D&D 5E Making simple weapons interesting for martial characters

[Blue]

Simple weapon users usually carry weapons as backup, and since simple weapons are mechanically inferior in almost all cases, martial characters don't use them.

Instead of letting this whole class of weapons languish, how about a simple rule:

If you are proficient with all martial weapons, simple weapons get +1 damage.

This basically puts them on par or near martial weapons in terms of average damage. I was originally thinking to increase damage die, but that made a few simple weapons straight out better* while his keeps their crit damage a lower.

* Better examples: spear was everything longsword plus throwing, dagger was everything short sword plus throwing as well.

This would seem to make a whole category of weapons that see rare combat use become relevant and characters can chose them without gimping themselves. It allows magical weapons with interesting properties to be realistically wielded by more characters.

What do you think about this? Any pitfalls I'm missing?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I've found than most martial characters do carry simple weapons as backup or alternative options. Weapons seem to be assigned to the Simple weapons category because they are inferior weapons to the martial weapons: often because they're re-purposed tools rather than specialised weapons. Or vice versa.

There are some classes such as some Monks, Clerics and Rogues that get good use out of some simple weapons.

Giving +1 damage is just as good as increasing the damage die - better in cases where reliability is more important.

If you want to have a character with martial weapon proficiency who uses a simple weapon, and you view that losing an average 1 hp damage is "gimping themself", look at the UA feats. Fell-handed works for a Simple weapon. Spear Mastery makes spears a very effective weapon.

 

[Blue]

I've found than most martial characters do carry simple weapons as backup or alternative options. Weapons seem to be assigned to the Simple weapons category because they are inferior weapons to the martial weapons: often because they're re-purposed tools rather than specialised weapons. Or vice versa.

Your tone seems as if you disagree, but your words are right in agreement with what I was saying. My point was that the simple category gets a lot less actual use then the martial category.

Let me double check what you mean with a very specific question.

Do you see simple weapons getting used to make attack rolls as often or nearly as often as martial weapons?

 

[auburn2]

I don't agree with the original premise. Some weapons get used far more than others but I think it is untrue to imply this is because of their class martial vs simple.

In the 3 campaigns I've play and DM:
Martial weapons: I don't think I have seen lance, morningstar, flail, pike or blowgun used at all, by anyone PC or NPC, friend or enemy. Battleaxe, greataxe, halberd, trident, whip and war pick have only been used infrequently. The rest of the martial weapons are used regularly by one or more of the PCs or regular NPCs.

Simple weapons: I can't remember anyone using a sickle, greatclub, dart or sling. Javelin, spear, light hammer and shortbow have been rarely used. Handaxe, dagger, quarterstaff and light crossbow are used all the time, as much as any of the martial weapons.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Interesting idea, but I don't understand the goal. What's wrong with "letting a whole class of weapons languish"? What's the downside to not using all weapons equally?

Should I be concerned about the fact that even most melee-oriented Polearm Masters in 5E select halberds instead of guisarme-voulges and spetums? Why?

 

[Eubani]

Interesting idea, but I don't understand the goal. What's wrong with "letting a whole class of weapons languish"? What's the downside to not using all weapons equally?

Should I be concerned about the fact that even most melee-oriented Polearm Masters in 5E select halberds instead of guisarme-voulges and spetums? Why?

From my point of view the more viable weapons and armours the greater the number of different characters and flavours thereof. Also when you hang future mechanics off weapons and armours you only need to worry about flavour and balance not worry about having to "catch up". Also from my point of view if something does not get used it was designed poorly or something is overpowered and stops that item from being used.

 

[Shiroiken]

While I generally find the weapons to be periodically borked, this isn't a concern IMO.

Warriors (barbarians, fighter, paladins and rangers) are going to use martial weapons as their primary weapons, because martial weapon proficiency is one of their class benefits. Making them better with simple weapons is silly, because simple weapons are supposed to be weapons used by non-warriors. The spear & javelin are the only simple weapons martial characters use with any regularity, and that's only because there isn't a martial equivalent (except for the trident, which is among my biggest pet peeve). The dagger is a common back-up weapon, which makes sense, because it also doubles as a utensil and tool.

As for simple weapon's "languishing," the problem is the prevalence of cantrip attacks (which all non-warriors have except Rogue and Monk). Even with those, every spellcasting character in my campaign carries a weapon because of anti-magic areas (and beholders), not to mention damage resistance/immunity. Don't forget, most NPCs should be using those simple weapons too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

From my point of view the more viable weapons and armours the greater the number of different characters and flavours thereof.

While on the one hand I'd say that if you are using what weapon you are wielding as the "creative juice" of your character, rather than things like personality, needs, wants, fears, or loves... you might want to look a little deeper into who your character actually is. "I wear plate armor and use a greatclub!" does not really give you a "different" character than one who says "I wear plate armor and use a maul!".

But that being said... I also do agree with the initial premise that having a way to make Simple weapons viable over the length of a character's career isn't a bad thing in of itself. For me personally, I created a new feat for my game that PCs can take which accomplishes it:

SIMPLE WEAPON EXPERT
- You gain proficiency in all Simple weapons if you do not already have it.
- While wielding a Simple weapon in either hand, you increase the damage die of the weapon by one size.
- You may double the range of any Simple weapon you fire or throw.
- You may add the Finesse property to any Simple melee weapon that does not already have it.

It gives Simple weapons little things that move them closer to the level of Martial weapons for those PCs who have decided to stick with one. It costs a feat so it may not be worth it to some players, but it's available for those that it is.

 

[Bupp]

I've toyed with the idea of using damage as class, much like 13th Age. A dagger in the hands of a trained warrior is going to be much deadlier than one in the hands of a scholar.

 

[Fanaelialae]

While on the one hand I'd say that if you are using what weapon you are wielding as the "creative juice" of your character, rather than things like personality, needs, wants, fears, or loves... you might want to look a little deeper into who your character actually is. "I wear plate armor and use a greatclub!" does not really give you a "different" character than one who says "I wear plate armor and use a maul!".

But that being said... I also do agree with the initial premise that having a way to make Simple weapons viable over the length of a character's career isn't a bad thing in of itself. For me personally, I created a new feat for my game that PCs can take which accomplishes it:

SIMPLE WEAPON EXPERT
- You gain proficiency in all Simple weapons if you do not already have it.
- While wielding a Simple weapon in either hand, you increase the damage die of the weapon by one size.
- You may double the range of any Simple weapon you fire or throw.
- You may add the Finesse property to any Simple melee weapon that does not already have it.

It gives Simple weapons little things that move them closer to the level of Martial weapons for those PCs who have decided to stick with one. It costs a feat so it may not be worth it to some players, but it's available for those that it is.

This feat makes simple weapons better than martial weapons in many cases.

Longsword - 1d8 / Versatile (1d10)
Spear - 1d8 / Finesse, Thrown (range 40/120), Versatile (1d10)

Heavy Crossbow - 1d10 / range (100/400) / heavy, loading, two-handed
Light Crossbow - 1d10 / range (160/640) / loading, two-handed

Greatclub - 1d10 / finesse, two-handed
Maul - 2d6 / Heavy, two-handed

You also end up with the counter-intuitive scenario where the shortbow ends up with a slightly greater range than a longbow.

Given that it costs a feat it might be okay in terms of balance, but I'd keep an eye on it.