I wanted to separate this discussion out from various other threads, so we can focus on it better. We will likely see more changes to weapons and armor when the Warriors UA drops. What are some changes that you would like to see implemented?
Running list of suggestions from this thread:
Changes to weapon and armor properties:
Weapon modes - alternative special attack options to choose in place of (or in addition to) normal attacks based on weapon type
Increased damage dice for Heavy weapons
Specialist weapons like mancatchers
Small shield option (bucklers)
Special effects that trigger on critical hits
Rolling GWM and Sharpshooter style option into Heavy weapons. (-5/+10, or -PB/+PB, or -PB/+2×PB)
Modifiers to adjust for different weapons vs different armors
Different crit ranges and crit damage multipliers
Bring back weapon specialization
More weapons with the Special property (whips, blowguns, etc), like nets and lances have
Armor and shields with a Special property like the battlerager's spiked armor
Variations on Finesse, using different ability scores
More applications of advantage and disadvantage
Distinction between different kinds of shields
More armor options, and moving them around the Light, Medium, Heavy groupings
Make bows use Strength, with the Finesse property
Customization rules for building your own balanced weapons
Related changes that aren't directly tied to properties:
Making more monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances and fewer immunities
Rolling GWM and Sharpshooter style option into a general Called Shot option for everyone (-5/+10, or -PB/+PB, or -PB/+2×PB)
Rules for using momentum when charging
Rules for bracing against a charger
Giving martials extra bonuses to hit (and/or damage) based on their level similar to older edition advancement charts
D&D 5e doesn't have enough granularity in combat to make choice of armor or weapon a satisfyingly strategic decision, and I don't see any way it can gain enough granularity for it. The weapon/armor system in this game will always be disappointingly vague, over-broad, and underutilized.
THAT SAID...Pillars of Eternity made weapons pop by giving each weapon a modal ability that altered how it played, letting you switch from default whacking to whatever that weapon's special mode was. D&D could easily do something similar, giving each weapon a unique associated action you could use either in place of or in conjunction with attacks using that weapon. Weapons that actually do things, instead of "pick the irrelevant physical package the DM narrates your damage die being shaped like", would go quite a long way towards making weapons matter in D&D again.
Since we’re here, I’ll port my post from another thread:
I have long said that the weapons need to be adjusted. If it were up to me, anything finesse would stay like it is, as would all bows. The higher damage Strength only weapons would all creep up slightly so a Greatsword would do 4d4 damage, and a Greataxe would do 2d8 damage; Polearms would come in at 1d12, the Longsword would be 2d4/2d6, the Battleaxe and Warhammer would both be 1d10/1d12, and then the Arming Sword would get added slotting in at 1d10. Light and Heavy Crossbows would also bump up 1 die size each, and I’d add in a few other weapons like Staff Slings and specialized equipment like Mancatchers. I’d also add in a small shield and a large shield too to make those folks happy. That all would help, and it would help rebalance Str Vs Dex a bit too.
Increased damage dice and different weapon 'modes' are great ideas.
Since Heavy weapons are almost entirely limited to Medium sized creatures with Martial Weapon proficiency, they're already focused towards certain characters (namely martials and some gish). And the Two Handed limitation excludes spellcasters even more. So giving a boost to damage would help with the power of martials.
As for modes, I could see giving options the way Unarmed Strikes work. Where you could do the damage, or make a special attack based on the weapon type.
I could also see a variation on that where a critical hit does both the damage and the effect. Like if you crit with a Maul, you could deal the extra crit damage and get a chance to knock the target prone. Getting a crit with a rapier could force a disarm save. Etc.
Edit: as I mentioned in the two weapon fightng thread, I could see them rolling GWM and Sharpshooter into all Heavy weapons, but toned down a little. Where you could choose to remove your proficiency bonus from your hit roll to add it to your damage roll.
In previous editions, according to folks who played them, different weapons had different stats when fighting against certain types/styles of armor. There were different crit ranges and different crit modifiers - slashing weapons had generally broader crit ranges, piercing weapons had higher multipliers/modifiers, bludgeons had neither but lost less damage against enemy hard armors. Effectively, weapons behaved differently and using the right weapon for the right job gave you an edge.
People professed to hate it because it lessened the Awesome Factor of finding a single really cool magical weapon, and because of the "golf bag" thing where a fighter would carry a dozen different weapons and draw whichever one was "right for the job" instead of focusing on being good with one or two types. Instead of playing a halberdier which was really good against certain foes but had issues with other foes, people would do the same stupidass thing R5e does and just assume they were equally skilled in every single weapon and carry a caddy of them around. They hated it and wanted the "cool fantasy" of being a specialist in their chosen arm, but without any of the actual benefits or drawbacks of being a specialist in their chosen arm. if you want to use a piercing weapon against skeletons, then by gum you should be allowed to without penalty.
D&D 5e doesn't have enough granularity in combat to make choice of armor or weapon a satisfyingly strategic decision, and I don't see any way it can gain enough granularity for it. The weapon/armor system in this game will always be disappointingly vague, over-broad, and underutilized.
THAT SAID...Pillars of Eternity made weapons pop by giving each weapon a modal ability that altered how it played, letting you switch from default whacking to whatever that weapon's special mode was. D&D could easily do something similar, giving each weapon a unique associated action you could use either in place of or in conjunction with attacks using that weapon. Weapons that actually do things, instead of "pick the irrelevant physical package the DM narrates your damage die being shaped like", would go quite a long way towards making weapons matter in D&D again.
Again?
As someone who came in with 5e, they used to matter more before?
It's kind of a matter of perspective. Some earlier editions had more math. Different weapons had different bonuses or penalties vs different armor types. Whether it really mattered to the outcome is up to personal tastes. Some people liked it because it felt more realistic. Others didn't feel the math was worth it, slowing combat with minimal impact.
Personally, I think the ideas here are more interesting than just modifiers, and would have a greater impact without the math. But again, it's up to the individual.
Skeletons aren't the best example, since they are actually vulnerable to Bludgeoning damage. But I think it does show an example of how this should be handled more. Not enough monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances to basic damage types. Fixing that would go a long way.
Edit: as I mentioned in the two weapon fightng thread, I could see them rolling GWM and Sharpshooter into all Heavy weapons, but toned down a little. Where you could choose to remove your proficiency bonus from your hit roll to add it to your damage roll.
I wish the -5/+10 parts of those feats just got baked into the rules as a “called shot” like it used to be in older editions.
Skeletons aren't the best example, since they are actually vulnerable to Bludgeoning damage. But I think it does show an example of how this should be handled more. Not enough monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances to basic damage types. Fixing that would go a long way.
I would like to see more monsters with vulnerabilities to one weapon damage type or another, and fewer monsters with flat out immunity to poison. The latter being for those who want to actually use poison for their weapon attacks.
It's actually disturbing how many monsters in 5e have immunity to poison. Even poison resistance is relatively rare.
Agreed. It's very hard to want to work with poisons in the current rules. They're expensive, require difficult ingredients to make the good ones, the cheap ones aren't very effective, and they can all be completely ignored by a lot of monsters. I'd like to see those rules adjusted in one or more places to make them better, since it is a common fantasy element.
Edit: as I mentioned in the two weapon fightng thread, I could see them rolling GWM and Sharpshooter into all Heavy weapons, but toned down a little. Where you could choose to remove your proficiency bonus from your hit roll to add it to your damage roll.
I wish the -5/+10 parts of those feats just got baked into the rules as a “called shot” like it used to be in older editions.
Good idea. I could see that working with some adjustments. The +10 is so good that people have calculated it is better to take the -5 to hit almost all the time. And I've personally had Sharpshooter massively unbalance monster encounters. So I'd like it toned down some. I think basing it on proficiency bonus at a 1 to 1 rate would help make it more of a choice to make. And keep encounter building a little easier.
Skeletons aren't the best example, since they are actually vulnerable to Bludgeoning damage. But I think it does show an example of how this should be handled more. Not enough monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances to basic damage types. Fixing that would go a long way.
AFAIK, the only monsters who care what type of weapons you use to fight them are skeletons, black puddings & ochre jellies and their reduced threat versions, and awakened & animated trees. That’s it. If they quadrupled the number of monsters that cared about the distinction among bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damages it still wouldn’t put a dent in the overall number of monsters who cared. They could have around 20% of the monsters in the game have similar distinctions regarding vulnerability/resistance/immunity and it still wouldn’t result in the golfbag effect.
I'm going to try to keep a running edit on my original post, to keep track of all the options people come up with here. I might miss some as I go. Please feel free to remind me.
Good idea. I could see that working with some adjustments. The +10 is so good that people have calculated it is better to take the -5 to hit almost all the time. And I've personally had Sharpshooter massively unbalance monster encounters. So I'd like it toned down some. I think basing it on proficiency bonus at a 1 to 1 rate would help make it more of a choice to make. And keep encounter building a little easier.
Munchkins assume they'll have advantage on all attacks from some source or another, and advantage mostly mitigates the accuracy penalty. It's also why any source of "extra" swings in combat is so massively valued, because then they get a chance to bolt on another +10. In real play there's a tradeoff to be made, as a -5 accuracy penalty is quite severe. The higher an enemy's AC the worse it becomes, with more advanced white-room math often favoring regular attacks against boss-like critters. It's more a case of munchkins souring the general populace on what would otherwise be a neat tactical decision in combat - do you go for the Big Whammy on a given attack or do you play it safe? Are you in a position where you need the burst damage, or can you afford to drop an enemy slower? Those are good questions to ask, and a properly tactical player is gonna ask them for each swing. A munchkin, on the other hand, will get pissed off whenever they can't land 100% of their +10 flat damage attacks, and people remember munchkins more than smartly tactical players.
Edit: as I mentioned in the two weapon fightng thread, I could see them rolling GWM and Sharpshooter into all Heavy weapons, but toned down a little. Where you could choose to remove your proficiency bonus from your hit roll to add it to your damage roll.
I wish the -5/+10 parts of those feats just got baked into the rules as a “called shot” like it used to be in older editions.
Good idea. I could see that working with some adjustments. The +10 is so good that people have calculated it is better to take the -5 to hit almost all the time. And I've personally had Sharpshooter massively unbalance monster encounters. So I'd like it toned down some. I think basing it on proficiency bonus at a 1 to 1 rate would help make it more of a choice to make. And keep encounter building a little easier.
They could make it −½PB/+PB or even −PB/+2×PB. The first is barely worth doing unless you really, really wanna pull it off though, so I’d pro’ly lean more towards the second one as it would only really get to as pseudo-obligatory it is now in Tier-4 play when it won’t matter anyway.
Good idea. I could see that working with some adjustments. The +10 is so good that people have calculated it is better to take the -5 to hit almost all the time. And I've personally had Sharpshooter massively unbalance monster encounters. So I'd like it toned down some. I think basing it on proficiency bonus at a 1 to 1 rate would help make it more of a choice to make. And keep encounter building a little easier.
Munchkins assume they'll have advantage on all attacks from some source or another, and advantage mostly mitigates the accuracy penalty. It's also why any source of "extra" swings in combat is so massively valued, because then they get a chance to bolt on another +10. In real play there's a tradeoff to be made, as a -5 accuracy penalty is quite severe. The higher an enemy's AC the worse it becomes, with more advanced white-room math often favoring regular attacks against boss-like critters. It's more a case of munchkins souring the general populace on what would otherwise be a neat tactical decision in combat - do you go for the Big Whammy on a given attack or do you play it safe? Are you in a position where you need the burst damage, or can you afford to drop an enemy slower? Those are good questions to ask, and a properly tactical player is gonna ask them for each swing. A munchkin, on the other hand, will get pissed off whenever they can't land 100% of their +10 flat damage attacks, and people remember munchkins more than smartly tactical players.
There is certainly some truth to this. 'White room' Optimizers skew a lot of people's perspectives. It makes a lot of 'balance' discussions more difficult.
But I have also had players who do think very tactically, work hard on setting up the best combat advantages, and do end up using Sharpshooter almost every single turn. They aren't 'munchkins' of any sort, just clever. And making the most of the rules that they are given.
I would like to see them making the progression more linear, while still allowing options, and more meaningful decisions.
Edit: as I mentioned in the two weapon fightng thread, I could see them rolling GWM and Sharpshooter into all Heavy weapons, but toned down a little. Where you could choose to remove your proficiency bonus from your hit roll to add it to your damage roll.
I wish the -5/+10 parts of those feats just got baked into the rules as a “called shot” like it used to be in older editions.
Good idea. I could see that working with some adjustments. The +10 is so good that people have calculated it is better to take the -5 to hit almost all the time. And I've personally had Sharpshooter massively unbalance monster encounters. So I'd like it toned down some. I think basing it on proficiency bonus at a 1 to 1 rate would help make it more of a choice to make. And keep encounter building a little easier.
They could make it −½PB/+PB or even −PB/+2×PB. The first is barely worth doing unless you really, really wanna pull it off though, so I’d pro’ly lean more towards the second one as it would only really get to as pseudo-obligatory it is now in Tier-4 play when it won’t matter anyway.
Yeah I like the second one better of the two. +2 to damage at first level can mean the difference between a dead enemy or a dead ally next turn if the monster survives. It's a good bonus. But on the flip side, a penalty to hit is just as much of a risk too. I'm only worried about the mid tier. Where the characters using the called shots most (martials) are making 3+ attacks a turn and their hit bonus is catching up to average monster AC. That's where +10 to every shot gets too big. +6 isn't nearly as bad. There is always the option to limit a called shot to one attack per turn too, I suppose.
In previous editions, according to folks who played them, different weapons had different stats when fighting against certain types/styles of armor. There were different crit ranges and different crit modifiers - slashing weapons had generally broader crit ranges, piercing weapons had higher multipliers/modifiers, bludgeons had neither but lost less damage against enemy hard armors. Effectively, weapons behaved differently and using the right weapon for the right job gave you an edge.
People professed to hate it because it lessened the Awesome Factor of finding a single really cool magical weapon, and because of the "golf bag" thing where a fighter would carry a dozen different weapons and draw whichever one was "right for the job" instead of focusing on being good with one or two types. Instead of playing a halberdier which was really good against certain foes but had issues with other foes, people would do the same stupidass thing R5e does and just assume they were equally skilled in every single weapon and carry a caddy of them around. They hated it and wanted the "cool fantasy" of being a specialist in their chosen arm, but without any of the actual benefits or drawbacks of being a specialist in their chosen arm. if you want to use a piercing weapon against skeletons, then by gum you should be allowed to without penalty.
No matter how ridiculous it is.
The thing was, in those earlier editions, there were so many other bonuses to keep track of in a combat — bonuses which would shift every round (flanking, being flanked, higher ground, relative size compared to your enemy, cover, any number of spell related buffs and debuffs, some of which stacked and others didn’t, probably more that I’m forgetting). So damage types vs. enemies ended up being just one more thing to keep track of. And the math scaling was very different so you really needed your extra feats like weapon focus (that only applied to a specific weapon, not a category) to even hit the enemies, so pulling a different weapon out of your golf bag really put you at a big disadvantage. It was way more complex, but it wasn’t much more fun, the trade off wasn’t there.
That said, I completely agree with you that this version is boring with having gone too far in standardizing everything. I think with the basic combat mechanic being advantage/disadvantage instead of a dozen different +1/-1 modifiers there’s really some space to add back in more weapon complexity.
And I did like the different crit modifiers. Like if you crit on a 20, you did 3x damage, but if it was 19-20, you only did 2x. And then there were feats to expand the crit range with a given weapon.
But you also got more feats in general in 3e, and they were separate from asi, so there was more flexibility to play with. And fighters got way more feats. Like everyone got a feat every three levels, and fighters got a bonus feat every even numbered level. So fighters in particular could really afford to focus on one specific weapon.
In previous editions, according to folks who played them, different weapons had different stats when fighting against certain types/styles of armor. There were different crit ranges and different crit modifiers - slashing weapons had generally broader crit ranges, piercing weapons had higher multipliers/modifiers, bludgeons had neither but lost less damage against enemy hard armors. Effectively, weapons behaved differently and using the right weapon for the right job gave you an edge.
People professed to hate it because it lessened the Awesome Factor of finding a single really cool magical weapon, and because of the "golf bag" thing where a fighter would carry a dozen different weapons and draw whichever one was "right for the job" instead of focusing on being good with one or two types. Instead of playing a halberdier which was really good against certain foes but had issues with other foes, people would do the same stupidass thing R5e does and just assume they were equally skilled in every single weapon and carry a caddy of them around. They hated it and wanted the "cool fantasy" of being a specialist in their chosen arm, but without any of the actual benefits or drawbacks of being a specialist in their chosen arm. if you want to use a piercing weapon against skeletons, then by gum you should be allowed to without penalty.
No matter how ridiculous it is.
The thing was, in those earlier editions, there were so many other bonuses to keep track of in a combat — bonuses which would shift every round (flanking, being flanked, higher ground, relative size compared to your enemy, cover, any number of spell related buffs and debuffs, some of which stacked and others didn’t, probably more that I’m forgetting). So damage types vs. enemies ended up being just one more thing to keep track of. And the math scaling was very different so you really needed your extra feats like weapon focus (that only applied to a specific weapon, not a category) to even hit the enemies, so pulling a different weapon out of your golf bag really put you at a big disadvantage. It was way more complex, but it wasn’t much more fun, the trade off wasn’t there.
That said, I completely agree with you that this version is boring with having gone too far in standardizing everything. I think with the basic combat mechanic being advantage/disadvantage instead of a dozen different +1/-1 modifiers there’s really some space to add back in more weapon complexity.
And I did like the different crit modifiers. Like if you crit on a 20, you did 3x damage, but if it was 19-20, you only did 2x. And then there were feats to expand the crit range with a given weapon.
But you also got more feats in general in 3e, and they were separate from asi, so there was more flexibility to play with. And fighters got way more feats. Like everyone got a feat every three levels, and fighters got a bonus feat every even numbered level. So fighters in particular could really afford to focus on one specific weapon.
That's a good point, that the days of many modifiers also included a ton of other modifiers to track. That does influence the overall perception.
My biggest problem with modifiers is what you are saying - all the extra work doesn't equate to much more fun. It has little effect on the overall outcome of battles. And it doesn't feel very exciting. The only thing it does very well is add to a sense of Verisimilitude. Which is important to different degrees from person to person. But it sacrifices a lot to get it.
I could see it enriching a very gritty game where most of the enemies are humanoids in armor, to some degree. But most games aren't like that. So your stuck adding keywords and quantifiers to every monster stat block. They have to decide if dragon hide is like plate armor, and so on. And the unintended consequences are the same.
And a player only has a few options to contend with rules like this. They either:
A) Stick with the weapon they like, and just accept being suboptimal sometimes, rightly assuming it will balance out in the long run
B) Carry a bag full of weapons, and thus negate the entire point of the rules, while still be stuck with the math
C) Hyperspecialize in their chosen weapon to make up for the cases where they are suboptimal, also negating the point of the rules, still getting stuck with the math, and wasting feats on things that are basically just required.
It's the illusion of choice concealed beneath layers of manufactured options and lots of math. And in the end, does it matter much if you have -2 to hit some enemies, and +2 to hit some others?
I'm not opposed to some version of bringing modifiers back if they make people happy. I just hope it's done better than it has been before. And I think other suggestions, like special actions tied to a weapon, are far more interesting.
1) Id like to see more weapons with the "Special" property. Right now we have the Lance and Nets in the PHB and I think the Double-Bladed Scimitar from another source and thats about it. I think giving ALL weapons some sort of special ability might be a little too crunchy, but I am all for expanding the number of weapons that have them from the three we currently get.
2) More armor and shield types, including ones that get their own mundane "Special" properties. For example, add Spiked Armor to the OneD&D PHB and give it the ability where allowing anyone who is proficient with the armor can use the spikes to make melee weapon attacks (1d4+Str piercing damage). Battleragers would still be a step above others when using this armor because they can make this attack as a bonus action (plus all of their other abilities) whereas any other adventurer would be limited to using it as part of the Attack action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
In previous editions, according to folks who played them, different weapons had different stats when fighting against certain types/styles of armor. There were different crit ranges and different crit modifiers - slashing weapons had generally broader crit ranges, piercing weapons had higher multipliers/modifiers, bludgeons had neither but lost less damage against enemy hard armors. Effectively, weapons behaved differently and using the right weapon for the right job gave you an edge.
People professed to hate it because it lessened the Awesome Factor of finding a single really cool magical weapon, and because of the "golf bag" thing where a fighter would carry a dozen different weapons and draw whichever one was "right for the job" instead of focusing on being good with one or two types. Instead of playing a halberdier which was really good against certain foes but had issues with other foes, people would do the same stupidass thing R5e does and just assume they were equally skilled in every single weapon and carry a caddy of them around. They hated it and wanted the "cool fantasy" of being a specialist in their chosen arm, but without any of the actual benefits or drawbacks of being a specialist in their chosen arm. if you want to use a piercing weapon against skeletons, then by gum you should be allowed to without penalty.
No matter how ridiculous it is.
The thing was, in those earlier editions, there were so many other bonuses to keep track of in a combat — bonuses which would shift every round (flanking, being flanked, higher ground, relative size compared to your enemy, cover, any number of spell related buffs and debuffs, some of which stacked and others didn’t, probably more that I’m forgetting). So damage types vs. enemies ended up being just one more thing to keep track of. And the math scaling was very different so you really needed your extra feats like weapon focus (that only applied to a specific weapon, not a category) to even hit the enemies, so pulling a different weapon out of your golf bag really put you at a big disadvantage. It was way more complex, but it wasn’t much more fun, the trade off wasn’t there.
That said, I completely agree with you that this version is boring with having gone too far in standardizing everything. I think with the basic combat mechanic being advantage/disadvantage instead of a dozen different +1/-1 modifiers there’s really some space to add back in more weapon complexity.
And I did like the different crit modifiers. Like if you crit on a 20, you did 3x damage, but if it was 19-20, you only did 2x. And then there were feats to expand the crit range with a given weapon.
But you also got more feats in general in 3e, and they were separate from asi, so there was more flexibility to play with. And fighters got way more feats. Like everyone got a feat every three levels, and fighters got a bonus feat every even numbered level. So fighters in particular could really afford to focus on one specific weapon.
That's a good point, that the days of many modifiers also included a ton of other modifiers to track. That does influence the overall perception.
My biggest problem with modifiers is what you are saying - all the extra work doesn't equate to much more fun. It has little effect on the overall outcome of battles. And it doesn't feel very exciting. The only thing it does very well is add to a sense of Verisimilitude. Which is important to different degrees from person to person. But it sacrifices a lot to get it.
I could see it enriching a very gritty game where most of the enemies are humanoids in armor, to some degree. But most games aren't like that. So your stuck adding keywords and quantifiers to every monster stat block. They have to decide if dragon hide is like plate armor, and so on. And the unintended consequences are the same.
And a player only has a few options to contend with rules like this. They either:
A) Stick with the weapon they like, and just accept being suboptimal sometimes, rightly assuming it will balance out in the long run
B) Carry a bag full of weapons, and thus negate the entire point of the rules, while still be stuck with the math
C) Hyperspecialize in their chosen weapon to make up for the cases where they are suboptimal, also negating the point of the rules, still getting stuck with the math, and wasting feats on things that are basically just required.
It's the illusion of choice concealed beneath layers of manufactured options and lots of math. And in the end, does it matter much if you have -2 to hit some enemies, and +2 to hit some others?
I'm not opposed to some version of bringing modifiers back if they make people happy. I just hope it's done better than it has been before. And I think other suggestions, like special actions tied to a weapon, are far more interesting.
Another factor is the overall shift in the way we play now. 3e and earlier, role play was basically just a reason to move from one fight to the next - individual character arc weren’t much of a thing. At least not often. So putting tons of granular modifiers into combat made sense, that’s what we were there for. Now with role play having a much bigger role in the game (a positive imo) do we want to have lots of these combat only options, which slow down fights and make them into a larger part of the game, time-wise. People complain now in 5 e about turns taking too long, but this is the streamlined, quick play version compared to earlier editions. I don’t mean that as those are the only two choices, there’s more ways to do things. It’s just important to be cautious about adding too much to one pillar and it impacting other facets of play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wanted to separate this discussion out from various other threads, so we can focus on it better. We will likely see more changes to weapons and armor when the Warriors UA drops. What are some changes that you would like to see implemented?
Running list of suggestions from this thread:
Changes to weapon and armor properties:
Weapon modes - alternative special attack options to choose in place of (or in addition to) normal attacks based on weapon type
Increased damage dice for Heavy weapons
Specialist weapons like mancatchers
Small shield option (bucklers)
Special effects that trigger on critical hits
Rolling GWM and Sharpshooter style option into Heavy weapons. (-5/+10, or -PB/+PB, or -PB/+2×PB)
Modifiers to adjust for different weapons vs different armors
Different crit ranges and crit damage multipliers
Bring back weapon specialization
More weapons with the Special property (whips, blowguns, etc), like nets and lances have
Armor and shields with a Special property like the battlerager's spiked armor
Variations on Finesse, using different ability scores
More applications of advantage and disadvantage
Distinction between different kinds of shields
More armor options, and moving them around the Light, Medium, Heavy groupings
Make bows use Strength, with the Finesse property
Customization rules for building your own balanced weapons
Related changes that aren't directly tied to properties:
Making more monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances and fewer immunities
Rolling GWM and Sharpshooter style option into a general Called Shot option for everyone (-5/+10, or -PB/+PB, or -PB/+2×PB)
Rules for using momentum when charging
Rules for bracing against a charger
Giving martials extra bonuses to hit (and/or damage) based on their level similar to older edition advancement charts
D&D 5e doesn't have enough granularity in combat to make choice of armor or weapon a satisfyingly strategic decision, and I don't see any way it can gain enough granularity for it. The weapon/armor system in this game will always be disappointingly vague, over-broad, and underutilized.
THAT SAID...Pillars of Eternity made weapons pop by giving each weapon a modal ability that altered how it played, letting you switch from default whacking to whatever that weapon's special mode was. D&D could easily do something similar, giving each weapon a unique associated action you could use either in place of or in conjunction with attacks using that weapon. Weapons that actually do things, instead of "pick the irrelevant physical package the DM narrates your damage die being shaped like", would go quite a long way towards making weapons matter in D&D again.
Please do not contact or message me.
Since we’re here, I’ll port my post from another thread:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Increased damage dice and different weapon 'modes' are great ideas.
Since Heavy weapons are almost entirely limited to Medium sized creatures with Martial Weapon proficiency, they're already focused towards certain characters (namely martials and some gish). And the Two Handed limitation excludes spellcasters even more. So giving a boost to damage would help with the power of martials.
As for modes, I could see giving options the way Unarmed Strikes work. Where you could do the damage, or make a special attack based on the weapon type.
I could also see a variation on that where a critical hit does both the damage and the effect. Like if you crit with a Maul, you could deal the extra crit damage and get a chance to knock the target prone. Getting a crit with a rapier could force a disarm save. Etc.
Edit: as I mentioned in the two weapon fightng thread, I could see them rolling GWM and Sharpshooter into all Heavy weapons, but toned down a little. Where you could choose to remove your proficiency bonus from your hit roll to add it to your damage roll.
In previous editions, according to folks who played them, different weapons had different stats when fighting against certain types/styles of armor. There were different crit ranges and different crit modifiers - slashing weapons had generally broader crit ranges, piercing weapons had higher multipliers/modifiers, bludgeons had neither but lost less damage against enemy hard armors. Effectively, weapons behaved differently and using the right weapon for the right job gave you an edge.
People professed to hate it because it lessened the Awesome Factor of finding a single really cool magical weapon, and because of the "golf bag" thing where a fighter would carry a dozen different weapons and draw whichever one was "right for the job" instead of focusing on being good with one or two types. Instead of playing a halberdier which was really good against certain foes but had issues with other foes, people would do the same stupidass thing R5e does and just assume they were equally skilled in every single weapon and carry a caddy of them around. They hated it and wanted the "cool fantasy" of being a specialist in their chosen arm, but without any of the actual benefits or drawbacks of being a specialist in their chosen arm. if you want to use a piercing weapon against skeletons, then by gum you should be allowed to without penalty.
No matter how ridiculous it is.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's kind of a matter of perspective. Some earlier editions had more math. Different weapons had different bonuses or penalties vs different armor types. Whether it really mattered to the outcome is up to personal tastes. Some people liked it because it felt more realistic. Others didn't feel the math was worth it, slowing combat with minimal impact.
Personally, I think the ideas here are more interesting than just modifiers, and would have a greater impact without the math. But again, it's up to the individual.
Skeletons aren't the best example, since they are actually vulnerable to Bludgeoning damage. But I think it does show an example of how this should be handled more. Not enough monsters have vulnerabilities/resistances to basic damage types. Fixing that would go a long way.
I wish the -5/+10 parts of those feats just got baked into the rules as a “called shot” like it used to be in older editions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Agreed. It's very hard to want to work with poisons in the current rules. They're expensive, require difficult ingredients to make the good ones, the cheap ones aren't very effective, and they can all be completely ignored by a lot of monsters. I'd like to see those rules adjusted in one or more places to make them better, since it is a common fantasy element.
Good idea. I could see that working with some adjustments. The +10 is so good that people have calculated it is better to take the -5 to hit almost all the time. And I've personally had Sharpshooter massively unbalance monster encounters. So I'd like it toned down some. I think basing it on proficiency bonus at a 1 to 1 rate would help make it more of a choice to make. And keep encounter building a little easier.
AFAIK, the only monsters who care what type of weapons you use to fight them are skeletons, black puddings & ochre jellies and their reduced threat versions, and awakened & animated trees. That’s it. If they quadrupled the number of monsters that cared about the distinction among bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damages it still wouldn’t put a dent in the overall number of monsters who cared. They could have around 20% of the monsters in the game have similar distinctions regarding vulnerability/resistance/immunity and it still wouldn’t result in the golfbag effect.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm going to try to keep a running edit on my original post, to keep track of all the options people come up with here. I might miss some as I go. Please feel free to remind me.
Munchkins assume they'll have advantage on all attacks from some source or another, and advantage mostly mitigates the accuracy penalty. It's also why any source of "extra" swings in combat is so massively valued, because then they get a chance to bolt on another +10. In real play there's a tradeoff to be made, as a -5 accuracy penalty is quite severe. The higher an enemy's AC the worse it becomes, with more advanced white-room math often favoring regular attacks against boss-like critters. It's more a case of munchkins souring the general populace on what would otherwise be a neat tactical decision in combat - do you go for the Big Whammy on a given attack or do you play it safe? Are you in a position where you need the burst damage, or can you afford to drop an enemy slower? Those are good questions to ask, and a properly tactical player is gonna ask them for each swing. A munchkin, on the other hand, will get pissed off whenever they can't land 100% of their +10 flat damage attacks, and people remember munchkins more than smartly tactical players.
Please do not contact or message me.
They could make it −½PB/+PB or even −PB/+2×PB. The first is barely worth doing unless you really, really wanna pull it off though, so I’d pro’ly lean more towards the second one as it would only really get to as pseudo-obligatory it is now in Tier-4 play when it won’t matter anyway.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is certainly some truth to this. 'White room' Optimizers skew a lot of people's perspectives. It makes a lot of 'balance' discussions more difficult.
But I have also had players who do think very tactically, work hard on setting up the best combat advantages, and do end up using Sharpshooter almost every single turn. They aren't 'munchkins' of any sort, just clever. And making the most of the rules that they are given.
I would like to see them making the progression more linear, while still allowing options, and more meaningful decisions.
Yeah I like the second one better of the two. +2 to damage at first level can mean the difference between a dead enemy or a dead ally next turn if the monster survives. It's a good bonus. But on the flip side, a penalty to hit is just as much of a risk too. I'm only worried about the mid tier. Where the characters using the called shots most (martials) are making 3+ attacks a turn and their hit bonus is catching up to average monster AC. That's where +10 to every shot gets too big. +6 isn't nearly as bad. There is always the option to limit a called shot to one attack per turn too, I suppose.
The thing was, in those earlier editions, there were so many other bonuses to keep track of in a combat — bonuses which would shift every round (flanking, being flanked, higher ground, relative size compared to your enemy, cover, any number of spell related buffs and debuffs, some of which stacked and others didn’t, probably more that I’m forgetting). So damage types vs. enemies ended up being just one more thing to keep track of. And the math scaling was very different so you really needed your extra feats like weapon focus (that only applied to a specific weapon, not a category) to even hit the enemies, so pulling a different weapon out of your golf bag really put you at a big disadvantage. It was way more complex, but it wasn’t much more fun, the trade off wasn’t there.
That said, I completely agree with you that this version is boring with having gone too far in standardizing everything. I think with the basic combat mechanic being advantage/disadvantage instead of a dozen different +1/-1 modifiers there’s really some space to add back in more weapon complexity.
And I did like the different crit modifiers. Like if you crit on a 20, you did 3x damage, but if it was 19-20, you only did 2x. And then there were feats to expand the crit range with a given weapon.
But you also got more feats in general in 3e, and they were separate from asi, so there was more flexibility to play with. And fighters got way more feats. Like everyone got a feat every three levels, and fighters got a bonus feat every even numbered level. So fighters in particular could really afford to focus on one specific weapon.
That's a good point, that the days of many modifiers also included a ton of other modifiers to track. That does influence the overall perception.
My biggest problem with modifiers is what you are saying - all the extra work doesn't equate to much more fun. It has little effect on the overall outcome of battles. And it doesn't feel very exciting. The only thing it does very well is add to a sense of Verisimilitude. Which is important to different degrees from person to person. But it sacrifices a lot to get it.
I could see it enriching a very gritty game where most of the enemies are humanoids in armor, to some degree. But most games aren't like that. So your stuck adding keywords and quantifiers to every monster stat block. They have to decide if dragon hide is like plate armor, and so on. And the unintended consequences are the same.
And a player only has a few options to contend with rules like this. They either:
A) Stick with the weapon they like, and just accept being suboptimal sometimes, rightly assuming it will balance out in the long run
B) Carry a bag full of weapons, and thus negate the entire point of the rules, while still be stuck with the math
C) Hyperspecialize in their chosen weapon to make up for the cases where they are suboptimal, also negating the point of the rules, still getting stuck with the math, and wasting feats on things that are basically just required.
It's the illusion of choice concealed beneath layers of manufactured options and lots of math. And in the end, does it matter much if you have -2 to hit some enemies, and +2 to hit some others?
I'm not opposed to some version of bringing modifiers back if they make people happy. I just hope it's done better than it has been before. And I think other suggestions, like special actions tied to a weapon, are far more interesting.
1) Id like to see more weapons with the "Special" property. Right now we have the Lance and Nets in the PHB and I think the Double-Bladed Scimitar from another source and thats about it. I think giving ALL weapons some sort of special ability might be a little too crunchy, but I am all for expanding the number of weapons that have them from the three we currently get.
2) More armor and shield types, including ones that get their own mundane "Special" properties. For example, add Spiked Armor to the OneD&D PHB and give it the ability where allowing anyone who is proficient with the armor can use the spikes to make melee weapon attacks (1d4+Str piercing damage). Battleragers would still be a step above others when using this armor because they can make this attack as a bonus action (plus all of their other abilities) whereas any other adventurer would be limited to using it as part of the Attack action.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Another factor is the overall shift in the way we play now. 3e and earlier, role play was basically just a reason to move from one fight to the next - individual character arc weren’t much of a thing. At least not often. So putting tons of granular modifiers into combat made sense, that’s what we were there for.
Now with role play having a much bigger role in the game (a positive imo) do we want to have lots of these combat only options, which slow down fights and make them into a larger part of the game, time-wise.
People complain now in 5 e about turns taking too long, but this is the streamlined, quick play version compared to earlier editions. I don’t mean that as those are the only two choices, there’s more ways to do things. It’s just important to be cautious about adding too much to one pillar and it impacting other facets of play.