You are going to do more damage on average, but you are going to do 11-12 damage less often with a 2d6 than you are with 1d12; though you're also going to do 2-3 damage less often as well (and it's impossible to deal 1 damage). You're much more likely to do 5-9 damage (66.67%) vs (42.67%) - Same chances of doing 4 or 10 damage though.
If you look at the average, you're going to look at a difference of 0.5 damage per roll, but your half-orc barbarian is doing 4d12 (27.5) as opposed to 6d6 (21) on a critical hit.
Now, if we assume that hits are on rolls of 10+ You're looking at:
10-19: GS/M (7 each; 70 total), GA (6.5 each; 65 total) 20: GS/M (21), GA (27.5)
So, Level 9 Barbarian Half-Orc total w/ GS/M = 91 or 8.27 damage per hit GA = 92.5 or 8.41 damage per hit
So, while your average rolls with a Greatsword/Maul are looking 0.5 damage per hit better, the actual damage output favors the Greataxe by 0.14 damage per hit if you are a half-orc barbarian. It's not all that game breaking either way tbh.
The numbers obviously get skewed depending on how hard/easy an enemy is to hit and other things that change the damage/crit chance: Dipping 3 levels into fighter will let you take Great Weapon Fighting, which will likely increase your GS/M damage more than your GA damage (I haven't done the math), but archetyping Champion improves your Crit Chance to 19-20 which favors GA.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Plus, what kind of horrible Dwarf/Half-orc is using a Greatsword over a Greataxe?
Someone who flavors their Dwarfs as Scottish!
A highland hill dwarf, with kilt and bagpipes?
I will say that I personally will take a high average damage the more "swing" especially with the Great Weapon Fighter special ability as the Great Sword is more likely to roll 1's and 2's for the rerolls.
That said IF you build your character around crits being extra crity, then the Maul/Greataxe is a better bet. This is because Half-Orc's Savage Attacks, Barbarian's Brutal Critical, roll 1 extra die ontop of the doubling.
So, since the question has been answered already, I'll diverge and tell you something different to spark ideas. I gave one of my guys a bastard sword that's 2d4 one-handed or 3d4 two-handed. He enjoyed the versatility and the standardized use of "adding more of the same dice" (plus some loving for those lonely little 1d4s) instead of switching to a different die altogether.
I'm sure some statistician can tell you how and why this was a bad idea, but we enjoyed it and he kept that sword through the whole campaign.
Yes, and that is more or less what they have done.
Weapons have different stats because they are made for different fighting styles. Their damages and properties reflect what they are designed to do. A battleaxe is not a warhammer is not a longsword.
As far I am concerned, while I like pretty much every other aspect of 5th edition, this is something they got wrong in my opinion. It seems to me like they are streamlining it for the those that don't care to understand why weapons are different. In short sacrificing to appeal to a broader audience.
Its like how they classify a Mule and a donkey as the same animal when a mule is the size of a horse and a donkey is the size of a pony. There is a massive differences between an animal 400 lbs and one that is 1,200 lbs. Not to mention that mules can pull more weight than a horse and is in fact why they were bred in the first place. Or that mules are smarter than horses...Anyways I digress.
I suppose its stupid to demand realism from a fantasy game. I'll just adapt all of the weapons from 3.5 to 5th ed stats.
Yes, and that is more or less what they have done.
Weapons have different stats because they are made for different fighting styles. Their damages and properties reflect what they are designed to do. A battleaxe is not a warhammer is not a longsword.
As far I am concerned, while I like pretty much every other aspect of 5th edition, this is something they got wrong in my opinion. It seems to me like they are streamlining it for the those that don't care to understand why weapons are different. In short sacrificing to appeal to a broader audience.
Its like how they classify a Mule and a donkey as the same animal when a mule is the size of a horse and a donkey is the size of a pony. There is a massive differences between an animal 400 lbs and one that is 1,200 lbs. Not to mention that mules can pull more weight than a horse and is in fact why they were bred in the first place. Or that mules are smarter than horses...Anyways I digress.
I suppose its stupid to demand realism from a fantasy game. I'll just adapt all of the weapons from 3.5 to 5th ed stats.
While I agree 100% on the mule/donkey digression, I believe the lack of proper differentiation in weapons is due to the combat system itself, rather than a fault in the weapon system alone.
The main difference between, for example, a sword, an axe and a hammer is the way they deliver the damage and how different materials react or are affect by that damage.
A sword is a balanced weapon, allowing for both slashing and thrusting, which can be used in most situation and can also offer good defensive capabilities due to the length, weight and strength of the blade, allowing for quick changes of posture with the simple twist of the wrist to deflect/redirect an incoming blow; they suffer against chainmail and plate armors, but given the precision that can be produced they can still inflict sufficient damage by aiming at the gaps or not fully protected areas
An axe is made to break things, it is designed to be extremely effective against wooden structures and shields (very few shield historically were fully made of iron or steel, due to the weight and the stress produced on the arm wielding it by the vibration conduction of metals, not to mention the sheer cost and craftsmanship necessary to make one); axes are also extremely good at chopping out pieces of the enemy, and to open gaps in their armor; the downside is that, while it would be possible to use an axe as a somewhat defensive weapon (mostly using the shaft), it does not provide the same level of ease and durability as a sword, and given the balancing of it, it makes quick movements difficult and potentially not as precise.
A hammer is made to create massive damage to rigid structures and to break bones and internal organs in a live enemy; while still effective against a shield, in this department it would create less damage than an axe to the shield itself, while it could potentially break the arm holding the shield up, if the blow is delivered with enough precision and power; it is extremely effective against any type of armors (with a little more difficulty against plate, as the armor is not in direct contact with the body... on the first blow at least), as most of the concussion force transfers directly to the body being protected by the armor, possibly breaking bones or causing internal hemorrhage; a hammer is heavy and quite unwieldy, causing it to be quite difficult to properly aim, but it produces vasts amount of damage.
This little (and possibly unnecessary) explanation is to indicate that the D&D combat system does not really take into consideration any of these differentiating aspects between weapons, and for them to be properly represented a simple change of dice damage/number still seems reductive. What would be needed would be a somewhat slightly deeper armor system and specific qualities for each kind of weapon.
D&D 5ed is made for simplicity, and I love it for it. If I wanted something more complex and possibly more "realistic" I would probably be looking at The Dark Eye or any other similar systems (not judging anyone's will to come up with a houserule on weapons though, let this be clear).
Yes, and that is more or less what they have done.
Weapons have different stats because they are made for different fighting styles. Their damages and properties reflect what they are designed to do. A battleaxe is not a warhammer is not a longsword.
As far I am concerned, while I like pretty much every other aspect of 5th edition, this is something they got wrong in my opinion. It seems to me like they are streamlining it for the those that don't care to understand why weapons are different. In short sacrificing to appeal to a broader audience.
Its like how they classify a Mule and a donkey as the same animal when a mule is the size of a horse and a donkey is the size of a pony. There is a massive differences between an animal 400 lbs and one that is 1,200 lbs. Not to mention that mules can pull more weight than a horse and is in fact why they were bred in the first place. Or that mules are smarter than horses...Anyways I digress.
I suppose its stupid to demand realism from a fantasy game. I'll just adapt all of the weapons from 3.5 to 5th ed stats.
Demand realism from a fantasy game? You know "Bastard Swords" aren't a thing historically. They are longswords.
I'm with LeK, if your group likes more granular 3.5-ish weapons that great and I'm happy for you. I on the otherhand think they didn't go far enough! 3.5 had pages and pages and pages of weapons... 95% of them were f*ing useless. They didn't do a damn thing and were waste of design space. Why? Because they build a very few Top Tier Weapons and most of the rest was garbage. That is bad game design. A designer can argue they have lots of content, but if no one uses 90% of it then only the 10% actually matters. Why does the Net exist? It can only be used without DisAdv by taking 1 of 2 Feats. Why does the Trident exist? It's spear that requires martial proficiency. That's a waste of a proficiency slot. Why is the pike not on the list for Polearm Mastery? If you build a Polearm Master, you can't use one of the most common polearms. Why do the flail, morning star, and war pick not have a special rule like Versatile or Finesse? Because why would you pick them over longsword, battleaxe, warhammer, or rapier are just better. In the simple weapons a mace is inferior to a quarterstaff for the same reason. All of this is a waste of design space.
In my mind they should have taken the philosophy of Monk Weapons a step further.
For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon in the Weapons section.
Because the game doesn't NEED special stats for a macuahuitl, it's a battle axe. The Yklwa from Tomb of Annihilation bothers me a lot, because it's a Zulu Short Spear. It's the single best Simple Weapon in the game. 1 handed 1d8 damage. It has a special ability of Thrown (instead of Versatile or Finesse), so it stands up with those weapons.
The "Bastard Sword" and "Katana" existed in 3.5 because you could pay a feat (Exotic Weapon) to get +die in damage. Also since the 80's "katanas" have always been the "best" sword in any game.
This is where I find that 3.5 did a better job. The critical system was to my mind a way of illustrating what you are describing. Namely the idea that swords were a more precise weapon and therefor had a higher chance to critical in most cases (in some much higher), while axe, hammers and maces had a higher damage multipliers indicating that they had greater to do greater critical damage.
I agree many of the weapons in the various lists in 3.5 are bunk with many weapons just being various iterations of the same concept. However, I do not think it is the case with most. Things like the double-bladed sword, Orcish double-axe, gnomish pickhammer, and dwarven waraxe standout to me as straight up reflecting the fantasy aspect of the game and not based on real functional weapons. The curved bladed Falchion and Kriegsmesser are real weapons, but seemingly would require different action to cut most effectively than an Arming sword or Longsword carried during the same era. Or so I would think. I have been wrong on such things being neither a historian or master swordsman.
Sorry for the lack of cohesive paragraph structure or a strong argument. It's been a long hot day here and I am tired.
D&D has never been the home of realism in a roleplaying system. rolemaster did that, it took you a week to make a charachter and the rules were myriad, one game i played in the GM had been playing the game for 6 years when i joined, he had the healing rate of elves completely backwards and had them healing at 1/4 the rate of humans Instead of 4x the rate of humans. it's a tradeoff and one which i reckon personally 5e doesn't have too bad in many ways, however threes no way in hell that the weight of mithril armour in my game isn't getting reduced from that in Raw by at least 50%
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All plans turn into, run into the room waving a sword and see what happens from there, once the first die gets rolled
I liked the weapon variations in 3.5. In 5e it feels the weapon doesn't matter at all. There are like 4 weapons in 5e: Twohanded, range, onehanded and finess weapon. And with armor is the problem there are lots of dead armors no one uses because there are just better versions. In 3.5 every armor comes with down and upsides and every weapon has some great potential like higher crit chance or passiv ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2d6 isn't always superior to 1d12.
You are going to do more damage on average, but you are going to do 11-12 damage less often with a 2d6 than you are with 1d12; though you're also going to do 2-3 damage less often as well (and it's impossible to deal 1 damage). You're much more likely to do 5-9 damage (66.67%) vs (42.67%) - Same chances of doing 4 or 10 damage though.
If you look at the average, you're going to look at a difference of 0.5 damage per roll, but your half-orc barbarian is doing 4d12 (27.5) as opposed to 6d6 (21) on a critical hit.
Now, if we assume that hits are on rolls of 10+ You're looking at:
10-19: GS/M (7 each; 70 total), GA (6.5 each; 65 total)
20: GS/M (21), GA (27.5)
So, Level 9 Barbarian Half-Orc total w/
GS/M = 91 or 8.27 damage per hit
GA = 92.5 or 8.41 damage per hit
So, while your average rolls with a Greatsword/Maul are looking 0.5 damage per hit better, the actual damage output favors the Greataxe by 0.14 damage per hit if you are a half-orc barbarian. It's not all that game breaking either way tbh.
The numbers obviously get skewed depending on how hard/easy an enemy is to hit and other things that change the damage/crit chance: Dipping 3 levels into fighter will let you take Great Weapon Fighting, which will likely increase your GS/M damage more than your GA damage (I haven't done the math), but archetyping Champion improves your Crit Chance to 19-20 which favors GA.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Plus, what kind of horrible Dwarf/Half-orc is using a Greatsword over a Greataxe?
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I demand the return of the bec-de-corbin and the glaive-guisarme. Where's my ranseur??!
So, since the question has been answered already, I'll diverge and tell you something different to spark ideas. I gave one of my guys a bastard sword that's 2d4 one-handed or 3d4 two-handed. He enjoyed the versatility and the standardized use of "adding more of the same dice" (plus some loving for those lonely little 1d4s) instead of switching to a different die altogether.
I'm sure some statistician can tell you how and why this was a bad idea, but we enjoyed it and he kept that sword through the whole campaign.
Yes, and that is more or less what they have done.
Weapons have different stats because they are made for different fighting styles. Their damages and properties reflect what they are designed to do. A battleaxe is not a warhammer is not a longsword.
As far I am concerned, while I like pretty much every other aspect of 5th edition, this is something they got wrong in my opinion. It seems to me like they are streamlining it for the those that don't care to understand why weapons are different. In short sacrificing to appeal to a broader audience.
Its like how they classify a Mule and a donkey as the same animal when a mule is the size of a horse and a donkey is the size of a pony. There is a massive differences between an animal 400 lbs and one that is 1,200 lbs. Not to mention that mules can pull more weight than a horse and is in fact why they were bred in the first place. Or that mules are smarter than horses...Anyways I digress.
I suppose its stupid to demand realism from a fantasy game. I'll just adapt all of the weapons from 3.5 to 5th ed stats.
While I agree 100% on the mule/donkey digression, I believe the lack of proper differentiation in weapons is due to the combat system itself, rather than a fault in the weapon system alone.
The main difference between, for example, a sword, an axe and a hammer is the way they deliver the damage and how different materials react or are affect by that damage.
A sword is a balanced weapon, allowing for both slashing and thrusting, which can be used in most situation and can also offer good defensive capabilities due to the length, weight and strength of the blade, allowing for quick changes of posture with the simple twist of the wrist to deflect/redirect an incoming blow; they suffer against chainmail and plate armors, but given the precision that can be produced they can still inflict sufficient damage by aiming at the gaps or not fully protected areas
An axe is made to break things, it is designed to be extremely effective against wooden structures and shields (very few shield historically were fully made of iron or steel, due to the weight and the stress produced on the arm wielding it by the vibration conduction of metals, not to mention the sheer cost and craftsmanship necessary to make one); axes are also extremely good at chopping out pieces of the enemy, and to open gaps in their armor; the downside is that, while it would be possible to use an axe as a somewhat defensive weapon (mostly using the shaft), it does not provide the same level of ease and durability as a sword, and given the balancing of it, it makes quick movements difficult and potentially not as precise.
A hammer is made to create massive damage to rigid structures and to break bones and internal organs in a live enemy; while still effective against a shield, in this department it would create less damage than an axe to the shield itself, while it could potentially break the arm holding the shield up, if the blow is delivered with enough precision and power; it is extremely effective against any type of armors (with a little more difficulty against plate, as the armor is not in direct contact with the body... on the first blow at least), as most of the concussion force transfers directly to the body being protected by the armor, possibly breaking bones or causing internal hemorrhage; a hammer is heavy and quite unwieldy, causing it to be quite difficult to properly aim, but it produces vasts amount of damage.
This little (and possibly unnecessary) explanation is to indicate that the D&D combat system does not really take into consideration any of these differentiating aspects between weapons, and for them to be properly represented a simple change of dice damage/number still seems reductive. What would be needed would be a somewhat slightly deeper armor system and specific qualities for each kind of weapon.
D&D 5ed is made for simplicity, and I love it for it. If I wanted something more complex and possibly more "realistic" I would probably be looking at The Dark Eye or any other similar systems (not judging anyone's will to come up with a houserule on weapons though, let this be clear).
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Demand realism from a fantasy game?
You know "Bastard Swords" aren't a thing historically. They are longswords.
I'm with LeK, if your group likes more granular 3.5-ish weapons that great and I'm happy for you. I on the otherhand think they didn't go far enough!
3.5 had pages and pages and pages of weapons... 95% of them were f*ing useless. They didn't do a damn thing and were waste of design space. Why? Because they build a very few Top Tier Weapons and most of the rest was garbage. That is bad game design. A designer can argue they have lots of content, but if no one uses 90% of it then only the 10% actually matters.
Why does the Net exist? It can only be used without DisAdv by taking 1 of 2 Feats. Why does the Trident exist? It's spear that requires martial proficiency. That's a waste of a proficiency slot. Why is the pike not on the list for Polearm Mastery? If you build a Polearm Master, you can't use one of the most common polearms. Why do the flail, morning star, and war pick not have a special rule like Versatile or Finesse? Because why would you pick them over longsword, battleaxe, warhammer, or rapier are just better.
In the simple weapons a mace is inferior to a quarterstaff for the same reason.
All of this is a waste of design space.
In my mind they should have taken the philosophy of Monk Weapons a step further.
Because the game doesn't NEED special stats for a macuahuitl, it's a battle axe.
The Yklwa from Tomb of Annihilation bothers me a lot, because it's a Zulu Short Spear. It's the single best Simple Weapon in the game. 1 handed 1d8 damage. It has a special ability of Thrown (instead of Versatile or Finesse), so it stands up with those weapons.
The "Bastard Sword" and "Katana" existed in 3.5 because you could pay a feat (Exotic Weapon) to get +die in damage. Also since the 80's "katanas" have always been the "best" sword in any game.
This is where I find that 3.5 did a better job. The critical system was to my mind a way of illustrating what you are describing. Namely the idea that swords were a more precise weapon and therefor had a higher chance to critical in most cases (in some much higher), while axe, hammers and maces had a higher damage multipliers indicating that they had greater to do greater critical damage.
I agree many of the weapons in the various lists in 3.5 are bunk with many weapons just being various iterations of the same concept. However, I do not think it is the case with most. Things like the double-bladed sword, Orcish double-axe, gnomish pickhammer, and dwarven waraxe standout to me as straight up reflecting the fantasy aspect of the game and not based on real functional weapons. The curved bladed Falchion and Kriegsmesser are real weapons, but seemingly would require different action to cut most effectively than an Arming sword or Longsword carried during the same era. Or so I would think. I have been wrong on such things being neither a historian or master swordsman.
Sorry for the lack of cohesive paragraph structure or a strong argument. It's been a long hot day here and I am tired.
You mean historically in D&D? Because in real life a longsword and a bastard sword are very different.
D&D has never been the home of realism in a roleplaying system. rolemaster did that, it took you a week to make a charachter and the rules were myriad, one game i played in the GM had been playing the game for 6 years when i joined, he had the healing rate of elves completely backwards and had them healing at 1/4 the rate of humans Instead of 4x the rate of humans.
it's a tradeoff and one which i reckon personally 5e doesn't have too bad in many ways, however threes no way in hell that the weight of mithril armour in my game isn't getting reduced from that in Raw by at least 50%
All plans turn into, run into the room waving a sword and see what happens from there, once the first die gets rolled
I'd say a one-handed type one is a sickle, and a big giant one like death carries would be a glaive.
I liked the weapon variations in 3.5. In 5e it feels the weapon doesn't matter at all. There are like 4 weapons in 5e: Twohanded, range, onehanded and finess weapon. And with armor is the problem there are lots of dead armors no one uses because there are just better versions. In 3.5 every armor comes with down and upsides and every weapon has some great potential like higher crit chance or passiv ability.