Cryptically, we've gotten a number of hints in the One D&D playtest documents that we'll be seeing some changes to how weapons work. This is likely going to come with the Warrior class group UA, which will give us the Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk (I hope we get all together instead of breaking them up like they did for the Priests).
What we do know that Warriors will share is Fighting Styles - Rangers and Paladins are given them as a sort of exception, but it appears this will be the uniting feature the way that Expertise is for Experts and Channel Divinity/Nature is for Priests.
That's actually interesting given that in 5E (I'll be using this to describe the current version of the game - I'm trying to decide on a good abbreviation for One D&D - maybe ODD, or One, or 6E) only one of those classes gets them.
But the change to weapons will have implications for many classes - not just Warriors (that is, unless only Warriors will benefit from these special properties).
The thing is: we have no idea what those properties are or how they will differ from the current system.
In 5E, there are sort of four broad categories of weapons. There are Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strikes, which are outside of the purview of this post, and then Simple and Martial Weapons. In 5E, classes are often given specific weapon proficiencies, though some simply get "Simple Weapons" or "Simple and Martial Weapons" if they're not really restricted. Furthermore, there are Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons.
(Actually, in point of fact, Firearms, which exist only in the DMG, but then again so do +1 weapons, are technically just Martial Weapons, which means any Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin could show up to a fight with a machine gun.)
There are, then, a number of properties that are applied to different weapons, and there are kind of damage penalties for each feature:
If we look at the most powerful weapons (not counting firearms) - Mauls, Greatswords, and Greatxes - they deal 2d6 or 1d12 damage. These are all heavy, two-handed weapons. Glaives, Pikes, and Halberds are bumped down to 1d10 in exchange for Reach. The Heavy Crossbow gets bumped down in damage twice for being a ranged weapon, but then back up one for having the Loading property (which prevents you from using it with Multiattack, for example). The Longbow is bumped down twice, but lacking loading doesn't get bumped up again, so it has 1d8.
The Longsword, Warhammer, and Battleaxe are only bumped down once to 1d10 if wielded in two hands, but bumped down twice if you use their versatile property to wield them in one hand. Flails, War Picks, and Morningstars are bumped down the same amount, but without the versatility to get a d10 for using both hands (also, oddly, Morningstars are both heavier and more expensive than War Picks, making them strictly worse). Rapiers are in a similar category to these last few, except they get the finesse property without paying any additional cost. (While not as heavy, they're substantially more expensive than the other 1d8 piercing weapons).
Thrown weapons take a penalty as well - Tridents, Spears, and Javelins are all 1d6 weapons (though Tridents and Spears can also up their damage to 1d8 if wielded with both hands). Likewise, the Light property seems to inflict a penalty to damage on top of being one-handed, as no light weapon does more than 1d6 damage. The Dagger, then, pays a bunch of penalties - it's light, thrown, and finesse, so it gets downgraded all the way to 1d4.
There are some oddities - the Quarterstaff is similar to the Trident or Spear in that it's 1d6 in one hand or 1d8 in two, but cannot be thrown. And then you have the stranger "Special" weapons, such as the Lance, which gets to do a full 1d12 damage but has the very odd properties of being designed to only work well at max reach (if you attack someone within 5 feet you have disadvantage) and only allowing you to wield it one-handed if you're also mounted (and given that mounted combat is a sort of underdeveloped part of the game, that's somewhat rare).
But anyway, that's a lot of data that sort of boils down to the following: if you're willing to wield a heavy, two-handed weapon, your damage caps at 12. If you want a one-handed weapon, the best you can get is 1d8, and only then if you're not wielding a weapon in your off-hand. If you want to dual-wield, you'll be using weapons that do d6s.
And this also then means that a lot of weapon types are almost never going to be good as others. Why would you use a Greatclub when a Quarterstaff does just as much damage but can also be one-handed and can be used if you're small-sized?
In a lot of cases, the answer is basically flavor. On a character who always uses a shield, there's no real penalty to using a Flail instead of a Warhammer - even if the latter is strictly better other than costing 5g more. As a DM, I sometimes like to hand out unusual magic weapons to encourage people to try them out (one of these days I'm going to drop a +3 Lance in a tier 1 party and see how much they'll bend over backwards to make use of that bonus).
But the weapons could certainly be more interesting and impactful. In particular, I like to point out that Glaives and Halberds are actually functionally identical. Like, they do the same damage, weigh the same amount, cost the same amount, and are both affected by the Polearm Master feat in the same way (something that cannot be said for Pikes, which are otherwise similar weapons that do piercing damage).
One example we've seen referred to, though not yet identified, is that Shortswords and Scimitars are meant to "play different roles" in ODD (I guess I'll use that abbreviation).
In 5E, both are one-handed, light martial melee weapons finesse. Oddly, Rogues get proficiency with Shortswords while Druids get proficiency with Scimitars. Scimitars are significantly more expensive, and weigh a little more, and they deal slashing damage while shortswords deal piercing damage.
In ODD, the only change we've seen is that Shortswords have been made into Simple weapons, rather than Martial ones, which more or less makes them usable by all classes. This move to use broad categories actually means that Druids will be swapping their Scimitars for Shortswords, as the former are still Martial Weapons, but Druids now just get proficiency in Simple Weapons and not a long, broad list.
So, other than the damage type difference, what will separate these two?
I must confess I'm at a bit of a loss - how much of an impactful mechanic can you place on these weapons before they get busy and possibly mess with gameplay balance?
But let's also ask a different question: what do we want to incentivize here?
The groups I have played D&D with have typically been fairly flavor-first. We're a bunch of writers, actors, and creative types, and so while we enjoy the strategy game of it all, we're here more for the big dramatic moments that RPGs can allow. As such, we usually have a good mix of melee and ranged characters.
But one of the balance issues that has always been part of RPG design is how to reward melee characters for making the choice to go right up to the monster and risk getting smacked in the face - not to mention the need to get up to said monsters in order to smack them.
As a Warlock, I can pelt my foe with Eldritch Blasts from 120 feet away. With Agonizing Blast (an invocation I think like 99% of Warlocks take at level 2) I'm hitting for 1d10+Cha Force damage - the equivalent of a Heavy Crossbow but without the loading property and dealing damage that almost nothing can resist (and matching a Fighter for number of attacks per round, even leapfrogging them at level 17, getting a fourth attack three levels before they do).
If I'm somewhat selfish and just looking to be the best single-target damage dealer in the party, why would I want to risk my hide getting into melee with that Frost Giant when I could be chilling way back here with a Margarita at a spot said giant will have to spend three turns (or one and a half while dashing) just to get close enough to attack me (boulders notwithstanding)?
Certainly, there are tank characters focused on drawing attacks from those foes and locking them down as best they can (and thus keeping the Margarita-sipping Warlock free to blast from afar) but if we're just trying to deal damage, why be in melee?
So, one thing I wonder about is whether we'll see melee weapons gain new properties to improve their effect. What might this look like beyond bigger damage dice, though?
Ok, so let's talk about Short Swords versus Scimitars. The former is now a Simple Weapon, while the latter is Martial.
It seems obvious that Martial Weapons should be more powerful than Simple Weapons - they require special training to use effectively, after all. And this is, of course, born out in the 5E versions - a Mace is not as good as a Flail, despite both being one-handed melee weapons that do bludgeoning damage.
But the Shortsword and Scimitar are used basically the same way in 5E.
Now, I could possibly imagine making light weapons that deal 1d8 damage in ODD, but that does kind of shuffle things around - now there's even less of a reason to use a Morningstar.
What if, instead, Martial Weapons conferred a defensive bonus?
Shields are used to block and deflect attacks. But a skilled swordsman also uses their weapon to parry attacks. What if Scimitars added a +1 to your AC? Perhaps you need to be wielding two of them to get this property (otherwise having two would give you the same bonus as a Shield). This actually makes flavorful sense - someone with flashing scimitars in both hand seems like they'd be able to knock incoming attacks out of the way.
That defensive benefit is certainly a possible universal trait, but what if we went a little crazy?
Again, this could contribute to rules bloat, but let's let our imagination run wild and then see how close it is to the actual solution.
One of the main reasons, historically, that things like Warhammers were used historically was their ability to puncture armor. Actually, if you google images of War Hammers and War Picks, you kind of get almost identical images - both looked not all that dissimilar to a hammer you might find in a toolbox, though rather than the Peen (yes, that's the term for the forked bit on the other side of a hammer that you use to pry up nails. Get your mind out of the gutter) it's more of a spike (really the pick side, as opposed to the hammer side). Given that a lot of armor like chain mail was designed to stop bladed weapons, the hammer either ignored the inability to penetrate by just hitting with massive concussive force, and the pick/spike could, when coming in with all that weight behind it, go right through the loops of chain mail or even sometimes a metal plate itself.
Perhaps, then, something like a War Pick could ignore a certain amount of armor - maybe you get a +1 to hit the target, though no extra damage (or vice versa).
If we wanted to get really crunchy, a War Pick might reduce the target's effective AC by 1 only if they're wearing armor. By contrast, a Flail, given its unpredictable arc, might reduce the target's AC by 1 only if they are gaining some benefit from Dexterity (as in, if they're not wearing heavy armor).
That's all well and good, but dear lord would it make things complicated. AC itself is an abstraction in order to keep things from getting too complicated (I've tried multiple times to homebrew an armor system that distinguishes between armor and your overall evasiveness, and while it could be cool, it's basically a different RPG system at that point).
One thing I'd hope here is that if we got interesting but playably simple enough distinctions for these weapons, we might find a way to balance Firearms and make them an easier option to add to the game. (It's funny, in real life I'm very anti-gun, but my urge to escape medieval stasis in fantasy makes me a major opponent of fantasy gun control). (My favorite solution is to make firearms use two weapon dice, similar to the modern guns in 5E, but have you not add your Dexterity modifier to the damage - highly Dexterous characters will get consistently higher damage with a bow, but guns are more exciting on a crit and can be used more easily by people with lower Dex).
Given that we're not even getting the survey for Druids and Paladins for another two weeks, I think we've got a bit of a wait before we really see what they're working on here. (Hell, we might get Mages next.) Still, put me down as intrigued.
No comments:
Post a Comment