelerated faster, or hit on a finer point, the weight won't matter. Heck, bullets punch through stuff like a warhammer and they weigh less, are easier to deform and break, AND have the wrong shape. They just accelerate really fast.
The reason I mentioned it is because it seem that part of the damage done by heavy weapons, is the fact that they are heavy and big, with long swing arcs etc. Less weight, same swing arc, I expect less damage.
But it was just curious question, DnD doesn't simulate reality.
That entire answer was an explanation of how a lighter weapon can deal equivalent of even greater than a heavier one if it can be swung faster. If the only difference between two weapons is weight, the same wielder will swing the lighter one faster with the same effort. Force equals mass times acceleration. If the acceleration increases proportionally to the decrease in mass, the resulting force would remain the same.
That being said, mithril isn't a real material and I don't think realistic scientific perfection should be expected in a game that features goblins that shoot lightning from their fingers. Explaining things in a way that satisfies for the purpose of immersion is one thing, but most gamers don't want to bring a physics textbook and a TI-86 to the table with them. Weird magic stuff happens because it's weird magic stuff and it's convenient for rules functionality and balance. As a DM if my players want an in universe explanation of something for flavor I'll gladly make up some pseudoscientific arcanobabble that should stand up to critical analysis at least as well as a typical episode of Star Trek.
So if you want your gnomes wielding greatswords twice as long as they are tall, go for it. Just don't be surprised if your half orc barbarian player wants a twenty foot long mithril halberd using the same "logic."
I feel like heavy is a weird property in 5e. It specifically hampers Small sized creatures and that's it. I feel like it's a holdover from previous versions, like how Paladins had to be Lawful Good.
It's worth noting that having a small size also has some advantages, mechanically. Small characters don't get a bonus to AC and attack like they did in 3.0/3.5, but they can still gain significant situational advantages depending on the circumstances. The player that complains about their halfling not being allowed to use an anime-scale axe should be reminded of that logic next time they want a situational advantage for fitting through tight spaces, hiding, or having their unconscious body carried by larger ally without encumbrance penalty while fleeing an unsuccessful fight.
So Adamantine Armor has special properties, Adamantine Weapons have special properties.
Mithral Armor has special properties, but Mithral Weapons do not.
Any suggestions as to what I could include in my game? Nothing game breaking just a little something to make them better than run of the mill weapons.
Thanks!
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
My personal homebrew is if the base weapon has the Heavy property, the mithral version does not. all other rules still apply (so no one-handing the greatsword, but small races can use them now). If the base weapon does not have the Heavy or Light property, it now has the Light property.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
This is a great idea and I'll be using it! I might add that it counts as a magical weapon for bypassing resistance.
My DM also allows normal weapons (not heavy and not light) to be considered light for the purpose of TWF if they are made of Mithril.
I would also consider making them +1 damage but not +1 to-hit.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
My table says Mythril weapons all have Finesse.
Usually I just let them overcome damage resistance/immunity as if they're silver and give them immunity to corrosion, like a Rust Monster's rusting attack or the corrosive properties of some slimes.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But if the weapon isn't heavy anymore, then it would deal less damage right?
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
The damage would be the same. Damage isn't only based on weight. It's magic =)
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Besides magic, weight has a lot less to do with damage than you'd expect.
Sure, fantasy flies in the face of reality, but realistically, a one handed weapon isn't going to weigh more than 3lbs. That's just the amount of weight we can easilly swing over and over, while controling 2 to 3ft away from our body. Most blacksmithing hammers weigh more than a warhammer, but deal WAAAAAY less damage. The hammer is 4# and about 1ft long. The warhammer is about 3# and 3ft long meaning it'll accelerate waaaaay faster and hit with more force. Besides that, a smith's rounding hammer or cross peen hammer (a very agressive hammer) will deal damage on a thin edge that's a little over 1in long. The warhammer will have a pyramid shape that might get up to 1in wide at the widest, but comes to a point instead of an edge to focus the energy better. The pyramid shape then has four edges that also focus energy allowing it to punch deeper into armour than a cone spike could... and a smith does not want to put holes in things with his hammer (that's what punches are for).
TLDR: As long as it can be accelerated faster, or hit on a finer point, the weight won't matter. Heck, bullets punch through stuff like a warhammer and they weigh less, are easier to deform and break, AND have the wrong shape. They just accelerate really fast.
Ah, so the material itself is inherently magical? So it would bypass damage reduction against non-magical weapons as well I suppose.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
The reason I mentioned it is because it seem that part of the damage done by heavy weapons, is the fact that they are heavy and big, with long swing arcs etc. Less weight, same swing arc, I expect less damage.
But it was just curious question, DnD doesn't simulate reality.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Not sure I like simply removing the Heavy property, the disadvantage for Small creatures isn't just about weight but size as well. A Halfling is still going to have trouble wielding a greatsword no matter the weight, never mind a glaive or a halberd. I would definitely be fine with a reduced weight and resistance to corrosion from things like Oozes and Rust Monsters. I'd even be ok with it ignoring resistance to non-magical b/p/s damage even if the weapon wasn't "enchanted" with a +X or other effects.
Unless you wanted it for the -5/+10 component of Great Weapon Master ;-)
It's funny because the Heavy property is usually treated as a drawback (as evidenced by increasing the base damage die in the guide to create your own weapons) but many builds have a vested interest in pursuing it just because of the feat.
I remember wanting to reskin a glaive into a long heavy spear for a paladin and already published weapons weren't satisfying for me because they usually lack the Heavy property.
Part of it might be the theme or feel of the game. Anime characters and 40k characters swing around oversized weapons all the time.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I feel like heavy is a weird property in 5e. It specifically hampers Small sized creatures and that's it. I feel like it's a holdover from previous versions, like how Paladins had to be Lawful Good.
And before them, 80s cartoon characters and action figures were doing it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Also for the physics of it, force = mass * acceleration. Even if the mass is lower, that means can move it through the air faster.
That entire answer was an explanation of how a lighter weapon can deal equivalent of even greater than a heavier one if it can be swung faster. If the only difference between two weapons is weight, the same wielder will swing the lighter one faster with the same effort. Force equals mass times acceleration. If the acceleration increases proportionally to the decrease in mass, the resulting force would remain the same.
That being said, mithril isn't a real material and I don't think realistic scientific perfection should be expected in a game that features goblins that shoot lightning from their fingers. Explaining things in a way that satisfies for the purpose of immersion is one thing, but most gamers don't want to bring a physics textbook and a TI-86 to the table with them. Weird magic stuff happens because it's weird magic stuff and it's convenient for rules functionality and balance. As a DM if my players want an in universe explanation of something for flavor I'll gladly make up some pseudoscientific arcanobabble that should stand up to critical analysis at least as well as a typical episode of Star Trek.
So if you want your gnomes wielding greatswords twice as long as they are tall, go for it. Just don't be surprised if your half orc barbarian player wants a twenty foot long mithril halberd using the same "logic."
It's worth noting that having a small size also has some advantages, mechanically. Small characters don't get a bonus to AC and attack like they did in 3.0/3.5, but they can still gain significant situational advantages depending on the circumstances. The player that complains about their halfling not being allowed to use an anime-scale axe should be reminded of that logic next time they want a situational advantage for fitting through tight spaces, hiding, or having their unconscious body carried by larger ally without encumbrance penalty while fleeing an unsuccessful fight.
Mass is decidedly less important for weapon damage when it comes to piercing and slashing attacks.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.