Before you go, get all trigger-happy with **multiple damage type** weapons (or switchable damage type weapons), consider the fact that the ONLY creatures in 5e that are vulnerable to regular non-magical piercing/slashing/ or bludgeoning weapons (meaning that the vulnerable creature takes double damage from that specific damage type) is anything that is a skeleton undead. And Ice Mephits. **Oh and spoiler alert, all of these creatures (of which there are only 22 of them), are only ever vulnerable to bludgeoning damage.** Further, there are only 37 Creatures that have resistance to Non-Magical bludgeoning Damage, 47 Creatures that have resistance to Non-Magical piercing Damage, and 28 Creatures that have Resistance to Non-Magical Slashing Damage. In fact, in each of these groups of monsters, there is a large degree of overlap between damage type. Resistance meaning that they only take half-damage from that particular damage type for reference. If my maths is right, there are currently 2173 total monsters listed on D&D Beyond with approximately 100 creatures that are immune to anything that isn't straight up a magical weapon. My point is that piercing, bludgeoning or slashing weapon classifications have very little , if not none at all, impact except for how a weapon looks cosmetically and how you describe it in narrative. Maybe it meant more in previous editions of the game, but this is just one of those things that has been abstracted away in 5e and used so rarely to render the point moot.
I think there's confusion with darts in D&D because most people are picturing tiny pub darts you can stuff in a pocket, but historical battlefield darts are more like short heavy javelins, or a heavy arrow you throw. The Roman plumbata are a well-attested version.
Seems like for clarity they should call them javelins. Or maybe an entry for "Arrow (thrown)" Like how the bec de corbin is just confusing, especially if you don't speak French.
Note about boomerangs: Hunting ones (ie, ones actually capable of causing real damage) don't' return. What do do have however, is very long range for a thrown weapon.
@@sethtorres5202 the returning boomerang is for throwing above wetlands to scare ducks into nets, the lightweight returning flight design is the polar opposite to hunting/war boomerangs, which are heavy throwing and striking weapons.
@@TheRabbitman3000 that's actually super cool. I did some research and found out the article I read a long time ago wasn't credible. The aboriginal people didn't use returning boomerangs like I had thought. It's still a really cool weapon and was one of the first flying weapons made.
5e: here's magic missile, it deals damage and never misses and that's it Also 5e: here's dark star, a literal black hoke that sucks stuff up and destroys it
@@diobrando9842 also 5e : oh yeah ? here is shield now you are immune to magic missiles also 5e : sorcerer ? subtle spell now you dont need somatic or verbal component ALSO 5E : FIGHTER ? HERE ARE YOUR GODDAMN FIGHTING STYLES AND MANUEVERS *ALSO 5E : CLERIC ? HERE YOU GO WITH YOUR UNHOLY 55 DAMAGE (AVG) ON HIT WITH 1 ATTACK*
I did a lot of research on this topic, actually. And while I agree that - in the hands of a skilled slinger - slings are every bit as deadly as any other weapon delivered violently into an opponent... the key is "in the hands of a skilled slinger". Almost anyone can pick up the basics of a sling quickly, and with a little practice, hit targets at a short range with reasonable reliability. That is not the same as slinging with bone-crushing force, against a moving target, at significant range. *Yes* the archetypical shepherd boy is protecting his flock with a sling - but he is also investing the time and energy, every day, to become "a skilled slinger" in order to use his weapon effectively. *Yes* slings are cheap, compared to... well... really *any* other ranged weapon - even "a sharpened stick" (a spear), when you factor in "time to find a straight stick, and sharpen it" vs. "a piece of cloth or leather, and a rock". But, military slingers don't just use "a rock", they used special "bullets" of shaped and hardened clay, or molded lead. And so on. And bows came to be favored over slingers because they were faster to train militia with than slings. (Not "English longbowmen", just normal bows.) A company of trained slingers was devastating... but not replaceable. So bows came to be the choice of militaries everywhere... until guns. And so it goes! Having said all that... Still totally in support of slings doing more damage. Maybe "learn sling as a Simple weapon, it does d4; learn it as a Martial Weapon, it does a d6. Use a molded sling bullet instead of a rock, increase die size one step". And potentially an unusual range bracket to indicate "yes, I can throw as far as a bow... but less accurately and probably with less effect". (Slings also were surprisingly effective against armored foes, causing large impairing dents... but I think that's outside the purview of a 5e system.)
Yes, both in range and damage, D&D really underestimates the sling. I think it would need to be a Martial weapon though. It requires a lot of skill and training.
@@frederickcoen7862 In earlier editions the sling would do a different amount of damage depending on if you used stones or lead bullets. I also think that the sling should be a Martial weapon, then other people using it would just have the penalty for non-proficiency. I think it is just not a Simple weapon. I also think it has more range than in 5e. Not as much as a longbow, but certainly double of what is in the PHB. But the sling has been poorly represented in earlier editions of D&D as well.
I think slings fit an awesome niche actually, their damage is lower, but they are a one handed ranged weapon without a reloading property. You can use a shield with one and you can launch small objects such as vials, messages attached to a weight, etc. also with sharpshooter feat their lower damage become less noticable. Additionally, since they are one handed, they can benefit from the dualing fighting style which is pretty cool.
I feel like a lot of these can just be reskinned versions of other weapons. The studded club is just a mace, you can rule a scythe as being a glaive, a katana can be a longsword, etc. the monk page in the player’s handbook actively encourages this sort of thinking, like saying a sickle can be a kama. There’s no reason why you can’t play a human sōhei (Paladin) who wields a nodachi (greatsword). The players handbook offers you no description for any weapon, just what dice you roll, damage type, and other affinities like heavy or reach. If you want to say that your halberd is a Dane axe or that your club is the petrified drumstick of a cockatrice then go for it
My first character wielded a scythe and a lot of these weapons straight up appear in the rulebooks as example of reskinning weapons. How can someone have the creativity to create a whole character but not to reskin a weapon
I'm happy to let people reskin anything, why not? Who cares what you call it and how you describe it? But a katana is a longsword, quick draw slash is not specific to the katana, it's just something popularized by movies of what people with katanas did.
Dual Bladed swords exist in D&D. It’s hidden away in Eberron: Rising from the Last War. It’s called the Double-Balded Scimitar and deals 2d4 slashing with an additional attack as a bonus action that deals 1d4 instead
@@Vampire00971 Eh, it would have made two weapon fighting completely redundant by that point. Besides, it's still a great way to proc battlemaster maneuvres, smites etc
Billhooks are in 5e! They're called hooked spears, check out the statblock for Derro. It allows the wielder to forgo damage on a hit to trip a creature. Very fun weapon!
Most of the weapons in this list can be achieved by just reflavouring exising weapons. Brass knuckes are definitively missing though, so is a bunch of properties.
@A cat on his hind legs. I've been using Cestus for a while, basically a bludgeoning dagger without the thrown property, and you can't drop them since they're strapped to your arm
Yeah, I feel like he definitely misinterpreted the nature of that weapon. It was an incredibly brutal weapon that only got sharper with use as the obsidian shards broke and became even more distinctly edged.
So on the Estoc, it’s a two handed sword with a very narrow, pointed blade, and it’s designed to slip through the gaps of plate armor and to punch through chainmail; it would work pretty well as a low damage, dex based two handed sword that ignores part of an enemies AC; could be pretty neat.
To add to this, think of a stiletto (So a triangle or square "spike" of a blade, stabs really well, but can't cut), but of a size somewhere (For D&D rules at least) between the a longsword and greatsword
I mean estoc's were generally used on horseback, as kind of a back-up after your Lance broke, and in that scenario it would probably be used one-handed? Hard to two-hand a sword while you're holding the reins, so maybe it should be versatile, as well? A Longsword that does pierce damage?
Sounds like things could get... really granular. There might be a way to introduce a lot of "weapons" by sticking to broad categories, and this allows us to introduce a category that carries with it MANY weapons (of which we could list 2-3 exemplars). So, we already have slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning. Within each category, we could have the usual sub-categories: two-handed, versatile, reach, and finesse. The "grid" this gives us covers a *ton* of weapons, with the specific form of the weapon being a flavor "re-skin." This would introduce a lot of options - like the brass knuckles or sap simply as a "bludgeoning-finesse" weapon, or the kusarigama or scythe as "slashing-reach." Switching damage types, if enemy variety encourages such a thing, might warrant a weapon having a primary and secondary type, with the secondary being one "die class" lower (like versatile). Otherwise, the dual weapons will simply be better than their more-focused counterparts. More interesting, I think, are the weapons that basically provide new functionality, but with a cost beyond class/stat requirement: defensive - weapons that, while wielded, add 1-2 to AC. I think this should come at the cost of a reaction. (ex. whip chain, tonfa) interference - weapons that can trip, restrain, disarm, etc. The cost for these ought to be not rolling damage - just flat bonus, if even. (ex. hooked sword, bullwhip) retrievable - weapons that, when thrown, can be retrieved (temporary "reach") at the cost of only being used this way once per action (ex. rope dart, harpoon) With all of these traits, you have a buffet to choose from that could basically give you any weapon you want: Shaolin Spade: slashing (d8), piercing (d6), two-handed, finesse, interference (trip) Plum Flower Whip: bludgeoning (d6), finesse, reach, defensive 1 (these weapons are *not* good for tripping/binding) Spiked Hammer: bludgeoning (d10/d8), piercing (d6), versatile Bullwhip: slashing (d4), finesse, reach, interference (trip/disarm) Harpoon: piercing (d6), retrievable (15 ft), interference (restrain)
Love it. the biggest problem with varying damage types is that they don't really have a use in DnD, or at least not in 5e. I can't really recall many creatures that have specific vulnerability or resistance to them except some oozes. I would suggest that if you are costing a reaction maybe have it give disadvantage on the first attack rather than just boosting AC
There's already an invisible size system for melee weapons. They are divided into size 1 (light d4) size 2 (one-handed d6) size 3 (versatile d8) size 4 (two-handed d10) size 5 (heavy, d12) Sometimes the damage can scale a bit differently, but it tends to follow this direction. I built something similar to your idea at some point regarding multiple damage types. I did it so that their main damage type does their size of damage, but their secondary attack does damage equal to one lower than their size. Having additional abilities could also lower the overall damage of the weapon to make it more of a tradeoff. You might get a reach trip weapon, but it will be a two-handed weapon that deals 1d6 damage.
I feel like Pocket Sand would be very similar to the Color Spray spell. In fact, my Wizard’s verbal component for that spell was yelling “Pocket Sand!”.
Pretty sure colored sand is the material component in old school dnd, so color spray is literally just +1 pocket sand (Also 100% making color spray lgbt flashbang in my next caster)
The Khopesh pretty much evolved from axes, pretty much combining them with swords. This made it good at chopping/slashing, with some decent piercing ability too. The hook on the end was also used to pull shields away or disarm opponents, as well as making successful stabs more lethal
@@CoKane621 actually they were. Ancient Egyptians originally used battleaxes, but the handles had a tendency to snap, so they developed khopesh swords, which are functionally metal-shafted battleaxes.
The Claymore is a Scottish greatsword - the normal infantry would have used one-handed basket-hilted broadswords. Claymores are very large swords (usually more than 4.5 ft., sometimes 5 or more.) Their name is derived from a Scots Gaelic word meaning "Great sword." Zweihander (literally meaning "Two hander"), like many German swords, are even larger (at least 4 ft 7 in.) They were often so large that they filled a similar role to polearms, rather than traditional great swords. There are also Flammenschwert (flame-bladed swords) that are basically zweihanders with wavy blades. They look awesome.
And put down to D&D mechanics level are pretty much the same thing as the greatsword stats. That's actually the big problem with a lot of this kind of stuff, way too many times the "what should be brought in, devolves down to, stuff that doesn't have any notable differences via stats. Was an even bigger problem in 3.5 where every single jian, gladius, etc (short, double bladed sword) ended up being a shortsword.
In my games, I was always just find with boiling all those big two-handed swords down to greatsword stats, and all those short swords down to shortsword stats, and so on: those stats are just an abstraction anyway. Just grab the crunch from the closest equivalent, and replace the name and description with whatever makes you happy. No sense in getting weird and fancy with it all.... He's talking in the video now about strength-based warbows, as far as I'm concerned those are just longbows, and the extra distance from the strength-based element just doesn't come into play in a dungeon setting. If we were playing a game on a battlefield setting and I needed to worry about things like siege engines and so on, MAYBE it's worth re--examining warbows and siege crossbows and the like, but I've never run a game where anyone could really justify needing to hard-code a special distance advantage into their bows.
You might want to take another look at the macuahuitl. It's not a club, those are obsidian blades, and they are very sharp but fragile. The "club" part provides weight and structure for the blades. I feel like it would do bludgeoning and slashing damage simultaneously, in DnD terms. (IRL, they were known more for slashing)
Was looking for this comment! Also, mechanically perhaps it would deal either give the option of slashing or bludgeoning the whole time, or maybe it would deal slashing until a certain amount of attacks/misses and then it would deal bludgeoning only.
Honestly surprised I didn't see the "trench knife" or "trench sword" on the list. Those were commonly used in WW1 are just a dagger or short sword with brass knuckles built into the handle. Very handy for fighting in confined spaces.
The Kriss dagger would be amazing using it as implement for spellcasters. Folklores tells about the ability of these kriss daggers to just point them at your enemy for them to die. Sounds like a perfect wand to me.
The actual use of the dagger, was because of its irregular shape once it penetrated into the body it generated wounds that were almost impossible to medically treat. Coated in poison it is a nightmarish weapon. It shape and these properties lead to it often being shown as a ritual style dagger and thus the mysticism has followed it. Thus its connection to magic.
@@brandonk9462 That's actually pretty interesting. I can actually see it as a Legendary weapon that can have a Spell Infused in it of a Certain Level or lower and if used in Melee, does 1d4+Mod Piercing Damage and on a CON Save, 2d6 Poison Damage, half if successful.
The estoc would be an awesome addition. Dex and piercing are exactly correct as it was used by Knights to get through the weak points in armor, much like daggers were used. This was a longsword, that could use half swording (i.e. grabbing the blade with you hand for thrusting to give you more accuracy and control in grappling. They even took it a step further and would use the cross guards of the sword to get through heavy plate.)
technically you could halfword any type of long blade whether it has blunted sections like the estoc or not. As long as you you have some kind of hand protection there's no risk to grip a sharp edge. Even barehand it's possible to do without self-injury when done right. And even if done wrong, a slice on the palm is not nearly as grievous a wound as a longsword in the armpit.
When I hear this list, I just think that a lot of these people would actually like 3.5e or Pathfinder better. Customization of skills and weapons and the existence of specific weapon abilities are pretty much central to those editions of DnD might fit better with that play style. Not saying that you shouldn't want to adjust 5e, just saying that a lot of work is probably already done for you.
Ossane, this is exactly the epiphany I came to a few months back after laboriously compiling an extensive list of new and modified weapons (and armor), carefully balancing them... and realizing that (a) all my monsters would likely end up using the PHB weapons anyway, so *I* didn't have to remember so many niggly differences, and (b) my players would likely never remember the niggly differences between scimitar/cutlass/saber either! I had more faith in my players, initially, because ONE WOULD THINK they picked the saber over the cutlass or the scimitar expressly for the niggly difference... but then I watched them consistently get their own PHB class abilities and spells wrong - "READ *ALL* THE WORDS!" - and decided not to worry about it. Instead, I used another of Bob WB's ideas, and gave a few specific interesting weapons (a dagger that is "keen" but "fragile", a dagger that "has advantage" on its damage rolls, a heavy shortsword that does slashing damage instead of piercing, and is +1 damage) to a couple specific interested players... and moved on. I accept that *I* want to play Pathfinder, and maybe one (at most two) of my players would be happier there. The others want 5e (and have bought all the 5e books and online resources), so we play 5e.
if you add in a lot of the weaponry/gear from the 3.5 handbooks, this list would be cut down to almost nothing. Seriously I like 3.5 (it was my intro to DnD), but everyone surveyed seems to have a lot of nostalgia for the gear.
The thing with MOST of these weapons is that they basically already exist and you just flavor call the existing weapons the "variation" the Rules even state this that its okay to call like a chair leg a club. Estoc for example is basically just a rapier. as for the "damage type" thing, the problem here is there is actually no difference between damage types for the physical damages other than like 3-4 enemys. 98% of the time most things have resistance to all 3 or none at all. Also The First Eberron book has a dual blade weapon with a feat for it
Totally agree, giving options to choose damage types would be great if there was a simple way to make damage types matter. In Bobs Pokemon video he even lumped slashing, peircing and bludgeoning together.
For sure the problem is dms most of the time don’t translate it especially for tavern brawlers because I pretty sure a whole table is not d4 damage or any strength users who want different damage types or just higher and lower damage for fun combat encounters
the estoc is actually a piercing variant of the real life longsword (which is two handed). also, all the weapons on this list already exist and have stats in d&d 3.5
The Estoc has special mention, effectively being what 5e would consider a two-handed finesse weapon, which is a niche that doesn't exist in 5e yet. Otherwise, agree. More people need to learn to get creative with reskins and "counts as". You see three halberds, I see a halberd, a bardiche, and an uprooted sign.
There actually was such a thing as a repeating crossbow historically. It was a Chinese design originally, with a name that is generally anglicized as chu ko nu. However, it was more like a bolt-action rifle than a machine gun. It had a box full of bolts attached to the top, and a lever on the side could be pulled to wind back the string and set the next bolt. In Pathfinder 1e this worked well. Reloading a light crossbow was usually a move action in Pathfinder (i.e. something you did instead of moving in a turn.) The repeating crossbow switched reloading to be a free action, thus letting you shoot while on the move, in exchange for taking a full round to load a new case of bolts when you ran out. Given that the "loading" property is a lot more forgiving in 5e, though, I don't think there's a point to including it.
While I agree that making it a free action is a bit too strong, I do think the loading property is too restrictive in the late game and epic levels. I personally use the rule that you can forgo an attack or spend a bonus action to load the weapon, Which makes it scale much better in the late game. (Despite it being out damaged by regular bows, because the base damage never increases)
@@BramLastname skipping an attack to load the weapon is actually in the rules, though i forget if its tied to the crossbow expert feat or innate to the property of loading weapons.
@@Desdemona-XI nonono, RAW you cannot reload the crossbow in between attacks unless you action surge. Which means you cannot use a crossbow as your main weapon unless you have more arms then attacks in a turn.
@@isaiahwelch8066 The historical scorpio could reportedly shoot a bolt every 10 to 15 seconds with a well-trained crew in training ground conditions - much quicker than most other artillery pieces of the time, which could have reload times measured in minutes. However, that's mostly because, as a dedicated field piece, the sorpio's draw weight was much lower than dedicated siege weapons. It could be wound back easily by hand by a single strong crew member, wheras others required teams of people, or even teams of mules or oxen, to wind them back into firing position after each shot. It was an anti-infantry weapon, built to be lightweight, easy to relocate, load and aim, making it useful for suppression and formation-breaking on open battlefields. Other artillery pieces were mostly intended to be used against fortifications, and thus could afford to have much longer reload times. After all, the barricade you're aiming at isn't just going to get up and run away if you take several minutes to set up your shot, so that extra time is worth it if it only takes ten or twelve shots to breach a wall. A scorpio could pound away at a section of parapet all day, and it wouldn't do much more than scratch the paint. A full-sized ballista, meanwhile, could do some serious damage to the structural integrity of the wall and send potentially wounding rubble and splinters flying with each shot, forcing the enemy to abandon that section of the wall or risk unsustainable casualties. So it was a trade-off between power and reload speed, with the scorpio being at the most extreme end of the spectrum - not much more powerful than an oversized crossbow, but fast to load and easy to aim. It could also be effectively operated by a crew of two or three, whereas those bigger artillery pieces sometimes needed upwards of ten operators. Scorpios were incredibly useful, don't get me wrong. Every cohort in a legion had an attached artillery element, and those elements each included more than one scorpio. You don't outfit your entire army with a weapon unless it's useful. However, it's important to remember that weapons can be useful in different ways for different purposes. The purpose of a scorpio was very different than the purpose of most other artillery pieces of the time.
This was a great project! When one of my players wanted a scythe, what I did was use the rules for Reaping Scythe from the 5e Avatar of Death, and removed the necrotic damage.
Small note: weapons in this list i remember from 3.5: -composite bow (added str bonus to damage up to a point) -sap (dealt purely non lethal damage) -bolas (long range grapple or trip attack) -punching dagger (same as the dagger, different look) -bastard sword (long sword was 2handed, this was versatile) There were probably others, but checking 3.5 weapons might not be a terrible idea since some weapons had unique abilities (like daggers being concealed weapons)
Was gonna say this once the list got to the double-bladed sword (Darth Maul's weapon). Iirc the reason all these were removed was to simplify the game's combat mechanics, so....if you're going for more complicated combat the old list is the first place you should look.
@@KatotsuSama i think phrasing it as complicated is a bit of a disservice. The older system had more options, yes, but you could just as easily pick a weapon just for damage and have as much fun... Diverse or rich would be my words of choice, but then again, thats more of an opinion than a fact.
@@Fernando_Cabanillas no problem :) it's kinda sad that 99% of the weapons in this video are already weapons in 3.5...i miss playing that version tbh :(
So, its obvious that we need a conceilable weapon feature, but it could be cool to have a ''dangerous'' feature: a lot of weapon variants from the list are dangerous for the user, so it could be a simple damage upgrade, traded for a loss in AC, as the user needs to be mindfull of his opponent and of his own weapon as well? Or simply an ''Offensive'' feature for the same effect, more damages for an AC loss?
Thought: give players proficiency with improvised weapons that relate to their profession or skill they are proficient with. Cooking -> pots and pans,; Artist -> paint brushes as piercing; farming -> pitch fork, etc.
I don’t really get this one. Where in a chef’s life is he learning how to wield pans as weapons? Similarly, a blacksmith isn’t training how to use his smithing hammers to crack upon skulls. Seems like a nonsensical feature to me.
Yeah, it may sound a little wierd, but a blacksmiths knows how to wield a hammer, so why not make it a preferable improvised weapon? Imo it should be related to muscle memory, but I guess it can be more fun to mess a round a bit than being actually usefull.
The Kris dagger or kheris depending on who you ask was a blade designed to be broken off inside of its victim so that it couldn't be removed. Also, the compounds used to clean the blade gave it a poisonous edge.
I've given some of my prepped enemies 'sabers' They're just slashing rapiers. I think an easy rule for weapons is being able to change the damage type if it can be justified. You could easily do that for any weapon to add diversity. (A scimitar is just a slashing shortsword. )
Yes/no, assuming you're referring to the "Veteran's Cane" as its a walking cane that if you say the magic word "transforms into an ordinary longsword and ceases to be magical." So its slashing not piercing damage, and is essentially a single use item, as its a one way transformation. I imagine it was conceived by WoTC as a soldier's / mercenary's "retirement watch" sort of like a rudis (without the slavery undertones)
I'd love to see a concealable property for some weapons, with the rule that only concealable weapons can be hidden on your person (still requiring a disguise kit or deception check). Several weapons on the list, e.g. sword cane and cosh, could just be a variant of an already existing weapon with an added concealable tag. I think this would be in line with keeping 5E simplicity, and encourage GMs to make mundane variations of the weapons by adding/removing property tags.
Honestly, some of the selections seems that players want exactly that. A way to conceal weapons written into the rules with specific weapons providing you an advantage with the roll/skill check.
10:19 this is actually already a magic item! Its a versitle longsword (1d8/1d10 slashing) with +1 to attack and damage and the special ability of doing an extra 2d6 to plant enemys :)
you can just reflavour your rapier like an estoc. I think way too many people think that just because there aren't explicit rules for the specific weapon they want to use, they can't use it. reflavouring an existing weapon works in 60% of situations. for another 30%, like the bludgeoning polearms or the ones where there are 2 damage types, you need to do a bit of "home-brewing" (literally just changing the damage type, which will almost never have an impact) and I don't think a lot of DM's would say no to that.
But isn't that the problem most people want some special ability from cool weapons? But that is difficult to implement and balance, it could be maybe something like half feat to unlock it?
I agree with this point. In my own games I always allow flavour reskins so the different regions will tend to have visually different swords for example. (within reason, I'm not letting you reskin a longsword as a large dried codfish) ((that would be an axe, obviously)) But I will say d&d can be kinda weird about providing layers and layers of rules for things, including for customizing things, so that some players (including dms) get the feeling that if there *aren't* rules about modifying something they better leave it alone.
@@ODDnanref i got schooled. You still proved my point though, because now it's the exact same as a longsword and you could just use reflavour that instead.
The whole fun of improvised weapons is that they're improvised. If you list a bunch of specific examples then they're just excessively niche options that will barely be used. The rules already say "Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such". If you're stabbing with a pitchfork, just use the Spear or Trident stats.
I have a character with the Sailor Background who has carried around a rowboat oar so long that rather than an improvised weapon she uses it simply as a staff with the normal staff stats. But any other long thing she might pick up that isn't a staff would still be improvised. I don't see why these concepts are so difficult for so many!
For the Mancatcher, check out the kuo-toa whip’s pincer staff. It’s a 10ft reach weapon that deals 1d6 + 2 piercing damage and grapples the opponent (with a DC 14 to escape) if it hits
Punching dagger/katar was in AD&D 2nd Ed. through the Al-Qadim campaign setting rulebook. The scythe was also there. Katana was in the PHB, with rules on using it 1-handed or 2-handed. So was the cestus. Kinda weird how WOTC cut down on so many weapon options that used to be available for the longest time.
In hand-to-hand combat, who wins the sword bind determines if you can "safely" strike at your opponent. Sword binds typically attempt to turn the flat of their blade, forcing them to drop the sword's point. The idea behind many sword variants, like the curving ones or wavy blades, is to give you an advantage against flat blades in the sword bind. Whether we translate this as the advantage mechanic or just reduce the opponent's AC [as the opposite of how moving a weapon around all the time can boost AC; if your blade is designed to move your opponent's blade out of the way, it should drop AC] would need playtesting. Shield fighting replaces the sword bind with shield binding. The art behind sword and board combat is to use your shield, likely the edges as if it extended a punch, to leverage your opponent's shield out of the way so your sword could exploit the opening. Sword and board techniques are more similar to two-weapon fighting where one weapon is the main weapon you use to create openings and your secondary weapon is there to exploit those openings. In axe and board combat, the beard of the axe was often used to pull the opponent's shield away from their body, creating a weaker defensive posture, and even off-balancing the opponent. Instead of just tripping rules or grappling rules, having an off-balance mechanic that gives 'disadvantage' or provides 'advantage' to attackers might replicate this feature of axeplay and would spice things up. Given equal skill levels, a sword fighter is at a big disadvantage against a spear fighter. The most dangerous sword strike [where you change the angle of the blade from vertical to horizontal by shifting your elbow in and then flicking your wrist straightening your arm as you lunge forward] is almost useless against the angle of attack that best suits a spear thrust attack. And if you try to outthrust a spear fighter with your sword, it would be odd if you survived. However, a shield almost nullifies all the advantages of a spear. Hopefully, this reminds everyone of the rock, paper and scissors game. With a little bit of knowledge of how different weapons match up against each other, I think a DM can offer options like using your action to create advantage or to drop an enemy's AC when you have a better 'rock, paper, scissors' matchup. In my experience combat becomes much more cinematic and tactical when using the rock, paper, scissors model of relative advantage. And also oddly speeds up play as if your players gang up on one opponent at a time and the player with an advantageous matchup gives advantage to the rest, your players with smart tactics can drop a higher level challenge each round. Your players come away feeling like you reward smart tactics and the combat scenes come alive instead of being "I hit it with my axe for 21 points of damage." IRL, a dagger fighter matched up against a spear fighter might as well have had a hold person spell cast on them, all else being equal. Of course, they could try to throw the dagger as a low-probability gamble. Much love!
it sounds like you really need to go take a look at Shadiversity's videos because he has covered this topic a lot from the perspective of an actual medieval historian. He has A LOT of good ideas
He also has a lot of bad ones, but is definitely worth checking out. Skallagrim and Scholagladiatoria also have done some kind of evaluation of medieval arms in terms of game logic.
To be clear on the Sai, historically speaking..they were more of a capture tool. In modern media they are sharpened but historically they were blunt tipped, or even had a round solid ball of metal forged at the tip to work as a club. The prongs were used to capture clothes and limbs while the shaft was used to bludgeon joints or provide leverage for locks, they COULD be used for capturing weapons but Sai, like their single pronged relative the Jutte/Jitte (pretty much a sai with just one prong and often used by police or peace keepers of the time) were more used for capture and control, as well as the odd bash to get criminals to fall in line. Also if anything...unless you are using fictional style giant shuriken, regular shuriken would be more suited for d4 while an actual thrown dagger would be a d6 due to it's larger size and weight imo. Shuriken were often meant to be small and easily hidden distraction tools than outright damage dealers, more for harassing enemies as you close in or run away, made slightly more dangerous by poison. Also take into account that while there were man pronged stars, one of the most common was the Bo shuriken which was more like a large throwing needle...seriously DON'T get me started..I'm a bit of a fanatic about ninja and I WILL take any chance I can to go nuts with historically accurate use of them if possible if I were to make a ninja character. You'll wind up having me describe exactly what the shuriken I'm using looks like...and there are plenty of variations among the stars and bo shuriken.
@@spoopyd.8910 Actually they had a weapon like that..a set of them actually, three staves commonly used by the police and samurai to restrain and capture criminals. Together they were known as the Torimono Sandogu, and one of them is still in use today..though a bit friendlier in terms of design, it's called the Sasumata and it was a long staff with a row of barbs at the top around the top of the tool/weapon just under the forked tip. The top flared out in a bladed wide U shape that was used for hooking cloths and limbs, ideally you would use this shape to push the criminal up against a wall or the ground until another officer or samurai could restrain them with rope. It's design is still in use today by the police though without the barbs or blades and made of more modern materials.
@@spoopyd.8910 I'm a big fan of historical melee weapons with a heavy leaning toward Japanese weapons in particular due to my love of historical ninja so I do a lot of research, if you do a little research on historical weapons from around the world you can come up with some pretty cool homebrew ideas for weapons based on their real world use instead of using whatever is rule standard for a version that may exist in D&D. I know a little bit about historical projectile weapons but only recently took interest in historical pre-metal cartridge firearms aside from guns used in the old west.
I mean the sai were also farming tools used to help scoop fishnets out of the water, a lot of the Okinawan weapons were regular farming tools since their Japanese overlords wouldn't allow them to have regular weapons and they had to use what they had. Nunchucks were small clubs used to thrash grain. Kama were scythes for harvesting crops
Real thrown hunting sticks do not return, they are designed to fly straight to hit a target. Boomerangs may be misconstrued with the toy version designed to return, not so good at hitting a target though. Shad from Shadiversity has a video on them I think, also Adam Celadin the pro knife thrower
I played a slightly homebrewed Arcane Archer for some time, with the shots being flavoured as boomerangs. The DM was permanently joking about this by having every NPC we encountered ask "isn't that just a toy?" when my character told them he was fighting with boomerangs.
For the scythe and hook weapons, you could maybe add some kind of pulling attack where it does its normal damage but also moves the target and you in a given direction. I don't know how useful it'd be but the flavor seems cool
Macahitl, is a big club that deals the normal gratclub damage plus, either 1d4 or 1d6 slashing damage, the catch ther is that it can only do that like 6-12 times a day before all the blades fall off/break/get stuck, after that it becomes a greatclub, you need a long rest to replenish the blades or a short rest to get back 1d6 blades, you probably would need tool procifiency in either carpenter or woodcarver
The longspear is already kind of in the game. It's called a pike. However, while the pike has 10ft range, historical pikes were up to 25ft which would be a very interesting weapon for D&D.
Spear = 4-5' shaft, one-handed. Longspear = 7' shaft, two-handed. Pike *weapon* = 10'-12' shaft, unwieldy two-hander. Pike *battlefield hazard* = anything longer, can't really be used as an active "weapon" against a moving opponent. meant to be braced and immobile, to slaughter charging enemies (preferably horses, who don't like charging into pointy things, but it works against infantry too).
@@frederickcoen7862 while historic pikes were generally not suitable for single combat (and thus terrible for use in a d&d adventure) I feel it is worth noting that pikes were consistently, and most effectively used in aggressive offensive formations, and when used in static defense, almost always lost their battles
@@frederickcoen7862, if you think the difference between a 4-5’ spear and a 7’ one is the number off hands required to effectively wield one, you’ve clearly never done so. Either length can just as easily be wielded one- or two-handed, and can easily be used with a shield when used one-handed. The fact that you get an extra 1-2’ of reach one-handed, or 2-3’ two-handed doesn’t even change things enough to alter their special properties relative to one another. A long spear is, quite simply, a pike.
I personally always think about the anti calvary type design of the spearhead itself when I hear the word 'pike' and while it brings to mind a slightly longer shaft (giggity) its isn't necessarily always a 12'+ weapon. I do agree that other than a very slight tendency to influence the fighting styles used, a 4-5 and a 6-7 foot spear have little difference. In D&D a Pike in my mind would have an anti cavalry effect like a siege weapon does with walls, but would vary from highly specialized anticav with disadvantage to anything else, all the way down to a short spear with a hooked barb.
Character concept: A Blood Hunter (Bloodmage? Mercer's custom class) that wears a magical Urumi wrapped around his chest and to whip it out and activate always slashes himself, coating it in his own blood and gaining a permanent X shaped scar on his chest as a result.
I feel like with some of these "new" weapon suggestions, people either didn't fully explore the weapons already in the game, or they are way too literal and not using their imagination to do the small amount of re-flavoring required to have them in the game as options already available. That is to say, I think if we include everything the list of weapons will be overwhelmingly long; we should combine similar items. But I love how invested and excited everyone is about this concept / project of improving and adding weapons.
Yeah, alot of the weapons do similar things but with a difference of like +1,+2, or -1 to the dice rolls. Like a Gladius is exactly a short sword mechanically. An Arming sword is also like a Short Sword but like +1 or 2d3 to damage because it got a longer blade than a Gladius but shorter than a long sword. But this is Dnd 5e that's might be a bit to complicated to enforce over a big list of weapons.
Something people also forget is that in reality, there isn't a singular weight or length for a given weapon. A dagger can be quite long, such as a dirk, which is nearly a short sword. 5e doesn't address the minutia of weaponry. I miss the different critical threat ranges and damage multipliers for weapon variety.
Also, the real answer to "new weapons players need" is: 1d8 slashing finesse weapon. That's it, everything else is already in the game. What Bob is suggesting is to rework the weapon system completely and just use Pathfinder instead.
@@helgenlane my DM and myself would flavour half of my rapier attacks as slashes anyway. When does the difference between slashing and piercing actually matter btw?
@@shanekayat3217 the difference is that there are like 3 creatures in all the books that are resistant to piercing damage, but not slashing. That's really it. Now, I, as a DM, would give more resistances to different creatures to encourage players to be flexible and prepared. But rules as written, the game is just "what kind of flavour d8 do you want?"
Garotte was in 4E and if I remember correctly you had to be behind someone and if your attack hit, the target was considered silenced and each turn after that you could roll 1d4 damage without an attack roll if you wanted
The Macuahuitl is really cool. The "studs" are actually sharpened obsidian blades, so the weapon functions like a saw-sword when swinging the sharp end, but you can flip it to the side and it's a wooden club. Also, it just looks so intimidating lol
To elaborate on the 'peasant railgun', for the three people out there who are curious, but not curious enough to look it up for themselves - it was an intentionally selective reading of a rule that stated 'handing an item to an ally in an adjacent space is treated as a free and instantaneous action' - the idea was to have a very large number of peasants recruited as cohorts to the party, lined up in a single column, handing an item to each other; _then_ you had to ignore the fact that this 'free and instantaneous action' was clearly a physics-defying gameplay convenience, and insist that as part of these actions the item being handed off was having _momentum_ imparted. You'd then take the length of the line, calculate how fast an object would need to be travelling in order to cover that distance within a single combat round, and _voila_ you have a 'railgun'. I'm pretty sure it was more of a joke than an real 'hack' that anyone used in game - but it is also a nice little emblematic moment for showing how tabletop gaming as a hobby changed as games like D&D moved away from having simulationist mechanics to gameplay-focussed ones.
Worst of all the entire thing could easily be debunked by the fact that momentum isn't taken into account for weapon damage. Also RAW the object would've just teleported form one end to the other to be thrown regularly by the final peasent
@@ultimate9056 The fact that, RaW, the rock loses its momentum upon being thrown was always the thing that I found funniest about the peasant railgun. Like this thing is zipping along at thousands of miles per hour only to instantly decelerate to around fifty mph. If anything, the energy that would need to be discharged to abide by the law of conservation of energy is the real weapon in the RaW peasant railgun.
Then that means the exploding peasants themselves are the weapon, not the rock thrown a moderate distance. That could work for an enemy looking to cause terror. Have the people launch a rock a moderate distance in their town, not knowing that it is in fact the peasants themselves who combust and burn down their own town. Furthermore, since the hand-off is instantaneous the rock will still be thrown.
An estoc is called Bohrschwert (drill sword) in german, has no blade but a triangular slice plane and is therefore well suited for armor piercing. It is difficult to handle, but in my humble opinion the strength it is used with is more important.
@@thestylemage2092 It has a completely different purpose. I would treat is as a piercing long sword that grants a small to hit bonus against opponents in medium or heavy armour and heavily scaled creatures like dragons.
@@theferryman if we’re sticking to base 5e rules, what you just described would be a magic item. Honestly, the Estoc doesn’t really have a place in 5e, as sad as it is to say. It’s a unique piece of weaponry, but in keeping with the basic rules, the Estoc isn’t different enough from Rapiers to warrant there being a separate entry for them. *Glaive and Halberd have entered the chat* Ya know what, I think the Estoc fits perfectly
Give it a strength requirement of 12, and make it two-handed, d10 piercing finesse weapon. I know that in real life it would be strength based but in real life yo-yo weapon would also bu non-functional.
@@panszczur8087 the yo-yo was a weapon before it was a toy. basically a throwing stone with a string to retrieve it, having played with a yo-yo, you can get a lot of velocity using your wrist. though only at a melee distance.
It's a shame that many of these are just people being unimaginative. So many different swords that are just swords...rules for short sword, long sword or great sword can be reskinned to cover a lot of the ground for these weapons, including katana. In my games we've had stylistic choices to reskin the rules for other weapons since day 1. Use your imagination guys, the world is yours to play with! Don't think of anything as set in stone , especially not the aesthetic.
This! A sword is a sword is a sword. Most of the variant names we have are from 19th century onwards historians trying to classify the different eras. In most languages, at any particular point in history, most swords were just called 'sword'. Sometimes, they were also called 'knife' (eg: the German 'messer').
Personally, I feel that the problem isn't a lack of weapon types, but just a lack of diversity in use. Like, the weapons feel far too similar. What I want isn't more weapons but more diversity in how to use those weapons.
18:45 Aye. There's different forms of boomerang, too. The one commonly shown on TV does come back unless it hits something, but in my mob we use it for distracting and spooking birds while hunting, and sometimes for message signals. There's a much, much heavier one that's basically a specific throwing club, good hit with one will take out a kangaroo, let alone waterfowl. We have the big grey kangaroos here - think the viral "buff kangaroo" from videos. Wouldn't be surprised if some mobs used them for hunting, but I can't speak for them.
On the whole daggers having the same range as greatswords thing, combat takes place over 6 full seconds, part of carrying smaller weapons is extra manoeuvrability, your characters aren't literally standing their statically swinging, they're weaving and dodging, getting in close, backing up, all within a 5ft square, yes, but they're still moving. I still agree that massive greatswords like the zweihander should have more range though.
@@thomasmonaco2829 so just a longsword with piercing instead of slashing, cool. Some game systems would just allow longswords to be "versatile piercing/slashing" in the first place.
@@Lycaon1765 That would be a Double-Edged Sword, not a Double-Bladed Sword. Also, generally, curved blades are only Single Edged. Double-Edged Swords are, usually, straight blades.
The problem with the War Bow idea is that technically the Longbow is already a war bow. What I feel they should’ve done was have attributes requirements on certain weapons. It would’ve made weapons more inaccessible for some characters, but more immersive.
For 'greatbow' I'd just read composite longbow from older editions. The composite has a strength rating, so you need e.g. +2 STR in order to use it proficiently, but then you also get to add that +2 to your damage. A +3 composite requires 16STR, but lets you add+3 to your damage. And so on. In older editions you didn't add your DEX mod to the damage, only the attack. For 5E, I'd just rule that you needed say a +2 STR mod, and then either grant a +2 to damage, or up the damage die to a d10 instead of the longbow's d8. Something like that.
@@thecharmer5981 Yes, crossbows were basically more expensive weapons that required less training for common soldiers, than a bow did. Other differences were cost of fabrication and reload time (about ×6 longer for a crossbow).
many weapons, especially polearms have multiple ways to attack, i'd like to see that reflected in the rules rather than being a meaningless description at the table between players. a halberd is currently only a slashing weapon as far as the rules go, but in reality it is also a spear(piercing) for stabbing the enemy, and often has either a spike or a hammer on the reverse side for either piercing or bludgeoning. while a longsword is a slashing weapon as far as the rules go, in reality it has a point and could be used for stabbing(piercing) an opponent. this is important for damage as different enemies might be resistant to one type of damage but not another so offering a player the ability to switch between the different damage types seems reasonable. maybe like with versatile weapons this could lead to the weapon having a different damage roll or maybe it requires dex for one and strength for the other like with finesse weapons now. also i want to remove all double-bit battleaxes from the game, they are stupid and should not exist.
Here are my thoughts on the questionable ones: - pitchfork = spear - thrown sand = Help action - estoc = rapier, and then change the rapier to slashing damage? - sap / blackjack = club, but *with the finesse property* so that rogues could do sneak attack damage with it. I've always wanted to be able to knock out people as a rogue. - buckler = could just be a Light shield that gave +1 AC instead of 2. Tower could be +3 and Heavy. - repeating crossbow = basically just no Loading property, so it wouldn't affect Crossbow Master at all. - improvised weapons = just reskinned existing weapons, and imprompty properties as needed by the DM. I personally don't think they need actual stats. - billhook = Shove attacks with reach! - zweihander, claymore, bastard sword = greatsword - garrote = could have a cool Special property where if they're grappled by it, they take damage over time or have to make Constitution saving throws or they get knocked out from suffocation and drop to 0 hit points. - mancatcher = Grapple attacks with reach! - bashing shield = steps on the toes of the Shield Master feat - sabre = rapier or shortsword - atlatl = no long range penalty for spear throwing - cutlass = rapier, falchion = scimitar - chakram = handaxe - brass knuckles = club :/
Funnily enough, the only difference between a spear and a trident is that a trident is a martial weapon. So seeing as how pitchforks can be wielded by untrained peasantry, a spear is just as good of a comparison. ...Makes you wonder if a trident's damage should be like 3d4 or something instead.
the cutlass and falchion IRL are (basically) the same sword. They're both heavy choppers. Thick heavy blade for cutting through materials and it wasn't unusual to be used as a makeshift axe/hatchet. The scimitar is a slashing sword more in line with a sabre or even a katana. A thin curved blade for slashing softer materials. To distinguish how I'm using "chop" vs "slash": if you chop an arm with a falchion the arm comes off, if you slash it with a sabre, the arm gains a bone deep wound. I know the scimitar is already in there but to give other examples more similar to how they function.
@@AtrumFalx ...ish. A lot of falchions were heavy choppers, but there are also plenty of examples which were ridiculously light, razor-sharp slashing weapons (which sucked against anyone with decent armour). Likewise, there are some "scimitars" which are closer to the heavy-bladed chopper concept, although AFAIK proportionally fewer than there were light falchions (it is also worth noting that "scimitar" is a catch-all term that was never really applied to any one sword or style of sword at the time it was used, by the people actually using it. I blame Victorian "historians")
For weapons that need to be in constant motion (like the staff/nunchuck or blade/whip): You could have it increase AC as you've suggested, but come at the cost of concentration as if concentrating on a spell (because when you get hit it's hard not to lose your focus). Possibly a good way to make it balanced for classes like the monk which would benefit loads from this type of weapon
When I think of Darts I think of lawn darts. If they were supposed to be like the throwing darts that people use for recreation it should only do like 1 point of damage + dex to simulate hitting a cluster of nerves or something. I think the same should be for a shuriken as the points on them are pretty shallow, so the only real massive damage is if you poisoned them.
The way you can increase range without going for reach is you could exclude or include diagonals. In many tilebased games the dagger can only attack targets directly in front of you while a greatsword can hit diagonally.
One thing our group home brewed, but would be nice to have formal rules for: flaming arrows. Not magical, just the kind with the tip dipped in tar or something and lit on fire. Allowing martial classes access to some of the damage types usually reserved for magic users could be interesting. See also: rules for poisoned weapons.
Some people might like the flavor of flaming arrows, but since it really doesn't work all that well (or at all) I wouldn't want to include it. Also, while poison rules exist they're crap so almost nobody uses poison. It would be nice to see that reworked.
There is an amazing array of poisons in the dmg with rules on making new ones. If you mean that you don’t like that it takes an action to apply the poison then I don’t know what to tell you, it takes some time to put poison on weapons
@@helgenlane Even if nothing had resistance, buying a poison vial for 100gp and using an action within a minute of using your weapon to deal 1d4 extra damage IF the creature fails a DC 10 CON save is just absolute crap.
Garrote - It is actually in 5e but specific to the Meazel… Garrote. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target of the meazel's size or smaller. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) bludgeoning damage, and the target is grappled (escape DC 13 with disadvantage). Until the grapple ends, the target takes 10 (2d6 + 3) bludgeoning damage at the start of each of the meazel's turns. The meazel can't make weapon attacks while grappling a creature in this way.
the ettercap also has a version: Variant: Web Garrote. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one medium or small creature against which the ettercap has advantage on the attack roll. Hit: (1d4 + 2) bludgeoning damage. The target is grappled, escape dc 12 Until this grapple ends, the target can't breathe, and the ettercap has advantage on attack rolls against it
so my forge cleric really likes to make things with the 1 hour ritual at the worst times so I told him if he wants to do that and make it take less time he needs to have the correct materials, plan, and/or blueprints so he started being frugal with his materials and tried to make a buckler instead of a normal shield realizing i needed to balance it so it wasn't just a cheaper shield i made it so it does a standard +2 against melee but only a +1 to ranged and a +0 to spells. i think that would be a cool way to balance some shields also different requirements than just 13 str maybe dex or even int also an idea i had for a repeating crossbow is a bit like a cursed item basically as a bonus action you can load up to 20 bolts into the repeating crossbow then during your action and after your movement you will fire 1 bolt Problem if you don't use the crossbow that turn or don't aim it the bolts still fire meaning you loose those bolts & depending how they move have the player roll to see if they shoot themselves or an ally accidentally.
Regarding the dual-bladed sword, we do essentially have that in the Double-bladed scimitar from ERLW Regarding the Macuahuitl, it's definitely a terrifying weapon to read about, but in reading about it it definitely feels a lot like a reskinned greatsword in terms of dnd Regarding Falchion/Cutlass, to the best of my knowledge (I could be wrong though) they have a different weight distribution than a scimitar, making them more strength based than a finesse weapon Regarding the estoc, think rapier but with the option to be wielded with two hands, like Alucard's sword from Castlevania Regarding the Chakram, I would actually go to the Thri-kreen in the Monster Manual and steal their Chatkcha weapon option. People looking for good firearm rules and weapon customization options I will point towards Mage Hand Press and their Craftsman and Gunslinger classes, both of which can be found in Valda's Spire of Secrets (currently available on backerkit iirc) or in their store/on their patreon. Definitely provides a good starting off point if nothing else, and the Craftsman especially has a whole section regarding the patterns that can be found in existing weapons and how the sum total of their properties actually some together to determine the damage of a weapon.
I gave one of my players an estoc. Its a two handed weapon(1d10), finesse. Also allows him to use his reaction tu rise his shield and increase his AC until his next turn. That could be sightly op, maybe? But i dont mind, its his fathers sword. I want it to be special.
Darts are small spears with fletching. Shadiversity has made a double sword, it was more like a staff, check out his video. I think he and Lindybeige have covered a number of these in historical context.
I really think anyone making stats for weapons (and armor) should watch Shad. When I took the quiz I mentioned his recent video showing that there are practically no differences in distance or power between a properly built longbow and recurved shortbow.
Something I noticed in this video is that a LOT of these seemed to exist in 3.5e and then got dummied out between then and 5e. I know there were rules for twinswords and a bunch of other twin weapons, katar, katanas and shuriken, every shield that popped up in the list...
@@MrIcePho3nix I was going to say that. A lot of the weapon ideas suggested could be found in 3rd edition D&D. Some of them (like the repeating crossbow, buckler, tower shield, and so on) were in the base rules, and a lot of others were added in supplements.
Many of these weapons have stats in earlier additions and supplements, from Basic/Expert on up, and/or old Dragon Magazines, Oriental Adventures, Rules Cyclopedia, Arms and Equipment Guides, 3.0 and 3.5 brown books etc.. All easily used upgraded, converted, to 5th edition . Old School still rules and offer a lot of useful things for 5th edition
The way I look at it is to make a table: columns are damage types (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning); rows are damage dice (1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d4, 1d10, 1d12, 2d6, 2d8). Fill in what's already in the rules and then see what holes are left. Top four rows are one-handed and bottom four rows are two-handed; only single-die weapons can have Finesse while two-die weapons are inherently Heavy. (Yes, 2d4 would be uniquely One-Handed and Heavy - good spot for the Kukri as the Slashing entry.) Like how Shortsword and Scimitar are both 1d6 Light Finesse weapons, but are Piercing and Slashing respectively. Rapier is 1d8 Piercing Finesse but there's no 1d8 Slashing Finesse weapon - Falchion/Sabre fills this role quite well, as it's comparable to a Longsword but more dexterous and lacks the Versatile trait. Similarly, a Katana would be 1d8 Slashing Finesse with the Versatile trait. Feel free to hit me up if you'd be interested in collaborating on this project, as I've been playing D&D more than 40 years.
The issue with a lot of sword/polearm variations is they all do essentially the same thing. Maybe some range variance but that's not an issue in 5e, doesn't matter if it's a greatsword or a shortsword it's 5ft. A katana is essentially a longsword that has been massively romanticised which is not all that different from a bastard sword which isn't that massively different from an arming sword etc. A khopesh isn't really that far from a scimitar. There's not enough real difference to make them their own thing though they are technically different. Also taking something like a nunchuck and just making it the same as a flail but weaker sort of defeats the point, people are just going to take a flail and call it a nunchuk. In the same way a player in a game I'm playing in wanted a club, but just took the mace stats. There's not much real difference between a club and mace, but a d6 is nicer than a d4. The garrote is a weird one because it's a weapon in the same way poisoning someone's tea is, you're not going to try it while in a fist fight. There a definitely things mentioned here that a sorely missing, the greatbow that a barbarian might have to use their legs to draw, a defensive whip, more thrown weapons, shield weapons are a must, damage variety in polearms, fist weapons definitely. Maybe weapons that have functionality outside of combat.
I play pathfinder and let me tell you basically every weapon mentioned is a unique weapon and it’s crazy. 3/4 weapons are basically the same thing with either their damage type switched or a unique effect. You could basically boil them all down to their base feature and treat all curved swords the same for example. A scimitar, Sabre, katana, kopesh. It doesn’t matter. A shotel might be different but other than that most weapons are functionally identical.
My personal take on the weapon variants is to make it so that split damage weapons roll 1 dice for damage while single damage weapons roll 2 dice for damage. So for instance, a rapier would do 2d4 piercing damage, but a backsword would do 1d8 piercing or slashing. So under this system, taking more unusual polrarms lets you take very specific damage type combos on a two handed heavy reach weapon. Similarly, The Eastern swords would just be identical to their western equivalents, they'd just have 2dx slashing damage instead of the 1d2x slashing or piercing on the western equivalents. Of course these changes could not be made in a vacuum. For them to be meaningful you also need to shake up how armor works (personally I'd give certain armours flat -1 to certain damage types, though this shouldn't be used excessively) and you have to make physical resistances and vulnerabilities way more common among monsters, so as to make multiple damage types actually have some utility. If you could pull that off, it'd give pcs a choice between more versatile or higher consistency weapons, and it could even encourage more use of sidearms and improvised weaponry. As a side not, I'd also make all swords finesse weapons, even Greatswords. I'd also give Greatswords reach because it's ridiculous they don't have it.
My spin on shields is that everyone can use a +1 buckler, A +2 shield requires shield proficiency, and a +3 requires that plus heavy armor proficiency.
I've seen the buckler is +1 donned with a bonus action suggested a few times, but unless you really like getting into the nitty gritty of things, it doesn't really work. I don't think I've ever played at a table where the DM actually makes you spend actions to get your shield equipped when battle starts up (and if they did, players would always just walk around with their shield already out).
@@jedrzejkraszpulski442 I have played in a game like that. The ranger wanted to have a bow for range and a sword and shield for close combat. The mobs would close the gap and DM ran strict RaW for changing weapons so going from bow to sword and shield took 2 rounds (action to stow the bow rather than drop it, draw sword for free, and then an action to don the shield).
You can also make the buckler a light (off-hand) bludgeoning weapon in addition to the AC bonus. Or the AC wouldn't count after you attacked with it. Because it's worse than a glove/brass knuckle, but you very much can bash somebody with it while still blocking blows.
That's cause most westerners do not understand eastern weapons. You can't simply re-flavor a Longsword to be called a Katana, or a Dagger to be a Sai. But mostly 5e needs new properties for weapons so you can actually build some weapon that are close, tho not the same, as some existing weapons.
@@MrReset94 the katana was a bad example there, at least with the huge lack of mechanical "resolution" that 5e has, but yeah, a sai is more like a 鐵鞭 / 鐵鐧 or a jitte than like any dagger that I know of
The Macuahuitl is a sword. It's good to read about a weapon before implementing it. It connects and then is dragged to cut, because the "studs" are obsidian shards. Also, play Pathfinder.
Tasselhoff Burfoot had a sling staff. It is crazy what the players of D&D today do not know about the game or its lore. I wonder if they even know what a kinder is or if they have heard of dragon lance, lol I guess I should just be happy people are still playing role-playing games. They are like " Who is Gary Gygax? And "What is TSR?" & "Dragon Magazine is really a thing?"
I am a German and "Zweihänder" literally is a Greatsword. We just need to make the Greatsword have Reach or have all weapons have different reach levels.
Greatswords don't have reach because if they did, they'd completely outclass polearms more than they already do. It's weird how much more powerful feats and fighting style stacking can make some weapons. Most of the ones that don't see much use have that problem because there are no feats or fighting styles to support them.
@@Quethel while this is entirely true, I would also like to point out that 5e combat is based on vaguely occupied 5ft squares. Most greatswords in history (and particularly those used in combat and not parades) would likely be a bit short to truly qualify for reach in that sense, while all the polearms with reach in game have quite enough common historical examples with enough length to justify it
Personally for me at the moment I've been having a Scythe use the Glaive/Halberd stats. (Which, as a side note, I kind of hate how those are given two separate lines in the equipment table when they are mechanically the same. They could have just listed them together in the same line.)
repeating crossbow is in Out of the Abyss. Double-Bladed Scimitar is in Eberron, Rising from the Last War. While I like the idea of weapons having different properties, but that would take away for the battlemaster fighter.
For the War Bow, from what I understand this is actually a smaller version of the longbow. Personally I would make it take the stats of the current longbow and make the longbow a bow that has a strength requirement but keep it dex based to help reflect it's higher power.
Really love everything you're doing here. You've probably already gotten this comment from someone but the bastard sword is another version of the hand and a half sword. It was in DnD from 1st edition through at least 3rd. Mechanically when longswords gained the vertical feature it make them obsolete. In older editions you could use it in 2 hands and do more damage (not quite great sword damage) but in one hand statistically it functioned as a longsword.
The idea behind the. macuahuitl is that the parts sticking out are obsidian and cut into the body and break off in them. Meaning you have a slashing bludgeoning weapon designed to cause bleeding in the worst way. Probably one of the best candidates for a weapon with multiple mechanics tied to it.
The obsidian blades aren't supposed to break, just act as blades. In fact unless you hit something hard like steel or stone they most likely wouldn't break. The conquistadors actually wondered how they were so hard to break or pull out of the weapon.
An idea to add nuance to the balance of short vs long weapons: add a new range, called Grappling/Wrestling Range. A range shorter than normal melee. Occurs when two opponents are in direct physical contact. In graping range, anything longer/bigger than a shortsword either attacks at disadvange, or can't be used at all. To make it more viable a new feat could be introduced to make grappling easier or grant bonus damage on grappled opponents.
The purpose of a wavy blade like a Kris has is not to deal more damage, but actually for defensive purposes. When you block with a wavy blade, the vibrations of the opponents blade moving across yours is very uncomfortable, and can sometimes make the opponent drop their weapon. The Kris dagger also tends to be longer, so its more like a short sword and deals piercing damage, not slashing. So in practice, this could do something like give you advantage on parry-type reaction abilities, or maybe give you a small chance of disarming an opponent when you use one of these abilities.
I'd lump Saber, Cutlass, and Shamshir together as slashing finesse weapons. Technically I think cutlass is a little heavy for it, but they are stylistically similar enough for it to work. Falchion is more like a heavy scimitar. Maybe like a versatile scimitar. Broad sword, claymore, zweihander, and all the rest of the giant swords are basically just great swords by different names(zwei means 2 in German I believe). The flamberge (and by extension the kris dagger) I could see giving it a trait that does extra damage on a critical. (Even though in the real world it probably isn't any different. It's just a cool aesthetic.) Maybe the same for the kukri since it was a limb severing weapon. It's like a dagger only in approximate length really. Definitely slashing and either a higher damage like a short sword or a bonus on critical damage. I think it is important to include shields in the weapons category. Even the most basic of shields can be used to bludgeon an opponent. It's basically a club with a more stable foundation. Then add variations like spikes or bladed edges for variation in damage type. As for bucklers, they're a bit more of an active defense than some of the other shields, use them in the same vein as a a gauntlet really with a reaction to parry (add +1AC for the round) (I'd do the same with the tonfa). Maybe a feat can make it a free action and give some other bonus like a riposte as a reaction instead or an increased AC for the reaction cost.
Yeah, I think that an Estoc is basically a two-handed rapier, and the saber/sabre is a slashing weapon. Also, I disagree that whips would grant an AC boost, since you can’t parry with them. And the katana is just a single-edged longsword. The quick draw feature is less of a property of the weapon and more of the user’s skill. Like, you can draw any weapon quickly.
Yeah, the whip (and honestly any AC boosting) is just stupid. Though I have learned from the comments, that the Estoc is not actually a Rapier, but a piercing Longsword...
I think it would be cool if they're were two weapon tables, one that was like what we have now, that are simple, and easy for beginners, and another table that had weapons with features to make them more unique, they could maybe do a bit less damage to make up for being more powerful
16:38 sabers are slashing (actually they’re better at slashing than straight blades so maybe more damage) and were traditionally used both on foot and on horseback so perhaps it could be a slashing rapier (d8 slashing, one hand, finesse) but d10 slashing if on horseback Also kukris are theoretically better at cutting than daggers and theyre a bit longer so they’d probably be short swords instead
For the cestus/gauntlet, I played a brawler who used them, and this is how we homebrewed it: 1d6 damage, but since I had one on each fist, I could use a bonus action for two-weapon fighting (even if I was using the unarmed fighting style). I could use a dagger while wearing them (think for a coup de grace or sneaking it during a grapple), but no other weapon or shield, and I couldn't throw it. And it took an action to take them on or off.
So, historically, the zweihander/claymore/greatsword were lumped more with polearms than swords and were great at fending off multiple opponents. Their wide, sweeping arcs allowed you to engage multiple enemies at the same time.
Yeah. I totally need the realistic historical great sword tactics with an option to choose to attack multiple enemies around me, to slash, to bludgeon with more damage, or to pierce with either increaced hit chance (better against armour) or a range of 10 ft, not one (hey! I'm a 2m tall half-orc palladin, my GS is 190 cm, + hands, that's enough for 10 ft...). And also the stepping with a hit thing, like using five feet of your movement WHILE hitting. And "backstep-headbang" sequence - that's moving back one tile while hitting the enemy your size or smaller at their head, with 50% of your normal damage but them being deafed till the end of the round, they can't attack or hear, and with just 50% damage if they're big. And no opportunity attack! I feel it may be done as a homebrew feat, like "master doppelsoldner" - trained to use a GS right! And pack in +1 AC. It could have limitations on both str and int (which is normally the dump stat for most fighters) to pervent abusing it. Just the fact you have to get, read and understand that expensive illustrated fechtbuch to learn it...
@@annasolovyeva1013 I think some of the mechanics you listed might be a bit complex -- too complex for the spirit of 5e. But I like the bonus AC when engaging multiple targets. I'll try to think of some others that are simple but thematic
@@crownlexicon5225 that's the attack choice that flavours that feat. Distance attack, group attack, simple attack, moving attack (also the possibility to go-hit-go, not to move and then act), increaced armour-piercing attack... I wanted to make a melee character who thinks what he does in battle, not like "barbarian agrr! Smash!". Therefore, the player should be thinking too. I would offers to make a tiny "fechtbuch" (match box size book with the name stated) which shows all the things possible and give it to the player as a cheat sheet. The play speed may be enhanced "here's a minute timer, if you don't say what you do in a minute, you just simply hit the next enemy".
@@crownlexicon5225 actuall historical rapier and actual historical greatsword are the things to dominate a melee fight. Rapier+dagger combo if it's a fight one vs one with no armour Great sword if it's group armed combat. Assuming DnD firearms had not yet been developed to the level they overcome these, the only thing to oppose the greatsword masters on battlefield are casters Greatsword is the actual overpowered weapon overall.
@@annasolovyeva1013 I mean, this sounds like a battlemaster to me. Lunging maneuver for the extra 5' of reach, sweeping attack for multiple targets, manuevering attack for a fleeing zwerkhau... maybe mixed with hunter ranger? Horde breaker at level 3, escape the horde at 7. Not the strongest options, but thematic. But these options could also be incorporated into a feat somehow. I like your option of striking at the head and retreating. I also like the idea of attacking multiple enemies around you. Perhaps the feat could read something like: You have mastered the use of the greatsword. When you make a melee attack against a creatureusijg a greatsword, you dont provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or miss (like the mobile feat) Additionally, as an action while wielding a greatsword, you may make a melee attack against all creatures within 5' of you. Make a separate attack against each creature. The second option allows you to make more attacks than normal (up to 8, if playing on a square grid) but doesn't stack with anything that requires you to take the attack action
Something I've experimented with for my players is something called "Feint Trait". I describe it as "A finesse weapon so nimble you can feint your attacks - roll two damage die and choose the highest." Or another is the "Slow Trait" which is the exact opposite, but damage die could be much higher, like 2d8.
@@yalkn2073 No, this isn't for attack roll to hit, but the roll for damage. So like advantage, but specifically to provide a better result as opposed to a chance at a better result.
Having played from 1.0 I can say that they have had most of these in earlier editions, often in setting books like Oriental Adventures. The repeating crossbow was a great item from that book along with a ton of other Asian weapons you listed.
💥 Weapon Quality System: th-cam.com/video/MbBnoBHe248/w-d-xo.html
✅ LIKE & SHARE: th-cam.com/users/BobWorldBuildervideos
✅ PATREON: www.patreon.com/bobworldbuilder
Revised Martial Equipment. Gonna say it again.
have you looked at Shadiversity or Skallagrim?
you have the chu ko nu (sp?) they used repeating crossbows
Before you go, get all trigger-happy with **multiple damage type** weapons (or switchable damage type weapons), consider the fact that the ONLY creatures in 5e that are vulnerable to regular non-magical piercing/slashing/ or bludgeoning weapons (meaning that the vulnerable creature takes double damage from that specific damage type) is anything that is a skeleton undead. And Ice Mephits.
**Oh and spoiler alert, all of these creatures (of which there are only 22 of them), are only ever vulnerable to bludgeoning damage.**
Further, there are only 37 Creatures that have resistance to Non-Magical bludgeoning Damage, 47 Creatures that have resistance to Non-Magical piercing Damage, and 28 Creatures that have Resistance to Non-Magical Slashing Damage. In fact, in each of these groups of monsters, there is a large degree of overlap between damage type. Resistance meaning that they only take half-damage from that particular damage type for reference.
If my maths is right, there are currently 2173 total monsters listed on D&D Beyond with approximately 100 creatures that are immune to anything that isn't straight up a magical weapon.
My point is that piercing, bludgeoning or slashing weapon classifications have very little , if not none at all, impact except for how a weapon looks cosmetically and how you describe it in narrative. Maybe it meant more in previous editions of the game, but this is just one of those things that has been abstracted away in 5e and used so rarely to render the point moot.
Repeating crossbow is already in the game, I think; BUT it’s not a baseline weapon
I think there's confusion with darts in D&D because most people are picturing tiny pub darts you can stuff in a pocket, but historical battlefield darts are more like short heavy javelins, or a heavy arrow you throw. The Roman plumbata are a well-attested version.
There is also the war dart, which is basically just an arrow the size of a short spear. It even has fletching.
it drives me nuts that people think dart are pub darts.
Seems like for clarity they should call them javelins. Or maybe an entry for "Arrow (thrown)" Like how the bec de corbin is just confusing, especially if you don't speak French.
I hope you are not suggesting that D&D darts are "battlefield war darts". They are pretty much supposed to be plumbata or reflavoured throwing knives.
@@Salsmachev A bec de corbin is also just known as a war pick in english.
Note about boomerangs: Hunting ones (ie, ones actually capable of causing real damage) don't' return. What do do have however, is very long range for a thrown weapon.
From my understanding, they only returned if you missed. That way you could carry one and throw without having to worry about loosing it if you missed
@@sethtorres5202 That's only the toys. Hunting boomerangs behave more like weighted frisbees.
@@sethtorres5202 the returning boomerang is for throwing above wetlands to scare ducks into nets, the lightweight returning flight design is the polar opposite to hunting/war boomerangs, which are heavy throwing and striking weapons.
@@TheRabbitman3000 that's actually super cool. I did some research and found out the article I read a long time ago wasn't credible. The aboriginal people didn't use returning boomerangs like I had thought. It's still a really cool weapon and was one of the first flying weapons made.
Or just put a returning enchantment
5e: We want simplicity for everyone. We'll keep the martial weapons simple.
Also 5e: Spells.
5e: here's magic missile, it deals damage and never misses and that's it
Also 5e: here's dark star, a literal black hoke that sucks stuff up and destroys it
The willingness to read is what separates casters from the rest
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@diobrando9842 also 5e : oh yeah ? here is shield now you are immune to magic missiles
also 5e : sorcerer ? subtle spell now you dont need somatic or verbal component
ALSO 5E : FIGHTER ? HERE ARE YOUR GODDAMN FIGHTING STYLES AND MANUEVERS
*ALSO 5E : CLERIC ? HERE YOU GO WITH YOUR UNHOLY 55 DAMAGE (AVG) ON HIT WITH 1 ATTACK*
Overall, I think slings themselves should be reworked. Historically speaking, they're a lot more deadly than the rules allow.
I did a lot of research on this topic, actually. And while I agree that - in the hands of a skilled slinger - slings are every bit as deadly as any other weapon delivered violently into an opponent... the key is "in the hands of a skilled slinger". Almost anyone can pick up the basics of a sling quickly, and with a little practice, hit targets at a short range with reasonable reliability. That is not the same as slinging with bone-crushing force, against a moving target, at significant range. *Yes* the archetypical shepherd boy is protecting his flock with a sling - but he is also investing the time and energy, every day, to become "a skilled slinger" in order to use his weapon effectively. *Yes* slings are cheap, compared to... well... really *any* other ranged weapon - even "a sharpened stick" (a spear), when you factor in "time to find a straight stick, and sharpen it" vs. "a piece of cloth or leather, and a rock". But, military slingers don't just use "a rock", they used special "bullets" of shaped and hardened clay, or molded lead. And so on.
And bows came to be favored over slingers because they were faster to train militia with than slings. (Not "English longbowmen", just normal bows.) A company of trained slingers was devastating... but not replaceable. So bows came to be the choice of militaries everywhere... until guns. And so it goes!
Having said all that... Still totally in support of slings doing more damage. Maybe "learn sling as a Simple weapon, it does d4; learn it as a Martial Weapon, it does a d6. Use a molded sling bullet instead of a rock, increase die size one step". And potentially an unusual range bracket to indicate "yes, I can throw as far as a bow... but less accurately and probably with less effect". (Slings also were surprisingly effective against armored foes, causing large impairing dents... but I think that's outside the purview of a 5e system.)
Yes, both in range and damage, D&D really underestimates the sling.
I think it would need to be a Martial weapon though. It requires a lot of skill and training.
@@frederickcoen7862 In earlier editions the sling would do a different amount of damage depending on if you used stones or lead bullets.
I also think that the sling should be a Martial weapon, then other people using it would just have the penalty for non-proficiency. I think it is just not a Simple weapon.
I also think it has more range than in 5e. Not as much as a longbow, but certainly double of what is in the PHB.
But the sling has been poorly represented in earlier editions of D&D as well.
I think slings fit an awesome niche actually, their damage is lower, but they are a one handed ranged weapon without a reloading property. You can use a shield with one and you can launch small objects such as vials, messages attached to a weight, etc. also with sharpshooter feat their lower damage become less noticable. Additionally, since they are one handed, they can benefit from the dualing fighting style which is pretty cool.
@@frederickcoen7862 you typed all that for a TH-cam reply
I feel like a lot of these can just be reskinned versions of other weapons. The studded club is just a mace, you can rule a scythe as being a glaive, a katana can be a longsword, etc. the monk page in the player’s handbook actively encourages this sort of thinking, like saying a sickle can be a kama. There’s no reason why you can’t play a human sōhei (Paladin) who wields a nodachi (greatsword). The players handbook offers you no description for any weapon, just what dice you roll, damage type, and other affinities like heavy or reach. If you want to say that your halberd is a Dane axe or that your club is the petrified drumstick of a cockatrice then go for it
I legitimately did not know this was a problem at tables until I saw this video...
My first character wielded a scythe and a lot of these weapons straight up appear in the rulebooks as example of reskinning weapons. How can someone have the creativity to create a whole character but not to reskin a weapon
Came here to post this.
I'm happy to let people reskin anything, why not? Who cares what you call it and how you describe it?
But a katana is a longsword, quick draw slash is not specific to the katana, it's just something popularized by movies of what people with katanas did.
-a katana can be a longsword,-
Yeah but weeaboos gonna weeaboo 🤣
Dual Bladed swords exist in D&D. It’s hidden away in Eberron: Rising from the Last War. It’s called the Double-Balded Scimitar and deals 2d4 slashing with an additional attack as a bonus action that deals 1d4 instead
Also has a feat that makes it finesse and give +1 to AC
It's amazing i use it as a Hexblade and boy it deals some consistent Damage with Lifedrinker and Stuff
I was so sad when they nerfed the bonus action dmg to a 1d4 instead of a 2d4 as well.
@@Vampire00971 Eh, it would have made two weapon fighting completely redundant by that point. Besides, it's still a great way to proc battlemaster maneuvres, smites etc
@@patrickhector yeah, that feat makes it a little too good on a rogue with the great weapon fighting style.
Billhooks are in 5e! They're called hooked spears, check out the statblock for Derro. It allows the wielder to forgo damage on a hit to trip a creature. Very fun weapon!
Thanks for the tip!!
@@BobWorldBuilder The Derro also has the repeating crossbow
you can already use your attack to trip instead of doing damage though right? I think there's already a rule for that
@@pedrogarcia8706, there is. The shove action.
But the shove action uses an opposed ability check. The derro spear just hits and knocks prone instead of dealing damage.
Most of the weapons in this list can be achieved by just reflavouring exising weapons. Brass knuckes are definitively missing though, so is a bunch of properties.
Yeah a lot of these sound like people who have maybe been playing a lot of ARPGs like Souls games and stuff
or just open the 3.5 manual and read the description, they are just sitting there
@A cat on his hind legs. I've been using Cestus for a while, basically a bludgeoning dagger without the thrown property, and you can't drop them since they're strapped to your arm
I used a katana once, it was a rapier just with slashing and a different name
Macuahuitl ("great club, studded") note: it already has serated/blade edges. Those "studs" on the edge are, traditionally, sharp obsidian blades.
Yeah, I feel like he definitely misinterpreted the nature of that weapon. It was an incredibly brutal weapon that only got sharper with use as the obsidian shards broke and became even more distinctly edged.
Yeah, a “great club, studded” would be more like a Tetsubo.
@@Vessekx Yeah, totally!
Just use a sword that's why they want you to use reflavor
Should deal both bludgeoning and slashing depending on whether you hit them with the edges or the broad side
So on the Estoc, it’s a two handed sword with a very narrow, pointed blade, and it’s designed to slip through the gaps of plate armor and to punch through chainmail; it would work pretty well as a low damage, dex based two handed sword that ignores part of an enemies AC; could be pretty neat.
To add to this, think of a stiletto (So a triangle or square "spike" of a blade, stabs really well, but can't cut), but of a size somewhere (For D&D rules at least) between the a longsword and greatsword
That would just function as a non-magic +1 or +2 dex based sword
As far as 5e mechanics are concerned, basically a 2-handed rapier.
I mean estoc's were generally used on horseback, as kind of a back-up after your Lance broke, and in that scenario it would probably be used one-handed? Hard to two-hand a sword while you're holding the reins, so maybe it should be versatile, as well? A Longsword that does pierce damage?
The Estoc is a one handed weapon tho...
Sounds like things could get... really granular. There might be a way to introduce a lot of "weapons" by sticking to broad categories, and this allows us to introduce a category that carries with it MANY weapons (of which we could list 2-3 exemplars).
So, we already have slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning. Within each category, we could have the usual sub-categories: two-handed, versatile, reach, and finesse. The "grid" this gives us covers a *ton* of weapons, with the specific form of the weapon being a flavor "re-skin." This would introduce a lot of options - like the brass knuckles or sap simply as a "bludgeoning-finesse" weapon, or the kusarigama or scythe as "slashing-reach."
Switching damage types, if enemy variety encourages such a thing, might warrant a weapon having a primary and secondary type, with the secondary being one "die class" lower (like versatile). Otherwise, the dual weapons will simply be better than their more-focused counterparts.
More interesting, I think, are the weapons that basically provide new functionality, but with a cost beyond class/stat requirement:
defensive - weapons that, while wielded, add 1-2 to AC. I think this should come at the cost of a reaction. (ex. whip chain, tonfa)
interference - weapons that can trip, restrain, disarm, etc. The cost for these ought to be not rolling damage - just flat bonus, if even. (ex. hooked sword, bullwhip)
retrievable - weapons that, when thrown, can be retrieved (temporary "reach") at the cost of only being used this way once per action (ex. rope dart, harpoon)
With all of these traits, you have a buffet to choose from that could basically give you any weapon you want:
Shaolin Spade: slashing (d8), piercing (d6), two-handed, finesse, interference (trip)
Plum Flower Whip: bludgeoning (d6), finesse, reach, defensive 1 (these weapons are *not* good for tripping/binding)
Spiked Hammer: bludgeoning (d10/d8), piercing (d6), versatile
Bullwhip: slashing (d4), finesse, reach, interference (trip/disarm)
Harpoon: piercing (d6), retrievable (15 ft), interference (restrain)
Please continue with this thought, can you make a chart? I'm of a similar mind. It seems features and damage types are key
Love it. the biggest problem with varying damage types is that they don't really have a use in DnD, or at least not in 5e. I can't really recall many creatures that have specific vulnerability or resistance to them except some oozes. I would suggest that if you are costing a reaction maybe have it give disadvantage on the first attack rather than just boosting AC
There's already an invisible size system for melee weapons. They are divided into size 1 (light d4) size 2 (one-handed d6) size 3 (versatile d8) size 4 (two-handed d10) size 5 (heavy, d12) Sometimes the damage can scale a bit differently, but it tends to follow this direction. I built something similar to your idea at some point regarding multiple damage types. I did it so that their main damage type does their size of damage, but their secondary attack does damage equal to one lower than their size.
Having additional abilities could also lower the overall damage of the weapon to make it more of a tradeoff. You might get a reach trip weapon, but it will be a two-handed weapon that deals 1d6 damage.
A spiked Warhammer already exists in 5e, it's called a War Pick. It does a d8 piercing damage.
I feel like Pocket Sand would be very similar to the Color Spray spell. In fact, my Wizard’s verbal component for that spell was yelling “Pocket Sand!”.
I have to double check the color spray spell!
One time I heard Color Spray described as an “LGBT flashbang”
Pocket sand is the help action.
That moment of paralysis as you try to remember which pride flag that is so you don't look like a square in front of the kids... ah I know ye well
Pretty sure colored sand is the material component in old school dnd, so color spray is literally just +1 pocket sand
(Also 100% making color spray lgbt flashbang in my next caster)
13:22 Number 36 can be called by its translated English name "the crow's beak"
13:39 zweihänder is literally just German for two hander
Thanks for the translations! :)
The Khopesh pretty much evolved from axes, pretty much combining them with swords. This made it good at chopping/slashing, with some decent piercing ability too. The hook on the end was also used to pull shields away or disarm opponents, as well as making successful stabs more lethal
From axes?... Wtf no
Try the Sickle on steroids?
@@CoKane621 yes actually
@@CoKane621 actually they were.
Ancient Egyptians originally used battleaxes, but the handles had a tendency to snap, so they developed khopesh swords, which are functionally metal-shafted battleaxes.
@@badideagenerator2315 i guess? the curved blade does resembles an axe head
The Claymore is a Scottish greatsword - the normal infantry would have used one-handed basket-hilted broadswords.
Claymores are very large swords (usually more than 4.5 ft., sometimes 5 or more.) Their name is derived from a Scots Gaelic word meaning "Great sword."
Zweihander (literally meaning "Two hander"), like many German swords, are even larger (at least 4 ft 7 in.) They were often so large that they filled a similar role to polearms, rather than traditional great swords.
There are also Flammenschwert (flame-bladed swords) that are basically zweihanders with wavy blades. They look awesome.
And put down to D&D mechanics level are pretty much the same thing as the greatsword stats. That's actually the big problem with a lot of this kind of stuff, way too many times the "what should be brought in, devolves down to, stuff that doesn't have any notable differences via stats. Was an even bigger problem in 3.5 where every single jian, gladius, etc (short, double bladed sword) ended up being a shortsword.
@@camiblack1 why would they NOT be shortswords?
@@tonyhakston536 that's literally all they were mechanics wise, but both WotC and 3PPs kept making them because they were asked for.
In my games, I was always just find with boiling all those big two-handed swords down to greatsword stats, and all those short swords down to shortsword stats, and so on: those stats are just an abstraction anyway. Just grab the crunch from the closest equivalent, and replace the name and description with whatever makes you happy.
No sense in getting weird and fancy with it all....
He's talking in the video now about strength-based warbows, as far as I'm concerned those are just longbows, and the extra distance from the strength-based element just doesn't come into play in a dungeon setting. If we were playing a game on a battlefield setting and I needed to worry about things like siege engines and so on, MAYBE it's worth re--examining warbows and siege crossbows and the like, but I've never run a game where anyone could really justify needing to hard-code a special distance advantage into their bows.
You might want to take another look at the macuahuitl. It's not a club, those are obsidian blades, and they are very sharp but fragile. The "club" part provides weight and structure for the blades. I feel like it would do bludgeoning and slashing damage simultaneously, in DnD terms. (IRL, they were known more for slashing)
Was looking for this comment! Also, mechanically perhaps it would deal either give the option of slashing or bludgeoning the whole time, or maybe it would deal slashing until a certain amount of attacks/misses and then it would deal bludgeoning only.
@Cameron Buxton Mate, have you never seen videos of people using the macuahuitl? That thing is basically an obsidian chainsaw.
Agreed! it is literally just a stone or bone sword! a slashing option for Druids that don't want a sickle!
Honestly surprised I didn't see the "trench knife" or "trench sword" on the list. Those were commonly used in WW1 are just a dagger or short sword with brass knuckles built into the handle. Very handy for fighting in confined spaces.
Hmm yeah I don't think that came up, or if it was in there somewhere, maybe I misinterpreted it. Great addition though!
One of my players we home brewed a dagger with brass knuckles as a backup weapon for his Goliath.
If only dagger or short sword already existed in DnD...
Bob: "The garrotte; there's nothing like in in the game"
Ettercap: *cries a single tear*
lol I saw this mentioned in another comment, checked the ettercap stat block, and I still don't get it! What am I missing? --- FOUND IT!
@@BobWorldBuilder Yeah, that variant rule doesn't show up if you google the statblock :)
@@BobWorldBuilder There is also Meazel from the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes which uses a garrote.
The Garrotte missing gets me all Choked up! : )
@@shallendor lol, I see what you did there.
The Kriss dagger would be amazing using it as implement for spellcasters. Folklores tells about the ability of these kriss daggers to just point them at your enemy for them to die. Sounds like a perfect wand to me.
Like a Dagger where you can infuse a spell into it of a certain level or lower. Sounds amazing to me.
The actual use of the dagger, was because of its irregular shape once it penetrated into the body it generated wounds that were almost impossible to medically treat. Coated in poison it is a nightmarish weapon. It shape and these properties lead to it often being shown as a ritual style dagger and thus the mysticism has followed it. Thus its connection to magic.
@@brandonk9462 That's actually pretty interesting. I can actually see it as a Legendary weapon that can have a Spell Infused in it of a Certain Level or lower and if used in Melee, does 1d4+Mod Piercing Damage and on a CON Save, 2d6 Poison Damage, half if successful.
A dagger or knife used in spellcraft is known as an Athame... That's all... Just came here to say that... ;)
@@DLtheDM Thank you for the distinction. Now I have two separate weapons I can Homebrew while being accurate to them.
The estoc would be an awesome addition. Dex and piercing are exactly correct as it was used by Knights to get through the weak points in armor, much like daggers were used. This was a longsword, that could use half swording (i.e. grabbing the blade with you hand for thrusting to give you more accuracy and control in grappling. They even took it a step further and would use the cross guards of the sword to get through heavy plate.)
I'm honestly surprised to not see any jokes on having "Dex" and "piercing" in the same sentence together. An oddly mature group of people in the chat.
technically you could halfword any type of long blade whether it has blunted sections like the estoc or not. As long as you you have some kind of hand protection there's no risk to grip a sharp edge. Even barehand it's possible to do without self-injury when done right. And even if done wrong, a slice on the palm is not nearly as grievous a wound as a longsword in the armpit.
When I hear this list, I just think that a lot of these people would actually like 3.5e or Pathfinder better. Customization of skills and weapons and the existence of specific weapon abilities are pretty much central to those editions of DnD might fit better with that play style.
Not saying that you shouldn't want to adjust 5e, just saying that a lot of work is probably already done for you.
Yeah, I was just thinking that. D&D 3/3.5 had like most of the weapons on this list in some form.
Ossane, this is exactly the epiphany I came to a few months back after laboriously compiling an extensive list of new and modified weapons (and armor), carefully balancing them... and realizing that (a) all my monsters would likely end up using the PHB weapons anyway, so *I* didn't have to remember so many niggly differences, and (b) my players would likely never remember the niggly differences between scimitar/cutlass/saber either!
I had more faith in my players, initially, because ONE WOULD THINK they picked the saber over the cutlass or the scimitar expressly for the niggly difference... but then I watched them consistently get their own PHB class abilities and spells wrong - "READ *ALL* THE WORDS!" - and decided not to worry about it. Instead, I used another of Bob WB's ideas, and gave a few specific interesting weapons (a dagger that is "keen" but "fragile", a dagger that "has advantage" on its damage rolls, a heavy shortsword that does slashing damage instead of piercing, and is +1 damage) to a couple specific interested players... and moved on.
I accept that *I* want to play Pathfinder, and maybe one (at most two) of my players would be happier there. The others want 5e (and have bought all the 5e books and online resources), so we play 5e.
if you add in a lot of the weaponry/gear from the 3.5 handbooks, this list would be cut down to almost nothing. Seriously I like 3.5 (it was my intro to DnD), but everyone surveyed seems to have a lot of nostalgia for the gear.
The thing with MOST of these weapons is that they basically already exist and you just flavor call the existing weapons the "variation" the Rules even state this that its okay to call like a chair leg a club. Estoc for example is basically just a rapier. as for the "damage type" thing, the problem here is there is actually no difference between damage types for the physical damages other than like 3-4 enemys. 98% of the time most things have resistance to all 3 or none at all. Also The First Eberron book has a dual blade weapon with a feat for it
Totally agree, giving options to choose damage types would be great if there was a simple way to make damage types matter. In Bobs Pokemon video he even lumped slashing, peircing and bludgeoning together.
For sure the problem is dms most of the time don’t translate it especially for tavern brawlers because I pretty sure a whole table is not d4 damage or any strength users who want different damage types or just higher and lower damage for fun combat encounters
the estoc is actually a piercing variant of the real life longsword (which is two handed). also, all the weapons on this list already exist and have stats in d&d 3.5
The Estoc has special mention, effectively being what 5e would consider a two-handed finesse weapon, which is a niche that doesn't exist in 5e yet.
Otherwise, agree. More people need to learn to get creative with reskins and "counts as".
You see three halberds, I see a halberd, a bardiche, and an uprooted sign.
@@aprinnyonbreak1290 or just use the weapons from 3.5...
There actually was such a thing as a repeating crossbow historically. It was a Chinese design originally, with a name that is generally anglicized as chu ko nu. However, it was more like a bolt-action rifle than a machine gun. It had a box full of bolts attached to the top, and a lever on the side could be pulled to wind back the string and set the next bolt.
In Pathfinder 1e this worked well. Reloading a light crossbow was usually a move action in Pathfinder (i.e. something you did instead of moving in a turn.) The repeating crossbow switched reloading to be a free action, thus letting you shoot while on the move, in exchange for taking a full round to load a new case of bolts when you ran out. Given that the "loading" property is a lot more forgiving in 5e, though, I don't think there's a point to including it.
While I agree that making it a free action is a bit too strong,
I do think the loading property is too restrictive in the late game and epic levels.
I personally use the rule that you can forgo an attack or spend a bonus action to load the weapon,
Which makes it scale much better in the late game. (Despite it being out damaged by regular bows, because the base damage never increases)
@@BramLastname skipping an attack to load the weapon is actually in the rules, though i forget if its tied to the crossbow expert feat or innate to the property of loading weapons.
@@Desdemona-XI nonono,
RAW you cannot reload the crossbow in between attacks unless you action surge.
Which means you cannot use a crossbow as your main weapon unless you have more arms then attacks in a turn.
Actually, the Romans had the Skorpion, which was a repeating ballsta.
And 3E had repeating crossbows.
@@isaiahwelch8066 The historical scorpio could reportedly shoot a bolt every 10 to 15 seconds with a well-trained crew in training ground conditions - much quicker than most other artillery pieces of the time, which could have reload times measured in minutes.
However, that's mostly because, as a dedicated field piece, the sorpio's draw weight was much lower than dedicated siege weapons. It could be wound back easily by hand by a single strong crew member, wheras others required teams of people, or even teams of mules or oxen, to wind them back into firing position after each shot.
It was an anti-infantry weapon, built to be lightweight, easy to relocate, load and aim, making it useful for suppression and formation-breaking on open battlefields. Other artillery pieces were mostly intended to be used against fortifications, and thus could afford to have much longer reload times. After all, the barricade you're aiming at isn't just going to get up and run away if you take several minutes to set up your shot, so that extra time is worth it if it only takes ten or twelve shots to breach a wall.
A scorpio could pound away at a section of parapet all day, and it wouldn't do much more than scratch the paint. A full-sized ballista, meanwhile, could do some serious damage to the structural integrity of the wall and send potentially wounding rubble and splinters flying with each shot, forcing the enemy to abandon that section of the wall or risk unsustainable casualties.
So it was a trade-off between power and reload speed, with the scorpio being at the most extreme end of the spectrum - not much more powerful than an oversized crossbow, but fast to load and easy to aim. It could also be effectively operated by a crew of two or three, whereas those bigger artillery pieces sometimes needed upwards of ten operators.
Scorpios were incredibly useful, don't get me wrong. Every cohort in a legion had an attached artillery element, and those elements each included more than one scorpio. You don't outfit your entire army with a weapon unless it's useful. However, it's important to remember that weapons can be useful in different ways for different purposes. The purpose of a scorpio was very different than the purpose of most other artillery pieces of the time.
This was a great project! When one of my players wanted a scythe, what I did was use the rules for Reaping Scythe from the 5e Avatar of Death, and removed the necrotic damage.
how did they manage with the size though? I bet getting through tavern doors must've been a hussle XD
I really want Rope Darts to be a thing, a piercing reach weapon that would fit perfectly for Monks and Rogues.
Small note: weapons in this list i remember from 3.5:
-composite bow (added str bonus to damage up to a point)
-sap (dealt purely non lethal damage)
-bolas (long range grapple or trip attack)
-punching dagger (same as the dagger, different look)
-bastard sword (long sword was 2handed, this was versatile)
There were probably others, but checking 3.5 weapons might not be a terrible idea since some weapons had unique abilities (like daggers being concealed weapons)
Was gonna say this once the list got to the double-bladed sword (Darth Maul's weapon). Iirc the reason all these were removed was to simplify the game's combat mechanics, so....if you're going for more complicated combat the old list is the first place you should look.
@@KatotsuSama i think phrasing it as complicated is a bit of a disservice. The older system had more options, yes, but you could just as easily pick a weapon just for damage and have as much fun... Diverse or rich would be my words of choice, but then again, thats more of an opinion than a fact.
the punching dagger dealt the same damage of a dagger but had a critical of 20/x3 instead of 19-20/x2
@@capitanspoiler7393 Oh, I did not remember that, thanks for clarifying
@@Fernando_Cabanillas no problem :) it's kinda sad that 99% of the weapons in this video are already weapons in 3.5...i miss playing that version tbh :(
So, its obvious that we need a conceilable weapon feature, but it could be cool to have a ''dangerous'' feature: a lot of weapon variants from the list are dangerous for the user, so it could be a simple damage upgrade, traded for a loss in AC, as the user needs to be mindfull of his opponent and of his own weapon as well? Or simply an ''Offensive'' feature for the same effect, more damages for an AC loss?
Or even worse “crit fails” are now on 1’s and 2’s.
Not really 'worse'. Not many creatures you would miss on a 1 would instead be hit on a 2.
Self Damage if the weapon misses.
Thought: give players proficiency with improvised weapons that relate to their profession or skill they are proficient with. Cooking -> pots and pans,; Artist -> paint brushes as piercing; farming -> pitch fork, etc.
Amazing idea!
Maybe the artist is a bit of a stretch hahah but it's a good idea and I can already see it being implemented for farmers, blacksmiths, miners...
I don’t really get this one. Where in a chef’s life is he learning how to wield pans as weapons? Similarly, a blacksmith isn’t training how to use his smithing hammers to crack upon skulls. Seems like a nonsensical feature to me.
Yeah, it may sound a little wierd, but a blacksmiths knows how to wield a hammer, so why not make it a preferable improvised weapon? Imo it should be related to muscle memory, but I guess it can be more fun to mess a round a bit than being actually usefull.
As a dm, I always implement bucklers in my game. They give +1 ac, but you can still use two-handed weapons with them
Is there a downside to using them? In 3.5e you'd take a penalty to your attack while wearing it on a weapon hand.
What about just using 2 bucklers, one in each hand? Then you have both a shield and a 2 handed weapon
The Kris dagger or kheris depending on who you ask was a blade designed to be broken off inside of its victim so that it couldn't be removed. Also, the compounds used to clean the blade gave it a poisonous edge.
I've given some of my prepped enemies 'sabers' They're just slashing rapiers. I think an easy rule for weapons is being able to change the damage type if it can be justified. You could easily do that for any weapon to add diversity. (A scimitar is just a slashing shortsword. )
indeed. reflavoring is easy to do and there are many things you can do without needing a chart.
The cane sword already exists in 5e, it’s a magic item from xanathar’s guide
That's great to know! Thank you!
@Bob World Builder you’re welcome
Yes/no, assuming you're referring to the "Veteran's Cane" as its a walking cane that if you say the magic word "transforms into an ordinary longsword and ceases to be magical." So its slashing not piercing damage, and is essentially a single use item, as its a one way transformation. I imagine it was conceived by WoTC as a soldier's / mercenary's "retirement watch" sort of like a rudis (without the slavery undertones)
@Daniel O'Dea my mistake, I thought it was a magical long sword that could turn into a cane and vis versa.
@@DanielODea Yea, not really like a sword cane at all. Rather it's a cane that becomes a sword once and that's it.
I'd love to see a concealable property for some weapons, with the rule that only concealable weapons can be hidden on your person (still requiring a disguise kit or deception check). Several weapons on the list, e.g. sword cane and cosh, could just be a variant of an already existing weapon with an added concealable tag. I think this would be in line with keeping 5E simplicity, and encourage GMs to make mundane variations of the weapons by adding/removing property tags.
Honestly, some of the selections seems that players want exactly that. A way to conceal weapons written into the rules with specific weapons providing you an advantage with the roll/skill check.
Bootknife, or beltknife. Concealable daggers, would require maybe a craftsman who offers a quest to do the work under the table, etc.
As for the dual-blade, there already exists the double-bladed scimitar in Eberon 5e.
10:19 this is actually already a magic item! Its a versitle longsword (1d8/1d10 slashing) with +1 to attack and damage and the special ability of doing an extra 2d6 to plant enemys :)
you can just reflavour your rapier like an estoc. I think way too many people think that just because there aren't explicit rules for the specific weapon they want to use, they can't use it. reflavouring an existing weapon works in 60% of situations. for another 30%, like the bludgeoning polearms or the ones where there are 2 damage types, you need to do a bit of "home-brewing" (literally just changing the damage type, which will almost never have an impact) and I don't think a lot of DM's would say no to that.
I agree with this. It almost seems like there should just be "polearm", and you pick up to two damage types based on what's at the top of the thing
But isn't that the problem most people want some special ability from cool weapons? But that is difficult to implement and balance, it could be maybe something like half feat to unlock it?
I agree with this point. In my own games I always allow flavour reskins so the different regions will tend to have visually different swords for example. (within reason, I'm not letting you reskin a longsword as a large dried codfish) ((that would be an axe, obviously))
But I will say d&d can be kinda weird about providing layers and layers of rules for things, including for customizing things, so that some players (including dms) get the feeling that if there *aren't* rules about modifying something they better leave it alone.
Estos can be used with two hands.
Also, strength is more important than in a rapier as it is heavier. So lose finesse, gain versatile
@@ODDnanref i got schooled. You still proved my point though, because now it's the exact same as a longsword and you could just use reflavour that instead.
The whole fun of improvised weapons is that they're improvised. If you list a bunch of specific examples then they're just excessively niche options that will barely be used. The rules already say "Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such". If you're stabbing with a pitchfork, just use the Spear or Trident stats.
I have a character with the Sailor Background who has carried around a rowboat oar so long that rather than an improvised weapon she uses it simply as a staff with the normal staff stats. But any other long thing she might pick up that isn't a staff would still be improvised. I don't see why these concepts are so difficult for so many!
@@NyctophileXIII what's nice is that in Okinawa there are martial arts for oars.
@@kylestanley7843 Woah, that's amazing! :D I was not aware, thanks for mentioning that.
For the Mancatcher, check out the kuo-toa whip’s pincer staff. It’s a 10ft reach weapon that deals 1d6 + 2 piercing damage and grapples the opponent (with a DC 14 to escape) if it hits
Heh, when I ran a kuo-toa settlement in my game, I just called those weapons "man-catchers" for my players.
Thanks for the tip!!
Punching dagger/katar was in AD&D 2nd Ed. through the Al-Qadim campaign setting rulebook. The scythe was also there. Katana was in the PHB, with rules on using it 1-handed or 2-handed. So was the cestus. Kinda weird how WOTC cut down on so many weapon options that used to be available for the longest time.
In hand-to-hand combat, who wins the sword bind determines if you can "safely" strike at your opponent. Sword binds typically attempt to turn the flat of their blade, forcing them to drop the sword's point. The idea behind many sword variants, like the curving ones or wavy blades, is to give you an advantage against flat blades in the sword bind. Whether we translate this as the advantage mechanic or just reduce the opponent's AC [as the opposite of how moving a weapon around all the time can boost AC; if your blade is designed to move your opponent's blade out of the way, it should drop AC] would need playtesting.
Shield fighting replaces the sword bind with shield binding. The art behind sword and board combat is to use your shield, likely the edges as if it extended a punch, to leverage your opponent's shield out of the way so your sword could exploit the opening. Sword and board techniques are more similar to two-weapon fighting where one weapon is the main weapon you use to create openings and your secondary weapon is there to exploit those openings.
In axe and board combat, the beard of the axe was often used to pull the opponent's shield away from their body, creating a weaker defensive posture, and even off-balancing the opponent. Instead of just tripping rules or grappling rules, having an off-balance mechanic that gives 'disadvantage' or provides 'advantage' to attackers might replicate this feature of axeplay and would spice things up.
Given equal skill levels, a sword fighter is at a big disadvantage against a spear fighter. The most dangerous sword strike [where you change the angle of the blade from vertical to horizontal by shifting your elbow in and then flicking your wrist straightening your arm as you lunge forward] is almost useless against the angle of attack that best suits a spear thrust attack. And if you try to outthrust a spear fighter with your sword, it would be odd if you survived. However, a shield almost nullifies all the advantages of a spear. Hopefully, this reminds everyone of the rock, paper and scissors game. With a little bit of knowledge of how different weapons match up against each other, I think a DM can offer options like using your action to create advantage or to drop an enemy's AC when you have a better 'rock, paper, scissors' matchup. In my experience combat becomes much more cinematic and tactical when using the rock, paper, scissors model of relative advantage. And also oddly speeds up play as if your players gang up on one opponent at a time and the player with an advantageous matchup gives advantage to the rest, your players with smart tactics can drop a higher level challenge each round. Your players come away feeling like you reward smart tactics and the combat scenes come alive instead of being "I hit it with my axe for 21 points of damage." IRL, a dagger fighter matched up against a spear fighter might as well have had a hold person spell cast on them, all else being equal. Of course, they could try to throw the dagger as a low-probability gamble. Much love!
it sounds like you really need to go take a look at Shadiversity's videos because he has covered this topic a lot from the perspective of an actual medieval historian. He has A LOT of good ideas
He also has a lot of bad ones, but is definitely worth checking out. Skallagrim and Scholagladiatoria also have done some kind of evaluation of medieval arms in terms of game logic.
Yeah, definitely watch multiple videos from multiple creators.
To be clear on the Sai, historically speaking..they were more of a capture tool. In modern media they are sharpened but historically they were blunt tipped, or even had a round solid ball of metal forged at the tip to work as a club. The prongs were used to capture clothes and limbs while the shaft was used to bludgeon joints or provide leverage for locks, they COULD be used for capturing weapons but Sai, like their single pronged relative the Jutte/Jitte (pretty much a sai with just one prong and often used by police or peace keepers of the time) were more used for capture and control, as well as the odd bash to get criminals to fall in line. Also if anything...unless you are using fictional style giant shuriken, regular shuriken would be more suited for d4 while an actual thrown dagger would be a d6 due to it's larger size and weight imo. Shuriken were often meant to be small and easily hidden distraction tools than outright damage dealers, more for harassing enemies as you close in or run away, made slightly more dangerous by poison. Also take into account that while there were man pronged stars, one of the most common was the Bo shuriken which was more like a large throwing needle...seriously DON'T get me started..I'm a bit of a fanatic about ninja and I WILL take any chance I can to go nuts with historically accurate use of them if possible if I were to make a ninja character. You'll wind up having me describe exactly what the shuriken I'm using looks like...and there are plenty of variations among the stars and bo shuriken.
So a reskinned quarterstaff that gives a bonus to grapple rolls and such?
@@spoopyd.8910 Actually they had a weapon like that..a set of them actually, three staves commonly used by the police and samurai to restrain and capture criminals. Together they were known as the Torimono Sandogu, and one of them is still in use today..though a bit friendlier in terms of design, it's called the Sasumata and it was a long staff with a row of barbs at the top around the top of the tool/weapon just under the forked tip. The top flared out in a bladed wide U shape that was used for hooking cloths and limbs, ideally you would use this shape to push the criminal up against a wall or the ground until another officer or samurai could restrain them with rope. It's design is still in use today by the police though without the barbs or blades and made of more modern materials.
@@ShinKyuubi oh that's actually pretty dang cool to know.
@@spoopyd.8910 I'm a big fan of historical melee weapons with a heavy leaning toward Japanese weapons in particular due to my love of historical ninja so I do a lot of research, if you do a little research on historical weapons from around the world you can come up with some pretty cool homebrew ideas for weapons based on their real world use instead of using whatever is rule standard for a version that may exist in D&D. I know a little bit about historical projectile weapons but only recently took interest in historical pre-metal cartridge firearms aside from guns used in the old west.
I mean the sai were also farming tools used to help scoop fishnets out of the water, a lot of the Okinawan weapons were regular farming tools since their Japanese overlords wouldn't allow them to have regular weapons and they had to use what they had. Nunchucks were small clubs used to thrash grain. Kama were scythes for harvesting crops
Real thrown hunting sticks do not return, they are designed to fly straight to hit a target. Boomerangs may be misconstrued with the toy version designed to return, not so good at hitting a target though. Shad from Shadiversity has a video on them I think, also Adam Celadin the pro knife thrower
While true, let's be honest, a returning one is much cooler as a weapon.
This reminds me of a joke (can’t remember where from) when talking about a hunting boomerang “so when does it come back?” “When you go and get it”
I played a slightly homebrewed Arcane Archer for some time, with the shots being flavoured as boomerangs.
The DM was permanently joking about this by having every NPC we encountered ask "isn't that just a toy?" when my character told them he was fighting with boomerangs.
A returning boomerang isn't a toy, it is used to scare game out of long grass, but you are right that it isn't meant to be a weapon.
@@matthewparker9276 yeah, it's kind of like those raptor shaped arrows for hunting ducks in lakes
For the scythe and hook weapons, you could maybe add some kind of pulling attack where it does its normal damage but also moves the target and you in a given direction. I don't know how useful it'd be but the flavor seems cool
Macahitl, is a big club that deals the normal gratclub damage plus, either 1d4 or 1d6 slashing damage, the catch ther is that it can only do that like 6-12 times a day before all the blades fall off/break/get stuck, after that it becomes a greatclub, you need a long rest to replenish the blades or a short rest to get back 1d6 blades, you probably would need tool procifiency in either carpenter or woodcarver
The longspear is already kind of in the game. It's called a pike.
However, while the pike has 10ft range, historical pikes were up to 25ft which would be a very interesting weapon for D&D.
Spear = 4-5' shaft, one-handed. Longspear = 7' shaft, two-handed. Pike *weapon* = 10'-12' shaft, unwieldy two-hander. Pike *battlefield hazard* = anything longer, can't really be used as an active "weapon" against a moving opponent. meant to be braced and immobile, to slaughter charging enemies (preferably horses, who don't like charging into pointy things, but it works against infantry too).
@@frederickcoen7862 while historic pikes were generally not suitable for single combat (and thus terrible for use in a d&d adventure) I feel it is worth noting that pikes were consistently, and most effectively used in aggressive offensive formations, and when used in static defense, almost always lost their battles
@@frederickcoen7862 they were also used on ships to prevent boarding.
@@frederickcoen7862, if you think the difference between a 4-5’ spear and a 7’ one is the number off hands required to effectively wield one, you’ve clearly never done so. Either length can just as easily be wielded one- or two-handed, and can easily be used with a shield when used one-handed. The fact that you get an extra 1-2’ of reach one-handed, or 2-3’ two-handed doesn’t even change things enough to alter their special properties relative to one another.
A long spear is, quite simply, a pike.
I personally always think about the anti calvary type design of the spearhead itself when I hear the word 'pike' and while it brings to mind a slightly longer shaft (giggity) its isn't necessarily always a 12'+ weapon. I do agree that other than a very slight tendency to influence the fighting styles used, a 4-5 and a 6-7 foot spear have little difference. In D&D a Pike in my mind would have an anti cavalry effect like a siege weapon does with walls, but would vary from highly specialized anticav with disadvantage to anything else, all the way down to a short spear with a hooked barb.
Character concept: A Blood Hunter (Bloodmage? Mercer's custom class) that wears a magical Urumi wrapped around his chest and to whip it out and activate always slashes himself, coating it in his own blood and gaining a permanent X shaped scar on his chest as a result.
+1
Personally, I think this is the ONLY concept that should be allowed to wear the urumi in such a way.
I feel like with some of these "new" weapon suggestions, people either didn't fully explore the weapons already in the game, or they are way too literal and not using their imagination to do the small amount of re-flavoring required to have them in the game as options already available. That is to say, I think if we include everything the list of weapons will be overwhelmingly long; we should combine similar items. But I love how invested and excited everyone is about this concept / project of improving and adding weapons.
Yeah, alot of the weapons do similar things but with a difference of like +1,+2, or -1 to the dice rolls. Like a Gladius is exactly a short sword mechanically. An Arming sword is also like a Short Sword but like +1 or 2d3 to damage because it got a longer blade than a Gladius but shorter than a long sword.
But this is Dnd 5e that's might be a bit to complicated to enforce over a big list of weapons.
Something people also forget is that in reality, there isn't a singular weight or length for a given weapon. A dagger can be quite long, such as a dirk, which is nearly a short sword. 5e doesn't address the minutia of weaponry. I miss the different critical threat ranges and damage multipliers for weapon variety.
Also, the real answer to "new weapons players need" is: 1d8 slashing finesse weapon. That's it, everything else is already in the game. What Bob is suggesting is to rework the weapon system completely and just use Pathfinder instead.
@@helgenlane my DM and myself would flavour half of my rapier attacks as slashes anyway.
When does the difference between slashing and piercing actually matter btw?
@@shanekayat3217 the difference is that there are like 3 creatures in all the books that are resistant to piercing damage, but not slashing. That's really it.
Now, I, as a DM, would give more resistances to different creatures to encourage players to be flexible and prepared. But rules as written, the game is just "what kind of flavour d8 do you want?"
Garotte was in 4E and if I remember correctly you had to be behind someone and if your attack hit, the target was considered silenced and each turn after that you could roll 1d4 damage without an attack roll if you wanted
The Macuahuitl is really cool. The "studs" are actually sharpened obsidian blades, so the weapon functions like a saw-sword when swinging the sharp end, but you can flip it to the side and it's a wooden club. Also, it just looks so intimidating lol
To elaborate on the 'peasant railgun', for the three people out there who are curious, but not curious enough to look it up for themselves - it was an intentionally selective reading of a rule that stated 'handing an item to an ally in an adjacent space is treated as a free and instantaneous action' - the idea was to have a very large number of peasants recruited as cohorts to the party, lined up in a single column, handing an item to each other; _then_ you had to ignore the fact that this 'free and instantaneous action' was clearly a physics-defying gameplay convenience, and insist that as part of these actions the item being handed off was having _momentum_ imparted. You'd then take the length of the line, calculate how fast an object would need to be travelling in order to cover that distance within a single combat round, and _voila_ you have a 'railgun'.
I'm pretty sure it was more of a joke than an real 'hack' that anyone used in game - but it is also a nice little emblematic moment for showing how tabletop gaming as a hobby changed as games like D&D moved away from having simulationist mechanics to gameplay-focussed ones.
Yeah I also doubt it was really used, but a very funny thought experiment :P
Worst of all the entire thing could easily be debunked by the fact that momentum isn't taken into account for weapon damage. Also RAW the object would've just teleported form one end to the other to be thrown regularly by the final peasent
@@ultimate9056 yeah. Most of the "this will annihilate enemies" gaming came from a DM's rules chart on velocity damage. Matt Mercer, I think?
@@ultimate9056 The fact that, RaW, the rock loses its momentum upon being thrown was always the thing that I found funniest about the peasant railgun. Like this thing is zipping along at thousands of miles per hour only to instantly decelerate to around fifty mph. If anything, the energy that would need to be discharged to abide by the law of conservation of energy is the real weapon in the RaW peasant railgun.
Then that means the exploding peasants themselves are the weapon, not the rock thrown a moderate distance.
That could work for an enemy looking to cause terror. Have the people launch a rock a moderate distance in their town, not knowing that it is in fact the peasants themselves who combust and burn down their own town. Furthermore, since the hand-off is instantaneous the rock will still be thrown.
An estoc is called Bohrschwert (drill sword) in german, has no blade but a triangular slice plane and is therefore well suited for armor piercing. It is difficult to handle, but in my humble opinion the strength it is used with is more important.
And it can also be easily flavored as a rapier...
@@thestylemage2092 It has a completely different purpose. I would treat is as a piercing long sword that grants a small to hit bonus against opponents in medium or heavy armour and heavily scaled creatures like dragons.
@@theferryman if we’re sticking to base 5e rules, what you just described would be a magic item. Honestly, the Estoc doesn’t really have a place in 5e, as sad as it is to say. It’s a unique piece of weaponry, but in keeping with the basic rules, the Estoc isn’t different enough from Rapiers to warrant there being a separate entry for them. *Glaive and Halberd have entered the chat* Ya know what, I think the Estoc fits perfectly
Give it a strength requirement of 12, and make it two-handed, d10 piercing finesse weapon. I know that in real life it would be strength based but in real life yo-yo weapon would also bu non-functional.
@@panszczur8087 the yo-yo was a weapon before it was a toy. basically a throwing stone with a string to retrieve it, having played with a yo-yo, you can get a lot of velocity using your wrist. though only at a melee distance.
It's a shame that many of these are just people being unimaginative. So many different swords that are just swords...rules for short sword, long sword or great sword can be reskinned to cover a lot of the ground for these weapons, including katana.
In my games we've had stylistic choices to reskin the rules for other weapons since day 1. Use your imagination guys, the world is yours to play with! Don't think of anything as set in stone , especially not the aesthetic.
This! A sword is a sword is a sword. Most of the variant names we have are from 19th century onwards historians trying to classify the different eras. In most languages, at any particular point in history, most swords were just called 'sword'. Sometimes, they were also called 'knife' (eg: the German 'messer').
100%. All this could just be some great artwork showing all the different versions of weapons that exist
What do you have to add then?
totally agree just reskin.
Personally, I feel that the problem isn't a lack of weapon types, but just a lack of diversity in use. Like, the weapons feel far too similar. What I want isn't more weapons but more diversity in how to use those weapons.
18:45 Aye. There's different forms of boomerang, too. The one commonly shown on TV does come back unless it hits something, but in my mob we use it for distracting and spooking birds while hunting, and sometimes for message signals. There's a much, much heavier one that's basically a specific throwing club, good hit with one will take out a kangaroo, let alone waterfowl. We have the big grey kangaroos here - think the viral "buff kangaroo" from videos. Wouldn't be surprised if some mobs used them for hunting, but I can't speak for them.
On the whole daggers having the same range as greatswords thing, combat takes place over 6 full seconds, part of carrying smaller weapons is extra manoeuvrability, your characters aren't literally standing their statically swinging, they're weaving and dodging, getting in close, backing up, all within a 5ft square, yes, but they're still moving.
I still agree that massive greatswords like the zweihander should have more range though.
Estoc is essentially a 2 handed rapier. It's actually kind of cool. TH-cam Skallagrim Estoc.
So it's just a rapier with versatile instead of finesse.
@@aliciacordero8399 is a war weapon for military use, rapier is a civilian weapon like a .22 gun...
@@gabrielsouzasilva703 right, but in terms of D&D mechanics it's just a piercing longsword
Not really a rapier at all. I don't think a weapon that's intent was to stab really hard at the joints of an enemies armor as finesse.
@@thomasmonaco2829 so just a longsword with piercing instead of slashing, cool. Some game systems would just allow longswords to be "versatile piercing/slashing" in the first place.
Two sided sword exists. It's the Double-Bladed Scimitar in Eberron.
Good to know!
OH, THAT'S WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE???
I thought it was just literally a scimitar but was sharpened on both sides instead of just on one side.
IF you have seen the latest CONAN reboot, you have seen a real-world hinged two-sided Scimitar! The big Bad uses it against CONAN.
@@Lycaon1765 That would be a Double-Edged Sword, not a Double-Bladed Sword. Also, generally, curved blades are only Single Edged. Double-Edged Swords are, usually, straight blades.
The problem with the War Bow idea is that technically the Longbow is already a war bow. What I feel they should’ve done was have attributes requirements on certain weapons. It would’ve made weapons more inaccessible for some characters, but more immersive.
For 'greatbow' I'd just read composite longbow from older editions. The composite has a strength rating, so you need e.g. +2 STR in order to use it proficiently, but then you also get to add that +2 to your damage. A +3 composite requires 16STR, but lets you add+3 to your damage. And so on. In older editions you didn't add your DEX mod to the damage, only the attack.
For 5E, I'd just rule that you needed say a +2 STR mod, and then either grant a +2 to damage, or up the damage die to a d10 instead of the longbow's d8. Something like that.
@@juliemichellerobinson1841 I feel like that would just be a better heavy crossbow. Less feat investment to use it, same damage die
@@thecharmer5981 Yes, crossbows were basically more expensive weapons that required less training for common soldiers, than a bow did. Other differences were cost of fabrication and reload time (about ×6 longer for a crossbow).
The dual sword or double blade is actually already an item. Even has a feat for it. Its a shadow elf weapon.
many weapons, especially polearms have multiple ways to attack, i'd like to see that reflected in the rules rather than being a meaningless description at the table between players. a halberd is currently only a slashing weapon as far as the rules go, but in reality it is also a spear(piercing) for stabbing the enemy, and often has either a spike or a hammer on the reverse side for either piercing or bludgeoning. while a longsword is a slashing weapon as far as the rules go, in reality it has a point and could be used for stabbing(piercing) an opponent. this is important for damage as different enemies might be resistant to one type of damage but not another so offering a player the ability to switch between the different damage types seems reasonable. maybe like with versatile weapons this could lead to the weapon having a different damage roll or maybe it requires dex for one and strength for the other like with finesse weapons now. also i want to remove all double-bit battleaxes from the game, they are stupid and should not exist.
There’s actually a version of the garrote in the 5e Monster Manual, in a sidebar by the Ettercap stat block on page 131.
Here are my thoughts on the questionable ones:
- pitchfork = spear
- thrown sand = Help action
- estoc = rapier, and then change the rapier to slashing damage?
- sap / blackjack = club, but *with the finesse property* so that rogues could do sneak attack damage with it. I've always wanted to be able to knock out people as a rogue.
- buckler = could just be a Light shield that gave +1 AC instead of 2. Tower could be +3 and Heavy.
- repeating crossbow = basically just no Loading property, so it wouldn't affect Crossbow Master at all.
- improvised weapons = just reskinned existing weapons, and imprompty properties as needed by the DM. I personally don't think they need actual stats.
- billhook = Shove attacks with reach!
- zweihander, claymore, bastard sword = greatsword
- garrote = could have a cool Special property where if they're grappled by it, they take damage over time or have to make Constitution saving throws or they get knocked out from suffocation and drop to 0 hit points.
- mancatcher = Grapple attacks with reach!
- bashing shield = steps on the toes of the Shield Master feat
- sabre = rapier or shortsword
- atlatl = no long range penalty for spear throwing
- cutlass = rapier, falchion = scimitar
- chakram = handaxe
- brass knuckles = club :/
Thanks so much for this breakdown!
i would think pitchfork to be closer to a trident, being a multiple pronged polearm
Funnily enough, the only difference between a spear and a trident is that a trident is a martial weapon. So seeing as how pitchforks can be wielded by untrained peasantry, a spear is just as good of a comparison.
...Makes you wonder if a trident's damage should be like 3d4 or something instead.
the cutlass and falchion IRL are (basically) the same sword. They're both heavy choppers. Thick heavy blade for cutting through materials and it wasn't unusual to be used as a makeshift axe/hatchet. The scimitar is a slashing sword more in line with a sabre or even a katana. A thin curved blade for slashing softer materials. To distinguish how I'm using "chop" vs "slash": if you chop an arm with a falchion the arm comes off, if you slash it with a sabre, the arm gains a bone deep wound.
I know the scimitar is already in there but to give other examples more similar to how they function.
@@AtrumFalx ...ish. A lot of falchions were heavy choppers, but there are also plenty of examples which were ridiculously light, razor-sharp slashing weapons (which sucked against anyone with decent armour). Likewise, there are some "scimitars" which are closer to the heavy-bladed chopper concept, although AFAIK proportionally fewer than there were light falchions (it is also worth noting that "scimitar" is a catch-all term that was never really applied to any one sword or style of sword at the time it was used, by the people actually using it. I blame Victorian "historians")
For weapons that need to be in constant motion (like the staff/nunchuck or blade/whip):
You could have it increase AC as you've suggested, but come at the cost of concentration as if concentrating on a spell (because when you get hit it's hard not to lose your focus). Possibly a good way to make it balanced for classes like the monk which would benefit loads from this type of weapon
The khopesh is a heavy chopping sword for removing limbs...the hook section is used edge out to essentially make an axe that can also thrust.
Can we include the Zanbato as well? The horse chopping anti cavalry sword 😅
When I think of Darts I think of lawn darts. If they were supposed to be like the throwing darts that people use for recreation it should only do like 1 point of damage + dex to simulate hitting a cluster of nerves or something. I think the same should be for a shuriken as the points on them are pretty shallow, so the only real massive damage is if you poisoned them.
The way you can increase range without going for reach is you could exclude or include diagonals. In many tilebased games the dagger can only attack targets directly in front of you while a greatsword can hit diagonally.
that's a cool idea, but I see it conflicting with the idea that theatre of the mind and grid-based combat are equally supported in 5e
That's a good one
The moment you force that into D&D is the moment people are going to start using hex grids or just remove grids completely.
One thing our group home brewed, but would be nice to have formal rules for: flaming arrows. Not magical, just the kind with the tip dipped in tar or something and lit on fire.
Allowing martial classes access to some of the damage types usually reserved for magic users could be interesting. See also: rules for poisoned weapons.
Some people might like the flavor of flaming arrows, but since it really doesn't work all that well (or at all) I wouldn't want to include it. Also, while poison rules exist they're crap so almost nobody uses poison. It would be nice to see that reworked.
Non magical flaming arrows can only really be used to light buildings on fire and they're not even that good at it.
There is an amazing array of poisons in the dmg with rules on making new ones. If you mean that you don’t like that it takes an action to apply the poison then I don’t know what to tell you, it takes some time to put poison on weapons
@@Sibula maybe the fact that like 60% of monsters are immune or resistant to poison also has something to do with people not using poison that much
@@helgenlane Even if nothing had resistance, buying a poison vial for 100gp and using an action within a minute of using your weapon to deal 1d4 extra damage IF the creature fails a DC 10 CON save is just absolute crap.
Garrote - It is actually in 5e but specific to the Meazel…
Garrote. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target of the meazel's size or smaller. Hit: 6 (1d6 + 3) bludgeoning damage, and the target is grappled (escape DC 13 with disadvantage). Until the grapple ends, the target takes 10 (2d6 + 3) bludgeoning damage at the start of each of the meazel's turns. The meazel can't make weapon attacks while grappling a creature in this way.
perfect.
the ettercap also has a version: Variant: Web Garrote. Melee Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one medium or small creature against which the ettercap has advantage on the attack roll. Hit: (1d4 + 2) bludgeoning damage. The target is grappled, escape dc 12 Until this grapple ends, the target can't breathe, and the ettercap has advantage on attack rolls against it
so my forge cleric really likes to make things with the 1 hour ritual at the worst times
so I told him if he wants to do that and make it take less time he needs to have the correct materials, plan, and/or blueprints
so he started being frugal with his materials and tried to make a buckler instead of a normal shield
realizing i needed to balance it so it wasn't just a cheaper shield i made it so it does a standard +2 against melee but only a +1 to ranged and a +0 to spells.
i think that would be a cool way to balance some shields
also different requirements than just 13 str maybe dex or even int
also an idea i had for a repeating crossbow is a bit like a cursed item
basically as a bonus action you can load up to 20 bolts into the repeating crossbow
then during your action and after your movement you will fire 1 bolt
Problem if you don't use the crossbow that turn or don't aim it the bolts still fire meaning you loose those bolts & depending how they move have the player roll to see if they shoot themselves or an ally accidentally.
The buckle and a lot of these weapons you are talking about were in 3.5 we used it a lot.
Regarding the dual-bladed sword, we do essentially have that in the Double-bladed scimitar from ERLW
Regarding the Macuahuitl, it's definitely a terrifying weapon to read about, but in reading about it it definitely feels a lot like a reskinned greatsword in terms of dnd
Regarding Falchion/Cutlass, to the best of my knowledge (I could be wrong though) they have a different weight distribution than a scimitar, making them more strength based than a finesse weapon
Regarding the estoc, think rapier but with the option to be wielded with two hands, like Alucard's sword from Castlevania
Regarding the Chakram, I would actually go to the Thri-kreen in the Monster Manual and steal their Chatkcha weapon option.
People looking for good firearm rules and weapon customization options I will point towards Mage Hand Press and their Craftsman and Gunslinger classes, both of which can be found in Valda's Spire of Secrets (currently available on backerkit iirc) or in their store/on their patreon. Definitely provides a good starting off point if nothing else, and the Craftsman especially has a whole section regarding the patterns that can be found in existing weapons and how the sum total of their properties actually some together to determine the damage of a weapon.
I gave one of my players an estoc. Its a two handed weapon(1d10), finesse. Also allows him to use his reaction tu rise his shield and increase his AC until his next turn.
That could be sightly op, maybe? But i dont mind, its his fathers sword. I want it to be special.
valdas is epic, i love the necromancer and warmage classes
Yeah the Mecuahuitl is definitely not a "studded club"... Big ass sword is probably a good corollary.
Darts are small spears with fletching.
Shadiversity has made a double sword, it was more like a staff, check out his video. I think he and Lindybeige have covered a number of these in historical context.
no, War Dart is a fancy javelin not throwing knife
I really think anyone making stats for weapons (and armor) should watch Shad. When I took the quiz I mentioned his recent video showing that there are practically no differences in distance or power between a properly built longbow and recurved shortbow.
For the three section staff it shouldn’t be too hard to make, there are official rules for 3.5e for it
Yeah I think 3.5e will be a VERY useful guide for designing these mechanics!
@@BobWorldBuilder Pathfinder, as well. First edition is available more or less in its entirety on the d20pfsrd.
Something I noticed in this video is that a LOT of these seemed to exist in 3.5e and then got dummied out between then and 5e. I know there were rules for twinswords and a bunch of other twin weapons, katar, katanas and shuriken, every shield that popped up in the list...
@@MrIcePho3nix I was going to say that. A lot of the weapon ideas suggested could be found in 3rd edition D&D. Some of them (like the repeating crossbow, buckler, tower shield, and so on) were in the base rules, and a lot of others were added in supplements.
Many of these weapons have stats in earlier additions and supplements, from Basic/Expert on up, and/or old Dragon Magazines, Oriental Adventures, Rules Cyclopedia, Arms and Equipment Guides, 3.0 and 3.5 brown books etc.. All easily used upgraded, converted, to 5th edition . Old School still rules and offer a lot of useful things for 5th edition
@Kevdog Howls: earlier editions* (not additions) 😫
The way I look at it is to make a table: columns are damage types (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning); rows are damage dice (1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d4, 1d10, 1d12, 2d6, 2d8). Fill in what's already in the rules and then see what holes are left. Top four rows are one-handed and bottom four rows are two-handed; only single-die weapons can have Finesse while two-die weapons are inherently Heavy. (Yes, 2d4 would be uniquely One-Handed and Heavy - good spot for the Kukri as the Slashing entry.)
Like how Shortsword and Scimitar are both 1d6 Light Finesse weapons, but are Piercing and Slashing respectively. Rapier is 1d8 Piercing Finesse but there's no 1d8 Slashing Finesse weapon - Falchion/Sabre fills this role quite well, as it's comparable to a Longsword but more dexterous and lacks the Versatile trait. Similarly, a Katana would be 1d8 Slashing Finesse with the Versatile trait.
Feel free to hit me up if you'd be interested in collaborating on this project, as I've been playing D&D more than 40 years.
The issue with a lot of sword/polearm variations is they all do essentially the same thing. Maybe some range variance but that's not an issue in 5e, doesn't matter if it's a greatsword or a shortsword it's 5ft.
A katana is essentially a longsword that has been massively romanticised which is not all that different from a bastard sword which isn't that massively different from an arming sword etc. A khopesh isn't really that far from a scimitar. There's not enough real difference to make them their own thing though they are technically different.
Also taking something like a nunchuck and just making it the same as a flail but weaker sort of defeats the point, people are just going to take a flail and call it a nunchuk. In the same way a player in a game I'm playing in wanted a club, but just took the mace stats. There's not much real difference between a club and mace, but a d6 is nicer than a d4. The garrote is a weird one because it's a weapon in the same way poisoning someone's tea is, you're not going to try it while in a fist fight.
There a definitely things mentioned here that a sorely missing, the greatbow that a barbarian might have to use their legs to draw, a defensive whip, more thrown weapons, shield weapons are a must, damage variety in polearms, fist weapons definitely. Maybe weapons that have functionality outside of combat.
i actualy think of a kopesh when i imagine a scimatar in dnd 5e
I play pathfinder and let me tell you basically every weapon mentioned is a unique weapon and it’s crazy. 3/4 weapons are basically the same thing with either their damage type switched or a unique effect. You could basically boil them all down to their base feature and treat all curved swords the same for example. A scimitar, Sabre, katana, kopesh. It doesn’t matter. A shotel might be different but other than that most weapons are functionally identical.
@@independentconfederate6604 Yeah, I've always just treated a katana as a longsword.
My personal take on the weapon variants is to make it so that split damage weapons roll 1 dice for damage while single damage weapons roll 2 dice for damage. So for instance, a rapier would do 2d4 piercing damage, but a backsword would do 1d8 piercing or slashing.
So under this system, taking more unusual polrarms lets you take very specific damage type combos on a two handed heavy reach weapon. Similarly, The Eastern swords would just be identical to their western equivalents, they'd just have 2dx slashing damage instead of the 1d2x slashing or piercing on the western equivalents.
Of course these changes could not be made in a vacuum. For them to be meaningful you also need to shake up how armor works (personally I'd give certain armours flat -1 to certain damage types, though this shouldn't be used excessively) and you have to make physical resistances and vulnerabilities way more common among monsters, so as to make multiple damage types actually have some utility. If you could pull that off, it'd give pcs a choice between more versatile or higher consistency weapons, and it could even encourage more use of sidearms and improvised weaponry.
As a side not, I'd also make all swords finesse weapons, even Greatswords. I'd also give Greatswords reach because it's ridiculous they don't have it.
fairly certain a greatsword does have reach in 5e
edit: what in the goddamn hell
For shields, we’ve homebrewed;
Bucklers- AC+1 and can be donned with a bonus action.
Kite shield- AC+2
Tower shield- AC+3 but unable to make AoO.
My spin on shields is that everyone can use a +1 buckler, A +2 shield requires shield proficiency, and a +3 requires that plus heavy armor proficiency.
I've seen the buckler is +1 donned with a bonus action suggested a few times, but unless you really like getting into the nitty gritty of things, it doesn't really work. I don't think I've ever played at a table where the DM actually makes you spend actions to get your shield equipped when battle starts up (and if they did, players would always just walk around with their shield already out).
@@jedrzejkraszpulski442 I have played in a game like that. The ranger wanted to have a bow for range and a sword and shield for close combat. The mobs would close the gap and DM ran strict RaW for changing weapons so going from bow to sword and shield took 2 rounds (action to stow the bow rather than drop it, draw sword for free, and then an action to don the shield).
You can also make the buckler a light (off-hand) bludgeoning weapon in addition to the AC bonus. Or the AC wouldn't count after you attacked with it.
Because it's worse than a glove/brass knuckle, but you very much can bash somebody with it while still blocking blows.
@@Alche_mist that’s a fun idea, it might make the duel wielder feat irrelevant, but you could play around with it
In the DM's Guide there are examples for re-flavoring eastern weapons, they don't really need to be added.
That's cause most westerners do not understand eastern weapons. You can't simply re-flavor a Longsword to be called a Katana, or a Dagger to be a Sai. But mostly 5e needs new properties for weapons so you can actually build some weapon that are close, tho not the same, as some existing weapons.
@@MrReset94 the katana was a bad example there, at least with the huge lack of mechanical "resolution" that 5e has, but yeah, a sai is more like a 鐵鞭 / 鐵鐧 or a jitte than like any dagger that I know of
@@MrReset94 how would you even differentiate a Longsword and a katana in 5e without adding a ton of traits to the game
Well you would need to downgrade the Longsword to make it into a katana since longswords are superior in every way. :D
@@mannypinerio9415 based
The Macuahuitl is a sword. It's good to read about a weapon before implementing it. It connects and then is dragged to cut, because the "studs" are obsidian shards.
Also, play Pathfinder.
The sling staff was actually a weapon back in ad&d. It did 1d6 instead of 1d4 and had a range of 60 ft instead of 50.
Tasselhoff Burfoot had a sling staff.
It is crazy what the players of D&D today do not know about the game or its lore.
I wonder if they even know what a kinder is or if they have heard of dragon lance, lol
I guess I should just be happy people are still playing role-playing games.
They are like " Who is Gary Gygax?
And
"What is TSR?"
&
"Dragon Magazine is really a thing?"
macuahuitl uses obsidian blades.
Obsidian blades can be maded sharper than a scalpel.
I am a German and "Zweihänder" literally is a Greatsword.
We just need to make the Greatsword have Reach or have all weapons have different reach levels.
Greatswords don't have reach because if they did, they'd completely outclass polearms more than they already do. It's weird how much more powerful feats and fighting style stacking can make some weapons. Most of the ones that don't see much use have that problem because there are no feats or fighting styles to support them.
@@Quethel while this is entirely true, I would also like to point out that 5e combat is based on vaguely occupied 5ft squares. Most greatswords in history (and particularly those used in combat and not parades) would likely be a bit short to truly qualify for reach in that sense, while all the polearms with reach in game have quite enough common historical examples with enough length to justify it
Personally for me at the moment I've been having a Scythe use the Glaive/Halberd stats. (Which, as a side note, I kind of hate how those are given two separate lines in the equipment table when they are mechanically the same. They could have just listed them together in the same line.)
repeating crossbow is in Out of the Abyss. Double-Bladed Scimitar is in Eberron, Rising from the Last War. While I like the idea of weapons having different properties, but that would take away for the battlemaster fighter.
For the War Bow, from what I understand this is actually a smaller version of the longbow. Personally I would make it take the stats of the current longbow and make the longbow a bow that has a strength requirement but keep it dex based to help reflect it's higher power.
Really love everything you're doing here. You've probably already gotten this comment from someone but the bastard sword is another version of the hand and a half sword. It was in DnD from 1st edition through at least 3rd. Mechanically when longswords gained the vertical feature it make them obsolete. In older editions you could use it in 2 hands and do more damage (not quite great sword damage) but in one hand statistically it functioned as a longsword.
The idea behind the. macuahuitl is that the parts sticking out are obsidian and cut into the body and break off in them. Meaning you have a slashing bludgeoning weapon designed to cause bleeding in the worst way. Probably one of the best candidates for a weapon with multiple mechanics tied to it.
Yeah, it could be a tricky one to design, but it will be worth it to do it right!
The obsidian blades aren't supposed to break, just act as blades. In fact unless you hit something hard like steel or stone they most likely wouldn't break. The conquistadors actually wondered how they were so hard to break or pull out of the weapon.
I had this as a specific magic weapon for one of my players that another one of my players designed for them. It's real neat :D
There's a story of an Aztec Warrior decapitating a Spaniard's horse with a macuahuitl. Definitely not a club variant.
I haven't heard anything about them breaking off either. I would like to see sources for this information if there are any.
An idea to add nuance to the balance of short vs long weapons: add a new range, called Grappling/Wrestling Range.
A range shorter than normal melee. Occurs when two opponents are in direct physical contact.
In graping range, anything longer/bigger than a shortsword either attacks at disadvange, or can't be used at all.
To make it more viable a new feat could be introduced to make grappling easier or grant bonus damage on grappled opponents.
0:45 I can see the pain of having to say the number... kinda died laughing 🤣
also nice
The purpose of a wavy blade like a Kris has is not to deal more damage, but actually for defensive purposes. When you block with a wavy blade, the vibrations of the opponents blade moving across yours is very uncomfortable, and can sometimes make the opponent drop their weapon. The Kris dagger also tends to be longer, so its more like a short sword and deals piercing damage, not slashing. So in practice, this could do something like give you advantage on parry-type reaction abilities, or maybe give you a small chance of disarming an opponent when you use one of these abilities.
I'd lump Saber, Cutlass, and Shamshir together as slashing finesse weapons. Technically I think cutlass is a little heavy for it, but they are stylistically similar enough for it to work. Falchion is more like a heavy scimitar. Maybe like a versatile scimitar.
Broad sword, claymore, zweihander, and all the rest of the giant swords are basically just great swords by different names(zwei means 2 in German I believe). The flamberge (and by extension the kris dagger) I could see giving it a trait that does extra damage on a critical. (Even though in the real world it probably isn't any different. It's just a cool aesthetic.) Maybe the same for the kukri since it was a limb severing weapon. It's like a dagger only in approximate length really. Definitely slashing and either a higher damage like a short sword or a bonus on critical damage.
I think it is important to include shields in the weapons category. Even the most basic of shields can be used to bludgeon an opponent. It's basically a club with a more stable foundation. Then add variations like spikes or bladed edges for variation in damage type. As for bucklers, they're a bit more of an active defense than some of the other shields, use them in the same vein as a a gauntlet really with a reaction to parry (add +1AC for the round) (I'd do the same with the tonfa). Maybe a feat can make it a free action and give some other bonus like a riposte as a reaction instead or an increased AC for the reaction cost.
I'm honestly shocked that Firearms in general got to be in the top 3. I hope those players know there are some rules for it in the DMG, p.268
Yeah, I think that an Estoc is basically a two-handed rapier, and the saber/sabre is a slashing weapon.
Also, I disagree that whips would grant an AC boost, since you can’t parry with them. And the katana is just a single-edged longsword. The quick draw feature is less of a property of the weapon and more of the user’s skill. Like, you can draw any weapon quickly.
A rapier is bladed, the estoc only has a point.
@@Sibula Yeah, but the rapier is still primarily a piercing weapon.
Doesnt the curved blade of the katana make it easier to draw? But essentially I do agree.
@@crocobroco4654 I don’t know, but I also think that having a weapon be easy to draw doesn’t necessarily make attacking easier.
Yeah, the whip (and honestly any AC boosting) is just stupid. Though I have learned from the comments, that the Estoc is not actually a Rapier, but a piercing Longsword...
I think it would be cool if they're were two weapon tables, one that was like what we have now, that are simple, and easy for beginners, and another table that had weapons with features to make them more unique, they could maybe do a bit less damage to make up for being more powerful
16:38 sabers are slashing (actually they’re better at slashing than straight blades so maybe more damage) and were traditionally used both on foot and on horseback so perhaps it could be a slashing rapier (d8 slashing, one hand, finesse) but d10 slashing if on horseback
Also kukris are theoretically better at cutting than daggers and theyre a bit longer so they’d probably be short swords instead
I'd say Sabres are pretty much already in the game as Scimitars, since those are 100% not Scimitars.
For the cestus/gauntlet, I played a brawler who used them, and this is how we homebrewed it: 1d6 damage, but since I had one on each fist, I could use a bonus action for two-weapon fighting (even if I was using the unarmed fighting style). I could use a dagger while wearing them (think for a coup de grace or sneaking it during a grapple), but no other weapon or shield, and I couldn't throw it. And it took an action to take them on or off.
Awesome. First thing in the morning for me. Breakfast with Bob. Hell yeah
Good morning! Hope you enjoy!
So, historically, the zweihander/claymore/greatsword were lumped more with polearms than swords and were great at fending off multiple opponents. Their wide, sweeping arcs allowed you to engage multiple enemies at the same time.
Yeah. I totally need the realistic historical great sword tactics with an option to choose to attack multiple enemies around me, to slash, to bludgeon with more damage, or to pierce with either increaced hit chance (better against armour) or a range of 10 ft, not one (hey! I'm a 2m tall half-orc palladin, my GS is 190 cm, + hands, that's enough for 10 ft...). And also the stepping with a hit thing, like using five feet of your movement WHILE hitting. And "backstep-headbang" sequence - that's moving back one tile while hitting the enemy your size or smaller at their head, with 50% of your normal damage but them being deafed till the end of the round, they can't attack or hear, and with just 50% damage if they're big. And no opportunity attack!
I feel it may be done as a homebrew feat, like "master doppelsoldner" - trained to use a GS right! And pack in +1 AC.
It could have limitations on both str and int (which is normally the dump stat for most fighters) to pervent abusing it. Just the fact you have to get, read and understand that expensive illustrated fechtbuch to learn it...
@@annasolovyeva1013 I think some of the mechanics you listed might be a bit complex -- too complex for the spirit of 5e. But I like the bonus AC when engaging multiple targets. I'll try to think of some others that are simple but thematic
@@crownlexicon5225 that's the attack choice that flavours that feat.
Distance attack, group attack, simple attack, moving attack (also the possibility to go-hit-go, not to move and then act), increaced armour-piercing attack... I wanted to make a melee character who thinks what he does in battle, not like "barbarian agrr! Smash!". Therefore, the player should be thinking too. I would offers to make a tiny "fechtbuch" (match box size book with the name stated) which shows all the things possible and give it to the player as a cheat sheet.
The play speed may be enhanced "here's a minute timer, if you don't say what you do in a minute, you just simply hit the next enemy".
@@crownlexicon5225 actuall historical rapier and actual historical greatsword are the things to dominate a melee fight.
Rapier+dagger combo if it's a fight one vs one with no armour
Great sword if it's group armed combat.
Assuming DnD firearms had not yet been developed to the level they overcome these, the only thing to oppose the greatsword masters on battlefield are casters
Greatsword is the actual overpowered weapon overall.
@@annasolovyeva1013 I mean, this sounds like a battlemaster to me. Lunging maneuver for the extra 5' of reach, sweeping attack for multiple targets, manuevering attack for a fleeing zwerkhau... maybe mixed with hunter ranger? Horde breaker at level 3, escape the horde at 7. Not the strongest options, but thematic.
But these options could also be incorporated into a feat somehow. I like your option of striking at the head and retreating. I also like the idea of attacking multiple enemies around you. Perhaps the feat could read something like:
You have mastered the use of the greatsword. When you make a melee attack against a creatureusijg a greatsword, you dont provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or miss (like the mobile feat)
Additionally, as an action while wielding a greatsword, you may make a melee attack against all creatures within 5' of you. Make a separate attack against each creature.
The second option allows you to make more attacks than normal (up to 8, if playing on a square grid) but doesn't stack with anything that requires you to take the attack action
Something I've experimented with for my players is something called "Feint Trait". I describe it as "A finesse weapon so nimble you can feint your attacks - roll two damage die and choose the highest."
Or another is the "Slow Trait" which is the exact opposite, but damage die could be much higher, like 2d8.
So, advantage?
@@yalkn2073 No, this isn't for attack roll to hit, but the roll for damage. So like advantage, but specifically to provide a better result as opposed to a chance at a better result.
So the Savage Attacker feat but better on a weapon.
Having played from 1.0 I can say that they have had most of these in earlier editions, often in setting books like Oriental Adventures. The repeating crossbow was a great item from that book along with a ton of other Asian weapons you listed.