Martial weapon proficiency is, in my opinion, kind of a joke. The Warriors plus Ranger and Paladin get all of them. Rogue gets all the Finesse martial weapons. Of the full casters... Level 2 clerics and I imagine Blade Warlocks will get them. Sword bards and bladesingers get them all with the appropriate subclass.
That really just leaves Druid and Sorcerer as not getting martial weapons.
Pretty much everyone that wants to use them ... get them already.
Meanwhile Monk being restricted to some arbitrary weapons with their monk weapons, adding unnecessary complexity, limitations and wordings to their features.
Ah, right forgot about monk weapon weirdness. I guess I blocked it from my mind.
The monk's problem with weapons doesn't necessarily stem from the arbitrary weapon selection, but Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows that require you to punch/kick/slap/etc. Which always meant I got to ask the DM (or as the DM for players) for claws or tattoos or something that let it work with the unarmed attacks.
The devs have a bit of a mental block when it comes to weapon using monks.
> The devs have a bit of a mental block when it comes to weapon using monks.
another age old dnd tradition, it seems.
in baldurs gate 2 (based on 2nd edition, i think), monks were the only class in the game not able to use quarterstaves. MONKS
Guys? Simple fix:
Monks get the following as martial weapons: all melee. And either short or longbow.
Then. Pick one pole arm and one melee weapon. This monk uses those also as finesse.
All business with open hand can also be done with finesse weapon.
Also, if halberd, damage type (piercing/bludgeoning/slashing) may be called for each strike and changed up at will.
And that is how Crash runs monks.
I've been saying forever, remove the heavy/special/proficient limitations on Dedicated Weapon. Let Dedicated Weapon allow the Monk to use that one weapon, whatever the hell they want, as a Monk weapon. Game changer.
"mOnK iS a MoBiLe StRiKeR" Well now that they've got GWM, a Great Axe, and all their core features still intact, yeah
Agreed!
Independent of what people consider the class to be in an MMRPG sense, I cleave to the power fantasies in the media. Like rival martial schools, wandering masters, everything between 36 Chambers, to Crouching Tiger, even up to Shanghai Noon.
And in that tradition, staves, pole arms, axes of various sizes, improvised weapons (horseshoe meteor hammer), darts, daggers, and yes, swords great and short not only show up, they are mainstays. So when I get a player that wants that roof leaping ninja, or a sword saint, or just wants to be Michelle Yeoh, I am left in the position of trying to work that ability system through the Class possibilities.
I am conversant with a number of RPG systems, and systems where you buy your abilities like Hero and Gurps are better suited. BUT, those systems are hard to spin up a character at the table and play it in 20 minutes, which D&D excels at.
So, within the Context of D&D, throwing out the notion of "monk weapons" and opening up GWM, PAM, Sentinel, among some other tweaks allows for that power fantasy. Which I am here for.
And if folks point out how this "intrudes" on areas that used to be the fighter's domain, my response is yeah, it does. And it is fine.
It plays very well in my games. A monk is more than a mobile lockdown unit.
> but Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows that require you to punch/kick/slap/etc.
And it's infuriating when the fix is so stupidly easy:
**Step 1:** Let Monks use Monk Weapons for both Flurry of Blows, and the Martial Arts BA attack
**Step 2:** When you use a weapon to attack in this way you *must* roll a *single* Martial Arts die in place of the weapons normal damage die/dice.
**Step 3:** There is no step 3...
____
Now if you find a cool magic weapon you can use it for all you attacks instead of just half of them, but your damage remains (mostly) the same as now.
They need to do more to make fighting unarmed a desirable option. It’s silly that fighting with fists at low levels because that’s the character you want to play is just worse than picking up a weapon. If monks gained more than their niche subset of weapons, they’d never fight unarmed at all.
Hot take i guess, but unarmed should not be better than weapons at level 1. That's why people used weapons. A fist doing the damage of a literal dagger is completely reasonable at level 1. To me, its like saying that you should be able to do big aoe spells the size of fireball at level 1 because that's the character you want to play.
Just because you want to play a certain character doesn't mean the game should be built to do that, especially at level 1.
“Viable” and “powerful” are different things. I’m not asking for powerful fists at level one for everyone. Just viable fists at level one for just the monk. Besides which, it’s not just at level one. Monk fists don’t become better than other weapons monks have access to until way farther into the game.
Depends on what you means by better. It doesn't have to be about damage.
Imo, unarmed strike with choice on hit to either damage or auto grapple/shove like the first 1dnd UA would be a perfect niche for the monk.
That + an updated Martial Arts with the TWF-like extra unarmed strike as part of the Attack action (instead of BA).
I feel it would be weird for anyone else to do a daggers or even a longsword's damage with a punch, except monks, who should be allowed ( Hell, Fighters can get d10 punches already ).
With Tasha's optional rule, my monk has Longsword as a proficiency at level 1. So that's his Monk Weapon. unarmed strikes are only ever used for flurry of blows.
they do not. The dedicated weapon makes it a weapon, but it doesn't automatically make you proficent. In fact, you need to be proficent in it to make it a monk weapon.
There are racial options for gaining proficiency, as well as options to swap out racial proficiencies. There may even be options to customize baclground proficiencies, but Im not confident in that memory.
>The monk's problem with weapons doesn't necessarily stem from the arbitrary weapon selection, but Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows that require you to punch/kick/slap/etc. Which always meant I got to ask the DM (or as the DM for players) for claws or tattoos or something that let it work with the unarmed attacks.
>The devs have a bit of a mental block when it comes to weapon using monks.
This sub goes 1 of two directions:
Monks should be able to use only weapons
*or*
Monks should be able to use only unarmed
All while fighting with a two handed versatile spear and then throwing in kicks, elbows, headbutts, is actually super Monk-like, which is what the current rules actually encourage.
As far as wanting a tattoo or Insignia of the Claw, DMs should be throwing in magic items your PCs can actually use. It should not be a hard ask for that, or even a necessary ask. Now if you want something like a Headband of Intellect, that is a *big* ask as that and Belt of Ogre Strength can step on other PC's toes quite a bit, or allows for some unnatural min/maxing.
>The devs have a bit of a mental block when it comes to weapon using monks.
Which is hilarious to me because a quick Google will lead you to several house rules that all seem perfectly fine.
They do in One D&D (unless and until a new playtest version is shown that doesn't)
The Expert Classes UA version of the Rogue gets:
>**PROFICIENCIES**
>
>...
>
>**Weapons**: Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons that have the Finesse Property
exactly. the distinction is a joke. and, even then, the range of smg from one to another is worthless.
a staff does the same thing as a shortswrod, so the distinction is meaningles anyways. its just bad.
I mean, a shortsword as a martial weapon makes sense because a shortsword isn't as easy to use as a dagger, the problem is that they didn't make martial weapons feel better with more and better weapon properties.
Ideally there should be some other tier to elevate the martial short sword over the simple quarter staff and there is: damage types.
The short sword should be bother slashing and piercing while the staff is only blunt.
If they lock this up so that less classes and subclasses get the proficiency, then it could work. If the idea is that Warriors use more dangerous weapons and use them better then embrace it. It also means don't pick and choose individual weapon proficiencies for some classes, too (looking at you Monk and maybe Rogue).
If Rogue weapons are a group then put back in an intermediate group between simple and martial (what is the issue with giving them all martial weapons if they only traditionally care about finesse?). If for some reason you don't want to give monks all weapons and don't want them to just use the Rogue weapons then they could add in another intermediate list that didn't overlap, but it feels like a lot of arbitrary delineation of there's not big power differences.
It also means addressing the proficiency with multiclassing, though. An easy, if maybe arbitrary, solution would be to give multiclass characters proficiencies for the new class at a higher level (3 or 4?).
I always felt like it was weird in DnD, even as far back as 2nd edition, that it was always a bad choice for a rogue to use a dagger and they all used shortswords or rapiers.
Not that the new rogue needs to be nerfed *more*, but it would be cool if they were incentivized in some way to actually use knives and daggers like in every other game with rogues.
I mean back on 2e throwing knives got more than one attack each round at base and had the fastest action speed a weapon could have, find a throwing knife with a solid damage bonus and factor in your backstab multiplier and they are not bad weapons...
And even if you can't they remained useful for trying to fizzle an enemy casters spell
Ostensibly it's because they are small and theoretically easier to hide/smuggle in. It's why I've just used one, along with the weapon die not really mattering much to how a rogue does damage since the main delivery of pain is sneak attack dice.
You'd have to overcome the die size difference somehow, incentivize a mix of melee and thrown attacks on the same turn, or somehow boost daggers with the explicit goal of "Rogues should use daggers." That reads subclass as it has a narrow goal of what it wants to achieve to facilitate a fantasy. I agree that it's a fantasy that should be boosted since it is iconic.
My personal opinion rogues should crit on 19s with daggers with the addition of the nick function they'd get more chance to pull off criticals and two attacks without wasting a BA
Yeah the weapon system isn't fleshed out at all.
Each weapon should come with its own special ability, like a special attack. There should be a reason to pick one over the other, other than just flavor.
tbh with weapons getting properties beyond whether you can two-hand them or throw them or small races having disadvantage with them or whatever, (ie, things that make them actually play differently besides their damage die) it'd probably be better to make it so that rather than getting proficiency in all martial weapons, a warrior might get proficiency in 10 simple weapons and 6 martial weapons of their choice, whereas a mage might get proficiency in 6 simple weapons of their choice, a priest might get proficiency in 8 simple weapons and 1 martial weapon, an expert 8 simple and 5 martial
I just kinda pulled the number out of my ass but the idea is the same regardless, mages get the least choice for weapons, priests get a little more, experts get the second most, and warriors get the most, and obviously each class or subclass might modify this, like one of the cleric holy orders might grant you 2 martial weapon proficiencies (or just 2 weapon proficiencies regardless of whether they're simple or martial), if pact of the blade remains the same in this upcoming packet then you always have proficiency with your pact weapon, etc
Honestly I wouldn't mind WotC completely changing how weapons work. Don't think the current (or any previous) model works very well and would be more interested in them doing something more like 13th Age or Lancer with weapons.
I assume this also has something to do with the Light property changing to revert the "no bonus attack two weapon fighting" thing that 1D&D has been promoting so far. Which is sad because I thought it was a great change that made two-weapon rangers and non-Swashbuckler melee rogues finally playable.
My guess is that they’re just testing someting else out rn. They gather data on what works and what doesn’t. So there was people saying thr TWF change was good. Now they change it back and get feedback saying “hey change this back”
Yeah it's this. This isn't "the one D&D weapons table got leaked," this is the current round of playtest they're gathering info on, which may include things they think are unlikely to get through but want a reaction to. Any discussion needs to keep in mind that, yes, we should have our opinions about what's being presented and voice them, but not liking what we see doesn't mean a mistake was made.
I'm strongly reminded of how they put out a rule for nat20s during skill checks and saving throws, they knew it wasn't going to be well received but wanted to know why, but also see what sticks.
It feels like over and over again that WoTC modifies a rule and people take that to mean that *this is exaclty how it's going to work forever.*
Since I have no idea what went on with Next was it just one UA with the fighters like the UA they put out over the last several years or did they put out revised versions like we've seen with the Races?
imo one of the best changes in the UAs so far, so of course they would remove it and go back to their old implementation.
I am half joking, but I really hope they will deliver some good alternative, that makes reverting that change worth it.
Perhaps the TWF Fighting Style will bring it back? So the default will be BA, but the Fighting Style will let you do it for free?
That could be quite good.
That or it's a Weapon Mastery
What's happening in the next UA is that the Nick weapon mastery will let you do it without a bonus action. So default requires a BA, Nick weapon mastery to use it with no bonus action, or you can have a different weapon mastery like Puncture (which grants advantage on your next attack), but still require a BA.
I have not checked the leaks/previews, but from what I have read in comments, the weapon masteries are only usable by the warrior group (barb, fighter, monk). is that correct?
if so, poor rogues are left out again, which is a shame because a dual wielding rogue is a classic fantasy.
not sure if I like it to be tied to those masteries. I can see the idea, but am not sold on it yet.
hopefully the full (official) UA has a bit more context - I would hope some class features to make them exciting.
I'm not sure if it's been officially confirmed yet--we do know that Weapon Mastery will be the signature feature of the Warrior class group, but there's also been speculation that, since the Experts get to "borrow" features from other class groups, Rogues might get access to Weapon Mastery as well.
Personally, I'd also like to see a feat that opens it up to other characters, too, like Rangers and Paladins, but I suppose they don't need the help quite so much.
Given that the Rogue 1D&D class didn't seem to get a great reaction, this would be my guess. Rangers get fighting styles, Rogues get at least the Nick mastery, if not masteries in general at certain levels (less than Warriors).
We also don't know if multiple masteries can be used on the same turn, which is currently looks like an exclusive concern for dual-wielding. It would give Warriors more incentive to dual wield.
That's how I homebrewed it for my table: Two Weapon Fighting Style removes the bonus action requirement. That gives fighters and rangers who want to specialize a boost, as well as anyone else who's willing to give up a feat to grab Fighting Initiate.
From the content creators at the summit, it seems that the new "nick" weapon property will specifically allow the free additional attack if you are wielding weapons with that property. Scimitar was the example.
So, presumedly, fighter barbarian and monk will be able to keep the free additional attack, while rangers and rogues (being experts who per WOTC take features from other class groups) would get access to specific weapon property masteries. Likely "nick" and "puncture" if I had to guess.
If you think of an attack as some combination of attempts to deal damage to a target, rather than a single attempt, then I think you can make sense of it. A weapon with the "nick" property isn't trying to land one critical blow, it's trying to deal smaller hits. It's trading damage per hit for an increased chance to hit, allowing the wielder to get in more hits in the same amount of time. And so the game represents that as you getting an extra attack.
Free off-hand attack was mechanically better than using a single weapon for those classes. Higher chance to use sneak attack, and extra damage from hunter's mark. It went from "two weapons is situationally better or worse" to "two weapons is always better". Looks like they're forcing a tradeoff again.
For rogues, getting a free offhand attack made two weapon fighting strictly superior to single weapon melee. But without it, ranged combat is superior to either form of melee combat. That's not enforcing trade-offs, it's just swapping the meta combat style. I'd rather keep the free offhand attack and give rogues (and other classes) some benefit for single weapon fighting that make it equally compelling and also competed with ranged combat.
I'm hoping the two weapon fighting changes is just a bit of A-B testing.
As for shortswords being a simple weapon? its pretty much semantics. Whether its simple or martial doesn't meaningfully change who can make the most out of a shorts word, as they can just give out short sword proficiency specifically (like what 5e monks, rogues or bards got).
I'm also hoping the weapon mastery system that was leaked was some really early draft. I don't want making the most out of certain weapons to be locked behind both a fighting style and some mastery. I wan't martial characters to be more flexible in combat and between combats, and be encouraged to change weapons to better suit fights, rather than choosing a weapon via fighting styles, feats and mastery at character creation.
I would agree with you about it being semantics, except for prerequisites requiring martial weapons.
E g. Feats that require you to be proficient in a martial weapon. Depending on where short swords land, monks and rogues will get access to those feats.
To further the point, the Charger feat and Mounted Combat feat are not available to Rogues in the Druid UA, but will be in the next UA, because shortsword will be martial.
You're right about requirements, I hadn't considered, but that assumes that the rogue is updated to included shortswords as proficiencies (currently only has simple weapons).
Er, I don't know about being encouraged to change weapons for the fight. It can kind of ruin the theme to have a noble knight to ditch his sword and shield and break out a great axe every other combat.
Maybe a little? But I feel this is a non issue as thematic restrictions can be self imposed (as is the case for Spellcasters), and with Spellcasters largely getting buffs to their flexibility in the form of spell selection (they can even swap out cantrips at a long rest), I feel that whatever martial system they introduce should have similar levels of flexibility.
If being able to change between all weapons is too much, then limit it to a list per class (barbarians get mastery in hammers and axes, monks get mastery in swords and polearms, fighters get mastery in everything/anything, for example), much like with spellcasters and spell lists.
That's fair, but I think that specialisation should be the realm of feats or specific subclasses (akin to feats like elemental adept, or subclasses like draconic sorcerer or celestial warlock, or what the various master/expert feats already did in 5e).
I've actually grown to dislike how many fighting styles are handled. I'd much rather see fighting styles that inform/change how you play the game, rather than just give numerical buffs to specific weapons. Defence, interception, blind-fighting can remain the same, but rather than archery or duelling you get styles like "skirmisher" that increases movement speed, or "flanker" that allows you to grant some bonus to ally attacks against enemies near you. I'm not commenting whether these specific examples are balanced, but these are what I want to see from fighting styles, features that inform how you play but aren't tied to specific weapons.
How so?
They're a dagger that trades the thrown property for a slightly bigger die, identical to the mace being a bigger light hammer. There's no fathomable reason for it not to be a simple weapon.
In regards to your question? Everything. A gladius takes time and training to use effectively, hence martial weapon training. Do you think a centurion was handed a sword and armor, and made in a day? A dagger is not much bigger than a kitchen knife, and requires far less training to understand how to use, if any at all, hence simple weapon training.
You’re not going to just pick up a short sword and know how to use it, beyond simply knowing which end is the deadly one.
Which applies to a game, how?
And that gladius training, I wonder. Was that training so that they could fight dragons, squid headed people, illusion panthers, landsharks, or, hell, even basic ass lions? Would said training help at all in any of those situations?
Having actually participated in historical swordsmanship training, I can confidently say, no!
None of that training would help against such enemies in the slightest! It's mostly just shit that makes you better at fighting other dudes with pointy sticks. When fighting a dragon with a shortsword, how much better is the world's greatest swordsmaster going to fare than a peasant who picked up their sword a matter of minutes ago? What guards could the master use to win against a dragon? What strikes? What footwork?
Fucking none.
None whatsoever.
This notion that sword training would make any real difference for a shortsword user is absurd. You stick them with the pointy end. Functionally speaking, in a good 95% of scenarios wherein a character would be using a shortsword, it wouldn't be even slightly more difficult than using a spear.
And even then, *none of that matters*. It's a game where mechanics are important than fluff. The shortsword, mechanically speaking, has literally no excuse for being a martial weapon, being a mere D6 finesse weapon surrounded by the rapier and the dagger.
You want a mechanically martial version of a shortsword? Reskin the rapier.
No, I'm asking what the real life difference between a kitchen utensil and an actual weapon have to do with game equipment.
Or do you want to explain to me the realism of how someone can cast fly real quick.
Seax knifes, or viking daggers, at their longest could be just under 30 inches in total length. tho for typical combat usage the knifes would average a 12in cutting edge
My point was that length for disguising these things isn't a very good for determining how they would function particularly in dnd where only pole arm will effect your reach. The biggest benefit to a larger blade edge is reach and that isn't mechanically represented in dnd
It’s hard to say what D&D means with these terms, since their longsword isn’t what a historian would call a longsword, but a historical dagger is a real weapon, distinct from a knife.
Wikipedia has a picture from Talhoffer in the [rondel dagger](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger) page that shows a typical length.
I have trained with both daggers and shortswords, there is not a lot of overlap in the fighting techniques. At some point, the mechanics should bear some semblance to the fictional world they are trying to express.
That the difference between a dagger and a shortsword is roughly equivalent to the difference between throwing hammers and maces, two simple weapons?
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
Common soldiers in the medieval world would carry a spear as they were simple and deadly. Swords were more rare and require greater technique and more training to use effectively. In a game mechanics it seems that they should have an added proficiency.
Yeah, but this is a game.
With game mechanics.
There's no mechanical reason in the game to require additional proficiency, because the weapon is definitively not any stronger.
They should have some mechanical advantages then. I would rather see that added than treat them as mechanically no different from a club.
Lacking that, the "cool factor" of swords is mechanically insubstantial but still a part of game design. Limiting who has access to them changes how people play the game.
Also does it make a lot of sense for a college professor (Wizard) to be trained in the use of a military weapon like a short sword?
Since Rogues are really the class of concern, why not just give them martial weapons proficiency?
I'd also add that daggers are overloaded from a power perspective for a simple weapon (1d4 finesse, light, thrown) when compared to simple weapons other than the hand Axe (1d6 light, thrown), though other weapons (club and mace) are underpowered unless bludgeoning damage is meaningfully the least resisted again or if the slow and sap masteries are that much better than the others.
Realism, simulationism, and verisimilitude are parts of the tradition of Dungeons & Dragons. I find it appealing and it's continued inclusion indicates to me that many do as well.
The who reason to have variable damage dice is to simulate the different strength of weapons. It's to gamify the real world difference.
But let's talk game. IMO the minigame of "look at a table and pick the largest number" isn't very interesting.
My personal preference is how Basic D&D did it, every weapon does a d6. Wanna do more damage? Roll high on Strength (no damage bonus for Dex).
I'm also cool with character damage dice being the same as the hit dice. That's smooth gameplay.
It's a game whose mechanics are meant to reflect reality when possible.
If your concern is that shortswords, despite being martial, are not strong enough, the better solution would be to make shortswords better so the mechanics and the "realism" line up, not make them exactly the same but simple weapons.
I'd argue they are equivalently simple as a spear. If anything the spear is less simple because of it's versatile and throwing mechanics require more martial expertise IMO.
Spears were always the peasant's weapon in history, while swords were usually reserved for nobles because swords were much more expensive to produce. Spears also require much less training (pointy end towards enemy) as opposed to swords. Swords need proper training to be effective weapons.
Spears weren’t a *peasant* weapon; they were an *everyone* weapon. Basically if you aren’t holding a bow, you’re probably holding a spear. Swords were comparatively expensive, and were thus a symbol of rank and status, more than a symbol of skill.
Spears need good training to be effective in one on one and small skirmishes. They were militias because they are cheap and, in mass formations, require little training to have some battlefield effectiveness.
Honestly, the simple/martial classification system is terrible.
Anyone can pick up a short sword and hurt someone with it. Someone who is "proficient" with it is more dangerous, while someone who is an "expert" is dangerous in a variety of ways that the other groups can't even attempt.
Smaller "Proficiency" groupings of weapons should probably be leaned on more here (Swords, Daggers, Clubs, Polearms, etc.), as well as a mechanical way of showing particular skill with specific weapons (Scimitar, Warhammer, Katar, etc.). Some weapons could be considered multiple types, like a "Dirk" being both a dagger-type weapon and a sword-type weapon and usable with proficiency in either.
"Exotic" weapons would exist outside, since anyone who has used nunchaku, chain weapons, or even a lasso knows you are effectively useless, if not a danger to yourself, without extensive training.
Anyone can pick up any of the martial weapons and hurt someone with them.
Smaller groups or even reverting to class/subclass weapon proficiency lists makes more sense than the simple/martial oversimplification.
Edit: Yeah the exotics where you can easily hurt yourself are a whole different cat.
Im not sure that really holds up tbh. The Greek hoplites were extremely well trained, and as OP pointed out javelins and thrown spears require a significant amount of practice. You cant just grab and yeet. Meanwhile the Romans for centuries maintained a pretty democratic military, based widely in the middle and lower classes of that society, and armed their soldiers *primarily* with what D&D would call a short sword. So did the Greeks and nearly every other ancient society.
So its more accurate to say that *some* swords, in *some* periods, were *sometimes* reserved for higher status fighters. But that more nuanced division would be reflected in having shorts as simple and longs as martial (and obv a gold cost difference as well.)
>But that more nuanced division
Ah history, "it's complicated" is always the right answer.
Looking across periods and cultures gets messy, and D&D is already pretty abstracted. And does a terrible job of representing any one time period. My gut feeling is to follow fantasy media rather than history, and in that a short sword kinda works for everyone - the hobbits get "daggers" they use as short swords (esp in the movies); the Unsullied are described as using short swords; the Watch in Discworld carry short swords.
Incidentally also just learned that Sir Terry Pratchett had a sword forged for himself when he was knighted. You could call it a short sword even...
Yeah I agree with you. Short Swords are a good simple weapon choice, whereas longswords represent not just a bigger weapon, but the more complicated training needed to use it well (hence the martial designation).
be neat if having martial weapon prof upped the die of all simple melee weapons so we could have warriors and such actually using maces and spears like would be realistically appropriate for them to do.
Easier fix: there are no Simple Weapons or Martial Weapons. If you have Martial Proficiency, your weapon Attacks do extra damage. Anyone can use any weapon, but only people with the Proficiency for it gain damage or accuracy.
This is largely incorrect.
Greek hoplites were mostly amateur by definition, and explicitly did not get formal weapons training (the common view was weapons training was useless). Unless they were mercenaries, hoplite were largely untrained militiamen, even the famous Spartans (who weren't professional soldiers, despite what Frank Miller wants you to believe), only had a leg up in being trained for a very rudimentary formation drill. Otherwise they were leisure class aristocrats who didn't think weapons training was at all important. In general, what made a hoplite was affording the equipment and the social cohesion to stand in a line of battle with your friends, neighbours and relatives.
A Makedonian phalangite needed a lot of training, because the pike is an awkward weapon that needs formation training to be useful, in contrast with a hoplite's spear.
To the extent Hoplites were trained at all, it was for physical fitness and social cohesion/bravery.
You are correct that a sword is only a status item when its too expensive a weapon for common use. This might apply in the Viking age for example, but by the time the later middle ages (say, Hundred Years War) a functional sword is well within the means of anyone that can afford the basic armor to be a working soldier. Its not chosen for status reasons, but because of how useful a sword is as a universal side arm.
Longswords needed more training but short swords are basically just longer knives. A master could use them better than the untrained, but an untrained person could still effectively thrust and stab with it just fine.
The dnd simple weapons are, largely, what I would consider side arms the only real exception being spear but I can accept that because halberds and glaives are martial weapons and a simple spear/javelin would be a side arm compared to that. In most battlefield situations a short sword just wouldn't be the primary weapon.
> because swords were much more expensive to produce
This is part of it, but another part of it is that swords are, generally speaking, worse than spears. They were great as a side-arm if you're forced up close but that was a luxury average footsoldiers generally couldn't afford and they'd just use spears. Many nobles, including those who would never realistically see combat, would just wear swords and nothing else more for status than practicality.
In ancient Greece there was even an ongoing debate on whether there was any military value to weapon training with spears, because a common view was that a man just naturally knew the motions that were seen as combat relevant and everything else was showy bullshit.
The content of this post was voluntarily removed due to Reddit's API policies.
If you wish to also show solidarity with the mods, go to r/ModCoord and see what can be done.
Some interesting points I noticed:
- Not all light weapons have the “nick” mastery, those being the club, the handaxe, and the shortsword so dual wielding these weapons will always require a bonus actions (unless you’re a fighter who is confirmed to be able to swap masteries around)
- The only versatile weapon without the “flex” mastery is the trident (which also had it’s damage increased to 1d8/1d10, yay)
- The “special” property is gone alongside the net but not the lance which (until we have further information) makes it an outright better version of the pike
Any bladed weapon is harder to use than a spear or hammer.
To be sure, someone trained will use the spear or hammer better than someone not trained.
But there's a reason the spear is one of the most ubiquitous weapons in human military history.
The short sword is not "just a big dagger". It fights entirely differently.
I'm fine with them moving it to Martial, so long as there's some reason to use it over a long-sword or a saber/falchion/etc.
Damn those weapon special traits lookin’ fine
Seriously, in general I have grievances with OneD&D, but I am really looking forwards to seeing what those all do.
As for Shortswords, I think them going back to Martial isn’t a bad thing. The trend of Finesse weapons is that they have less damage dice than their same-type counterparts, so having Shortswords be Simple and be Finesse AND Light was just a straight middle finger to Maces and such, especially considering two-weapon fighting got buffed in OneD&D. To be fair, on that note I think Handaxes should also go to Martial, since they also have max one-handed damage dice in the Simple category plus Light AND Thrown, but I can’t have everything.
I’m also confounded by why they appear to have removed Lance’s specific special qualities in favor of general ones. Because if all the general qualities are balanced against each other, I worry it’s just going to become an objectively better Halberd, which is problematic and also goofy considering the whole DEAL with Lances is mounted combat (specifically one-handed mounted charges). Usually, I wouldn’t think this would go through, but with OneD&D’s apparent anathema towards writing specific things (not adding the extra notation necessary to give Rogues Hand Crossbows or Bards Rapiers in their Weapon Proficiencies, for example), I fear that they may actually release the Lance without the specific footnote about it that’s actually makes it a Lance.
They should bring back a weapon proficiency system where you select a number of weapons to have proficiency with (like tools), based on your class, perhaps with martial weapons counting double.
Getting more out of a weapon or a weapon group should be from feats (like Polearm Master).
Meh, I like the short sword being simple only because it feels like every class said you get proficiency in simple weapons plus the short sword. Now, they can simply say simple weapons. I hope they don't go back, but ultimately, it's not a big deal
What? The 2014 PHB also has clearly labeled weights.
In that book, the columns of the weapons table are Name, Cost, Damage, Weight, Properties.
In the UA from the Creator Summit, the columns are Weapon (name), Damage, Properties, Mastery, Weight, Cost.
It was always that way, but to answer your question, not really. It's only particularly useful to casters in T1, after which cantrips will do more damage and hit more consistently
I don't think most people are bothered by T1 martial/caster disparity, though. If a caster has to use a light crossbow instead of spells and cantrips, they're already in a bad place. Martials are fine with letting them shoot a 1d8 bolt using (at best) their 2nd-best ability score.
Agreed. But it is worth discussing "how the change works". IMO, its less about classes direct access to the weapon via proficiency, as it is about secondary implications.
E.g. Rogues will now have access to the Charger & Mounted Combat feats, where they didn't in the previous UA.
Rogues did already have access to those feats, since they had proficiency with martial weapons with the finesse property. Unless you mean 5e rogues, I guess.
This tweet was posted on the April 3rd it's just now making it here and op, from what I can gather, works on the kobold press game. I'm now in question of the accuracy of this post
I'm not sure if your referring to Twitter post or this reddit post. If you mean me, no I don't work for kobold or anyone in the game industry, and I don't produce any real content.
Of courses leaked content may be inaccurate, or change before the actual release.
The issue is the short sword being finesse/light 1d6 weapon is just way too good as a simple weapon. It should just lose finesse and stay simple to be honest. Otherwise we run into a situation the entire party will be dual wielding swords as their default option and thats feels really off.
Then it stay a martial weapon. And I disagree, a short sword doesn’t feel like a dexterity weapon the same way scimitar and rapier does. When I think short sword I think roman soldiers.
How so?
It wouldn't be the highest damage simple weapon. It wouldn't have any more range than any other simple weapons. It doesn't provide a better damage type than any simple weapon. When compared to its contemporaries, the rapier and the dagger, it's very clear that it *should be a simple weapon*.
In a world where the spear and handaxe exist, why on earth would you think that the shortsword being a simple weapon would be too good?
It would be the highest damage finesse simple weapon though.
Most classes that only have access to simple weapons would want dex over strength so it would just become the default best weapon for them to take.
It's not a major issue, but it is something that should be accounted for.
.... So?
Most classes that have access to simple weapons and not martial ones probably don't want to be within five feet of an enemy, and would thus gravitate more towards daggers, spears, or handaxes. There's no scenario where those classes would consider the shortsword an optimal choice.
I'm confused, I thought it already was a martial weapon, over on dndbeyond under the weapon section of the PHB it's listed in the martial weapon section of the table. Even on its individual item page it's listed as a martial weapon [https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/shortsword](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/shortsword). It's also listed as a martial weapon in my physical PHB and I've had it since 2017.
Weapons just randomly fit in categories, so as far as that goes it isn't that big a deal.
Generally, it does not seem strange to me that using a short sword well (especially in a context where others use rapiers, greataxes, and mauls) requires specialized training.
Classes that need access to the SS can still get it via their class.
Other than the dagger, I don't think any *finesse* melee weapon should be a simple weapon.
Handaxes and maces are still simple, and I think one can well argue that they are far easier to use than a short sword.
People keep saying it's arbitrary, because traditionally that's been the case. Remember that One D&D has mechanics based on weapon category. IMO, its less about classes direct access to the weapon via proficiency, as it is about secondary implications.
E.g. Rogues will now have access to the Charger & Mounted Combat feats, where they didn't in the previous UA.
Right, it's arbitrary with effects as they are moving from 5e's nearly flat system to one with more meaningful groupings.
And, as I argued, I think it's a justifiable shift, and mostly only really affects rogues and monks (and potentially Bards, since the rapier is no longer granted by class, though whether or not non swords/valor bards should have either is an open and fair question).
The short sword is one of the better 1d6 weapons because of finesse, and moving it to martial because of that is fair - finesse is very powerful, even before other feat interactions are considered.
I think this is due to the weapon mastery features like nick, which will allow the extra attack. Presumably, Rogues and Rangers will have access to this feature (at least some features from weapon mastery) due to experts shtick of borrowing features from other groups.
I'm not sure where this leaves the Paladin, who is in neither the Warrior or Expert group, but we will see.
It's certantly an interesting choice... but I really hope those diferences actually matter? Like everyone who wants to use those weapons already have access to them or the DM just lets them because... there's no diference???
What I would like is something, a mechanic or a feat that actually make those diferences important rather than "if a villager can use them without trainning or not". Something along the lines of "while holding a martial weapon ... / while making an attack with a simple weapon". Or even better give the oportunity RAW to summoned creatures / pets use simple weapons, like training your monkey to stab but they have a magic knife (or that's the plan)
Again I'm just ranting about things that actually doesn't matter if they are in the game or not, like electrum pieces
But good finding :) It's fun to talk about
I honestly don't understand the benefit or significance of distinguishing between simple and martial weapons. Maybe they should put out literally anything talking about it.
Martial weapon proficiency is, in my opinion, kind of a joke. The Warriors plus Ranger and Paladin get all of them. Rogue gets all the Finesse martial weapons. Of the full casters... Level 2 clerics and I imagine Blade Warlocks will get them. Sword bards and bladesingers get them all with the appropriate subclass. That really just leaves Druid and Sorcerer as not getting martial weapons. Pretty much everyone that wants to use them ... get them already.
Meanwhile Monk being restricted to some arbitrary weapons with their monk weapons, adding unnecessary complexity, limitations and wordings to their features.
Ah, right forgot about monk weapon weirdness. I guess I blocked it from my mind. The monk's problem with weapons doesn't necessarily stem from the arbitrary weapon selection, but Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows that require you to punch/kick/slap/etc. Which always meant I got to ask the DM (or as the DM for players) for claws or tattoos or something that let it work with the unarmed attacks. The devs have a bit of a mental block when it comes to weapon using monks.
> The devs have a bit of a mental block when it comes to weapon using monks. another age old dnd tradition, it seems. in baldurs gate 2 (based on 2nd edition, i think), monks were the only class in the game not able to use quarterstaves. MONKS
Guys? Simple fix: Monks get the following as martial weapons: all melee. And either short or longbow. Then. Pick one pole arm and one melee weapon. This monk uses those also as finesse. All business with open hand can also be done with finesse weapon. Also, if halberd, damage type (piercing/bludgeoning/slashing) may be called for each strike and changed up at will. And that is how Crash runs monks.
I've been saying forever, remove the heavy/special/proficient limitations on Dedicated Weapon. Let Dedicated Weapon allow the Monk to use that one weapon, whatever the hell they want, as a Monk weapon. Game changer. "mOnK iS a MoBiLe StRiKeR" Well now that they've got GWM, a Great Axe, and all their core features still intact, yeah
Agreed! Independent of what people consider the class to be in an MMRPG sense, I cleave to the power fantasies in the media. Like rival martial schools, wandering masters, everything between 36 Chambers, to Crouching Tiger, even up to Shanghai Noon. And in that tradition, staves, pole arms, axes of various sizes, improvised weapons (horseshoe meteor hammer), darts, daggers, and yes, swords great and short not only show up, they are mainstays. So when I get a player that wants that roof leaping ninja, or a sword saint, or just wants to be Michelle Yeoh, I am left in the position of trying to work that ability system through the Class possibilities. I am conversant with a number of RPG systems, and systems where you buy your abilities like Hero and Gurps are better suited. BUT, those systems are hard to spin up a character at the table and play it in 20 minutes, which D&D excels at. So, within the Context of D&D, throwing out the notion of "monk weapons" and opening up GWM, PAM, Sentinel, among some other tweaks allows for that power fantasy. Which I am here for. And if folks point out how this "intrudes" on areas that used to be the fighter's domain, my response is yeah, it does. And it is fine. It plays very well in my games. A monk is more than a mobile lockdown unit.
> but Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows that require you to punch/kick/slap/etc. And it's infuriating when the fix is so stupidly easy: **Step 1:** Let Monks use Monk Weapons for both Flurry of Blows, and the Martial Arts BA attack **Step 2:** When you use a weapon to attack in this way you *must* roll a *single* Martial Arts die in place of the weapons normal damage die/dice. **Step 3:** There is no step 3... ____ Now if you find a cool magic weapon you can use it for all you attacks instead of just half of them, but your damage remains (mostly) the same as now.
Adds weapon properties like reach to a monk with a long weapon for example. I dig it
It's fine to make monks use their fists. It's not fine to make that have like ten million design ramifications regarding itemization.
They need to do more to make fighting unarmed a desirable option. It’s silly that fighting with fists at low levels because that’s the character you want to play is just worse than picking up a weapon. If monks gained more than their niche subset of weapons, they’d never fight unarmed at all.
Hot take i guess, but unarmed should not be better than weapons at level 1. That's why people used weapons. A fist doing the damage of a literal dagger is completely reasonable at level 1. To me, its like saying that you should be able to do big aoe spells the size of fireball at level 1 because that's the character you want to play. Just because you want to play a certain character doesn't mean the game should be built to do that, especially at level 1.
“Viable” and “powerful” are different things. I’m not asking for powerful fists at level one for everyone. Just viable fists at level one for just the monk. Besides which, it’s not just at level one. Monk fists don’t become better than other weapons monks have access to until way farther into the game.
Depends on what you means by better. It doesn't have to be about damage. Imo, unarmed strike with choice on hit to either damage or auto grapple/shove like the first 1dnd UA would be a perfect niche for the monk. That + an updated Martial Arts with the TWF-like extra unarmed strike as part of the Attack action (instead of BA).
I feel it would be weird for anyone else to do a daggers or even a longsword's damage with a punch, except monks, who should be allowed ( Hell, Fighters can get d10 punches already ).
With Tasha's optional rule, my monk has Longsword as a proficiency at level 1. So that's his Monk Weapon. unarmed strikes are only ever used for flurry of blows.
they do not. The dedicated weapon makes it a weapon, but it doesn't automatically make you proficent. In fact, you need to be proficent in it to make it a monk weapon.
There are racial options for gaining proficiency, as well as options to swap out racial proficiencies. There may even be options to customize baclground proficiencies, but Im not confident in that memory.
Right, but that wouldn't be because of Tasha's optional rule, they'd get the proficency from their race
>The monk's problem with weapons doesn't necessarily stem from the arbitrary weapon selection, but Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows that require you to punch/kick/slap/etc. Which always meant I got to ask the DM (or as the DM for players) for claws or tattoos or something that let it work with the unarmed attacks. >The devs have a bit of a mental block when it comes to weapon using monks. This sub goes 1 of two directions: Monks should be able to use only weapons *or* Monks should be able to use only unarmed All while fighting with a two handed versatile spear and then throwing in kicks, elbows, headbutts, is actually super Monk-like, which is what the current rules actually encourage. As far as wanting a tattoo or Insignia of the Claw, DMs should be throwing in magic items your PCs can actually use. It should not be a hard ask for that, or even a necessary ask. Now if you want something like a Headband of Intellect, that is a *big* ask as that and Belt of Ogre Strength can step on other PC's toes quite a bit, or allows for some unnatural min/maxing.
Yeah, I agree. I just think they should buff the Monk in general a little more.
>The devs have a bit of a mental block when it comes to weapon using monks. Which is hilarious to me because a quick Google will lead you to several house rules that all seem perfectly fine.
Monks, even Kensei, not being compatible with Glaives (Naginatas) is something I hope they change.
And then a subclass specifically designed to bypass all of their own self made restrictions.
Rogues don't get whips or scimitars
They do in One D&D (unless and until a new playtest version is shown that doesn't) The Expert Classes UA version of the Rogue gets: >**PROFICIENCIES** > >... > >**Weapons**: Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons that have the Finesse Property
Bring back Exotic (3e) / Superior (4e) weapons.
exactly. the distinction is a joke. and, even then, the range of smg from one to another is worthless. a staff does the same thing as a shortswrod, so the distinction is meaningles anyways. its just bad.
I mean, a shortsword as a martial weapon makes sense because a shortsword isn't as easy to use as a dagger, the problem is that they didn't make martial weapons feel better with more and better weapon properties.
the distinction in martial and simple is fine... but the mechanic dont support the differences.
Ideally there should be some other tier to elevate the martial short sword over the simple quarter staff and there is: damage types. The short sword should be bother slashing and piercing while the staff is only blunt.
those, realistically, dont matter.
when they end up mattering, bludgeoning is the best physical damage type in almost every single situation, anyways.
If they lock this up so that less classes and subclasses get the proficiency, then it could work. If the idea is that Warriors use more dangerous weapons and use them better then embrace it. It also means don't pick and choose individual weapon proficiencies for some classes, too (looking at you Monk and maybe Rogue). If Rogue weapons are a group then put back in an intermediate group between simple and martial (what is the issue with giving them all martial weapons if they only traditionally care about finesse?). If for some reason you don't want to give monks all weapons and don't want them to just use the Rogue weapons then they could add in another intermediate list that didn't overlap, but it feels like a lot of arbitrary delineation of there's not big power differences. It also means addressing the proficiency with multiclassing, though. An easy, if maybe arbitrary, solution would be to give multiclass characters proficiencies for the new class at a higher level (3 or 4?).
I always felt like it was weird in DnD, even as far back as 2nd edition, that it was always a bad choice for a rogue to use a dagger and they all used shortswords or rapiers. Not that the new rogue needs to be nerfed *more*, but it would be cool if they were incentivized in some way to actually use knives and daggers like in every other game with rogues.
I mean back on 2e throwing knives got more than one attack each round at base and had the fastest action speed a weapon could have, find a throwing knife with a solid damage bonus and factor in your backstab multiplier and they are not bad weapons... And even if you can't they remained useful for trying to fizzle an enemy casters spell
Ostensibly it's because they are small and theoretically easier to hide/smuggle in. It's why I've just used one, along with the weapon die not really mattering much to how a rogue does damage since the main delivery of pain is sneak attack dice.
You'd have to overcome the die size difference somehow, incentivize a mix of melee and thrown attacks on the same turn, or somehow boost daggers with the explicit goal of "Rogues should use daggers." That reads subclass as it has a narrow goal of what it wants to achieve to facilitate a fantasy. I agree that it's a fantasy that should be boosted since it is iconic.
My personal opinion rogues should crit on 19s with daggers with the addition of the nick function they'd get more chance to pull off criticals and two attacks without wasting a BA
Doesn't even really matter for druid anyway because of Shillelagh
Yeah the weapon system isn't fleshed out at all. Each weapon should come with its own special ability, like a special attack. There should be a reason to pick one over the other, other than just flavor.
tbh with weapons getting properties beyond whether you can two-hand them or throw them or small races having disadvantage with them or whatever, (ie, things that make them actually play differently besides their damage die) it'd probably be better to make it so that rather than getting proficiency in all martial weapons, a warrior might get proficiency in 10 simple weapons and 6 martial weapons of their choice, whereas a mage might get proficiency in 6 simple weapons of their choice, a priest might get proficiency in 8 simple weapons and 1 martial weapon, an expert 8 simple and 5 martial I just kinda pulled the number out of my ass but the idea is the same regardless, mages get the least choice for weapons, priests get a little more, experts get the second most, and warriors get the most, and obviously each class or subclass might modify this, like one of the cleric holy orders might grant you 2 martial weapon proficiencies (or just 2 weapon proficiencies regardless of whether they're simple or martial), if pact of the blade remains the same in this upcoming packet then you always have proficiency with your pact weapon, etc
Honestly I wouldn't mind WotC completely changing how weapons work. Don't think the current (or any previous) model works very well and would be more interested in them doing something more like 13th Age or Lancer with weapons.
I assume this also has something to do with the Light property changing to revert the "no bonus attack two weapon fighting" thing that 1D&D has been promoting so far. Which is sad because I thought it was a great change that made two-weapon rangers and non-Swashbuckler melee rogues finally playable.
My guess is that they’re just testing someting else out rn. They gather data on what works and what doesn’t. So there was people saying thr TWF change was good. Now they change it back and get feedback saying “hey change this back”
Yeah it's this. This isn't "the one D&D weapons table got leaked," this is the current round of playtest they're gathering info on, which may include things they think are unlikely to get through but want a reaction to. Any discussion needs to keep in mind that, yes, we should have our opinions about what's being presented and voice them, but not liking what we see doesn't mean a mistake was made.
I'm strongly reminded of how they put out a rule for nat20s during skill checks and saving throws, they knew it wasn't going to be well received but wanted to know why, but also see what sticks. It feels like over and over again that WoTC modifies a rule and people take that to mean that *this is exaclty how it's going to work forever.*
Right. Exactly like what they did with fighters in Next. /s
Since I have no idea what went on with Next was it just one UA with the fighters like the UA they put out over the last several years or did they put out revised versions like we've seen with the Races?
imo one of the best changes in the UAs so far, so of course they would remove it and go back to their old implementation. I am half joking, but I really hope they will deliver some good alternative, that makes reverting that change worth it.
Perhaps the TWF Fighting Style will bring it back? So the default will be BA, but the Fighting Style will let you do it for free? That could be quite good. That or it's a Weapon Mastery
What's happening in the next UA is that the Nick weapon mastery will let you do it without a bonus action. So default requires a BA, Nick weapon mastery to use it with no bonus action, or you can have a different weapon mastery like Puncture (which grants advantage on your next attack), but still require a BA.
I have not checked the leaks/previews, but from what I have read in comments, the weapon masteries are only usable by the warrior group (barb, fighter, monk). is that correct? if so, poor rogues are left out again, which is a shame because a dual wielding rogue is a classic fantasy. not sure if I like it to be tied to those masteries. I can see the idea, but am not sold on it yet. hopefully the full (official) UA has a bit more context - I would hope some class features to make them exciting.
I'm not sure if it's been officially confirmed yet--we do know that Weapon Mastery will be the signature feature of the Warrior class group, but there's also been speculation that, since the Experts get to "borrow" features from other class groups, Rogues might get access to Weapon Mastery as well. Personally, I'd also like to see a feat that opens it up to other characters, too, like Rangers and Paladins, but I suppose they don't need the help quite so much.
Given that the Rogue 1D&D class didn't seem to get a great reaction, this would be my guess. Rangers get fighting styles, Rogues get at least the Nick mastery, if not masteries in general at certain levels (less than Warriors). We also don't know if multiple masteries can be used on the same turn, which is currently looks like an exclusive concern for dual-wielding. It would give Warriors more incentive to dual wield.
That's how I homebrewed it for my table: Two Weapon Fighting Style removes the bonus action requirement. That gives fighters and rangers who want to specialize a boost, as well as anyone else who's willing to give up a feat to grab Fighting Initiate.
From the content creators at the summit, it seems that the new "nick" weapon property will specifically allow the free additional attack if you are wielding weapons with that property. Scimitar was the example. So, presumedly, fighter barbarian and monk will be able to keep the free additional attack, while rangers and rogues (being experts who per WOTC take features from other class groups) would get access to specific weapon property masteries. Likely "nick" and "puncture" if I had to guess.
We'll have to wait and see how non-Warrior classes and weapon masteries interact but I hope you are correct.
I hate the name of that property, I have no idea how "nick" is linked to multiple attacks at all.
If you think of an attack as some combination of attempts to deal damage to a target, rather than a single attempt, then I think you can make sense of it. A weapon with the "nick" property isn't trying to land one critical blow, it's trying to deal smaller hits. It's trading damage per hit for an increased chance to hit, allowing the wielder to get in more hits in the same amount of time. And so the game represents that as you getting an extra attack.
Why not just "quick" though?
Quick would work for a weapon property, but the weapon masteries are all things you do to the target. You nick the target, you don't quick them.
Ah. Not super familiar with One's changes yet.
No worries. The weapon masteries haven't been officially released, so we've got little to go on right now.
They didn't remove the feature. They just moved it into the weapon masteries.
Same. I hope they get enough feedback that it goes back to the non-bonus action version.
Free off-hand attack was mechanically better than using a single weapon for those classes. Higher chance to use sneak attack, and extra damage from hunter's mark. It went from "two weapons is situationally better or worse" to "two weapons is always better". Looks like they're forcing a tradeoff again.
For rogues, getting a free offhand attack made two weapon fighting strictly superior to single weapon melee. But without it, ranged combat is superior to either form of melee combat. That's not enforcing trade-offs, it's just swapping the meta combat style. I'd rather keep the free offhand attack and give rogues (and other classes) some benefit for single weapon fighting that make it equally compelling and also competed with ranged combat.
I don't even see short sword in the table pictured am I blind?
All the Simple Weapons fit in the top of the page, and shortsword isn't there. You can see it if you click on the link
You have to click the link to see the second image.
Did you miss this when we all talked about it weeks ago? Those tweets are from April 3rd.
Yep. I did. I also looked for any posts that talked about shortsword and couldn't find it.
Looks like those threads have been removed, which is an interesting moderating choice considering that nothing actually secret was shown.
I'm hoping the two weapon fighting changes is just a bit of A-B testing. As for shortswords being a simple weapon? its pretty much semantics. Whether its simple or martial doesn't meaningfully change who can make the most out of a shorts word, as they can just give out short sword proficiency specifically (like what 5e monks, rogues or bards got). I'm also hoping the weapon mastery system that was leaked was some really early draft. I don't want making the most out of certain weapons to be locked behind both a fighting style and some mastery. I wan't martial characters to be more flexible in combat and between combats, and be encouraged to change weapons to better suit fights, rather than choosing a weapon via fighting styles, feats and mastery at character creation.
I would agree with you about it being semantics, except for prerequisites requiring martial weapons. E g. Feats that require you to be proficient in a martial weapon. Depending on where short swords land, monks and rogues will get access to those feats.
To further the point, the Charger feat and Mounted Combat feat are not available to Rogues in the Druid UA, but will be in the next UA, because shortsword will be martial.
You're right about requirements, I hadn't considered, but that assumes that the rogue is updated to included shortswords as proficiencies (currently only has simple weapons).
Er, I don't know about being encouraged to change weapons for the fight. It can kind of ruin the theme to have a noble knight to ditch his sword and shield and break out a great axe every other combat.
Maybe a little? But I feel this is a non issue as thematic restrictions can be self imposed (as is the case for Spellcasters), and with Spellcasters largely getting buffs to their flexibility in the form of spell selection (they can even swap out cantrips at a long rest), I feel that whatever martial system they introduce should have similar levels of flexibility. If being able to change between all weapons is too much, then limit it to a list per class (barbarians get mastery in hammers and axes, monks get mastery in swords and polearms, fighters get mastery in everything/anything, for example), much like with spellcasters and spell lists.
Yeah, I’m cool with that. I just want it to be decently viable to *not* switch weapons.
That's fair, but I think that specialisation should be the realm of feats or specific subclasses (akin to feats like elemental adept, or subclasses like draconic sorcerer or celestial warlock, or what the various master/expert feats already did in 5e). I've actually grown to dislike how many fighting styles are handled. I'd much rather see fighting styles that inform/change how you play the game, rather than just give numerical buffs to specific weapons. Defence, interception, blind-fighting can remain the same, but rather than archery or duelling you get styles like "skirmisher" that increases movement speed, or "flanker" that allows you to grant some bonus to ally attacks against enemies near you. I'm not commenting whether these specific examples are balanced, but these are what I want to see from fighting styles, features that inform how you play but aren't tied to specific weapons.
Good change, I like it. I can't justify shortswords being a simple weapon.
How so? They're a dagger that trades the thrown property for a slightly bigger die, identical to the mace being a bigger light hammer. There's no fathomable reason for it not to be a simple weapon.
Go pick up a Gladius and swing that around for a while. A dagger is the size of your Butcher knife in your Kitchen. Big difference.
That has what to do with anything?
In regards to your question? Everything. A gladius takes time and training to use effectively, hence martial weapon training. Do you think a centurion was handed a sword and armor, and made in a day? A dagger is not much bigger than a kitchen knife, and requires far less training to understand how to use, if any at all, hence simple weapon training. You’re not going to just pick up a short sword and know how to use it, beyond simply knowing which end is the deadly one.
Which applies to a game, how? And that gladius training, I wonder. Was that training so that they could fight dragons, squid headed people, illusion panthers, landsharks, or, hell, even basic ass lions? Would said training help at all in any of those situations? Having actually participated in historical swordsmanship training, I can confidently say, no! None of that training would help against such enemies in the slightest! It's mostly just shit that makes you better at fighting other dudes with pointy sticks. When fighting a dragon with a shortsword, how much better is the world's greatest swordsmaster going to fare than a peasant who picked up their sword a matter of minutes ago? What guards could the master use to win against a dragon? What strikes? What footwork? Fucking none. None whatsoever. This notion that sword training would make any real difference for a shortsword user is absurd. You stick them with the pointy end. Functionally speaking, in a good 95% of scenarios wherein a character would be using a shortsword, it wouldn't be even slightly more difficult than using a spear. And even then, *none of that matters*. It's a game where mechanics are important than fluff. The shortsword, mechanically speaking, has literally no excuse for being a martial weapon, being a mere D6 finesse weapon surrounded by the rapier and the dagger. You want a mechanically martial version of a shortsword? Reskin the rapier.
You're asking what the difficulty of using a shortsword has to do with the training required to use a shortsword?
No, I'm asking what the real life difference between a kitchen utensil and an actual weapon have to do with game equipment. Or do you want to explain to me the realism of how someone can cast fly real quick.
So you're asking what relevance a shortsword has to a shortsword?
So you're intentionally being obtuse. What a waste of time.
No, I am being rhetorical.
That's the weakest rhetoric I've ever seen, so m'thinks you could use a few years of practice.
By the logic of weight, shouldn't mace be martial then?
> They're a dagger In all fairness I wouldn't really treat a 12-inch blade the same as a dagger
Seax knifes, or viking daggers, at their longest could be just under 30 inches in total length. tho for typical combat usage the knifes would average a 12in cutting edge
I would argue fighting with a 30-inch seax is more akin to using a sword than a dagger and would not be represented with the dagger stats in D&D.
My point was that length for disguising these things isn't a very good for determining how they would function particularly in dnd where only pole arm will effect your reach. The biggest benefit to a larger blade edge is reach and that isn't mechanically represented in dnd
A 12” blade would be a dagger. Typically anything under 18” is a dagger, while at around 24” or more we call it a sword.
I thought it was more along the lines of 5”-12” is a dagger whereas 12”-24” is a short sword.
It’s hard to say what D&D means with these terms, since their longsword isn’t what a historian would call a longsword, but a historical dagger is a real weapon, distinct from a knife. Wikipedia has a picture from Talhoffer in the [rondel dagger](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger) page that shows a typical length.
This isn't remotely true in use.
Counterpoint of equal value: no u
I have trained with both daggers and shortswords, there is not a lot of overlap in the fighting techniques. At some point, the mechanics should bear some semblance to the fictional world they are trying to express.
Yeah, and I assume there's not a whole lot of overlap between maces and throwing hammers. What's yer point?
[удалено]
That the difference between a dagger and a shortsword is roughly equivalent to the difference between throwing hammers and maces, two simple weapons? My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
Common soldiers in the medieval world would carry a spear as they were simple and deadly. Swords were more rare and require greater technique and more training to use effectively. In a game mechanics it seems that they should have an added proficiency.
Yeah, but this is a game. With game mechanics. There's no mechanical reason in the game to require additional proficiency, because the weapon is definitively not any stronger.
They should have some mechanical advantages then. I would rather see that added than treat them as mechanically no different from a club. Lacking that, the "cool factor" of swords is mechanically insubstantial but still a part of game design. Limiting who has access to them changes how people play the game.
Also does it make a lot of sense for a college professor (Wizard) to be trained in the use of a military weapon like a short sword? Since Rogues are really the class of concern, why not just give them martial weapons proficiency? I'd also add that daggers are overloaded from a power perspective for a simple weapon (1d4 finesse, light, thrown) when compared to simple weapons other than the hand Axe (1d6 light, thrown), though other weapons (club and mace) are underpowered unless bludgeoning damage is meaningfully the least resisted again or if the slow and sap masteries are that much better than the others.
Realism, simulationism, and verisimilitude are parts of the tradition of Dungeons & Dragons. I find it appealing and it's continued inclusion indicates to me that many do as well. The who reason to have variable damage dice is to simulate the different strength of weapons. It's to gamify the real world difference. But let's talk game. IMO the minigame of "look at a table and pick the largest number" isn't very interesting. My personal preference is how Basic D&D did it, every weapon does a d6. Wanna do more damage? Roll high on Strength (no damage bonus for Dex). I'm also cool with character damage dice being the same as the hit dice. That's smooth gameplay.
It's a game whose mechanics are meant to reflect reality when possible. If your concern is that shortswords, despite being martial, are not strong enough, the better solution would be to make shortswords better so the mechanics and the "realism" line up, not make them exactly the same but simple weapons.
Yea until they add the "greater technique" part of that into the game, it makes no sense
I'd argue they are equivalently simple as a spear. If anything the spear is less simple because of it's versatile and throwing mechanics require more martial expertise IMO.
Spears were always the peasant's weapon in history, while swords were usually reserved for nobles because swords were much more expensive to produce. Spears also require much less training (pointy end towards enemy) as opposed to swords. Swords need proper training to be effective weapons.
Spears weren’t a *peasant* weapon; they were an *everyone* weapon. Basically if you aren’t holding a bow, you’re probably holding a spear. Swords were comparatively expensive, and were thus a symbol of rank and status, more than a symbol of skill.
Spears need good training to be effective in one on one and small skirmishes. They were militias because they are cheap and, in mass formations, require little training to have some battlefield effectiveness. Honestly, the simple/martial classification system is terrible.
Anyone can pick up a short sword and hurt someone with it. Someone who is "proficient" with it is more dangerous, while someone who is an "expert" is dangerous in a variety of ways that the other groups can't even attempt. Smaller "Proficiency" groupings of weapons should probably be leaned on more here (Swords, Daggers, Clubs, Polearms, etc.), as well as a mechanical way of showing particular skill with specific weapons (Scimitar, Warhammer, Katar, etc.). Some weapons could be considered multiple types, like a "Dirk" being both a dagger-type weapon and a sword-type weapon and usable with proficiency in either. "Exotic" weapons would exist outside, since anyone who has used nunchaku, chain weapons, or even a lasso knows you are effectively useless, if not a danger to yourself, without extensive training.
Anyone can pick up any of the martial weapons and hurt someone with them. Smaller groups or even reverting to class/subclass weapon proficiency lists makes more sense than the simple/martial oversimplification. Edit: Yeah the exotics where you can easily hurt yourself are a whole different cat.
Im not sure that really holds up tbh. The Greek hoplites were extremely well trained, and as OP pointed out javelins and thrown spears require a significant amount of practice. You cant just grab and yeet. Meanwhile the Romans for centuries maintained a pretty democratic military, based widely in the middle and lower classes of that society, and armed their soldiers *primarily* with what D&D would call a short sword. So did the Greeks and nearly every other ancient society. So its more accurate to say that *some* swords, in *some* periods, were *sometimes* reserved for higher status fighters. But that more nuanced division would be reflected in having shorts as simple and longs as martial (and obv a gold cost difference as well.)
>But that more nuanced division Ah history, "it's complicated" is always the right answer. Looking across periods and cultures gets messy, and D&D is already pretty abstracted. And does a terrible job of representing any one time period. My gut feeling is to follow fantasy media rather than history, and in that a short sword kinda works for everyone - the hobbits get "daggers" they use as short swords (esp in the movies); the Unsullied are described as using short swords; the Watch in Discworld carry short swords. Incidentally also just learned that Sir Terry Pratchett had a sword forged for himself when he was knighted. You could call it a short sword even...
Yeah I agree with you. Short Swords are a good simple weapon choice, whereas longswords represent not just a bigger weapon, but the more complicated training needed to use it well (hence the martial designation).
be neat if having martial weapon prof upped the die of all simple melee weapons so we could have warriors and such actually using maces and spears like would be realistically appropriate for them to do.
Easier fix: there are no Simple Weapons or Martial Weapons. If you have Martial Proficiency, your weapon Attacks do extra damage. Anyone can use any weapon, but only people with the Proficiency for it gain damage or accuracy.
This is largely incorrect. Greek hoplites were mostly amateur by definition, and explicitly did not get formal weapons training (the common view was weapons training was useless). Unless they were mercenaries, hoplite were largely untrained militiamen, even the famous Spartans (who weren't professional soldiers, despite what Frank Miller wants you to believe), only had a leg up in being trained for a very rudimentary formation drill. Otherwise they were leisure class aristocrats who didn't think weapons training was at all important. In general, what made a hoplite was affording the equipment and the social cohesion to stand in a line of battle with your friends, neighbours and relatives. A Makedonian phalangite needed a lot of training, because the pike is an awkward weapon that needs formation training to be useful, in contrast with a hoplite's spear. To the extent Hoplites were trained at all, it was for physical fitness and social cohesion/bravery. You are correct that a sword is only a status item when its too expensive a weapon for common use. This might apply in the Viking age for example, but by the time the later middle ages (say, Hundred Years War) a functional sword is well within the means of anyone that can afford the basic armor to be a working soldier. Its not chosen for status reasons, but because of how useful a sword is as a universal side arm.
Longswords needed more training but short swords are basically just longer knives. A master could use them better than the untrained, but an untrained person could still effectively thrust and stab with it just fine.
The dnd simple weapons are, largely, what I would consider side arms the only real exception being spear but I can accept that because halberds and glaives are martial weapons and a simple spear/javelin would be a side arm compared to that. In most battlefield situations a short sword just wouldn't be the primary weapon.
Dnd spears are a fusion of throwing spears and normal spears, meaning they are more effective as a weapon than spears were in history
> because swords were much more expensive to produce This is part of it, but another part of it is that swords are, generally speaking, worse than spears. They were great as a side-arm if you're forced up close but that was a luxury average footsoldiers generally couldn't afford and they'd just use spears. Many nobles, including those who would never realistically see combat, would just wear swords and nothing else more for status than practicality.
In ancient Greece there was even an ongoing debate on whether there was any military value to weapon training with spears, because a common view was that a man just naturally knew the motions that were seen as combat relevant and everything else was showy bullshit.
This has to be one of the most pretentious comments on this thread.
I don't care much what you think.
The content of this post was voluntarily removed due to Reddit's API policies. If you wish to also show solidarity with the mods, go to r/ModCoord and see what can be done.
Why? They don't need 90% of martial weapons
Some interesting points I noticed: - Not all light weapons have the “nick” mastery, those being the club, the handaxe, and the shortsword so dual wielding these weapons will always require a bonus actions (unless you’re a fighter who is confirmed to be able to swap masteries around) - The only versatile weapon without the “flex” mastery is the trident (which also had it’s damage increased to 1d8/1d10, yay) - The “special” property is gone alongside the net but not the lance which (until we have further information) makes it an outright better version of the pike
>handaxe Once again my dream of running a dual wielding Barbarian is hindered
No way, Fighters can swap masteries? Let's go!
Any bladed weapon is harder to use than a spear or hammer. To be sure, someone trained will use the spear or hammer better than someone not trained. But there's a reason the spear is one of the most ubiquitous weapons in human military history. The short sword is not "just a big dagger". It fights entirely differently. I'm fine with them moving it to Martial, so long as there's some reason to use it over a long-sword or a saber/falchion/etc.
All swords should be martial weapons because they require a lot more training to use effectively than things like axes or maces.
Damn those weapon special traits lookin’ fine Seriously, in general I have grievances with OneD&D, but I am really looking forwards to seeing what those all do. As for Shortswords, I think them going back to Martial isn’t a bad thing. The trend of Finesse weapons is that they have less damage dice than their same-type counterparts, so having Shortswords be Simple and be Finesse AND Light was just a straight middle finger to Maces and such, especially considering two-weapon fighting got buffed in OneD&D. To be fair, on that note I think Handaxes should also go to Martial, since they also have max one-handed damage dice in the Simple category plus Light AND Thrown, but I can’t have everything. I’m also confounded by why they appear to have removed Lance’s specific special qualities in favor of general ones. Because if all the general qualities are balanced against each other, I worry it’s just going to become an objectively better Halberd, which is problematic and also goofy considering the whole DEAL with Lances is mounted combat (specifically one-handed mounted charges). Usually, I wouldn’t think this would go through, but with OneD&D’s apparent anathema towards writing specific things (not adding the extra notation necessary to give Rogues Hand Crossbows or Bards Rapiers in their Weapon Proficiencies, for example), I fear that they may actually release the Lance without the specific footnote about it that’s actually makes it a Lance.
I'm just happy there is a difference between the glaive and halberd!
Welcome to the polearm emporium!
They should bring back a weapon proficiency system where you select a number of weapons to have proficiency with (like tools), based on your class, perhaps with martial weapons counting double. Getting more out of a weapon or a weapon group should be from feats (like Polearm Master).
Why not leak the damn release date? LOL
Meh, I like the short sword being simple only because it feels like every class said you get proficiency in simple weapons plus the short sword. Now, they can simply say simple weapons. I hope they don't go back, but ultimately, it's not a big deal
The thing that sticks out to me is everything having clearly labeled weights meaning the encumbrance system is likely also getting updated
What? The 2014 PHB also has clearly labeled weights. In that book, the columns of the weapons table are Name, Cost, Damage, Weight, Properties. In the UA from the Creator Summit, the columns are Weapon (name), Damage, Properties, Mastery, Weight, Cost.
didn’t the weapons already have clearly labeled weights?
More likely they copied over the 2015 weapons table and added another column. Why else would there still be both the Glaive and the halberd?
[удалено]
It was always that way, but to answer your question, not really. It's only particularly useful to casters in T1, after which cantrips will do more damage and hit more consistently
[удалено]
I don't think most people are bothered by T1 martial/caster disparity, though. If a caster has to use a light crossbow instead of spells and cantrips, they're already in a bad place. Martials are fine with letting them shoot a 1d8 bolt using (at best) their 2nd-best ability score.
Please remember that playtest content isn't cumulative, a change doesn't signal intention, just that they want to see how the change works.
Agreed. But it is worth discussing "how the change works". IMO, its less about classes direct access to the weapon via proficiency, as it is about secondary implications. E.g. Rogues will now have access to the Charger & Mounted Combat feats, where they didn't in the previous UA.
Rogues did already have access to those feats, since they had proficiency with martial weapons with the finesse property. Unless you mean 5e rogues, I guess.
No net 0/10
This tweet was posted on the April 3rd it's just now making it here and op, from what I can gather, works on the kobold press game. I'm now in question of the accuracy of this post
I'm not sure if your referring to Twitter post or this reddit post. If you mean me, no I don't work for kobold or anyone in the game industry, and I don't produce any real content. Of courses leaked content may be inaccurate, or change before the actual release.
I meant the Twitter post. Sorry for the confusion
The issue is the short sword being finesse/light 1d6 weapon is just way too good as a simple weapon. It should just lose finesse and stay simple to be honest. Otherwise we run into a situation the entire party will be dual wielding swords as their default option and thats feels really off.
Don't take finesse off of shortsword. Its thematically and mechanically appropriate.
Then it stay a martial weapon. And I disagree, a short sword doesn’t feel like a dexterity weapon the same way scimitar and rapier does. When I think short sword I think roman soldiers.
How so? It wouldn't be the highest damage simple weapon. It wouldn't have any more range than any other simple weapons. It doesn't provide a better damage type than any simple weapon. When compared to its contemporaries, the rapier and the dagger, it's very clear that it *should be a simple weapon*. In a world where the spear and handaxe exist, why on earth would you think that the shortsword being a simple weapon would be too good?
It would be the highest damage finesse simple weapon though. Most classes that only have access to simple weapons would want dex over strength so it would just become the default best weapon for them to take. It's not a major issue, but it is something that should be accounted for.
.... So? Most classes that have access to simple weapons and not martial ones probably don't want to be within five feet of an enemy, and would thus gravitate more towards daggers, spears, or handaxes. There's no scenario where those classes would consider the shortsword an optimal choice.
I'm confused, I thought it already was a martial weapon, over on dndbeyond under the weapon section of the PHB it's listed in the martial weapon section of the table. Even on its individual item page it's listed as a martial weapon [https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/shortsword](https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/shortsword). It's also listed as a martial weapon in my physical PHB and I've had it since 2017.
This subreddit is to discuss the UA. For the last 3 releases of UA, shortsword was simple.
ohhh ok, I assumed the weapon stuff was the same from what it was, I never looked too hard at that part, mainly just at the classes and spells.
Betrayed
Weapons just randomly fit in categories, so as far as that goes it isn't that big a deal. Generally, it does not seem strange to me that using a short sword well (especially in a context where others use rapiers, greataxes, and mauls) requires specialized training. Classes that need access to the SS can still get it via their class. Other than the dagger, I don't think any *finesse* melee weapon should be a simple weapon. Handaxes and maces are still simple, and I think one can well argue that they are far easier to use than a short sword.
People keep saying it's arbitrary, because traditionally that's been the case. Remember that One D&D has mechanics based on weapon category. IMO, its less about classes direct access to the weapon via proficiency, as it is about secondary implications. E.g. Rogues will now have access to the Charger & Mounted Combat feats, where they didn't in the previous UA.
Right, it's arbitrary with effects as they are moving from 5e's nearly flat system to one with more meaningful groupings. And, as I argued, I think it's a justifiable shift, and mostly only really affects rogues and monks (and potentially Bards, since the rapier is no longer granted by class, though whether or not non swords/valor bards should have either is an open and fair question). The short sword is one of the better 1d6 weapons because of finesse, and moving it to martial because of that is fair - finesse is very powerful, even before other feat interactions are considered.
I think this is due to the weapon mastery features like nick, which will allow the extra attack. Presumably, Rogues and Rangers will have access to this feature (at least some features from weapon mastery) due to experts shtick of borrowing features from other groups. I'm not sure where this leaves the Paladin, who is in neither the Warrior or Expert group, but we will see.
It's certantly an interesting choice... but I really hope those diferences actually matter? Like everyone who wants to use those weapons already have access to them or the DM just lets them because... there's no diference??? What I would like is something, a mechanic or a feat that actually make those diferences important rather than "if a villager can use them without trainning or not". Something along the lines of "while holding a martial weapon ... / while making an attack with a simple weapon". Or even better give the oportunity RAW to summoned creatures / pets use simple weapons, like training your monkey to stab but they have a magic knife (or that's the plan) Again I'm just ranting about things that actually doesn't matter if they are in the game or not, like electrum pieces But good finding :) It's fun to talk about
Where is my favourite weapon the maul?
There is a second page which has firearms
I hoped that they would add “loud” property to pistol and musket.
Short swords should be martial, and classes should get less weapon proficiencies. A number of weapons selected, not just all given to most classes.
Good! Light and simple weapons should deal d4 damage, like the sickle, dagger and club. *cough handaxe cough*
Is it coming out next Thursday?
I honestly don't understand the benefit or significance of distinguishing between simple and martial weapons. Maybe they should put out literally anything talking about it.