Many new players are overwhelmed when they look at they the chart for weapons in the Phb; I was, at least. It spans a whole page, and lists dozens of different weapons. As a more experienced player, I find the differences in between weapons to be lacking. Below is a proposed list of features and changes to weapons that would make combat more unique and interesting, as well as placing a higher value on weapon choice. I am interested to hear your thoughts about weapons you think should be changed, or if you feel that the system works at it is and should not be changed. (In seriousness, I doubt that Wizards will ever try to touch the weapons system. But one can hope.)
Here are some example changes
Pike- reach changed from 10 feet to 15 feet. You cannot attack anyone within five feet of you with a pike. Pikes were historically around nine feet long, so trying to hit someone right next to you would be difficult. It also makes the pike the most polearmy of the polearms, with its main draw being the increased reach.
Trident- additional property: vicious (name is debatable, just a stand-in for now). Weapons with the vicious property deal and additional damage dice to targets without armor. Since tridents have three points, getting stabbed when you are not wearing armor is going to hurt a lot more then a spear. Against an armored foe,this isn't going to help much.
Halberd- changed damage dice from 1d10 to 1d8. When you make an attack with a halberd, you can choose from bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage to inflict on the target. I made this change because a halberd is basically a spear with an ax head on one side and a hammer on the other. It looses a bit of damage and gains versatility. Also, the halberd used to be identical to the glaive, so changes to one needed to be made.
Exotic Weapons Advanced Weapons - Advanced weapons would be a special category of weapons that normal players would not normally be proficient in. You would either have to take a feat, or instead of getting proficiency with all martial weapons during character creations, they could choose a total of four weapons form the martial and advanced lists, and gain proficiency in those. The second option would only be for campaigns without feats. I don't want these Advanced weapons to be easy to get. Thus the Advanced weapons are weirder/more powerful, and would require tons of playtesting.
Cleaver- heavy, finesse- 1d8 slashing damage. Very similar to the rapier, just different flavor.
Spiked Chain- Reach, finesse, vicious, - 1d8 slashing damage. Shadow Dancers need their signature weapon. (Updated to 1d6 damage)
Double-bladed scimitar- this is a weapon from Ebberron: Rising from the Last War. Elves with start with proficiency in it, but other characters would have to take a feat to even learn how to wield one.
Macuahuitl- this is an Aztec weapon. It is basically a shaped club edged with obsidian shards, and can be quite deadly. -Heavy, Two-handed,- 1d6 bludgeoning damage plus 1d8 slashing damage.
Garrote- Stranglewire. This is going to be fairly complicated. It would have the two-handed property, and if you hit on your attack it would grapple the target. You could then take and action to deal 1d6 bludgeoning damage to them. (If you wanted to use a cooler and less balanced version, the damage from your action would equal xd4, where x= the number of rounds the person has been grappled for. This would simulate the target strangling. )
Kanabo/Te Bie- (The inspiration for this weapon came from watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Great movie.) A kanabo is a studded metal club, very heavy and dangerous. Heavy, Two handed. 2d10 bludgeoning damage. You can only make one attack per turn using a Kanabo, and until the start of your next turn after you attacked with it, all attacks against you have advantage. (Alternate version, more balanced- you can make any number of attacks with it, but every attack you make lets all attacks on you get +5 to hit until the start of you next turn.)
Thank you for reading, and post you opinions below.
That Kanabo is kind of terrible. It gets worse the higher level. Take the maul for example it's a 2d6, heavy bludgeoning weapon. At a single attack you're trading 7 average damage for 11 average damage and everyone gets advantage. Like okay maybe someone will make that trade. As soon as you get a second attack though the Kanabo becomes explicitly terrible.
That Kanabo is kind of terrible. It gets worse the higher level. Take the maul for example it's a 2d6, heavy bludgeoning weapon. At a single attack you're trading 7 average damage for 11 average damage and everyone gets advantage. Like okay maybe someone will make that trade. As soon as you get a second attack though the Kanabo becomes explicitly terrible.
Yeah, it is. I was trying to find some way to balance the system shock of seeing a weapon that deals 2d10 bludgeoning damage. I was thinking of removing the only one attack per turn with it clause and changing to a strength minimum required to wield it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Heavy, Two handed, 2d10 bludgeoning damage- whenever you make an attack with the a Kanabo, all attacks against you gain a +5 to hit until the start of your next turn
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
an altered version of the kanabo is simple. give it one downside instead of two. either all attacks have advantage against you due to the clumsiness of swinging it, or you can only make one attack due to the heft. Personally id recommend just the single attack so that it isn't abused by barbarians who would have no reason not to reckless attack if they were already taking the disadvantage.
Giving the single attack works well with the high damage dice as the average of 2d10 is 11 and the average of 4d6 is 14. This means that mechanically a maul or greatsword is better once you have extra attack, but if you're a barbarian or a half orc who get those extra crit dice, the kanabo is more valuable.
The exotics in general are going to need a feat. Giving up some martial proficiencies is a no-brainer for every build since many only use one or two in the first place and none require four.
A lot of them also break pretty far from the established patterns that existing weapons have. A weapon with both heavy and finesse for example doesn't make any sense based on what those keywords represent. Likewise, giving a weapon more damage in exchange for attack frequency kind of flies in the face of a pretty meticulously balanced system where different classes get different numbers of attacks with cantrip damage also being balanced against them. You probably could mess with that if you really wanted to, but it would take a lot more thought and calculation.
I think a good start is to stay within the bounds of current weapon damage. There's no reason a Macuahuitl needs to be 1d6+1d8 instead of 2d6. Exotic buffs would likely be best served through new keywords, for example a property that deals an extra 1d6 on prone enemies.
For a weapon specifically made for a build, I'd just add that into the subclass as long as we're homebrewing. Otherwise you inevitably get a situation where the halfling battlemaster is using the spiked chain to much greater advantage than the shadow dancer it was made for, and you can also test for balance just within that design space instead of trying to account how it might be abused by a Rogue3/Monk8/ArtificerX or something.
This is the approach I have taken so far with weapons that don't fit current categories. So at level 3 when you become a Shadow Dancer, you gain proficiency with a common magic item spiked chain. Then you can design around that weapon.
These are very good points. I'll try to respond to them sequentially.
The weapons are supposed to only be obtainable if you take the feat. The "replace martial weapons" is only for feat-less campaigns. That said, four martial weapons is a lot, and maybe two would be adequate.
The weapons presented here are rough drafts, and are subject to change. The cleaver doesn't really need heavy, so maybe I'll get rid of it. Heavy on the cleaver meant that it was too large for a small race to wield with dexterity, but a larger race wouldn't have a problem with it.
Also, the Kanabo, which exchanges damage for attack frequency, is intended to be an experiment.
The macahuitl deals more damage because if you are going to take a feat and it dealt 2d6, might as well take GWM and use a greatsword. The two different sized die represent it's effects: most of the damage comes form the obsidian blades, so you take more slashing than bludgeoning. The idea of a weapon that deals more to prone targets is interesting though. Kinda like an executioner's sword?
The spiked chain is not made specifically for a build. Shadow Dancers are a type of Shadar-kai elf, and are the most iconic users of the spiked chain. But, anyone else could still use it. Taking the feat would represent studying their techniques, so there is not reason that a halfling battlemaster couldn't study to use one.
This is cool. I don't think you need to change Halberd damage from a d10 to d8. Versatile weapons get a d10 for using both hands, so as long as you're swinging with both hands, I think it should be a d10.
The reason the halberd damage die is 1d8 is because you can choose the damage type. This would make it strictly better than the glaive and the pike (without my changes). Changing your damage type can be quite good. Fighting skeletons? Bludgeoning. Fighting oozes? Anything but slashing. Fighting oozes and want to have fun? Slashing.
What I mean about the macahuitl is that a weapon dealing two different sized dice is awkward and has been avoided for pretty much all the history of D&D that I'm aware of. I think it would merge in better with existing options if the thing that makes it special and better than a greatsword (besides the mixed damage type) should come in the form of a special trait on it.
And what I was saying about the feats is that there needs to be a steeper price for these things in feat-less campaigns. I mean I think the overlap between campaigns that use homebrew weapons and those that disallow feats is probably really small, but even in those you'd need to impose a significant cost. Maybe they're super rare or quite expensive or you have to actually quest to find a master to train you.
I should say though that I like a lot of these concepts. Just trying to give some constructive criticism.
What I mean about the macahuitl is that a weapon dealing two different sized dice is awkward and has been avoided for pretty much all the history of D&D that I'm aware of. I think it would merge in better with existing options if the thing that makes it special and better than a greatsword (besides the mixed damage type) should come in the form of a special trait on it.
And what I was saying about the feats is that there needs to be a steeper price for these things in feat-less campaigns. I mean I think the overlap between campaigns that use homebrew weapons and those that disallow feats is probably really small, but even in those you'd need to impose a significant cost. Maybe they're super rare or quite expensive or you have to actually quest to find a master to train you.
I should say though that I like a lot of these concepts. Just trying to give some constructive criticism.
You have an interesting point about the macahuitl. Some ideas for changes are:
Both damage die up to 1d8 (this might be too powerful)
Both damage die down to 1d6, but with addition of another property
Property ideas: Execution (extra die against prone enemies,) Forceful (you gain knock the target back five feet in addition to hitting them), and (I don't have an idea for the name yet) but deals and additional damage dice agianst targets with less than five life. (Credit to Scatterbraind for the execution property.)
I can't argue with your second point. It is pretty sound.
(I am sorry if my tone read angry in earlier posts. I like discussing things, and enjoy looking at critiques.)
The reason the halberd damage die is 1d8 is because you can choose the damage type. This would make it strictly better than the glaive and the pike (without my changes). Changing your damage type can be quite good. Fighting skeletons? Bludgeoning. Fighting oozes? Anything but slashing. Fighting oozes and want to have fun? Slashing.
Does not change the fact that it is a massive two handed axe. Perhaps 1d10 slashing, but only 1d8 piercing and only 1d6 bludgeoning ? Limitation on piercing due to the axe making it less wield-y in that role, and only 1d6 bludgeoning since it is not really designed for that at all (some might have hammer heads on the reverse side of the head from the axe blade, but that is not common).
If the axe head dealt 1d10 damage, I would have to nerf it in some other way as well. I like the scaling damage idea, because a halberd is mostly designed around the axe head and spear head. The spear would be used to keep the target at a distance, then using a cleave from the axe to finish them. Most halberds do not have the hammer head, and I should have done more research when I wrote the original post. Still, the problem remains that if the axe remains at 1d10 slashing it will render the glaive (and to a lesser extent the unchanged pike) irrelevant. I like the idea though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Pike: I dislike this idea. They tried it in earlier versions, and has several issues. For example the Pole Arm Master feat lets you use the blunt end as an off hand weapon, effectively negating the weakness you put in to balance it. In addition, Polearm Master's ability to get an AoO when they ENTER the 10 ft range effectively does most of what you want with greater reach.
Trident- I like this idea. The Trident trident is currently a fancy looking Spear with no reason to get. How about "Macerating" as the name? Vicious already is being used for something else.
Halberd- OK, not fantastic. How about you add some trip bonus to it - that's one of the real life uses for the extra side parts.
Exotic Weapons - OK, not fantastic. I hate the word "exotic" because it perpetuates the myth that distance = better. Works better if you call it "Difficult" weapons, as they require extra training to use. They should require highly skilled (expertise) smiths/wood carvers to make, as well as a feat or subclass to learn.
Cleaver- heavy, finesse makes no sense. Heavy items are about pure strength, not skill.
Spiked Chain- OK. But I would lower the damage to 1d6, particularly as you are adding vicious/Macerating.
Double-bladed scimitar- I like this idea. Not surprising, as pro's made it.
Macuahuitl- I dislike this idea. This was NOT 'quite deadly', at least not compared to European metal weapons. Yes, it was much better than the other weapon the Aztecs had, but the Europeans did not adopt it. In real life they used this because they were not very good with metal. The weapon is inferior to a two handed axe, not superior. I would call it 1d6+1d4.
Garrote- Stranglewire. I like the idea of a Garrote weapon, but this build is not what anyone wants. This weapon is all about choking people, not regular damage. I would have it work like this: Garrote is a cord or wire knotted to make it difficult to loosen once it is tightened. 2 handed, finesse weapon that does 1 point of damage. If you hit with it, you get to make a grapple check using your Dex or Strength, your choice. If you beat the grapple check, the device is tightened. A victim with a tightened garrote on them can make no sounds with their throat. If you continue to hold the Garrote, the victim has disadvantage to remove it. Each round, the victim may take an action to attempt to remove it. If they do not remove it within 5 rounds, they fall unconscious. They die after 20 rounds.
Kanabo- I dislike your interpretation, but I could see a better one. Extra damage was not what this was about. A real Kanabo was just a heavy two handed club, doing less damage than a two handed Axe. It was used against people in armor, because normal axes did less damage to them. If I were to make this kind of weapon, I would have it be a heavy, 2 handed weapon that did 1d10 but have a feat. When you take the feat, when attacking with a Kanabo, as a bonus action, you give yourself (for the first attack that round) +2 to hit vs Medium armor, and +4 to hit vs Heavy armor. This could be done a number of times equal to your strength modifier, re-setting after a short rest.
Yeah, you'll have to change Vicious to something else... Vicious is already a weapon type in D&D and denotes a weapon that deals additional damage on a critical hit.
If your inspiration for the Kanabo is the Tie Bian from the fight scene in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon why rename it with a Japanese name? It was built to break armor and weapons, both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I don't get why you say that the weapon chart is overwhelming to new players and then immediately propose making things more complicated.
Also, two specific points- the halberd did not have a bludgeoning piece on it, it had an axe head with a hook or spike set opposite, and another spike mounted on top. The only way to bludgeon someone with it would have been to bash them with the shaft, which Pole Arm Master already lets you do. You're probably thinking of the bec de corbin or the Lucerne hammer. Second and Third Editions had two many polearms and nobody ever bothered with 99% of them. No need to bring that back.
Second point: just call a kanabo a reskin of the maul and be done with it. No need to make the thing complicated, especially with the way you've gone.
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.
I don't get why you say that the weapon chart is overwhelming to new players and then immediately propose making things more complicated.
Also, two specific points- the halberd did not have a bludgeoning piece on it, it had an axe head with a hook or spike set opposite, and another spike mounted on top. The only way to bludgeon someone with it would have been to bash them with the shaft, which Pole Arm Master already lets you do. You're probably thinking of the bec de corbin or the Lucerne hammer. Second and Third Editions had two many polearms and nobody ever bothered with 99% of them. No need to bring that back.
Second point: just call a kanabo a reskin of the maul and be done with it. No need to make the thing complicated, especially with the way you've gone.
I agree with this. All the proposed weapons seem like really bad ideas to me.
Pike: I dislike this idea. They tried it in earlier versions, and has several issues. For example the Pole Arm Master feat lets you use the blunt end as an off hand weapon, effectively negating the weakness you put in to balance it. In addition, Polearm Master's ability to get an AoO when they ENTER the 10 ft range effectively does most of what you want with greater reach.
Trident- I like this idea. The Trident trident is currently a fancy looking Spear with no reason to get. How about "Macerating" as the name? Vicious already is being used for something else.
Halberd- OK, not fantastic. How about you add some trip bonus to it - that's one of the real life uses for the extra side parts.
Exotic Weapons - OK, not fantastic. I hate the word "exotic" because it perpetuates the myth that distance = better. Works better if you call it "Difficult" weapons, as they require extra training to use. They should require highly skilled (expertise) smiths/wood carvers to make, as well as a feat or subclass to learn.
Cleaver- heavy, finesse makes no sense. Heavy items are about pure strength, not skill.
Spiked Chain- OK. But I would lower the damage to 1d6, particularly as you are adding vicious/Macerating.
Double-bladed scimitar- I like this idea. Not surprising, as pro's made it.
Macuahuitl- I dislike this idea. This was NOT 'quite deadly', at least not compared to European metal weapons. Yes, it was much better than the other weapon the Aztecs had, but the Europeans did not adopt it. In real life they used this because they were not very good with metal. The weapon is inferior to a two handed axe, not superior. I would call it 1d6+1d4.
Garrote- Stranglewire. I like the idea of a Garrote weapon, but this build is not what anyone wants. This weapon is all about choking people, not regular damage. I would have it work like this: Garrote is a cord or wire knotted to make it difficult to loosen once it is tightened. 2 handed, finesse weapon that does 1 point of damage. If you hit with it, you get to make a grapple check using your Dex or Strength, your choice. If you beat the grapple check, the device is tightened. A victim with a tightened garrote on them can make no sounds with their throat. If you continue to hold the Garrote, the victim has disadvantage to remove it. Each round, the victim may take an action to attempt to remove it. If they do not remove it within 5 rounds, they fall unconscious. They die after 20 rounds.
Kanabo- I dislike your interpretation, but I could see a better one. Extra damage was not what this was about. A real Kanabo was just a heavy two handed club, doing less damage than a two handed Axe. It was used against people in armor, because normal axes did less damage to them. If I were to make this kind of weapon, I would have it be a heavy, 2 handed weapon that did 1d10 but have a feat. When you take the feat, when attacking with a Kanabo, as a bonus action, you give yourself (for the first attack that round) +2 to hit vs Medium armor, and +4 to hit vs Heavy armor. This could be done a number of times equal to your strength modifier, re-setting after a short rest.
Thank you for your opinions.
Pike- The reason why I had the pike this way was to A: Make it more than a stabby glaive and B: A pike is a really long weapon. I'm quoting Britannica: " a long spear with a heavy wooden shaft 10 to 20 feet (3 to 6 metres) long, tipped by a small leaf-shaped steel point. " You can't use a pike for polearm master's bonus action attack, though many DM's do allow it. I wanted the pike to represent the extreme length it had IRL; pretty much the only reason why you would use one was the reach. (Well, that is an exaggeration. They are also cheap and easy to train with.)
How about renaming Exotic weapons to advanced weapons?
Cleaver- This is a commonly voiced opinion, so I'm thinking that Cleaver should go in the trash bin.
Spiked Chain- Looking back at the weapon, 1d6 is more balanced. I'll change it.
Macahuitl- Interesting point. I don't remember where I heard this, but I remember that the Macahuitl was the only effective weapon the Aztec had against the conquistadors. (It still the lost to muskets, though.) Also, they look really cool, but that isn't really a good reason for them to be effective in game.
Garrote- I would also prefer having a garrote being used to strangle someone, but suffocation is really slow in D&D. It is 1+con mod minutes before you start choking, and then you get con mod rounds before you die. This is an interesting interpretation. I will playtest it.
Kanabo- Again I prefer your interpretation to mine. It is much more flavorful and interesting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Many new players are overwhelmed when they look at they the chart for weapons in the Phb; I was, at least. It spans a whole page, and lists dozens of different weapons. As a more experienced player, I find the differences in between weapons to be lacking. Below is a proposed list of features and changes to weapons that would make combat more unique and interesting, as well as placing a higher value on weapon choice. I am interested to hear your thoughts about weapons you think should be changed, or if you feel that the system works at it is and should not be changed. (In seriousness, I doubt that Wizards will ever try to touch the weapons system. But one can hope.)
Here are some example changes
Pike- reach changed from 10 feet to 15 feet. You cannot attack anyone within five feet of you with a pike. Pikes were historically around nine feet long, so trying to hit someone right next to you would be difficult. It also makes the pike the most polearmy of the polearms, with its main draw being the increased reach.
Trident- additional property: vicious (name is debatable, just a stand-in for now). Weapons with the vicious property deal and additional damage dice to targets without armor. Since tridents have three points, getting stabbed when you are not wearing armor is going to hurt a lot more then a spear. Against an armored foe,this isn't going to help much.
Halberd- changed damage dice from 1d10 to 1d8. When you make an attack with a halberd, you can choose from bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage to inflict on the target. I made this change because a halberd is basically a spear with an ax head on one side and a hammer on the other. It looses a bit of damage and gains versatility. Also, the halberd used to be identical to the glaive, so changes to one needed to be made.
Exotic WeaponsAdvanced Weapons - Advanced weapons would be a special category of weapons that normal players would not normally be proficient in. You would either have to take a feat, or instead of getting proficiency with all martial weapons during character creations, they could choose a total of four weapons form the martial and advanced lists, and gain proficiency in those. The second option would only be for campaigns without feats. I don't want these Advanced weapons to be easy to get. Thus the Advanced weapons are weirder/more powerful, and would require tons of playtesting.Cleaver- heavy, finesse- 1d8 slashing damage. Very similar to the rapier, just different flavor.Spiked Chain- Reach, finesse, vicious, - 1d8 slashing damage. Shadow Dancers need their signature weapon. (Updated to 1d6 damage)
Double-bladed scimitar- this is a weapon from Ebberron: Rising from the Last War. Elves with start with proficiency in it, but other characters would have to take a feat to even learn how to wield one.
Macuahuitl- this is an Aztec weapon. It is basically a shaped club edged with obsidian shards, and can be quite deadly. -Heavy, Two-handed,- 1d6 bludgeoning damage plus 1d8 slashing damage.
Garrote- Stranglewire. This is going to be fairly complicated. It would have the two-handed property, and if you hit on your attack it would grapple the target. You could then take and action to deal 1d6 bludgeoning damage to them. (If you wanted to use a cooler and less balanced version, the damage from your action would equal xd4, where x= the number of rounds the person has been grappled for. This would simulate the target strangling. )
Kanabo/Te Bie- (The inspiration for this weapon came from watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Great movie.) A kanabo is a studded metal club, very heavy and dangerous. Heavy, Two handed. 2d10 bludgeoning damage. You can only make one attack per turn using a Kanabo, and until the start of your next turn after you attacked with it, all attacks against you have advantage. (Alternate version, more balanced- you can make any number of attacks with it, but every attack you make lets all attacks on you get +5 to hit until the start of you next turn.)
Thank you for reading, and post you opinions below.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Very cool
Thank you!
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
That Kanabo is kind of terrible. It gets worse the higher level. Take the maul for example it's a 2d6, heavy bludgeoning weapon. At a single attack you're trading 7 average damage for 11 average damage and everyone gets advantage. Like okay maybe someone will make that trade. As soon as you get a second attack though the Kanabo becomes explicitly terrible.
Yeah, it is. I was trying to find some way to balance the system shock of seeing a weapon that deals 2d10 bludgeoning damage. I was thinking of removing the only one attack per turn with it clause and changing to a strength minimum required to wield it.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Here is an altered version of the Kanabo:
Heavy, Two handed, 2d10 bludgeoning damage- whenever you make an attack with the a Kanabo, all attacks against you gain a +5 to hit until the start of your next turn
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
an altered version of the kanabo is simple. give it one downside instead of two. either all attacks have advantage against you due to the clumsiness of swinging it, or you can only make one attack due to the heft. Personally id recommend just the single attack so that it isn't abused by barbarians who would have no reason not to reckless attack if they were already taking the disadvantage.
Giving the single attack works well with the high damage dice as the average of 2d10 is 11 and the average of 4d6 is 14. This means that mechanically a maul or greatsword is better once you have extra attack, but if you're a barbarian or a half orc who get those extra crit dice, the kanabo is more valuable.
Kanobo+2:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/1684561-kanobo-2
The exotics in general are going to need a feat. Giving up some martial proficiencies is a no-brainer for every build since many only use one or two in the first place and none require four.
A lot of them also break pretty far from the established patterns that existing weapons have. A weapon with both heavy and finesse for example doesn't make any sense based on what those keywords represent. Likewise, giving a weapon more damage in exchange for attack frequency kind of flies in the face of a pretty meticulously balanced system where different classes get different numbers of attacks with cantrip damage also being balanced against them. You probably could mess with that if you really wanted to, but it would take a lot more thought and calculation.
I think a good start is to stay within the bounds of current weapon damage. There's no reason a Macuahuitl needs to be 1d6+1d8 instead of 2d6. Exotic buffs would likely be best served through new keywords, for example a property that deals an extra 1d6 on prone enemies.
For a weapon specifically made for a build, I'd just add that into the subclass as long as we're homebrewing. Otherwise you inevitably get a situation where the halfling battlemaster is using the spiked chain to much greater advantage than the shadow dancer it was made for, and you can also test for balance just within that design space instead of trying to account how it might be abused by a Rogue3/Monk8/ArtificerX or something.
This is the approach I have taken so far with weapons that don't fit current categories. So at level 3 when you become a Shadow Dancer, you gain proficiency with a common magic item spiked chain. Then you can design around that weapon.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
These are very good points. I'll try to respond to them sequentially.
The weapons are supposed to only be obtainable if you take the feat. The "replace martial weapons" is only for feat-less campaigns. That said, four martial weapons is a lot, and maybe two would be adequate.
The weapons presented here are rough drafts, and are subject to change. The cleaver doesn't really need heavy, so maybe I'll get rid of it. Heavy on the cleaver meant that it was too large for a small race to wield with dexterity, but a larger race wouldn't have a problem with it.
Also, the Kanabo, which exchanges damage for attack frequency, is intended to be an experiment.
The macahuitl deals more damage because if you are going to take a feat and it dealt 2d6, might as well take GWM and use a greatsword. The two different sized die represent it's effects: most of the damage comes form the obsidian blades, so you take more slashing than bludgeoning. The idea of a weapon that deals more to prone targets is interesting though. Kinda like an executioner's sword?
The spiked chain is not made specifically for a build. Shadow Dancers are a type of Shadar-kai elf, and are the most iconic users of the spiked chain. But, anyone else could still use it. Taking the feat would represent studying their techniques, so there is not reason that a halfling battlemaster couldn't study to use one.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
This is cool. I don't think you need to change Halberd damage from a d10 to d8. Versatile weapons get a d10 for using both hands, so as long as you're swinging with both hands, I think it should be a d10.
The reason the halberd damage die is 1d8 is because you can choose the damage type. This would make it strictly better than the glaive and the pike (without my changes). Changing your damage type can be quite good. Fighting skeletons? Bludgeoning. Fighting oozes? Anything but slashing. Fighting oozes and want to have fun? Slashing.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
What I mean about the macahuitl is that a weapon dealing two different sized dice is awkward and has been avoided for pretty much all the history of D&D that I'm aware of. I think it would merge in better with existing options if the thing that makes it special and better than a greatsword (besides the mixed damage type) should come in the form of a special trait on it.
And what I was saying about the feats is that there needs to be a steeper price for these things in feat-less campaigns. I mean I think the overlap between campaigns that use homebrew weapons and those that disallow feats is probably really small, but even in those you'd need to impose a significant cost. Maybe they're super rare or quite expensive or you have to actually quest to find a master to train you.
I should say though that I like a lot of these concepts. Just trying to give some constructive criticism.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You have an interesting point about the macahuitl. Some ideas for changes are:
I can't argue with your second point. It is pretty sound.
(I am sorry if my tone read angry in earlier posts. I like discussing things, and enjoy looking at critiques.)
If the axe head dealt 1d10 damage, I would have to nerf it in some other way as well. I like the scaling damage idea, because a halberd is mostly designed around the axe head and spear head. The spear would be used to keep the target at a distance, then using a cleave from the axe to finish them. Most halberds do not have the hammer head, and I should have done more research when I wrote the original post. Still, the problem remains that if the axe remains at 1d10 slashing it will render the glaive (and to a lesser extent the unchanged pike) irrelevant. I like the idea though.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Pike: I dislike this idea. They tried it in earlier versions, and has several issues. For example the Pole Arm Master feat lets you use the blunt end as an off hand weapon, effectively negating the weakness you put in to balance it. In addition, Polearm Master's ability to get an AoO when they ENTER the 10 ft range effectively does most of what you want with greater reach.
Trident- I like this idea. The Trident trident is currently a fancy looking Spear with no reason to get. How about "Macerating" as the name? Vicious already is being used for something else.
Halberd- OK, not fantastic. How about you add some trip bonus to it - that's one of the real life uses for the extra side parts.
Exotic Weapons - OK, not fantastic. I hate the word "exotic" because it perpetuates the myth that distance = better. Works better if you call it "Difficult" weapons, as they require extra training to use. They should require highly skilled (expertise) smiths/wood carvers to make, as well as a feat or subclass to learn.
Cleaver- heavy, finesse makes no sense. Heavy items are about pure strength, not skill.
Spiked Chain- OK. But I would lower the damage to 1d6, particularly as you are adding vicious/Macerating.
Double-bladed scimitar- I like this idea. Not surprising, as pro's made it.
Macuahuitl- I dislike this idea. This was NOT 'quite deadly', at least not compared to European metal weapons. Yes, it was much better than the other weapon the Aztecs had, but the Europeans did not adopt it. In real life they used this because they were not very good with metal. The weapon is inferior to a two handed axe, not superior. I would call it 1d6+1d4.
Garrote- Stranglewire. I like the idea of a Garrote weapon, but this build is not what anyone wants. This weapon is all about choking people, not regular damage. I would have it work like this: Garrote is a cord or wire knotted to make it difficult to loosen once it is tightened. 2 handed, finesse weapon that does 1 point of damage. If you hit with it, you get to make a grapple check using your Dex or Strength, your choice. If you beat the grapple check, the device is tightened. A victim with a tightened garrote on them can make no sounds with their throat. If you continue to hold the Garrote, the victim has disadvantage to remove it. Each round, the victim may take an action to attempt to remove it. If they do not remove it within 5 rounds, they fall unconscious. They die after 20 rounds.
Kanabo- I dislike your interpretation, but I could see a better one. Extra damage was not what this was about. A real Kanabo was just a heavy two handed club, doing less damage than a two handed Axe. It was used against people in armor, because normal axes did less damage to them. If I were to make this kind of weapon, I would have it be a heavy, 2 handed weapon that did 1d10 but have a feat. When you take the feat, when attacking with a Kanabo, as a bonus action, you give yourself (for the first attack that round) +2 to hit vs Medium armor, and +4 to hit vs Heavy armor. This could be done a number of times equal to your strength modifier, re-setting after a short rest.
Yeah, you'll have to change Vicious to something else... Vicious is already a weapon type in D&D and denotes a weapon that deals additional damage on a critical hit.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
If your inspiration for the Kanabo is the Tie Bian from the fight scene in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon why rename it with a Japanese name? It was built to break armor and weapons, both.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I don't get why you say that the weapon chart is overwhelming to new players and then immediately propose making things more complicated.
Also, two specific points- the halberd did not have a bludgeoning piece on it, it had an axe head with a hook or spike set opposite, and another spike mounted on top. The only way to bludgeon someone with it would have been to bash them with the shaft, which Pole Arm Master already lets you do. You're probably thinking of the bec de corbin or the Lucerne hammer. Second and Third Editions had two many polearms and nobody ever bothered with 99% of them. No need to bring that back.
Second point: just call a kanabo a reskin of the maul and be done with it. No need to make the thing complicated, especially with the way you've gone.
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.
I agree with this. All the proposed weapons seem like really bad ideas to me.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Thank you for your opinions.
Pike- The reason why I had the pike this way was to A: Make it more than a stabby glaive and B: A pike is a really long weapon. I'm quoting Britannica: " a long spear with a heavy wooden shaft 10 to 20 feet (3 to 6 metres) long, tipped by a small leaf-shaped steel point. " You can't use a pike for polearm master's bonus action attack, though many DM's do allow it. I wanted the pike to represent the extreme length it had IRL; pretty much the only reason why you would use one was the reach. (Well, that is an exaggeration. They are also cheap and easy to train with.)
How about renaming Exotic weapons to advanced weapons?
Cleaver- This is a commonly voiced opinion, so I'm thinking that Cleaver should go in the trash bin.
Spiked Chain- Looking back at the weapon, 1d6 is more balanced. I'll change it.
Macahuitl- Interesting point. I don't remember where I heard this, but I remember that the Macahuitl was the only effective weapon the Aztec had against the conquistadors. (It still the lost to muskets, though.) Also, they look really cool, but that isn't really a good reason for them to be effective in game.
Garrote- I would also prefer having a garrote being used to strangle someone, but suffocation is really slow in D&D. It is 1+con mod minutes before you start choking, and then you get con mod rounds before you die. This is an interesting interpretation. I will playtest it.
Kanabo- Again I prefer your interpretation to mine. It is much more flavorful and interesting.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System